Articles | Volume 29, issue 11
https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-29-2393-2025
© Author(s) 2025. 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-29-2393-2025
© Author(s) 2025. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Research article
| 
10 Jun 2025
Research article |
| 10 Jun 2025
| 10 Jun 2025
Skilful probabilistic predictions of UK flood risk months ahead using a large-sample machine learning model trained on multimodel ensemble climate forecasts
School of GeoSciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
School of Geography and the Environment, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
Louise Slater
School of Geography and the Environment, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
Louise Arnal
Ouranos, Montreal, Canada
Andrew W. Wood
Climate and Global Dynamics, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, CO, USA
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Colorado School of Mines, Golden, CO, USA
Related authors
Louise J. Slater, Louise Arnal, Marie-Amélie Boucher, Annie Y.-Y. Chang, Simon Moulds, Conor Murphy, Grey Nearing, Guy Shalev, Chaopeng Shen, Linda Speight, Gabriele Villarini, Robert L. Wilby, Andrew Wood, and Massimiliano Zappa
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 27, 1865–1889, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-27-1865-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-27-1865-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Hybrid forecasting systems combine data-driven methods with physics-based weather and climate models to improve the accuracy of predictions for meteorological and hydroclimatic events such as rainfall, temperature, streamflow, floods, droughts, tropical cyclones, or atmospheric rivers. We review recent developments in hybrid forecasting and outline key challenges and opportunities in the field.
Wouter J. M. Knoben, Ashwin Raman, Gaby J. Gründemann, Mukesh Kumar, Alain Pietroniro, Chaopeng Shen, Yalan Song, Cyril Thébault, Katie van Werkhoven, Andrew W. Wood, and Martyn P. Clark
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 29, 2361–2375, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-29-2361-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-29-2361-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Hydrologic models are needed to provide simulations of water availability, floods, and droughts. The accuracy of these simulations is often quantified with so-called performance scores. A common thought is that different models are more or less applicable to different landscapes, depending on how the model works. We show that performance scores are not helpful in distinguishing between different models and thus cannot easily be used to select an appropriate model for a specific place.
Emma Ford, Manuela I. Brunner, Hannah Christensen, and Louise Slater
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1493, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1493, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
This study aims to improve prediction and understanding of extreme flood events in UK near-natural catchments. We develop a machine learning framework to assess the contribution of different features to flood magnitude estimation. We find weather patterns are weak predictors and stress the importance of evaluating model performance across and within catchments.
Mozhgan A. Farahani, Andrew W. Wood, Guoqiang Tang, and Naoki Mizukami
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-38, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-38, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
We present a new strategy to calibrate large-domain land/hydrology models over diverse and extensive regions. Using SUMMA and mizuRoute models, our approach integrates catchment attributes, model parameters, and performance metrics to optimize streamflow simulations. By leveraging recent innovations in machine learning methods and concepts for hydrology, we improve calibration outcomes and enable regionalization to ungauged basins, which is valuable for national-scale water security studies.
Mari R. Tye, Ming Ge, Jadwiga H. Richter, Ethan D. Gutmann, Allyson Rugg, Cindy L. Bruyère, Sue Ellen Haupt, Flavio Lehner, Rachel McCrary, Andrew J. Newman, and Andy Wood
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 29, 1117–1133, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-29-1117-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-29-1117-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
There is a perceived mismatch between the spatial scales on which global climate models can produce data and those needed for water management decisions. However, poor communication of specific metrics relevant to local decisions is also a problem. We assessed the credibility of a set of water management decision metrics in the Community Earth System Model v2 (CESM2). CESM2 shows potentially greater use of its output in long-range water management decisions.
Shahzad Gani, Louise Arnal, Lucy Beattie, John Hillier, Sam Illingworth, Tiziana Lanza, Solmaz Mohadjer, Karoliina Pulkkinen, Heidi Roop, Iain Stewart, Kirsten von Elverfeldt, and Stephanie Zihms
Geosci. Commun., 7, 251–266, https://doi.org/10.5194/gc-7-251-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gc-7-251-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Science communication in geosciences has societal and scientific value but often operates in “shadowlands”. This editorial highlights these issues and proposes potential solutions. Our objective is to create a transparent and responsible geoscience communication landscape, fostering scientific progress, the well-being of scientists, and societal benefits.
