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

doi:10.1007/s11707-019-0755-y

Front. Earth Sci.

2020, Vol. 14

Issue (1) : 110-123 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11707-019-0755-y

RESEARCH ARTICLE

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

Dilhani Ishanka JAYATHILAKE¹, Tyler SMITH^1,²(

)

¹. Institute for a Sustainable Environment, Clarkson University, Potsdam, NY 13699, USA
². Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Clarkson University, Potsdam, NY 13699, USA

Download: PDF(1823 KB)
Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks

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

Corresponding Author(s): Tyler SMITH

Just Accepted Date: 11 September 2019 Online First Date: 07 November 2019 Issue Date: 24 March 2020

Cite this article:

Dilhani Ishanka JAYATHILAKE,Tyler SMITH. Predicting the temporal transferability of model parameters through a hydrological signature analysis[J]. Front. Earth Sci., 2020, 14(1): 110-123.

URL:

https://academic.hep.com.cn/fesci/EN/10.1007/s11707-019-0755-y
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fesci/EN/Y2020/V14/I1/110

1	A H Auer Jr (1974). The rain versus snow threshold temperatures. Weatherwise, 27(2): 67 https://doi.org/10.1080/00431672.1974.9931684
2	D B Baker, R P Richards, T T Loftus, J W Kramer (2004). A new flashiness index: characteristics and applications to midwestern rivers and streams. JAWRA J Am Water Res, 40(2): 503–522
3	H E Beck, A I van Dijk, A de Roo, D G Miralles, T R McVicar, J Schellekens, L A Bruijnzeel (2016). Global—scale regionalization of hydrologic model parameters. Water Resour Res, 52(5): 3599–3622 https://doi.org/10.1002/2015WR018247
4	K Beven (2002). Towards a coherent philosophy for modelling the environment. P Royal Soc A-Math Phy, 458(2026): 2465–2484
5	G Blöschl, M Sivapalan, H Savenije, T Wagener, A Viglione, eds. (2013). Runoff Prediction in Ungauged Basins: Synthesis Across Processes, Places and Scales. Cambridge University Press
6	M C Casper, G Grigoryan, O Gronz, O Gutjahr, G Heinemann, R Ley, A Rock (2012). Analysis of projected hydrological behavior of catchments based on signature indices. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci, 16(2): 409–421 https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-16-409-2012
7	S Castiglioni, L Lombardi, E Toth, A Castellarin, A Montanari (2010). Calibration of rainfall-runoff models in ungauged basins: a regional maximum likelihood approach. Adv Water Resour, 33(10): 1235–1242 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advwatres.2010.04.009
8	A Dai (2008). Temperature and pressure dependence of the rain-snow phase transition over land and ocean. Geophys Res Lett, 35(12) https://doi.org/10.1029/2008GL033295
9	C Donnelly, J C Andersson, B Arheimer (2016). Using flow signatures and catchment similarities to evaluate the E-HYPE multi-basin model across Europe. Hydrol Sci J, 61(2): 255–273 https://doi.org/10.1080/02626667.2015.1027710
10	Q Duan, J Schaake, V Andréassian, S Franks, G Goteti, H V Gupta, Y M Gusev, F Habets, A Hall, L Hay, T Hogue, M Huang, G Leavesley, X Liang, O N Nasonova, J Noilhan, L Oudin, S Sorooshian, T Wagener, E F Wood (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): 3–17 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2005.07.031
11	T Euser, H C Winsemius, M Hrachowitz, F Fenicia, S Uhlenbrook, H H G Savenije (2013). A framework to assess the realism of model structures using hydrological signatures. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci, 17(5): 1893–1912. https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-17-1893-2013
12	J Ewen (2011). Hydrograph matching method for measuring model performance. J Hydrol (Amst), 408(1–2): 178–187 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2011.07.038
13	R Grayson, G Blöschl (2001). Spatial patterns in catchment hydrology: observations and modelling. CUP Archive
14	B Hingray, B Schaefli, A Mezghani, Y Hamdi (2010). Signature-based model calibration for hydrological prediction in mesoscale Alpine catchments. Hydrolog Sci J, 55(6): 1002–1016 https://doi.org/10.1080/02626667.2010.505572
