Articles | Volume 28, issue 3
https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-479-2024
© 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-28-479-2024
© Author(s) 2024. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Research article
| 
07 Feb 2024
Research article |
| 07 Feb 2024
| 07 Feb 2024
On the need for physical constraints in deep learning rainfall–runoff projections under climate change: a sensitivity analysis to warming and shifts in potential evapotranspiration
Sungwook Wi
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR
Department of Biological and Environmental Engineering, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA
Scott Steinschneider
Department of Biological and Environmental Engineering, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA
Related authors
No articles found.
Sandeep Poudel and Scott Steinschneider
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-756, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-756, 2026
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for Hydrology and Earth System Sciences (HESS).
Short summary
Short summary
Hydrological models combining physics with AI are becoming popular for predicting river flow, but are often unnecessarily complex. We tested these models across US river basins and found three key results: simpler designs perform equally well, extensive input data adds little value, and time-varying parameters do not represent actual physical processes. These results challenge assumptions that complexity improves predictions or understanding, arguing instead for simpler hybrid model development.
Mohammad Sina Jahangir, John Quilty, Chaopeng Shen, Andrea Scott, Scott Steinschneider, and Jan Adamowski
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-846, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-846, 2025
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for Hydrology and Earth System Sciences (HESS).
Short summary
Short summary
This study presents a novel hybrid approach to streamflow prediction, significantly improving the efficiency and accuracy of fine-tuning deep learning models for hydrological prediction. Tested across numerous catchments in the U.S. and Europe, this method accelerates the fine-tuning process and improves prediction accuracy in locations beyond the training data. This innovative approach sets the stage for future hydrological models leveraging transfer learning.
Cited articles
Ali, H., Fowler, H. J., and Mishra, V.: Global observational evidence of strong linkage between dew point temperature and precipitation extremes, Geophys. Res. Lett., 45, 12320–12330, https://doi.org/10.1029/2018gl080557, 2018.
Allen, R. G., Pereira, L. S., Raes, D., and Smith, M.: Crop Evapotranspiration-Guidelines for Computing Crop Water Requirements-FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper 56, FAO, Rome, 300, D05109, https://appgeodb.nancy.inra.fr/biljou/pdf/Allen_FAO1998.pdf (last access: 1 February 2024), 1998.
Anderson, E. A.: A point energy and mass balance model of a snow cover, NOAA Technical Report NWS 19, National Oceanic and Atmosphere Administration, Silver Spring, MD, 1976.
Bastola S., Murphy C., and Sweeney J.: The role of hydrological modelling uncertainties in climate change impact assessments of Irish river catchments, Adv. Water Resour., 34, 562–76, 2011.
Beck, H. E., van Dijk, A. I. J. M., de Roo, A., Miralles, D. G., McVicar, T. R., Schellekens, J., and Bruijnzeel, L. A.: Global-scale regionalization of hydrologic model parameters, Water Resour. Res., 52, 3599–3622, https://doi.org/10.1002/2015WR018247, 2016.
Beck, H. E., van Dijk, A. I. J. M., de Roo, A., Dutra, E., Fink, G., Orth, R., and Schellekens, J.: Global evaluation of runoff from 10 state-of-the-art hydrological models, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 21, 2881–2903, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-21-2881-2017, 2017.
Bergström, S. and Forsman, A.: Development of a conceptual deterministic rainfall–runoff model, Nord. Hydrol., 4, 147–170, 1973.
Boyle, D. P.: Multicriteria calibration of hydrologic models, Doctoral dissertation, Retrieved from UA Campus Repository (http://hdl.handle.net/10150/290657, last access: 29 January 2024), The University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, 2001.
Breuer, L., Huisman, J. A., Willems, P., Bormann, H., Bronstert, A., Croke, B. F. W., Frede, H.-G., Gräff, T., Hubrechts, L., Jakeman, A. J., Kite, G., Lanini, J., Leavesley, G., Lettenmaier, D. P., Lindström, G., Seibert, J., Sivapalan, M., and Viney, N. R.: Assessing the impact of land use change on hydrology by ensemble modeling (LUCHEM). I: Model intercomparison with current land use, Adv. Water Resour., 32, 129–146, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advwatres.2008.10.003, 2009.
