Articles | Volume 28, issue 21
https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-4837-2024
© 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-28-4837-2024
© 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 Nov 2024
Research article |
| 07 Nov 2024
| 07 Nov 2024
On the use of streamflow transformations for hydrological model calibration
Guillaume Thirel
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR
Université Paris-Saclay, INRAE, UR HYCAR, 92160 Antony, France
Léonard Santos
Université Paris-Saclay, INRAE, UR HYCAR, 92160 Antony, France
Olivier Delaigue
Université Paris-Saclay, INRAE, UR HYCAR, 92160 Antony, France
Charles Perrin
Université Paris-Saclay, INRAE, UR HYCAR, 92160 Antony, France
Related authors
Guillaume Evin, Benoit Hingray, Guillaume Thirel, Agnès Ducharne, Laurent Strohmenger, Lola Corre, Yves Tramblay, Jean-Philippe Vidal, Jérémie Bonneau, François Colleoni, Joël Gailhard, Florence Habets, Frédéric Hendrickx, Louis Héraut, Peng Huang, Matthieu Le Lay, Claire Magand, Paola Marson, Céline Monteil, Simon Munier, Alix Reverdy, Jean-Michel Soubeyroux, Yoann Robin, Jean-Pierre Vergnes, Mathieu Vrac, and Eric Sauquet
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2727, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2727, 2025
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for Hydrology and Earth System Sciences (HESS).
Short summary
Short summary
Explore2 provides hydrological projections for 1,735 French catchments. Using QUALYPSO, this study assesses uncertainties, including internal variability. By the end of the century, low flows are projected to decline in southern France under high emissions, while other indicators remain uncertain. Emission scenarios and regional climate models are key uncertainty sources. Internal variability is often as large as climate-driven changes.
Eric Sauquet, Guillaume Evin, Sonia Siauve, Ryma Aissat, Patrick Arnaud, Maud Bérel, Jérémie Bonneau, Flora Branger, Yvan Caballero, François Colléoni, Agnès Ducharne, Joël Gailhard, Florence Habets, Frédéric Hendrickx, Louis Héraut, Benoît Hingray, Peng Huang, Tristan Jaouen, Alexis Jeantet, Sandra Lanini, Matthieu Le Lay, Claire Magand, Louise Mimeau, Céline Monteil, Simon Munier, Charles Perrin, Olivier Robelin, Fabienne Rousset, Jean-Michel Soubeyroux, Laurent Strohmenger, Guillaume Thirel, Flore Tocquer, Yves Tramblay, Jean-Pierre Vergnes, and Jean-Philippe Vidal
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1788, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1788, 2025
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for Hydrology and Earth System Sciences (HESS).
Short summary
Short summary
The Explore2 project has provided an unprecedented set of hydrological projections in terms of the number of hydrological models used and the spatial and temporal resolution. The results have been made available through various media. Under the high-emission scenario, the hydrological models mostly agree on the decrease in seasonal flows in the south of France, confirming its hotspot status, and on the decrease in summer flows throughout France, with the exception of the northern part of France.
Yves Tramblay, Guillaume Thirel, Laurent Strohmenger, Guillaume Evin, Lola Corre, Louis Heraut, and Eric Sauquet
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1635, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1635, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
How climate change impacts floods in France? Using simulations for 3000 rivers in climate projections, results show that flood trends vary depending on the region. In the north, floods may become more severe, but in many other areas, the trends are mixed. Floods from intense rainfall are becoming more frequent, while snowmelt floods are strongly decreasing. Overall, the study shows that understanding what causes floods is key to predicting how they are likely to change with the climate.
Léonard Santos, Vazken Andréassian, Torben O. Sonnenborg, Göran Lindström, Alban de Lavenne, Charles Perrin, Lila Collet, and Guillaume Thirel
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 29, 683–700, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-29-683-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-29-683-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
This work investigates how hydrological models are transferred to a period in which climate conditions are different to the ones of the period in which they were set up. The robustness assessment test built to detect dependencies between model error and climatic drivers was applied to three hydrological models in 352 catchments in Denmark, France and Sweden. Potential issues are seen in a significant number of catchments for the models, even though the catchments differ for each model.
Cyril Thébault, Charles Perrin, Vazken Andréassian, Guillaume Thirel, Sébastien Legrand, and Olivier Delaigue
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 28, 1539–1566, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-1539-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-1539-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Streamflow forecasting is useful for many applications, ranging from population safety (e.g. floods) to water resource management (e.g. agriculture or hydropower). To this end, hydrological models must be optimized. However, a model is inherently wrong. This study aims to analyse the contribution of a multi-model approach within a variable spatial framework to improve streamflow simulations. The underlying idea is to take advantage of the strength of each modelling framework tested.
Nils Poncet, Philippe Lucas-Picher, Yves Tramblay, Guillaume Thirel, Humberto Vergara, Jonathan Gourley, and Antoinette Alias
Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 24, 1163–1183, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-24-1163-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-24-1163-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
High-resolution convection-permitting climate models (CPMs) are now available to better simulate rainstorm events leading to flash floods. In this study, two hydrological models are compared to simulate floods in a Mediterranean basin, showing a better ability of the CPM to reproduce flood peaks compared to coarser-resolution climate models. Future projections are also different, with a projected increase for the most severe floods and a potential decrease for the most frequent events.