15	M Hrachowitz, O Fovet, L Ruiz, T Euser, S Gharari, R Nijzink, J Freer, H H G Savenije, C Gascuel-Odoux (2014). Process consistency in models: The importance of system signatures, expert knowledge, and process complexity. Water Resour Res, 50(9): 7445–7469 https://doi.org/10.1002/2014WR015484
16	M Hrachowitz, H H G Savenije, G Blöschl, J J McDonnell, M Sivapalan, J W Pomeroy, B Arheimer, T Blume, M P Clark, U Ehret, F Fenicia, J E Freer, A Gelfan, H V Gupta, D A Hughes, R W Hut, A Montanari, S Pande, D Tetzlaff, P A Troch, S Uhlenbrook, T Wagener, H C Winsemius, R A Woods, E Zehe, C Cudennec (2013). A decade of predictions in ungauged Basins (PUB)—a review. Hydrol Sci J, 58(6): 1198–1255 https://doi.org/10.1080/02626667.2013.803183
17	A L Kay, D A Jones, S M Crooks, T R Kjeldsen, C F Fung (2007). An investigation of site-similarity approaches to generalisation of a rainfall-runoff model. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci Discuss, 11(1): 500–515 https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-11-500-2007
18	V I Koren, B D Finnerty, J C Schaake, M B Smith, D J Seo, Q Y Duan (1999). Scale dependencies of hydrologic models to spatial variability of precipitation. J Hydrol (Amst), 217(3–4): 285–302 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1694(98)00231-5
19	I Masih, S Uhlenbrook, S Maskey, M D Ahmad (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): 188–201 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2010.07.018
20	R Merz, J Parajka, G Blöschl (2011). Time stability of catchment model parameters: implications for climate impact analyses. Water Resour Res, 47(2): W02531 https://doi.org/10.1029/2010WR009505
21	A Montanari, E Toth (2007). Calibration of hydrological models in the spectral domain: an opportunity for scarcely gauged basins? Water Resour Res, 43(5): W05434 https://doi.org/10.1029/2006WR005184
22	R J Moore (1985). The probability-distributed principle and runoff production at point and basin scales. Hydrol Sci J, 30(2): 273–297 https://doi.org/10.1080/02626668509490989
23	R J Moore (2007). The PDM rainfall-runoff model. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci Discuss, 11(1): 483–499 https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-11-483-2007
24	J Nash, J V Sutcliffe (1970). River flow forecasting through conceptual models part I—a discussion of principles. J Hydrol (Amst), 10(3): 282–290 https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1694(70)90255-6
25	J D Olden, N L Poff (2003). Redundancy and the choice of hydrologic indices for characterizing streamflow regimes. River Res Appl, 19(2): 101–121 https://doi.org/10.1002/rra.700
26	J Parajka, G Blöschl, R Merz (2007). Regional calibration of catchment models: potential for ungauged catchments. Water Resour Res, 43(6): W06406 https://doi.org/10.1029/2006WR005271
27	S Patil, M Stieglitz (2012). Controls on hydrologic similarity: role of nearby gauged catchments for prediction at an ungauged catchment. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci, 16(2): 551–562 https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-16-551-2012
28	S D Patil, M Stieglitz (2015). Comparing spatial and temporal transferability of hydrological model parameters. J Hydrol (Amst), 525: 409–417 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2015.04.003
29	C Prudhomme, T Haxton, S Crooks, C Jackson, A Barkwith, J Williamson, J Kelvin, J Mackay, L Wang, A Young, G Watts (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): 101–107 https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-5-101-2013
30	S Razavi, H V Gupta (2016a). A new framework for comprehensive, robust, and efficient global sensitivity analysis: 1. theory. Water Resour Res, 52(1): 423–439 https://doi.org/10.1002/2015WR017558
31	S Razavi, H V Gupta (2016b). A new framework for comprehensive, robust, and efficient global sensitivity analysis: 2. application. Water Resour Res, 52(1): 440–455 https://doi.org/10.1002/2015WR017559
