Development of a large-sample watershed-scale hydrometeorological data set for the contiguous USA: data set characteristics and assessment of regional variability in hydrologic model performance

We present a community data set of daily forcing and hydrologic response data for 671 small- to medium-sized basins across the contiguous United States (median basin size of 336 km 2 ) that spans a very wide range of hydroclimatic conditions. Area-averaged forcing data for the period 1980–2010 was generated for three basin spatial configurations – basin mean, hydrologic response units (HRUs) and elevation bands – by mapping daily, gridded meteorological data sets to the subbasin (Daymet) and basin polygons (Daymet, Maurer and NLDAS). Daily streamflow data was compiled from the United States Geological Survey National Water Information System. The focus of this paper is to (1) present the data set for community use and (2) provide a model performance benchmark using the coupled Snow-17 snow model and the Sacramento Soil Moisture Accounting Model, calibrated using the shuffled complex evolution global optimization routine. After optimization minimizing daily root mean squared error, 90% of the basins have Nash–Sutcliffe efficiency scores ≥0.55 for the calibration period and 34% ≥ 0.8. This benchmark provides a reference level of hydrologic model performance for a commonly used model and calibration system, and highlights some regional variations in model performance. For example, basins with a more pronounced seasonal cycle generally have a negative low flow bias, while basins with a smaller seasonal cycle have a positive low flow bias. Finally, we find that data points with extreme error (defined as individual days with a high fraction of total error) are more common in arid basins with limited snow and, for a given aridity, fewer extreme error days are present as the basin snow water equivalent increases.

[1]  Chao Zhang,et al.  Calibration of Conceptual Rainfall-Runoff Models Using Global Optimization , 2015 .

[2]  George Kuczera,et al.  Comparison of joint versus postprocessor approaches for hydrological uncertainty estimation accounting for error autocorrelation and heteroscedasticity , 2014 .

[3]  B. Cosgrove,et al.  The Impact of Precipitation Type Discrimination on Hydrologic Simulation: Rain-Snow Partitioning Derived from HMT-West Radar-Detected Brightband Height versus Surface Temperature Data , 2013 .

[4]  Shih-Chieh Kao,et al.  A large-scale, high-resolution hydrological model parameter data set for climate change impact assessment for the conterminous US , 2013 .

[5]  Hoshin Vijai Gupta,et al.  Large-sample hydrology: a need to balance depth with breadth , 2013 .

[6]  Suming Jin,et al.  A comprehensive change detection method for updating the National Land Cover Database to circa 2011 , 2013 .

[7]  Chong-Yu Xu,et al.  Disinformative data in large-scale hydrological modelling , 2013 .

[8]  Sabine Attinger,et al.  Implications of distributed hydrologic model parameterization on water fluxes at multiple scales and locations , 2013 .

[9]  Dennis P. Lettenmaier,et al.  Regional parameter estimation for the unified land model , 2013 .

[10]  Günter Blöschl,et al.  Evaluating the snow component of a flood forecasting model. , 2012 .

[11]  Dennis P. Lettenmaier,et al.  Multi-criteria parameter estimation for the unified land model , 2012 .

[12]  K. Mo,et al.  Continental-scale water and energy flux analysis and validation for the North American Land Data Assimilation System project phase 2 (NLDAS-2): 1. Intercomparison and application of model products , 2012 .

[13]  Yu Zhang,et al.  SAC-SMA a priori parameter differences and their impact on distributed hydrologic model simulations , 2012 .

[14]  Hoshin V. Gupta,et al.  Hydrologic consistency as a basis for assessing complexity of monthly water balance models for the continental United States , 2011 .

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

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

[17]  Keith Beven,et al.  On the colour and spin of epistemic error (and what we might do about it) , 2011 .

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

[19]  Günter Blöschl,et al.  Climate and catchment controls on the performance of regional flood simulations , 2011 .

[20]  Keith Beven,et al.  On red herrings and real herrings: disinformation and information in hydrological inference , 2011 .

[21]  Alison L. Kay,et al.  Are seemingly physically similar catchments truly hydrologically similar? , 2010 .

[22]  Hoshin Vijai Gupta,et al.  Toward improved identification of hydrological models: A diagnostic evaluation of the “abcd” monthly water balance model for the conterminous United States , 2010 .

[23]  Russell S. Vose,et al.  Comprehensive Automated Quality Assurance of Daily Surface Observations , 2010 .

[24]  Claude N. Williams,et al.  On the reliability of the U.S. surface temperature record , 2010 .

[25]  Luis Samaniego,et al.  Streamflow prediction in ungauged catchments using copula‐based dissimilarity measures , 2010 .

[26]  Daren M. Carlisle,et al.  GAGES: A stream gage database for evaluating natural and altered flow conditions in the conterminous United States , 2010 .

[27]  Hoshin V. Gupta,et al.  On the use of spatial regularization strategies to improve calibration of distributed watershed models , 2010 .

[28]  Hoshin Vijai Gupta,et al.  Decomposition of the mean squared error and NSE performance criteria: Implications for improving hydrological modelling , 2009 .

[29]  Russell S. Vose,et al.  The U.S. Historical Climatology Network Monthly Temperature Data, Version 2 , 2009 .

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

[31]  Dennis P. Lettenmaier,et al.  How Essential is Hydrologic Model Calibration to Seasonal Streamflow Forecasting , 2008 .

[32]  Cajo J. F. ter Braak,et al.  Treatment of input uncertainty in hydrologic modeling: Doing hydrology backward with Markov chain Monte Carlo simulation , 2008 .

[33]  Hoshin Vijai Gupta,et al.  A process‐based diagnostic approach to model evaluation: Application to the NWS distributed hydrologic model , 2008 .