Laurent Strohmenger, Eric Sauquet, Claire Bernard, Jérémie Bonneau, Flora Branger, Amélie Bresson, Pierre Brigode, Rémy Buzier, Olivier Delaigue, Alexandre Devers, Guillaume Evin, Maïté Fournier, Shu-Chen Hsu, Sandra Lanini, Alban de Lavenne, Thibault Lemaitre-Basset, Claire Magand, Guilherme Mendoza Guimarães, Max Mentha, Simon Munier, Charles Perrin, Tristan Podechard, Léo Rouchy, Malak Sadki, Myriam Soutif-Bellenger, François Tilmant, Yves Tramblay, Anne-Lise Véron, Jean-Philippe Vidal, and Guillaume Thirel
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 27, 3375–3391, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-27-3375-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-27-3375-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
We present the results of a large visual inspection campaign of 674 streamflow time series in France. The objective was to detect non-natural records resulting from instrument failure or anthropogenic influences, such as hydroelectric power generation or reservoir management. We conclude that the identification of flaws in flow time series is highly dependent on the objectives and skills of individual evaluators, and we raise the need for better practices for data cleaning.
Olivier Delaigue, Pierre Brigode, Guillaume Thirel, and Laurent Coron
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 27, 3293–3327, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-27-3293-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-27-3293-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Teaching hydrological modeling is an important, but difficult, matter. It requires appropriate tools and teaching material. In this article, we present the airGRteaching package, which is an open-source software tool relying on widely used hydrological models. This tool proposes an interface and numerous hydrological modeling exercises representing a wide range of hydrological applications. We show how this tool can be applied to simple but real-life cases.
Eva Sebok, Hans Jørgen Henriksen, Ernesto Pastén-Zapata, Peter Berg, Guillaume Thirel, Anthony Lemoine, Andrea Lira-Loarca, Christiana Photiadou, Rafael Pimentel, Paul Royer-Gaspard, Erik Kjellström, Jens Hesselbjerg Christensen, Jean Philippe Vidal, Philippe Lucas-Picher, Markus G. Donat, Giovanni Besio, María José Polo, Simon Stisen, Yvan Caballero, Ilias G. Pechlivanidis, Lars Troldborg, and Jens Christian Refsgaard
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 26, 5605–5625, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-5605-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-5605-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Hydrological models projecting the impact of changing climate carry a lot of uncertainty. Thus, these models usually have a multitude of simulations using different future climate data. This study used the subjective opinion of experts to assess which climate and hydrological models are the most likely to correctly predict climate impacts, thereby easing the computational burden. The experts could select more likely hydrological models, while the climate models were deemed equally probable.
Thibault Lemaitre-Basset, Ludovic Oudin, Guillaume Thirel, and Lila Collet
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 26, 2147–2159, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-2147-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-2147-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Increasing temperature will impact evaporation and water resource management. Hydrological models are fed with an estimation of the evaporative demand of the atmosphere, called potential evapotranspiration (PE). The objectives of this study were (1) to compute the future PE anomaly over France and (2) to determine the impact of the choice of the method to estimate PE. Our results show that all methods present similar future trends. No method really stands out from the others.
Paul Royer-Gaspard, Vazken Andréassian, and Guillaume Thirel
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 25, 5703–5716, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-5703-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-5703-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Most evaluation studies based on the differential split-sample test (DSST) endorse the consensus that rainfall–runoff models lack climatic robustness. In this technical note, we propose a new performance metric to evaluate model robustness without applying the DSST and which can be used with a single hydrological model calibration. Our work makes it possible to evaluate the temporal transferability of any hydrological model, including uncalibrated models, at a very low computational cost.
Alexis Jeantet, Hocine Henine, Cédric Chaumont, Lila Collet, Guillaume Thirel, and Julien Tournebize
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 25, 5447–5471, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-5447-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-5447-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
The hydrological subsurface drainage model SIDRA-RU is assessed at the French national scale, using a unique database representing the large majority of the French drained areas. The model is evaluated following its capacity to simulate the drainage discharge variability and the annual drained water balance. Eventually, the temporal robustness of SIDRA-RU is assessed to demonstrate the utility of this model as a long-term management tool.
Pierre Nicolle, Vazken Andréassian, Paul Royer-Gaspard, Charles Perrin, Guillaume Thirel, Laurent Coron, and Léonard Santos
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 25, 5013–5027, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-5013-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-5013-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
In this note, a new method (RAT) is proposed to assess the robustness of hydrological models. The RAT method is particularly interesting because it does not require multiple calibrations (it is therefore applicable to uncalibrated models), and it can be used to determine whether a hydrological model may be safely used for climate change impact studies. Success at the robustness assessment test is a necessary (but not sufficient) condition of model robustness.
Paul C. Astagneau, Guillaume Thirel, Olivier Delaigue, Joseph H. A. Guillaume, Juraj Parajka, Claudia C. Brauer, Alberto Viglione, Wouter Buytaert, and Keith J. Beven
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 25, 3937–3973, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-3937-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-3937-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
The R programming language has become an important tool for many applications in hydrology. In this study, we provide an analysis of some of the R tools providing hydrological models. In total, two aspects are uniformly investigated, namely the conceptualisation of the models and the practicality of their implementation for end-users. These comparisons aim at easing the choice of R tools for users and at improving their usability for hydrology modelling to support more transferable research.
Laurène J. E. Bouaziz, Fabrizio Fenicia, Guillaume Thirel, Tanja de Boer-Euser, Joost Buitink, Claudia C. Brauer, Jan De Niel, Benjamin J. Dewals, Gilles Drogue, Benjamin Grelier, Lieke A. Melsen, Sotirios Moustakas, Jiri Nossent, Fernando Pereira, Eric Sprokkereef, Jasper Stam, Albrecht H. Weerts, Patrick Willems, Hubert H. G. Savenije, and Markus Hrachowitz
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 25, 1069–1095, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-1069-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-1069-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
We quantify the differences in internal states and fluxes of 12 process-based models with similar streamflow performance and assess their plausibility using remotely sensed estimates of evaporation, snow cover, soil moisture and total storage anomalies. The dissimilarities in internal process representation imply that these models cannot all simultaneously be close to reality. Therefore, we invite modelers to evaluate their models using multiple variables and to rely on multi-model studies.