32	L Samaniego, A Bárdossy, R Kumar (2010). Streamflow prediction in ungauged catchments using copula-based dissimilarity measures. Water Resour Res, 46(2): W02506 https://doi.org/10.1029/2008WR007695
33	J Samuel, P Coulibaly, R A Metcalfe (2011). Estimation of continuous streamflow in Ontario ungauged basins: comparison of regionalization methods. J Hydrol Eng, 16(5): 447–459 https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)HE.1943-5584.0000338
34	K Sawicz, T Wagener, M Sivapalan, P A Troch, G Carrillo (2011). Catchment classification: empirical analysis of hydrologic similarity based on catchment function in the eastern USA. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci, 15(9): 2895–2911 https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-15-2895-2011
35	J Seibert (2003). Reliability of model predictions outside calibration conditions. Nord Hydrol, 34(5): 477–42
36	J Seibert, J J McDonnell (2002). On the dialog between experimentalist and modeler in catchment hydrology: use of soft data for multicriteria model calibration. Water Resour Res, 38(11): 23–1 https://doi.org/10.1029/2001WR000978
37	B A Tolson, C A Shoemaker (2007). Dynamically dimensioned search algorithm for computationally efficient watershed model calibration. Water Resour Res, 43(1): W01413 https://doi.org/10.1029/2005WR004723
38	B A Tolson, C A Shoemaker (2008). Efficient prediction uncertainty approximation in the calibration of environmental simulation models. Water Resour Res, 44(4): W04411 https://doi.org/10.1029/2007WR005869
39	J Vaze, D A Post, F H S Chiew, J M Perraud, N R Viney, J Teng (2010). Climate non-stationarity-validity of calibrated rainfall-runoff models for use in climate change studies. J Hydrol (Amst), 394(3–4): 447–457 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2010.09.018
40	T Wagener, N McIntyre, M J Lees, H S Wheater, H V Gupta (2003). Towards reduced uncertainty in conceptual rainfall-runoff modelling: dynamic identifiability analysis. Hydrol Processes, 17(2): 455–476 https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.1135
41	T Wagener, M Sivapalan, P Troch, R Woods (2007). Catchment classification and hydrologic similarity. Geogr Compass, 1(4): 901–931 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-8198.2007.00039.x
42	I K Westerberg, J L Guerrero, P M Younger, K J Beven, J Seibert, S Halldin, J E Freer, C Y Xu (2011). Calibration of hydrological models using flow-duration curves. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci, 15(7): 2205–2227 https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-15-2205-2011
43	I K Westerberg, T Wagener, G Coxon, H K McMillan, A Castellarin, A Montanari, J Freer (2016). Uncertainty in hydrological signatures for gauged and ungauged catchments. Water Resour Res, 52(3): 1847–1865 https://doi.org/10.1002/2015WR017635
44	M Yadav, T Wagener, H Gupta (2007). Regionalization of constraints on expected watershed response behavior for improved predictions in ungauged basins. Adv Water Resour, 30(8): 1756–1774 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advwatres.2007.01.005
45	Y Q Zhang, N R Viney, F H S Chiew, A I J M Van Dijk, Y Y Liu (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): 3448–3454
46	Y Zhang, H Zheng, F H Chiew, J P Arancibia, X Zhou (2016). Evaluating regional and global hydrological models against streamflow and evapotranspiration measurements. J Hydrometeorol, 17(3): 995–1010 https://doi.org/10.1175/JHM-D-15-0107.1

[1]	Christine E. WEHNER, John D. STEDNICK. Effects of mountain pine beetle-killed forests on source water contributions to streamflow in headwater streams of the Colorado Rocky Mountains[J]. Front. Earth Sci., 2017, 11(3): 496-504.
[2]	Alba SANMIGUEL-VALLELADO, Enrique MORÁN-TEJEDA, Esteban ALONSO-GONZÁLEZ, Juan Ignacio LÓPEZ-MORENO. Effect of snow on mountain river regimes: an example from the Pyrenees[J]. Front. Earth Sci., 2017, 11(3): 515-530.
[3]	Qiang ZHANG, Chong-Yu XU, Hui TAO, . Variability and stability of water resource in the arid regions of China: a case study of the Tarim River basin[J]. Front. Earth Sci., 2009, 3(4): 381-388.

Viewed

Full text

Abstract

Cited

Shared

Discussed