Articles | Volume 29, issue 20
https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-29-5453-2025
© 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-29-5453-2025
© Author(s) 2025. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Research article
| 
21 Oct 2025
Research article |
| 21 Oct 2025
| 21 Oct 2025
Improving streamflow simulation through machine learning-powered data integration and its potential for forecasting in the Western U.S.
Yuan Yang
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR
Center for Western Weather and Water Extremes, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California San Diego, CA, USA
Center for Western Weather and Water Extremes, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California San Diego, CA, USA
Dapeng Feng
Department of Earth System Science, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA
Mu Xiao
Center for Western Weather and Water Extremes, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California San Diego, CA, USA
Taylor Dixon
Center for Western Weather and Water Extremes, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California San Diego, CA, USA
Robert Hartman
Robert K. Hartman Consulting Services, Roseville, CA, USA
Chaopeng Shen
Civil and Environmental Engineering, Pennsylvania State University, PA, USA
Yalan Song
Civil and Environmental Engineering, Pennsylvania State University, PA, USA
Agniv Sengupta
Center for Western Weather and Water Extremes, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California San Diego, CA, USA
Luca Delle Monache
Center for Western Weather and Water Extremes, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California San Diego, CA, USA
F. Martin Ralph
Center for Western Weather and Water Extremes, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California San Diego, CA, USA
Related authors
No articles found.
Tien-Yiao Hsu, Matthew R. Mazloff, Sarah T. Gille, Hai Lin, K. Andrew Peterson, Rui Sun, Aneesh C. Subramanian, and Luca Delle Monache
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-4142, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-4142, 2025
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for Weather and Climate Dynamics (WCD).
Short summary
Short summary
This paper examines air-sea coupling impacts on 15-day winter forecasts over the North Pacific and Atlantic. Using an uncoupled atmospheric model, a coupled atmosphere-ocean model, and ERA5 for validation, we find that latent heat flux bias variance is reduced by 10–20 % in the Pacific. This improves forecasts of integrated vapor transport, enhancing prediction of weather extremes in mid- to high latitudes.
Sarah E. Ogle, Garrett McGurk, Anahita Jensen, Fred Martin Ralph, and Morgan C. Levy
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2297, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2297, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Intermittent streams are vital to ecosystems and water supply but are hard to monitor and increasingly affected by climate change. To address this, we used field camera images from 2017–2023 at a stream in northern California to train a machine learning model that classifies streamflow as dry, low, or high. This low-cost method enables monitoring of changing intermittent stream conditions and supports water management in data-scarce regions.
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.
Zhenhai Zhang, Vesta Afzali Gorooh, Duncan Axisa, Chandrasekar Radhakrishnan, Eun Yeol Kim, Venkatachalam Chandrasekar, and Luca Delle Monache
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 18, 1981–2003, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-18-1981-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-18-1981-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Water is a precious resource, and it is essential to monitor and predict the current and future occurrence of precipitation-producing clouds. We investigate the cloud characteristics related to precipitation using several cloud cases in the United Arab Emirates with data from aircraft measurements, satellite observations, and weather radar observations. This study provides scientific support for the development of an applicable framework to examine cloud precipitation processes.
Jiangtao Liu, Chaopeng Shen, Fearghal O'Donncha, Yalan Song, Wei Zhi, Hylke E. Beck, Tadd Bindas, Nicholas Kraabel, and Kathryn Lawson
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1706, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1706, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Using global and regional datasets, we compared attention-based models and Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) models to predict hydrologic variables. Our results show LSTM models perform better in simpler tasks, whereas attention-based models perform better in complex scenarios, offering insights for improved water resource management.
Mohammad Sina Jahangir, John Quilty, Chaopeng Shen, Andrea Scott, Scott Steinschneider, and Jan Adamowski
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-846, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-846, 2025
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for Hydrology and Earth System Sciences (HESS).
Short summary
Short summary
This study presents a novel hybrid approach to streamflow prediction, significantly improving the efficiency and accuracy of fine-tuning deep learning models for hydrological prediction. Tested across numerous catchments in the U.S. and Europe, this method accelerates the fine-tuning process and improves prediction accuracy in locations beyond the training data. This innovative approach sets the stage for future hydrological models leveraging transfer learning.
Peijun Li, Yalan Song, Ming Pan, Kathryn Lawson, and Chaopeng Shen
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-483, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-483, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
This study explores how combining different model types improves streamflow predictions, especially in data-sparse scenarios. By integrating two highly accurate models with distinct mechanisms and leveraging multiple meteorological datasets, we highlight their unique strengths and set new accuracy benchmarks across spatiotemporal conditions. Our findings enhance the understanding of how diverse models and multi-source data can be effectively used to improve hydrological predictions.