Louise Arnal, Martyn P. Clark, Alain Pietroniro, Vincent Vionnet, David R. Casson, Paul H. Whitfield, Vincent Fortin, Andrew W. Wood, Wouter J. M. Knoben, Brandi W. Newton, and Colleen Walford
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 28, 4127–4155, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-4127-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-4127-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Forecasting river flow months in advance is crucial for water sectors and society. In North America, snowmelt is a key driver of flow. This study presents a statistical workflow using snow data to forecast flow months ahead in North American snow-fed rivers. Variations in the river flow predictability across the continent are evident, raising concerns about future predictability in a changing (snow) climate. The reproducible workflow hosted on GitHub supports collaborative and open science.
Rutong Liu, Jiabo Yin, Louise Slater, Shengyu Kang, Yuanhang Yang, Pan Liu, Jiali Guo, Xihui Gu, Xiang Zhang, and Aliaksandr Volchak
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 28, 3305–3326, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-3305-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-3305-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Climate change accelerates the water cycle and alters the spatiotemporal distribution of hydrological variables, thus complicating the projection of future streamflow and hydrological droughts. We develop a cascade modeling chain to project future bivariate hydrological drought characteristics over China, using five bias-corrected global climate model outputs under three shared socioeconomic pathways, five hydrological models, and a deep-learning model.
Solomon H. Gebrechorkos, Julian Leyland, Simon J. Dadson, Sagy Cohen, Louise Slater, Michel Wortmann, Philip J. Ashworth, Georgina L. Bennett, Richard Boothroyd, Hannah Cloke, Pauline Delorme, Helen Griffith, Richard Hardy, Laurence Hawker, Stuart McLelland, Jeffrey Neal, Andrew Nicholas, Andrew J. Tatem, Ellie Vahidi, Yinxue Liu, Justin Sheffield, Daniel R. Parsons, and Stephen E. Darby
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 28, 3099–3118, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-3099-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-3099-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
This study evaluated six high-resolution global precipitation datasets for hydrological modelling. MSWEP and ERA5 showed better performance, but spatial variability was high. The findings highlight the importance of careful dataset selection for river discharge modelling due to the lack of a universally superior dataset. Further improvements in global precipitation data products are needed.
Marcus Buechel, Louise Slater, and Simon Dadson
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 28, 2081–2105, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-2081-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-2081-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Afforestation has been proposed internationally, but the hydrological implications of such large increases in the spatial extent of woodland are not fully understood. In this study, we use a land surface model to simulate hydrology across Great Britain with realistic afforestation scenarios and potential climate changes. Countrywide afforestation minimally influences hydrology, when compared to climate change, and reduces low streamflow whilst not lowering the highest flows.
Bailey J. Anderson, Manuela I. Brunner, Louise J. Slater, and Simon J. Dadson
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 28, 1567–1583, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-1567-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-1567-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Elasticityrefers to how much the amount of water in a river changes with precipitation. We usually calculate this using average streamflow values; however, the amount of water within rivers is also dependent on stored water sources. Here, we look at how elasticity varies across the streamflow distribution and show that not only do low and high streamflows respond differently to precipitation change, but also these differences vary with water storage availability.
Guoqiang Tang, Andrew W. Wood, Andrew J. Newman, Martyn P. Clark, and Simon Michael Papalexiou
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 1153–1173, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-1153-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-1153-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Ensemble geophysical datasets are crucial for understanding uncertainties and supporting probabilistic estimation/prediction. However, open-access tools for creating these datasets are limited. We have developed the Python-based Geospatial Probabilistic Estimation Package (GPEP). Through several experiments, we demonstrate GPEP's ability to estimate precipitation, temperature, and snow water equivalent. GPEP will be a useful tool to support uncertainty analysis in Earth science applications.
