Articles | Volume 14, issue 11
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-7047-2021
© Author(s) 2021. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-7047-2021
© Author(s) 2021. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Model description paper
| 
19 Nov 2021
Model description paper |
| 19 Nov 2021
| 19 Nov 2021
SuperflexPy 1.3.0: an open-source Python framework for building, testing, and improving conceptual hydrological models
Marco Dal Molin
Eawag, Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology,
Dübendorf, Switzerland
Centre of Hydrogeology and Geothermics (CHYN), University of
Neuchâtel, Neuchâtel, Switzerland
Dmitri Kavetski
Eawag, Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology,
Dübendorf, Switzerland
School of Civil, Environmental and Mining Engineering, University
of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA, Australia
Civil, Surveying and Environmental Engineering, University of
Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW, Australia
Fabrizio Fenicia
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR
Eawag, Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology,
Dübendorf, Switzerland
Related authors
No articles found.
Thiago Victor Medeiros do Nascimento, Julia Rudlang, Sebastian Gnann, Jan Seibert, Markus Hrachowitz, and Fabrizio Fenicia
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-739, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-739, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Large-sample hydrological studies often overlook the importance of detailed landscape data in explaining river flow variability. Analyzing over 4,000 European catchments, we found that geology becomes a dominant factor—especially for baseflow—when using detailed regional maps. This highlights the need for high-resolution geological data to improve river flow regionalization, particularly in non-monitored areas.
Daniel Klotz, Peter Miersch, Thiago V. M. do Nascimento, Fabrizio Fenicia, Martin Gauch, and Jakob Zscheischler
Earth Syst. Sci. Data Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2024-450, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2024-450, 2025
Preprint under review for ESSD
Short summary
Short summary
Data availability is central to hydrological science. It is the basis for advancing our understanding of hydrological processes, building prediction models, and anticipatory water management. We present a data-driven daily runoff reconstruction product for natural streamflow. We name it EARLS: European aggregated reconstruction for large-sample studies. The reconstructions represent daily simulations of natural streamflow across Europe and cover the period from 1953 to 2020.
Alberto Bassi, Marvin Höge, Antonietta Mira, Fabrizio Fenicia, and Carlo Albert
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 28, 4971–4988, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-4971-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-4971-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
The goal is to remove the impact of meteorological drivers in order to uncover the unique landscape fingerprints of a catchment from streamflow data. Our results reveal an optimal two-feature summary for most catchments, with a third feature associated with aridity and intermittent flow that is needed for challenging cases. Baseflow index, aridity, and soil or vegetation attributes strongly correlate with learnt features, indicating their importance for streamflow prediction.
Hongkai Gao, Markus Hrachowitz, Lan Wang-Erlandsson, Fabrizio Fenicia, Qiaojuan Xi, Jianyang Xia, Wei Shao, Ge Sun, and Hubert H. G. Savenije
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 28, 4477–4499, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-4477-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-4477-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
The concept of the root zone is widely used but lacks a precise definition. Its importance in Earth system science is not well elaborated upon. Here, we clarified its definition with several similar terms to bridge the multi-disciplinary gap. We underscore the key role of the root zone in the Earth system, which links the biosphere, hydrosphere, lithosphere, atmosphere, and anthroposphere. To better represent the root zone, we advocate for a paradigm shift towards ecosystem-centred modelling.
Peter Reichert, Kai Ma, Marvin Höge, Fabrizio Fenicia, Marco Baity-Jesi, Dapeng Feng, and Chaopeng Shen
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 28, 2505–2529, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-2505-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-2505-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
We compared the predicted change in catchment outlet discharge to precipitation and temperature change for conceptual and machine learning hydrological models. We found that machine learning models, despite providing excellent fit and prediction capabilities, can be unreliable regarding the prediction of the effect of temperature change for low-elevation catchments. This indicates the need for caution when applying them for the prediction of the effect of climate change.
