Understanding hydrological flow paths in conceptual catchment models using uncertainty and sensitivity analysis

Increasing pressures on water quality due to intensification of agriculture have raised demands for environmental modeling to accurately simulate the movement of diffuse (nonpoint) nutrients in catchments. As hydrological flows drive the movement and attenuation of nutrients, individual hydrological processes in models should be adequately represented for water quality simulations to be meaningful. In particular, the relative contribution of groundwater and surface runoff to rivers is of interest, as increasing nitrate concentrations are linked to higher groundwater discharges. These requirements for hydrological modeling of groundwater contribution to rivers initiated this assessment of internal flow path partitioning in conceptual hydrological models.In this study, a variance based sensitivity analysis method was used to investigate parameter sensitivities and flow partitioning of three conceptual hydrological models simulating 31 Irish catchments. We compared two established conceptual hydrological models (NAM and SMARG) and a new model (SMART), produced especially for water quality modeling. In addition to the criteria that assess streamflow simulations, a ratio of average groundwater contribution to total streamflow was calculated for all simulations over the 16 year study period. As observations time-series of groundwater contributions to streamflow are not available at catchment scale, the groundwater ratios were evaluated against average annual indices of base flow and deep groundwater flow for each catchment. The exploration of sensitivities of internal flow path partitioning was a specific focus to assist in evaluating model performances. Results highlight that model structure has a strong impact on simulated groundwater flow paths. Sensitivity to the internal pathways in the models are not reflected in the performance criteria results. This demonstrates that simulated groundwater contribution should be constrained by independent data to ensure results within realistic bounds if such models are to be used in the broader environmental sustainability decision making context. Groundwater simulations and parameter sensitivities for 3 models were compared.Of 3 models calibrated to total flow, SMART captured groundwater contribution best.Internal flow partitioning varies greatly between models and parameter sets.Independent data on flow paths should inform calibration of conceptual models.

[1]  Thorsten Wagener,et al.  Parameter sensitivity of a watershed-scale flood forecasting model as a function of modelling time-step , 2013 .

[2]  Jens Christian Refsgaard,et al.  Modelling guidelinesterminology and guiding principles , 2004 .

[3]  I. Sobola,et al.  Global sensitivity indices for nonlinear mathematical models and their Monte Carlo estimates , 2001 .

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

[5]  Peter A. Vanrolleghem,et al.  Uncertainty in the environmental modelling process - A framework and guidance , 2007, Environ. Model. Softw..

[6]  Evaluation of the transferability of hydrological model parameters for simulations under changed climatic conditions , 2011 .

[7]  G. Ziv,et al.  Sensitivity analysis of a sediment dynamics model applied in a Mediterranean river basin: global change and management implications. , 2015, The Science of the total environment.

[8]  A. Wade,et al.  PERSiST: a flexible rainfall-runoff modelling toolkit for use with the INCA family of models , 2014 .

[9]  Soroosh Sorooshian,et al.  A framework for development and application of hydrological models , 2001, Hydrology and Earth System Sciences.

[10]  Francesca Pianosi,et al.  A Matlab toolbox for Global Sensitivity Analysis , 2015, Environ. Model. Softw..

[11]  P. Reed,et al.  Sensitivity-guided reduction of parametric dimensionality for multi-objective calibration of watershed models , 2009 .

[12]  Warren E. Walker,et al.  Defining Uncertainty: A Conceptual Basis for Uncertainty Management in Model-Based Decision Support , 2003 .

[13]  G. Fu,et al.  Sobol′’s sensitivity analysis for a distributed hydrological model of Yichun River Basin, China , 2013 .

[14]  G. H. Leavesley,et al.  Precipitation-runoff modeling system; user's manual , 1983 .

[15]  Saltelli Andrea,et al.  Global Sensitivity Analysis: The Primer , 2008 .

[16]  M. Sivapalan Prediction in ungauged basins: a grand challenge for theoretical hydrology , 2003 .

[17]  Shuangzhe Liu,et al.  Global Sensitivity Analysis: The Primer by Andrea Saltelli, Marco Ratto, Terry Andres, Francesca Campolongo, Jessica Cariboni, Debora Gatelli, Michaela Saisana, Stefano Tarantola , 2008 .

[18]  Paola Annoni,et al.  Variance based sensitivity analysis of model output. Design and estimator for the total sensitivity index , 2010, Comput. Phys. Commun..