Burnash, R. J.: The NWS river forecast system – catchment modeling, in: Computer Models of Watershed Hydrology, edited by: Singh, V., Water Resources Publication, Littleton, CO, 311–366, ISBN 978-1-887201-74-2, 1995.
Byun, K. and Hamlet, A. F.: Projected changes in future climate over the Midwest and Great Lakes region using downscaled CMIP5 ensembles, Int. J. Climatol., 38, e531-e553, https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.5388, 2018.
Campbell, M., Cooper, M. J. P., Friedman, K., and Anderson, W. P.: The economy as a driver of change in the Great Lakes – St. Lawrence basin, J. Great Lakes Res., 41, 69–83, 2015.
Clark, M. P., Wilby, R. L., Gutmann, E. D., Vano, J. A., Gangopadhyay, S., Wood, A. W., Fowler, H. J., Prudhomme, C., Arnold, J. R., and Brekke, L. D.: Characterizing Uncertainty of the Hydrologic Impacts of Climate Change, Curr. Clim. Change Rep., 2, 55–64, https://doi.org/10.1007/s40641-016-0034-x, 2016.
Clark, M. P., Bierkens, M. F. P., Samaniego, L., Woods, R. A., Uijlenhoet, R., Bennett, K. E., Pauwels, V. R. N., Cai, X., Wood, A. W., and Peters-Lidard, C. D.: The evolution of process-based hydrologic models: historical challenges and the collective quest for physical realism, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 21, 3427–3440, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-21-3427-2017, 2017.
Demargne, J., Wu, L., Regonda, S. K., Brown, J. D., Lee, H., He, M., Seo, D. J., Hartman, R., Herr, H. D., Fresch, M., Schaake, J., and Zhu, Y.: The Science of NOAA's Operational Hydrologic Ensemble Forecast Service, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 95, 79–98, https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-12-00081.1, 2014.
Fan, Y.: Are catchments leaky?, WIREs Water, 6, e1386, https://doi.org/10.1002/wat2.1386, 2019.
Feng, D., Fang, K., and Shen, C.: Enhancing streamflow forecast and extracting insights using long-short term memory networks with data integration at continental scales, Water Resour. Res., 56, e2019WR026793, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019WR026793, 2020.
Feng, D., Liu, J., Lawson, K., and Shen, C.: Differentiable, learnable, regionalized process-based models with multiphysical outputs can approach state-of-the-art hydrologic prediction accuracy, Water Resour. Res., 58, e2022WR032404, https://doi.org/10.1029/2022WR032404, 2022.
Feng, D., Beck, H., Lawson, K., and Shen, C.: The suitability of differentiable, physics-informed machine learning hydrologic models for ungauged regions and climate change impact assessment, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 27, 2357–2373, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-27-2357-2023, 2023a.
Feng, D., Beck, H., de Bruijn, J., Sahu, R. K., Satoh, Y., Wada, Y., Liu, J., Pan, M., Lawson, K., and Shen, C.: Deep Dive into Global Hydrologic Simulations: Harnessing the Power of Deep Learning and Physics-informed Differentiable Models (δHBV-globe1.0-hydroDL), Geosci. Model Dev. Discuss. [preprint], https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2023-190, in review, 2023b.
Frame, J. M., Kratzert, F., Raney II, 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 diagnostics, J. Am. Water Resour. As., 57, 1–12, https://doi.org/10.1111/1752-1688.12964, 2021a.
Frame, J. M., Kratzert, F., Gupta, H. V., Ullrich, P., and Nearing, G. S.: On Strictly enforced mass conservation constraints for modeling the Rainfall-Runoff process, Hydrol. Process., 37, e14847, https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.14847, 2022a.
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, 2022b.
Fry, L. M., Hunter, T. S., Phanikumar, M. S., Fortin, V., and Gronewold, A. D.: Identifying streamgage networks for maximizing the effectiveness of regional water balance modeling, Water Resour. Res., 49, 2689–2700, https://doi.org/10.1002/wrcr.20233, 2013.
