How to Tailor my Process-based Hydrological Model? Dynamic Identifiability Analysis of Flexible Model Structures

In the field of hydrological modeling, many alternative representations of natural processes exist. Choosing specific process formulations when building a hydrological model is therefore associated with a high degree of ambiguity and subjectivity. In addition, the numerical integration of the underlying differential equations and parametrization of model structures influence model performance. Identifiability analysis may provide guidance by constraining the a priori range of alternatives based on observations. In this work, a flexible simulation environment is used to build an ensemble of semidistributed, process-based hydrological model configurations with alternative process representations, numerical integration schemes, and model parametrizations in an integrated manner. The flexible simulation environment is coupled with an approach for dynamic identifiability analysis. The objective is to investigate the applicability of the framework to identify the most adequate model. While an optimal model configuration could not be clearly distinguished, interesting results were obtained when relating model identifiability with hydro-meteorological boundary conditions. For instance, we tested the Penman-Monteith and Shuttleworth & Wallace evapotranspiration models and found that the former performs better under wet and the latter under dry conditions. Parametrization of model structures plays a dominant role as it can compensate for inadequate process representations and poor numerical solvers. Therefore, it was found that numerical solvers of high order of accuracy do often, though not necessarily, lead to better model performance. The proposed coupled framework proved to be a straightforward diagnostic tool for model building and hypotheses testing and shows potential for more in-depth analysis of process implementations and catchment functioning.

[1]  Keith Beven,et al.  Do we need a Community Hydrological Model? , 2015 .

[2]  P. Reed,et al.  Hydrology and Earth System Sciences Discussions Comparing Sensitivity Analysis Methods to Advance Lumped Watershed Model Identification and Evaluation , 2022 .

[3]  A. Bronstert,et al.  lumpR 2.0.0: an R package facilitating landscape discretisation for hillslope-based hydrological models , 2017 .

[4]  R. Spear Eutrophication in peel inlet—II. Identification of critical uncertainties via generalized sensitivity analysis , 1980 .

[5]  Dmitri Kavetski,et al.  Elements of a flexible approach for conceptual hydrological modeling: 2. Application and experimental insights , 2011 .

[6]  A. Isaksson,et al.  Cross-validation and bootstrapping are unreliable in small sample classification , 2008, Pattern Recognit. Lett..

[7]  P. Bates,et al.  Quantifying the importance of spatial resolution and other factors through global sensitivity analysis of a flood inundation model , 2016 .

[8]  J. D. de Araújo,et al.  Impact of Dense Reservoir Networks on Water Resources in Semiarid Environments , 2013 .

[9]  Axel Bronstert,et al.  Seasonal drought prediction for semiarid northeast Brazil: what is the added value of a process-based hydrological model? , 2019, Hydrology and Earth System Sciences.

[10]  Axel Bronstert,et al.  Evaluating the potential of radar-based rainfall estimates for streamflow and flood simulations in the Philippines , 2016 .

[11]  Hubert H. G. Savenije,et al.  Model complexity control for hydrologic prediction , 2008 .

[12]  Till Francke,et al.  Modelling sediment export, retention and reservoir sedimentation in drylands with the WASA-SED model , 2010 .

[13]  Thorsten Wagener,et al.  A new approach to visualizing time-varying sensitivity indices for environmental model diagnostics across evaluation time-scales , 2014, Environ. Model. Softw..

[14]  N. Fohrer,et al.  How to improve the representation of hydrological processes in SWAT for a lowland catchment – temporal analysis of parameter sensitivity and model performance , 2014 .

[15]  Stefano Tarantola,et al.  A General Probabilistic Framework for uncertainty and global sensitivity analysis of deterministic models: A hydrological case study , 2014, Environ. Model. Softw..

[16]  Jim W. Hall,et al.  Sensitivity analysis of environmental models: A systematic review with practical workflow , 2014, Environ. Model. Softw..

[17]  A. Guntner Large-scale hydrological modelling in the semi-arid north-east of Brazil , 2002 .