Ather Abbas, Yuan Yang, Ming Pan, Yves Tramblay, Chaopeng Shen, Haoyu Ji, Solomon H. Gebrechorkos, Florian Pappenberger, Jong Cheol Pyo, Dapeng Feng, George Huffman, Phu Nguyen, Christian Massari, Luca Brocca, Tan Jackson, and Hylke E. Beck
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-4194, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-4194, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Our study evaluated 23 precipitation datasets using a hydrological model at global scale to assess their suitability and accuracy. We found that MSWEP V2.8 excels due to its ability to integrate data from multiple sources, while others, such as IMERG and JRA-3Q, demonstrated strong regional performances. This research assists in selecting the appropriate dataset for applications in water resource management, hazard assessment, agriculture, and environmental monitoring.
Zewei Ma, Kaiyu Guan, Bin Peng, Wang Zhou, Robert Grant, Jinyun Tang, Murugesu Sivapalan, Ming Pan, Li Li, and Zhenong Jin
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2024-340, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2024-340, 2024
Revised manuscript accepted for HESS
Short summary
Short summary
We explore tile drainage’ impacts on the integrated hydrology-biogeochemistry-plant system, using ecosys with soil oxygen and microbe dynamics. We found that tile drainage lowers soil water content and improves soil oxygen levels, which helps crops grow better, especially during wet springs, and the developed root system also helps mitigate drought stress on dry summers. Overall, tile drainage increases crop resilience to climate change, making it a valuable future agricultural practice.
Zhenhai Zhang, F. Martin Ralph, Xun Zou, Brian Kawzenuk, Minghua Zheng, Irina V. Gorodetskaya, Penny M. Rowe, and David H. Bromwich
The Cryosphere, 18, 5239–5258, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-18-5239-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-18-5239-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Atmospheric rivers (ARs) are long, narrow corridors of strong water vapor transport in the atmosphere. ARs play an important role in extreme weather in polar regions, including heavy rain and/or snow, heat waves, and surface melt. The standard AR scale is developed based on the midlatitude climate and is insufficient for polar regions. This paper introduces an extended version of the AR scale tuned to polar regions, aiming to quantify polar ARs objectively based on their strength and impact.
Dapeng Feng, Hylke Beck, Jens de Bruijn, Reetik Kumar Sahu, Yusuke Satoh, Yoshihide Wada, Jiangtao Liu, Ming Pan, Kathryn Lawson, and Chaopeng Shen
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 7181–7198, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-7181-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-7181-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Accurate hydrologic modeling is vital to characterizing water cycle responses to climate change. For the first time at this scale, we use differentiable physics-informed machine learning hydrologic models to simulate rainfall–runoff processes for 3753 basins around the world and compare them with purely data-driven and traditional modeling approaches. This sets a benchmark for hydrologic estimates around the world and builds foundations for improving global hydrologic simulations.
Lu Su, Dennis P. Lettenmaier, Ming Pan, and Benjamin Bass
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 28, 3079–3097, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-3079-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-3079-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
We fine-tuned the variable infiltration capacity (VIC) and Noah-MP models across 263 river basins in the Western US. We developed transfer relationships to similar basins and extended the fine-tuned parameters to ungauged basins. Both models performed best in humid areas, and the skills improved post-calibration. VIC outperforms Noah-MP in all but interior dry basins following regionalization. VIC simulates annual mean streamflow and high flow well, while Noah-MP performs better for low flows.
Yalan Song, Wouter J. M. Knoben, Martyn P. Clark, Dapeng Feng, Kathryn Lawson, Kamlesh Sawadekar, and Chaopeng Shen
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 28, 3051–3077, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-3051-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-3051-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Differentiable models (DMs) integrate neural networks and physical equations for accuracy, interpretability, and knowledge discovery. We developed an adjoint-based DM for ordinary differential equations (ODEs) for hydrological modeling, reducing distorted fluxes and physical parameters from errors in models that use explicit and operation-splitting schemes. With a better numerical scheme and improved structure, the adjoint-based DM matches or surpasses long short-term memory (LSTM) performance.
Peter Reichert, Kai Ma, Marvin Höge, Fabrizio Fenicia, Marco Baity-Jesi, Dapeng Feng, and Chaopeng Shen
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 28, 2505–2529, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-2505-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-2505-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
We compared the predicted change in catchment outlet discharge to precipitation and temperature change for conceptual and machine learning hydrological models. We found that machine learning models, despite providing excellent fit and prediction capabilities, can be unreliable regarding the prediction of the effect of temperature change for low-elevation catchments. This indicates the need for caution when applying them for the prediction of the effect of climate change.