Gasset, N., Fortin, V., Dimitrijevic, M., Carrera, M., Bilodeau, B., Muncaster, R., Gaborit, É., Roy, G., Pentcheva, N., Bulat, M., Wang, X., Pavlovic, R., Lespinas, F., Khedhaouiria, D., and Mai, J.: A 10 km North American precipitation and land-surface reanalysis based on the GEM atmospheric model, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 25, 4917–4945, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-4917-2021, 2021.
Gauch, M., Kratzert, F., Klotz, D., Nearing, G., Lin, J., and Hochreiter, S.: Rainfall–runoff prediction at multiple timescales with a single Long Short-Term Memory network, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 25, 2045–2062, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-2045-2021, 2021a.
Gauch, M., Mai, J., and Lin, J.: The proper care and feeding of CAMELS: How limited training data affects streamflow prediction, Environ. Model. Softw., 135, 104926, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2020.104926, 2021b.
Gordon, B. L., Crow, W. T., Konings, A. G., Dralle, D. N., and Harpold, A. A.: Can we use the water budget to infer upland catchment behavior? The role of data set error estimation and interbasin groundwater flow, Water Resour. Res., 58, e2021WR030966, https://doi.org/10.1029/2021WR030966, 2022.
Greve, P., Roderick, M. L., Ukkola, A. M., and Wada, Y.: The aridity index under global warming, Environ. Res. Lett., 14, 124006, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab5046, 2019.
Gronewold, A. D. and Rood, R. B.: Recent water level changes across Earth's largest lake system and implications for future variability, J. Great Lakes Res., 45, 1–3, 2019.
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.
Hamon, W. R.: Estimating Potential Evapotranspiration, T. Am. Soc. Civ. Eng., 128, 324–338, https://doi.org/10.1061/TACEAT.0008673, 1963.
Hansen, C., Shafiei Shiva, J., McDonald, S., and Nabors, A.: Assessing Retrospective National Water Model Streamflow with Respect to Droughts and Low Flows in the Colorado River Basin, J. Am. Water Resour. As. 964– 975, https://doi.org/10.1111/1752-1688.12784, 2019.
Hargreaves, G. H. and Samani, Z. A.: Reference crop evapotranspiration from temperature, Appl. Eng. Agric., 1, 96–99, 1985.
Herman, J. D., Reed, P. M., and Wagener, T.: Time-varying sensitivity analysis clarifies the effects of watershed model formulation on model behavior, Water Resour. Res., 49, 1400–1414, https://doi.org/10.1002/wrcr.20124, 2013.
Hochreiter, S. and Schmidhuber, J.: Long short-term memory, Neural Comput., 9, 1735–1780, https://doi.org/10.1162/neco.1997.9.8.1735, 1997.
Hoedt, P. J., Kratzert, F., Klotz, D., Halmich, C., Holzleitner, M., Nearing, G., Hochreiter, S., and Klambauer, G.: MC-LSTM: Mass-Conserving LSTM, arXiv [cs.LG], arXiv:2101.05186, 2021.
Höge, M., Scheidegger, A., Baity-Jesi, M., Albert, C., and Fenicia, F.: Improving hydrologic models for predictions and process understanding using neural ODEs, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 26, 5085–5102, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-5085-2022, 2022.
Hrachowitz, M., Savenije, H. H. G., Blöschl, G., McDonnell, J. J., Sivapalan, M., Pomeroy, J. W., Arheimer, B., Blume, T., Clark, M. P., Ehret, U., Fenicia, F., Freer, J. E., Gelfan, A., Gupta, H. V., Hughes, D. A., Hut, R. W., Montanari, A., Pande, S., Tetzlaff, D., Troch, P. A., Uhlenbrook, S., Wagener, T., Winsemius, H. C., Woods, R. A., Zehe, E., and Cudennec, C.: A decade of Predictions in Ungauged Basins (PUB)—a review, Hydrolog. Sci. J., 58, 1198–1255, https://doi.org/10.1080/02626667.2013.803183, 2013.
