Technical note: Pitfalls in using log-transformed flows within the KGE criterion

Log-transformed discharge is often used to calculate performance criteria to better focus on low flows. This prior transformation limits the heteroscedasticity of model residuals and was largely applied in criteria based on squared residuals, like the Nash–Sutcliffe efficiency (NSE). In the recent years, NSE has been shown to have mathematical limitations and the Kling–Gupta efficiency (KGE) was proposed as an alternative to provide more balance between the expected qualities of a model (namely representing the water balance, flow variability and correlation). As in the case of NSE, several authors used the KGE criterion (or its improved version KGE′) with a prior logarithmic transformation on flows. However, we show that the use of this transformation is not adapted to the case of the KGE (or KGE′) criterion and may lead to several numerical issues, potentially resulting in a biased evaluation of model performance. We present the theoretical underpinning aspects of these issues and concrete modelling examples, showing that KGE′ computed on log-transformed flows should be avoided. Alternatives are discussed.</p

A particle filter scheme for multivariate data assimilation into a point-scale snowpack model in an Alpine environment

The accuracy of hydrological predictions in snow-dominated regions deeply depends on the quality of the snowpack simulations, with dynamics that strongly affect the local hydrological regime, especially during the melting period. With the aim of reducing the modelling uncertainty, data assimilation techniques are increasingly being implemented for operational purposes. This study aims to investigate the performance of a multivariate sequential importance resampling – particle filter scheme, designed to jointly assimilate several ground-based snow observations. The system, which relies on a multilayer energy-balance snow model, has been tested at three Alpine sites: Col de Porte (France), Torgnon (Italy), and Weissfluhjoch (Switzerland). The implementation of a multivariate data assimilation scheme faces several challenging issues, which are here addressed and extensively discussed: (1) the effectiveness of the perturbation of the meteorological forcing data in preventing the sample impoverishment; (2) the impact of the parameter perturbation on the filter updating of the snowpack state; the system sensitivity to (3) the frequency of the assimilated observations, and (4) the ensemble size.The perturbation of the meteorological forcing data generally turns out to be insufficient for preventing the sample impoverishment of the particle sample, which is highly limited when jointly perturbating key model parameters. However, the parameter perturbation sharpens the system sensitivity to the frequency of the assimilated observations, which can be successfully relaxed by introducing indirectly estimated information on snow-mass-related variables. The ensemble size is found not to greatly impact the filter performance in this point-scale application.</p

A large sample analysis of European rivers on seasonal river flow correlation and its physical drivers

The geophysical and hydrological processes governing river flow formation exhibit persistence at several timescales, which may manifest itself with the presence of positive seasonal correlation of streamflow at several different time lags. We investigate here how persistence propagates along subsequent seasons and affects low and high flows. We define the high-flow season (HFS) and the low-flow season (LFS) as the 3-month and the 1-month periods which usually exhibit the higher and lower river flows, respectively. A dataset of 224 rivers from six European countries spanning more than 50 years of daily flow data is exploited. We compute the lagged seasonal correlation between selected river flow signatures, in HFS and LFS, and the average river flow in the antecedent months. Signatures are peak and average river flow for HFS and LFS, respectively. We investigate the links between seasonal streamflow correlation and various physiographic catchment characteristics and hydro-climatic properties. We find persistence to be more intense for LFS signatures than HFS. To exploit the seasonal correlation in the frequency estimation of high and low flows, we fit a bi-variate meta-Gaussian probability distribution to the selected flow signatures and average flow in the antecedent months in order to condition the distribution of high and low flows in the HFS and LFS, respectively, upon river flow observations in the previous months. The benefit of the suggested methodology is demonstrated by updating the frequency distribution of high and low flows one season in advance in a real-world case. Our findings suggest that there is a traceable physical basis for river memory which, in turn, can be statistically assimilated into high- and low-flow frequency estimation to reduce uncertainty and improve predictions for technical purposes

Does a convection-permitting regional climate model bring new perspectives on the projection of Mediterranean floods?

