Articles | Volume 28, issue 22
https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-5011-2024
© 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-28-5011-2024
© Author(s) 2024. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Research article
| 
26 Nov 2024
Research article |
| 26 Nov 2024
| 26 Nov 2024
On the importance of discharge observation uncertainty when interpreting hydrological model performance
Department of Water Management, Civil Engineering and Geoscience, Delft University of Technology, Delft, the Netherlands
Jannis M. Hoch
Department of Physical Geography, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands
Fathom, Bristol, United Kingdom
Gemma Coxon
Geographical Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom
Nick C. van de Giesen
Department of Water Management, Civil Engineering and Geoscience, Delft University of Technology, Delft, the Netherlands
Rolf W. Hut
Department of Water Management, Civil Engineering and Geoscience, Delft University of Technology, Delft, the Netherlands
Related authors
Sneha Chevuru, Rens L. P. H. van Beek, Michelle T. H. van Vliet, Jerom P. M. Aerts, and Marc F. P. Bierkens
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 29, 4219–4239, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-29-4219-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-29-4219-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
This study combines the global hydrological model
PCRaster Global Water Balancewith the
World Food Studiescrop model to analyze feedbacks between hydrology and crop growth. It quantifies one-way and two-way interactions, revealing patterns in crop yield and irrigation water use. Dynamic interactions enhance understanding of climate variability impacts on food production, highlighting the importance of two-way model coupling for accurate assessments.
Pau Wiersma, Jerom Aerts, Harry Zekollari, Markus Hrachowitz, Niels Drost, Matthias Huss, Edwin H. Sutanudjaja, and Rolf Hut
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 26, 5971–5986, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-5971-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-5971-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
We test whether coupling a global glacier model (GloGEM) with a global hydrological model (PCR-GLOBWB 2) leads to a more realistic glacier representation and to improved basin runoff simulations across 25 large-scale basins. The coupling does lead to improved glacier representation, mainly by accounting for glacier flow and net glacier mass loss, and to improved basin runoff simulations, mostly in strongly glacier-influenced basins, which is where the coupling has the most impact.
Jerom P. M. Aerts, Rolf W. Hut, Nick C. van de Giesen, Niels Drost, Willem J. van Verseveld, Albrecht H. Weerts, and Pieter Hazenberg
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 26, 4407–4430, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-4407-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-4407-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
In recent years gridded hydrological modelling moved into the realm of hyper-resolution modelling (<10 km). In this study, we investigate the effect of varying grid-cell sizes for the wflow_sbm hydrological model. We used a large sample of basins from the CAMELS data set to test the effect that varying grid-cell sizes has on the simulation of streamflow at the basin outlet. Results show that there is no single best grid-cell size for modelling streamflow throughout the domain.
Rolf Hut, Niels Drost, Nick van de Giesen, Ben van Werkhoven, Banafsheh Abdollahi, Jerom Aerts, Thomas Albers, Fakhereh Alidoost, Bouwe Andela, Jaro Camphuijsen, Yifat Dzigan, Ronald van Haren, Eric Hutton, Peter Kalverla, Maarten van Meersbergen, Gijs van den Oord, Inti Pelupessy, Stef Smeets, Stefan Verhoeven, Martine de Vos, and Berend Weel
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 5371–5390, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-5371-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-5371-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
With the eWaterCycle platform, we are providing the hydrological community with a platform to conduct their research that is fully compatible with the principles of both open science and FAIR science. The eWatercyle platform gives easy access to well-known hydrological models, big datasets and example experiments. Using eWaterCycle hydrologists can easily compare the results from different models, couple models and do more complex hydrological computational research.
Jerom P. M. Aerts, Steffi Uhlemann-Elmer, Dirk Eilander, and Philip J. Ward
Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 20, 3245–3260, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-20-3245-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-20-3245-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
We compare and analyse flood hazard maps from eight global flood models that represent the current state of the global flood modelling community. We apply our comparison to China as a case study, and for the first time, we include industry models, pluvial flooding, and flood protection standards. We find substantial variability between the flood hazard maps in the modelled inundated area and exposed gross domestic product (GDP) across multiple return periods and in expected annual exposed GDP.
Sneha Chevuru, Rens L. P. H. van Beek, Michelle T. H. van Vliet, Jerom P. M. Aerts, and Marc F. P. Bierkens
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 29, 4219–4239, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-29-4219-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-29-4219-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
This study combines the global hydrological model
PCRaster Global Water Balancewith the
World Food Studiescrop model to analyze feedbacks between hydrology and crop growth. It quantifies one-way and two-way interactions, revealing patterns in crop yield and irrigation water use. Dynamic interactions enhance understanding of climate variability impacts on food production, highlighting the importance of two-way model coupling for accurate assessments.
Yanchen Zheng, Gemma Coxon, Mostaquimur Rahman, Ross Woods, Saskia Salwey, Youtong Rong, and Doris E. Wendt
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 4247–4271, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-4247-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-4247-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Groundwater is vital for people and ecosystems, but most physical models lack the representation of surface–groundwater interactions, leading to inaccurate streamflow predictions in groundwater-rich areas. This study presents DECIPHeR-GW v1, which links surface and groundwater systems to improve predictions of streamflow and groundwater levels. Tested across England and Wales, DECIPHeR-GW shows high accuracy, especially in southeast England, making it a valuable tool for large-scale water management.
William Veness, Alejandro Dussaillant, Gemma Coxon, Simon De Stercke, Gareth H. Old, Matthew Fry, Jonathan G. Evans, and Wouter Buytaert
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2035, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2035, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
We investigated what users want from the next-generation of hydrological monitoring systems to better support science and innovation. Through literature review and interviews with experts, we found that beyond providing high-quality data, users particularly value additional support for collecting their own data, sharing it with others, and building collaborations with other data users. Designing systems with these needs in mind can greatly boost long-term engagement, data coverage and impact.
Luuk D. van der Valk, Oscar K. Hartogensis, Miriam Coenders-Gerrits, Rolf W. Hut, and Remko Uijlenhoet
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1128, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1128, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Commercial microwave links (CMLs), part of mobile phone networks, transmit comparable signals as instruments specially designed to estimate evaporation. Therefore, we investigate if CMLs could be used to estimate evaporation, even though they have not been designed for this purpose. Our results illustrate the potential of using CMLs to estimate evaporation, especially given their global coverage, but also outline some major drawbacks, often a consequence of unfavourable design choices for CMLs.
Constantijn G. B. ter Horst, Gijs A. Vis, Judith Jongen-Boekee, Marie-Claire ten Veldhuis, Rolf W. Hut, and Bas J. H. van de Wiel
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1397, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1397, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Grass has very strong insulating properties, which results in very large vertical air temperature differences in the relatively short canopy of around 10 cm. Accurately measuring this gradient within, and just above the grass is an open challenge in the field of atmospheric physics. In this paper we present a new, openly accessible and adaptable general method to probe vertical temperature profiles close to a mm vertical resolution, on the basis of Distributed Temperature Sensing (DTS).