Jiabo Yin, Louise J. Slater, Abdou Khouakhi, Le Yu, Pan Liu, Fupeng Li, Yadu Pokhrel, and Pierre Gentine
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 15, 5597–5615, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-15-5597-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-15-5597-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
This study presents long-term (i.e., 1940–2022) and high-resolution (i.e., 0.25°) monthly time series of TWS anomalies over the global land surface. The reconstruction is achieved by using a set of machine learning models with a large number of predictors, including climatic and hydrological variables, land use/land cover data, and vegetation indicators (e.g., leaf area index). Our proposed GTWS-MLrec performs overall as well as, or is more reliable than, previous TWS datasets.
Louise J. Slater, Louise Arnal, Marie-Amélie Boucher, Annie Y.-Y. Chang, Simon Moulds, Conor Murphy, Grey Nearing, Guy Shalev, Chaopeng Shen, Linda Speight, Gabriele Villarini, Robert L. Wilby, Andrew Wood, and Massimiliano Zappa
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 27, 1865–1889, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-27-1865-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-27-1865-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Hybrid forecasting systems combine data-driven methods with physics-based weather and climate models to improve the accuracy of predictions for meteorological and hydroclimatic events such as rainfall, temperature, streamflow, floods, droughts, tropical cyclones, or atmospheric rivers. We review recent developments in hybrid forecasting and outline key challenges and opportunities in the field.
Louise J. Slater, Chris Huntingford, Richard F. Pywell, John W. Redhead, and Elizabeth J. Kendon
Earth Syst. Dynam., 13, 1377–1396, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-13-1377-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-13-1377-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
This work considers how wheat yields are affected by weather conditions during the three main wheat growth stages in the UK. Impacts are strongest in years with compound weather extremes across multiple growth stages. Future climate projections are beneficial for wheat yields, on average, but indicate a high risk of unseen weather conditions which farmers may struggle to adapt to and mitigate against.
Thomas Lees, Steven Reece, Frederik Kratzert, Daniel Klotz, Martin Gauch, Jens De Bruijn, Reetik Kumar Sahu, Peter Greve, Louise Slater, and Simon J. Dadson
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 26, 3079–3101, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-3079-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-3079-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Despite the accuracy of deep learning rainfall-runoff models, we are currently uncertain of what these models have learned. In this study we explore the internals of one deep learning architecture and demonstrate that the model learns about intermediate hydrological stores of soil moisture and snow water, despite never having seen data about these processes during training. Therefore, we find evidence that the deep learning approach learns a physically realistic mapping from inputs to outputs.
Manuela I. Brunner and Louise J. Slater
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 26, 469–482, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-469-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-469-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Assessing the rarity and magnitude of very extreme flood events occurring less than twice a century is challenging due to the lack of observations of such rare events. Here we develop a new approach, pooling reforecast ensemble members from the European Flood Awareness System to increase the sample size available to estimate the frequency of extreme flood events. We demonstrate that such ensemble pooling produces more robust estimates than observation-based estimates.
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.
Vincent Vionnet, Colleen Mortimer, Mike Brady, Louise Arnal, and Ross Brown
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 13, 4603–4619, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-13-4603-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-13-4603-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Water equivalent of snow cover (SWE) is a key variable for water management, hydrological forecasting and climate monitoring. A new Canadian SWE dataset (CanSWE) is presented in this paper. It compiles data collected by multiple agencies and companies at more than 2500 different locations across Canada over the period 1928–2020. Snow depth and derived bulk snow density are also included when available.
Guoqiang Tang, Martyn P. Clark, Simon Michael Papalexiou, Andrew J. Newman, Andrew W. Wood, Dominique Brunet, and Paul H. Whitfield
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 13, 3337–3362, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-13-3337-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-13-3337-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Probabilistic estimates are useful to quantify the uncertainties in meteorological datasets. This study develops the Ensemble Meteorological Dataset for North America (EMDNA). EMDNA has 100 members with daily precipitation amount, mean daily temperature, and daily temperature range at 0.1° spatial resolution from 1979 to 2018. It is expected to be useful for hydrological and meteorological applications in North America.