Ilse, M., Tomczak, J. M., and Forré, P.: Selecting Data Augmentation for Simulating Interventions, Proceedings of the 38th International Conference on Machine Learning, Austria, 18–24 July 2021, PMLR 139, 4555–4562, 2021,.
Jasechko, S., Seybold, H., Perrone, D., Fan, Y., and Kirchner, J. W.: Widespread potential loss of streamflow into underlying aquifers across the USA, Nature 591, 391–395, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03311-x, 2021.
Jiang, S., Zheng, Y., and Solomatine, D.: Improving AI system awareness of geoscience knowledge: Symbiotic integration of physical approaches and deep learning, Geophys. Res. Lett., 46, e2020GL088229, https://doi.org/10.1029/2020GL088229, 2020.
Karniadakis, G. E., Kevrekidis, I. G., Lu, L., Perdikaris, P., Wang, S., and Yang, L.: Physics-informed machine learning, Nat. Rev. Phys., 3, 422–440, https://doi.org/10.1038/s42254-021-00314-5, 2021.
Karpatne, A., Atluri, G., Faghmous, J. H., Steinbach, M., Banerjee, A., Ganguly, A., Shekhar, S., Samatova, N., and Kumar, V.: Theory-guided data science: A new paradigm for scientific discovery from data, IEEE T. Knowl. Data En., 29, 2318–2331, https://doi.org/10.1109/TKDE.2017.2720168, 2017.
Kayastha, M. B., Ye, X., Huang, C., and Xue, P.: Future rise of the Great Lakes water levels under climate change, J. Hydrol., 612, 128205, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2022.128205, 2022.
Kendon, E. J., Ban, N., Roberts, N. M., Fowler, H. J., Roberts, M. J., Chan, S. C., Evans, J. P., Fosser, G., and Wilkinson, J. M.: Do Convection-Permitting Regional Climate Models Improve Projections of Future Precipitation Change?, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 98, 79–93, https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-15-0004.1, 2017.
Kingma, D. P. and Ba, J.: Adam: A method for stochastic optimization, arXiv [cs.LG], arXiv:1412.6980, 2015.
Klotz, D., Kratzert, F., Gauch, M., Keefe Sampson, A., Brandstetter, J., Klambauer, G., Hochreiter, S., and Nearing, G.: Uncertainty estimation with deep learning for rainfall–runoff modeling, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 26, 1673–1693, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-1673-2022, 2022.
Konapala, G., Kao, S. C., Painter, S., and Lu, D.: Machine learning assisted hybrid models can improve streamflow simulation in diverse catchments across the conterminous US, Environ. Res. Lett., 15, 104022, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aba927, 2020.
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, 11,344–11,354, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019WR026065, 2019a.
Kratzert, F., Klotz, D., Shalev, G., Klambauer, G., Hochreiter, S., and Nearing, G.: Towards learning universal, regional, and local hydrological behaviors via machine learning applied to large-sample datasets, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 23, 5089–5110, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-23-5089-2019, 2019b.
Kratzert, F., Klotz, D., Hochreiter, S., and Nearing, G. S.: A note on leveraging synergy in multiple meteorological data sets with deep learning for rainfall–runoff modeling, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 25, 2685–2703, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-2685-2021, 2021.
Kratzert, F., Nearing, G., Addor, N., Erickson, T., Gauch, M., Gilon, O., Gudmundsson, L., Hassidim, A., Klotz, D., Nevo, S., Shalev, and Matias, Y.: Caravan – A global community dataset for large-sample hydrology, Sci. Data, 10, 61, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-023-01975-w, 2023.
Krøgli, I. K., Devoli, G., Colleuille, H., Boje, S., Sund, M., and Engen, I. K.: The Norwegian forecasting and warning service for rainfall- and snowmelt-induced landslides, Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 18, 1427–1450, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-18-1427-2018, 2018.
Krysanova, V., Donnelly, C., Gelfan, A., Gerten, D., Arheimer, B., Hattermann, F., and Kundzewicz, Z. W: How the performance of hydrological models relates to credibility of projections under climate change, Hydrolog. Sci. J., 63, 696–720, https://doi.org/10.1080/02626667.2018.1446214, 2018.
