Articles | Volume 29, issue 17
https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-29-4073-2025
© 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-29-4073-2025
© Author(s) 2025. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Research article
| 
03 Sep 2025
Research article |
| 03 Sep 2025
| 03 Sep 2025
The value of observed reservoir storage anomalies for improving the simulation of reservoir dynamics in large-scale hydrological models
Seyed-Mohammad Hosseini-Moghari
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR
Institute of Physical Geography, Goethe University Frankfurt, Frankfurt am Main, Germany
Petra Döll
Institute of Physical Geography, Goethe University Frankfurt, Frankfurt am Main, Germany
Senckenberg Leibniz Biodiversity and Climate Research Centre Frankfurt (SBiK-F), Frankfurt am Main, Germany
Related authors
Howlader Mohammad Mehedi Hasan, Petra Döll, Seyed-Mohammad Hosseini-Moghari, Fabrice Papa, and Andreas Güntner
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 29, 567–596, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-29-567-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-29-567-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
We calibrate a global hydrological model using multiple observations to analyse the benefits and trade-offs of multi-variable calibration. We found such an approach to be very important for understanding the real-world system. However, some observations are very essential to the system, in particular, streamflow. We also showed uncertainties in the calibration results, which are often useful for making informed decisions. We emphasize considering observation uncertainty in model calibration.
Petra Döll, Howlader Mohammad Mehedi Hasan, Kerstin Schulze, Helena Gerdener, Lara Börger, Somayeh Shadkam, Sebastian Ackermann, Seyed-Mohammad Hosseini-Moghari, Hannes Müller Schmied, Andreas Güntner, and Jürgen Kusche
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 28, 2259–2295, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-2259-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-2259-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Currently, global hydrological models do not benefit from observations of model output variables to reduce and quantify model output uncertainty. For the Mississippi River basin, we explored three approaches for using both streamflow and total water storage anomaly observations to adjust the parameter sets in a global hydrological model. We developed a method for considering the observation uncertainties to quantify the uncertainty of model output and provide recommendations.
Emmanuel Nyenah, Petra Döll, Martina Flörke, Leon Mühlenbruch, Lasse Nissen, and Robert Reinecke
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 5635–5653, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-5635-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-5635-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
We reprogrammed the latest WaterGAP model (2.2e) to create a sustainable global hydrological model. By utilizing best software practices like modular design, version control, and clear documentation, the new WaterGAP supports collaboration across teams. It can be easily understood, applied, and enhanced by both novice and experienced modellers. Additionally, we share the reprogramming process to assist in the reprogramming of other large geoscientific research software.
Howlader Mohammad Mehedi Hasan, Petra Döll, Seyed-Mohammad Hosseini-Moghari, Fabrice Papa, and Andreas Güntner
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 29, 567–596, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-29-567-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-29-567-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
We calibrate a global hydrological model using multiple observations to analyse the benefits and trade-offs of multi-variable calibration. We found such an approach to be very important for understanding the real-world system. However, some observations are very essential to the system, in particular, streamflow. We also showed uncertainties in the calibration results, which are often useful for making informed decisions. We emphasize considering observation uncertainty in model calibration.
Hannes Müller Schmied, Tim Trautmann, Sebastian Ackermann, Denise Cáceres, Martina Flörke, Helena Gerdener, Ellen Kynast, Thedini Asali Peiris, Leonie Schiebener, Maike Schumacher, and Petra Döll
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 8817–8852, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-8817-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-8817-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Assessing water availability and water use at the global scale is challenging but essential for a range of purposes. We describe the newest version of the global hydrological model WaterGAP, which has been used for numerous water resource assessments since 1996. We show the effects of new model features, as well as model evaluations, against water abstraction statistics and observed streamflow and water storage anomalies. The publicly available model output for several variants is described.