Floods are the primary natural hazard in the French Mediterranean area, causing damages and fatalities every year. These floods are triggered by heavy precipitation events (HPEs) characterized by limited temporal and spatial extents. A new generation of regional climate models at the kilometer scale have been developed, allowing an explicit representation of deep convection and improved simulations of local-scale phenomena such as HPEs. Convection-permitting regional climate models (CPMs) have been scarcely used in hydrological impact studies, and future projections of Mediterranean floods remain uncertain with regional climate models (RCMs). In this paper, we use the CNRM-AROME CPM (2.5 km) and its driving CNRM-ALADIN RCM (12 km) at the hourly timescale to simulate floods over the Gardon d'Anduze catchment located in the French Mediterranean region. Climate simulations are bias-corrected with the CDF-t method. Two hydrological models, a lumped and conceptual model (GR5H) and a process-based distributed model (CREST), forced with historical and future climate simulations from the CPM and from the RCM, have been used. The CPM model confirms its ability to better reproduce extreme hourly rainfall compared to the RCM. This added value is propagated on flood simulation with a better reproduction of flood peaks. Future projections are consistent between the hydrological models but differ between the two climate models. Using the CNRM-ALADIN RCM, the magnitude of all floods is projected to increase. With the CNRM-AROME CPM, a threshold effect is found: the magnitude of the largest floods is expected to intensify, while the magnitude of the less severe floods is expected to decrease. In addition, different flood event characteristics indicate that floods are expected to become flashier in a warmer climate, with shorter lag time between rainfall and runoff peak and a smaller contribution of base flow, regardless of the model. This study is a first step for impact studies driven by CPMs over the Mediterranean.</p

Spatial variability of the parameters of a semi-distributed hydrological model

Ideally, semi-distributed hydrologic models should provide better streamflow simulations than lumped models, along with spatially-relevant water resources management solutions. However, the spatial distribution of model parameters raises issues related to the calibration strategy and to the identifiability of the parameters. To analyse these issues, we propose to base the evaluation of a semi-distributed model not only on its performance at streamflow gauging stations, but also on the spatial and temporal pattern of the optimised value of its parameters. We implemented calibration over 21 rolling periods and 64 catchments, and we analysed how well each parameter is identified in time and space. Performance and parameter identifiability are analysed comparatively to the calibration of the lumped version of the same model. We show that the semi-distributed model faces more difficulties to identify stable optimal parameter sets. The main difficulty lies in the identification of the parameters responsible for the closure of the water balance (i.e. for the particular model investigated, the intercatchment groundwater flow parameter)

Use of expert elicitation to assign weights to climate and hydrological models in climate impact studies

Various methods are available for assessing uncertainties in climate impact studies. Among such methods, model weighting by expert elicitation is a practical way to provide a weighted ensemble of models for specific real-world impacts. The aim is to decrease the influence of improbable models in the results and easing the decision-making process. In this study both climate and hydrological models are analysed, and the result of a research experiment is presented using model weighting with the participation of six climate model experts and six hydrological model experts. For the experiment, seven climate models are a priori selected from a larger EURO-CORDEX (Coordinated Regional Downscaling Experiment - European Domain) ensemble of climate models, and three different hydrological models are chosen for each of the three European river basins. The model weighting is based on qualitative evaluation by the experts for each of the selected models based on a training material that describes the overall model structure and literature about climate models and the performance of hydrological models for the present period. The expert elicitation process follows a three-stage approach, with two individual rounds of elicitation of probabilities and a final group consensus, where the experts are separated into two different community groups: a climate and a hydrological modeller group. The dialogue reveals that under the conditions of the study, most climate modellers prefer the equal weighting of ensemble members, whereas hydrological-impact modellers in general are more open for assigning weights to different models in a multi-model ensemble, based on model performance and model structure. Climate experts are more open to exclude models, if obviously flawed, than to put weights on selected models in a relatively small ensemble. The study shows that expert elicitation can be an efficient way to assign weights to different hydrological models and thereby reduce the uncertainty in climate impact. However, for the climate model ensemble, comprising seven models, the elicitation in the format of this study could only re-establish a uniform weight between climate models

Use of expert elicitation to assign weights to climate and hydrological models in climate impact studies