Lai, C., Chen, X., Zhong, R., and Wang, Z.: Implication of climate variable selections on the uncertainty of reference crop evapotranspiration projections propagated from climate variables projections under climate change, Agr. Water Manage., 259, 107273, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2021.107273, 2022.
Lee, D., Lee, G., Kim, S., and Jung, S.: Future Runoff Analysis in the Mekong River Basin under a Climate Change Scenario Using Deep Learning, Water, 12, 1556, https://doi.org/10.3390/w12061556, 2020.
Lees, T., Reece, S., Kratzert, F., Klotz, D., Gauch, M., De Bruijn, J., Kumar Sahu, R., Greve, P., Slater, L., and Dadson, S. J.: Hydrological concept formation inside long short-term memory (LSTM) networks, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 26, 3079–3101, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-3079-2022, 2022.
Lehner, B., Verdin, K., and Jarvis, A.: New Global Hydrography Derived From Spaceborne Elevation Data, Eos T. Am. Geophys. Un., 89, 93–94, 2008.
Lemaitre-Basset, T., Oudin, L., Thirel, G., and Collet, L.: Unraveling the contribution of potential evaporation formulation to uncertainty under climate change, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 26, 2147–2159, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-2147-2022, 2022.
Li, K., Huang, G., Wang, S., Razavi, S., and Zhang, X.: Development of a joint probabilistic rainfall–runoff model for high-to-extreme flow projections under changing climatic conditions, Water Resour. Res., 58, e2021WR031557, https://doi.org/10.1029/2021WR031557, 2022.
Lin, C., Jain, S., Kim, H., and Bar-Joseph, Z.: Using neural networks for reducing the dimensions of single-cell RNA-Seq data, Nucleic Acid. Res., 45, e156, https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkx681, 2017.
Lin, L., Gettelman, A., Fu, Q., and Xu, Y.: Simulated differences in 21st century aridity due to different scenarios of greenhouse gases and aerosols, Climatic Change, 146, 407–422, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-016-1615-3, 2018.
Liu, J., Hu, Z., Cui, P., Li, B., and Shen, Z.: Heterogeneous risk minimization, in: ICML, PMLR, PMLR, 2021.
Liu, X., Li, C., Zhao, T., and Han, L.: Future changes of global potential evapotranspiration simulated from CMIP5 to CMIP6 models, Atmospheric and Oceanic Science Letters, 13, 568–575, https://doi.org/10.1080/16742834.2020.1824983, 2020.
Liu, Z., Han, J., and Yang, H.: Assessing the ability of potential evaporation models to capture the sensitivity to temperature, Agr. Forest Meteorol., 317, 108886, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2022.108886, 2022.
Lofgren, B. M. and Rouhana, J.: Physically Plausible Methods for Projecting Changes in Great Lakes Water Levels under Climate Change Scenarios, J. Hydrometeorol., 17, 2209–2223, https://doi.org/10.1175/JHM-D-15-0220.1, 2016.
Lofgren, B. M, Hunter, T. S, and Wilbarger, J.: Effects of using air temperature as a proxy for potential evapotranspiration in climate change scenarios of Great Lakes basin hydrology, J. Great Lakes Res., 37, 744–752, 2011.
Lu, D., Konapala, G., Painter, S. L., Kao, S. C., and Gangrade, S.: Streamflow simulation in data-scarce basins using Bayesian and physics-informed machine learning models, J. Hydrometeorol., 22, 1421–1438, https://doi.org/10.1175/JHM-D-20-0082.1, 2021.
Lu, J., Sun, G., McNulty, S. G., and Amatya, D. M.: A comparison of six potential evapotranspiration methods for regional use in the southeastern United States, J. Am. Water Resour. As., 41, 621–633, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-1688.2005.tb03759.x, 2005.
Luo, Y., Peng, J., and Ma, J.: When causal inference meets deep learning, Nat. Mach. Intell., 2, 426–427, https://doi.org/10.1038/s42256-020-0218-x, 2020.
Ma, J., Yu, M., Fong, S., Ono, K., Sage, E., Demchak, B., Sharan, R., and Ideker, T.: Using deep learning to model the hierarchical structure and function of a cell, Nat. Methods, 15, 290–298, https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.4627, 2018.