Manon Cassagnole, Maria-Helena Ramos, Ioanna Zalachori, Guillaume Thirel, Rémy Garçon, Joël Gailhard, and Thomas Ouillon
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 25, 1033–1052, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-1033-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-1033-2021, 2021
Guillaume Evin, Benoit Hingray, Guillaume Thirel, Agnès Ducharne, Laurent Strohmenger, Lola Corre, Yves Tramblay, Jean-Philippe Vidal, Jérémie Bonneau, François Colleoni, Joël Gailhard, Florence Habets, Frédéric Hendrickx, Louis Héraut, Peng Huang, Matthieu Le Lay, Claire Magand, Paola Marson, Céline Monteil, Simon Munier, Alix Reverdy, Jean-Michel Soubeyroux, Yoann Robin, Jean-Pierre Vergnes, Mathieu Vrac, and Eric Sauquet
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2727, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2727, 2025
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for Hydrology and Earth System Sciences (HESS).
Short summary
Short summary
Explore2 provides hydrological projections for 1,735 French catchments. Using QUALYPSO, this study assesses uncertainties, including internal variability. By the end of the century, low flows are projected to decline in southern France under high emissions, while other indicators remain uncertain. Emission scenarios and regional climate models are key uncertainty sources. Internal variability is often as large as climate-driven changes.
Taha-Abderrahman El Ouahabi, François Bourgin, Charles Perrin, and Vazken Andréassian
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3586, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3586, 2025
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for Hydrology and Earth System Sciences (HESS).
Short summary
Short summary
To improve hydrological uncertainty estimation, recent studies have explored machine learning (ML)-based post-processing approaches. Among these, quantile random forests (QRF) are increasingly used for their balance between interpretability and performance. We develop a hydrologically informed QRF trained in a multi-site setting. Our results show that the regional QRF approach is beneficial, particularly in catchments where local information is insufficient.
Eric Sauquet, Guillaume Evin, Sonia Siauve, Ryma Aissat, Patrick Arnaud, Maud Bérel, Jérémie Bonneau, Flora Branger, Yvan Caballero, François Colléoni, Agnès Ducharne, Joël Gailhard, Florence Habets, Frédéric Hendrickx, Louis Héraut, Benoît Hingray, Peng Huang, Tristan Jaouen, Alexis Jeantet, Sandra Lanini, Matthieu Le Lay, Claire Magand, Louise Mimeau, Céline Monteil, Simon Munier, Charles Perrin, Olivier Robelin, Fabienne Rousset, Jean-Michel Soubeyroux, Laurent Strohmenger, Guillaume Thirel, Flore Tocquer, Yves Tramblay, Jean-Pierre Vergnes, and Jean-Philippe Vidal
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1788, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1788, 2025
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for Hydrology and Earth System Sciences (HESS).
Short summary
Short summary
The Explore2 project has provided an unprecedented set of hydrological projections in terms of the number of hydrological models used and the spatial and temporal resolution. The results have been made available through various media. Under the high-emission scenario, the hydrological models mostly agree on the decrease in seasonal flows in the south of France, confirming its hotspot status, and on the decrease in summer flows throughout France, with the exception of the northern part of France.
Yves Tramblay, Guillaume Thirel, Laurent Strohmenger, Guillaume Evin, Lola Corre, Louis Heraut, and Eric Sauquet
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1635, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1635, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
How climate change impacts floods in France? Using simulations for 3000 rivers in climate projections, results show that flood trends vary depending on the region. In the north, floods may become more severe, but in many other areas, the trends are mixed. Floods from intense rainfall are becoming more frequent, while snowmelt floods are strongly decreasing. Overall, the study shows that understanding what causes floods is key to predicting how they are likely to change with the climate.
Olivier Delaigue, Guilherme Mendoza Guimarães, Pierre Brigode, Benoît Génot, Charles Perrin, Jean-Michel Soubeyroux, Bruno Janet, Nans Addor, and Vazken Andréassian
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 17, 1461–1479, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-17-1461-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-17-1461-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
This dataset covers 654 rivers all flowing in France. The provided time series and catchment attributes will be of interest to those modelers wishing to analyze hydrological behavior and perform model assessments.
Léonard Santos, Vazken Andréassian, Torben O. Sonnenborg, Göran Lindström, Alban de Lavenne, Charles Perrin, Lila Collet, and Guillaume Thirel
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 29, 683–700, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-29-683-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-29-683-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
This work investigates how hydrological models are transferred to a period in which climate conditions are different to the ones of the period in which they were set up. The robustness assessment test built to detect dependencies between model error and climatic drivers was applied to three hydrological models in 352 catchments in Denmark, France and Sweden. Potential issues are seen in a significant number of catchments for the models, even though the catchments differ for each model.
Thibault Hallouin, François Bourgin, Charles Perrin, Maria-Helena Ramos, and Vazken Andréassian
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 4561–4578, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-4561-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-4561-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
The evaluation of the quality of hydrological model outputs against streamflow observations is widespread in the hydrological literature. In order to improve on the reproducibility of published studies, a new evaluation tool dedicated to hydrological applications is presented. It is open source and usable in a variety of programming languages to make it as accessible as possible to the community. Thus, authors and readers alike can use the same tool to produce and reproduce the results.
Ralph Bathelemy, Pierre Brigode, Vazken Andréassian, Charles Perrin, Vincent Moron, Cédric Gaucherel, Emmanuel Tric, and Dominique Boisson
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 16, 2073–2098, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-16-2073-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-16-2073-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
The aim of this work is to provide the first hydroclimatic database for Haiti, a Caribbean country particularly vulnerable to meteorological and hydrological hazards. The resulting database, named Simbi, provides hydroclimatic time series for around 150 stations and 24 catchment areas.
