Articles | Volume 28, issue 5
https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-1191-2024
© Author(s) 2024. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-1191-2024
© Author(s) 2024. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Deep learning for monthly rainfall–runoff modelling: a large-sample comparison with conceptual models across Australia
Stephanie R. Clark
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR
CSIRO, Environment, Sydney, NSW, Australia
Julien Lerat
CSIRO, Environment, Canberra, ACT, Australia
Jean-Michel Perraud
CSIRO, Environment, Canberra, ACT, Australia
Peter Fitch
CSIRO, Environment, Canberra, ACT, Australia
Related authors
No articles found.
Vazken Andréassian, Guilherme Mendoza Guimarães, Julien Lerat, and Alban de Lavenne
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-4912, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-4912, 2025
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for Hydrology and Earth System Sciences (HESS).
Short summary
Short summary
We study the variations in annual streamflow and explicit their dependence to climate variations, in order to understand their causes and to provide tools for a rapid assessment of the impact of climate change on water resources. By making explicit the dependency of streamflow elasticity to aridity, we are able to propose a regionalized elasticity formula with physically-realistic elasticity coefficients.
Vazken Andréassian, Guilherme Mendoza Guimarães, Alban de Lavenne, and Julien Lerat
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 29, 5477–5491, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-29-5477-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-29-5477-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Using 4122 catchments from four continents, we investigate how annual streamflow depends on climate variables (rainfall and potential evaporation) and on the season when precipitation occurs, using an index representing the synchronicity between precipitation and potential evaporation. In all countries and under the main climates represented, synchronicity is, after precipitation, the second most important factor in explaining annual streamflow variations.
Julien Lerat
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 29, 2003–2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-29-2003-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-29-2003-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
This paper presents a method to solve a certain type of equation controlling the storage of water in hydrological models. This equation is often solved with complex numerical methods that may lead to slow runtimes. The method, called the Quadratic Solution of the Approximate Reservoir Equation (QuaSoARe), is both fast and applicable to any equation of this kind regardless of its complexity. The method reduces runtime by a factor of 10 to 50 depending on the model.
Ashkan Shokri, James C. Bennett, David E. Robertson, Jean-Michel Perraud, Andrew J. Frost, and Eric A. Lehmann
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-805, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-805, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Predicting river flow accurately is crucial for managing water resources, especially in a changing climate. This study used deep learning to improve streamflow predictions across Australia. By either enhancing existing models or working independently with climate data, the deep learning approaches provided more reliable results than traditional methods. These findings can help water managers better plan for floods, droughts, and long-term water availability.
Cited articles
Abbas, A., Boithias, L., Pachepsky, Y., Kim, K., Chun, J. A., and Cho, K. H.: AI4Water v1.0: an open-source python package for modeling hydrological time series using data-driven methods, Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 3021–3039, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-3021-2022, 2022.
Australian Water Outlook: https://awo.bom.gov.au/, last access: February 2022.
Bennett, J. C., Wang, Q. J., Robertson, D. E., Schepen, A., Li, M., and Michael, K.: Assessment of an ensemble seasonal streamflow forecasting system for Australia, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 21, 6007–6030, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-21-6007-2017, 2017.
Choi, J., Lee, J., and Kim, S.: Utilization of the Long Short-Term Memory network for predicting streamflow in ungauged basins in Korea, Ecol. Eng., 182, 106699, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2022.106699, 2022.
Clark, M. P., Vogel, R. M., Lamontagne, J. R., Mizukami, N., Knoben, W. J., Tang, G., Gharari, S., Freer, J. E., Whitfield, P. H., and Shook, K. R.: The abuse of popular performance metrics in hydrologic modeling, Water Resour. Res., 57, e2020WR029001, https://doi.org/10.1029/2020WR029001, 2021.
Commonwealth of Australia and Bureau of Meteorology: http://www.bom.gov.au/water/geofabric/, last access: February 2022.
Duan, Q., Gupta, V. K., and Sorooshian, S.: Shuffled complex evolution approach for effective and efficient global minimization, J. Optimiz. Theory App., 76, 501–521, 1993.