Linghan Li, Forest Cannon, Matthew R. Mazloff, Aneesh C. Subramanian, Anna M. Wilson, and Fred Martin Ralph
The Cryosphere, 18, 121–137, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-18-121-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-18-121-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
We investigate how the moisture transport through atmospheric rivers influences Arctic sea ice variations using hourly atmospheric ERA5 for 1981–2020 at 0.25° × 0.25° resolution. We show that individual atmospheric rivers initiate rapid sea ice decrease through surface heat flux and winds. We find that the rate of change in sea ice concentration has significant anticorrelation with moisture, northward wind and turbulent heat flux on weather timescales almost everywhere in the Arctic Ocean.
Doaa Aboelyazeed, Chonggang Xu, Forrest M. Hoffman, Jiangtao Liu, Alex W. Jones, Chris Rackauckas, Kathryn Lawson, and Chaopeng Shen
Biogeosciences, 20, 2671–2692, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-20-2671-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-20-2671-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Photosynthesis is critical for life and has been affected by the changing climate. Many parameters come into play while modeling, but traditional calibration approaches face many issues. Our framework trains coupled neural networks to provide parameters to a photosynthesis model. Using big data, we independently found parameter values that were correlated with those in the literature while giving higher correlation and reduced biases in photosynthesis rates.
Dapeng Feng, Hylke Beck, Kathryn Lawson, and Chaopeng Shen
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 27, 2357–2373, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-27-2357-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-27-2357-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Powerful hybrid models (called δ or delta models) embrace the fundamental learning capability of AI and can also explain the physical processes. Here we test their performance when applied to regions not in the training data. δ models rivaled the accuracy of state-of-the-art AI models under the data-dense scenario and even surpassed them for the data-sparse one. They generalize well due to the physical structure included. δ models could be ideal candidates for global hydrologic assessment.
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.
Jiangtao Liu, David Hughes, Farshid Rahmani, Kathryn Lawson, and Chaopeng Shen
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 1553–1567, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-1553-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-1553-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Under-monitored regions like Africa need high-quality soil moisture predictions to help with food production, but it is not clear if soil moisture processes are similar enough around the world for data-driven models to maintain accuracy. We present a deep-learning-based soil moisture model that learns from both in situ data and satellite data and performs better than satellite products at the global scale. These results help us apply our model globally while better understanding its limitations.
Sara Sadri, James S. Famiglietti, Ming Pan, Hylke E. Beck, Aaron Berg, and Eric F. Wood
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 26, 5373–5390, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-5373-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-5373-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
A farm-scale hydroclimatic machine learning framework to advise farmers was developed. FarmCan uses remote sensing data and farmers' input to forecast crop water deficits. The 8 d composite variables are better than daily ones for forecasting water deficit. Evapotranspiration (ET) and potential ET are more effective than soil moisture at predicting crop water deficit. FarmCan uses a crop-specific schedule to use surface or root zone soil moisture.
Hylke E. Beck, Ming Pan, Diego G. Miralles, Rolf H. Reichle, Wouter A. Dorigo, Sebastian Hahn, Justin Sheffield, Lanka Karthikeyan, Gianpaolo Balsamo, Robert M. Parinussa, Albert I. J. M. van Dijk, Jinyang Du, John S. Kimball, Noemi Vergopolan, and Eric F. Wood
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 25, 17–40, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-17-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-17-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
We evaluated the largest and most diverse set of surface soil moisture products ever evaluated in a single study. We found pronounced differences in performance among individual products and product groups. Our results provide guidance to choose the most suitable product for a particular application.
Peng Ji, Xing Yuan, Feng Ma, and Ming Pan
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 24, 5439–5451, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-24-5439-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-24-5439-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
By performing high-resolution land surface modeling driven by the latest CMIP6 climate models, we find both the dry streamflow extreme over the drought-prone Yellow River headwater and the wet streamflow extreme over the flood-prone Yangtze River headwater will increase under 1.5, 2.0 and 3.0 °C global warming levels and emphasize the importance of considering ecological changes (i.e., vegetation greening and CO2 physiological forcing) in the hydrological projection.
Cited articles
Abdar, M., Pourpanah, F., Hussain, S., Rezazadegan, D., Liu, L., Ghavamzadeh, M., Fieguth, P., Cao, X., Khosravi, A., Acharya, U. R., Makarenkov, V., and Nahavandi, S.: A review of uncertainty quantification in deep learning: Techniques, applications and challenges, Inf. Fusion, 76, 243–297, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.inffus.2021.05.008, 2021.
Amatulli, G., Domisch, S., Tuanmu, M.-N., Parmentier, B., Ranipeta, A., Malczyk, J., and Jetz, W.: A suite of global, cross-scale topographic variables for environmental and biodiversity modeling, Sci. Data, 5, 180040, https://doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2018.40, 2018a.
