Advertisement

Multiple hydrological models comparison and an improved Bayesian model averaging approach for ensemble prediction over semi-humid regions

  • Wenbo Huo
  • Zhijia Li
  • Jingfeng Wang
  • Cheng YaoEmail author
  • Ke ZhangEmail author
  • Yingchun Huang
Original Paper
  • 77 Downloads

Abstract

In semi-humid regions, accurate prediction of flood processes is challenging. The goal of this study is to gain more insights into the runoff generation mechanism in semi-humid regions using multiple-model comparison method and explore the Bayesian model averaging (BMA) approach to improve flood prediction. This study compares seven runoff generation models for three semi-humid catchments in northern China. Flood events were classified into three categories, low-flow, medium-flow, and high-flow, according to flood peak flow in order to quantify the performance of each model and identify the dominant runoff generation mechanism for semi-humid catchments. Based on the performances of seven runoff generation models, three BMA schemes were used to integrate these models to compare the advantages of different combination methods. For the purpose of improving the performance of BMA over semi-humid regions, a physically based BMA approach, Green-Ampt-BMA approach (G-BMA), was proposed. In the G-BMA approach, an infiltration-excess flow module was added with the surface runoff calculated using the Green-Ampt equation. Considering the heterogeneity of precipitation and underlying surface characteristics, a distribution curve of infiltration capacity was introduced to simulate runoff processes. The results show that models with saturation-excess mechanism perform well for semi-humid catchments. The saturation-excess and infiltration-excess runoff exist simultaneously in a flood process over different catchments with different ratios of infiltration-excess to saturation-excess runoff. We found that the BMA approach effectively takes advantage of each model to provide more accurate forecasts. The physically based G-BMA approach performs better than the BMA approach for semi-humid regions with high ratio of infiltration-excess surface flow, especially in reducing flood peak error and forecast uncertainty.

Keywords

Semi-humid catchment Hydrological model Multiple models comparison Bayesian model averaging Physically based Bayesian approach 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant Nos. 51679061, 41130639), the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities of China (Grant No. 2017B19814) and the National Key R&D Program of China (Grant No. 2016YFC0402705). The authors gratefully acknowledge the anonymous reviewers and the editors for their helpful and constructive comments.

