Search

• Four hydrological models calibrated with four objective functions are compared. • The Granger Ramanathan average variant C (GRC) method performs the best. • Using more than nine ensemble members does not further improve performance. • Combinations of models and objective functions are better than the single model and objective. • Averaging outperforms the ensemble members except in low-flow simulations. The multi-model combination is a technique to improve the performances of hydrological streamflow simulations. An area that has not been investigated much is the performance dependence of combination techniques on the hydrological model calibration strategy and ensemble size. This study aims at investigating the joint effect of the hydrological models, calibration strategies and ensemble sizes on combination abilities for selecting the most appropriate multi-model combination method. The ensemble members were constructed by applying four hydrological models and four objective functions over 383 catchments in China. The ensemble members were combined by using nine commonly used methods, which are Equal Weights (EWA), Akaike Information Criterion (AICA), Bayes Information Criterion (BICA), Bates and Granger (BGA), Granger Ramanathan A, B, and C (GRA, GRB, and GRC), Bayesian Model Averaging (BMA) and Multi-model Super Ensemble (MMSE). The GRC is found as the best multi-model combination method for hydrological simulations. Adding ensemble members by either multiple hydrological models or calibration strategies could help to improve the simulation abilities. Specifically, the increase of ensemble members can obviously enhance the performance of multi-model combinations when the ensemble size is less than six, while only limited improvement is achieved when the ensemble size is more than nine. The combination of ensemble members with various calibration strategies is hard to compensate for the weakness of hydrological model structures. As well, the application of a single calibration strategy in ensemble members only emphasizes single discharge periods and neglects other important discharge periods. This study found that various models with different objective functions are more robust and efficient. The combination performs better than any individual model in terms of Nash–Sutcliffe efficiency (NSE) for approximately 70% catchments, but the multi-model combination is less efficient in terms of low-flow simulations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]