[34]  Matthew J. Menne,et al.  Strategies for evaluating quality assurance procedures , 2008 .

[35]  Hoshin Vijai Gupta,et al.  Do Nash values have value? , 2007 .

[36]  Thibault Mathevet,et al.  Dynamic averaging of rainfall‐runoff model simulations from complementary model parameterizations , 2006 .

[37]  Victor Koren,et al.  Using SSURGO data to improve Sacramento Model a priori parameter estimates , 2006 .

[38]  George Kuczera,et al.  Bayesian analysis of input uncertainty in hydrological modeling: 2. Application , 2006 .

[39]  D. Crook A comprehensive change , 2005 .

[40]  Matthew F. McCabe,et al.  Spatial and temporal patterns of land surface fluxes from remotely sensed surface temperatures within an uncertainty modelling framework , 2005 .

[41]  François Anctil,et al.  Impact of spatial aggregation of inputs and parameters on the efficiency of rainfall‐runoff models: A theoretical study using chimera watersheds , 2004 .

[42]  Lifeng Luo,et al.  Streamflow and water balance intercomparisons of four land surface models in the North American Land Data Assimilation System Project , 2004 .

[43]  Günter Blöschl,et al.  Regionalisation of catchment model parameters , 2004 .

[44]  Kolbjørn Engeland,et al.  Estimation of parameters in a distributed precipitation-runoff model for Norway , 2003 .

[45]  Eric A. Rosenberg,et al.  A Long-Term Hydrologically Based Dataset of Land Surface Fluxes and States for the Conterminous United States: Update and Extensions* , 2002 .

[46]  C. Perrin,et al.  Does a large number of parameters enhance model performance? Comparative assessment of common catchment model structures on 429 catchments , 2001 .

[47]  Peter E. Thornton,et al.  Simultaneous estimation of daily solar radiation and humidity from observed temperature and precipitation: an application over complex terrain in Austria. , 2000 .

[48]  Zong-Liang Yang,et al.  Simulations of a boreal grassland hydrology at Valdai, Russia: PILPS phase 2(d). , 2000 .

[49]  Victor Koren,et al.  Use of Soil Property Data in the Derivation of Conceptual Rainfall-Runoff Model Parameters , 2000 .

[50]  S. Running,et al.  An improved algorithm for estimating incident daily solar radiation from measurements of temperature, humidity, and precipitation , 1999 .

[51]  Daqing Yang,et al.  Accuracy of NWS 8 Standard Nonrecording Precipitation Gauge: Results and Application of WMO Intercomparison , 1998 .

[52]  Peter E. Thornton,et al.  Generating surfaces of daily meteorological variables over large regions of complex terrain , 1997 .

[53]  Vijay P. Singh,et al.  The NWS River Forecast System - catchment modeling. , 1995 .

[54]  Soroosh Sorooshian,et al.  Optimal use of the SCE-UA global optimization method for calibrating watershed models , 1994 .

[55]  Jean-Jacques Bedet,et al.  Distributed Active Archive Center , 1993 .

[56]  Soroosh Sorooshian,et al.  Calibration of rainfall‐runoff models: Application of global optimization to the Sacramento Soil Moisture Accounting Model , 1993 .

[57]  S. Sorooshian,et al.  Shuffled complex evolution approach for effective and efficient global minimization , 1993 .

[58]  S. Sorooshian,et al.  Effective and efficient global optimization for conceptual rainfall‐runoff models , 1992 .

[59]  R. Allen,et al.  Evapotranspiration and Irrigation Water Requirements , 1990 .

[60]  A. Rango,et al.  MERITS OF STATISTICAL CRITERIA FOR THE PERFORMANCE OF HYDROLOGICAL MODELS1 , 1989 .

[61]  V. Klemeš,et al.  Operational Testing of Hydrological Simulation Models , 2022 .

[62]  F. I. Morton Operational estimates of areal evapotranspiration and their significance to the science and practice of hydrology , 1983 .

[63]  W. James Shuttleworth,et al.  Has the Priestley-Taylor Equation Any Relevance to Forest Evaporation? , 1979 .

[64]  J. Nash,et al.  A criterion of efficiency for rainfall-runoff models , 1978 .

[65]  C. Priestley,et al.  On the Assessment of Surface Heat Flux and Evaporation Using Large-Scale Parameters , 1972 .

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

[67]  J. Dooge A general theory of the unit hydrograph , 1959 .

[68]  Michael D. Dukes,et al.  Step by Step Calculation of the Penman-Monteith Evapotranspiration (FAO-56 Method) 1 , 2015 .

[69]  Harry F. Lins,et al.  USGS Hydro-Climatic Data Network 2009 (HCDN-2009) , 2012 .

[70]  James A. Falcone,et al.  GAGES-II: Geospatial Attributes of Gages for Evaluating Streamflow , 2011 .

[71]  David L. Blodgett,et al.  Description and testing of the Geo Data Portal: Data integration framework and Web processing services for environmental science collaboration , 2011 .

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

[73]  E. Anderson,et al.  Calibration of Conceptual Hydrologic Models for Use in River Forecasting , 2002 .

[74]  L. S. Pereira,et al.  Crop evapotranspiration : guidelines for computing crop water requirements , 1998 .

[75]  J. M. Landwehr,et al.  Hydro-climatic data network (HCDN); a U.S. Geological Survey streamflow data set for the United States for the study of climate variations, 1874-1988 , 1992 .

[76]  Eric A. Anderson,et al.  National Weather Service river forecast system: snow accumulation and ablation model , 1973 .

[77]  J. E. Nash,et al.  The form of the instantaneous unit hydrograph , 1957 .

[78]  C. O. Clark Storage and the Unit Hydrograph , 1945 .

[79]  L. K. Sherman Streamflow from rainfall by the unit-graph method , 1932 .