the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Regionalization of GR4J model parameters for river flow prediction in Paraná, Brazil
Louise Akemi Kuana
Arlan Scortegagna Almeida
Emilio Graciliano Ferreira Mercuri
Steffen Manfred Noe
Abstract. Regionalization methods dependent on hydrological models comprise techniques for transferring calibrated parameters in instrumented watersheds (donor basins) to non-instrumented watersheds (target basins). This study aims to evaluate regionalization methods for transferring GR4J parameters and predict river flow in catchments from the south of Brazil. We created a dataset for Paraná state with daily hydrological time series (precipitation, evapotranspiration, and river flow) and watershed physiographic and climatological indices for 126 catchments. Rigorous quality control techniques were applied to recover the rainfall history from 1979 to 2020, and manual efforts were made to georeference the fluviometric stations. The regionalization methods compared in this study are based on: simple spatial proximity, physiographic-climatic similarity and regression by Random Forest. Direct regression of Q95 was calculated using Random Forest and compared with indirect methods, i.e. using regionalization of GR4J parameters. A set of 100 basins were used to train the regionalization models and another 26 catchments, pseudo non-instrumented, were used to evaluate and compare the performance of regionalizations. The GR4J model showed acceptable performances for the sample of 126 catchments, 65 % of watersheds presented log-transformed Nash-Sutcliffe coefficient greater than 0.70 during validation period. According to evaluation carried out for the sample of 26 basins, regionalization based on physiographic-climatic similarity showed to be the most robust method for prediction of daily and Q95 reference flow in basins from Paraná state. When increasing the number of donor basins, the method based on spatial proximity has comparable performance to the method based on physiographic-climatic similarity. Based on the physiographic-climatic characteristics of the basins, it was possible to classify 6 distinct groups of watersheds in Paraná. The basins showed similarities in their size, forest cover, urban area, number of days with more than 150 mm of precipitation, and average duration of consecutive dry days.
- Preprint
(4475 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Louise Akemi Kuana et al.
Status: open (until 18 Oct 2023)
-
CC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-1755', John Ding, 23 Aug 2023
reply
Nash-Sutcliffe efficiency and its logNSE and sqrtNSE variants
For GR4J model calibration, the authors apply the logarithmic variant (logNSE) of the classical Nash-Sutcliffe coefficient or efficiency: NSE=1-F/F0, where F and F0 are residual and initial variance, respectively. logNSE variant uses log transformation of the streamflow Q, and sqrtNSE the square root one (Sect. 3.4).
Table 2 shows the median calibrated NSE value of 0.621 for 100 training watersheds out of a total of 126 in State of Paraná, Brazil.
In my view, what NSE lacks is an additional benchmark (model), BMM, which is physically more realistic than the implicit one of an observed mean flow shown in Equation 1. (Note: the leading expression "1-" is missing from the right hand side of the equation.) This will help interpret the intermediate NSE values between 0 and 1 (Sect. 5.1 and Figure 5).
I’ve put forward a 1-step forecast as such a BMM, a simplest second-order autoregressive (AR) process of the streamflow Q, called AR(2) or AR2 . This is expressed as: Qar2[t+1] =2Qobs[t]-Qobs[t-1], e.g. , Mizukami et al, 2019, SC1 therein; Cinkus et al., 2023, CC2 therein.
In a future study, the authors may wish to explore the utility of this AR2 alternative, following Cinkus et al., 2023, AC2, Page 3. A dual NSE-AR2 efficiency scale than a sole NSE one would better measure the performance of a model simulation. For the purpose of this open discussion, a pilot study would suffice for the watershed having the median NSE value of 0.621 for one year or more from 1979-2020.
References
Cinkus, G., Mazzilli, N., Jourde, H., Wunsch, A., Liesch, T., Ravbar, N., Chen, Z., and Goldscheider, N.: When best is the enemy of good – critical evaluation of performance criteria in hydrological models, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 27, 2397–2411, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-27-2397-2023, 2023.
Mizukami, N., Rakovec, O., Newman, A. J., Clark, M. P., Wood, A. W., Gupta, H. V., and Kumar, R.: On the choice of calibration metrics for “high-flow” estimation using hydrologic models, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 23, 2601–2614, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-23-2601-2019, 2019.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1755-CC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on CC1', Emilio Graciliano Ferreira Mercuri, 28 Aug 2023
reply
Here we present the authors response to CC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-1755', John Ding, 23 Aug 2023, about Nash-Sutcliffe efficiency and its logNSE and sqrtNSE variants.
We decided to use the logNSE for both calibration and evaluation of the model. This choice was made because logNSE is more sensitive to low flows (Oudin et al., 2008) and since we are experiencing draughts recently in Paraná State, Brazil, this sounded like a good choice. However, we also used the following other criteria to evaluate the model: Pearson Correlation Coefficient (R), Nash-Sutcliffe Coefficient (NSE) and sqrtNSE.
Table 2 shows the median calibrated NSE value of 0.621 for 26 watersheds (from validation set) out of a total of 126 in State of Paraná, Brazil. This information wasn’t totally clear in the manuscript, and we have rewritten it in the new version that will be uploaded soon.
Thanks for correcting Equation 1, the leading expression "1-" was truly missing and the new version of the manuscript is corrected.
The main idea of the article was to compare regionalization techniques, not to compare model performance metrics. We agree that according to Cinkus et al. (2023) and Mizukami et al., (2019) the choice of performance metric matters for model evaluation, that’s why we have chosen 4 metrics: R, NSE, logNSE, and sqrtNSE. However, we wanted to see which regionalization procedure for GR4J parameters was more efficient, and we showed that for Paraná catchments the Similarity approach was slightly better.
To use an autoregressive (AR) model, as suggested, we would need to know the flow in the watershed where we suppose we don’t have flow data. So, we don’t think it is a good idea to be implemented as extra work for this research/manuscript, maybe some future work.
Thanks for the suggestions, we will consider them for a future study.
References:
Oudin, L., Andréassian, V., Perrin, C., Michel, C., & Le Moine, N. (2008). Spatial proximity, physical similarity, regression and ungaged catchments: A comparison of regionalization approaches based on 913 French catchments. Water resources research, 44(3).
Cinkus, G., Mazzilli, N., Jourde, H., Wunsch, A., Liesch, T., Ravbar, N., Chen, Z., and Goldscheider, N.: When best is the enemy of good – critical evaluation of performance criteria in hydrological models, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 27, 2397–2411, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-27-2397-2023, 2023.
Mizukami, N., Rakovec, O., Newman, A. J., Clark, M. P., Wood, A. W., Gupta, H. V., and Kumar, R.: On the choice of calibration metrics for “high-flow” estimation using hydrologic models, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 23, 2601–2614, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-23-2601-2019, 2019.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1755-AC1
-
AC1: 'Reply on CC1', Emilio Graciliano Ferreira Mercuri, 28 Aug 2023
reply
Louise Akemi Kuana et al.
Louise Akemi Kuana et al.
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
224 | 63 | 13 | 300 | 7 | 8 |
- HTML: 224
- PDF: 63
- XML: 13
- Total: 300
- BibTeX: 7
- EndNote: 8
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1