Emmanuel Nyenah, Petra Döll, Daniel S. Katz, and Robert Reinecke
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 8593–8611, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-8593-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-8593-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Research software is vital for scientific progress but is often developed by scientists with limited skills, time, and funding, leading to challenges in usability and maintenance. Our study across 10 sectors shows strengths in version control, open-source licensing, and documentation while emphasizing the need for containerization and code quality. We recommend workshops; code quality metrics; funding; and following the findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable (FAIR) standards.
Petra Döll, Howlader Mohammad Mehedi Hasan, Kerstin Schulze, Helena Gerdener, Lara Börger, Somayeh Shadkam, Sebastian Ackermann, Seyed-Mohammad Hosseini-Moghari, Hannes Müller Schmied, Andreas Güntner, and Jürgen Kusche
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 28, 2259–2295, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-2259-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-2259-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Currently, global hydrological models do not benefit from observations of model output variables to reduce and quantify model output uncertainty. For the Mississippi River basin, we explored three approaches for using both streamflow and total water storage anomaly observations to adjust the parameter sets in a global hydrological model. We developed a method for considering the observation uncertainties to quantify the uncertainty of model output and provide recommendations.
Laura Müller and Petra Döll
Geosci. Commun., 7, 121–144, https://doi.org/10.5194/gc-7-121-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gc-7-121-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
To be able to adapt to climate change, stakeholders need to be informed about future uncertain climate change hazards. Using freely available output of global hydrological models, we quantified future local changes in water resources and their uncertainty. To communicate these in participatory processes, we propose using "percentile boxes" to support the development of flexible strategies for climate risk management worldwide, involving stakeholders and scientists.
Thedini Asali Peiris and Petra Döll
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 27, 3663–3686, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-27-3663-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-27-3663-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Hydrological models often overlook vegetation's response to CO2 and climate, impairing their ability to forecast impacts on evapotranspiration and water resources. To address this, we suggest involving two model variants: (1) the standard method and (2) a modified approach (proposed here) based on the Priestley–Taylor equation (PT-MA). While not universally applicable, a dual approach helps consider uncertainties related to vegetation responses to climate change, enhancing model representation.
Claudia Herbert and Petra Döll
Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 23, 2111–2131, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-23-2111-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-23-2111-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
This paper presents a new method for selecting streamflow drought hazard indicators for monitoring drought hazard for human water supply and river ecosystems in large-scale drought early warning systems. Indicators are classified by their inherent assumptions about the habituation of people and ecosystems to the streamflow regime and their level of drought characterization, namely drought magnitude (water deficit at a certain point in time) and severity (cumulated magnitude since drought onset).
Martin Horwath, Benjamin D. Gutknecht, Anny Cazenave, Hindumathi Kulaiappan Palanisamy, Florence Marti, Ben Marzeion, Frank Paul, Raymond Le Bris, Anna E. Hogg, Inès Otosaka, Andrew Shepherd, Petra Döll, Denise Cáceres, Hannes Müller Schmied, Johnny A. Johannessen, Jan Even Øie Nilsen, Roshin P. Raj, René Forsberg, Louise Sandberg Sørensen, Valentina R. Barletta, Sebastian B. Simonsen, Per Knudsen, Ole Baltazar Andersen, Heidi Ranndal, Stine K. Rose, Christopher J. Merchant, Claire R. Macintosh, Karina von Schuckmann, Kristin Novotny, Andreas Groh, Marco Restano, and Jérôme Benveniste
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 14, 411–447, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-14-411-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-14-411-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Global mean sea-level change observed from 1993 to 2016 (mean rate of 3.05 mm yr−1) matches the combined effect of changes in water density (thermal expansion) and ocean mass. Ocean-mass change has been assessed through the contributions from glaciers, ice sheets, and land water storage or directly from satellite data since 2003. Our budget assessments of linear trends and monthly anomalies utilise new datasets and uncertainty characterisations developed within ESA's Climate Change Initiative.
