Preprints
https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-1363
https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-1363
17 Apr 2026
 | 17 Apr 2026
Status: this preprint is open for discussion and under review for Hydrology and Earth System Sciences (HESS).

Same Streamflow, Different Water Stories: The Hidden Impacts of Streamflow-Only Calibration in Distributed Hydrological Modeling

Nicolás A. Vásquez, Pablo A. Mendoza, Wouter Knoben, Martyn Clark, Tricia Stadnyk, and Naoki Mizukami

Abstract. Distributed hydrological models enable the characterization of spatial heterogeneities in states and fluxes, including streamflow at inner points of a basin. Despite the growing number of remotely sensed observations, calibrating the model parameters using only streamflow observed at the catchment outlet remains a popular practice. In this paper, we examine how streamflow-only calibration impacts the average seasonality and spatial patterns of simulated evapotranspiration (ET), soil moisture (SM), land surface temperature (LST), and fractional snow-covered area (fSCA). To this end, we conduct calibration experiments with the Variable Infiltration Capacity (VIC) model in six basins located in Chile, using (i) different streamflow-based objective functions, and (ii) regularizing parameters associated with different physical processes. For the latter step, we develop and test a novel spatial regularization strategy based on principal component analysis of physiographic attributes associated with the modeling units contained within each basin. Our results suggest that these decisions may have large effects on the spatial representation of ET, SM1 (i.e., SM from the first soil layer in VIC), LST, and fSCA, without degrading the performance of streamflow simulations. The average streamflow seasonality can be simulated reasonably well, with large biases in ET, fSCA, SM1, and LST (in that order). In particular, different calibration configurations can yield the same annual cycle of streamflow through very different ET seasonalities, affecting the catchment-scale seasonal water balance. Additional calibration experiments incorporating ET and SM1 besides streamflow reaffirm tradeoffs in the fidelity of different simulated variables. Overall, the results presented here reinforce the benefits of including spatial patterns of hydrological variables in the calibration of distributed hydrological models and highlight the need to verify the seasonality of other simulated variables besides streamflow.

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 paper. While Copernicus Publications makes every effort to include appropriate place names, the final responsibility lies with the authors. Views expressed in the text are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher.
Share
Nicolás A. Vásquez, Pablo A. Mendoza, Wouter Knoben, Martyn Clark, Tricia Stadnyk, and Naoki Mizukami

Status: open (until 29 May 2026)

Comment types: AC – author | RC – referee | CC – community | EC – editor | CEC – chief editor | : Report abuse
Nicolás A. Vásquez, Pablo A. Mendoza, Wouter Knoben, Martyn Clark, Tricia Stadnyk, and Naoki Mizukami
Nicolás A. Vásquez, Pablo A. Mendoza, Wouter Knoben, Martyn Clark, Tricia Stadnyk, and Naoki Mizukami
Metrics will be available soon.
Latest update: 17 Apr 2026
Download
Short summary
Although distributed hydrological models are often calibrated using only streamflow data, this practice may provide unrealistic representations of the water cycle. We show that, while streamflow annual cycles can be reasonably simulated, the seasonality of other key variables - such as evapotranspiration, soil moisture, and snow cover - may be severely misrepresented. Our results highlight the need to assess seasonal patterns of variables beyond streamflow when calibrating hydrological models.
Share