Ma, K., Feng, D., Lawson, K., Tsai, W.-P., Liang, C., Huang, X., Sharma, A., and Shen, C.: Transferring hydrologic data across continents – leveraging data-rich regions to improve hydrologic prediction in data-sparse regions, Water Resour. Res., 57, e2020WR028600, https://doi.org/10.1029/2020WR028600, 2021.
Mai, J., Shen, H., Tolson, B. A., Gaborit, É., Arsenault, R., Craig, J. R., Fortin, V., Fry, L. M., Gauch, M., Klotz, D., Kratzert, F., O'Brien, N., Princz, D. G., Rasiya Koya, S., Roy, T., Seglenieks, F., Shrestha, N. K., Temgoua, A. G. T., Vionnet, V., and Waddell, J. W.: The Great Lakes Runoff Intercomparison Project Phase 4: the Great Lakes (GRIP-GL), Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 26, 3537–3572, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-3537-2022, 2022a.
Mai, J., Shen, H., Tolson, B. A., Gaborit, É., Arsenault, R., Craig, J. R., Fortin, V., Fry, L. M., Gauch, M., Klotz, D., Kratzert, F., O'Brien, N., Princz, D. G., Rasiya Koya, S., Roy, T., Seglenieks, F., Shrestha, N. K., Temgoua, A. G. T., Vionnet, V., and Waddell, J. W.: The Great Lakes Runoff Intercomparison Project Phase 4: The Great Lakes (GRIP-GL), FRDR [data set], https://doi.org/10.20383/103.0598, 2022b.
Martens, B., Miralles, D. G., Lievens, H., van der Schalie, R., de Jeu, R. A. M., Fernández-Prieto, D., Beck, H. E., Dorigo, W. A., and Verhoest, N. E. C.: GLEAM v3: satellite-based land evaporation and root-zone soil moisture, Geosci. Model Dev., 10, 1903–1925, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-1903-2017, 2017.
Maraun, D.: Bias Correcting Climate Change Simulations – a Critical Review, Curr. Clim. Change Rep. 2, 211–220, https://doi.org/10.1007/s40641-016-0050-x, 2016.
Melsen, L. A., Addor, N., Mizukami, N., Newman, A. J., Torfs, P. J. J. F., Clark, M. P., Uijlenhoet, R., and Teuling, A. J.: Mapping (dis)agreement in hydrologic projections, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 22, 1775–1791, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-22-1775-2018, 2018.
Merz, R., Parajka, J., and Blöschl, G.: Time stability of catchment model parameters: Implications for climate impact analyses, Water Resour. Res., 47, W02531, https://doi.org/10.1029/2010WR009505, 2011.
Milly, P. C. D. and Dunne, K. A.: A Hydrologic Drying Bias in Water-Resource Impact Analyses of Anthropogenic Climate Change, J. Am. Water Resour. As., 53, 822–838, https://doi.org/10.1111/1752-1688.12538, 2017.
Mote, P. W., Li, S., Lettenmaier, D. P., Xiao, M., and Engel, R.: Dramatic declines in snowpack in the western US, npj Climate and Atmospheric Science, 1, 2, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41612-018-0012-1, 2018.
NALCMS: NALCMS website, http://www.cec.org/north-american-environmental-atlas/land-cover-2010-landsat-30m/ (last access: 31 May 2023), 2017.
Najibi, N., Mukhopadhyay, S., and Steinschneider, S.: Precipitation scaling with temperature in the Northeast US: Variations by weather regime, season, and precipitation intensity, Geophys. Res. Lett., 49, e2021GL097100, https://doi.org/10.1029/2021GL097100, 2022.
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.
Nearing, G. S., Klotz, D., Frame, J. M., Gauch, M., Gilon, O., Kratzert, F., Sampson, A. K., Shalev, G., and Nevo, S.: Technical note: Data assimilation and autoregression for using near-real-time streamflow observations in long short-term memory networks, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 26, 5493–5513, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-5493-2022, 2022.