References

  1. Ajami NK, Gu C (2010) Complexity in microbial metabolic processes in soil nitrogen modeling: a case for model averaging. Stoch Env Res Risk Assess 24(6):831–844CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ajami NK, Duan Q, Sorooshian S (2007) An integrated hydrologic Bayesian multimodel combination framework: confronting input, parameter, and model structural uncertainty in hydrologic prediction. Water Resour Res 43:W01403.  https://doi.org/10.1029/2005WR004745 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bao W, Wang C (1997) Application of a vertically-mixed runoff model. Journal of China Hydrology 3:18–21 (In Chinese) Google Scholar
  4. Benke KK, Hamilton AJ (2008) Quantitative microbial risk assessment: uncertainty and measures of central tendency for skewed distributions. Stoch Env Res Risk Assess 22(4):533–539CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Beven KJ (2006) A manifesto for the equifinality thesis. J Hydrol 320(1–2):18–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Beven KJ, Kirkby MJ (1979) A physically based, variable contributing area model of basin hydrology. Hydrol Sci Bull 24(1):43–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bogaert P, Gengler S (2018) Bayesian maximum entropy and data fusion for processing qualitative data: theory and application for crowdsourced cropland occurrences in Ethiopia. Stoch Env Res Risk Assess 32(3):815–831CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bradley AA, Hashino T, Schwartz SS (2003) Distributions-oriented verification of probability forecasts for small data samples. Weather Forecast 18(5):903–917CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Burnash R, Ferral R, McGuire R (1973) A generalized streamflow simulation system; conceptual modeling for digital computers. Dep. of Water Resour, SacramentoGoogle Scholar
  10. Buytaert W, Beven K (2011) Models as multiple working hypotheses: hydrological simulation of tropical alpine wetlands. Hydrol Process 25(11):1784–1799CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chorley R (1978) The hillslope hydrologic cycle. In: Kirkby M (ed) Hillslope Hydrology. Wiley, Hoboken, pp 1–42Google Scholar
  12. Clark M, Kavetski D, Fenicia F (2011) Pursuing the method of multiple working hypotheses for hydrological modeling. Water Resour Res 47:W09301Google Scholar
  13. Clark M, Nijssen B, Lundquist J et al (2015a) A unified approach for process-based hydrologic modeling: 1. Modeling concept. Water Resour Res 51:2498–2514.  https://doi.org/10.1002/2015WR017198 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Clark M, Nijssen B, Lundquist J et al (2015b) A unified approach for process-based hydrologic modeling: 2. Model implementation and case studies. Water Resour Res 51:2515–2542.  https://doi.org/10.1002/2015WR017200 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Daley R (1991) Atmospheric data analysis. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  16. Dan R, Henrik M (2005) Concepts of hydrologic modeling. In: Anderson MG (ed) Encyclopedia of Hydrological Sciences. Wiley, HobokenGoogle Scholar
  17. Diks C, Vrugt J (2010) Comparison of point forecast accuracy of model averaging methods in hydrologic applications. Stoch Env Res Risk Assess 24(6):809–820CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Duan Q, Sorooshian S, Gupta V (1992) Effective and efficient global optimization for conceptual rainfall-runoff models. Water Resour Res 28(4):265–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Duan Q, Gupta V, Sorooshian S (1993) Shuffled complex evolution approach for effective and efficient global minimization. J Optimiz Theory App 76(3):501–521CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Duan Q, Schaake J, Andréassian V et al (2006) Model Parameter Estimation Experiment (MOPEX): an overview of science strategy and major results from the second and third workshops. J Hydrol 320:3–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Duan Q, Ajami NK, Gao X, Sorooshian S (2007) Multi-model ensemble hydrologic prediction using Bayesian model averaging. Adv Water Resour 30(5):1371–1386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Dunne T (1978) Field studies of hillslope flow processes. In: Kirkby M (ed) Hillslope Hydrology. Wiley, Hoboken p, pp 227–293Google Scholar
  23. Fenicia F, Kavetski D, Savenije H (2011) Elements of a flexible approach for conceptual hydrological modeling: 1. Motivation and theoretical development. Water Resour Res 47:W11510CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Fenicia F, Kavetski D, Savenjie H, Clark M, Schoups G, Pfister L, Freer J (2014) Catchment properties, function, and conceptual model representation: is there a correspondence? Hydrol Process 28(4):2451–2467CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Franz K, Hartmann H, Sorooshian S, Bales R (2003) Verification of national weather service ensemble streamflow predictions for water supply forecasting in the Colorado River basin. J Hydrometeorol 4(6):1105–1118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Georgakakos K, Seo D, Gupta H, Schaake J (2004) Towards the characterization of streamflow simulation uncertainty through multimodel ensembles. J Hydrol 298(1–4):222–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Girolami M (1998) An alternative perspective on adaptive independent component analysis algorithms. Neural Comput 10(8):2103–2114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Green W, Ampt G (1911) Studies of soil physics. The flow of air and water through soils. J Agr Sci 4(1):1–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Han J (2002) Application of the Hebei Model in flood forecasting for Karst Regions. Journal of China Hydrology 22(3):26–28 (In Chinese) Google Scholar
  30. Hao G, Li J, Song L, Li H, Li Z (2018) Comparison between the TOPMODEL and the Xinanjiang model and their application to rainfall runoff simulation in semi-humid regions. Environ Earth Sci 77:279.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-018-7477-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hoeting JA, Madigan D, Raftery AE, Volinsky CT (1999) Bayesian model averaging: a tutorial. Stat Sci 14(4):382–401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hrachowitz M, Savenjie H, Bogaard TA, Tetzlaff D, Soulsby C (2013) What can flux tracking teach us about water age distribution patterns and their temporal dynamics? Hydrol Earth Syst Sc 17(2):533–564CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hsu K, Moradkhani H, Sorooshian S (2009) A sequential Bayesian approach for hydrologic model selection and prediction. Water Resour Res 45:W00B12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Huang P, Li Z, Yao C, Li Q, Yan M (2016a) Spatial combination modeling framework of saturation-excess and infiltration-excess runoff for semi-humid watersheds. Adv Meteorol.  https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/5173984 Google Scholar