Doris Elise Wendt, Gemma Coxon, Saskia Salwey, and Francesca Pianosi
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1645, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1645, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Groundwater is a highly-used water source, which drought management is complicated. We introduce a socio-hydrological water resource model (SHOWER) to aid drought management in groundwater-rich managed environments. Results show which and when drought management interventions influence surface water and groundwater storage, with integrated interventions having most effect on reducing droughts. This encourages further exploration to reduce water shortages and improve future drought resilience.
Barry van Jaarsveld, Niko Wanders, Edwin H. Sutanudjaja, Jannis Hoch, Bram Droppers, Joren Janzing, Rens L. P. H. van Beek, and Marc F. P. Bierkens
Earth Syst. Dynam., 16, 29–54, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-16-29-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-16-29-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Policy makers use global hydrological models to develop water management strategies and policies. However, it would be better if these models provided information at higher resolution. We present a first-of-its-kind, truly global hyper-resolution model and show that hyper-resolution brings about better estimates of river discharge, and this is especially true for smaller catchments. Our results also suggest that future hyper-resolution models need to include more detailed land cover information.
Luuk D. van der Valk, Oscar K. Hartogensis, Miriam Coenders-Gerrits, Rolf W. Hut, Bas Walraven, and Remko Uijlenhoet
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2974, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2974, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Commercial microwave links (CMLs), part of mobile phone networks, transmit comparable signals as instruments specially designed to estimate evaporation. Therefore, we investigate if CMLs could be used to estimate evaporation, even though they have not been designed for this purpose. Our results illustrate the potential of using CMLs to estimate evaporation, especially given their global coverage, but also outline some major drawbacks, often a consequence of unfavourable design choices for CMLs.
Saskia Salwey, Gemma Coxon, Francesca Pianosi, Rosanna Lane, Chris Hutton, Michael Bliss Singer, Hilary McMillan, and Jim Freer
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 28, 4203–4218, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-4203-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-4203-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Reservoirs are essential for water resource management and can significantly impact downstream flow. However, representing reservoirs in hydrological models can be challenging, particularly across large scales. We design a new and simple method for simulating river flow downstream of water supply reservoirs using only open-access data. We demonstrate the approach in 264 reservoir catchments across Great Britain, where we can significantly improve the simulation of reservoir-impacted flow.
Safaa Naffaa, Frances F. E. Dunne, Jannis Hoch, Geert Sterk, Steven S. M. de Jong, and Rens L. P. H. van Beek
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2024-255, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2024-255, 2024
Revised manuscript under review for HESS
Short summary
Short summary
This paper introduces the RDSM model. Human impacts such as climate change, land cover change and reservoir construction can be explicitly modelled and evaluated. We applied RDSM to the Amazon. We also validated the model and we conclude that RDSM effectively represents the patterns of monthly and annual variations of discharge and sediment transport across the Amazon Basin and to the ocean. Our findings are relevant to the research community working on the Amazon Basin and on similar topics.
Henry M. Zimba, Miriam Coenders-Gerrits, Kawawa E. Banda, Petra Hulsman, Nick van de Giesen, Imasiku A. Nyambe, and Hubert H. G. Savenije
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 28, 3633–3663, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-3633-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-3633-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
The fall and flushing of new leaves in the miombo woodlands co-occur in the dry season before the commencement of seasonal rainfall. The miombo species are also said to have access to soil moisture in deep soils, including groundwater in the dry season. Satellite-based evaporation estimates, temporal trends, and magnitudes differ the most in the dry season, most likely due to inadequate understanding and representation of the highlighted miombo species attributes in simulations.
Luuk D. van der Valk, Miriam Coenders-Gerrits, Rolf W. Hut, Aart Overeem, Bas Walraven, and Remko Uijlenhoet
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 17, 2811–2832, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-17-2811-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-17-2811-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Microwave links, often part of mobile phone networks, can be used to measure rainfall along the link path by determining the signal loss caused by rainfall. We use high-frequency data of multiple microwave links to recreate commonly used sampling strategies. For time intervals up to 1 min, the influence of sampling strategies on estimated rainfall intensities is relatively little, while for intervals longer than 5–15 min, the sampling strategy can have significant influences on the estimates.
Yanchen Zheng, Gemma Coxon, Ross Woods, Daniel Power, Miguel Angel Rico-Ramirez, David McJannet, Rafael Rosolem, Jianzhu Li, and Ping Feng
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 28, 1999–2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-1999-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-1999-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Reanalysis soil moisture products are a vital basis for hydrological and environmental research. Previous product evaluation is limited by the scale difference (point and grid scale). This paper adopts cosmic ray neutron sensor observations, a novel technique that provides root-zone soil moisture at field scale. In this paper, global harmonized CRNS observations were used to assess products. ERA5-Land, SMAPL4, CFSv2, CRA40 and GLEAM show better performance than MERRA2, GLDAS-Noah and JRA55.
Jessica A. Eisma, Gerrit Schoups, Jeffrey C. Davids, and Nick van de Giesen
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 27, 3565–3579, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-27-3565-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-27-3565-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Citizen scientists often submit high-quality data, but a robust method for assessing data quality is needed. This study develops a semi-automated program that characterizes the mistakes made by citizen scientists by grouping them into communities of citizen scientists with similar mistake tendencies and flags potentially erroneous data for further review. This work may help citizen science programs assess the quality of their data and can inform training practices.
Kathryn A. Leeming, John P. Bloomfield, Gemma Coxon, and Yanchen Zheng
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2023-202, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2023-202, 2023
Preprint withdrawn
Short summary
Short summary
In this work we characterise annual patterns in baseflow, the component of streamflow that comes from subsurface storage. Our research identified early-, mid-, and late-seasonality of baseflow across catchments in Great Britain over two time blocks: 1976–1995 and 1996–2015, and found that many catchments have earlier seasonal patterns of baseflow in the second time period. These changes are linked to changes in climate signals: snow-melt in highland catchments and effective rainfall changes.