Newman, A. J., Clark, M. P., Sampson, K., Wood, A., Hay, L. E., Bock, A., Viger, R. J., Blodgett, D., Brekke, L., Arnold, J. R., Hopson, T., and Duan, Q.: Development of a large-sample watershed-scale hydrometeorological data set for the contiguous USA: data set characteristics and assessment of regional variability in hydrologic model performance, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 19, 209–223, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-19-209-2015, 2015.
Nordling, K., Korhonen, H., Räisänen, J., Partanen, A.-I., Samset, B. H., and Merikanto, J.: Understanding the surface temperature response and its uncertainty to CO2, CH4, black carbon, and sulfate, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 21, 14941–14958, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-14941-2021, 2021.
Olsson, J. and Lindstrom, G.: Evaluation and calibration of operational hydrological ensemble forecasts in Sweden, J. Hydrol., 350, 14–24, 2008.
Oudin, L., Hervieu, F., Michel, C., Perrin, C., Andreassian, V., Anctil, F., and Loumagne, C.: Which potential evapotranspiration input for a lumped rainfall–runoff model? Part 2—Towards a simple and efficient potential evapotranspiration model for rainfall–runoff modeling, J. Hydrol., 303, 290–306, 2005.
Plesca, I., Timbe, E., Exbrayat, J. F, Windhorst, D., Kraft, P., Crespo, P., Vachéa, K. B, Frede, H. G, and Breuer,L.: Model intercomparison to explore catchment functioning: Results from a remote montane tropical rainforest, Ecol. Model., 239, 3–13, 2012.
Priestley, C. H. B. and Taylor, R. J.: On the Assessment of Surface Heat Flux and Evaporation Using Large-Scale Parameters, Mon. Weather Rev., 100, 81–92, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0493(1972)100<0081:OTAOSH>2.3.CO;2, 1972.
Pryor, S. C., Barthelmie, R. J., Bukovsky, M. S., Leung, L. R., and Sakaguchi, K.: Climate change impacts on wind power generation, Nat. Rev. Earth Environ., 1, 627–643, https://doi.org/10.1038/s43017-020-0101-7, 2020.
Razavi, S.: Deep learning, explained: Fundamentals, explainability, and bridgeability to process-based modelling, Environ. Model. Softw., 144, 105159, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2021.105159, 2021.
Reichert, P., Ma, K., Höge, M., Fenicia, F., Baity-Jesi, M., Feng, D., and Shen, C.: Metamorphic Testing of Machine Learning and Conceptual Hydrologic Models, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. Discuss. [preprint], https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2023-168, in review, 2023.
Safeeq, M., Bart, R. R., Pelak, N. F., Singh, C. K., Dralle, D. N., Hartsough, P., and Wagenbrenner, J. W.: How realistic are water-balance closure assumptions? A demonstration from the southern sierra critical zone observatory and kings river experimental watersheds, Hydrol. Process., 35, e14199, https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.14199, 2021.
Seibert, J. and Bergström, S.: A retrospective on hydrological catchment modelling based on half a century with the HBV model, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 26, 1371–1388, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-1371-2022, 2022.
Shangguan, W., Dai, Y., Duan, Q., Liu, B., and Yuan, H.: A global soil data set for earth system modeling, J. Adv. Model. Earth Sy., 6, 249–263, 2014.
Shaw, S. B and Riha, S. J.: Assessing temperature-based PET equations under a changing climate in temperate, deciduous forests, Hydrol. Process., 25, 1466–1478, https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.7913, 2011.
Shen, Z., Liu, J., He, Y., Zhang, X., Xu, R., Yu, H., and Cui, P.: Towards out-of-distribution generalization: A survey, arXiv [preprint], arXiv:2108.13624, 2021.
Siddik, M. A. B., Dickson, K. E., Rising, J., Ruddell, B. J., and Marston, L. T.: Interbasin water transfers in the United States and Canada, Sci. Data, 10, 27, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-023-01935-4, 2023.