Fluet-Chouinard, E., Aeberhard, W., Szekely, E., Zappa, M., Bogner, K., Seneviratne, S., and Gudmundsson, L.: Machine learning-derived predictions of river flow across Switzerland, EGU General Assembly, Vienna, Austria, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu22-8471, 2022.
Frame, J. M., Kratzert, F., Raney, A., Rahman, M., Salas, F. R., and Nearing, G. S.: Post-Processing the National Water Model with Long Short-Term Memory Networks for Streamflow Predictions and Model Diagnostics, J. Am. Water Resour. As., 57, 885–905, 2021.
Frame, J. M., Kratzert, F., Klotz, D., Gauch, M., Shalev, G., Gilon, O., Qualls, L. M., Gupta, H. V., and Nearing, G. S.: Deep learning rainfall–runoff predictions of extreme events, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 26, 3377–3392, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-3377-2022, 2022.
Frost, A., Ramchurn, A., and Smith, A.: The Australian Landscape Water Balance Model, Bureau of Meteorology, Melbourne, Australia, https://awo.bom.gov.au/assets/notes/publications/AWRA-Lv7_Model_Description_Report.pdf (last access: February 2022), 2018.
Goodfellow, I., Bengio, Y., and Courville, A.: Deep learning, MIT press, 2016.
Gupta, H. V., Kling, H., Yilmaz, K. K., and Martinez, G. F.: Decomposition of the mean squared error and NSE performance criteria: Implications for improving hydrological modelling, J. Hydrol., 377, 80–91, 2009.
Gupta, H. V., Perrin, C., Blöschl, G., Montanari, A., Kumar, R., Clark, M., and Andréassian, V.: Large-sample hydrology: a need to balance depth with breadth, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 18, 463–477, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-18-463-2014, 2014.
Hochreiter, S. and Schmidhuber, J.: Long short-term memory, Neural Comput., 9, 1735–1780, 1997.
Huard, D. and Mailhot, A.: Calibration of hydrological model GR2M using Bayesian uncertainty analysis, Water Resour. Res., 44, https://doi.org/10.1029/2007WR005949, 2008.
Hughes, D.: Monthly rainfall-runoff models applied to arid and semiarid catchments for water resource estimation purposes, Hydrolog. Sci. J., 40, 751–769, 1995.
Jin, J., Zhang, Y., Hao, Z., Xia, R., Yang, W., Yin, H., and Zhang, X.: Benchmarking data-driven rainfall-runoff modeling across 54 catchments in the Yellow River Basin: Overfitting, calibration length, dry frequency, Journal of Hydrology: Regional Studies, 42, 101119, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrh.2022.101119, 2022.
Jones, D. A., Wang, W., and Fawcett, R.: High-quality spatial climate data-sets for Australia, Aust. Meteorol. Ocean., 58, 233, 2009.
Kapoor, A., et al.: DeepGR4J: A deep learning hybridization approach for conceptual rainfall-runoff modelling, Environ. Modell. Softw., 169, 105831, 2023.
Kratzert, F., Klotz, D., Brenner, C., Schulz, K., and Herrnegger, M.: Rainfall–runoff modelling using Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) networks, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 22, 6005–6022, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-22-6005-2018, 2018.
Kratzert, F., Klotz, D., Herrnegger, M., Sampson, A. K., Hochreiter, S., and Nearing, G. S.: Toward improved predictions in ungauged basins: Exploiting the power of machine learning, Water Resour. Res., 55, 11344–11354, 2019.
Kratzert, F., Gauch, M., Nearing, G., and Klotz, D.: NeuralHydrology – A Python library for Deep Learning research in hydrology, Journal of Open Source Software, 7, 4050, https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.04050, 2022.
Lee, T., Shin, J.-Y., Kim, J.-S., and Singh, V. P.: Stochastic simulation on reproducing long-term memory of hydroclimatological variables using deep learning model, J. Hydrol., 582, 124540, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2019.124540, 2020.
Lees, T., Buechel, M., Anderson, B., Slater, L., Reece, S., Coxon, G., and Dadson, S. J.: Benchmarking data-driven rainfall–runoff models in Great Britain: a comparison of long short-term memory (LSTM)-based models with four lumped conceptual models, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 25, 5517–5534, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-5517-2021, 2021.