Heidi Kreibich, Kai Schröter, Giuliano Di Baldassarre, Anne F. Van Loon, Maurizio Mazzoleni, Guta Wakbulcho Abeshu, Svetlana Agafonova, Amir AghaKouchak, Hafzullah Aksoy, Camila Alvarez-Garreton, Blanca Aznar, Laila Balkhi, Marlies H. Barendrecht, Sylvain Biancamaria, Liduin Bos-Burgering, Chris Bradley, Yus Budiyono, Wouter Buytaert, Lucinda Capewell, Hayley Carlson, Yonca Cavus, Anaïs Couasnon, Gemma Coxon, Ioannis Daliakopoulos, Marleen C. de Ruiter, Claire Delus, Mathilde Erfurt, Giuseppe Esposito, Didier François, Frédéric Frappart, Jim Freer, Natalia Frolova, Animesh K. Gain, Manolis Grillakis, Jordi Oriol Grima, Diego A. Guzmán, Laurie S. Huning, Monica Ionita, Maxim Kharlamov, Dao Nguyen Khoi, Natalie Kieboom, Maria Kireeva, Aristeidis Koutroulis, Waldo Lavado-Casimiro, Hong-Yi Li, Maria Carmen LLasat, David Macdonald, Johanna Mård, Hannah Mathew-Richards, Andrew McKenzie, Alfonso Mejia, Eduardo Mario Mendiondo, Marjolein Mens, Shifteh Mobini, Guilherme Samprogna Mohor, Viorica Nagavciuc, Thanh Ngo-Duc, Huynh Thi Thao Nguyen, Pham Thi Thao Nhi, Olga Petrucci, Nguyen Hong Quan, Pere Quintana-Seguí, Saman Razavi, Elena Ridolfi, Jannik Riegel, Md Shibly Sadik, Nivedita Sairam, Elisa Savelli, Alexey Sazonov, Sanjib Sharma, Johanna Sörensen, Felipe Augusto Arguello Souza, Kerstin Stahl, Max Steinhausen, Michael Stoelzle, Wiwiana Szalińska, Qiuhong Tang, Fuqiang Tian, Tamara Tokarczyk, Carolina Tovar, Thi Van Thu Tran, Marjolein H. J. van Huijgevoort, Michelle T. H. van Vliet, Sergiy Vorogushyn, Thorsten Wagener, Yueling Wang, Doris E. Wendt, Elliot Wickham, Long Yang, Mauricio Zambrano-Bigiarini, and Philip J. Ward
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 15, 2009–2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-15-2009-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-15-2009-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
As the adverse impacts of hydrological extremes increase in many regions of the world, a better understanding of the drivers of changes in risk and impacts is essential for effective flood and drought risk management. We present a dataset containing data of paired events, i.e. two floods or two droughts that occurred in the same area. The dataset enables comparative analyses and allows detailed context-specific assessments. Additionally, it supports the testing of socio-hydrological models.
Henry Zimba, Miriam Coenders-Gerrits, Kawawa Banda, Bart Schilperoort, Nick van de Giesen, Imasiku Nyambe, and Hubert H. G. Savenije
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 27, 1695–1722, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-27-1695-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-27-1695-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Miombo woodland plants continue to lose water even during the driest part of the year. This appears to be facilitated by the adapted features such as deep rooting (beyond 5 m) with access to deep soil moisture, potentially even ground water. It appears the trend and amount of water that the plants lose is correlated more to the available energy. This loss of water in the dry season by miombo woodland plants appears to be incorrectly captured by satellite-based evaporation estimates.
Jannis M. Hoch, Edwin H. Sutanudjaja, Niko Wanders, Rens L. P. H. van Beek, and Marc F. P. Bierkens
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 27, 1383–1401, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-27-1383-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-27-1383-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
To facilitate locally relevant simulations over large areas, global hydrological models (GHMs) have moved towards ever finer spatial resolutions. After a decade-long quest for hyper-resolution (i.e. equal to or smaller than 1 km), the presented work is a first application of a GHM at 1 km resolution over Europe. This not only shows that hyper-resolution can be achieved but also allows for a thorough evaluation of model results at unprecedented detail and the formulation of future research.
Louisa D. Oldham, Jim Freer, Gemma Coxon, Nicholas Howden, John P. Bloomfield, and Christopher Jackson
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 27, 761–781, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-27-761-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-27-761-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Water can move between river catchments via the subsurface, termed intercatchment groundwater flow (IGF). We show how a perceptual model of IGF can be developed with relatively simple geological interpretation and data requirements. We find that IGF dynamics vary in space, correlated to the dominant underlying geology. We recommend that IGF
loss functionsmay be used in conceptual rainfall–runoff models but should be supported by perceptualisation of IGF processes and connectivities.
Sarah Shannon, Anthony Payne, Jim Freer, Gemma Coxon, Martina Kauzlaric, David Kriegel, and Stephan Harrison
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 27, 453–480, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-27-453-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-27-453-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Climate change poses a potential threat to water supply in glaciated river catchments. In this study, we added a snowmelt and glacier melt model to the Dynamic fluxEs and ConnectIvity for Predictions of HydRology model (DECIPHeR). The model is applied to the Naryn River catchment in central Asia and is found to reproduce past change discharge and the spatial extent of seasonal snow cover well.
Pau Wiersma, Jerom Aerts, Harry Zekollari, Markus Hrachowitz, Niels Drost, Matthias Huss, Edwin H. Sutanudjaja, and Rolf Hut
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 26, 5971–5986, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-5971-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-5971-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
We test whether coupling a global glacier model (GloGEM) with a global hydrological model (PCR-GLOBWB 2) leads to a more realistic glacier representation and to improved basin runoff simulations across 25 large-scale basins. The coupling does lead to improved glacier representation, mainly by accounting for glacier flow and net glacier mass loss, and to improved basin runoff simulations, mostly in strongly glacier-influenced basins, which is where the coupling has the most impact.
Rosanna A. Lane, Gemma Coxon, Jim Freer, Jan Seibert, and Thorsten Wagener
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 26, 5535–5554, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-5535-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-5535-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
This study modelled the impact of climate change on river high flows across Great Britain (GB). Generally, results indicated an increase in the magnitude and frequency of high flows along the west coast of GB by 2050–2075. In contrast, average flows decreased across GB. All flow projections contained large uncertainties; the climate projections were the largest source of uncertainty overall but hydrological modelling uncertainties were considerable in some regions.
Jerom P. M. Aerts, Rolf W. Hut, Nick C. van de Giesen, Niels Drost, Willem J. van Verseveld, Albrecht H. Weerts, and Pieter Hazenberg
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 26, 4407–4430, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-4407-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-4407-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
In recent years gridded hydrological modelling moved into the realm of hyper-resolution modelling (<10 km). In this study, we investigate the effect of varying grid-cell sizes for the wflow_sbm hydrological model. We used a large sample of basins from the CAMELS data set to test the effect that varying grid-cell sizes has on the simulation of streamflow at the basin outlet. Results show that there is no single best grid-cell size for modelling streamflow throughout the domain.
