Search

The data are the hydrological model results of 12 models calibrated to the Ourthe catchment at Tabreux in the Belgian Ardennes. It provides hourly modeled streamflow, states and fluxes results for a selection of feasible parameter sets applied to 5 catchments (Ourthe at Tabreux, Ourthe Orientale at Mabompré, Ourthe Occidentale at Ortho, Semois at Membre-Pont, Lesse at Gendron). The models were calibrated by several institutes and universities working on the Meuse basin and gathering at the Meuse International Symposium in Liège. The data were used for the study Behind the scenes of streamflow performance by Bouaziz et al., 2021, HESS., The data are the hydrological model results of 12 models calibrated to the Ourthe catchment at Tabreux in the Belgian Ardennes. It provides hourly modeled streamflow, states and fluxes results for a selection of feasible parameter sets applied to 5 catchments (Ourthe at Tabreux, Ourthe Orientale at Mabompré, Ourthe Occidentale at Ortho, Semois at Membre-Pont, Lesse at Gendron). The models were calibrated by several institutes and universities working on the Meuse basin and gathering at the Meuse International Symposium in Liège. The data were used for the study Behind the scenes of streamflow performance by Bouaziz et al., 2021, HESS.

Streamflow is often the only variable used to evaluate hydrological models. In a previous international comparison study, eight research groups followed an identical protocol to calibrate 12 hydrological models using observed streamflow of catchments within the Meuse basin. In the current study, we quantify the differences in five states and fluxes of these 12 process-based models with similar streamflow performance, in a systematic and comprehensive way. Next, we assess model behavior plausibility by ranking the models for a set of criteria using streamflow and remote-sensing data of evaporation, snow cover, soil moisture and total storage anomalies. We found substantial dissimilarities between models for annual interception and seasonal evaporation rates, the annual number of days with water stored as snow, the mean annual maximum snow storage and the size of the root-zone storage capacity. These differences in internal process representation imply that these models cannot all simultaneously be close to reality. Modeled annual evaporation rates are consistent with Global Land Evaporation Amsterdam Model (GLEAM) estimates. However, there is a large uncertainty in modeled and remote-sensing annual interception. Substantial differences are also found between Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) and modeled number of days with snow storage. Models with relatively small root-zone storage capacities and without root water uptake reduction under dry conditions tend to have an empty root-zone storage for several days each summer, while this is not suggested by remote-sensing data of evaporation, soil moisture and vegetation indices. On the other hand, models with relatively large root-zone storage capacities tend to overestimate very dry total storage anomalies of the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE). None of the models is systematically consistent with the information available from all different (remote-sensing) data sources. Yet we did n

We present a general and flexible Bayesian approach using uncertainty multipliers to simultaneously analyze the input and parameter uncertainty of a groundwater flow model with consideration of the heteroscedasticity of the groundwater level error. Groundwater recharge and groundwater abstraction multipliers are introduced to quantify the uncertainty of the spatially distributed input data of the groundwater model in addition to parameter uncertainty. The heteroscedasticity of the groundwater level error is also considered in our Bayesian approach by incorporating a new heteroscedastic error model. The proposed methodology is applied in an overexploited aquifer in Bangladesh where groundwater abstraction and recharge data are highly uncertain. The results of the study confirm that consideration of recharge and abstraction uncertainty through the use of recharge and abstraction multipliers is feasible even in a fully distributed physically based groundwater flow model. Heteroscedasticity is present in the groundwater level error and has an effect on the model predictions and parameter distributions. The input uncertainty affects the model predictions and parameter distributions and it is the dominant source of uncertainty in the groundwater flow prediction. Additionally, the approach described also provides a new way to optimize the spatially distributed recharge and abstraction data along with the parameter values under uncertain input conditions. We conclude that considering model input uncertainty along with parameter uncertainty and heteroscedasticity of the groundwater level error is important for obtaining realistic model predictions and a correct estimation of the uncertainty bounds.

International collaboration between research institutes and universities is a promising way to reach consensus on hydrological model development. Although model comparison studies are very valuable for international cooperation, they do often not lead to very clear new insights regarding the relevance of the modelled processes. We hypothesise that this is partly caused by model complexity and the comparison methods used, which focus too much on a good overall performance instead of focusing on a variety of specific events. In this study, we use an approach that focuses on the evaluation of specific events and characteristics. Eight international research groups calibrated their hourly model on the Ourthe catchment in Belgium and carried out a validation in time for the Ourthe catchment and a validation in space for nested and neighbouring catchments. The same protocol was followed for each model and an ensemble of best-performing parameter sets was selected. Although the models showed similar performances based on general metrics (i.e. the Nash–Sutcliffe efficiency), clear differences could be observed for specific events. We analysed the hydrographs of these specific events and conducted three types of statistical analyses on the entire time series: cumulative discharges, empirical extreme value distribution of the peak flows and flow duration curves for low flows. The results illustrate the relevance of including a very quick flow reservoir preceding the root zone storage to model peaks during low flows and including a slow reservoir in parallel with the fast reservoir to model the recession for the studied catchments. This intercomparison enhanced the understanding of the hydrological functioning of the catchment, in particular for low flows, and enabled to identify present knowledge gaps for other parts of the hydrograph. Above all, it helped to evaluate each model against a set of alternative models.