Lerat, J., Andréassian, V., Perrin, C., Vaze, J., Perraud, J.-M., Ribstein, P., and Loumagne, C.: Do internal flow measurements improve the calibration of rainfall-runoff models?, Water Resour. Res., 48, https://doi.org/10.1029/2010WR010179, 2012.
Lerat, J., Thyer, M., McInerney, D., Kavetski, D., Woldemeskel, F., Pickett-Heaps, C., Shin, D., and Feikema, P.: A robust approach for calibrating a daily rainfall-runoff model to monthly streamflow data, J. Hydrol., 591, 125129, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2020.125129, 2020.
Li, B., et al.: Enhancing process-based hydrological models with embedded neural networks: A hybrid approach, J. Hydrol., 625, 130107, 2023.
Li, W., Kiaghadi, A., and Dawson, C.: High temporal resolution rainfall–runoff modeling using long-short-term-memory (LSTM) networks, Neural Comput. Appl., 33, 1261–1278, 2021.
Machado, F., Mine, M., Kaviski, E., and Fill, H.: Monthly rainfall–runoff modelling using artificial neural networks, Hydrolog. Sci. J., 56, 349–361, 2011.
Majeske, N., Zhang, X., Sabaj, M., Gong, L., Zhu, C., and Azad, A.: Inductive predictions of hydrologic events using a Long Short-Term Memory network and the Soil and Water Assessment Tool, Environ. Modell. Softw., 152, 105400, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2022.105400, 2022.
Mathevet, T., Michel, C., Andréassian, V., and Perrin, C.: A bounded version of the Nash-Sutcliffe criterion for better model assessment on large sets of basins, IAHS-AISH P., 307, 211, 2006.
Mathevet, T., Gupta, H., Perrin, C., Andréassian, V., and Le Moine, N.: Assessing the performance and robustness of two conceptual rainfall-runoff models on a worldwide sample of watersheds, J. Hydrol., 585, 124698, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2020.124698, 2020.
Mouelhi, S., Michel, C., Perrin, C., and Andréassian, V.: Stepwise development of a two-parameter monthly water balance model, J. Hydrol., 318, 200–214, 2006.
Nash, J. E. and Sutcliffe, J. V.: River flow forecasting through conceptual models part I – A discussion of principles, J. Hydrol., 10, 282–290, 1970.
Nearing, G. S., Kratzert, F., Sampson, A. K., Pelissier, C. S., Klotz, D., Frame, J. M., Prieto, C., and Gupta, H. V.: What role does hydrological science play in the age of machine learning?, Water Resour. Res., 57, e2020WR028091, https://doi.org/10.1029/2020WR028091, 2021.
Okkan, U., Ersoy, Z. B., Kumanlioglu, A. A., and Fistikoglu, O.: Embedding machine learning techniques into a conceptual model to improve monthly runoff simulation: A nested hybrid rainfall-runoff modeling, J. Hydrol., 598, 126433, 2021.
Ouma, Y. O., Cheruyot, R., and Wachera, A. N.: Rainfall and runoff time-series trend analysis using LSTM recurrent neural network and wavelet neural network with satellite-based meteorological data: case study of Nzoia hydrologic basin, Complex & Intelligent Systems, 8, 213–236, 2022.
Papacharalampous, G., Tyralis, H., and Koutsoyiannis, D.: Comparison of stochastic and machine learning methods for multi-step ahead forecasting of hydrological processes, Stoch. Env. Res. Risk A., 33, 481–514, 2019.
Perraud, J.-M. and Fitch, P.: https://csiro-hydroinformatics.github.io/monthly-lstm-runoff/, 2024.
Perraud, J.-M., Bridgart, R., Bennett, J. C., and Robertson, D.: SWIFT2: High performance software for short-medium term ensemble streamflow forecasting research and operations, 21st International Congress on Modelling and Simulation, 2458–2464, ISBN 978-0-9872143-5-5, Queensland, Australia, 2015.
Pushpalatha, R., Perrin, C., Le Moine, N., and Andréassian, V.: A review of efficiency criteria suitable for evaluating low-flow simulations, J. Hydrol., 420, 171–182, 2012.