Jiaxing Liang, Hongkai Gao, Fabrizio Fenicia, Qiaojuan Xi, Yahui Wang, and Hubert H. G. Savenije
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-550, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-550, 2024
Preprint archived
Short summary
Short summary
The root zone storage capacity (Sumax) is a key element in hydrology and land-atmospheric interaction. In this study, we utilized a hydrological model and a dynamic parameter identification method, to quantify the temporal trends of Sumax for 497 catchments in the USA. We found that 423 catchments (85 %) showed increasing Sumax, which averagely increased from 178 to 235 mm between 1980 and 2014. The increasing trend was also validated by multi-sources data and independent methods.
Marvin Höge, Martina Kauzlaric, Rosi Siber, Ursula Schönenberger, Pascal Horton, Jan Schwanbeck, Marius Günter Floriancic, Daniel Viviroli, Sibylle Wilhelm, Anna E. Sikorska-Senoner, Nans Addor, Manuela Brunner, Sandra Pool, Massimiliano Zappa, and Fabrizio Fenicia
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 15, 5755–5784, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-15-5755-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-15-5755-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
CAMELS-CH is an open large-sample hydro-meteorological data set that covers 331 catchments in hydrologic Switzerland from 1 January 1981 to 31 December 2020. It comprises (a) daily data of river discharge and water level as well as meteorologic variables like precipitation and temperature; (b) yearly glacier and land cover data; (c) static attributes of, e.g, topography or human impact; and (d) catchment delineations. CAMELS-CH enables water and climate research and modeling at catchment level.
Hongkai Gao, Fabrizio Fenicia, and Hubert H. G. Savenije
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 27, 2607–2620, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-27-2607-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-27-2607-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
It is a deeply rooted perception that soil is key in hydrology. In this paper, we argue that it is the ecosystem, not the soil, that is in control of hydrology. Firstly, in nature, the dominant flow mechanism is preferential, which is not particularly related to soil properties. Secondly, the ecosystem, not the soil, determines the land–surface water balance and hydrological processes. Moving from a soil- to ecosystem-centred perspective allows more realistic and simpler hydrological models.
Richard Laugesen, Mark Thyer, David McInerney, and Dmitri Kavetski
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 27, 873–893, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-27-873-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-27-873-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Forecasts may be valuable for user decisions, but current practice to quantify it has critical limitations. This study introduces RUV (relative utility value, a new metric that can be tailored to specific decisions and decision-makers. It illustrates how critical this decision context is when evaluating forecast value. This study paves the way for agencies to tailor the evaluation of their services to customer decisions and researchers to study model improvements through the lens of user impact.
David McInerney, Mark Thyer, Dmitri Kavetski, Richard Laugesen, Fitsum Woldemeskel, Narendra Tuteja, and George Kuczera
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 26, 5669–5683, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-5669-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-5669-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Streamflow forecasts a day to a month ahead are highly valuable for water resources management. Current practice often develops forecasts for specific lead times and aggregation timescales. In contrast, a single, seamless forecast can serve multiple lead times/timescales. This study shows seamless forecasts can match the performance of forecasts developed specifically at the monthly scale, while maintaining quality at other lead times. Hence, users need not sacrifice capability for performance.
Marvin Höge, Andreas Scheidegger, Marco Baity-Jesi, Carlo Albert, and Fabrizio Fenicia
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 26, 5085–5102, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-5085-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-5085-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Neural ODEs fuse physics-based models with deep learning: neural networks substitute terms in differential equations that represent the mechanistic structure of the system. The approach combines the flexibility of machine learning with physical constraints for inter- and extrapolation. We demonstrate that neural ODE models achieve state-of-the-art predictive performance while keeping full interpretability of model states and processes in hydrologic modelling over multiple catchments.
Hongkai Gao, Chuntan Han, Rensheng Chen, Zijing Feng, Kang Wang, Fabrizio Fenicia, and Hubert Savenije
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 26, 4187–4208, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-4187-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-4187-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Frozen soil hydrology is one of the 23 unsolved problems in hydrology (UPH). In this study, we developed a novel conceptual frozen soil hydrological model, FLEX-Topo-FS. The model successfully reproduced the soil freeze–thaw process, and its impacts on hydrologic connectivity, runoff generation, and groundwater. We believe this study is a breakthrough for the 23 UPH, giving us new insights on frozen soil hydrology, with broad implications for predicting cold region hydrology in future.
