Bayesian multiresponse calibration of TOPMODEL: Application to the Haute‐Mentue catchment, Switzerland

This paper introduces a general framework that evaluates a numerical Bayesian multiresponse calibration approach based on a Gibbs within Metropolis searching algorithm and a statistical likelihood function. The methodology has been applied with two versions of TOPMODEL on the Haute-Mentue experimental basin in Switzerland. The approach computes the following: the parameter's uncertainty, the parametric uncertainty of the output responses stemming from parameter uncertainty, and the predictive uncertainty of the output responses stemming from an error term including, indiscriminately in a lumped way, model structure and input and output errors. Two case studies are presented: The first one applies this methodology with the classical TOPMODEL to assess the role of two-response calibration (observed discharge and soil saturation deficits) on model parameters and output uncertainty. The second one uses a three-response calibration (observed discharge, silica, and calcium stream water concentrations) with a modified version of TOPMODEL to study the uncertainty of the parameters and of the simulated responses. Despite its limitations, the present multiresponse Bayesian approach proved a valuable tool in uncertainty analyses, and it contributed to a better understanding of the role of the internal variables and the value of additional information for enhancing model structure robustness and for checking the performance of conceptual models.

[1]  Richard P. Hooper,et al.  Assessing the Birkenes Model of stream acidification using a multisignal calibration methodology , 1988 .

[2]  Eric Parent,et al.  The Metropolis-Hastings algorithm, a handy tool for the practice of environmental model estimation : illustration with biochemical oxygen demand data , 2001 .

[3]  David B. Dunson,et al.  Bayesian Data Analysis , 2010 .

[4]  A. Saltelli,et al.  Scenario and Parametric Uncertainty in GESAMAC. A Methodological Study in Nuclear Waste Disposal Risk Assessment. , 1999 .

[5]  K. Beven,et al.  A physically based, variable contributing area model of basin hydrology , 1979 .

[6]  Keith Beven,et al.  On constraining TOPMODEL hydrograph simulations using partial saturated area information , 2002 .

[7]  George Kuczera,et al.  Bayesian analysis of input uncertainty in hydrological modeling: 1. Theory , 2006 .

[8]  M. J. Hall,et al.  Rainfall-Runoff Modelling , 2004 .

[9]  K. Beven,et al.  Uncertainty in hydrograph separations based on geochemical mixing models. , 2002 .

[10]  George Kuczera,et al.  Monte Carlo assessment of parameter uncertainty in conceptual catchment models: the Metropolis algorithm , 1998 .

[11]  Ashish Sharma,et al.  Modeling the catchment via mixtures: Issues of model specification and validation , 2005 .

[12]  D. Cox,et al.  An Analysis of Transformations , 1964 .

[13]  K. Beven,et al.  On constraining the predictions of a distributed model: The incorporation of fuzzy estimates of saturated areas into the calibration process , 1998 .

[14]  K. Beven,et al.  Towards identifying sources of subsurface flow: A comparison of components identified by a physically based runoff model and those determined by chemical mixing techniques , 1992 .

[15]  Soroosh Sorooshian,et al.  Multi-objective global optimization for hydrologic models , 1998 .

[16]  George Kuczera,et al.  The quest for more powerful validation of conceptual catchment models , 1997 .

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

[18]  Stefan Uhlenbrook,et al.  On the value of experimental data to reduce the prediction uncertainty of a process-oriented catchment model , 2005, Environ. Model. Softw..

[19]  S. Sorooshian,et al.  Effective and efficient algorithm for multiobjective optimization of hydrologic models , 2003 .

[20]  G. Kuczera Improved parameter inference in catchment models: 2. Combining different kinds of hydrologic data and testing their compatibility , 1983 .

[21]  A. Brath,et al.  A stochastic approach for assessing the uncertainty of rainfall‐runoff simulations , 2004 .

[22]  P. Reichert,et al.  Hydrological modelling of the Chaohe Basin in China: Statistical model formulation and Bayesian inference , 2007 .

[23]  K. Bencala,et al.  Overview of a simple model describing variation of dissolved organic carbon in an upland catchment , 1996 .

[24]  Keith Beven,et al.  Use of spatially distributed water table observations to constrain uncertainty in a rainfall–runoff model , 1998 .

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

[26]  Jeffrey J. McDonnell,et al.  On the dialog between experimentalist and modeler in catchment hydrology: Use of soft data for multicriteria model calibration , 2002 .

[27]  Jing Yang,et al.  Comparing uncertainty analysis techniques for a SWAT application to the Chaohe Basin in China , 2008 .

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

[29]  Kolbjørn Engeland,et al.  Assessing uncertainties in a conceptual water balance model using Bayesian methodology / Estimation bayésienne des incertitudes au sein d’une modélisation conceptuelle de bilan hydrologique , 2005 .

[30]  Bettina Schaefli,et al.  Quantifying hydrological modeling errors through a mixture of normal distributions , 2007 .

[31]  R. Strawderman,et al.  Bayesian estimation of input parameters of a nitrogen cycle model applied to a forested reference watershed, Hubbard Brook Watershed Six , 2005 .

[32]  George Kuczera,et al.  Assessment of hydrologic parameter uncertainty and the worth of multiresponse data , 1998 .