Cyril Thébault, Charles Perrin, Vazken Andréassian, Guillaume Thirel, Sébastien Legrand, and Olivier Delaigue
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 28, 1539–1566, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-1539-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-1539-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Streamflow forecasting is useful for many applications, ranging from population safety (e.g. floods) to water resource management (e.g. agriculture or hydropower). To this end, hydrological models must be optimized. However, a model is inherently wrong. This study aims to analyse the contribution of a multi-model approach within a variable spatial framework to improve streamflow simulations. The underlying idea is to take advantage of the strength of each modelling framework tested.
Nils Poncet, Philippe Lucas-Picher, Yves Tramblay, Guillaume Thirel, Humberto Vergara, Jonathan Gourley, and Antoinette Alias
Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 24, 1163–1183, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-24-1163-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-24-1163-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
High-resolution convection-permitting climate models (CPMs) are now available to better simulate rainstorm events leading to flash floods. In this study, two hydrological models are compared to simulate floods in a Mediterranean basin, showing a better ability of the CPM to reproduce flood peaks compared to coarser-resolution climate models. Future projections are also different, with a projected increase for the most severe floods and a potential decrease for the most frequent events.
Laurent Strohmenger, Eric Sauquet, Claire Bernard, Jérémie Bonneau, Flora Branger, Amélie Bresson, Pierre Brigode, Rémy Buzier, Olivier Delaigue, Alexandre Devers, Guillaume Evin, Maïté Fournier, Shu-Chen Hsu, Sandra Lanini, Alban de Lavenne, Thibault Lemaitre-Basset, Claire Magand, Guilherme Mendoza Guimarães, Max Mentha, Simon Munier, Charles Perrin, Tristan Podechard, Léo Rouchy, Malak Sadki, Myriam Soutif-Bellenger, François Tilmant, Yves Tramblay, Anne-Lise Véron, Jean-Philippe Vidal, and Guillaume Thirel
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 27, 3375–3391, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-27-3375-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-27-3375-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
We present the results of a large visual inspection campaign of 674 streamflow time series in France. The objective was to detect non-natural records resulting from instrument failure or anthropogenic influences, such as hydroelectric power generation or reservoir management. We conclude that the identification of flaws in flow time series is highly dependent on the objectives and skills of individual evaluators, and we raise the need for better practices for data cleaning.
Olivier Delaigue, Pierre Brigode, Guillaume Thirel, and Laurent Coron
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 27, 3293–3327, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-27-3293-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-27-3293-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Teaching hydrological modeling is an important, but difficult, matter. It requires appropriate tools and teaching material. In this article, we present the airGRteaching package, which is an open-source software tool relying on widely used hydrological models. This tool proposes an interface and numerous hydrological modeling exercises representing a wide range of hydrological applications. We show how this tool can be applied to simple but real-life cases.
Eva Sebok, Hans Jørgen Henriksen, Ernesto Pastén-Zapata, Peter Berg, Guillaume Thirel, Anthony Lemoine, Andrea Lira-Loarca, Christiana Photiadou, Rafael Pimentel, Paul Royer-Gaspard, Erik Kjellström, Jens Hesselbjerg Christensen, Jean Philippe Vidal, Philippe Lucas-Picher, Markus G. Donat, Giovanni Besio, María José Polo, Simon Stisen, Yvan Caballero, Ilias G. Pechlivanidis, Lars Troldborg, and Jens Christian Refsgaard
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 26, 5605–5625, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-5605-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-5605-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Hydrological models projecting the impact of changing climate carry a lot of uncertainty. Thus, these models usually have a multitude of simulations using different future climate data. This study used the subjective opinion of experts to assess which climate and hydrological models are the most likely to correctly predict climate impacts, thereby easing the computational burden. The experts could select more likely hydrological models, while the climate models were deemed equally probable.
Thibault Lemaitre-Basset, Ludovic Oudin, Guillaume Thirel, and Lila Collet
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 26, 2147–2159, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-2147-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-2147-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Increasing temperature will impact evaporation and water resource management. Hydrological models are fed with an estimation of the evaporative demand of the atmosphere, called potential evapotranspiration (PE). The objectives of this study were (1) to compute the future PE anomaly over France and (2) to determine the impact of the choice of the method to estimate PE. Our results show that all methods present similar future trends. No method really stands out from the others.
Paul Royer-Gaspard, Vazken Andréassian, and Guillaume Thirel
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 25, 5703–5716, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-5703-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-5703-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Most evaluation studies based on the differential split-sample test (DSST) endorse the consensus that rainfall–runoff models lack climatic robustness. In this technical note, we propose a new performance metric to evaluate model robustness without applying the DSST and which can be used with a single hydrological model calibration. Our work makes it possible to evaluate the temporal transferability of any hydrological model, including uncalibrated models, at a very low computational cost.
Alexis Jeantet, Hocine Henine, Cédric Chaumont, Lila Collet, Guillaume Thirel, and Julien Tournebize
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 25, 5447–5471, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-5447-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-5447-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
The hydrological subsurface drainage model SIDRA-RU is assessed at the French national scale, using a unique database representing the large majority of the French drained areas. The model is evaluated following its capacity to simulate the drainage discharge variability and the annual drained water balance. Eventually, the temporal robustness of SIDRA-RU is assessed to demonstrate the utility of this model as a long-term management tool.
Pierre Nicolle, Vazken Andréassian, Paul Royer-Gaspard, Charles Perrin, Guillaume Thirel, Laurent Coron, and Léonard Santos
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 25, 5013–5027, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-5013-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-5013-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
In this note, a new method (RAT) is proposed to assess the robustness of hydrological models. The RAT method is particularly interesting because it does not require multiple calibrations (it is therefore applicable to uncalibrated models), and it can be used to determine whether a hydrological model may be safely used for climate change impact studies. Success at the robustness assessment test is a necessary (but not sufficient) condition of model robustness.