Louise J. Slater, Bailey Anderson, Marcus Buechel, Simon Dadson, Shasha Han, Shaun Harrigan, Timo Kelder, Katie Kowal, Thomas Lees, Tom Matthews, Conor Murphy, and Robert L. Wilby
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 25, 3897–3935, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-3897-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-3897-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Weather and water extremes have devastating effects each year. One of the principal challenges for society is understanding how extremes are likely to evolve under the influence of changes in climate, land cover, and other human impacts. This paper provides a review of the methods and challenges associated with the detection, attribution, management, and projection of nonstationary weather and water extremes.
Manuela I. Brunner, Eric Gilleland, and Andrew W. Wood
Earth Syst. Dynam., 12, 621–634, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-12-621-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-12-621-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Compound hot and dry events can lead to severe impacts whose severity may depend on their timescale and spatial extent. Here, we show that the spatial extent and timescale of compound hot–dry events are strongly related, spatial compound event extents are largest at
sub-seasonal timescales, and short events are driven more by high temperatures, while longer events are more driven by low precipitation. Future climate impact studies should therefore be performed at different timescales.
Manuela I. Brunner, Lieke A. Melsen, Andrew W. Wood, Oldrich Rakovec, Naoki Mizukami, Wouter J. M. Knoben, and Martyn P. Clark
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 25, 105–119, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-105-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-105-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Assessments of current, local, and regional flood hazards and their future changes often involve the use of hydrologic models. A reliable model ideally reproduces both local flood characteristics and regional aspects of flooding. In this paper we investigate how such characteristics are represented by hydrologic models. Our results show that both the modeling of local and regional flood characteristics are challenging, especially under changing climate conditions.
Guoqiang Tang, Martyn P. Clark, Andrew J. Newman, Andrew W. Wood, Simon Michael Papalexiou, Vincent Vionnet, and Paul H. Whitfield
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 12, 2381–2409, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-12-2381-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-12-2381-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
Station observations are critical for hydrological and meteorological studies, but they often contain missing values and have short measurement periods. This study developed a serially complete dataset for North America (SCDNA) from 1979 to 2018 for 27 276 precipitation and temperature stations. SCDNA is built on multiple data sources and infilling/reconstruction strategies to achieve high-quality estimates which can be used for a variety of applications.
Cited articles
Arheimer, B., Pimentel, R., Isberg, K., Crochemore, L., Andersson, J. C. M., Hasan, A., and Pineda, L.: Global catchment modelling using World-Wide HYPE (WWH), open data, and stepwise parameter estimation, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 24, 535–559, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-24-535-2020, 2020.
Arnal, L., Cloke, H. L., Stephens, E., Wetterhall, F., Prudhomme, C., Neumann, J., Krzeminski, B., and Pappenberger, F.: Skilful seasonal forecasts of streamflow over Europe?, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 22, 2057–2072, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-22-2057-2018, 2018.
Bennett, J. C., Wang, Q. J., Robertson, D. E., Schepen, A., Li, M., and Michael, K.: Assessment of an ensemble seasonal streamflow forecasting system for Australia, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 21, 6007–6030, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-21-6007-2017, 2017.
Bierkens, M. F. P. and Van Beek, L. P. H.: Seasonal Predictability of European Discharge: NAO and Hydrological Response Time, J. Hydrometeorol., 10, 953–968, https://doi.org/10.1175/2009JHM1034.1, 2009.
Breiman, L.: Random forests, Mach. Learn., 45, 5–32, 2001.
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.
Crochemore, L., Ramos, M.-H., and Pappenberger, F.: Bias correcting precipitation forecasts to improve the skill of seasonal streamflow forecasts, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 20, 3601–3618, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-20-3601-2016, 2016.
