the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
How well do hydrological models simulate streamflow extremes and drought-to-flood transitions?
Abstract. The impacts of floods can be enhanced when they occur shortly after drought. Models can be a useful tool to better understand the processes and mechanisms driving the response of floods occurring in close succession to streamflow drought. However, it is yet unclear how well hydrologic models capture these compound extreme events and which modeling decisions are most important for high model performance. To address this research gap, we calibrated four conceptual bucket-type hydrological models with different structures (GR4J, GR5J, GR6J, and TUW) for 63 catchments in Chile and Switzerland using different calibration strategies. We tested different configurations of the Kling-Gupta efficiency (KGE) formulation for model calibration to assess their performance in simulating and detecting observed transitions. We assessed the relative importance of different methodological choices including model structure, streamflow transformation, and KGE formulation and weights. We demonstrate that model performance as expressed by the KGE or NSE does not guarantee a good performance in terms of detecting streamflow extremes and their transitions. Furthermore, we show that a model's performance with respect to capturing extreme events primarily depends on how well it captures streamflow timing (i.e., correlation between observations and simulations) rather than other hydrological signatures or variables such as evapotranspiration or snow water equivalent. Our results also highlight that model structure and catchment characteristics as well as meteorological forcing play a key role in the detection of transitions. Specifically, we demonstrate that drought-to-flood transitions are more difficult to capture in semi-arid high-mountain catchments than in humid low-elevation catchments. Finally, our study provides guidelines for further model improvements with respect to drought-to-flood transitions, which can support process understanding related to these compound events, identifying regions prone to this type of event, and contribute to improved risk management -- aspects that will enhance preparedness.
Competing interests: One of the co-authors is a member of the editorial board of Hydrology and Earth System Sciences (HESS).
Publisher's note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims made in the text, published maps, institutional affiliations, or any other geographical representation in this preprint. The responsibility to include appropriate place names lies with the authors.- Preprint
(17766 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(2749 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 16 May 2025)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-781', Anonymous Referee #1, 22 Apr 2025
reply
This manuscript presents a well-structured large-sample hydrology modeling experiment assessing the ability of four conceptual hydrological models (GR4J, GR5J, GR6J, TUW) to capture compound hydrological extremes, with a specific focus on drought-to-flood transitions. In the paper the authors examine the influence of various modeling decisions—model structure, calibration metrics, streamflow transformations, and weights—on model performance across 63 catchments in Chile and Switzerland.
The topic is relevant for the field of hydrology and fills some gaps in our understanding of model behavior under extremes events (drought-to-floods), which are of growing concern in the context of climate change.
Hence, the paper deserves to be published at HESS after some minor corrections.
General comments
- Most of the paragraphs (e.g., L20-L38, L295-310) could benefit from some size reduction, or simply the separation of ideas. Generally speaking, one idea being introduced by paragraph would improve the readability of the text. Currently it is a bit hard to follow the paragraphs due to their size and mix of ideas together.
- Three of the four models come from the GRXJ family. This means that model structure diversity is somewhat limited. Could you please justify better this choice in the text? Also pointing out the reasoning of not including another conceptual model structure besides the GRXJs?
- The paper is dense, but could you somehow summarize better your conclusions in a maximum of three/four bullet points? I see that much can be concluded from your study, but I also think that you could benefit the readers by summarizing the main conclusions in this part rather than everything. Think about what were your hypothesis, and try to come back to them here, for example.
Specific comments
Figure 1: It is difficult to distinguish the basin boundaries in both subplots (A and B) of the figure. Maybe if you could reduce the line weight of the country boundaries in A and B, use another color for the basins and increase the figure size of subplots B, C and D.
L128: I think this section would benefit from this reference:
Clerc-Schwarzenbach, F. M., Selleri, G., Neri, M., Toth, E., van Meerveld, I., and Seibert, J.: HESS Opinions: A few camels or a whole caravan?, EGUsphere [preprint], https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-864, 2024.
In their study they show that most of the time using local information (as you did) can be beneficial for model simulations. If you feel that fits, please consider inserting it.
L329-333: I feel that this part should rather be placed in the discussion section.
Figure 8: The current choice of line colors and types makes it hard to distinguish among the different models. Please consider restructuring it to make it easier for readers.
Section 4.5: Start by introducing the figure, then you can make your statements. Currently it is a bit confusing the way the section is structured. Also, I see the possibility of having two paragraphs here rather than just one.
Section 4.6: Again, please start by introducing the figure, then you can make your statements.
L472-L473: Statement repetition. This idea has already been presented.
L501: Not Figure 10?
L523-L528: This idea has already been presented in the study area. Please consider keeping it just here in the discussion.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-781-RC1
Data sets
Implementation of four conceptual rainfall-runoff models to simulate drought-to-flood transitions in Chile and Switzerland Eduardo Muñoz-Castro, Bailey J. Anderson, and Manuela I. Brunner https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14803501
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
172 | 43 | 4 | 219 | 16 | 4 | 5 |
- HTML: 172
- PDF: 43
- XML: 4
- Total: 219
- Supplement: 16
- BibTeX: 4
- EndNote: 5
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1