Does model performance improve with complexity? : A case study with three hydrological models

Summary In recent decades considerable progress has been made in climate model development. Following the massive increase in computational power, models became more sophisticated. At the same time also simple conceptual models have advanced. In this study we validate and compare three hydrological models of different complexity to investigate whether their performance varies accordingly. For this purpose we use runoff and also soil moisture measurements, which allow a truly independent validation, from several sites across Switzerland. The models are calibrated in similar ways with the same runoff data. Our results show that the more complex models HBV and PREVAH outperform the simple water balance model (SWBM) in case of runoff but not for soil moisture. Furthermore the most sophisticated PREVAH model shows an added value compared to the HBV model only in case of soil moisture. Focusing on extreme events we find generally improved performance of the SWBM during drought conditions and degraded agreement with observations during wet extremes. For the more complex models we find the opposite behavior, probably because they were primarily developed for prediction of runoff extremes. As expected given their complexity, HBV and PREVAH have more problems with over-fitting. All models show a tendency towards better performance in lower altitudes as opposed to (pre-) alpine sites. The results vary considerably across the investigated sites. In contrast, the different metrics we consider to estimate the agreement between models and observations lead to similar conclusions, indicating that the performance of the considered models is similar at different time scales as well as for anomalies and long-term means. We conclude that added complexity does not necessarily lead to improved performance of hydrological models, and that performance can vary greatly depending on the considered hydrological variable (e.g. runoff vs. soil moisture) or hydrological conditions (floods vs. droughts).

[1]  S. Seneviratne,et al.  Inferring Soil Moisture Memory from Streamflow Observations Using a Simple Water Balance Model , 2013 .

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

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

[4]  Tomas Vitvar,et al.  A comparative study in modelling runoff and its components in two mountainous catchments , 2003 .

[5]  M. Zappa,et al.  Simulation of soil moisture and evapotranspiration in a soil profile during the 1999 MAP-Riviera Campaign , 2003 .

[6]  Jan Seibert,et al.  Regionalisation of parameters for a conceptual rainfall-runoff model , 1999 .

[7]  Propagation of soil moisture memory to streamflow and evapotranspiration in Europe , 2013 .

[8]  W. Press,et al.  Numerical Recipes in Fortran: The Art of Scientific Computing.@@@Numerical Recipes in C: The Art of Scientific Computing. , 1994 .

[9]  R. Koster,et al.  Land Surface Controls on Hydroclimatic Means and Variability , 2012 .

[10]  Tim R. McVicar,et al.  On the importance of including vegetation dynamics in Budyko's hydrological model , 2006 .

[11]  William H. Press,et al.  Book-Review - Numerical Recipes in Pascal - the Art of Scientific Computing , 1989 .

[12]  M. Zappa,et al.  Continuous simulation for flood estimation in ungauged mesoscale catchments of Switzerland - Part I: Modelling framework and calibration results , 2009 .

[13]  Jan Seibert,et al.  Teaching hydrological modeling with a user-friendly catchment-runoff-model software package , 2012 .

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

[15]  D. Viviroli,et al.  Continuous simulation for flood estimation in ungauged mesoscale catchments of Switzerland - Part II: Parameter regionalisation and flood estimation results , 2009 .

[16]  Thibault Mathevet,et al.  Hydrology and Earth System Sciences Hess Opinions " Crash Tests for a Standardized Evaluation of Hydrological Models " , 2022 .

[17]  Nicolas G. Wright,et al.  Hydrological model assessment for flood early warning in a tropical high mountain basin , 2016 .

[18]  M. Zappa,et al.  Extreme heat and runoff extremes in the Swiss Alps , 2007 .

[19]  S. Kotlarski,et al.  Quantifying uncertainty sources in an ensemble of hydrological climate‐impact projections , 2013 .

[20]  G. Danabasoglu,et al.  The Community Climate System Model Version 4 , 2011 .

[21]  M. Zappa,et al.  Glaciermelt of a small basin contributing to runoff under the extreme climate conditions in the summer of 2003 , 2009 .

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

[23]  Rolf Weingartner,et al.  An introduction to the hydrological modelling system PREVAH and its pre- and post-processing-tools , 2009, Environ. Model. Softw..

[24]  Keith Beven,et al.  Changing ideas in hydrology — The case of physically-based models , 1989 .

[25]  S. Seneviratne,et al.  Predictability of soil moisture and streamflow on subseasonal timescales: A case study , 2013 .

[26]  J. Kirchner.  Catchments as simple dynamical systems: Catchment characterization, rainfall‐runoff modeling, and doing hydrology backward , 2009 .

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

[28]  Ilona Bärlund,et al.  Use of simple rainfall-run-off models as a baseline for the benchmarking of the hydrological component of complex catchment models , 2006 .

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

[30]  Massimiliano Zappa,et al.  Objective quantitative spatial verification of distributed snow cover simulations—an experiment for the whole of Switzerland / Vérification quantitative spatiale objective de simulations distribuées de la couche de neige—une étude pour l'ensemble de la Suisse , 2008 .

[31]  M. Zappa,et al.  Future runoff from a partly glacierized watershed in Central Switzerland: A two-model approach , 2013 .

[32]  V. Singh,et al.  Computer Models of Watershed Hydrology , 1995 .

[33]  S. Seneviratne,et al.  A new perspective on the spatio-temporal variability of soil moisture: temporal dynamics versus time-invariant contributions , 2012 .

[34]  Vorhersage und Szenarien von Schnee- und Wasserressourcen im Alpenraum , 2012 .

[35]  M. Budyko,et al.  Climate and life , 1975 .

[36]  S. Solomon.  The Physical Science Basis : Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change , 2007 .

[37]  A. Baltensweiler,et al.  Spatially distributed hydrotope-based modelling of evapotranspiration and runoff in mountainous basins , 1999 .

[38]  Günter Blöschl,et al.  Comparative predictions of discharge from an artificial catchment (Chicken Creek) using sparse data , 2009 .

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

[40]  W. Collins,et al.  The Community Climate System Model Version 3 (CCSM3) , 2006 .

[41]  U.,et al.  Seasonal Water Balance of an Alpine Catchment as Evaluated by Different Methods for Spatially Distributed Snowmelt Modelling , 2008 .