Benchmarking the predictive capability of hydrological models for river flow and flood peak predictions across over 1000 catchments in Great Britain
-
Published:2019-09-30
Issue:10
Volume:23
Page:4011-4032
-
ISSN:1607-7938
-
Container-title:Hydrology and Earth System Sciences
-
language:en
-
Short-container-title:Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci.
Author:
Lane Rosanna A., Coxon GemmaORCID, Freer Jim E., Wagener ThorstenORCID, Johnes Penny J.ORCID, Bloomfield John P.ORCID, Greene Sheila, Macleod Christopher J. A., Reaney Sim M.ORCID
Abstract
Abstract. Benchmarking model performance across large samples of
catchments is useful to guide model selection and future model development.
Given uncertainties in the observational data we use to drive and evaluate
hydrological models, and uncertainties in the structure and parameterisation
of models we use to produce hydrological simulations and predictions, it is
essential that model evaluation is undertaken within an uncertainty analysis
framework. Here, we benchmark the capability of several lumped hydrological
models across Great Britain by focusing on daily flow and peak flow
simulation. Four hydrological model structures from the Framework for
Understanding Structural Errors (FUSE) were applied to over 1000 catchments
in England, Wales and Scotland. Model performance was then evaluated using
standard performance metrics for daily flows and novel performance metrics
for peak flows considering parameter uncertainty. Our results show that lumped hydrological models were able to produce
adequate simulations across most of Great Britain, with each model producing
simulations exceeding a 0.5 Nash–Sutcliffe efficiency for at least 80 % of
catchments. All four models showed a similar spatial pattern of performance,
producing better simulations in the wetter catchments to the west and poor
model performance in central Scotland and south-eastern England. Poor model performance
was often linked to the catchment water balance, with models unable to
capture the catchment hydrology where the water balance did not close.
Overall, performance was similar between model structures, but different
models performed better for different catchment characteristics and metrics,
as well as for assessing daily or peak flows, leading to the ensemble of
model structures outperforming any single structure, thus demonstrating the
value of using multi-model structures across a large sample of different
catchment behaviours. This research evaluates what conceptual lumped models can achieve as a
performance benchmark and provides interesting insights into where
and why these simple models may fail. The large number of river catchments
included in this study makes it an appropriate benchmark for any future
developments of a national model of Great Britain.
Publisher
Copernicus GmbH
Subject
General Earth and Planetary Sciences,General Engineering,General Environmental Science
Reference84 articles.
1. Addor, N., Newman, A. J., Mizukami, N., and Clark, M. P.: The CAMELS data set: catchment attributes and meteorology for large-sample studies, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 21, 5293–5313, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-21-5293-2017, 2017. 2. Ambroise, B., Beven, K., and Freer, J.: Toward a generalization of the TOPMODEL concepts, Water Resour. Res., 32, 2135–2145, 1996. 3. Andréassian, V., Perrin, C., Michel, C., Usart-Sanchez, I., and Lavabre,
J.: Impact of imperfect rainfall knowledge on the efficiency and the
parameters of watershed models, J. Hydrol., 250, 206–233, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1694(01)00437-1, 2001. 4. Beven, K. J.: Environmental Modelling: An Uncertain Future, CRC Press, London, 2009. 5. Beven, K. J. and Binley, A.: The future of distributed models: Model calibration and uncertainty prediction, Hydrol. Process., 6, 279–298, https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.3360060305, 1992.
Cited by
67 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献
|
|