Tom Gleeson, Thorsten Wagener, Petra Döll, Samuel C. Zipper, Charles West, Yoshihide Wada, Richard Taylor, Bridget Scanlon, Rafael Rosolem, Shams Rahman, Nurudeen Oshinlaja, Reed Maxwell, Min-Hui Lo, Hyungjun Kim, Mary Hill, Andreas Hartmann, Graham Fogg, James S. Famiglietti, Agnès Ducharne, Inge de Graaf, Mark Cuthbert, Laura Condon, Etienne Bresciani, and Marc F. P. Bierkens
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 7545–7571, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-7545-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-7545-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Groundwater is increasingly being included in large-scale (continental to global) land surface and hydrologic simulations. However, it is challenging to evaluate these simulations because groundwater is
hiddenunderground and thus hard to measure. We suggest using multiple complementary strategies to assess the performance of a model (
model evaluation).
Camelia-Eliza Telteu, Hannes Müller Schmied, Wim Thiery, Guoyong Leng, Peter Burek, Xingcai Liu, Julien Eric Stanislas Boulange, Lauren Seaby Andersen, Manolis Grillakis, Simon Newland Gosling, Yusuke Satoh, Oldrich Rakovec, Tobias Stacke, Jinfeng Chang, Niko Wanders, Harsh Lovekumar Shah, Tim Trautmann, Ganquan Mao, Naota Hanasaki, Aristeidis Koutroulis, Yadu Pokhrel, Luis Samaniego, Yoshihide Wada, Vimal Mishra, Junguo Liu, Petra Döll, Fang Zhao, Anne Gädeke, Sam S. Rabin, and Florian Herz
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 3843–3878, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-3843-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-3843-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
We analyse water storage compartments, water flows, and human water use sectors included in 16 global water models that provide simulations for the Inter-Sectoral Impact Model Intercomparison Project phase 2b. We develop a standard writing style for the model equations. We conclude that even though hydrologic processes are often based on similar equations, in the end these equations have been adjusted, or the models have used different values for specific parameters or specific variables.
Eklavyya Popat and Petra Döll
Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 21, 1337–1354, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-21-1337-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-21-1337-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Two drought hazard indices are presented that combine drought deficit and anomaly aspects: one for soil moisture drought (SMDAI) where we simplified the DSI and the other for streamflow drought (QDAI), which is to our knowledge the first ever deficit anomaly drought index including surface water demand. Both indices are tested at the global scale with WaterGAP 2.2d outputs, providing more differentiated spatial and temporal patterns distinguishing the actual degree of respective drought hazard.
Hannes Müller Schmied, Denise Cáceres, Stephanie Eisner, Martina Flörke, Claudia Herbert, Christoph Niemann, Thedini Asali Peiris, Eklavyya Popat, Felix Theodor Portmann, Robert Reinecke, Maike Schumacher, Somayeh Shadkam, Camelia-Eliza Telteu, Tim Trautmann, and Petra Döll
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 1037–1079, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-1037-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-1037-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
In a globalized world with large flows of virtual water between river basins and international responsibilities for the sustainable development of the Earth system and its inhabitants, quantitative estimates of water flows and storages and of water demand by humans are required. Global hydrological models such as WaterGAP are developed to provide this information. Here we present a thorough description, evaluation and application examples of the most recent model version, WaterGAP v2.2d.
Robert Reinecke, Hannes Müller Schmied, Tim Trautmann, Lauren Seaby Andersen, Peter Burek, Martina Flörke, Simon N. Gosling, Manolis Grillakis, Naota Hanasaki, Aristeidis Koutroulis, Yadu Pokhrel, Wim Thiery, Yoshihide Wada, Satoh Yusuke, and Petra Döll
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 25, 787–810, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-787-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-787-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Billions of people rely on groundwater as an accessible source of drinking water and for irrigation, especially in times of drought. Groundwater recharge is the primary process of regenerating groundwater resources. We find that groundwater recharge will increase in northern Europe by about 19 % and decrease by 10 % in the Amazon with 3 °C global warming. In the Mediterranean, a 2 °C warming has already lead to a reduction in recharge by 38 %. However, these model predictions are uncertain.
