Hard to Beat, Not Impossible: Improving Seasonal Ensemble Streamflow Predictions (ESP) in Mountainous Catchments
Abstract. The Ensemble Streamflow Prediction (ESP) method has been extensively applied in operational forecasting and is widely considered a robust benchmark for predicting spring–summer snowmelt runoff in mountain environments. Nevertheless, it remains unclear how, when and where the implementation of data assimilation and/or post-processing techniques offer potential for improving the quality of seasonal and monthly streamflow forecasts during the snowmelt season. Here, we compare alternative ESP hindcast configurations – implemented with the conceptual rainfall-runoff model HBV.IANIGLA – across 21 Andean catchments spanning a pronounced hydroclimatic gradient (28–37° S), focusing on spring-summer (i.e., September–March) streamflow hindcasts produced for five initialization times over a 38-year period (September/1982–March/2020). Data assimilation experiments include the ensemble Kalman Filter (EnKF) and the Sequential Importance Resampling Particle Filter (SIR-PF), and the suite of post-processing techniques includes Quantile Mapping, Linear Regression, Trace Weighting and Random Forest. For completeness, the alternative ESP configurations are also compared against a simple statistical model using initial hydrologic conditions (IHCs) – computed as the sum of simulated soil and snow water storages – as the only predictand. Results show that, at the seasonal scale, the advantage of SIR-PF over EnKF becomes evident only for hindcasts initialized on August 1 or later, while post-processing can substantially degrade skill at lead times of two months or longer. However, combining data assimilation and post-processing for September 1 initializations improves skill and reliability of raw ESP monthly hindcasts, particularly at the beginning and end of the snowmelt season. The simple IHC-based statistical method also improves reliability at both seasonal and monthly scales, despite mixed results for other metrics. Finally, catchment attributes help explain where improvements are most likely: seasonal gains are favored in semi-arid basins with lower precipitation and runoff, higher aridity, and poorer hydrologic model performance, whereas monthly gains show distinct geographic and hydroclimatic patterns.
As someone who works in forecasting and improving streamflow forecasting, this is a highly beneficial paper that I plan to use for my own work. The motivation and methods and results are clearly laid out and show value for those forecasting streamflow, even outside the Andes. I primarily have a few minor comments with some small suggestions. I felt the discussion was the weakest part of the paper, however as some of the implications were not explored and discussion about catchment attributes vs model sensitivity was not explained either. I feel this paper would be improved from adding to that and then ready for publication.
Minor Comments:
Lines 39-42: missing a citation
End of line 48: missing citation
Figure 3: Very minor, but the boxplot in panel b uses a different font than the rest of the figure
Figure 3, panel d: I think some other figure would benefit this as I’m expecting a scatter plot in the results for this but then get a different plot instead.
Lines 174-175: Write out what the formulation is and explain why that one was used over others for PET
Figure 5: the pink color is not a good contrast color and difficult to read, especially for those with color blindness. I recommend changing it.
Figures 8 and 9: instead of white box plots, can they be gray?
Figures 10 and 11: Area should have the accent removed. I also would be curious
Major Comments:
Sections 4.4 and 5.2. This is the weakest part of the paper. You associate skill with catchment attributes but does the HBV model incorporate those attributes? How do I know that the attributes actually are or are not correlated if they’re not represented in the model? On the flip side, how do I know this isn’t due to how the model is built and is a product of model sensitivity?
A lot of 5.2 is more results than discussion. I would love more description of why certain catchment attributes seem to have a stronger correlation than others. Is that due to the sensitivity of the model? What can I do with this information?
Section 5.3 could use expansion as well. The paper mentions determining where and when certain methods should be implemented and I think this could use more detail in 5.3.
Why is forecasting not improving with time in Figure 6 compared to Figure 5? I’m a little surprised by this and would love to see an explanation as I would expect improved forecasts as time progresses.