the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Parameter transferability of a distributed hydrological model to droughts
Abstract. Hydrological models often have issues in simulating streamflow (Q) during droughts, because of hard-to-capture feedback mechanisms across precipitation deficit, actual evapotranspiration (ET), and terrestrial water storage anomalies (TWSA). To gain more insights into these performance drops and move toward more robust hydrological models in the anthropogenic era, we evaluated Q, ET, and TWSA simulations during droughts of different severity and their sensitivity to the climatic conditions of the calibration period. We used the distributed hydrological model Continuum over the heavily human-affected Po river basin (northern Italy, period 2010–2022) and independent ground- and remote sensing-based datasets of Q, ET, and TWSA as benchmarks. Across the 38 study sub-catchments, Continuum simulated Q comparably well during wet years (2014 and 2020) and moderate droughts (2012 and 2017) with mean KGE = 0.59±0.32 during wet years and = 0.55±0.25 during moderate droughts. The model simulated well Q for the outlet section of the basin also for the severe 2022 drought (KGE = 0.82). However, performances for 2022 declined across the other sub-catchments (mean KGE = 0.18±0.69, meaning the model still preserved some skill over a climatological mean). The model properly represented seasonality of Q, ET, and TWSA over the basin, as well as a declining trend in TWSA. We explained the performance drops in 2022 with an increased uncertainty in ET anomalies, in particular in human-affected croplands. Calibrating during a moderate drought (2017) did not improve model performances during the severe 2022 drought (mean KGE = 0.18±0.63), pointing to the fairly unique conditions of this period in terms of hydrological processes and human interference on the hydrological cycle. By highlighting increased uncertainty of hydrological models specifically during severe droughts which are expected to increase in frequency, these findings provide relevant guidelines for assessments of model robustness in a changing climate and so for informing water management, disaster risk reduction, and climate change adaptation strategies.
- Preprint
(2604 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(127 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on hess-2022-416', Anonymous Referee #1, 06 Feb 2023
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://hess.copernicus.org/preprints/hess-2022-416/hess-2022-416-RC1-supplement.pdf
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Giulia Bruno, 13 Mar 2023
-
RC2: 'Comment on hess-2022-416', Anonymous Referee #2, 14 Feb 2023
The manuscript “Parameter transferability of a distributed hydrological model to droughts” evaluates a distributed hydrological model for the Po river basin during wet years and droughts of different severities. The authors have calibrated the model to multiple discharge stations and analyzed how well the model simulates drought conditions with respect to multiple variables (discharge, evaporation and total water storage). While this is an interesting and relevant topic, I recommend addressing the following major comment to make it a novel/unique publication:
As clearly stated in the introduction, previous studies have already illustrated hydrological models tend to poorly represent droughts. In its current version, the manuscript mainly illustrates that this is also the case for the hydrological model and study region used in this study. That is why I recommend bringing the study a step further. For example, would it be possible to really pin-point what exactly is causing this mis-representation during droughts? This could be done for example through a more extensive data analysis. This would allow gaining a better understanding of why the Po region is poorly modelled during droughts which can be used in future studies to improve the model representation. Alternatively, one could consider comparing different model improvement scenario’s, but I can imagine this may be out of the scope of this particular study.
In addition, the language needs to be improved throughout the entire manuscript (see list of textual suggestions below for some examples). Also, there are some details missing in the description of the methods and results (see major/minor comments for some examples).
Major comments:
- Section 2.4.1: This section needs to be restructured and formulated more concise as it is currently confusing. This also impacts the understanding of the results section. For example: I recommend mentioning first the calibration/validation setup (so which years do you use for calibration and which for validation) and after that those precipitation numbers (or better: put them in a table). That would improve the readability a lot. Also, you write that you use two periods for calibration and three for validation. Do you use all three validation periods for both calibration scenarios? You mention here two calibration periods, but in Section 3.2 you only present results for one of those calibration scenario’s (this becomes clear after having read Section 3.4, but should be clear from the start). What about the remaining years in 2009 – 2022 (so 2009-2011, 2013, 2015, 2021)? It feels like a waste not to use those too.
- Section 2.4.2: So each catchment was calibrated individually? How were parameters then transferred in space to the remaining regions? You mention here running the model for two years, while in line 98 you mention the entire 2009-2022 period. You mention a spin-up time of 6 months, but in line 98 you write 1 year. You use 18 of the 38 stations for calibration. Why those? How do you use the remaining stations? It feels like a waste not to use all the data available.