Denise Cáceres, Ben Marzeion, Jan Hendrik Malles, Benjamin Daniel Gutknecht, Hannes Müller Schmied, and Petra Döll
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 24, 4831–4851, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-24-4831-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-24-4831-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
We analysed how and to which extent changes in water storage on continents had an effect on global ocean mass over the period 1948–2016. Continents lost water to oceans at an accelerated rate, inducing sea level rise. Shrinking glaciers explain 81 % of the long-term continental water mass loss, while declining groundwater levels, mainly due to sustained groundwater pumping for irrigation, is the second major driver. This long-term decline was partly offset by the impoundment of water in dams.
Cited articles
Beck, H. E., Pan, M., Roy, T., Weedon, G. P., Pappenberger, F., van Dijk, A. I. J. M., Huffman, G. J., Adler, R. F., and Wood, E. F.: Daily evaluation of 26 precipitation datasets using Stage-IV gauge-radar data for the CONUS, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 23, 207–224, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-23-207-2019, 2019.
Best, J.: Anthropogenic stresses on the world's big rivers, Nat. Geosci., 12, 7–21, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-018-0262-x, 2019.
Biancamaria, S., Lettenmaier, D. P., and Pavelsky, T. M.: The SWOT Mission and Its Capabilities for Land Hydrology, Surv. Geophys., 37, 307–337, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10712-015-9346-y, 2016.
Chao, B. F., Wu, Y. H., and Li, Y. S.: Impact of artificial reservoir water impoundment on global sea level, Science, 320, 212–214, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1154580, 2008.
Chen, Y., Li, D., Zhao, Q., and Cai, X.: Developing a generic data-driven reservoir operation model, Adv. Water Resour., 167, 104274, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advwatres.2022.104274, 2022.
U.S, Bureau of Reclamation: Colorado River Drought Contingency Plan, https://www.doi.gov/ocl/colorado-river-drought (last access: 28 August 2024), 2019.
Cooley, S. W., Ryan, J. C., and Smith, L. C.: Human alteration of global surface water storage variability, Nature, 591, 78–81, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-023-06165-7, 2021.
Dang, T. D., Chowdhury, A. F. M. K., and Galelli, S.: On the representation of water reservoir storage and operations in large-scale hydrological models: implications on model parameterization and climate change impact assessments, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 24, 397–416, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-24-397-2020, 2020.
Döll, P., Fiedler, K., and Zhang, J.: Global-scale analysis of river flow alterations due to water withdrawals and reservoirs, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 13, 2413–2432, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-13-2413-2009, 2009.
Döll, P., Hasan, H. M. M., Schulze, K., Gerdener, H., Börger, L., Shadkam, S., Ackermann, S., Hosseini-Moghari, S.-M., Müller Schmied, H., Güntner, A., and Kusche, J.: Leveraging multi-variable observations to reduce and quantify the output uncertainty of a global hydrological model: evaluation of three ensemble-based approaches for the Mississippi River basin, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 28, 2259–2295, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-2259-2024, 2024.
Döll, P., Kaspar, F., and Lehner, B.: A global hydrological model for deriving water availability indicators: model tuning and validation, J. Hydrol., 270, 105–134, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1694(02)00283-4, 2003.
Dong, N., Wei, J., Yang, M., Yan, D., Yang, C., Gao, H., Arnault, J., Laux, P., Zhang, X., Liu, Y., and Niu, J.: Model Estimates of China's Terrestrial Water Storage Variation Due To Reservoir Operation, Water Resour. Res., 58, e2021WR031787, https://doi.org/10.1029/2021WR031787, 2022.
Dong, N., Yang, M., Wei, J., Arnault, J., Laux, P., Xu, S., Wang, H., Yu, Z., and Kunstmann, H.: Toward Improved Parameterizations of Reservoir Operation in Ungauged Basins: A Synergistic Framework Coupling Satellite Remote Sensing, Hydrologic Modeling, and Conceptual Operation Algorithms, Water Resour. Res., 59, e2022WR033026, https://doi.org/10.1029/2022WR033026, 2023.
