Preprints
https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-423
https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-423
12 Feb 2026
 | 12 Feb 2026
Status: this preprint is open for discussion and under review for Geoscientific Model Development (GMD).

Hydrological Auditing of LISFLOOD v4.1.1: Impacts of Model Setup on Water Balance Components in the Po River Basin

Francesca Moschini, Andrea Ficchì, and Alberto Pistocchi

Abstract. In recent years, large-scale hydrological models have been increasingly used at regional and global scales to support decision making. Their realism in simulating water balance components is crucial for building trust across different use cases. Hydrological models may reproduce streamflow well but misrepresent other fluxes, due to internal fluxes compensations and equifinality. Therefore, alternative setups can benefit specific applications by improving the representation of relevant water balance components. "Hydrological auditing" of models, i.e. a thorough critical review of their realism beyond the calibration targets (usually streamflow), provides useful insights for both practical applications and process understanding. We present one such exercise in a representative European case study using a physically-based hydrological model (LISFLOOD), widely used for flood forecasting and water resources management. We evaluate LISFLOOD v4.1.1's performance in simulating streamflow, evapotranspiration, and overall water balance in the Po River Basin, a complex and highly managed basin in Northern Italy. Six alternative model setups are tested, including different soil layers depths and preferential flow representations. Results show that the model setup currently used in the European Flood Awareness System (EFAS) v.5 performs best in terms of streamflow simulation, particularly at the daily time step, but tends to underestimate evapotranspiration. In turn, this may lead to an overestimation of groundwater recharge and a poor water balance representation. The use of the Budyko framework as a diagnostic tool reveals that model setups without preferential flow better match the expected long-term water balance, but reduce daily streamflow performance. The study highlights the importance of evaluating model performance and auditing alternative parametrizations to ensure accurate simulations of water balance components, crucial for water resources management. We propose criteria to improve the calibration of the LISFLOOD model in a flexible and target-driven way, to better support water resources management in complex river basins.

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
Francesca Moschini, Andrea Ficchì, and Alberto Pistocchi

Status: open (until 09 Apr 2026)

Comment types: AC – author | RC – referee | CC – community | EC – editor | CEC – chief editor | : Report abuse
Francesca Moschini, Andrea Ficchì, and Alberto Pistocchi
Francesca Moschini, Andrea Ficchì, and Alberto Pistocchi

Viewed

Total article views: 176 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)
HTML PDF XML Total BibTeX EndNote
111 56 9 176 27 36
  • HTML: 111
  • PDF: 56
  • XML: 9
  • Total: 176
  • BibTeX: 27
  • EndNote: 36
Views and downloads (calculated since 12 Feb 2026)
Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 12 Feb 2026)

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 184 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 184 with geography defined and 0 with unknown origin.
Country # Views %
  • 1
1
 
 
 
 
Latest update: 07 Mar 2026
Download
Short summary
We evaluated how different configurations of a large-scale river basin model affect simulations of streamflow, evaporation, soil moisture, and groundwater in the Po River Basin in Italy. We tested alternative soil depths and the inclusion or removal of subsurface flow pathways, and compared results with observations and with an established long-term water balance relationship. Setups that best matched river flow often underestimated evaporation and overestimated deep groundwater recharge.
Share