Rolf Hut, Niels Drost, Nick van de Giesen, Ben van Werkhoven, Banafsheh Abdollahi, Jerom Aerts, Thomas Albers, Fakhereh Alidoost, Bouwe Andela, Jaro Camphuijsen, Yifat Dzigan, Ronald van Haren, Eric Hutton, Peter Kalverla, Maarten van Meersbergen, Gijs van den Oord, Inti Pelupessy, Stef Smeets, Stefan Verhoeven, Martine de Vos, and Berend Weel
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 5371–5390, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-5371-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-5371-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
With the eWaterCycle platform, we are providing the hydrological community with a platform to conduct their research that is fully compatible with the principles of both open science and FAIR science. The eWatercyle platform gives easy access to well-known hydrological models, big datasets and example experiments. Using eWaterCycle hydrologists can easily compare the results from different models, couple models and do more complex hydrological computational research.
Henry Zimba, Miriam Coenders-Gerrits, Kawawa Banda, Petra Hulsman, Nick van de Giesen, Imasiku Nyambe, and Hubert Savenije
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2022-114, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2022-114, 2022
Manuscript not accepted for further review
Short summary
Short summary
We compare performance of evaporation models in the Luangwa Basin located in a semi-arid and complex Miombo ecosystem in Africa. Miombo plants changes colour, drop off leaves and acquire new leaves during the dry season. In addition, the plant roots go deep in the soil and appear to access groundwater. Results show that evaporation models with structure and process that do not capture this unique plant structure and behaviour appears to have difficulties to correctly estimating evaporation.
Paul C. Vermunt, Susan C. Steele-Dunne, Saeed Khabbazan, Jasmeet Judge, and Nick C. van de Giesen
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 26, 1223–1241, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-1223-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-1223-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
This study investigates the use of hydrometeorological sensors to reconstruct variations in internal vegetation water content of corn and relates these variations to the sub-daily behaviour of polarimetric L-band backscatter. The results show significant sensitivity of backscatter to the daily cycles of vegetation water content and dew, particularly on dry days and for vertical and cross-polarizations, which demonstrates the potential for using radar for studies on vegetation water dynamics.
Caitlyn A. Hall, Sheila M. Saia, Andrea L. Popp, Nilay Dogulu, Stanislaus J. Schymanski, Niels Drost, Tim van Emmerik, and Rolf Hut
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 26, 647–664, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-647-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-647-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Impactful open, accessible, reusable, and reproducible hydrologic research practices are being embraced by individuals and the community, but taking the plunge can seem overwhelming. We present the Open Hydrology Principles and Practical Guide to help hydrologists move toward open science, research, and education. We discuss the benefits and how hydrologists can overcome common challenges. We encourage all hydrologists to join the open science community (https://open-hydrology.github.io).
Wouter Dorigo, Irene Himmelbauer, Daniel Aberer, Lukas Schremmer, Ivana Petrakovic, Luca Zappa, Wolfgang Preimesberger, Angelika Xaver, Frank Annor, Jonas Ardö, Dennis Baldocchi, Marco Bitelli, Günter Blöschl, Heye Bogena, Luca Brocca, Jean-Christophe Calvet, J. Julio Camarero, Giorgio Capello, Minha Choi, Michael C. Cosh, Nick van de Giesen, Istvan Hajdu, Jaakko Ikonen, Karsten H. Jensen, Kasturi Devi Kanniah, Ileen de Kat, Gottfried Kirchengast, Pankaj Kumar Rai, Jenni Kyrouac, Kristine Larson, Suxia Liu, Alexander Loew, Mahta Moghaddam, José Martínez Fernández, Cristian Mattar Bader, Renato Morbidelli, Jan P. Musial, Elise Osenga, Michael A. Palecki, Thierry Pellarin, George P. Petropoulos, Isabella Pfeil, Jarrett Powers, Alan Robock, Christoph Rüdiger, Udo Rummel, Michael Strobel, Zhongbo Su, Ryan Sullivan, Torbern Tagesson, Andrej Varlagin, Mariette Vreugdenhil, Jeffrey Walker, Jun Wen, Fred Wenger, Jean Pierre Wigneron, Mel Woods, Kun Yang, Yijian Zeng, Xiang Zhang, Marek Zreda, Stephan Dietrich, Alexander Gruber, Peter van Oevelen, Wolfgang Wagner, Klaus Scipal, Matthias Drusch, and Roberto Sabia
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 25, 5749–5804, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-5749-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-5749-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
The International Soil Moisture Network (ISMN) is a community-based open-access data portal for soil water measurements taken at the ground and is accessible at https://ismn.earth. Over 1000 scientific publications and thousands of users have made use of the ISMN. The scope of this paper is to inform readers about the data and functionality of the ISMN and to provide a review of the scientific progress facilitated through the ISMN with the scope to shape future research and operations.
Thomas Lees, Marcus Buechel, Bailey Anderson, Louise Slater, Steven Reece, Gemma Coxon, and Simon J. Dadson
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 25, 5517–5534, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-5517-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-5517-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
We used deep learning (DL) models to simulate the amount of water moving through a river channel (discharge) based on the rainfall, temperature and potential evaporation in the previous days. We tested the DL models on catchments across Great Britain finding that the model can accurately simulate hydrological systems across a variety of catchment conditions. Ultimately, the model struggled most in areas where there is chalky bedrock and where human influence on the catchment is large.
John P. Bloomfield, Mengyi Gong, Benjamin P. Marchant, Gemma Coxon, and Nans Addor
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 25, 5355–5379, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-5355-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-5355-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Groundwater provides flow, known as baseflow, to surface streams and rivers. It is important as it sustains the flow of many rivers at times of water stress. However, it may be affected by water management practices. Statistical models have been used to show that abstraction of groundwater may influence baseflow. Consequently, it is recommended that information on groundwater abstraction is included in future assessments and predictions of baseflow.
Didier de Villiers, Marc Schleiss, Marie-Claire ten Veldhuis, Rolf Hut, and Nick van de Giesen
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 14, 5607–5623, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-14-5607-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-14-5607-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Ground-based rainfall observations across the African continent are sparse. We present a new and inexpensive rainfall measuring instrument (the intervalometer) and use it to derive reasonably accurate rainfall rates. These are dependent on a fundamental assumption that is widely used in parameterisations of the rain drop size distribution. This assumption is tested and found to not apply for most raindrops but is still useful in deriving rainfall rates. The intervalometer shows good potential.
Jerom P. M. Aerts, Steffi Uhlemann-Elmer, Dirk Eilander, and Philip J. Ward
Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 20, 3245–3260, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-20-3245-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-20-3245-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
We compare and analyse flood hazard maps from eight global flood models that represent the current state of the global flood modelling community. We apply our comparison to China as a case study, and for the first time, we include industry models, pluvial flooding, and flood protection standards. We find substantial variability between the flood hazard maps in the modelled inundated area and exposed gross domestic product (GDP) across multiple return periods and in expected annual exposed GDP.
