Advertisement

Predicting the temporal transferability of model parameters through a hydrological signature analysis

  • Dilhani Ishanka Jayathilake
  • Tyler SmithEmail author
Research Article
  • 1 Downloads

Abstract

Attention has recently increased on the use of hydrological signatures as a potential tool for assessing the fidelity of model structures and providing insights into the transfer of model parameters. The utility of hydrological signatures as model performance/reliability indicators in a calibration-validation testing scenario (i.e., the temporal transfer of model parameters) is the focus of this study. The Probability Distributed Model, a flexible conceptual hydrological model, is used to test the approach across a number of catchments included in the MOPEX data set. We explore the change in model performance across calibration and validation time periods and contrast it to the corresponding change in several hydrological signatures to assess signature worth. Results are explored in finer detail by utilizing a moving window approach to calibration and validation time periods. The results of this study indicated that the most informative signature can vary, both spatially and temporally, based on physical and climatic characteristics and their interaction to the model parameterization. Thus, one signature could not adequately illustrate complex watershed behaviors nor predict model performance in new analysis periods.

Keywords

streamflow hydrological signature validation testing model calibration 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

Acknowledgements

We acknowledge the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration for making available the Model Parameter Estimation Experiment (MOPEX) data that was used for this study and S. Razavi for providing free access to the VARS toolbox. We thank the two anonymous reviewers for their contributions toward the improvement of this manuscript. Funding for this research was provided through a graduate scholarship from Clarkson University awarded to D. Jayathilake.

