Abstract

A blended model structure has emerged as an alternative to the traditional representation of model structure in a hydrologic model, in which multiple algorithmic choices are used to represent some hydrologic process within a model, and are combined within a single model run using a weighted average of process fluxes. This approach has been shown to improve overall model performance, as well as provide an efficient way to test multiple model structures. We propose that a blended model may also be at least a partial solution to the calls for a more robust Community Hydrologic Model, which can mitigate the need for developing new hydrologic models for each catchment and application. We develop an updated version of the blended model configuration that defines the suite of all possible hydrologic process options in the blended model. Configuration development was guided by model performance for more than 30 different discrete model configurations across 12 Model Parameter Estimation Experiment (MOPEX) catchments. Improvements to the blended model include the introduction of blended potential melt and potential evapotranspiration as new process groups, inclusion of nonblended structural changes, and a revision of the process options within each existing group. This leads to a very high-performing model with a mean calibration Kling–Gupta efficiency (KGE) score of 0.90 and mean validation KGE score of 0.80 across all 12 MOPEX catchments, a substantial improvement in model performance relative to the initial version. We tested for overfitting of models and found little statistical evidence that increasing the complexity of blended models reduces validation performance. We then selected the preferred model configuration as Version 2 of the blended model and tested it with 24 independent catchments against the original configuration. This test showed a statistically significant improvement or statistically similar performance in 22 of the 24 catchments in calibration and 21 of the 24 catchments in validation. The results also suggested a greater improvement in drier catchments. Version 2 of the blended model is robust across a range of catchments without the need for adjusting its flexible model structure and may be useful in future hydrology studies and applications alike.

Get full access to this article

View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.

Data Availability Statement

Some or all data, models, or code generated or used during the study are available in a repository online in accordance with funder data retention policies: https://github.com/rchlumsk/blendedmodel_update_2022.

Acknowledgments

This research has been supported by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (Grant No. CGSD3-558879-2021) and the Engineering Excellence Doctoral Fellowship provided at the University of Waterloo. Dr. Craig and Dr. Tolson both acknowledge partial support through their NSERC Discovery Individual grants. This research was undertaken thanks in part to funding from the CANARIE research software funding program (Project RS-332). The work was made possible by the facilities of the Shared Hierarchical Academic Research Computing Network (SHARCNET; www.sharcnet.ca) and Compute/Calcul Canada.