Amatulli, G., Domisch, S., Tuanmu, M.-N., Parmentier, B., Ranipeta, A., Malczyk, J., and Jetz, W.: A suite of global, cross-scale topographic variables for environmental and biodiversity modeling, links to files in GeoTIFF format, PANGAEA [data set], https://doi.org/10.1594/PANGAEA.867115, 2018b.
Ayana, Ö., Kanbak, D. F., Kaya Keleş, M., and Turhan, E.: Monthly streamflow prediction and performance comparison of machine learning and deep learning methods, Acta Geophys., 71, 2905–2922, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11600-023-01023-6, 2023.
Baker, S. A., Rajagopalan, B., and Wood, A. W.: Enhancing Ensemble Seasonal Streamflow Forecasts in the Upper Colorado River Basin Using Multi-Model Climate Forecasts, J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc., 57, 906–922, https://doi.org/10.1111/1752-1688.12960, 2021.
Bannister, R. N.: A review of operational methods of variational and ensemble-variational data assimilation, Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc., 143, 607–633, https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.2982, 2017.
Brown, J. D., Wu, L., He, M., Regonda, S., Lee, H., and Seo, D.-J.: Verification of temperature, precipitation, and streamflow forecasts from the NOAA/NWS Hydrologic Ensemble Forecast Service (HEFS): 1. Experimental design and forcing verification, J. Hydrol., 519, 2869–2889, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2014.05.028, 2014.
Broxton, P. D., Dawson, N., and Zeng, X.: Linking snowfall and snow accumulation to generate spatial maps of SWE and snow depth, Earth Space Sci., 3, 246–256, https://doi.org/10.1002/2016EA000174, 2016.
Broxton, P. D., Van Leeuwen, W. J. D., Svoma, B. M., Walter, J., and Biederman, J. A.: Subseasonal to seasonal streamflow forecasting in a semiarid watershed, J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc., 59, 1493–1510, https://doi.org/10.1111/1752-1688.13147, 2023.
Cheng, M., Fang, F., Kinouchi, T., Navon, I. M., and Pain, C. C.: Long lead-time daily and monthly streamflow forecasting using machine learning methods, J. Hydrol., 590, 125376, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2020.125376, 2020.
Clark, S. R., Lerat, J., Perraud, J.-M., and Fitch, P.: Deep learning for monthly rainfall–runoff modelling: a large-sample comparison with conceptual models across Australia, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 28, 1191–1213, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-1191-2024, 2024.
Cosgrove, B., Gochis, D., Flowers, T., Dugger, A., Ogden, F., Graziano, T., Clark, E., Cabell, R., Casiday, N., Cui, Z., Eicher, K., Fall, G., Feng, X., Fitzgerald, K., Frazier, N., George, C., Gibbs, R., Hernandez, L., Johnson, D., Jones, R., Karsten, L., Kefelegn, H., Kitzmiller, D., Lee, H., Liu, Y., Mashriqui, H., Mattern, D., McCluskey, A., McCreight, J. L., McDaniel, R., Midekisa, A., Newman, A., Pan, L., Pham, C., RafieeiNasab, A., Rasmussen, R., Read, L., Rezaeianzadeh, M., Salas, F., Sang, D., Sampson, K., Schneider, T., Shi, Q., Sood, G., Wood, A., Wu, W., Yates, D., Yu, W., and Zhang, Y.: NOAA's National Water Model: Advancing operational hydrology through continental-scale modeling, J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc., 60, 247–272, https://doi.org/10.1111/1752-1688.13184, 2024.
Dalkilic, H. Y., Kumar, D., Samui, P., Dixon, B., Yesilyurt, S. N., and Katipoğlu, O. M.: Application of deep learning approaches to predict monthly stream flows, Environ. Monit. Assess., 195, 705, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-023-11331-5, 2023.
Dawson, N., Broxton, P., and Zeng, X.: A New Snow Density Parameterization for Land Data Initialization, J. Hydrometeorol., 18, 197–207, https://doi.org/10.1175/JHM-D-16-0166.1, 2017.
Demargne, J., Wu, L., Regonda, S. K., Brown, J. D., Lee, H., He, M., Seo, D.-J., Hartman, R., Herr, H. D., Fresch, M., Schaake, J., and Zhu, Y.: The Science of NOAA's Operational Hydrologic Ensemble Forecast Service, Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 95, 79–98, https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-12-00081.1, 2014.
Eghbali, H. J.: K-S Test for Detecting Changes from Landsat Imagery Data, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern., 9, 17–23, https://doi.org/10.1109/TSMC.1979.4310069, 1979.