Rahimzad, M., Moghaddam Nia, A., Zolfonoon, H., Soltani, J., Danandeh Mehr, A., and Kwon, H.-H.: Performance comparison of an LSTM-based deep learning model versus conventional machine learning algorithms for streamflow forecasting, Water Resour. Manag., 35, 4167–4187, 2021.
Reichstein, M., Camps-Valls, G., Stevens, B., Jung, M., Denzler, J., and Carvalhais, N.: Deep learning and process understanding for data-driven Earth system science, Nature, 566, 195–204, 2019.
Saft, M., Peel, M. C., Western, A. W., Perraud, J. M., and Zhang, L.: Bias in streamflow projections due to climate-induced shifts in catchment response, Geophys. Res. Lett., 43, 1574–1581, 2016.
Schaefli, B. and Gupta, H. V.: Do Nash values have value?, Hydrol. Process., 21, 2075–2080, 2007.
Shen, C.: A transdisciplinary review of deep learning research and its relevance for water resources scientists, Water Resour. Res., 54, 8558–8593, 2018.
Shen, C., Chen, X., and Laloy, E.: Broadening the use of machine learning in hydrology, Frontiers in Water, 3, 681023, https://doi.org/10.3389/frwa.2021.681023, 2021.
Song, Y. H., Chung, E.-S., and Shahid, S.: Differences in extremes and uncertainties in future runoff simulations using SWAT and LSTM for SSP scenarios, Sci. Total Environ., 838, 156162, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.156162, 2022.
Van Dijk, A. I., Beck, H. E., Crosbie, R. S., De Jeu, R. A., Liu, Y. Y., Podger, G. M., Timbal, B., and Viney, N. R.: The Millennium Drought in southeast Australia (2001–2009): Natural and human causes and implications for water resources, ecosystems, economy, and society, Water Resour. Res., 49, 1040–1057, 2013.
Vaze, J., Post, D., Chiew, F., Perraud, J.-M., Viney, N., and Teng, J.: Climate non-stationarity–validity of calibrated rainfall–runoff models for use in climate change studies, J. Hydrol., 394, 447–457, 2010.
Wang, Q., Pagano, T., Zhou, S., Hapuarachchi, H., Zhang, L., and Robertson, D.: Monthly versus daily water balance models in simulating monthly runoff, J. Hydrol., 404, 166–175, 2011.
Wang, Q. J., Bennett, J. C., Robertson, D. E., and Li, M.: A data censoring approach for predictive error modeling of flow in ephemeral rivers, Water Resour. Res., 56, e2019WR026128, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019WR026128, 2020.
Water Data Online: http://www.bom.gov.au/waterdata/, last access: February 2022.
Wi, S. and Steinschneider, S.: Assessing the physical realism of deep learning hydrologic model projections under climate change, Water Resour. Res., 58, e2022WR032123, https://doi.org/10.1029/2022WR032123, 2022.
Yokoo, K., Ishida, K., Ercan, A., Tu, T., Nagasato, T., Kiyama, M., and Amagasaki, M.: Capabilities of deep learning models on learning physical relationships: Case of rainfall-runoff modeling with LSTM, Sci. Total Environ., 802, 149876, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.149876, 2022.
Yuan, X., Chen, C., Lei, X., Yuan, Y., and Muhammad Adnan, R.: Monthly runoff forecasting based on LSTM–ALO model, Stoch. Env. Res. Risk A., 32, 2199–2212, 2018.
Zhang, L., Potter, N., Hickel, K., Zhang, Y., and Shao, Q.: Water balance modeling over variable time scales based on the Budyko framework–Model development and testing, J. Hydrol., 360, 117–131, 2008.
Short summary
To determine if deep learning models are in general a viable alternative to traditional hydrologic modelling techniques in Australian catchments, a comparison of river–runoff predictions is made between traditional conceptual models and deep learning models in almost 500 catchments spread over the continent. It is found that the deep learning models match or outperform the traditional models in over two-thirds of the river catchments, indicating feasibility in a wide variety of conditions.
To determine if deep learning models are in general a viable alternative to traditional...