References

Arsenault, R., F. Brissette, J.-L. Martel, M. Troin, G. Lévesque, J. Davidson-Chaput, M. C. Gonzalez, A. Ameli, and A. Poulin. 2020. “A comprehensive, multisource database for hydrometeorological modeling of 14,425 North American watersheds.” Sci. Data 7 (243): 2052–4463. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-020-00583-2.
Arsenault, R., J.-L. Martel, F. Brunet, F. Brissette, and J. Mai. 2023. “Continuous streamflow prediction in ungauged basins: Long short-term memory neural networks clearly outperform traditional hydrological models.” Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 27 (1): 139–157. https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-27-139-2023.
Chlumsky, R., J. Mai, J. R. Craig, and B. A. Tolson. 2021. “Simultaneous calibration of hydrologic model structure and parameters using a blended model.” Water Resour. Res. 57 (5): e2020WR029229. https://doi.org/10.1029/2020WR029229.
Clark, M. P., D. Kavetski, and F. Fenicia. 2011. “Pursuing the method of multiple working hypotheses for hydrological modeling.” Water Resour. Res. 47 (9). https://doi.org/10.1029/2010WR009827.
Craig, J. R., G. Brown, R. Chlumsky, R. W. Jenkinson, G. Jost, K. Lee, J. Mai, M. Serrer, N. Sgro, M. Shafii, A. P. Snowdon, and B. A. Tolson. 2020. “Flexible watershed simulation with the raven hydrological modelling framework.” Environ. Modell. Software 129 (Jul): 104728. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2020.104728.
Duan, Q., et al. 2006. “Model parameter estimation experiment (MOPEX): An overview of science strategy and major results from the second and third workshops.” J. Hydrol. 320 (1–2): 3–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2005.07.031.
Frame, J. M., F. Kratzert, H. V. Gupta, P. Ullrich, and G. S. Nearing. 2023. “On strictly enforced mass conservation constraints for modelling the rainfall-runoff process.” Hydrol. Process. 37 (3): e14847. https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.14847.
Frame, J. M., F. Kratzert, D. Klotz, M. Gauch, G. Shalev, O. Gilon, L. M. Qualls, H. V. Gupta, and G. S. Nearing. 2022. “Deep learning rainfall–runoff predictions of extreme events.” Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 26 (13): 3377–3392. https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-3377-2022.
Gupta, H. V., H. Kling, K. K. Yilmaz, and G. F. Martinez. 2009. “Decomposition of the mean squared error and NSE performance criteria: Implications for improving hydrological modeling.” J. Hydrol. 377 (1): 80–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2009.08.003.
Hollander, M., and D. A. Wolfe. 1973. Nonparametric statistical methods. New York: Wiley.
Horton, P., B. Schaefli, and M. Kauzlaric. 2021. “Why do we have so many different hydrological models? A review based on the case of Switzerland.” WIREs Water 9 (1): e1574. https://doi.org/10.1002/wat2.1574.
Klotz, D., F. Kratzert, M. Gauch, A. Keefe Sampson, J. Brandstetter, G. Klambauer, S. Hochreiter, and G. Nearing. 2022. “Uncertainty estimation with deep learning for rainfall–runoff modeling.” Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 26 (6): 1673–1693. https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-1673-2022.
Kratzert, F., M. Herrnegger, D. Klotz, S. Hochreiter, and G. Klambauer. 2019. “Neuralhydrology—Interpreting LSTMS in hydrology.” In Vol. 11700 of Explainable AI: Interpreting, explaining and visualizing deep learning, 347–362. Cham, Swizerland: Springer.
Lees, T., S. Reece, F. Kratzert, D. Klotz, M. Gauch, J. De Bruijn, R. Kumar Sahu, P. Greve, L. Slater, and S. J. Dadson. 2022. “Hydrological concept formation inside long short-term memory (LSTM) networks.” Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 26 (12): 3079–3101. https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-3079-2022.
Mai, J., et al. 2022a. “The Great Lakes runoff intercomparison project phase 4: The Great Lakes (GRIP-GL).” Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 26 (13): 3537–3572. https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-3537-2022.
Mai, J., J. R. Craig, and B. A. Tolson. 2020. “Simultaneously determining global sensitivities of model parameters and model structure.” Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 24 (12): 5835–5858. https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-24-5835-2020.
Mai, J., J. R. Craig, and B. A. Tolson. 2022b. “The pie sharing problem: Unbiased sampling of n+1 summative weights.” Environ. Modell. Software 148 (Feb): 105282. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2021.105282.
Mai, J., J. R. Craig, B. A. Tolson, and R. Arsenault. 2022c. “The sensitivity of simulated streamflow to individual hydrologic processes across North America.” Nat. Commun. 13 (1): 455. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-28010-7.
Martel, J.-L., K. Demeester, F. Brissette, A. Poulin, and R. Arsenault. 2017. “HMETS—A simple and efficient hydrology model for teaching hydrological modelling, flow forecasting and climate change impacts.” Int. J. Eng. Educ. 33 (4): 1307–1316.
Matott, L. S. 2017. OSTRICH—An optimization software toolkit for research involving computational heuristics documentation and user’s guide. Buffalo, NY: State Univ. of New York.
Mizukami, N., O. Rakovec, A. J. Newman, M. P. Clark, A. W. Wood, H. V. Gupta, and R. Kumar. 2019. “On the choice of calibration metrics for ‘high-flow’ estimation using hydrologic models.” Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 23 (6): 2601–2614. https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-23-2601-2019.
Nearing, G. S., F. Kratzert, A. K. Sampson, C. S. Pelissier, D. Klotz, J. M. Frame, C. Prieto, and H. V. Gupta. 2021. “What role does hydrological science play in the age of machine learning?” Water Resour. Res. 57 (3): e2020WR028091. https://doi.org/10.1029/2020WR028091.
Nevo, S., et al. 2022. “Flood forecasting with machine learning models in an operational framework.” Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 26 (15): 4013–4032. https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-4013-2022.
Oudin, L., F. Hervieu, C. Michel, C. Perrin, V. Andréassian, F. Anctil, and C. Loumagne. 2005. “Which potential evapotranspiration input for a lumped rainfall-runoff model? Part 2—Towards a simple and efficient potential evapotranspiration model for rainfall-runoff modelling.” J. Hydrol. 303: 290–306.
Perrin, C., C. Michel, and V. Andréassian. 2003. “Improvement of a parsimonious model for streamflow simulation.” J. Hydrol. 279 (1–4): 275–289. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1694(03)00225-7.
Raven Development Team. 2024. Raven: User’s and developer’s manual v3.8. Waterloo, ON, Canada: Raven Development Team.
Spieler, D., J. Mai, J. R. Craig, B. A. Tolson, and N. Schütze. 2020. “Automatic model structure identification for conceptual hydrologic models.” Water Resour. Res. 56 (9): e2019WR027009. https://doi.org/10.1029/2019WR027009.
Tolson, B. A., and C. A. Shoemaker. 2007. “Dynamically dimensioned search algorithm for computationally efficient watershed model calibration.” Water Resour. Res. 43 (1). https://doi.org/10.1029/2005WR004723.
Weiler, M., and K. Beven. 2015. “Do we need a community hydrological model?” Water Resour. Res. 51 (9): 7777–7784. https://doi.org/10.1002/2014WR016731.