Ehsani, N., Fekete, B. M., Vörösmarty, C. J., and Tessler, Z. D.: A neural network based general reservoir operation algorithm, Stoch. Env. Res. Risk A., 30, 1151–1166, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00477-015-1147-9, 2016.
Gutenson, J. L., Tavakoly, A. A., Wahl, M. D., and Follum, M. L.: Comparison of generalized non-data-driven lake and reservoir routing models for global-scale hydrologic forecasting of reservoir outflow at diurnal time steps, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 24, 2711–2729, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-24-2711-2020, 2020.
Haddeland, I., Skaugen, T., and Lettenmaier, D. P.: Anthropogenic impacts on continental surface water fluxes, Geophys. Res. Lett., 33, L08406, https://doi.org/10.1029/2006GL026047, 2006.
Hanasaki, N., Kanae, S., and Oki, T.: A reservoir operation algorithm for global river routing models, J. Hydrol., 327, 22–41, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2005.11.011, 2006.
Hanasaki, N., Kanae, S., Oki, T., Masuda, K., Motoya, K., Shirakawa, N., Shen, Y., and Tanaka, K.: An integrated model for the assessment of global water resources – Part 2: Applications and assessments, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 12, 1027–1037, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-12-1027-2008, 2008.
Hanazaki, R., Yamazaki, D., and Yoshimura, K.: Development of a reservoir flood control scheme for global flood models, J. Adv. Model. Earth Sy., 14, e2021MS002944, https://doi.org/10.1029/2021MS002944, 2022.
Hasan, H. M. M., Döll, P., Hosseini-Moghari, S.-M., Papa, F., and Güntner, A.: The benefits and trade-offs of multi-variable calibration of the WaterGAP global hydrological model (WGHM) in the Ganges and Brahmaputra basins, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 29, 567–596, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-29-567-2025, 2025.
Hosseini-Moghari, S.-M., Araghinejad, S., Tourian, M. J., Ebrahimi, K., and Döll, P.: Quantifying the impacts of human water use and climate variations on recent drying of Lake Urmia basin: the value of different sets of spaceborne and in situ data for calibrating a global hydrological model, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 24, 1939–1956, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-24-1939-2020, 2020.
Hou, J., Van Dijk, A. I. J. M., Renzullo, L. J., and Larraondo, P. R.: GloLakes: water storage dynamics for 27 000 lakes globally from 1984 to present derived from satellite altimetry and optical imaging, Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 16, 201–218, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-16-201-2024, 2024.
Jager, H. I. and Smith, B. T.: Sustainable reservoir operation: Can we generate hydropower and preserve ecosystem values?, River Res. Appl., 24, 340–352, https://doi.org/10.1002/rra.1069, 2008.
Kling, H., Fuchs, M., and Paulin, M.: Runoff conditions in the upper Danube basin under an ensemble of climate change scenarios, J. Hydrol., 424, 264–277, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2012.01.011, 2012.
Knoben, W. J. M., Freer, J. E., and Woods, R. A.: Technical note: Inherent benchmark or not? Comparing Nash–Sutcliffe and Kling–Gupta efficiency scores, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 23, 4323–4331, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-23-4323-2019, 2019.
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.
Lehner, B., Liermann, C.R., Revenga, C., Vörösmarty, C., Fekete, B., Crouzet, P., Döll, P., Endejan, M., Frenken, K., Magome, J., and Nilsson, C.: High-resolution mapping of the world's reservoirs and dams for sustainable river-flow management, Front. Ecol. Environ., 9, 494–502, https://doi.org/10.1890/100125, 2011.
Li, Y., Zhao, G., Allen, G. H., and Gao, H.: Diminishing storage returns of reservoir construction, Nat. Commun., 14, 3203, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-023-38843-5, 2023.
Masaki, Y., Hanasaki, N., Takahashi, K., and Hijioka, Y.: Consequences of implementing a reservoir operation algorithm in a global hydrological model under multiple meteorological forcing, Hydrolog. Sci. J., 63, 1047–1061, https://doi.org/10.1080/02626667.2018.1473872, 2018.