Paul C. Astagneau, Guillaume Thirel, Olivier Delaigue, Joseph H. A. Guillaume, Juraj Parajka, Claudia C. Brauer, Alberto Viglione, Wouter Buytaert, and Keith J. Beven
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 25, 3937–3973, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-3937-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-3937-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
The R programming language has become an important tool for many applications in hydrology. In this study, we provide an analysis of some of the R tools providing hydrological models. In total, two aspects are uniformly investigated, namely the conceptualisation of the models and the practicality of their implementation for end-users. These comparisons aim at easing the choice of R tools for users and at improving their usability for hydrology modelling to support more transferable research.
Laurène J. E. Bouaziz, Fabrizio Fenicia, Guillaume Thirel, Tanja de Boer-Euser, Joost Buitink, Claudia C. Brauer, Jan De Niel, Benjamin J. Dewals, Gilles Drogue, Benjamin Grelier, Lieke A. Melsen, Sotirios Moustakas, Jiri Nossent, Fernando Pereira, Eric Sprokkereef, Jasper Stam, Albrecht H. Weerts, Patrick Willems, Hubert H. G. Savenije, and Markus Hrachowitz
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 25, 1069–1095, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-1069-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-1069-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
We quantify the differences in internal states and fluxes of 12 process-based models with similar streamflow performance and assess their plausibility using remotely sensed estimates of evaporation, snow cover, soil moisture and total storage anomalies. The dissimilarities in internal process representation imply that these models cannot all simultaneously be close to reality. Therefore, we invite modelers to evaluate their models using multiple variables and to rely on multi-model studies.
Manon Cassagnole, Maria-Helena Ramos, Ioanna Zalachori, Guillaume Thirel, Rémy Garçon, Joël Gailhard, and Thomas Ouillon
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 25, 1033–1052, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-1033-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-1033-2021, 2021
Pierre Nicolle, François Besson, Olivier Delaigue, Pierre Etchevers, Didier François, Matthieu Le Lay, Charles Perrin, Fabienne Rousset, Dominique Thiéry, François Tilmant, Claire Magand, Timothée Leurent, and Élise Jacob
Proc. IAHS, 383, 381–389, https://doi.org/10.5194/piahs-383-381-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/piahs-383-381-2020, 2020
Cited articles
Abdulla, F., Lettenmaier, D., and Liang, X.: Estimation of the ARNO model baseflow parameters using daily streamflow data, J. Hydrol., 222, 37–54, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1694(99)00096-7, 1999. a
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. a
Bennett, N. D., Croke, B. F., Guariso, G., Guillaume, J. H., Hamilton, S. H., Jakeman, A. J., Marsili-Libelli, S., Newham, L. T., Norton, J. P., Perrin, C., Pierce, S. A., Robson, B., Seppelt, R., Voinov, A. A., Fath, B. D., and Andréassian, V.: Characterising performance of environmental models, Environ. Modell. Softw., 40, 1–20, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2012.09.011, 2013. a
Booij, M. J. and Krol, M. S.: Balance between calibration objectives in a conceptual hydrological model, Hydrolog. Sci. J., 55, 1017–1032, https://doi.org/10.1080/02626667.2010.505892, 2010. a
Box, G. E. P. and Cox, D. R.: An analysis of transformations, J. R. Stat. Soc. B, 6, 211–252, 1964. a
Chapman, T. G.: Effects of ground-water storage and flow on the water balance, in: Proceedings of “Water resources, use and management”, Symposium held at Canberra by Australian Academy of Science, Melbourne, 9–13 September 1963, Univ. Press, Victoria, 291–301, 1964. a
Chauveau, M., Bourgin, P., Peschard, J., and Coron, L.: Base de données d'observations hydroclimatiques à l’échelle de bassins versants français, Université Paris-Saclay, INRAE, UR HYCAR, Équipe Hydrologie des bassins versants, Antony, https://webgr.inrae.fr/eng/tools/database (last access: 30 October 2024), 2011. a
Chiew, F., Stewardson, M., and McMahon, T.: Comparison of six rainfall-runoff modelling approaches, J. Hydrol., 147, 1–36, https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1694(93)90073-I, 1993. a, b, c
Clark, M. P., Slater, A. G., Rupp, D. E., Woods, R. A., Vrugt, J. A., Gupta, H. V., Wagener, T., and Hay, L. E.: Framework for Understanding Structural Errors (FUSE): A modular framework to diagnose differences between hydrological models, Water Resour. Res., 44, W00B02, https://doi.org/10.1029/2007WR006735, 2008. a
Clark, M. P., Nijssen, B., Lundquist, J. D., Kavetski, D., Rupp, D. E., Woods, R. A., Freer, J. E., Gutmann, E. D., Wood, A. W., Brekke, L. D., Arnold, J. R., Gochis, D. J., and Rasmussen, R. M.: A unified approach for process-based hydrologic modeling: 1. Modeling concept, Water Resour. Res., 51, 2498–2514, https://doi.org/10.1002/2015WR017198, 2015a. a
