Title of retracted article: Revisiting Systems Type Black-Box Rainfall-Runoff Models for Flow Forecasting Application

Often we tend to spend huge amount of time and resources to setup and use complex hydrological models for simple goal of flow estimation. Running complex models becomes even more difficult when the amount of available data is scarce as we usually face in many parts of Africa. The aim of this study is to evaluate and revitalize the systems type black box model against complex hydrological models for easy flow estimation application. Six systems type black box models, the Simple Linear Model (SLM), Non-Parametric Simple Linear Model (NP-SLM), Linear Perturbation Model (LPM), Non-Parametric Linear Perturbation Model (NP-LPM) and Linearly Varying Gain Factor Model (LVGFM), a non-linear black box type artificial Neural Network model (ANN) are compared with three complex hydrological models of those under SMAR, HBV and SWAT. The models are compared based on daily rainfall and stream flow data (1980-2000) on Gilgel Abbay watershed. Event-based analysis was also conducted using 100 selected runoff events. In terms of the event rainfall-runoff relationship, it was indicated that the event runoff is largely a function of the amount of rainfall. The event rainfall-runoff relationships explained as much as 62% for the wet periods without the integration of the evaporating demands. Although rainfall intensity, duration and catchment characteristics play a role, in this watershed, rainfall amount affects substantial part of the runoff response consolidating that a simple rainfall-runoff relationship can describe the runoff in this watershed. Comparison of systems type black box and complex hydrological models in the study area indicates that the LPM and the ANN models perform better than the complex hydrological models such as SMARG, HBV and SWAT in terms of R2 and Nash Sutcliffe Efficiency (NSE) criteria. This confirms that simpler models (that take only rainfall as input) can surpass their complex counterparts in performance for continuous simulation and reproducing the Corresponding author. REACTED D. T. Mengistu et al. 66 hydrographs or flow estimation. There is a strong justification, therefore, for the claim that increasing the model complexity, thereby increasing the number of parameters, does not necessarily enhance the model performance. It is suggested that, in practical hydrology, the simpler models, may still play a significant role as effective simulation tools, and countries with scarce hydrological data should revitalize application of such systems type black box modelling schemes that depend only on rainfall and runoff data sets which could be easily available.

[1]  A. Shamseldin,et al.  Methods for combining the outputs of different rainfall–runoff models , 1997 .

[2]  Bin Zhang,et al.  Effects of antecedent soil moisture on runoff and soil erosion in alley cropping systems , 2007 .

[3]  J. Scott Armstrong,et al.  Combining forecasts: The end of the beginning or the beginning of the end? , 1989 .

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

[5]  A. Soldati,et al.  River flood forecasting with a neural network model , 1999 .

[6]  Michel Vauclin,et al.  Evaluation of an antecedent precipitation index to model runoff yield in the western Sierra Madre (North-west Mexico) , 2002 .

[7]  C. Granger,et al.  Improved methods of combining forecasts , 1984 .

[8]  Göran Lindström,et al.  Development and test of the distributed HBV-96 hydrological model , 1997 .

[9]  D. Amatya,et al.  EFFECTS OF CONTROLLED DRAINAGE ON STORM EVENT HYDROLOGY IN A LOBLOLLY PINE PLANTATION 1 , 2000 .

[10]  Carl C. Trettin,et al.  Annual evapotranspiration of a forested wetland watershed, SC , 2007 .

[11]  J. E. Nash,et al.  A hybrid model for flow forecasting on large catchments , 1983 .

[12]  Jeffrey G. Arnold,et al.  Estimating hydrologic budgets for three Illinois watersheds , 1996 .

[13]  Kieran M. O'Connor,et al.  A reappraisal of the Kalman filtering technique, as applied in river flow forecasting , 1994 .

[14]  Asaad Y. Shamseldin,et al.  A non-linear combination of the forecasts of rainfall-runoff models by the first-order Takagi–Sugeno fuzzy system , 2001 .

[15]  Y. Travi,et al.  Water balance of Lake Tana and its sensitivity to fluctuations in rainfall, Blue Nile basin, Ethiopia , 2006 .