Moctar Dembélé, Bettina Schaefli, Nick van de Giesen, and Grégoire Mariéthoz
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 24, 5379–5406, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-24-5379-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-24-5379-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
This study evaluates 102 combinations of rainfall and temperature datasets from satellite and reanalysis sources as input to a fully distributed hydrological model. The model is recalibrated for each input dataset, and the outputs are evaluated with streamflow, evaporation, soil moisture and terrestrial water storage data. Results show that no single rainfall or temperature dataset consistently ranks first in reproducing the spatio-temporal variability of all hydrological processes.
Rolf Hut, Thanda Thatoe Nwe Win, and Thom Bogaard
Geosci. Instrum. Method. Data Syst., 9, 435–442, https://doi.org/10.5194/gi-9-435-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/gi-9-435-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
GPS drifters that float down rivers are important tools in studying rivers, but they can be expensive. Recently, both GPS receivers and cellular modems have become available at lower prices to tinkering scientists due to the rise of open hardware and the Arduino. We provide detailed instructions on how to build a low-power GPS drifter with local storage and a cellular model that we tested in a fieldwork in Myanmar. These instructions allow fellow geoscientists to recreate the device.
Justus G. V. van Ramshorst, Miriam Coenders-Gerrits, Bart Schilperoort, Bas J. H. van de Wiel, Jonathan G. Izett, John S. Selker, Chad W. Higgins, Hubert H. G. Savenije, and Nick C. van de Giesen
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 13, 5423–5439, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-13-5423-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-13-5423-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
In this work we present experimental results of a novel actively heated fiber-optic (AHFO) observational wind-probing technique. We utilized a controlled wind-tunnel setup to assess both the accuracy and precision of AHFO under a range of operational conditions (wind speed, angles of attack and temperature differences). AHFO has the potential to provide high-resolution distributed observations of wind speeds, allowing for better spatial characterization of fine-scale processes.
Gemma Coxon, Nans Addor, John P. Bloomfield, Jim Freer, Matt Fry, Jamie Hannaford, Nicholas J. K. Howden, Rosanna Lane, Melinda Lewis, Emma L. Robinson, Thorsten Wagener, and Ross Woods
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 12, 2459–2483, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-12-2459-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-12-2459-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
We present the first large-sample catchment hydrology dataset for Great Britain. The dataset collates river flows, catchment attributes, and catchment boundaries for 671 catchments across Great Britain. We characterise the topography, climate, streamflow, land cover, soils, hydrogeology, human influence, and discharge uncertainty of each catchment. The dataset is publicly available for the community to use in a wide range of environmental and modelling analyses.
Cited articles
Addor, N., Newman, A. J., Mizukami, N., and Clark, M. P.: The CAMELS data set: catchment attributes and meteorology for large-sample studies, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 21, 5293–5313, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-21-5293-2017, 2017. a
Addor, N., Do, H. X., Alvarez-Garreton, C., Coxon, G., Fowler, K., and Mendoza, P. A.: Large-sample hydrology: recent progress, guidelines for new datasets and grand challenges, Hydrolog. Sci. J., 65, 712–725, https://doi.org/10.1080/02626667.2019.1683182, 2020. a
Aerts, J.: jeromaerts/CAMELS-GB_Comparison_Uncertainty: Initial Zenodo Commit, Zenodo [code], https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7956488, 2023. a
Aerts, J.: Results Discharge Observation Uncertainty and Model Performance Pub (Version v1), Zenodo [data set], https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14186584, 2024. a
Aerts, J. P. M., Hut, R. W., van de Giesen, N. C., Drost, N., van Verseveld, W. J., Weerts, A. H., and Hazenberg, P.: Large-sample assessment of varying spatial resolution on the streamflow estimates of the wflow_sbm hydrological model, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 26, 4407–4430, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-4407-2022, 2022. a
Andréassian, V., Hall, A., Chahinian, N., and Schaake, J.: Introduction and synthesis: Why should hydrologists work on a large number of basin data sets?, in: Large sample basin experiments for hydrological parametrization: results of the models parameter experiment – MOPEX, IAHS Red Books Series no. 307, 1–5, AISH, https://hal.inrae.fr/hal-02588687 (last access: October 2023), 2006. a
Balin, D., Lee, H., and Rode, M.: Is point uncertain rainfall likely to have a great impact on distributed complex hydrological modeling?, Water Resour. Res., 46, W11520, https://doi.org/10.1029/2009WR007848, 2010. a
Bárdossy, A. and Anwar, F.: Why do our rainfall–runoff models keep underestimating the peak flows?, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 27, 1987–2000, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-27-1987-2023, 2023. a, b
Bárdossy, A. and Das, T.: Influence of rainfall observation network on model calibration and application, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 12, 77–89, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-12-77-2008, 2008. a
Bárdossy, A., Kilsby, C., Birkinshaw, S., Wang, N., and Anwar, F.: Is Precipitation Responsible for the Most Hydrological Model Uncertainty?, Frontiers in Water, 4, 836554, https://doi.org/10.3389/frwa.2022.836554, 2022. a
Beven, K.: A manifesto for the equifinality thesis, J. Hydrol., 320, 18–36, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2005.07.007, 2006. a, b, c
Beven, K.: Facets of uncertainty: epistemic uncertainty, non-stationarity, likelihood, hypothesis testing, and communication, Hydrolog. Sci. J., 61, 1652–1665, https://doi.org/10.1080/02626667.2015.1031761, 2016. a
Beven, K.: An epistemically uncertain walk through the rather fuzzy subject of observation and model uncertainties1, Hydrol. Process., 35, e14012, https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.14012, 2021. a
Beven, K.: Benchmarking hydrological models for an uncertain future, Hydrol. Process., 37, e14882, https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.14882, 2023. a
Beven, K. and Binley, A.: The future of distributed models: Model calibration and uncertainty prediction, Hydrol. Process., 6, 279–298, https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.3360060305, 1992. a