  35. Huang P, Li Z, Chen J, Li Q, Yao C (2016b) Event-based hydrological modeling for detecting dominant hydrological process and suitable model strategy for semi-arid catchments. J Hydrol 542:292–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Huffman GJ, Adler RF, Rudolf B, Schneider U, Keehn PR (1995) Global precipitation estimates based on a technique for combining satellite-based estimates, rain-gauge analysis, and NWP model precipitation information. J Climate 8(5):1284–1295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kelly K, Krzysztofowicz R (1997) A bivariate meta-Gaussian density for use in hydrology. Stoch Hydrol Hydraul 11(1):17–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Khajehei S, Ahmadalipour A, Moradkhani H (2017) An effective post-processing of the North American multi-model ensemble (NMME) precipitation forecasts over the continental US. Clim Dynam.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-017-3934-0 Google Scholar
  39. Koren V, Reed S, Smith M, Zhang Z, Seo DJ (2004) Hydrology laboratory research modeling system (HL-RMS) of the US national weather service. J Hydrol 291(3–4):297–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Koster RD, Suarez MJ, Ducarne A, Stieglitz M, Kumar P (2000) A catchment-based approach to modeling land surface processes in a general circulation model: 1. model structure. J Geophys Res 105(20):809–822Google Scholar
  41. Lang M, Ouarda T, Bobeé B (1999) Towards operational guidelines for over-threshold modeling. J Hydrol 225(3–4):103–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Li Z, Yao C, Kong X (2005) The improved XINANJIANG model. J Hydrodyn 17(6):746–751Google Scholar
  43. Li Z, Huang P, Zhang J, Yao C, Yao Y (2013) Construction and application of Xin’anjiang-Haihe model. Journal of Hohai University (Natural Sciences) 41(3):189–195 (In Chinese) Google Scholar
  44. Li B, Liang Z, He Y, Hu L, Zhao W, Acharya K (2017) Comparison of parameter uncertainty analysis techniques for a TOPMODEL application. Stoch Env Res Risk Assess 31(5):1045–1059CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Liang Z, Jiang X, Cao Y, Peng S, Wang K, Wang D (2016) Probabilistic flood forecasting considering rainfall uncertainty. Journal of Hohai University (Natural Sciences) 44(1):8–12Google Scholar
  46. Madadgar S, Moradkhani H (2014) Improved Bayesian multimodeling: integration of copulas and Bayesian model averaging. Water Resour Res 50:9586–9603.  https://doi.org/10.1002/2014WR015965 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Massmann C (2015) Supporting M5 model trees with sensitivity information derived from conceptual hydrological models. J Hydroinform 17(6):943–958CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. McLachlan G, Krishnan T (1997) The EM algorithm and extensions. Wiley, New York, p 274Google Scholar
  49. Ministry of Water Resources Hydrology Bureau (2008) GB/T 22482-2008 Standard for hydrological information and hydrological forecasting[S]. China Standard Press, BeijingGoogle Scholar
  50. Mok K, Yuen K, Hoi K, Chao K, Lopes D (2018) Predicting ground-level ozone concentrations by adaptive Bayesian model averaging of statistical seasonal models. Stoch Env Res Risk Assess 32(5):1283–1297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Nash J, Sutcliffe J (1970) River flow forecasting through conceptual models, 1: a discussion of principles. J Hydrol 10:282–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Parrish M, Moradkhani H, DeChant C (2012) Toward reduction of model uncertainty: intergration of Bayesian model averaging and data assimilation. Water Resour Res 48:W03519.  https://doi.org/10.1029/2011WR011116 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Petheram C, Rustomji P, Chiew FHS, Vleeshouwer J (2012) Rainfall-runoff modelling in northern Australia: a guide to modelling strategies in the tropics. J Hydrol 462–463:28–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Pilgrim DH, Chapman TG, Doran DG (1988) Problems of rainfall-runoff modelling in arid and semiarid regions. Hydrolog Sci J 33(4):379–400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Raftery AE, Zheng Y (2003) Disscussion: performance of Bayesian model averaging. J Am Stat Assoc 98(464):931–938CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Raftery AE, Gneiting T, Balabdaoui F, Polakowski M (2005) Using Bayesian model averaging to calibrate forecast ensembles. Mon Weather Rev 133:1155–1174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Samani S, Moghaddam A, Ye M (2018) Investigating the effect of complexity on groundwater flow modeling uncertainty. Stoch Env Res Risk Assess 32(3):643–659CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Shoaib M, Shamseldin A, Khan S, Khan M, Khan Z, Melville B (2018) A wavelet based approach for combining the outputs of different rainfall-runoff models. Stoch Env Res Risk Assess 32(1):155–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Smith MB, Seo DJ, Koren VI, Reed SM, Zhang Z, Duan Q, Moreda F, Cong S (2004) The distributed model intercomparison project (DMIP): motivation and experiment design. J Hydrol 298:4–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Sorooshian S, Duan Q, Gupta VK (1994) Optimal use of the SCE-UA global optimization method for calibrating watershed models. J Hydrol 158(3–4):265–284Google Scholar
  61. Tsai F (2010) Bayesian model averaging assessment on groundwater management under model structure uncertainty. Stoch Env Res Risk Assess 24(6):845–861CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Wang X, Yang T, Krysanova V, Yu Z (2015) Assessing the impact of climate change on flood in an alpine catchment using multiple hydrological models. Stoch Env Res Risk Assess 29(8):2143–2158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. World Meteorological Organization (1975) Intercomparison of conceptual models used in operational hydrological forecasting. Secretariat of the World Meteorological Organization, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  64. World Meteorological Organization (1986) Intercomparison of snowmelt runoff. Secretariat of the World Meteorological Organization, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  65. Xiong L, Shamseldin AY, O’Connor KM (2001) A non-linear combination of the forecasts of rainfall-runoff models by the first-order Takagi-Sugeno fuzzy system. J Hydrol 245(1–4):196–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Zhao RJ (1992) The Xinanjiang model applied in China. J Hydrol 135(1):371–381Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.College of Hydrology and Water ResourcesHohai UniversityNanjingPeople’s Republic of China
  2. 2.National Cooperative Innovation Center for Water SafetyHydro-Science of Hohai UniversityNanjingPeople’s Republic of China
  3. 3.School of Civil and Environmental EngineeringGeorgia Institute of TechnologyAtlantaUSA
  4. 4.State Key Laboratory of Hydrology-Water Resources and Hydraulic EngineeringHohai UniversityNanjingPeople’s Republic of China

Personalised recommendations