Various methods are available for assessing uncertainties in climate impact studies. Among such methods, model weighting by expert elicitation is a practical way to provide a weighted ensemble of models for specific real-world impacts. The aim is to decrease the influence of improbable models in the results and easing the decision-making process. In this study both climate and hydrological models are analysed, and the result of a research experiment is presented using model weighting with the participation of six climate model experts and six hydrological model experts. For the experiment, seven climate models are a priori selected from a larger EURO-CORDEX (Coordinated Regional Downscaling Experiment - European Domain) ensemble of climate models, and three different hydrological models are chosen for each of the three European river basins. The model weighting is based on qualitative evaluation by the experts for each of the selected models based on a training material that describes the overall model structure and literature about climate models and the performance of hydrological models for the present period. The expert elicitation process follows a three-stage approach, with two individual rounds of elicitation of probabilities and a final group consensus, where the experts are separated into two different community groups: a climate and a hydrological modeller group. The dialogue reveals that under the conditions of the study, most climate modellers prefer the equal weighting of ensemble members, whereas hydrological-impact modellers in general are more open for assigning weights to different models in a multi-model ensemble, based on model performance and model structure. Climate experts are more open to exclude models, if obviously flawed, than to put weights on selected models in a relatively small ensemble. The study shows that expert elicitation can be an efficient way to assign weights to different hydrological models and thereby reduce the uncertainty in climate impact. However, for the climate model ensemble, comprising seven models, the elicitation in the format of this study could only re-establish a uniform weight between climate models.This work was funded by the project AQUA-CLEW, which is part of ERA4CS (European Research Area for Climate Services), an ERANET (European Research Area Net-work) initiated by JPI Climate (Joint Programming Initiative) andfunded by Formas (Sweden); German Aerospace Center (DLR, Germany); Ministry of Education, Science and Research (BMBWF,Austria); Innovation Fund Denmark; Ministry of Economic Affairs and Digital Transformation (MINECO, Spain); and French National Research Agency with co-funding by the European Commission (grant no. 69046). The contribution of Philippe Lucas-Picher was supported by the French National Research Agency (future investment programme no. ANR-18-MPGA-0005). Rafael Pimentel acknowledges funding by the Modality 5.2 of the Programa Propio 2018 of the University of Córdoba and the Juan de la Cierva Incorporación programme of the Ministry of Science and Innovation (grant no. IJC2018-038093-I). Rafael Pimentel and María J. Polo are members of DAUCO (Unit of Excellence reference no. CEX2019-000968-M), with financial support from the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation and the Spanish State Research Agency, through the Severo Ochoa Centre of Excellence and María de Maeztu Unit of Excellence in research and development (R&D)

On the visual detection of non-natural records in streamflow time series: challenges and impacts

Large datasets of long-term streamflow measurements are widely used to infer and model hydrological processes. However, streamflow measurements may suffer from what users can consider anomalies, i.e. non-natural records that may be erroneous streamflow values or anthropogenic influences that can lead to misinterpretation of actual hydrological processes. Since identifying anomalies is time consuming for humans, no study has investigated their proportion, temporal distribution, and influence on hydrological indicators over large datasets. This study summarizes the results of a large visual inspection campaign of 674 streamflow time series in France made by 43 evaluators, who were asked to identify anomalies falling under five categories, namely, linear interpolation, drops, noise, point anomalies, and other. We examined the evaluators' individual behaviour in terms of severity and agreement with other evaluators, as well as the temporal distributions of the anomalies and their influence on commonly used hydrological indicators. We found that inter-evaluator agreement was surprisingly low, with an average of 12 % of overlapping periods reported as anomalies. These anomalies were mostly identified as linear interpolation and noise, and they were more frequently reported during the low-flow periods in summer. The impact of cleaning data from the identified anomaly values was higher on low-flow indicators than on high-flow indicators, with change rates lower than 5 % most of the time. We conclude that the identification of anomalies in streamflow time series is highly dependent on the aims and skills of each evaluator, which raises questions about the best practices to adopt for data cleaning.</p

Twenty-three unsolved problems in hydrology (UPH) – a community perspective

This paper is the outcome of a community initiative to identify major unsolved scientific problems in hydrology motivated by a need for stronger harmonisation of research efforts. The procedure involved a public consultation through on-line media, followed by two workshops through which a large number of potential science questions were collated, prioritised, and synthesised. In spite of the diversity of the participants (230 scientists in total), the process revealed much about community priorities and the state of our science: a preference for continuity in research questions rather than radical departures or redirections from past and current work. Questions remain focussed on process-based understanding of hydrological variability and causality at all space and time scales. Increased attention to environmental change drives a new emphasis on understanding how change propagates across interfaces within the hydrological system and across disciplinary boundaries. In particular, the expansion of the human footprint raises a new set of questions related to human interactions with nature and water cycle feedbacks in the context of complex water management problems. We hope that this reflection and synthesis of the 23 unsolved problems in hydrology will help guide research efforts for some years to come