Clark, M. P., Nijssen, B., Lundquist, J. D., Kavetski, D., Rupp, D. E., Woods, R. A., Freer, J. E., Gutmann, E. D., Wood, A. W., Gochis, D. J., Rasmussen, R. M., Tarboton, D. G., Mahat, V., Flerchinger, G. N., and Marks, D. G.: A unified approach for process-based hydrologic modeling: 2. Model implementation and case studies, Water Resour. Res., 51, 2515–2542, https://doi.org/10.1002/2015WR017200, 2015b. a
Clark, M. P., Vogel, R. M., Lamontagne, J. R., Mizukami, N., Knoben, W. J. M., Tang, G., Gharari, S., Freer, J. E., Whitfield, P. H., Shook, K. R., and Papalexiou, S. M.: The Abuse of Popular Performance Metrics in Hydrologic Modeling, Water Resour. Res., 57, e2020WR029001, https://doi.org/10.1029/2020WR029001, 2021a. a
Clark, M. P., Zolfaghari, R., Green, K. R., Trim, S., Knoben, W. J. M., Bennett, A., Nijssen, B., Ireson, A., and Spiteri, R. J.: The Numerical Implementation of Land Models: Problem Formulation and Laugh Tests, J. Hydrometeorol., 22, 1627–1648, https://doi.org/10.1175/JHM-D-20-0175.1, 2021b. a
Coron, L., Thirel, G., Delaigue, O., Perrin, C., and Andréassian, V.: The Suite of Lumped GR Hydrological Models in an R package, Environ. Modell. Softw., 94, 166–171, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2017.05.002, 2017. a, b, c
Coron, L., Delaigue, O., Thirel, G., Dorchies, D., Perrin, C., and Michel, C.: airGR: Suite of GR Hydrological Models for Precipitation-Runoff Modelling, R package version 1.7.0, https://doi.org/10.15454/EX11NA, 2022 (code available at: https://cran.r-project.org/package=airGR, last access: 5 November 2024). a, b
Craig, J. R., Brown, G., Chlumsky, R., Jenkinson, R. W., Jost, G., Lee, K., Mai, J., Serrer, M., Sgro, N., Shafii, M., Snowdon, A. P., and Tolson, B. A.: Flexible watershed simulation with the Raven hydrological modelling framework, Environ. Modell. Softw., 129, 104728, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2020.104728, 2020. a
Crochemore, L., Perrin, C., Andréassian, V., Ehret, U., Seibert, S. P., Grimaldi, S., Gupta, H., and Paturel, J.-E.: Comparing expert judgement and numerical criteria for hydrograph evaluation, Hydrolog. Sci. J., 60, 402–423, https://doi.org/10.1080/02626667.2014.903331, 2015. a
Dawdy, D. R. and Lichty, R. W.: Methodology of Hydrologic Model Building, Intl. Assoc. Hydr. Sci. Publ., 81, 347–355, 1968. a
de Vos, N. J., Rientjes, T. H. M., and Gupta, H. V.: Diagnostic evaluation of conceptual rainfall–runoff models using temporal clustering, Hydrol. Process., 24, 2840–2850, https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.7698, 2010. a
Ding, J.: Discussion of “Inflow hydrographs from large unconfined aquifers”, by Ibrahim, H. A. and Brutsaert, W., J. Irrig. Drain. Div. Am. Soc. Civ. Eng., 92, 104–107, 1966. a
Dolédec, S. and Chessel, D.: Co-inertia analysis: an alternative method for studying species–environment relationships, Freshwater Biol., 31, 277–294, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2427.1994.tb01741.x, 1994. a
Dray, S., Chessel, D., and Thioulouse, J.: Co-inertia analysis and the linking of ecological data tables, Ecology, 84, 3078–3089, https://doi.org/10.1890/03-0178, 2003. a
Duan, Q., Ajami, N. K., Gao, X., and Sorooshian, S.: Multi-model ensemble hydrologic prediction using Bayesian model averaging, Adv. Water Resour., 30, 1371–1386, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advwatres.2006.11.014, 2007. a
Farmer, W. H. and Vogel, R. M.: On the deterministic and stochastic use of hydrologic models, Water Resour. Res., 52, 5619–5633, https://doi.org/10.1002/2016WR019129, 2016. a
Farr, T., Rosen, P., Caro, E., Crippen, R., Duren, R., Hensley, S., Kobrick, M., Paller, M., Rodriguez, E., Roth, L., Seal, D., Shaffer, S., Shimada, J., Umland, J., Werner, M., Oskin, M., Burbank, D., and Alsdorf, D.: The Shuttle Radar Topography Mission, Rev. Geophys., 45, RG2004, https://doi.org/10.1029/2005RG000183, 2007. a
Fenicia, F., Kavetski, D., and Savenije, H. H. G.: Elements of a flexible approach for conceptual hydrological modeling: 1. Motivation and theoretical development, Water Resour. Res., 47, W11510, https://doi.org/10.1029/2010WR010174, 2011. a
Fowler, K., Peel, M., Western, A., and Zhang, L.: Improved Rainfall-Runoff Calibration for Drying Climate: Choice of Objective Function, Water Resour. Res., 54, 3392–3408, https://doi.org/10.1029/2017WR022466, 2018. a
French Ministry of Environment: CORINE Land Cover. Occupation des sols en France, version 2018, https://www.data.gouv.fr/fr/datasets/corine-land-cover-occupation-des-sols-en-france/, (last access: 30 October 2024), 2018. a
French Ministry of the Environment: Hydroportail: Données publiques quantitatives relatives à l'écoulement des cours d'eau, eaufrance [data set], https://www.hydro.eaufrance.fr/, last access: 30 October 2024.