[18]  Axel Bronstert,et al.  Connectivity of sediment transport in a semiarid environment: a synthesis for the Upper Jaguaribe Basin, Brazil , 2014, Journal of Soils and Sediments.

[19]  Jiri Nossent,et al.  Integrated Bayesian Multi-model approach to quantify input, parameter and conceptual model structure uncertainty in groundwater modeling , 2020, Environ. Model. Softw..

[20]  Keith Beven,et al.  The future of distributed models: model calibration and uncertainty prediction. , 1992 .

[21]  Murray C. Peel,et al.  Modular Assessment of Rainfall–Runoff Models Toolbox (MARRMoT) v1.2: an open-source, extendable framework providing implementations of 46 conceptual hydrologic models as continuous state-space formulations , 2019, Geoscientific Model Development.

[22]  Karim C. Abbaspour,et al.  Combined analysis of time-varying sensitivity and identifiability indices to diagnose the response of a complex environmental model , 2017, Environ. Model. Softw..

[23]  Axel Bronstert,et al.  Process-based modelling of erosion, sediment transport and reservoir siltation in mesoscale semi-arid catchments , 2014, Journal of Soils and Sediments.

[24]  J. Philip,et al.  THE THEORY OF INFILTRATION: 4. SORPTIVITY AND ALGEBRAIC INFILTRATION EQUATIONS , 1957 .

[25]  Dmitri Kavetski,et al.  Towards more systematic perceptual model development: a case study using 3 Luxembourgish catchments , 2015 .

[26]  Dmitri Kavetski,et al.  Numerical troubles in conceptual hydrology: Approximations, absurdities and impact on hypothesis testing , 2011 .

[27]  J. Wallace,et al.  Evaporation from sparse crops‐an energy combination theory , 2007 .

[28]  José Carlos de Araújo,et al.  Sustainability of Small Reservoirs and Large Scale Water Availability Under Current Conditions and Climate Change , 2011 .

[29]  Robert J. Gurney,et al.  The theoretical relationship between foliage temperature and canopy resistance in sparse crops , 1990 .

[30]  Martyn P. Clark,et al.  Diagnostic evaluation of multiple hypotheses of hydrological behaviour in a limits‐of‐acceptability framework for 24 UK catchments , 2014 .

[31]  M. Clark,et al.  Ancient numerical daemons of conceptual hydrological modeling: 2. Impact of time stepping schemes on model analysis and prediction , 2010 .

[32]  Anthony J. Jakeman,et al.  Ten iterative steps in development and evaluation of environmental models , 2006, Environ. Model. Softw..

[33]  Dmitri Kavetski,et al.  A unified approach for process‐based hydrologic modeling: 1. Modeling concept , 2015 .

[34]  Qingyun Duan,et al.  An integrated hydrologic Bayesian multimodel combination framework: Confronting input, parameter, and model structural uncertainty in hydrologic prediction , 2006 .

[35]  Axel Bronstert,et al.  Verification of short-term runoff forecasts for a small Philippine basin (Marikina) , 2017 .

[36]  Axel Bronstert,et al.  What Did Really Improve Our Mesoscale Hydrological Model? A Multidimensional Analysis Based on Real Observations , 2018, Water Resources Research.

[37]  Keith Beven,et al.  Environmental Modelling , 2007 .

[38]  J. Kirchner Getting the right answers for the right reasons: Linking measurements, analyses, and models to advance the science of hydrology , 2006 .

[39]  Thomas Marke,et al.  Uncertainties in Snowpack Simulations—Assessing the Impact of Model Structure, Parameter Choice, and Forcing Data Error on Point‐Scale Energy Balance Snow Model Performance , 2019, Water Resources Research.

[40]  Paola Annoni,et al.  Sixth International Conference on Sensitivity Analysis of Model Output How to avoid a perfunctory sensitivity analysis , 2010 .

[41]  Nicola Fohrer,et al.  Identifying the connective strength between model parameters and performance criteria , 2017 .

[42]  Stefano Tarantola,et al.  Sensitivity analysis of spatial models , 2009, Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci..

[43]  Ming Ye,et al.  Towards a comprehensive assessment of model structural adequacy , 2012 .