Müller Schmied, H., Cáceres, D., Eisner, S., Flörke, M., Herbert, C., Niemann, C., Peiris, T. A., Popat, E., Portmann, F. T., Reinecke, R., Schumacher, M., Shadkam, S., Telteu, C.-E., Trautmann, T., and Döll, P.: The global water resources and use model WaterGAP v2.2d: model description and evaluation, Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 1037–1079, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-1037-2021, 2021.
Müller Schmied, H., Trautmann, T., Ackermann, S., Cáceres, D., Flörke, M., Gerdener, H., Kynast, E., Peiris, T. A., Schiebener, L., Schumacher, M., and Döll, P.: WaterGAP v2.2e, Zenodo [code], https://doi.org/10.5281/ZENODO.10026943, 2023.
Müller Schmied, H., Trautmann, T., Ackermann, S., Cáceres, D., Flörke, M., Gerdener, H., Kynast, E., Peiris, T. A., Schiebener, L., Schumacher, M., and Döll, P.: The global water resources and use model WaterGAP v2.2e: description and evaluation of modifications and new features, Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 8817–8852, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-8817-2024, 2024.
NASA Earth Observatory: Lake Powell Half Empty, https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/83716/lake-powell-half-empty (last access: 28 August 2025), 2014.
Nazemi, A. and Wheater, H. S.: On inclusion of water resource management in Earth system models – Part 2: Representation of water supply and allocation and opportunities for improved modeling, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 19, 63–90, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-19-63-2015, 2015.
Radonic, L., Banister, K., Xiu, B., Rupprecht, C., Eden, S., and Megdal, S.: Arizona Water Resource, Water Resources Research Center, College of Agriculture, University of Arizona, 21, 1–11, https://repository.arizona.edu/handle/10150/316495 (last access: 28 August 2025), 2013.
Otta, K., Müller Schmied, H., Gosling, S. N., and Hanasaki, N.: Use of satellite remote sensing to validate reservoir operations in global hydrological models: a case study from the CONUS, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. Discuss. [preprint], https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2023-215, 2023.
Perera, D., Smakhtin, V., Williams, S., North, T., and Curry, A.: Ageing water storage infrastructure: An emerging global risk. UNU-INWEH Report Series, 11, 25, ISBN 978-92-808-6105-1, 2021.
Rougé, C., Reed, P. M., Grogan, D. S., Zuidema, S., Prusevich, A., Glidden, S., Lamontagne, J. R., and Lammers, R. B.: Coordination and control – limits in standard representations of multi-reservoir operations in hydrological modeling, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 25, 1365–1388, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-1365-2021, 2021.
Sadki, M., Munier, S., Boone, A., and Ricci, S.: Implementation and sensitivity analysis of the Dam-Reservoir OPeration model (DROP v1.0) over Spain, Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 427–448, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-427-2023, 2023.
Shah, H.L., Zhou, T., Sun, N., Huang, M., and Mishra, V.: Roles of Irrigation and Reservoir Operations in Modulating Terrestrial Water and Energy Budgets in the Indian Subcontinental River Basins, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 124, 12915–12936, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019JD031059, 2019.
Shen, Y., Yamazaki, D., Pokhrel, Y., and Zhao, G.: Improving global reservoir parameterizations by incorporating flood storage capacity data and satellite observations, Water Resour. Res., 61, e2024WR037620, https://doi.org/10.1029/2024WR037620, 2025.
Shin, S., Pokhrel, Y., and Miguez-Macho, G.: High-Resolution Modeling of Reservoir Release and Storage Dynamics at the Continental Scale, Water Resour. Res., 55, 787–810, https://doi.org/10.1029/2018WR023025, 2019.
Steyaert, J. C. and Condon, L. E.: Synthesis of historical reservoir operations from 1980 to 2020 for the evaluation of reservoir representation in large-scale hydrologic models, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 28, 1071–1088, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-1071-2024, 2024.