Demargne, J., Wu, L., Regonda, S. K., Brown, J. D., Lee, H., He, M., Seo, D.-J., Hartman, R., Herr, H. D., Fresch, M., Schaake, J., and Zhu, Y.: The Science of NOAA's Operational Hydrologic Ensemble Forecast Service, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 95, 79–98, https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-12-00081.1, 2014.
Doblas-Reyes, F. J., García-Serrano, J., Lienert, F., Biescas, A. P., and Rodrigues, L. R. L.: Seasonal climate predictability and forecasting: status and prospects, WIREs Clim. Change, 4, 245–268, https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.217, 2013.
Dobrynin, M., Düsterhus, A., Fröhlich, K., Athanasiadis, P., Ruggieri, P., Müller, W. A., and Baehr, J.: Hidden Potential in Predicting Wintertime Temperature Anomalies in the Northern Hemisphere, Geophys. Res. Lett., 49, e2021GL095063, https://doi.org/10.1029/2021GL095063, 2022.
Emerton, R., Zsoter, E., Arnal, L., Cloke, H. L., Muraro, D., Prudhomme, C., Stephens, E. M., Salamon, P., and Pappenberger, F.: Developing a global operational seasonal hydro-meteorological forecasting system: GloFAS-Seasonal v1.0, Geosci. Model Dev., 11, 3327–3346, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-3327-2018, 2018.
Gauch, M., Mai, J., and Lin, J.: The proper care and feeding of CAMELS: How limited training data affects streamflow prediction, Environ. Model. Softw., 135, 104926, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2020.104926, 2021.
Harrigan, S., Prudhomme, C., Parry, S., Smith, K., and Tanguy, M.: Benchmarking ensemble streamflow prediction skill in the UK, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 22, 2023–2039, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-22-2023-2018, 2018.
Hauswirth, S. M., Bierkens, M. F. P., Beijk, V., and Wanders, N.: The suitability of a seasonal ensemble hybrid framework including data-driven approaches for hydrological forecasting, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 27, 501–517, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-27-501-2023, 2023.
Kratzert, F., Klotz, D., Herrnegger, M., Sampson, A. K., Hochreiter, S., and Nearing, G. S.: Toward Improved Predictions in Ungauged Basins: Exploiting the Power of Machine Learning, Water Resour. Res., 55, 11344–11354, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019WR026065, 2019.
Lees, T., Buechel, M., Anderson, B., Slater, L., Reece, S., Coxon, G., and Dadson, S. J.: Benchmarking data-driven rainfall–runoff models in Great Britain: a comparison of long short-term memory (LSTM)-based models with four lumped conceptual models, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 25, 5517–5534, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-5517-2021, 2021.
Lees, T., Reece, S., Kratzert, F., Klotz, D., Gauch, M., De Bruijn, J., Kumar Sahu, R., Greve, P., Slater, L., and Dadson, S. J.: Hydrological concept formation inside long short-term memory (LSTM) networks, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 26, 3079–3101, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-3079-2022, 2022.
Lehner, F., Wood, A. W., Llewellyn, D., Blatchford, D. B., Goodbody, A. G., and Pappenberger, F.: Mitigating the Impacts of Climate Nonstationarity on Seasonal Streamflow Predictability in the U.S. Southwest, Geophys. Res. Lett., 44, 12208–12217, https://doi.org/10.1002/2017GL076043, 2017.
Meinshausen, N.: Quantile Regression Forests, J. Mach. Learn. Res., 7, 983–999, 2006.
Mendoza, P. A., Wood, A. W., Clark, E., Rothwell, E., Clark, M. P., Nijssen, B., Brekke, L. D., and Arnold, J. R.: An intercomparison of approaches for improving operational seasonal streamflow forecasts, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 21, 3915–3935, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-21-3915-2017, 2017.
Moulds, S., Slater, L. J., Dunstone, N. J., and Smith, D. M.: Skillful Decadal Flood Prediction, Geophys. Res. Lett., 50, e2022GL100650, https://doi.org/10.1029/2022GL100650, 2023.