[44]  Martyn P. Clark,et al.  Framework for Understanding Structural Errors (FUSE): A modular framework to diagnose differences between hydrological models , 2008 .

[45]  Patrick M. Reed,et al.  Time‐varying sensitivity analysis clarifies the effects of watershed model formulation on model behavior , 2013 .

[46]  I. A. Walter,et al.  The ASCE standardized reference evapotranspiration equation , 2005 .

[47]  Francesca Pianosi,et al.  Understanding the time‐varying importance of different uncertainty sources in hydrological modelling using global sensitivity analysis , 2016 .

[48]  David R. Maidment,et al.  Handbook of Hydrology , 1993 .

[49]  Neil McIntyre,et al.  Towards reduced uncertainty in conceptual rainfall‐runoff modelling: dynamic identifiability analysis , 2003 .

[50]  Wilfried Brutsaert,et al.  Comments on Surface Roughness Parameters and the Height of Dense Vegetation , 1975 .

[51]  Till Francke,et al.  Modelling spatio-temporal patterns of sediment yield and connectivity in a semi-arid catchment with the WASA-SED model , 2010 .

[52]  Axel Bronstert,et al.  Water and sediment fluxes in Mediterranean mountainous regions: comprehensive dataset for hydro-sedimentological analyses and modelling in a mesoscale catchment (River Isábena, NE Spain) , 2017, Earth System Science Data.

[53]  Erwin Zehe,et al.  Inferring model structural deficits by analyzing temporal dynamics of model performance and parameter sensitivity , 2011 .

[54]  Nader Katerji,et al.  Some plant factors controlling evapotranspiration , 1991 .

[55]  Konrad Miegel,et al.  Combining global sensitivity analysis and multiobjective optimisation to estimate soil hydraulic properties and representations of various sole and mixed crops for the agro-hydrological SWAP model , 2017, Environmental Earth Sciences.

[56]  P. Reed,et al.  Characterization of watershed model behavior across a hydroclimatic gradient , 2008 .

[57]  David Kneis,et al.  A lightweight framework for rapid development of object-based hydrological model engines , 2015, Environ. Model. Softw..

[58]  Chandranath Chatterjee,et al.  Evaluation of TRMM rainfall estimates over a large Indian river basin (Mahanadi) , 2014 .

[59]  Axel Bronstert,et al.  Representation of landscape variability and lateral redistribution processes for large-scale hydrological modelling in semi-arid areas , 2004 .

[60]  Dmitri Kavetski,et al.  Elements of a flexible approach for conceptual hydrological modeling: 1. Motivation and theoretical development , 2011 .

[61]  Laura Uusitalo,et al.  An overview of methods to evaluate uncertainty of deterministic models in decision support , 2015, Environ. Model. Softw..

[62]  Emanuele Borgonovo,et al.  Global sensitivity measures from given data , 2013, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[63]  W. Nowak,et al.  A Primer for Model Selection: The Decisive Role of Model Complexity , 2018 .

[64]  J. Vrugt,et al.  Corruption of accuracy and efficiency of Markov chain Monte Carlo simulation by inaccurate numerical implementation of conceptual hydrologic models , 2010 .

[65]  Erwin Zehe,et al.  An experiment to gauge an ungauged catchment: rapid data assessment and eco-hydrological modelling in a data-scarce rural catchment , 2014 .

[66]  S. Attinger,et al.  Multiscale parameter regionalization of a grid‐based hydrologic model at the mesoscale , 2010 .

[67]  Dmitri Kavetski,et al.  Pursuing the method of multiple working hypotheses for hydrological modeling , 2011 .

[68]  Joseph H. A. Guillaume,et al.  Introductory overview of identifiability analysis: A guide to evaluating whether you have the right type of data for your modeling purpose , 2019, Environ. Model. Softw..

[69]  Axel Bronstert,et al.  Modelling the effects of land-use change on runoff and sediment yield for a meso-scale catchment in the Southern Pyrenees , 2009 .

[70]  Dmitri Kavetski,et al.  From spatially variable streamflow to distributed hydrological models: Analysis of key modeling decisions , 2016 .