Garcia, F., Folton, N., and Oudin, L.: Which objective function to calibrate rainfall–runoff models for low-flow index simulations?, Hydrolog. Sci. J., 62, 1149–1166, https://doi.org/10.1080/02626667.2017.1308511, 2017. a, b, c
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, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2009.08.003, 2009. a
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. a
Hogue, T. S., Sorooshian, S., Gupta, H., Holz, A., and Braatz, D.: A Multistep Automatic Calibration Scheme for River Forecasting Models, J. Hydrometeorol., 1, 524–542, https://doi.org/10.1175/1525-7541(2000)001<0524:AMACSF>2.0.CO;2, 2000. a
Houghton-Carr, H. A.: Assessment criteria for simple conceptual daily rainfall-runoff models, Hydrolog. Sci. J., 44, 237–261, https://doi.org/10.1080/02626669909492220, 1999. a
Huang, Z., Zhao, T., Lai, R., Tian, Y., and Yang, F.: A comprehensive implementation of the log, Box-Cox and log-sinh transformations for skewed and censored precipitation data, J. Hydrol., 620, 129347, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2023.129347, 2023. a
Ishihara, T. and Takagi, F.: A study on the variation of low flow, Bulletin, Disaster Prevention Research Institute, 15, 75–98, http://hdl.handle.net/2433/124698 (last access: 30 October 2024), 1970. a
Kling, H., Fuchs, M., and Paulin, M.: Runoff conditions in the upper Danube basin under an ensemble of climate change scenarios, J. Hydrol., 424–425, 264–277, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2012.01.011, 2012. a
Knoben, W. J. M., Woods, R. A., and Freer, J. E.: A Quantitative Hydrological Climate Classification Evaluated With Independent Streamflow Data, Water Resour. Res., 54, 5088–5109, https://doi.org/10.1029/2018WR022913, 2018. a
Knoben, W. J. M., Freer, J. E., Fowler, K. J. A., Peel, M. C., and Woods, R. A.: Modular Assessment of Rainfall–Runoff Models Toolbox (MARRMoT) v1.2: an open-source, extendable framework providing implementations of 46 conceptual hydrologic models as continuous state-space formulations, Geosci. Model Dev., 12, 2463–2480, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-12-2463-2019, 2019. a
Krause, P., Boyle, D. P., and Bäse, F.: Comparison of different efficiency criteria for hydrological model assessment, Advances in Geosciences, 5, 89–97, https://doi.org/10.5194/adgeo-5-89-2005, 2005. a, b, c
Leleu, I., Tonnelier, I., Puechberty, R., Gouin, P., Viquendi, I., Cobos, L., Foray, A., Baillon, M., and Ndima, P.-O.: La refonte du système d'information national pour la gestion et la mise à disposition des données hydrométriques, La Houille Blanche, 100, 25–32, https://doi.org/10.1051/lhb/2014004, 2014. a
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. a
Mathevet, T.: Quels modèles pluie-débit globaux au pas de temps horaire? Développements empiriques et comparaison de modèles sur un large échantillon de bassins versants, Phd thesis, Doctorat spécialité Sciences de l'eau, ENGREF Paris, https://hal.inrae.fr/tel-02587642 (last access: 30 October 2024), 2005. a
McMillan, H., Westerberg, I., and Branger, F.: Five guidelines for selecting hydrological signatures, Hydrol. Process., 31, 4757–4761, https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.11300, 2017. a
Melsen, L. A., Teuling, A. J., Torfs, P. J., Zappa, M., Mizukami, N., Mendoza, P. A., Clark, M. P., and Uijlenhoet, R.: Subjective modeling decisions can significantly impact the simulation of flood and drought events, J. Hydrol., 568, 1093–1104, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2018.11.046, 2019. a
Mendoza, P. A., Clark, M. P., Mizukami, N., Gutmann, E. D., Arnold, J. R., Brekke, L. D., and Rajagopalan, B.: How do hydrologic modeling decisions affect the portrayal of climate change impacts?, Hydrol. Process., 30, 1071–1095, https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.10684, 2016. a
Météo-France: Données changement climatique – SIM quotidienne, Météo-France [data set], https://meteo.data.gouv.fr/datasets/6569b27598256cc583c917a7, last access: 30 October 2024.
Nash, J. and Sutcliffe, J.: River flow forecasting through conceptual models part I – A discussion of principles, J. Hydrol., 10, 282–290, https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1694(70)90255-6, 1970. a, b
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. a
Nicolle, P., Pushpalatha, R., Perrin, C., François, D., Thiéry, D., Mathevet, T., Le Lay, M., Besson, F., Soubeyroux, J.-M., Viel, C., Regimbeau, F., Andréassian, V., Maugis, P., Augeard, B., and Morice, E.: Benchmarking hydrological models for low-flow simulation and forecasting on French catchments, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 18, 2829–2857, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-18-2829-2014, 2014. a, b
Niu, G.-Y., Yang, Z.-L., Mitchell, K. E., Chen, F., Ek, M. B., Barlage, M., Kumar, A., Manning, K., Niyogi, D., Rosero, E., Tewari, M., and Xia, Y.: The community Noah land surface model with multiparameterization options (Noah-MP): 1. Model description and evaluation with local-scale measurements, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 116, D12109, https://doi.org/10.1029/2010JD015139, 2011. a
Oudin, L., Andréassian, V., Mathevet, T., Perrin, C., and Michel, C.: Dynamic averaging of rainfall-runoff model simulations from complementary model parameterizations, Water Resour. Res., 42, W07410, https://doi.org/10.1029/2005WR004636, 2006. a, b
Pechlivanidis, I. G., Jackson, B., McMillan, H., and Gupta, H.: Use of an entropy-based metric in multiobjective calibration to improve model performance, Water Resour. Res., 50, 8066–8083, https://doi.org/10.1002/2013WR014537, 2014. a, b, c
Pelletier, A. and Andréassian, V.: Hydrograph separation: an impartial parametrisation for an imperfect method, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 24, 1171–1187, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-24-1171-2020, 2020. a
Pelletier, A., Andréassian, V., and Delaigue, O.: baseflow: Computes Hydrograph Separation, R package version 0.13.2, https://doi.org/10.15454/Z9IK5N, 2021. a