Falcone, J. A.: GAGES-II: Geospatial Attributes of Gages for Evaluating Streamflow, U.S. Geological Survey, https://doi.org/10.5066/P96CPHOT, 2011.
Falcone, J. A., Carlisle, D. M., Wolock, D. M., and Meador, M. R.: GAGES: A stream gage database for evaluating natural and altered flow conditions in the conterminous United States, Ecology, 91, 621–621, https://doi.org/10.1890/09-0889.1, 2010.
Fang, K., Kifer, D., Lawson, K., and Shen, C.: Evaluating the Potential and Challenges of an Uncertainty Quantification Method for Long Short-Term Memory Models for Soil Moisture Predictions, Water Resour. Res., 56, e2020WR028095, https://doi.org/10.1029/2020WR028095, 2020.
Fang, K., Shen, C., and Feng, D.: mhpi/hydroDL: MHPI-hydroDL, Zenodo [code], https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5015120, 2021.
Feng, D., Fang, K., and Shen, C.: Enhancing streamflow forecast and extracting insights using long-short term memory networks with data integration at continental scales, Water Resour. Res., 56, e2019WR026793, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019WR026793, 2020.
Feng, D., Lawson, K., and Shen, C.: Mitigating Prediction Error of Deep Learning Streamflow Models in Large Data-Sparse Regions With Ensemble Modeling and Soft Data, Geophys. Res. Lett., 48, e2021GL092999, https://doi.org/10.1029/2021GL092999, 2021.
Feng, D., Beck, H., de Bruijn, J., Sahu, R. K., Satoh, Y., Wada, Y., Liu, J., Pan, M., Lawson, K., and Shen, C.: Deep dive into hydrologic simulations at global scale: harnessing the power of deep learning and physics-informed differentiable models (δHBV-globe1.0-hydroDL), Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 7181–7198, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-7181-2024, 2024.
Fleming, S. W. and Goodbody, A. G.: A Machine Learning Metasystem for Robust Probabilistic Nonlinear Regression-Based Forecasting of Seasonal Water Availability in the US West, IEEE Access, 7, 119943–119964, https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2936989, 2019.
Fleming, S. W., Garen, D. C., Goodbody, A. G., McCarthy, C. S., and Landers, L. C.: Assessing the new Natural Resources Conservation Service water supply forecast model for the American West: A challenging test of explainable, automated, ensemble artificial intelligence, J. Hydrol., 602, 126782, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2021.126782, 2021.
Fleming, S. W., Rittger, K., Oaida Taglialatela, C. M., and Graczyk, I.: Leveraging Next-Generation Satellite Remote Sensing-Based Snow Data to Improve Seasonal Water Supply Predictions in a Practical Machine Learning-Driven River Forecast System, Water Resour. Res., 60, e2023WR035785, https://doi.org/10.1029/2023WR035785, 2024.
Frame, J. M., Kratzert, F., Klotz, D., Gauch, M., Shalev, G., Gilon, O., Qualls, L. M., Gupta, H. V., and Nearing, G. S.: Deep learning rainfall–runoff predictions of extreme events, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 26, 3377–3392, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-3377-2022, 2022.
Franz, K. J., Hogue, T. S., Barik, M., and He, M.: Assessment of SWE data assimilation for ensemble streamflow predictions, J. Hydrol., 519, 2737–2746, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2014.07.008, 2014.
Fuster, B., Sánchez-Zapero, J., Camacho, F., García-Santos, V., Verger, A., Lacaze, R., Weiss, M., Baret, F., and Smets, B.: Quality Assessment of PROBA-V LAI, fAPAR and fCOVER Collection 300 m Products of Copernicus Global Land Service, Remote Sens., 12, 1017, https://doi.org/10.3390/rs12061017, 2020.
Garen, D. C.: Improved Techniques in Regression-Based Streamflow Volume Forecasting, J. Water Resour. Plan. Manag., 118, 654–670, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9496(1992)118:6(654), 1992.
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.
Gericke, O. J. and Smithers, J. C.: Review of methods used to estimate catchment response time for the purpose of peak discharge estimation, Hydrol. Sci. J., 59, 1935–1971, https://doi.org/10.1080/02626667.2013.866712, 2014.
Gichamo, T. Z. and Tarboton, D. G.: Ensemble Streamflow Forecasting Using an Energy Balance Snowmelt Model Coupled to a Distributed Hydrologic Model with Assimilation of Snow and Streamflow Observations, Water Resour. Res., 55, 10813–10838, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019WR025472, 2019.
Greff, K., Srivastava, R. K., Koutník, J., Steunebrink, B. R., and Schmidhuber, J.: LSTM: A search space odyssey, IEEE Trans. Neural Netw. Learn. Syst., 28, 2222–2232, https://doi.org/10.1109/TNNLS.2016.2582924, 2016.