[19]  Andrew J. Wade,et al.  Does increased hydrochemical model complexity decrease robustness , 2012 .

[20]  J. Nash,et al.  River flow forecasting through conceptual models part I — A discussion of principles☆ , 1970 .

[21]  Anthony J. Jakeman,et al.  Assessing the impact of land use change on hydrology by ensemble modeling (LUCHEM) I: Model intercomparison with current land use , 2009 .

[22]  Thorsten Wagener,et al.  Parameter estimation and regionalization for continuous rainfall-runoff models including uncertainty , 2006 .

[23]  E. Hansen,et al.  NUMERICAL SIMULATION OF THE RAINFALL-RUNOFF PROCESS ON A DAILY BASIS , 1973 .

[24]  L. W. Good,et al.  Characterizing phosphorus dynamics in tile-drained agricultural fields of eastern Wisconsin , 2014 .

[25]  Parameterizing dynamic water quality models in ungauged basins: Issues and solutions , 2013 .

[26]  A. Wade,et al.  Understanding hydrological and nitrogen interactions by sensitivity analysis of a catchment-scale nitrogen model , 2005 .

[27]  R. K. Kachroo,et al.  River flow forecasting. Part 5. Applications of a conceptual model , 1992 .

[28]  Kieran M. O'Connor,et al.  A “monster” that made the SMAR conceptual model “right for the wrong reasons” , 2010 .

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

[30]  George H. Leavesley,et al.  The Modular Modeling System (MMS): User's Manual , 1996 .

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

[32]  G. Kiely,et al.  Patterns and processes of phosphorus transfer from Irish grassland soils to rivers—integration of laboratory and catchment studies , 2005 .

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

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

[35]  V. Singh,et al.  The HBV model. , 1995 .

[36]  David M Wolock,et al.  Identifying pathways and processes affecting nitrate and orthophosphate inputs to streams in agricultural watersheds. , 2009, Journal of environmental quality.

[37]  Keith Beven Down to Basics: Runoff Processes and the Modelling Process , 2012 .

[38]  B. Croke,et al.  Addressing ten questions about conceptual rainfall–runoff models with global sensitivity analyses in R , 2013 .

[39]  L. Gill,et al.  Developing an integrated hydrograph separation and lumped modelling approach to quantifying hydrological pathways in Irish river catchments , 2013 .

[40]  Max D. Morris,et al.  Factorial sampling plans for preliminary computational experiments , 1991 .

[41]  Thibault Mathevet,et al.  A bounded version of the Nash-Sutcliffe criterion for better model assessment on large sets of basins , 2006 .

[42]  Kieran M. O'Connor,et al.  Application of an empirical infiltration equation in the SMAR conceptual model , 1996 .

[43]  V. Vandenberghe,et al.  Sensitivity analysis and calibration of the parameters of ESWAT: application to the River Dender. , 2001, Water science and technology : a journal of the International Association on Water Pollution Research.

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

[45]  Soroosh Sorooshian,et al.  Model Parameter Estimation Experiment (MOPEX): An overview of science strategy and major results from the second and third workshops , 2006 .

[46]  A. Wade,et al.  Controls on inorganic nitrogen leaching from Finnish catchments assessed using a sensitivity and uncertainty analysis of the INCA-N model , 2013 .

[47]  Jun Xia,et al.  An efficient integrated approach for global sensitivity analysis of hydrological model parameters , 2013, Environ. Model. Softw..

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

[49]  P. E. O'Connell,et al.  River flow forecasting through conceptual models part II - The Brosna catchment at Ferbane , 1970 .

[50]  A. Jakeman,et al.  A comparison of metric and conceptual approaches in rainfall‐runoff modeling and its implications , 2001 .

[51]  A. Shamseldin,et al.  Assessing the performance of eight real-time updating models and procedures for the brosna river , 2005 .

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

[53]  Keith Beven,et al.  Uniqueness of place and process representations in hydrological modelling , 2000 .

[54]  P. Krause,et al.  COMPARISON OF DIFFERENT EFFICIENCY CRITERIA FOR HYDROLOGICAL MODEL ASSESSMENT , 2005 .

[55]  Willy Bauwens,et al.  Sobol' sensitivity analysis of a complex environmental model , 2011, Environ. Model. Softw..