Information & Authors

Information

Published In

Go to Journal of Hydrologic Engineering
Journal of Hydrologic Engineering
Volume 29Issue 5October 2024

History

Received: Jan 5, 2024
Accepted: Apr 29, 2024
Published online: Jul 27, 2024
Published in print: Oct 1, 2024
Discussion open until: Dec 27, 2024

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

ASCE Technical Topics:

Authors

Affiliations

Ph.D. Candidate, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Univ. of Waterloo, 200 University Ave. W, Waterloo, ON, Canada N2L 3G1 (corresponding author). ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1303-5064. Email: [email protected]
Juliane Mai [email protected]
Research Associate Professor, Dept. of Earth and Environmental Science, Univ. of Waterloo, 200 University Ave. W, Waterloo, ON, Canada N2L 3G1. Email: [email protected]
Professor, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Univ. of Waterloo, 200 University Ave. W, Waterloo, ON, Canada N2L 3G1. ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2715-7166. Email: [email protected]
Bryan A. Tolson [email protected]
Professor, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Univ. of Waterloo, 200 University Ave. W, Waterloo, ON, Canada N2L 3G1. Email: [email protected]

Metrics & Citations

Metrics

Citations

Download citation

If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.

View Options

Get Access

Access content

Please select your options to get access

Log in/Register Log in via your institution (Shibboleth)
ASCE Members: Please log in to see member pricing

Purchase

Save for later Information on ASCE Library Cards
ASCE Library Cards let you download journal articles, proceedings papers, and available book chapters across the entire ASCE Library platform. ASCE Library Cards remain active for 24 months or until all downloads are used. Note: This content will be debited as one download at time of checkout.

Terms of Use: ASCE Library Cards are for individual, personal use only. Reselling, republishing, or forwarding the materials to libraries or reading rooms is prohibited.
ASCE Library Card (5 downloads)
$105.00
Add to cart
ASCE Library Card (20 downloads)
$280.00
Add to cart
Buy Single Article
$35.00
Add to cart

Get Access

Access content

Please select your options to get access

Log in/Register Log in via your institution (Shibboleth)
ASCE Members: Please log in to see member pricing

Purchase

Save for later Information on ASCE Library Cards
ASCE Library Cards let you download journal articles, proceedings papers, and available book chapters across the entire ASCE Library platform. ASCE Library Cards remain active for 24 months or until all downloads are used. Note: This content will be debited as one download at time of checkout.

Terms of Use: ASCE Library Cards are for individual, personal use only. Reselling, republishing, or forwarding the materials to libraries or reading rooms is prohibited.
ASCE Library Card (5 downloads)
$105.00
Add to cart
ASCE Library Card (20 downloads)
$280.00
Add to cart
Buy Single Article
$35.00
Add to cart

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Copy the content Link

Share with email

Email a colleague

Share