the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
A dual-phase ensemble framework for enhancing reservoir inflow forecasting
Abstract. Growing reliance on reservoir storage makes reservoir inflow forecasting essential to water supply across many regions. We present a dual-phase ensemble modeling framework to enhance the accuracy and timeliness of flow forecasting. The first phase of the ensemble consists of primary members developed based on calibrations of a semi-distributed hydrologic model against selected events across diverse hydroclimatic conditions. Through parameter perturbation and optimization, the primary members are further tuned to address the uncertainty in initial soil moisture conditions, resulting in a set of derived models. The primary and derived models together form a complete ensemble prediction band. The second phase involves statistical ensemble band using the quantile regression forests approach. The outputs of ensemble members are converted into a probabilistic range around the ensemble mean to better accommodate modeling uncertainties. The inflow forecast further extended by three days using linear regression, enhancing operational value in specific catchments. This ensemble approach was applied to two major reservoirs in the Nueces River Basin in Texas, USA. Ensemble members were established using the HEC-HMS model, and the ensemble was validated and tested with seven-day precipitation forecast for events in summer 2025. As measured by weighted performance metrics, the ensemble forecast outperformed the National Water Model, providing a more accurate estimation of reservoir inflows while preserving the probabilistic characteristics of the weather inputs. These results highlight the benefits of ensemble forecasts for effectively dealing with the uncertainties and complexities in watershed hydrologic responses and associated data inputs, providing an improved basis to support forecast-informed reservoir operations.
- Preprint
(4435 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(1948 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
- RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-416', Anonymous Referee #1, 22 Apr 2026
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-416', Anonymous Referee #2, 01 May 2026
This manuscript presents a dual-phase ensemble framework, which includes HEC-HMS, event selection from extreme scenarios, calibration, and a QRF post-processing stage, applied to reservoir inflow forecasting in the Nueces River Basin.
Overall comments:
The workflow is clear, but the methodology and scope are questionable. First, these steps, from the reviewer’s perspective, are simply stacked together without a clear core logic. Hydrological forecasting is typically structured around uncertainty propagation or probabilistic prediction. In this paper, uncertainty is mentioned, but it is not formally structured.(Take these papers as examples: https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-2939-2022, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-025-04138-1)
The study case is expected to be presented either at a disaggregated or aggregated level/region. However, the scope of the paper is not clear. From the title, the study focuses on reservoir inflow, but from Figures 1 and 2 and the results, multiple reservoir inflows are shown. Which one is the target? The paper attempts to achieve multiple goals simultaneously: improving accuracy, representing uncertainty, and extending forecast lead time. This results in a lack of clear prioritization and no unified objective function. Even in the results (Figures 7a and 10), the estimated values are far from the observed inflows.
The regression-based forecast extension is overly simplistic. Ensemble forecasts are already affected by bias and dispersion errors, requiring more advanced correction methods. Simple statistical methods are often insufficient compared to modern approaches. The use of linear regression for extending forecasts is not consistent with state-of-the-art hydrological forecasting practice.
The evaluation does not match the claimed goal. The paper claims probabilistic forecasting and uncertainty improvement, but the evaluation uses NSE, PBIAS, and CPI. Please provide references explaining why these metrics support the findings. Probabilistic forecasts should be evaluated using scoring rules such as CRPS if uncertainty representation is a key contribution.
Line-by-line comments
- Abstract: As mentioned above, probabilistic forecasts should be evaluated using proper scoring rules such as CRPS rather than deterministic metrics. (https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-14-2545-2010)
- Page 2, line 60: References are missing for “Dual-phase ensemble analysis…”.
- Methodology: The combination of physical ensemble modeling and statistical post-processing is not novel (https://doi.org/10.1080/27678490.2021.1936825). The proposed framework should be positioned relative to SOTA
(https://doi.org/10.1080/27678490.2021.1936825).
- Pages 8–10: The ensemble consists of 12 members generated through parameter perturbation and initial condition adjustments. However, there are no detailed explanations or evaluations provided.
- Equation 7: Why are weights of 3, 2, and 1 chosen for A, B, and C? This lacks justification.
- Line 262: Why are the 5th, 50th, and 90th percentiles selected?
- Pages 10–11: No data are presented. QRF is insufficiently justified, what’s the input, how parameters are turned, and no comparison is provided. In addition, post-processing methods differ significantly in their ability to improve reliability and sharpness and should be benchmarked (https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.9562).
- Page 11: The use of linear regression is overly simplistic, as mentioned above. Hydrological processes are nonlinear and forecast uncertainty increases with lead time. In your model, how do you ensure that errors do not propagate?
- Pages 14–19: Calibration appears to be conducted using only one event. Some values in Table 1 show large errors for certain events, such as 0.54 for the CPI weight. How do you ensure this does not affect forecasting? Is validation conducted using a single event? Ensemble forecasting systems require multi-event validation; otherwise, the validation is insufficient. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2021.126537)
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 323 | 82 | 23 | 428 | 52 | 15 | 18 |
- HTML: 323
- PDF: 82
- XML: 23
- Total: 428
- Supplement: 52
- BibTeX: 15
- EndNote: 18
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
The submission reads like a project report rather than a research article. It is mainly because the proposed method seems to be tailored for the case study, instead of being general for different case studies.
Rather than relying on historical rainfall time series, recent years witnessed extensive applications of precipitation forecasts to streamflow forecasting. Below are a few examples:
Given the increasing availability of precipitation forecasts, the authors are suggested to consider precipitation forecasts in their proposed method. Otherwise, the proposed method can be outdated.
Regarding historical rainfall patterns, there exist analog methods for selecting similar precipitation events in the past. Given that analog methods are missing in the sections of introduction and methods, the authors are suggested to improve the rainfall part in their proposed methods.
Below please find two papers on analog methods.