[16]  James M. Vose,et al.  Long-term hydrologic and water quality responses following commercial clearcutting of mixed hardwoods on a southern Appalachian catchment , 2001 .

[17]  A. W. Minns,et al.  Artificial neural networks as rainfall-runoff models , 1996 .

[18]  K. M. O'Connor.  The Galway Real-Time River Flow Forecasting System (GFFS) , 2005 .

[19]  G. C. Liang,et al.  Observed seasonal hydrological behaviour used in flow forecasting on the Yangtze River above Hankou , 1994 .

[20]  Carl C. Trettin,et al.  Hydrologic and Water Quality Monitoring on Turkey Creek Watershed, Francis Marion National Forest, SC , 2008 .

[21]  Vijay P. Singh,et al.  Effect of spatial and temporal variability in rainfall and watershed characteristics on stream flow hydrograph , 1997 .

[22]  L. Natale,et al.  Non-linear modelling of the rainfall-runoff transformation , 1992 .

[23]  Kieran M. O'Connor,et al.  A multiple-input single-output variable gain factor model , 1994 .

[24]  Timothy J. Callahan,et al.  Seasonal rainfall–runoff relationships in a lowland forested watershed in the southeastern USA , 2011 .

[25]  B. F. Swindel,et al.  Effects of different harvesting and site preparation operations on the peak flows of streams in Pinus Elliottii flatwoods forests , 1983 .

[26]  John R. Williams,et al.  LARGE AREA HYDROLOGIC MODELING AND ASSESSMENT PART I: MODEL DEVELOPMENT 1 , 1998 .

[27]  J. Phillips,et al.  Multiple modes of storm runoff generation in a North Carolina coastal plain watershed , 2006 .

[28]  Kieran M. O'Connor,et al.  A simple non-linear rainfall-runoff model with a variable gain factor , 1994 .

[29]  M. A. B. Barkotulla.  STOCHASTIC GENERATION OF THE OCCURRENCE AND AMOUNT OF DAILY RAINFALL , 2010 .

[30]  Jeffrey G. Arnold,et al.  Soil and Water Assessment Tool Theoretical Documentation Version 2009 , 2011 .

[31]  J. Sheridan.  PEAK FLOW ESTIMATES FOR COASTAL PLAIN WATERSHEDS , 2002 .

[32]  A. Sorteberg,et al.  Sensitivity of SWAT simulated streamflow to climatic changes within the Eastern Nile River basin , 2012 .

[33]  R. Kachroo,et al.  River flow forecasting. Part 3. Applications of linear techniques in modelling rainfall-runoff transformations , 1992 .

[34]  Yves Tramblay,et al.  Assessment of initial soil moisture conditions for event-based rainfall–runoff modelling , 2010 .

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

[36]  G. R. Buell,et al.  Contrasting soils and landscapes of the Piedmont and Coastal Plain, eastern United States. , 1990 .

[37]  Application of the linear perturbation model (LPM) to flood routing on the Mekong River , 1988 .

[38]  R. W. Skaggs,et al.  A computer simulation study of pocosin hydrology , 1991, Wetlands.

[39]  G. P. Fernandez,et al.  Hydrology of Poorly Drained Coastal Watersheds in Eastern North Carolina , 2002 .

[40]  G. Sun,et al.  A comparison of the watershed hydrology of coastal forested wetlands and the mountainous uplands in the Southern US , 2002 .

[41]  G. Sun,et al.  Hydrologic Processes of Forested Headwater Watersheds Across a Physiographic Gradient in the Southeastern United States , 2008 .

[42]  Anthony J. Jakeman,et al.  Performance of conceptual rainfall‐runoff models in low‐yielding ephemeral catchments , 1997 .

[43]  Ambro Gieske,et al.  Assessment of Climate Change Impacts on the Hydrology of Gilgel Abbay Catchment in Lake Tana Basin, Ethiopia , 2008 .

[44]  U. C. Kothyari,et al.  Modeling of the daily rainfall-runoff relationship with artificial neural network , 2004 .

[45]  R. W. Skaggs,et al.  HYDROLOGY OF A DRAINED FORESTED POCOSIN WATERSHED 1 , 1997 .