Moulds, S.: Skilful probabilistic predictions of UK flood risk months ahead using a large-sample machine learning model trained on multimodel ensemble climate forecasts, Zenodo [data set], https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15026344, 2025.
Nearing, G. S., Kratzert, F., Sampson, A. K., Pelissier, C. S., Klotz, D., Frame, J. M., Prieto, C., and Gupta, H. V.: What Role Does Hydrological Science Play in the Age of Machine Learning?, Water Resour. Res., 57, e2020WR028091, https://doi.org/10.1029/2020WR028091, 2021.
NRFA: UK national river flow archive, UK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology [data set], https://nrfaapps.ceh.ac.uk/nrfa/nrfa-api.html (last access: 4 June 2025), 2023.
Regonda, S. K., Rajagopalan, B., and Clark, M.: A new method to produce categorical streamflow forecasts, Water Resour. Res., 42, 2006WR004984, https://doi.org/10.1029/2006WR004984, 2006.
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, 2009WR008328, https://doi.org/10.1029/2009WR008328, 2010.
Richards, A.: University of Oxford Advanced Research Computing, Zenodo, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22558, 2015.
Slater, L., Coxon, G., Brunner, M., McMillan, H., Yu, L., Zheng, Y., Abdou Khouakhi, A., Moulds, S., and Berghuijs, W.: Spatial sensitivity of river flooding to changes in climate and land cover through explainable AI, Earth's Future, 12, e2023EF004035, https://doi.org/10.1029/2023EF004035, 2024.
Slater, L. J. and Villarini, G.: Enhancing the predictability of seasonal streamflow with a statistical-dynamical approach, Geophys. Res. Lett., 45, 6504–6513, https://doi.org/10.1029/2018GL077945, 2018.
Slater, L. J., Arnal, L., Boucher, M.-A., Chang, A. Y.-Y., Moulds, S., Murphy, C., Nearing, G., Shalev, G., Shen, C., Speight, L., Villarini, G., Wilby, R. L., Wood, A., and Zappa, M.: Hybrid forecasting: blending climate predictions with AI models, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 27, 1865–1889, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-27-1865-2023, 2023.
Tian, D., He, X., Srivastava, P., and Kalin, L.: A hybrid framework for forecasting monthly reservoir inflow based on machine learning techniques with dynamic climate forecasts, satellite-based data, and climate phenomenon information, Stoch. Environ. Res. Risk Assess., 36, 2353–2375, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00477-021-02023-y, 2022.
Tyralis, H., Papacharalampous, G., and Langousis, A.: A Brief Review of Random Forests for Water Scientists and Practitioners and Their Recent History in Water Resources, Water, 11, 910, https://doi.org/10.3390/w11050910, 2019.
Wilks, D. S.: Forecast Verification, in: Statistical Methods in the Atmospheric Sciences, Elsevier, 369–483, https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-815823-4.00009-2, 2019.
Wood, A. W., Hopson, T., Newman, A., Brekke, L., Arnold, J., and Clark, M.: Quantifying Streamflow Forecast Skill Elasticity to Initial Condition and Climate Prediction Skill, J. Hydrometeorol., 17, 651–668, https://doi.org/10.1175/JHM-D-14-0213.1, 2016.
Yuan, X., Wood, E. F., and Ma, Z.: A review on climate-model-based seasonal hydrologic forecasting: physical understanding and system development, WIREs Water, 2, 523–536, https://doi.org/10.1002/wat2.1088, 2015.
Short summary
Seasonal streamflow forecasts are an important component of flood risk management. Here, we train and test a machine learning model to predict the monthly maximum daily streamflow up to 4 months ahead. We train the model on precipitation and temperature forecasts to produce probabilistic hindcasts for 579 stations across the UK for the period 2004–2016. We show skilful results up to 4 months ahead in many locations, although, in general, the skill declines with increasing lead time.
Seasonal streamflow forecasts are an important component of flood risk management. Here, we...
