the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Advancing flow duration curve prediction in ungauged basins using machine learning and deep learning
Abstract. The flow duration curve (FDC) represents the distribution of streamflow, providing vital information for managing river systems. Constructing FDC is especially challenging in ungauged basins where streamflow data are lacking. This study addresses key gaps by utilizing machine learning and deep learning models to predict FDC in ungauged basins. The objectives include: (a) identifying influential hydrologic, meteorological, and topographic factors, (b) evaluating various combinations of predictor variables, (c) assessing the effects of different precipitation metrics on flow predictions, and (d) comparing ML and DL model performance. We developed and evaluated random forest (RF), deep neural network (DNN), support vector regression (SVR), and elastic net regression (ENR) models using historical data from 140 streamflow stations. Feature importance analysis revealed that watershed area and precipitation were the key factors for high discharge percentiles, whereas land use and basin characteristics gained greater importance for medium and low flows. Scenario analysis showed that combining all variables yielded the highest accuracy in predicting FDC. Different precipitation metrics had minimal impact on streamflow predictions, indicating that other factors played a more significant role. The DNN outperformed RF, SVR, and ENR in predicting low (Q95), medium (Q50), and high flows (Q5), achieving an average coefficient of determination that was 8.03 % higher, a root mean square error that was 227.4 % lower on average, and a standard deviation that was 46.4 % lower. This study demonstrates the effectiveness of advanced ML and DL approaches for predicting FDC in ungauged basins, offering a foundation for advancing hydrological prediction.
- Preprint
(2848 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (extended)
-
RC1: 'Comment on hess-2024-355', Anonymous Referee #1, 05 Mar 2025
reply
The manuscript “Advancing flow duration curve prediction in ungauged basins using machine learning and deep learning” by Yi et al. discusses different approaches to predict the quantiles of the flow duration curve (FDC) at a generic ungauged basin. All these approaches belong to the family of machine learning models.
The topic of predicting FDCs in ungauged basins had a great appeal in the last decade, but it is still a challenge and further research is needed, especially towards a robust use of machine learning methods (i.e., replicability, calibration on small datasets, analysis of uncertainty, etc).
Despite this context, the manuscript lacks a clear advance in the field but, more important, it also has several methodological flaws, as described below. My suggestion is thus to reject the paper.
General comment
The manuscript shows a very simplified application of a regionalisation approach, where none of the steps are well described: from data selection, to model fitting and model validation, as described in more detail in the main comments. Not even a comparison with more traditional regionalisation approaches is presented to support the claim in the title of "advancing" flow duration curve prediction.
Last but not least, the paper does not provide any practical information on how to pragmatically apply the model to an ungauged catchment, thus making the procedure effectively inapplicable.
Major comments
Starting from the point-list of page 3 (points b and c), and throughout the text, the analysis considers the precipitation characteristics of the basin separately from the other descriptors (area, LULC, slope and elevation). Clearly, precipitation is one of the most important characteristics, but there is no reason to treat it separately. In a data-driven procedure, as the machine learning approaches (but it is the same for simpler models like multiple regression), the model would be able to select precipitation when relevant and discard it when it is not.
Whatever the model adopted, the procedure is based on the prediction of different discharge percentiles (see e.g. P7 L128, or table 4, or figure 6). This choice poses the problem of the congruence of the various estimates: as the FDC is a non-increasing function, the percentiles should be jointly estimated or their congruence (Q95 <= Q90 <= Q80 … <= Q5) should be checked/constrained.
In the literature, other approaches that do not have this problem are predictions made by computing the parameters or the moments of a distribution function that represents the FDC.
The authors develop four scenarios (Section 3.4) where different combinations of predictors are used in to feed the models. These scenarios result extremely simplified and reduce to the use or not of the LULC and slope-elevation basin descriptors. It is surprising that a framework based on machine learning techniques is based on a so small number of basin characteristics and that scenarios (i.e., pre-selection of characteristics accounted for by the model) are done arbitrarily. I would have expected that i) the algorithm is fed with a very large set of basin characteristics and ii) the algorithms automatically selected the most useful subset characteristics. This approach is typical of regionalization methods developed in the past decades where more traditional approaches to select subsets of descriptors were used (e.g., stepwise regression, multicollinarity tests, etc).
P15 L304 the authors refer that the model with all the independent variables is the best performing. This is expected because the number of parameters is higher and the fitting is better, but the model could be subject to overfitting. This issue is not mentioned by the authors and does not seem to be investigated in the paper. For instance, table 6 (summary of fitting performance of the models) should compare performance indicators between calibration and validation.
Moreover, validation has been done (section 5.1) introducing a new station not included in the original calibration set. While this is not incorrect, it is common practice in hydrological analysis, due to the limited number of available data, to perform a leave-one-out cross-validation that allows one to test the model performances in a more comprehensive way.
Minor comments
In the data collection and preprocessing section, there is no reference about the use of “annual fdc” or “total fdc”. Most of the cited literature well describe the two methods to obtain sample fdcs.
About the applicability of the model, the paper does not provide practical information on the model usage; the selected model parameterization should be presented to make the procedure applicable at an ungauged basin.
Section 4.1 describes a regression-based screening to highlight which basin characteristics impact more on each quantile of the fdc. However, the results of this investigations are not used anywhere in the study, and it is not clear if they are useful for the application.
In the validation section (5.1) seven other basins are mentioned for a comparison of results. Although these basins have similar areas, discharge values are not normalized, making the comparison very qualitative.
Typos
Table 1: unit of “average precipitation” is missing
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2024-355-RC1
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
153 | 29 | 8 | 190 | 8 | 8 |
- HTML: 153
- PDF: 29
- XML: 8
- Total: 190
- BibTeX: 8
- EndNote: 8
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1