Steyaert, J. C., Condon, L. E., Turner, S. W. D., and Voisin, N.: ResOpsUS, a dataset of historical reservoir operations in the contiguous United States, Sci. Data, 9, 34, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-022-01134-7, 2022.
Telteu, C.-E., Müller Schmied, H., Thiery, W., Leng, G., Burek, P., Liu, X., Boulange, J. E. S., Andersen, L. S., Grillakis, M., Gosling, S. N., Satoh, Y., Rakovec, O., Stacke, T., Chang, J., Wanders, N., Shah, H. L., Trautmann, T., Mao, G., Hanasaki, N., Koutroulis, A., Pokhrel, Y., Samaniego, L., Wada, Y., Mishra, V., Liu, J., Döll, P., Zhao, F., Gädeke, A., Rabin, S. S., and Herz, F.: Understanding each other's models: an introduction and a standard representation of 16 global water models to support intercomparison, improvement, and communication, Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 3843–3878, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-3843-2021, 2021.
Tian, W., Liu, X., Wang, K., Bai, P., Liu, C., and Liang, X.: Estimation of global reservoir evaporation losses, J. Hydrol., 607, 1–9, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2022.127524, 2022.
Tourian, M. J., Elmi, O., Shafaghi, Y., Behnia, S., Saemian, P., Schlesinger, R., and Sneeuw, N.: HydroSat: geometric quantities of the global water cycle from geodetic satellites, Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 14, 2463–2486, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-14-2463-2022, 2022.
Turner, S. W. D., Steyaert, J. C., Condon, L., and Voisin, N.: Water storage and release policies for all large reservoirs of conterminous United States, J. Hydrol., 603, 126843, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2021.126843, 2021.
Turner, S. W. D., Xu, W., and Voisin, N.: Inferred inflow forecast horizons guiding reservoir release decisions across the United States, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 24, 1275–1291, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-24-1275-2020, 2020.
Vanderkelen, I., Gharari, S., Mizukami, N., Clark, M. P., Lawrence, D. M., Swenson, S., Pokhrel, Y., Hanasaki, N., van Griensven, A., and Thiery, W.: Evaluating a reservoir parametrization in the vector-based global routing model mizuRoute (v2.0.1) for Earth system model coupling, Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 4163–4192, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-4163-2022, 2022.
Vora, A., Cai, X., Chen, Y., and Li, D.: Coupling reservoir operation and rainfall-runoff processes for streamflow simulation in watersheds, Water Resour. Res., 60, e2023WR035703, https://doi.org/10.1029/2023WR035703, 2024.
Wang, J., Walter, B. A., Yao, F., Song, C., Ding, M., Maroof, A. S., Zhu, J., Fan, C., McAlister, J. M., Sikder, S., Sheng, Y., Allen, G. H., Crétaux, J.-F., and Wada, Y.: GeoDAR: georeferenced global dams and reservoirs dataset for bridging attributes and geolocations, Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 14, 1869–1899, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-14-1869-2022, 2022.
Yassin, F., Razavi, S., Elshamy, M., Davison, B., Sapriza-Azuri, G., and Wheater, H.: Representation and improved parameterization of reservoir operation in hydrological and land-surface models, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 23, 3735–3764, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-23-3735-2019, 2019.
Zajac, Z., Revilla-Romero, B., Salamon, P., Burek, P., Hirpa, F. A., and Beck, H.: The impact of lake and reservoir parameterization on global streamflow simulation, J. Hydrol., 548, 552–568, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2017.03.022, 2017.
Short summary
Modeling reservoir outflow and storage is challenging due to limited publicly available data and human decision-making. For 100 reservoirs in the US, we examined how calibrating reservoir algorithms against outflow and storage-related variables affects performance. We found that calibration notably improves storage simulations, while outflow simulations are more influenced by the quality of inflow data. We recommend using remotely sensed storage anomalies to calibrate reservoir algorithms.
Modeling reservoir outflow and storage is challenging due to limited publicly available data and...