References

  1. Auer A H Jr (1974). The rain versus snow threshold temperatures. Weatherwise, 27(2): 67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baker D B, Richards R P, Loftus T T, Kramer J W (2004). A new flashiness index: characteristics and applications to midwestern rivers and streams. JAWRA J Am Water Res, 40(2): 503–522CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beck H E, van Dijk A I, de Roo A, Miralles D G, McVicar T R, Schellekens J, Bruijnzeel L A (2016). Global—scale regionalization of hydrologic model parameters. Water Resour Res, 52(5): 3599–3622CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beven K (2002). Towards a coherent philosophy for modelling the environment. P Royal Soc A-Math Phy, 458(2026): 2465–2484CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blöschl G, Sivapalan M, Savenije H, Wagener T, Viglione A, eds. (2013). Runoff Prediction in Ungauged Basins: Synthesis Across Processes, Places and Scales. Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  6. Casper M C, Grigoryan G, Gronz O, Gutjahr O, Heinemann G, Ley R, Rock A (2012). Analysis of projected hydrological behavior of catchments based on signature indices. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci, 16(2): 409–421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Castiglioni S, Lombardi L, Toth E, Castellarin A, Montanari A (2010). Calibration of rainfall-runoff models in ungauged basins: a regional maximum likelihood approach. Adv Water Resour, 33(10): 1235–1242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dai A (2008). Temperature and pressure dependence of the rain-snow phase transition over land and ocean. Geophys Res Lett, 35(12)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Donnelly C, Andersson J C, Arheimer B (2016). Using flow signatures and catchment similarities to evaluate the E-HYPE multi-basin model across Europe. Hydrol Sci J, 61(2): 255–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Duan Q, Schaake J, Andréassian V, Franks S, Goteti G, Gupta H V, Gusev Y M, Habets F, Hall A, Hay L, Hogue T, Huang M, Leavesley G, Liang X, Nasonova O N, Noilhan J, Oudin L, Sorooshian S, Wagener T, Wood E F (2006). Model parameter estimation experiment (MOPEX): an overview of science strategy and major results from the second and third workshops. J Hydrol (Amst), 320(1–2): 3–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Euser T, Winsemius H C, Hrachowitz M, Fenicia F, Uhlenbrook S, Savenije H H G (2013). A framework to assess the realism of model structures using hydrological signatures. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci, 17(5): 1893–1912.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ewen J (2011). Hydrograph matching method for measuring model performance. J Hydrol (Amst), 408(1–2): 178–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Grayson R, Blöschl G (2001). Spatial patterns in catchment hydrology: observations and modelling. CUP ArchiveGoogle Scholar
  14. Hingray B, Schaefli B, Mezghani A, Hamdi Y (2010). Signature-based model calibration for hydrological prediction in mesoscale Alpine catchments. Hydrolog Sci J, 55(6): 1002–1016CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hrachowitz M, Fovet O, Ruiz L, Euser T, Gharari S, Nijzink R, Freer J, Savenije H H G, Gascuel-Odoux C (2014). Process consistency in models: The importance of system signatures, expert knowledge, and process complexity. Water Resour Res, 50(9): 7445–7469CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hrachowitz M, Savenije H H G, Blöschl G, McDonnell J J, Sivapalan M, Pomeroy J W, Arheimer B, Blume T, Clark M P, Ehret U, Fenicia F, Freer J E, Gelfan A, Gupta H V, Hughes D A, Hut R W, Montanari A, Pande S, Tetzlaff D, Troch P A, Uhlenbrook S, Wagener T, Winsemius H C, Woods R A, Zehe E, Cudennec C (2013). A decade of predictions in ungauged basins (PUB)—a review. Hydrol Sci J, 58(6): 1198–1255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kay A L, Jones D A, Crooks S M, Kjeldsen T R, Fung C F (2007). An investigation of site-similarity approaches to generalisation of a rainfall-runoff model. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci Discuss, 11(1): 500–515CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Koren V I, Finnerty B D, Schaake J C, Smith M B, Seo D J, Duan Q Y (1999). Scale dependencies of hydrologic models to spatial variability of precipitation. J Hydrol (Amst), 217(3–4): 285–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Masih I, Uhlenbrook S, Maskey S, Ahmad M D (2010). Regionalization of a conceptual rainfall-runoff model based on similarity of the flow duration curve: a case study from the semi-arid Karkheh basin, Iran. J Hydrol (Amst), 391(1–2): 188–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Merz R, Parajka J, Blöschl G (2011). Time stability of catchment model parameters: implications for climate impact analyses. Water Resour Res, 47(2): W02531CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Montanari A, Toth E (2007). Calibration of hydrological models in the spectral domain: an opportunity for scarcely gauged basins? Water Resour Res, 43(5): W05434CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Moore R J (1985). The probability-distributed principle and runoff production at point and basin scales. Hydrol Sci J, 30(2): 273–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Moore R J (2007). The PDM rainfall-runoff model. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci Discuss, 11(1): 483–499CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Nash J, Sutcliffe J V (1970). River flow forecasting through conceptual models part I—a discussion of principles. J Hydrol (Amst), 10(3): 282–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Olden J D, Poff N L (2003). Redundancy and the choice of hydrologic indices for characterizing streamflow regimes. River Res Appl, 19(2): 101–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Parajka J, Blöschl G, Merz R (2007). Regional calibration of catchment models: potential for ungauged catchments. Water Resour Res, 43(6): W06406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Patil S, Stieglitz M (2012). Controls on hydrologic similarity: role of nearby gauged catchments for prediction at an ungauged catchment. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci, 16(2): 551–562CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Patil S D, Stieglitz M (2015). Comparing spatial and temporal transferability of hydrological model parameters. J Hydrol (Amst), 525: 409–417CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Prudhomme C, Haxton T, Crooks S, Jackson C, Barkwith A, Williamson J, Kelvin J, Mackay J, Wang L, Young A, Watts G (2013). Future flows hydrology: an ensemble of daily river flow and monthly groundwater levels for use for climate change impact assessment across Great Britain. Earth Syst Sci Data, 5(1): 101–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Razavi S, Gupta H V (2016a). A new framework for comprehensive, robust, and efficient global sensitivity analysis: 1. theory. Water Resour Res, 52(1): 423–439CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Razavi S, Gupta H V (2016b). A new framework for comprehensive, robust, and efficient global sensitivity analysis: 2. application. Water Resour Res, 52(1): 440–455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Samaniego L, Bárdossy A, Kumar R (2010). Streamflow prediction in ungauged catchments using copula-based dissimilarity measures. Water Resour Res, 46(2): W02506CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Samuel J, Coulibaly P, Metcalfe R A (2011). Estimation of continuous streamflow in Ontario ungauged basins: comparison of regionalization methods. J Hydrol Eng, 16(5): 447–459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Sawicz K, Wagener T, Sivapalan M, Troch P A, Carrillo G (2011). Catchment classification: empirical analysis of hydrologic similarity based on catchment function in the eastern USA. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci, 15(9): 2895–2911CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Seibert J (2003). Reliability of model predictions outside calibration conditions. Nord Hydrol, 34(5): 477–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Seibert J, McDonnell J J (2002). On the dialog between experimentalist and modeler in catchment hydrology: use of soft data for multicriteria model calibration. Water Resour Res, 38(11): 23–1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Tolson B A, Shoemaker C A (2007). Dynamically dimensioned search algorithm for computationally efficient watershed model calibration. Water Resour Res, 43(1): W01413CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Tolson B A, Shoemaker C A (2008). Efficient prediction uncertainty approximation in the calibration of environmental simulation models. Water Resour Res, 44(4): W04411CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Vaze J, Post D A, Chiew F H S, Perraud J M, Viney N R, Teng J (2010). Climate non-stationarity-validity of calibrated rainfall-runoff models for use in climate change studies. J Hydrol (Amst), 394(3–4): 447–457CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Wagener T, McIntyre N, Lees M J, Wheater H S, Gupta H V (2003). Towards reduced uncertainty in conceptual rainfall-runoff modelling: dynamic identifiability analysis. Hydrol Processes, 17(2): 455–476CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Wagener T, Sivapalan M, Troch P, Woods R (2007). Catchment classification and hydrologic similarity. Geogr Compass, 1(4): 901–931CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Westerberg I K, Guerrero J L, Younger P M, Beven K J, Seibert J, Halldin S, Freer J E, Xu C Y (2011). Calibration of hydrological models using flow-duration curves. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci, 15(7): 2205–2227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Westerberg I K, Wagener T, Coxon G, McMillan H K, Castellarin A, Montanari A, Freer J (2016). Uncertainty in hydrological signatures for gauged and ungauged catchments. Water Resour Res, 52(3): 1847–1865CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Yadav M, Wagener T, Gupta H (2007). Regionalization of constraints on expected watershed response behavior for improved predictions in ungauged basins. Adv Water Resour, 30(8): 1756–1774CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Zhang Y Q, Viney N R, Chiew F H S, Van Dijk A I J M, Liu Y Y (2011). Improving hydrological and vegetation modelling using regional model calibration schemes together with remote sensing data. In: Proceedings of the 19th International Congress on Modelling and Simulation (MODSIM’11): 3448–3454Google Scholar
  46. Zhang Y, Zheng H, Chiew F H, Arancibia J P, Zhou X (2016). Evaluating regional and global hydrological models against stream-flow and evapotranspiration measurements. J Hydrometeorol, 17(3): 995–1010CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Higher Education Press and Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for a Sustainable EnvironmentClarkson UniversityPotsdamUSA
  2. 2.Department of Civil and Environmental EngineeringClarkson UniversityPotsdamUSA

Personalised recommendations