Beven, K. and Freer, J.: Equifinality, data assimilation, and uncertainty estimation in mechanistic modelling of complex environmental systems using the GLUE methodology, J. Hydrol., 249, 11–29, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1694(01)00421-8, 2001. a, b, c, d
Beven, K. and Lane, S.: Invalidation of Models and Fitness-for-Purpose: A Rejectionist Approach, in: Computer Simulation Validation: Fundamental Concepts, Methodological Frameworks, and Philosophical Perspectives, edited by: Beisbart, C. and Saam, N. J., Simulation Foundations, Methods and Applications, Springer International Publishing, Cham, 145–171, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-70766-2_6, 2019. a
Beven, K. and Lane, S.: On (in)validating environmental models. 1. Principles for formulating a Turing-like Test for determining when a model is fit-for purpose, Hydrol. Process., 36, e14704, https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.14704, 2022. a, b
Beven, K. and Smith, P.: Concepts of Information Content and Likelihood in Parameter Calibration for Hydrological Simulation Models, J. Hydrol. Eng., 20, A4014010, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)HE.1943-5584.0000991, 2015. a, b, c
Beven, K., Smith, P. J., and Wood, A.: On the colour and spin of epistemic error (and what we might do about it), Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 15, 3123–3133, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-15-3123-2011, 2011. a, b
Beven, K., Lane, S., Page, T., Kretzschmar, A., Hankin, B., Smith, P., and Chappell, N.: On (in)validating environmental models. 2. Implementation of a Turing-like test to modelling hydrological processes, Hydrol. Process., 36, e14703, https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.14703, 2022. a, b
Blazkova, S. and Beven, K.: A limits of acceptability approach to model evaluation and uncertainty estimation in flood frequency estimation by continuous simulation: Skalka catchment, Czech Republic, Water Resour. Res., 45, W00B16, https://doi.org/10.1029/2007WR006726, 2009. a
Butts, M. B., Payne, J. T., Kristensen, M., and Madsen, H.: An evaluation of the impact of model structure on hydrological modelling uncertainty for streamflow simulation, J. Hydrol., 298, 242–266, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2004.03.042, 2004. a
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., 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, 2021. a, b, c, d
Coxon, G., Addor, N., Bloomfield, J. P., Freer, J., Fry, M., Hannaford, J., Howden, N. J. K., Lane, R., Lewis, M., Robinson, E. L., Wagener, T., and Woods, R.: CAMELS-GB: hydrometeorological time series and landscape attributes for 671 catchments in Great Britain, Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 12, 2459–2483, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-12-2459-2020, 2020. a, b
Coxon, G., Addor, N., Bloomfield, J. P., Freer, J., Fry, M., Hannaford, J., Howden, N. J. K., Lane, R., Lewis, M., Robinson, E. L., Wagener, T., and Woods, R.: Catchment attributes and hydro-meteorological timeseries for 671 catchments across Great Britain (CAMELS-GB), NERC Environmental Information Data Centre, https://doi.org/10.5285/8344e4f3-d2ea-44f5-8afa-86d2987543a9, 2020. a
Croke, B. F. W. and Jakeman, A. J.: A catchment moisture deficit module for the IHACRES rainfall-runoff model, Environ. Modell Softw., 19, 1–5, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2003.09.001, 2004. a
Dobler, C., Hagemann, S., Wilby, R. L., and Stötter, J.: Quantifying different sources of uncertainty in hydrological projections in an Alpine watershed, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 16, 4343–4360, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-16-4343-2012, 2012. a
Efron, B.: Bootstrap Methods: Another Look at the Jackknife, Ann. Stat., 7, 1–26, https://doi.org/10.1214/aos/1176344552, 1979. a
Efron, B. and Tibshirani, R.: Bootstrap Methods for Standard Errors, Confidence Intervals, and Other Measures of Statistical Accuracy, Stat. Sci., 1, 54–75, https://doi.org/10.1214/ss/1177013815, 1986. a
Eilander, D. and Boisgontier, H.: hydroMT, Zenodo [code], https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6107669, 2022. a
Eilander, D., van Verseveld, W., Yamazaki, D., Weerts, A., Winsemius, H. C., and Ward, P. J.: A hydrography upscaling method for scale-invariant parametrization of distributed hydrological models, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 25, 5287–5313, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-5287-2021, 2021. a
Feddes, R. A. and Zaradny, H.: Model for simulating soil-water content considering evapotranspiration – Comments, J. Hydrol., 37, 393–397, https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1694(78)90030-6, 1978. a
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, 2023. a
Gash, J. H. C.: An analytical model of rainfall interception by forests, Q. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 105, 43–55, https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.49710544304, 1979. a
Gupta, A. and Govindaraju, R. S.: Propagation of structural uncertainty in watershed hydrologic models, J. Hydrol., 575, 66–81, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2019.05.026, 2019. a
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
Hansen, N.: The CMA Evolution Strategy: A Comparing Review, in: Towards a New Evolutionary Computation: Advances in the Estimation of Distribution Algorithms, edited by: Lozano, J. A., Larrañaga, P., Inza, I., and Bengoetxea, E., Studies in Fuzziness and Soft Computing, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 75–102, https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-32494-1_4, 2006. a
Hansen, N. and Ostermeier, A.: Completely Derandomized Self-Adaptation in Evolution Strategies, Evol. Comput., 9, 159–195, https://doi.org/10.1162/106365601750190398, 2001. a
Hansen, N., Müller, S. D., and Koumoutsakos, P.: Reducing the time complexity of the derandomized evolution strategy with covariance matrix adaptation (CMA-ES), Evol. Comput., 11, 1–18, https://doi.org/10.1162/106365603321828970, 2003. a
Hattermann, F. F., Vetter, T., Breuer, L., Su, B., Daggupati, P., Donnelly, C., Fekete, B., Flörke, F., Gosling, S. N., Hoffmann, P., Liersch, S., Masaki, Y., Motovilov, Y., Müller, C., Samaniego, L., Stacke, T., Wada, Y., Yang, T., and Krysnaova, V.: Sources of uncertainty in hydrological climate impact assessment: a cross-scale study, Environ. Res. Lett., 13, 015006, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aa9938, 2018. a
Hoch, J. M., Sutanudjaja, E. H., Wanders, N., van Beek, R. L. P. H., and Bierkens, M. F. P.: Hyper-resolution PCR-GLOBWB: opportunities and challenges from refining model spatial resolution to 1 km over the European continent, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 27, 1383–1401, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-27-1383-2023, 2023. a, b