Hargreaves, G. H.: Defining and Using Reference Evapotranspiration, J. Irrig. Drain. Eng., 120, 1132–1139, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9437(1994)120:6(1132), 1994.
Hengl, T., Mendes de Jesus, J., Heuvelink, G. B. M., Ruiperez Gonzalez, M., Kilibarda, M., Blagotić, A., Shangguan, W., Wright, M. N., Geng, X., Bauer-Marschallinger, B., Guevara, M. A., Vargas, R., MacMillan, R. A., Batjes, N. H., Leenaars, J. G. B., Ribeiro, E., Wheeler, I., Mantel, S., and Kempen, B.: SoilGrids250m: Global gridded soil information based on machine learning, PloS One, 12, e0169748, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0169748, 2017.
Hochreiter, S. and Schmidhuber, J.: Long short-term memory, Neural Comput., 9, 1735–1780, https://doi.org/10.1162/neco.1997.9.8.1735, 1997.
Hunt, K. M. R., Matthews, G. R., Pappenberger, F., and Prudhomme, C.: Using a long short-term memory (LSTM) neural network to boost river streamflow forecasts over the western United States, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 26, 5449–5472, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-5449-2022, 2022.
Huscroft, J., Gleeson, T., Hartmann, J., and Börker, J.: Compiling and Mapping Global Permeability of the Unconsolidated and Consolidated Earth: GLobal HYdrogeology MaPS 2.0 (GLHYMPS 2.0), Geophys. Res. Lett., 45, 1897–1904, https://doi.org/10.1002/2017GL075860, 2018a.
Huscroft, J., Gleeson, T., Hartmann, J. and Börker, J.: Compiling and mapping global permeability of the unconsolidated and consolidated Earth: GLobal HYdrogeology MaPS 2.0 (GLHYMPS 2.0), Borealis, V1 [data set], https://doi.org/10.5683/SP2/TTJNIU, 2018b.
Jiang, S., Zheng, Y., Wang, C., and Babovic, V.: Uncovering Flooding Mechanisms Across the Contiguous United States Through Interpretive Deep Learning on Representative Catchments, Water Resour. Res., 58, e2021WR030185, https://doi.org/10.1029/2021WR030185, 2022.
Khoshkalam, Y., Rousseau, A. N., Rahmani, F., Shen, C., and Abbasnezhadi, K.: Applying transfer learning techniques to enhance the accuracy of streamflow prediction produced by long Short-term memory networks with data integration, J. Hydrol., 622, 129682, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2023.129682, 2023.
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.
Klotz, D., Kratzert, F., Gauch, M., Keefe Sampson, A., Brandstetter, J., Klambauer, G., Hochreiter, S., and Nearing, G.: Uncertainty estimation with deep learning for rainfall–runoff modeling, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 26, 1673–1693, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-1673-2022, 2022.
Koster, R. D., Mahanama, S. P. P., Livneh, B., Lettenmaier, D. P., and Reichle, R. H.: Skill in streamflow forecasts derived from large-scale estimates of soil moisture and snow, Nat. Geosci., 3, 613–616, https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo944, 2010.
Kratzert, F., Klotz, D., Brenner, C., Schulz, K., and Herrnegger, M.: Rainfall–runoff modelling using Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) networks, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 22, 6005–6022, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-22-6005-2018, 2018.
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, 2019a.
Kratzert, F., Klotz, D., Shalev, G., Klambauer, G., Hochreiter, S., and Nearing, G.: Towards learning universal, regional, and local hydrological behaviors via machine learning applied to large-sample datasets, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 23, 5089–5110, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-23-5089-2019, 2019b.
Le, X.-H., Ho, H. V., Lee, G., and Jung, S.: Application of Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) Neural Network for Flood Forecasting, Water, 11, 1387, https://doi.org/10.3390/w11071387, 2019.
LeCun, Y., Bengio, Y., and Hinton, G.: Deep learning, Nature, 521, 436–444, https://doi.org/10.1038/nature14539, 2015.
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.
Li, D., Wrzesien, M. L., Durand, M., Adam, J., and Lettenmaier, D. P.: How much runoff originates as snow in the western United States, and how will that change in the future?, Geophys. Res. Lett., 44, 6163–6172, https://doi.org/10.1002/2017GL073551, 2017.
Li, Z., Gao, S., Chen, M., Gourley, J. J., Liu, C., Prein, A. F., and Hong, Y.: The conterminous United States are projected to become more prone to flash floods in a high-end emissions scenario, Commun. Earth Environ., 3, 1–9, https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-022-00409-6, 2022.
