the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
A Novel Framework for Calibration and Evaluation of Hydrological Models in Dynamic Catchments
Abstract. Hydrological models often face challenges in accurately simulating dynamic catchment processes due to structural deficiencies caused by oversimplifications. This results in compromised accuracy in capturing dynamic behaviours across different flow phases in seasonal catchments. To address this challenge, this study proposes a robust calibration framework that incorporates dynamic catchment characteristics. Additionally, the potential impacts of objective function configuration and sub-period calibration with dynamic parameters were investigated in this study. A pre-processing framework was developed to bridge models with catchment dynamics by clustering time series into sub-periods with similar hydrological processes. Seven calibration experiments were conducted to explore issues related to time-invariant parameters, objective function configurations, parameter correlations, dimensionality in global optimization, and abrupt parameter shifts. The experiments were conducted using the MOPEX dataset, which includes 219 basins across the United States, and were evaluated based on performance metrics, as well as state variables and fluxes. The recommended calibration scheme effectively addressed challenges in dynamic parameter operations, significantly improving model performance across different flow phases and enhancing the simulation in dynamic catchments. In conclusion, incorporating dynamic parameters based on extracted catchment characteristics effectively mitigates structural deficiencies in hydrological models. This approach improves simulation accuracy across different flow phases, reduces uncertainty, and enhances the model's ability to capture dynamic hydrological processes in seasonal catchments. Our findings provide a practical solution for calibrating hydrological models in seasonal catchments, contributing to better understanding of the hydrological cycle.
- Preprint
(3197 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(6472 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
RC1: 'Comment on hess-2024-384', Luca Trotter, 27 Mar 2025
While the topic is of significant relevance to the hydrology community, the manuscript in its current form suffers from major shortcomings in clarity, structure, and depth of analysis. The central innovation (dynamic sub-period calibration) is potentially valuable, but is not convincingly demonstrated or critically discussed. The supporting methods (e.g., EDCC) and results are insufficiently explained or buried in supplementary materials, making it difficult to assess the true scientific merit.
I recommend that the authors reconsider the scope and objectives of the manuscript and develop a substantially revised version that clearly communicates the methodology, demonstrates the performance improvements across diverse settings, and meaningfully engages with the implications and limitations of the proposed approach.
Please see the attachment for a more thorough assessment
-
RC2: 'Comment on hess-2024-384', Anonymous Referee #2, 22 May 2025
The paper “A Novel Framework for Calibration and Evaluation of Hydrological Models in Dynamic Catchments” by Lan et al. addresses the important issue of model calibration and proposes a novel framework for calibrating models in so-called "dynamic catchments."
However, in my opinion, the paper suffers from a substantial lack of clarity, an imbalanced presentation of results (with a disproportionate focus on the case study), and omits essential information from the main text.
I recommend that the authors undertake major revisions, reorganize the paper, and include results for all catchments, while shortening the case study analysis. The manuscript should be made clearer and more concise.
Specific Comments:
The authors do not clearly define several key terms foundational to the study, including “dynamic catchments”, “dynamic parameters”, “dynamic features”, “seasonal catchments”, “sub-period” and others. While some meanings can be inferred, proper definitions should be provided in the main paper.
In general, the figures are difficult to interpret. The captions lack sufficient explanation, requiring readers to infer too much on their own.
What are the characteristics of the four selected basins? Why were these basins specifically chosen?
The EDCC (presumably a core procedure in the study) is inadequately explained in the main text. While additional details are provided in the supplementary materials, key components should be moved into the main manuscript for better accessibility.
Is the EDCC applied separately for each basin?
Does the EDCC involve any manual decisions, such as determining the number of clusters? Please clarify.
Is the EDCC applied only during the calibration period? If so, how are its results used in the validation period? Could the method be evaluated using the validation data, for instance by comparing sub-periods defined in the validation period against those from the calibration?
EDCC results are presented only for the four case studies. Statistical summaries for all catchments should be included.
The clustering results should capture more about temporal sequencing. I suggest presenting catchment-wide statistics such as distributions of the number of clusters, sub-period lengths, and other relevant metrics. These would clarify the added complexity introduced by sub-period calibration and should appear in the main paper.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2024-384-RC2
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
266 | 66 | 11 | 343 | 31 | 11 | 11 |
- HTML: 266
- PDF: 66
- XML: 11
- Total: 343
- Supplement: 31
- BibTeX: 11
- EndNote: 11
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1