the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Improving Model Calibrations in a Changing World: Controlling for Nonstationarity After Mega Disturbance Reduces Hydrological Uncertainty
Abstract. Model simulations are widely used to understand, predict, and respond to environmental changes, but uncertainty in these models can hinder decision-making. The simulation of hydrological changes after a forest fire is a typical example where process-based models with uncertain parameters may inform consequential predictions of water availability. Different parameter sets can yield similarly realistic simulations during model calibration but generate divergent predictions of change, a problem known as "equifinality". Despite longstanding recognition of the problems posed by equifinality, the implications for environmental disturbance simulations remain largely unconstrained. Here, we demonstrate how equifinality in water balance partitioning causes compounding uncertainty in hydrological changes attributable to a recent 1,540 km2 megafire in the Sierra Nevada mountains (California, USA). Different sets of calibrated parameters generate uncertain predictions of the four-year post-fire streamflow change that vary up to six-fold. However, controlling for nonstationary model error (e.g., a shift in the model bias after disturbance) can significantly (p < 0.01) reduce both equifinality and predictive uncertainty. Using a statistical metamodel to correct for bias shift after disturbance, we estimate a streamflow increase of 11 % ± 1 % in the first four years after the fire, with an 18 % ± 4 % increase during drought. Our metamodel framework for correcting nonstationarity reduces uncertainty in the post-fire streamflow change by 80 % or 82 % compared to the uncertainty of pure statistical or pure process-based model ensembles, respectively. As environmental disturbances continue to transform global landscapes, controlling for nonstationary biases can improve process-based models that are used to predict and respond to unprecedented hydrological changes.
- Preprint
(1592 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(857 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-1877', Katherine Reece & Wouter Knoben (co-review team), 07 Jul 2025
Dear authors, please find the comments in the attached PDF.
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Elijah Boardman, 28 Aug 2025
We thank the reviewers for helpful feedback, which we will address in a revision. In addition to minor edits and clarifications throughout, we have incorporated the following major improvements:
- Substantially expanded justification of our treatment of meteorological uncertainty, including (1) prior studies showing comparably large uncertainties in the Sierra Nevada, and (2) detailed explanation of why meteorological uncertainty should be considered as part of a unified model-weather inferential system to support robust predictions.
- Added details about the streamflow reconstruction procedure underlying the “observed” streamflow, which is based on a simple mass balance equation considering upstream reservoir storage changes, reservoir evaporation, and canal diversions.
- Added a completely independent second calibration experiment using only pre-fire years for calibration, which yields nearly identical predictions of the post-fire streamflow change (new Supplemental Figure S7 included in response to RC2).
Our response to each of the two reviewers is uploaded separately as a reply to those comments.
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Elijah Boardman, 28 Aug 2025
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-1877', Cyril Thébault, 06 Aug 2025
This manuscript addresses an important issue in hydrological modeling: the challenge posed by equifinality in model parameters, especially in response to significant environmental disturbances such as wildfires. The authors effectively demonstrate that equifinal parameter sets can yield widely varying streamflow predictions following a large disturbance. To mitigate this uncertainty, the authors propose leveraging nonstationary information, such as dynamic vegetation maps by leveraging a hybrid approach, combining a physically based model (streamflow simulation) with a statistical metamodel (to account for non-stationarity). Overall, the manuscript is logically structured and addresses a critical gap in ecohydrological modeling. The methodology is well-designed to address the stated research questions; however, additional clarification of the complex approaches implemented would facilitate easier understanding. The conclusions drawn by the authors are clearly justified by the analyses presented.
However, there remain several areas that could be improved or clarified before publication. Specifically, the following points should be addressed:
- Parameters to account for uncertainty in meteorological data:
I understand the idea that meteorological data are uncertain and can significantly influence model outputs. However, the parameter range used for correcting meteorological biases (±25% for precipitation, ±4°C for temperature) appears very large. Are there existing studies or evidence supporting this magnitude of potential meteorological bias specifically within this basin? My concern is that using such broad correction ranges might allow the hydrological model to artificially add or remove water to better match streamflow observations, which themselves are uncertain due to reconstruction processes, thereby compensating for potentially missing or poorly represented processes.
- Reconstructed streamflow data:
The presence of a reservoir near the gauge station considerably disrupts natural streamflow patterns. The approach of reconstructing streamflow to remove these effects (naturalized flows) partially restores the basin's natural characteristics but leaves the "observed" data highly uncertain. Such uncertainty can significantly impact calibration experiments. Could you clarify the method used to reconstruct the streamflow? Specifically, does the reconstruction explicitly account for changes introduced by the 2020 Creek Fire disturbance?
- Calibration thresholds on the objective functions:
In defining the “behavioral” parameter sets, thresholds were applied selectively to NSE, log NSE, yearly MAPE, and April-July MAPE, but notably not to the snow criteria. Could you elaborate on why snow metrics were excluded from this subjective filtering? Additionally, could you clarify whether these subjective thresholds are truly necessary or if the results would have differed significantly by simply selected the 30 "best" members from the initial ensemble across all calibration metrics? A more detailed justification for choosing these thresholds would enhance transparency and reproducibility.
- Calibration and evaluation consistency:
If my understanding is correct, the 30 DHSVM parameter sets were derived from calibration experiments using dynamic vegetation only. Thus, comparing model performance under conditions for which it was explicitly calibrated (dynamic vegetation) against for which it was not calibrated (static vegetation conditions) might be unfair. To address this concern, would it be possible to conduct an additional calibration experiment using static vegetation maps? This would allow a more balanced and fair comparison, using these static-calibrated parameter sets as an appropriate benchmark against the dynamic-vegetation approach presented here.
Additional minor comments and technical corrections can be found in the attached pdf.
Overall, the manuscript presents significant advancements in the field and should be published following minor revisions to address the points mentioned above.
Sincerely,
Cyril Thébault
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Elijah Boardman, 28 Aug 2025
We thank the reviewers for helpful feedback, which we will address in a revision. In addition to minor edits and clarifications throughout, we have incorporated the following major improvements:
- Substantially expanded justification of our treatment of meteorological uncertainty, including (1) prior studies showing comparably large uncertainties in the Sierra Nevada, and (2) detailed explanation of why meteorological uncertainty should be considered as part of a unified model-weather inferential system to support robust predictions.
- Added details about the streamflow reconstruction procedure underlying the “observed” streamflow, which is based on a simple mass balance equation considering upstream reservoir storage changes, reservoir evaporation, and canal diversions.
- Added a completely independent second calibration experiment using only pre-fire years for calibration, which yields nearly identical predictions of the post-fire streamflow change (new Supplemental Figure S7).
Our response to each of the two reviewers is uploaded separately as a reply to those comments.
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
400 | 53 | 16 | 469 | 23 | 11 | 23 |
- HTML: 400
- PDF: 53
- XML: 16
- Total: 469
- Supplement: 23
- BibTeX: 11
- EndNote: 23
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1