- Section 3.1: The phrase “ET or Q anomalies” is confusing. You then mean that absolute monthly values are higher/lower for a specific year compared to the monthly mean. However, “ET anomalies” would mean that the presented/visualized values are relative to a long-term mean (e.g. similar to TWSA).
- Section 3.3: How did you estimate “deviations from seasonality”? The phrase TWSA anomalies (i.e., total water storage anomalies anomalies), sounds very odd. I recommend mentioning results related to TWSA first and then ET (instead of going back and forth). Did you validate ET with respect to station data too (dots in Fig. 6)? If yes, what data did you use?
- The authors conclude the misrepresentation of ET is the reason for the poor Q performance during severe droughts. But why is ET poorly represented? Would you get the same result with a different satellite product? What processes could cause this? Also, when analyzing and describing results, they did not consider uncertainties in the precipitation, evaporation and total water storage observations (which could affect the results considerably) nor human actions (even though the Po river basin is heavily influenced by humans as stated by the authors in the manuscript).
Minor comments:
- Line 2: Please be more specific: What feedback mechanisms for example?
- Line 8: One could argue KGE = 0.59 does not indicate the model is performing “well” (line 7).
- Line 17: If I’m not mistaken, you are not giving any “guidelines” in this manuscript.
- Line 20: Please be more specific: What “multifaceted impacts” are you referring to?
- Line 21: Please be more specific: Why/how does a warming climate lead to increased drought impacts?
- Line 29: How do you define “streamflow droughts”?
- Line 37: Why are the results inconclusive?
- Line 54: It would be interesting to not only analyze whether model deterioration is related to ET or TWSA, but also why that is and what that tells us.
- Line 65: The sentence is a bit confusing. Percentage of what? Please move “of the whole country” closer to the first % value.
- Line 67: The Swiss region mentioned here is not shown in the figure referred to here.
- Line 69: What does a.s.l. stand for?
- Line 74: Isn’t annual discharge (mm/year) automatically cumulative?
- Line 80: Please show the three major lakes more clearly in Fig. 1.
- Line 82: Please be more specific: How much (%) of the water use is related to irrigation?
- Line 96: Model outputs can be several things, but I think here you mean “fluxes”.
- Line 107: Model inputs can be several things, but I think here you mean “forcing data”.
- Line 110: How accurate are these maps? What is the density of the field observations underlying these maps?
- Line 119: “around 5km” is a vague formulation
- Line 120: Which energy model specific?
- Line 122: Please start new paragraph at “Finally, we employed…”
- Line 134: Which technique did you use for the regridding?
- Line 169: How exactly did you evaluate the spatial variability? Reading the results section, I understand you did that through visual comparison?
- Line 187: How would the results be affected if you did not normalize? In other words, is the normalization really needed?
- Line 194: How do you define "duration and severity of P deficits"? When reading this, I think of drought duration & severity; see for example Section 3.3 in the following paper: S. Huang, Q. Huang, J. Chang, G. Leng. Linkages between hydrological drought, climate indices and human activities: a case study in the Columbia river basin. Int. J. Climatol., 36 (1) (2016), pp. 280-290, https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.4344. However, I don't think this is what you mean. You did calculate rainfall anomalies which are the numbers you are referring to here. So please be clear with what you mean.
- Line 204: Avoid using the term “historical minimum” since your study period is pretty short.
- Section 3.2: Please mention at the beginning that all results are validation results when calibrating with respect to the years 2018/19.
- Line 219: Are you sure you mean Fig. 1?
- Line 229: Why did the model have difficulties in reproducing ET deviations from the seasonality? What could explain this?
- Line 252: Please show the validation results too.
- Line 273: Better than what?
- Line 307: “we showed the value of remote sensing” Not quite, you merely used remote sensing data for your analysis.
- Figures: Please ensure the grid spacing is the same in all figures. Currently, the Po river basin looks differently in Fig. 1,4 vs. Fig. 6-8.