Perrin, C., Michel, C., and Andréassian, V.: Improvement of a parsimonious model for streamflow simulation, J. Hydrol., 279, 275–289, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1694(03)00225-7, 2003. a, b, c
Peña-Arancibia, J. L., Zhang, Y., Pagendam, D. E., Viney, N. R., Lerat, J., van Dijk, A. I., Vaze, J., and Frost, A. J.: Streamflow rating uncertainty: Characterisation and impacts on model calibration and performance, Environ. Modell. Softw., 63, 32–44, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2014.09.011, 2015. a
Pushpalatha, R., Perrin, C., Moine, N. L., Mathevet, T., and Andréassian, V.: A downward structural sensitivity analysis of hydrological models to improve low-flow simulation, J. Hydrol., 411, 66–76, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2011.09.034, 2011. a
Pushpalatha, R., Perrin, C., Moine, N. L., and Andréassian, V.: A review of efficiency criteria suitable for evaluating low-flow simulations, J. Hydrol., 420–421, 171–182, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2011.11.055, 2012. a, b
Quesada-Montano, B., Westerberg, I. K., Fuentes-Andino, D., Hidalgo, H. G., and Halldin, S.: Can climate variability information constrain a hydrological model for an ungauged Costa Rican catchment?, Hydrol. Process., 32, 830–846, https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.11460, 2018. a
Rosbjerg, D. and Madsen, H.: Concepts of Hydrologic Modeling, chap. 10, American Cancer Society, ISBN 9780470848944, https://doi.org/10.1002/0470848944.hsa009, 2006. a
Sadegh, M., Shakeri Majd, M., Hernandez, J., and Torabi Haghighi, A.: Effects of Data Transformation on Bayesian Inference of Watershed Models, Water Resour. Manag., 32, 1867–1881, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-018-1908-6, 2018. a
Santos, L., Thirel, G., and Perrin, C.: Technical note: Pitfalls in using log-transformed flows within the KGE criterion, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 22, 4583–4591, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-22-4583-2018, 2018. a, b, c
Seeger, S. and Weiler, M.: Reevaluation of transit time distributions, mean transit times and their relation to catchment topography, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 18, 4751–4771, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-18-4751-2014, 2014. a
Smakhtin, V., Sami, K., and Hughes, D.: Evaluating the performance of a deterministic daily rainfall-runoff model in a low-flow context, Hydrol. Process., 12, 797–811, https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1085(19980430)12:5<797::AID-HYP632>3.0.CO;2-S, 1998. a, b, c
Smith, T., Marshall, L., and McGlynn, B.: Calibrating hydrologic models in flow-corrected time, Water Resour. Res., 50, 748–753, https://doi.org/10.1002/2013WR014635, 2014. a
Song, J.-H., Her, Y., Park, J., and Kang, M.-S.: Exploring parsimonious daily rainfall-runoff model structure using the hyperbolic tangent function and Tank model, J. Hydrol., 574, 574–587, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2019.04.054, 2019. a
Sorooshian, S. and Dracup, J. A.: Stochastic parameter estimation procedures for hydrologie rainfall-runoff models: Correlated and heteroscedastic error cases, Water Resour. Res., 16, 430–442, https://doi.org/10.1029/WR016i002p00430, 1980. a
Stewart, I. T., Cayan, D. R., and Dettinger, M. D.: Changes toward Earlier Streamflow Timing across Western North America, J. Climate, 18, 1136–1155, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI3321.1, 2005. a
Tan, K., Chiew, F. H. S., Grayson, R., Scanlon, P., and Siriwardena, L.: Calibration of a Daily Rainfall-Runoff Model to Estimate High Daily Flows, in: International Congress on Modelling and Simulation, edited by: Zerger, A. and Argent, R. M., MODSIM 2005 Modelling and Simulation Society of Australia and New Zealand, 2960–2966, https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Calibration-of-a-Daily-Rainfall-Runoff-Model-to-Tan-Chiew/2cc019b8b6bb2e3af909e94fca70fce838e6f7a4 (last access: 5 November 2024), 2005. a
Thirel, G., Santos, L., Delaigue, O., and Perrin, C.: Reply on RC2, Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-775-AC2, 2023. a, b
Valéry, A., Andréassian, V., and Perrin, C.: 'As simple as possible but not simpler': What is useful in a temperature-based snow-accounting routine? Part 2 – Sensitivity analysis of the CemaNeige snow accounting routine on 380 catchments, J. Hydrol., 517, 1176–1187, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2014.04.058, 2014. a
van Werkhoven, K., Wagener, T., Reed, P., and Tang, Y.: Characterization of watershed model behavior across a hydroclimatic gradient, Water Resour. Res., 44, W01429, https://doi.org/10.1029/2007WR006271, 2008. a
Vidal, J.-P., Martin, E., Franchistéguy, L., Baillon, M., and Soubeyroux, J.-M.: A 50-year high-resolution atmospheric reanalysis over France with the Safran system, Int. J. Climatol., 30, 1627–1644, https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.2003, 2010. a
Vrugt, J. A., Gupta, H. V., Dekker, S. C., Sorooshian, S., Wagener, T., and Bouten, W.: Application of stochastic parameter optimization to the Sacramento Soil Moisture Accounting model, J. Hydrol., 325, 288–307, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2005.10.041, 2006. a
Vázquez, R. F., Willems, P., and Feyen, J.: Improving the predictions of a MIKE SHE catchment-scale application by using a multi-criteria approach, Hydrol. Process., 22, 2159–2179, https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.6815, 2008. a, b
Short summary
We discuss how mathematical transformations impact calibrated hydrological model simulations. We assess how 11 transformations behave over the complete range of streamflows. Extreme transformations lead to models that are specialized for extreme streamflows but show poor performance outside the range of targeted streamflows and are less robust. We show that no a priori assumption about transformations can be taken as warranted.
We discuss how mathematical transformations impact calibrated hydrological model simulations. We...