Mangukiya, N. K. and Sharma, A.: Deep Learning-Based Approach for Enhancing Streamflow Prediction in Watersheds With Aggregated and Intermittent Observations, Water Resour. Res., 61, e2024WR037331, https://doi.org/10.1029/2024WR037331, 2025.
Mangukiya, N. K., Sharma, A., and Shen, C.: How to enhance hydrological predictions in hydrologically distinct watersheds of the Indian subcontinent?, Hydrol. Process., 37, e14936, https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.14936, 2023.
Modi, P., Jennings, K., Kasprzyk, J., Small, E., Wobus, C., and Livneh, B.: Using Deep Learning in Ensemble Streamflow Forecasting: Exploring the Predictive Value of Explicit Snowpack Information, J. Adv. Model. Earth Syst., 17, e2024MS004582, https://doi.org/10.1029/2024MS004582, 2025.
Mote, P. W., Li, S., Lettenmaier, D. P., Xiao, M., and Engel, R.: Dramatic declines in snowpack in the western US, Npj Clim. Atmospheric Sci., 1, 2, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41612-018-0012-1, 2018.
Musselman, K. N., Addor, N., Vano, J. A., and Molotch, N. P.: Winter melt trends portend widespread declines in snow water resources, Nat. Clim. Change, 11, 418–424, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-021-01014-9, 2021.
Nearing, G., Yatheendradas, S., Crow, W., Zhan, X., Liu, J., and Chen, F.: The Efficiency of Data Assimilation, Water Resour. Res., 54, 6374–6392, https://doi.org/10.1029/2017WR020991, 2018.
Nearing, G. S., Klotz, D., Frame, J. M., Gauch, M., Gilon, O., Kratzert, F., Sampson, A. K., Shalev, G., and Nevo, S.: Technical note: Data assimilation and autoregression for using near-real-time streamflow observations in long short-term memory networks, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 26, 5493–5513, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-5493-2022, 2022.
Nearing, G., Cohen, D., Dube, V., Gauch, M., Gilon, O., Harrigan, S., Hassidim, A., Klotz, D., Kratzert, F., Metzger, A., Nevo, S., Pappenberger, F., Prudhomme, C., Shalev, G., Shenzis, S., Tekalign, T. Y., Weitzner, D., and Matias, Y.: Global prediction of extreme floods in ungauged watersheds, Nature, 627, 559–563, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-024-07145-1, 2024.
Ouyang, W., Lawson, K., Feng, D., Ye, L., Zhang, C., and Shen, C.: Continental-scale streamflow modeling of basins with reservoirs: Towards a coherent deep-learning-based strategy, J. Hydrol., 599, 126455, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2021.126455, 2021.
Painter, T. H., Berisford, D. F., Boardman, J. W., Bormann, K. J., Deems, J. S., Gehrke, F., Hedrick, A., Joyce, M., Laidlaw, R., Marks, D., Mattmann, C., McGurk, B., Ramirez, P., Richardson, M., Skiles, S. M., Seidel, F. C., and Winstral, A.: The Airborne Snow Observatory: Fusion of scanning lidar, imaging spectrometer, and physically-based modeling for mapping snow water equivalent and snow albedo, Remote Sens. Environ., 184, 139–152, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2016.06.018, 2016.
Pan, M.: CW3E 1-km 1-hourly meteorological forcing on NWM grid. Center for Western Weather and Water Extremes (CW3E), Zenodo [data set], https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14714512, 2025.
Perkins, T. R., Pagano, T. C., and Garen, D. C.: Innovative operational seasonal water supply forecasting technologies, J. Soil Water Conserv., 64, 15A-17A, https://doi.org/10.2489/jswc.64.1.15A, 2009.
Pierce, D. W., Barnett, T. P., Hidalgo, H. G., Das, T., Bonfils, C., Santer, B. D., Bala, G., Dettinger, M. D., Cayan, D. R., Mirin, A., Wood, A. W., and Nozawa, T.: Attribution of Declining Western U.S. Snowpack to Human Effects, J. Clim., 21, 6425–6444, https://doi.org/10.1175/2008JCLI2405.1, 2008.
Prasad, R., Deo, R. C., Li, Y., and Maraseni, T.: Input selection and performance optimization of ANN-based streamflow forecasts in the drought-prone Murray Darling Basin region using IIS and MODWT algorithm, Atmospheric Res., 197, 42–63, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosres.2017.06.014, 2017.
Sabzipour, B., Arsenault, R., Troin, M., Martel, J.-L., Brissette, F., Brunet, F., and Mai, J.: Comparing a long short-term memory (LSTM) neural network with a physically-based hydrological model for streamflow forecasting over a Canadian catchment, J. Hydrol., 627, 130380, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2023.130380, 2023.