Textual comments:
- Line 3: “to gain more insights” -> “to gain more insight”
- Line 5: “climatic conditions of the calibration period” -> “climatic conditions during the calibration period”
- Line 8: remove second “=” sign
- Line 9: “The model simulated well Q for the outlet section of the basin” -> “The model simulated Q well at the Po basin outlet”
- Line 38: “model deterioration in Q simulation” -> “decreased Q performances”
- Line 41: “while” -> “but”
- Line 47: “so” -> “hence”
- Line 52: “To contribute to fill this research gap” -> “To contribute to filling this research gap”
- Line 52: “drop” -> “decrease”
- Line 57: “in northern Italy and the flood- and drought-rich period” -> “in northern Italy during the flood- and drought rich period”
- Line 58: “… and we evaluated the modelling capabilities in…” -> “and evaluated the model’s capability in …”
- Line 59: “ for the whole river basin and 38 sub-catchments” -> “for the whole river basin and its 38 sub-catchments”
I’m stopping here with writing down textual suggestions.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2022-416-RC2 - AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Giulia Bruno, 13 Mar 2023
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on hess-2022-416', Anonymous Referee #1, 06 Feb 2023
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://hess.copernicus.org/preprints/hess-2022-416/hess-2022-416-RC1-supplement.pdf
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Giulia Bruno, 13 Mar 2023
-
RC2: 'Comment on hess-2022-416', Anonymous Referee #2, 14 Feb 2023
The manuscript “Parameter transferability of a distributed hydrological model to droughts” evaluates a distributed hydrological model for the Po river basin during wet years and droughts of different severities. The authors have calibrated the model to multiple discharge stations and analyzed how well the model simulates drought conditions with respect to multiple variables (discharge, evaporation and total water storage). While this is an interesting and relevant topic, I recommend addressing the following major comment to make it a novel/unique publication:
As clearly stated in the introduction, previous studies have already illustrated hydrological models tend to poorly represent droughts. In its current version, the manuscript mainly illustrates that this is also the case for the hydrological model and study region used in this study. That is why I recommend bringing the study a step further. For example, would it be possible to really pin-point what exactly is causing this mis-representation during droughts? This could be done for example through a more extensive data analysis. This would allow gaining a better understanding of why the Po region is poorly modelled during droughts which can be used in future studies to improve the model representation. Alternatively, one could consider comparing different model improvement scenario’s, but I can imagine this may be out of the scope of this particular study.
In addition, the language needs to be improved throughout the entire manuscript (see list of textual suggestions below for some examples). Also, there are some details missing in the description of the methods and results (see major/minor comments for some examples).
Major comments:
- Section 2.4.1: This section needs to be restructured and formulated more concise as it is currently confusing. This also impacts the understanding of the results section. For example: I recommend mentioning first the calibration/validation setup (so which years do you use for calibration and which for validation) and after that those precipitation numbers (or better: put them in a table). That would improve the readability a lot. Also, you write that you use two periods for calibration and three for validation. Do you use all three validation periods for both calibration scenarios? You mention here two calibration periods, but in Section 3.2 you only present results for one of those calibration scenario’s (this becomes clear after having read Section 3.4, but should be clear from the start). What about the remaining years in 2009 – 2022 (so 2009-2011, 2013, 2015, 2021)? It feels like a waste not to use those too.
- Section 2.4.2: So each catchment was calibrated individually? How were parameters then transferred in space to the remaining regions? You mention here running the model for two years, while in line 98 you mention the entire 2009-2022 period. You mention a spin-up time of 6 months, but in line 98 you write 1 year. You use 18 of the 38 stations for calibration. Why those? How do you use the remaining stations? It feels like a waste not to use all the data available.
- Section 3.1: The phrase “ET or Q anomalies” is confusing. You then mean that absolute monthly values are higher/lower for a specific year compared to the monthly mean. However, “ET anomalies” would mean that the presented/visualized values are relative to a long-term mean (e.g. similar to TWSA).
- Section 3.3: How did you estimate “deviations from seasonality”? The phrase TWSA anomalies (i.e., total water storage anomalies anomalies), sounds very odd. I recommend mentioning results related to TWSA first and then ET (instead of going back and forth). Did you validate ET with respect to station data too (dots in Fig. 6)? If yes, what data did you use?
- The authors conclude the misrepresentation of ET is the reason for the poor Q performance during severe droughts. But why is ET poorly represented? Would you get the same result with a different satellite product? What processes could cause this? Also, when analyzing and describing results, they did not consider uncertainties in the precipitation, evaporation and total water storage observations (which could affect the results considerably) nor human actions (even though the Po river basin is heavily influenced by humans as stated by the authors in the manuscript).