Steinman, A. D, Cardinale, B. J., Munns, W. R., Ogdahl, M. E., Allan, J. D., Angadi, T., Bartlett, S., Brauman, K., Byappanahalli, M., Doss, M., Dupont, D., Johns, A., Kashian, D., Lupi, F., Mclntyre, P., Miller, T., Moore, M., Muenich, R. L., Poudel, R., Price, J., and Washburn, E.: Ecosystem services in the Great Lakes, J. Great Lakes Res., 43, 161–168, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jglr.2017.02.004, 2017.
Su, Q. and Singh, V. P.: Calibration-free Priestley–Taylor method for reference evapotranspiration estimation, Water Resour. Res., 59, e2022WR033198, https://doi.org/10.1029/2022WR033198, 2023.
Sungwook, W.: MC-LSTM-PET, Zenodo [code], https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10027355, 2023.
Szilagyi, J., Crago, R., and Qualls, R.: A calibration-free formulation of the complementary relationship of evaporation for continental-scale hydrology, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 122, 264–278, https://doi.org/10.1002/2016JD025611, 2017.
Towler, E., Foks, S. S., Dugger, A. L., Dickinson, J. E., Essaid, H. I., Gochis, D., Viger, R. J., and Zhang, Y.: Benchmarking high-resolution hydrologic model performance of long-term retrospective streamflow simulations in the contiguous United States, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 27, 1809–1825, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-27-1809-2023, 2023.
Vasudevan, R. K., Ziatdinov, M., Vlcek, L., and Kalinin, S. V.: Off-the-shelf deep learning is not enough, and requires parsimony, Bayesianity, and causality, npj Comput. Mater., 7, 16, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41524-020-00487-0, 2021.
Wallner, M. and Haberlandt, U.: Non-stationary hydrological model parameters: a framework based on SOM-B, Hydrol. Process., 29, 3145–3161, https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.10430, 2015.
Wang, J., Lan, C., Liu, C., Ouyang, Y., Qin, T., Lu, W., Chen, Y., Zeng, W., and Yu, P. S.: Generalizing to Unseen Domains: A Survey on Domain Generalization, IEEE T. Knowl. Data En., 35, 8052–8072, https://doi.org/10.1109/TKDE.2022.3178128, 2023.
Wang, Q. J.: The genetic algorithm and its application to calibrating conceptual rainfall–runoff models, Water Resour. Res., 27, 2467–2471, https://doi.org/10.1029/91WR01305, 1991.
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.
Wu, H., Zhu, W., and Huang, B.: Seasonal variation of evapotranspiration, Priestley–Taylor coefficient and crop coefficient in diverse landscapes, Geography and Sustainability, 2, 224–233, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geosus.2021.09.002, 2021.
Yan, H., Sun, N., Eldardiry, H., Thurber, T. B., Reed, P. M., Malek, K., Gupta, R., Kennedy, D., Swenson, S. C., Hou, Z., Cheng, Y., and Rice, J. S.: Large ensemble diagnostic evaluation of hydrologic parameter uncertainty in the Community Land Model Version 5 (CLM5), J. Adv. Model. Earth Sy., 15, e2022MS003312, https://doi.org/10.1029/2022MS003312, 2023.
Yang, Y. and Chui, T. F. M.: Reliability assessment of machine learning models in hydrological predictions through metamorphic testing, Water Resour. Res., 57, e2020WR029471, https://doi.org/10.1029/2020WR029471, 2021.
Yilmaz, K. K., Gupta, H. V., and Wagener, T.: A process-based diagnostic approach to model evaluation: Application to the NWS distributed hydrologic model, Water Resour. Res., 44, 1–18, 2008.
Zhong, L., Lei, H., and Gao, B.: Developing a physics-informed deep learning model to simulate runoff response to climate change in Alpine catchments, Water Resour. Res., 59, e2022WR034118, https://doi.org/10.1029/2022WR034118, 2023.
Short summary
We investigate whether deep learning (DL) models can produce physically plausible streamflow projections under climate change. We address this question by focusing on modeled responses to increases in temperature and potential evapotranspiration and by employing three DL and three process-based hydrological models. The results suggest that physical constraints regarding model architecture and input are necessary to promote the physical realism of DL hydrological projections under climate change.
We investigate whether deep learning (DL) models can produce physically plausible streamflow...