Saharia, M., Kirstetter, P.-E., Vergara, H., Gourley, J. J., Hong, Y., and Giroud, M.: Mapping Flash Flood Severity in the United States, J. Hydrometeorol., 18, 397–411, https://doi.org/10.1175/JHM-D-16-0082.1, 2017.
Schmidhuber, J.: Deep learning in neural networks: An overview, Neural Netw., 61, 85–117, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neunet.2014.09.003, 2015.
Shen, C.: A Transdisciplinary Review of Deep Learning Research and Its Relevance for Water Resources Scientists, Water Resour. Res., 54, 8558–8593, https://doi.org/10.1029/2018WR022643, 2018.
Shen, C., Appling, A. P., Gentine, P., Bandai, T., Gupta, H., Tartakovsky, A., Baity-Jesi, M., Fenicia, F., Kifer, D., Li, L., Liu, X., Ren, W., Zheng, Y., Harman, C. J., Clark, M., Farthing, M., Feng, D., Kumar, P., Aboelyazeed, D., Rahmani, F., Song, Y., Beck, H. E., Bindas, T., Dwivedi, D., Fang, K., Höge, M., Rackauckas, C., Mohanty, B., Roy, T., Xu, C., and Lawson, K.: Differentiable modelling to unify machine learning and physical models for geosciences, Nat. Rev. Earth Environ., 1–16, https://doi.org/10.1038/s43017-023-00450-9, 2023.
Shukla, S. and Lettenmaier, D. P.: Seasonal hydrologic prediction in the United States: understanding the role of initial hydrologic conditions and seasonal climate forecast skill, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 15, 3529–3538, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-15-3529-2011, 2011.
Smirnov, N.: Table for Estimating the Goodness of Fit of Empirical Distributions, Ann. Math. Stat., 19, 279–281, https://doi.org/10.1214/aoms/1177730256, 1948.
Snyder, C., Bengtsson, T., Bickel, P., and Anderson, J.: Obstacles to High-Dimensional Particle Filtering, Mon. Weather Rev., 136, 4629–4640, https://doi.org/10.1175/2008MWR2529.1, 2008.
Song, Y., Tsai, W.-P., Gluck, J., Rhoades, A., Zarzycki, C., McCrary, R., Lawson, K., and Shen, C.: LSTM-Based Data Integration to Improve Snow Water Equivalent Prediction and Diagnose Error Sources, J. Hydrometeorol., 25, 223–237, https://doi.org/10.1175/JHM-D-22-0220.1, 2024.
Thapa, S., Zhao, Z., Li, B., Lu, L., Fu, D., Shi, X., Tang, B., and Qi, H.: Snowmelt-Driven Streamflow Prediction Using Machine Learning Techniques (LSTM, NARX, GPR, and SVR), Water, 12, 1734, https://doi.org/10.3390/w12061734, 2020.
Trujillo, E. and Molotch, N. P.: Snowpack regimes of the Western United States, Water Resour. Res., 50, 5611–5623, https://doi.org/10.1002/2013WR014753, 2014.
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.
Yao, Y., Zhao, Y., Li, X., Feng, D., Shen, C., Liu, C., Kuang, X., and Zheng, C.: Can transfer learning improve hydrological predictions in the alpine regions?, J. Hydrol., 625, 130038, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2023.130038, 2023.
Yang, Y., Feng, D., Beck, H. E., Hu, W., Abbas, A., Sengupta, A., Delle Monache, L., Hartman, R., Lin, P., Shen, C., and Pan, M.: Global Daily Discharge Estimation Based on Grid Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) Model and River Routing, Water Resour. Res., 61, e2024WR039764, https://doi.org/10.1029/2024WR039764, 2025.
Yaseen, Z. M., El-shafie, A., Jaafar, O., Afan, H. A., and Sayl, K. N.: Artificial intelligence based models for stream-flow forecasting: 2000–2015, J. Hydrol., 530, 829–844, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2015.10.038, 2015.
Zeng, X., Broxton, P., and Dawson, N.: Snowpack Change From 1982 to 2016 Over Conterminous United States, Geophys. Res. Lett., 45, 12940–12947, https://doi.org/10.1029/2018GL079621, 2018.
Short summary
We explore a machine learning-based data integration method that integrates streamflow (Q) and snow water equivalent (SWE) to improve streamflow estimates at various lag times (1–10 d, 1–6 months) and timescales (daily and monthly) over Western US basins. Benefits rank as: integrating Q at the daily scale > Q at the monthly scale > SWE at the monthly scale > SWE at the daily scale. Results highlight the method’s potential for short- and long-term streamflow forecasting in the Western US.
We explore a machine learning-based data integration method that integrates streamflow (Q) and...