Minor comments:
- Line 2: Please be more specific: What feedback mechanisms for example?
- Line 8: One could argue KGE = 0.59 does not indicate the model is performing “well” (line 7).
- Line 17: If I’m not mistaken, you are not giving any “guidelines” in this manuscript.
- Line 20: Please be more specific: What “multifaceted impacts” are you referring to?
- Line 21: Please be more specific: Why/how does a warming climate lead to increased drought impacts?
- Line 29: How do you define “streamflow droughts”?
- Line 37: Why are the results inconclusive?
- Line 54: It would be interesting to not only analyze whether model deterioration is related to ET or TWSA, but also why that is and what that tells us.
- Line 65: The sentence is a bit confusing. Percentage of what? Please move “of the whole country” closer to the first % value.
- Line 67: The Swiss region mentioned here is not shown in the figure referred to here.
- Line 69: What does a.s.l. stand for?
- Line 74: Isn’t annual discharge (mm/year) automatically cumulative?
- Line 80: Please show the three major lakes more clearly in Fig. 1.
- Line 82: Please be more specific: How much (%) of the water use is related to irrigation?
- Line 96: Model outputs can be several things, but I think here you mean “fluxes”.
- Line 107: Model inputs can be several things, but I think here you mean “forcing data”.
- Line 110: How accurate are these maps? What is the density of the field observations underlying these maps?
- Line 119: “around 5km” is a vague formulation
- Line 120: Which energy model specific?
- Line 122: Please start new paragraph at “Finally, we employed…”
- Line 134: Which technique did you use for the regridding?
- Line 169: How exactly did you evaluate the spatial variability? Reading the results section, I understand you did that through visual comparison?
- Line 187: How would the results be affected if you did not normalize? In other words, is the normalization really needed?
- Line 194: How do you define "duration and severity of P deficits"? When reading this, I think of drought duration & severity; see for example Section 3.3 in the following paper: S. Huang, Q. Huang, J. Chang, G. Leng. Linkages between hydrological drought, climate indices and human activities: a case study in the Columbia river basin. Int. J. Climatol., 36 (1) (2016), pp. 280-290, https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.4344. However, I don't think this is what you mean. You did calculate rainfall anomalies which are the numbers you are referring to here. So please be clear with what you mean.
- Line 204: Avoid using the term “historical minimum” since your study period is pretty short.
- Section 3.2: Please mention at the beginning that all results are validation results when calibrating with respect to the years 2018/19.
- Line 219: Are you sure you mean Fig. 1?
- Line 229: Why did the model have difficulties in reproducing ET deviations from the seasonality? What could explain this?
- Line 252: Please show the validation results too.
- Line 273: Better than what?
- Line 307: “we showed the value of remote sensing” Not quite, you merely used remote sensing data for your analysis.
- Figures: Please ensure the grid spacing is the same in all figures. Currently, the Po river basin looks differently in Fig. 1,4 vs. Fig. 6-8.
Textual comments:
- Line 3: “to gain more insights” -> “to gain more insight”
- Line 5: “climatic conditions of the calibration period” -> “climatic conditions during the calibration period”
- Line 8: remove second “=” sign
- Line 9: “The model simulated well Q for the outlet section of the basin” -> “The model simulated Q well at the Po basin outlet”
- Line 38: “model deterioration in Q simulation” -> “decreased Q performances”
- Line 41: “while” -> “but”
- Line 47: “so” -> “hence”
- Line 52: “To contribute to fill this research gap” -> “To contribute to filling this research gap”
- Line 52: “drop” -> “decrease”
- Line 57: “in northern Italy and the flood- and drought-rich period” -> “in northern Italy during the flood- and drought rich period”
- Line 58: “… and we evaluated the modelling capabilities in…” -> “and evaluated the model’s capability in …”
- Line 59: “ for the whole river basin and 38 sub-catchments” -> “for the whole river basin and its 38 sub-catchments”
I’m stopping here with writing down textual suggestions.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2022-416-RC2 - AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Giulia Bruno, 13 Mar 2023
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1,128 | 310 | 43 | 1,481 | 100 | 38 | 33 |
- HTML: 1,128
- PDF: 310
- XML: 43
- Total: 1,481
- Supplement: 100
- BibTeX: 38
- EndNote: 33
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1