Huang, Y. and Bardossy, A.: Impacts of Data Quantity and Quality on Model Calibration: Implications for Model Parameterization in Data-Scarce Catchments, Water, 12, 2352, https://doi.org/10.3390/w12092352, 2020. a
Hut, R., Drost, N., van de Giesen, N., van Werkhoven, B., Abdollahi, B., Aerts, J., Albers, T., Alidoost, F., Andela, B., Camphuijsen, J., Dzigan, Y., van Haren, R., Hutton, E., Kalverla, P., van Meersbergen, M., van den Oord, G., Pelupessy, I., Smeets, S., Verhoeven, S., de Vos, M., and Weel, B.: The eWaterCycle platform for open and FAIR hydrological collaboration, Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 5371–5390, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-5371-2022, 2022. a
Imhoff, R. O., van Verseveld, W. J., van Osnabrugge, B., and Weerts, A. H.: Scaling Point-Scale (Pedo)transfer Functions to Seamless Large-Domain Parameter Estimates for High-Resolution Distributed Hydrologic Modeling: An Example for the Rhine River, Water Resour. Res., 56, e2019WR026807, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019WR026807, 2020. a, b
Jayawardena, A. W. and Zhou, M. C.: A modified spatial soil moisture storage capacity distribution curve for the Xinanjiang model, J. Hydrol., 227, 93–113, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1694(99)00173-0, 2000. a
Kauffeldt, A., Halldin, S., Rodhe, A., Xu, C.-Y., and Westerberg, I. K.: Disinformative data in large-scale hydrological modelling, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 17, 2845–2857, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-17-2845-2013, 2013. a
Kavetski, D., Kuczera, G., and Franks, S. W.: Bayesian analysis of input uncertainty in hydrological modeling: 1. Theory, Water Resour. Res., 42, W03407, https://doi.org/10.1029/2005WR004368, 2006a. a
Kavetski, D., Kuczera, G., and Franks, S. W.: Bayesian analysis of input uncertainty in hydrological modeling: 2. Application, Water Resour. Res., 42, W03408, https://doi.org/10.1029/2005WR004376, 2006b. a
Keller, V. D. J., Tanguy, M., Prosdocimi, I., Terry, J. A., Hitt, O., Cole, S. J., Fry, M., Morris, D. G., and Dixon, H.: CEH-GEAR: 1 km resolution daily and monthly areal rainfall estimates for the UK for hydrological and other applications, Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 7, 143–155, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-7-143-2015, 2015. a
Kirchner, J. W.: Getting the right answers for the right reasons: Linking measurements, analyses, and models to advance the science of hydrology, Water Resour. Res., 42, W03S04, https://doi.org/10.1029/2005WR004362, 2006. 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., 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, b
Knoben, W. J. M., Freer, J. E., Peel, M. C., Fowler, K. J. A., and Woods, R. A.: A Brief Analysis of Conceptual Model Structure Uncertainty Using 36 Models and 559 Catchments, Water Resour. Res., 56, e2019WR025975, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019WR025975, 2020. a, b, c, d
Kratzert, F., Nearing, G., Addor, N., et al.: Caravan – A global community dataset for large-sample hydrology, Sci. Data, 10, 61, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-023-01975-w, 2023. a
Lamontagne, J. R., Barber, C. A., and Vogel, R. M.: Improved Estimators of Model Performance Efficiency for Skewed Hydrologic Data, Water Resour. Res., 56, e2020WR027101, https://doi.org/10.1029/2020WR027101, 2020. a
Lane, R. A., Coxon, G., Freer, J. E., Wagener, T., Johnes, P. J., Bloomfield, J. P., Greene, S., Macleod, C. J. A., and Reaney, S. M.: Benchmarking the predictive capability of hydrological models for river flow and flood peak predictions across over 1000 catchments in Great Britain, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 23, 4011–4032, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-23-4011-2019, 2019. a, b
Liang, X., Lettenmaier, D. P., Wood, E. F., and Burges, S. J.: A simple hydrologically based model of land surface water and energy fluxes for general circulation models, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 99, 14415–14428, https://doi.org/10.1029/94JD00483, 1994. a
Lindström, G., Johansson, B., Persson, M., Gardelin, M., and Bergström, S.: Development and test of the distributed HBV-96 hydrological model, J. Hydrol., 201, 272–288, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1694(97)00041-3, 1997. a
Liu, Y. and Gupta, H. V.: Uncertainty in hydrologic modeling: Toward an integrated data assimilation framework, Water Resour. Res., 43, W07401, https://doi.org/10.1029/2006WR005756, 2007. a
Liu, Y., Freer, J., Beven, K., and Matgen, P.: Towards a limits of acceptability approach to the calibration of hydrological models: Extending observation error, J. Hydrol., 367, 93–103, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2009.01.016, 2009. a
McMillan, H., Freer, J., Pappenberger, F., Krueger, T., and Clark, M.: Impacts of uncertain river flow data on rainfall-runoff model calibration and discharge predictions, Hydrol. Process., 24, 1270–1284, https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.7587, 2010. a, b, c
McMillan, H., Jackson, B., Clark, M., Kavetski, D., and Woods, R.: Rainfall uncertainty in hydrological modelling: An evaluation of multiplicative error models, J. Hydrol., 400, 83–94, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2011.01.026, 2011. a
McMillan, H., Krueger, T., and Freer, J.: Benchmarking observational uncertainties for hydrology: rainfall, river discharge and water quality, Hydrol. Process., 26, 4078–4111, https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.9384, 2012. a
McMillan, H. K., Westerberg, I. K., and Krueger, T.: Hydrological data uncertainty and its implications, WIREs Water, 5, e1319, https://doi.org/10.1002/wat2.1319, 2018. a, b
Mizukami, N., Clark, M. P., Newman, A. J., Wood, A. W., Gutmann, E. D., Nijssen, B., Rakovec, O., and Samaniego, L.: Towards seamless large-domain parameter estimation for hydrologic models, Water Resour. Res., 53, 8020–8040, https://doi.org/10.1002/2017WR020401, 2017. a
Moges, E., Demissie, Y., Larsen, L., and Yassin, F.: Review: Sources of Hydrological Model Uncertainties and Advances in Their Analysis, Water, 13, 28, https://doi.org/10.3390/w13010028, 2021. a
Montanari, A. and Di Baldassarre, G.: Data errors and hydrological modelling: The role of model structure to propagate observation uncertainty, Adv. Water Resour., 51, 498–504, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advwatres.2012.09.007, 2013. a
Montanari, A. and Grossi, G.: Estimating the uncertainty of hydrological forecasts: A statistical approach, Water Resour. Res., 44, W00B08, https://doi.org/10.1029/2008WR006897, 2008. a
Montanari, A. and Toth, E.: Calibration of hydrological models in the spectral domain: An opportunity for scarcely gauged basins?, Water Resour. Res., 43, W05434, https://doi.org/10.1029/2006WR005184, 2007. a
Nash, J. E. and Sutcliffe, J. V.: 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
