Articles | Volume 27, issue 10
https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-27-1961-2023
https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-27-1961-2023
Research article
 | 
23 May 2023
Research article |  | 23 May 2023

Comparison of artificial neural networks and reservoir models for simulating karst spring discharge on five test sites in the Alpine and Mediterranean regions

Guillaume Cinkus, Andreas Wunsch, Naomi Mazzilli, Tanja Liesch, Zhao Chen, Nataša Ravbar, Joanna Doummar, Jaime Fernández-Ortega, Juan Antonio Barberá, Bartolomé Andreo, Nico Goldscheider, and Hervé Jourde

Related authors

When best is the enemy of good – critical evaluation of performance criteria in hydrological models
Guillaume Cinkus, Naomi Mazzilli, Hervé Jourde, Andreas Wunsch, Tanja Liesch, Nataša Ravbar, Zhao Chen, and Nico Goldscheider
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 27, 2397–2411, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-27-2397-2023,https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-27-2397-2023, 2023
Short summary
Improvement of the KarstMod modeling platform for a better assessment of karst groundwater resources
Vianney Sivelle, Guillaume Cinkus, Naomi Mazzilli, David Labat, Bruno Arfib, Nicolas Massei, Yohann Cousquer, Dominique Bertin, and Hervé Jourde
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2023-17,https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2023-17, 2023
Revised manuscript under review for HESS
Short summary
Karst spring discharge modeling based on deep learning using spatially distributed input data
Andreas Wunsch, Tanja Liesch, Guillaume Cinkus, Nataša Ravbar, Zhao Chen, Naomi Mazzilli, Hervé Jourde, and Nico Goldscheider
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 26, 2405–2430, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-2405-2022,https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-2405-2022, 2022
Short summary

Related subject area

Subject: Groundwater hydrology | Techniques and Approaches: Modelling approaches
Assessing groundwater level modelling using a 1-D convolutional neural network (CNN): linking model performances to geospatial and time series features
Mariana Gomez, Maximilian Nölscher, Andreas Hartmann, and Stefan Broda
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 28, 4407–4425, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-4407-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-4407-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short high-accuracy tritium data time series for assessing groundwater mean transit times in the vadose and saturated zones of the Luxembourg Sandstone aquifer
Laurent Gourdol, Michael K. Stewart, Uwe Morgenstern, and Laurent Pfister
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 28, 3519–3547, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-3519-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-3519-2024, 2024
Short summary
High-resolution long-term average groundwater recharge in Africa estimated using random forest regression and residual interpolation
Anna Pazola, Mohammad Shamsudduha, Jon French, Alan M. MacDonald, Tamiru Abiye, Ibrahim Baba Goni, and Richard G. Taylor
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 28, 2949–2967, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-2949-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-2949-2024, 2024
Short summary
Towards understanding the influence of seasons on low-groundwater periods based on explainable machine learning
Andreas Wunsch, Tanja Liesch, and Nico Goldscheider
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 28, 2167–2178, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-2167-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-2167-2024, 2024
Short summary
Data-driven modeling of hydraulic head time series: results and lessons learned from the 2022 groundwater modeling challenge
Raoul Alexander Collenteur, Ezra Haaf, Mark Bakker, Tanja Liesch, Andreas Wunsch, Jenny Soonthornrangsan, Jeremy White, Nick Martin, Rui Hugman, Michael Fienen, Ed de Sousa, Didier Vanden Berghe, Xinyang Fan, Tim Peterson, Janis Bikše, Antoine Di Ciacca, Xinyue Wang, Yang Zheng, Maximilian Nölscher, Julian Koch, Raphael Schneider, Nikolas Benavides Höglund, Sivarama Krishna Reddy Chidepudi, Abel Henriot, Nicolas Massei, Abderrahim Jardani, Max Gustav Rudolph, Amir Rouhani, Jaime Gómez-Hernández, Seifeddine Jomaa, Anna Pölz, Tim Franken, Morteza Behbooei, Jimmy Lin, Bryan Tolson, and Rojin Meysami
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2024-111,https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2024-111, 2024
Revised manuscript accepted for HESS
Short summary

Cited articles

Aalto, J., Riihimäki, H., Meineri, E., Hylander, K., and Luoto, M.: Revealing topoclimatic heterogeneity using meteorological station data, Int. J. Climatol., 37, 544–556, https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.5020, 2017. 
Addor, N. and Melsen, L. A.: Legacy, Rather Than Adequacy, Drives the Selection of Hydrological Models, Water Resour. Res., 55, 378–390, https://doi.org/10.1029/2018WR022958, 2019. 
Allaire, J., Xie, Y., McPherson, J., Luraschi, J., Ushey, K., Atkins, A., Wickham, H., Cheng, J., Chang, W., and Iannone, R.: Rmarkdown: Dynamic documents for r, CRAN [code], https://cran.r-project.org/package=rmarkdown (last access: 17 May 2023), R package version 2.21, 2021. 
Allen, R. G., Pereira, L. S., Raes, D., Smith, M., and FAO (Eds.): Crop evapotranspiration: Guidelines for computing crop water requirements, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, 1998. 
Download
Short summary
Numerous modelling approaches can be used for studying karst water resources, which can make it difficult for a stakeholder or researcher to choose the appropriate method. We conduct a comparison of two widely used karst modelling approaches: artificial neural networks (ANNs) and reservoir models. Results show that ANN models are very flexible and seem great for reproducing high flows. Reservoir models can work with relatively short time series and seem to accurately reproduce low flows.