The skill of seasonal ensemble low-flow forecasts in the Moselle River for three different hydrological models

60Citations
Citations of this article
91Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

This paper investigates the skill of 90-day low-flow forecasts using two conceptual hydrological models and one data-driven model based on Artificial Neural Networks (ANNs) for the Moselle River. The three models, i.e. HBV, GR4J and ANN-Ensemble (ANN-E), all use forecasted meteorological inputs (precipitation P and potential evapotranspiration PET), whereby we employ ensemble seasonal meteorological forecasts. We compared low-flow forecasts for five different cases of seasonal meteorological forcing: (1) ensemble P and PET forecasts; (2) ensemble P forecasts and observed climate mean PET; (3) observed climate mean P and ensemble PET forecasts; (4) observed climate mean P and PET and (5) zero P and ensemble PET forecasts as input for the models. The ensemble P and PET forecasts, each consisting of 40 members, reveal the forecast ranges due to the model inputs. The five cases are compared for a lead time of 90 days based on model output ranges, whereas the models are compared based on their skill of low-flow forecasts for varying lead times up to 90 days. Before forecasting, the hydrological models are calibrated and validated for a period of 30 and 20 years respectively. The smallest difference between calibration and validation performance is found for HBV, whereas the largest difference is found for ANN-E. From the results, it appears that all models are prone to over-predict runoff during low-flow periods using ensemble seasonal meteorological forcing. The largest range for 90-day low-flow forecasts is found for the GR4J model when using ensemble seasonal meteorological forecasts as input. GR4J, HBV and ANN-E under-predicted 90-day-ahead low flows in the very dry year 2003 without precipitation data. The results of the comparison of forecast skills with varying lead times show that GR4J is less skilful than ANN-E and HBV. Overall, the uncertainty from ensemble P forecasts has a larger effect on seasonal low-flow forecasts than the uncertainty from ensemble PET forecasts and initial model conditions.

Figures

  • Table 1. Overview of observed data used.
  • Table 2. Overview of ensemble seasonal meteorological forecast data.
  • Figure 1. Schematization of the three models. PET is potential evapotranspiration, P is precipitation, Q is discharge and t is the time (day).
  • Table 3. Model descriptions. PET is potential evapotranspiration, P is precipitation and Q is discharge.
  • Table 4. Details of the five input cases.
  • Table 5. Contingency table for the assessment of low-flow events based on the Q75.
  • Table 6. Parameter ranges and calibrated values of the pre-selected three models.
  • Figure 2. Calibration and validation results of (a) the ANN-E model with one, two and three hidden neurons and (b) the three models used in this study. The same calibration (1971–2001) and validation (1951–1970) periods are used for both plots.

References Powered by Scopus

Improvement of a parsimonious model for streamflow simulation

1194Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Development and test of the distributed HBV-96 hydrological model

872Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Long-range experimental hydrologic forecasting for the eastern United States

812Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Cited by Powered by Scopus

Hydrological drought explained

1056Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Global-scale regionalization of hydrologic model parameters

279Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Novel approach for streamflow forecasting using a hybrid ANFIS-FFA model

215Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Demirel, M. C., Booij, M. J., & Hoekstra, A. Y. (2015). The skill of seasonal ensemble low-flow forecasts in the Moselle River for three different hydrological models. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 19(1), 275–291. https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-19-275-2015

Readers over time

‘15‘16‘17‘18‘19‘20‘21‘22‘23‘24‘2507142128

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 41

71%

Researcher 15

26%

Professor / Associate Prof. 1

2%

Lecturer / Post doc 1

2%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Engineering 24

44%

Environmental Science 15

28%

Earth and Planetary Sciences 13

24%

Design 2

4%

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free
0