Pappenberger, F. and Beven, K. J.: Ignorance is bliss: Or seven reasons not to use uncertainty analysis, Water Resour. Res., 42, W05302, https://doi.org/10.1029/2005WR004820, 2006. a, b
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
Pool, S., Vis, M., and Seibert, J.: Evaluating model performance: towards a non-parametric variant of the Kling–Gupta efficiency, Hydrolog. Sci. J., 63, 1941–1953, https://doi.org/10.1080/02626667.2018.1552002, 2018. a, b
Rakovec, O., Mizukami, N., Kumar, R., Newman, A. J., Thober, S., Wood, A. W., Clark, M. P., and Samaniego, L.: Diagnostic Evaluation of Large-Domain Hydrologic Models Calibrated Across the Contiguous United States, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 124, 13991–14007, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019JD030767, 2019. a
Renard, B., Kavetski, D., Kuczera, G., Thyer, M., and Franks, S. W.: Understanding predictive uncertainty in hydrologic modeling: The challenge of identifying input and structural errors, Water Resour. Res., 46, W05521, https://doi.org/10.1029/2009WR008328, 2010. a
Robinson, E. L., Blyth, E. M., Clark, D. B., Comyn-Platt, E., and Rudd, A. C.: Climate hydrology and ecology research support system meteorology dataset for Great Britain (1961–2017) [CHESS-met], https://doi.org/10.5285/2ab15bf0-ad08-415c-ba64-831168be7293, 2020a. a
Robinson, E. L., Blyth, E. M., Clark, D. B., Comyn-Platt, E., and Rudd, A. C. : Climate hydrology and ecology research support system potential evapotranspiration dataset for Great Britain (1961–2017) [CHESS-PE], https://doi.org/10.5285/9116e565-2c0a-455b-9c68-558fdd9179ad, 2020b. a
Samaniego, L., Kumar, R., and Attinger, S.: Multiscale parameter regionalization of a grid-based hydrologic model at the mesoscale, Water Resour. Res., 46, W05523, https://doi.org/10.1029/2008WR007327, 2010. a
Santos, L., Thirel, G., and Perrin, C.: Continuous state-space representation of a bucket-type rainfall-runoff model: a case study with the GR4 model using state-space GR4 (version 1.0), Geosci. Model Dev., 11, 1591–1605, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-1591-2018, 2018. a
Shabestanipour, G., Brodeur, Z., Farmer, W. H., Steinschneider, S., Vogel, R. M., and Lamontagne, J. R.: Stochastic Watershed Model Ensembles for Long-Range Planning: Verification and Validation, Water Resour. Res., 59, e2022WR032201, https://doi.org/10.1029/2022WR032201, 2023. a
Sutanudjaja, E. H., van Beek, R., Wanders, N., Wada, Y., Bosmans, J. H. C., Drost, N., van der Ent, R. J., de Graaf, I. E. M., Hoch, J. M., de Jong, K., Karssenberg, D., López López, P., Peßenteiner, S., Schmitz, O., Straatsma, M. W., Vannametee, E., Wisser, D., and Bierkens, M. F. P.: PCR-GLOBWB 2: a 5 arcmin global hydrological and water resources model, Geosci. Model Dev., 11, 2429–2453, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-2429-2018, 2018. a, b
Tan, B. Q. and O'Connor, K. M.: Application of an empirical infiltration equation in the SMAR conceptual model, J. Hydrol., 185, 275–295, https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1694(95)02993-1, 1996. a
Tanguy, M., Dixon, H., Prosdocimi, I., Morris, D. G., and Keller, V. D. J.: Gridded estimates of daily and monthly areal rainfall for the United Kingdom (1890–2019) [CEH-GEAR], NERC EDS Environmental Information Data Centre, https://doi.org/10.5285/dbf13dd5-90cd-457a-a986-f2f9dd97e93c, 2021. a
Thébault, C., Perrin, C., Andréassian, V., Thirel, G., Legrand, S., and Delaigue, O.: Impact of suspicious streamflow data on the efficiency and parameter estimates of rainfall–runoff models, Hydrolog. Sci. J., 68, 1627–1647, https://doi.org/10.1080/02626667.2023.2234893, 2023. a
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. a
Trotter, L., Knoben, W. J. M., Fowler, K. J. A., Saft, M., and Peel, M. C.: Modular Assessment of Rainfall–Runoff Models Toolbox (MARRMoT) v2.1: an object-oriented implementation of 47 established hydrological models for improved speed and readability, Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 6359–6369, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-6359-2022, 2022. a, b
van Verseveld, W. J., Weerts, A. H., Visser, M., Buitink, J., Imhoff, R. O., Boisgontier, H., Bouaziz, L., Eilander, D., Hegnauer, M., ten Velden, C., and Russell, B.: Wflow_sbm v0.7.3, a spatially distributed hydrological model: from global data to local applications, Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 3199–3234, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-3199-2024, 2024. a, b, c
Vertessy, R. A. and Elsenbeer, H.: Distributed modeling of storm flow generation in an Amazonian rain forest catchment: Effects of model parameterization, Water Resour. Res., 35, 2173–2187, https://doi.org/10.1029/1999WR900051, 1999. a
Vrugt, J. A., Diks, C. G. H., Gupta, H. V., Bouten, W., and Verstraten, J. M.: Improved treatment of uncertainty in hydrologic modeling: Combining the strengths of global optimization and data assimilation, Water Resour. Res., 41, W01017, https://doi.org/10.1029/2004WR003059, 2005. a
Westerberg, I. K., Sikorska-Senoner, A. E., Viviroli, D., Vis, M., and Seibert, J.: Hydrological model calibration with uncertain discharge data, Hydrolog. Sci. J., 67, 2441–2456, https://doi.org/10.1080/02626667.2020.1735638, 2020. a
Westerberg, I. K., Sikorska-Senoner, A. E., Viviroli, D., Vis, M., and Seibert, J.: Hydrological model calibration with uncertain discharge data, Hydrolog. Sci. J., 67, 2441–2456, https://doi.org/10.1080/02626667.2020.1735638, 2022. a
Wilkinson, M. D., Sansone, S.-A., Schultes, E., Doorn, P., Bonino da Silva Santos, L. O., and Dumontier, M.: A design framework and exemplar metrics for FAIRness, Scientific Data, 5, 180118, https://doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2018.118, 2018. a
Ye, W., Bates, B., Viney, N., Sivapalan, M., and Jakeman, A.: Performance of Conceptual Rainfall-Runoff Models in Low-Yielding Ephemeral Catchments, Water Resour. Res., 33, 153–166, https://doi.org/10.1029/96WR02840, 1997. a
Yew Gan, T., Dlamini, E. M., and Biftu, G. F.: Effects of model complexity and structure, data quality, and objective functions on hydrologic modeling, J. Hydrol., 192, 81–103, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1694(96)03114-9, 1997. a
Zhou, L., Liu, P., Gui, Z., Zhang, X., Liu, W., Cheng, L., and Xia, J.: Diagnosing structural deficiencies of a hydrological model by time-varying parameters, J. Hydrol., 605, 127305, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2021.127305, 2022. a
Short summary
For users of hydrological models, model suitability often hinges on how well simulated outputs match observed discharge. This study highlights the importance of including discharge observation uncertainty in hydrological model performance assessment. We highlight the need to account for this uncertainty in model comparisons and introduce a practical method suitable for any observational time series with available uncertainty estimates.
For users of hydrological models, model suitability often hinges on how well simulated outputs...