Hongkai Gao, Chuntan Han, Rensheng Chen, Zijing Feng, Kang Wang, Fabrizio Fenicia, and Hubert Savenije
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2021-264, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2021-264, 2021
Manuscript not accepted for further review
Short summary
Short summary
Permafrost hydrology is one of the 23 major unsolved problems in hydrology. In this study, we used a stepwise modeling and dynamic parameter method to examine the impact of permafrost on streamflow in the Hulu catchment in western China. We found that: topography and landscape are dominant controls on catchment response; baseflow recession is slower than other regions; precipitation-runoff relationship is non-stationary; permafrost impacts on streamflow mostly at the beginning of melting season.
Laurène J. E. Bouaziz, Fabrizio Fenicia, Guillaume Thirel, Tanja de Boer-Euser, Joost Buitink, Claudia C. Brauer, Jan De Niel, Benjamin J. Dewals, Gilles Drogue, Benjamin Grelier, Lieke A. Melsen, Sotirios Moustakas, Jiri Nossent, Fernando Pereira, Eric Sprokkereef, Jasper Stam, Albrecht H. Weerts, Patrick Willems, Hubert H. G. Savenije, and Markus Hrachowitz
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 25, 1069–1095, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-1069-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-1069-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
We quantify the differences in internal states and fluxes of 12 process-based models with similar streamflow performance and assess their plausibility using remotely sensed estimates of evaporation, snow cover, soil moisture and total storage anomalies. The dissimilarities in internal process representation imply that these models cannot all simultaneously be close to reality. Therefore, we invite modelers to evaluate their models using multiple variables and to rely on multi-model studies.
Renaud Hostache, Dominik Rains, Kaniska Mallick, Marco Chini, Ramona Pelich, Hans Lievens, Fabrizio Fenicia, Giovanni Corato, Niko E. C. Verhoest, and Patrick Matgen
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 24, 4793–4812, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-24-4793-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-24-4793-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
Our objective is to investigate how satellite microwave sensors, particularly Soil Moisture and Ocean Salinity (SMOS), may help to reduce errors and uncertainties in soil moisture simulations with a large-scale conceptual hydro-meteorological model. We assimilated a long time series of SMOS observations into a hydro-meteorological model and showed that this helps to improve model predictions. This work therefore contributes to the development of faster and more accurate drought prediction tools.
Cited articles
Ammann, L., Doppler, T., Stamm, C., Reichert, P., and Fenicia, F.:
Characterizing fast herbicide transport in a small agricultural catchment
with conceptual models, J. Hydrol., 586, 124812, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2020.124812, 2020.
Arnold, J. G., Srinivasan, R., Muttiah, R. S., and Williams, J. R.: Large
area hydrologic modeling and assessment, Part I: model development,
J. Am. Water Res. Assoc., 34, 73–89,
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-1688.1998.tb05961.x, 1998.
Arnold, J. G., Moriasi, D. N., Gassman, P. W., Abbaspour, K. C., White, M.
J., Srinivasan, R., Santhi, C., Harmel, R. D., van Griensven, A., Van Liew,
M. W., Kannan, N., and Jha, M. K.: SWAT: Model Use, Calibration, and
Validation, Transactions of the ASABE, 55, 1491–1508, https://doi.org/10.13031/2013.42256, 2012.
Bancheri, M., Serafin, F., and Rigon, R.: The Representation of Hydrological
Dynamical Systems Using Extended Petri Nets (EPN), Water Resour. Res.,
55, 8895–8921, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019WR025099, 2019.
Bertuzzo, E., Thomet, M., Botter, G., and Rinaldo, A.: Catchment-scale
herbicides transport: Theory and application, Adv. Water Resour.,
52, 232–242, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advwatres.2012.11.007,
2013.
Beven, K.: Changing ideas in hydrology – The case of physically-based
models, J. Hydrol., 105, 157–172, https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1694(89)90101-7, 1989.
Beven, K. J.: Uniqueness of place and process representations in
hydrological modelling, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 4, 203–213,
https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-4-203-2000, 2000.
Beven, K. J. and Kirkby, M. J.: A physically based, variable contributing
area model of basin hydrology/Un modèle à base physique de zone
d'appel variable de l'hydrologie du bassin versant, Hydrol. Sci.
Bull., 24, 43–69, https://doi.org/10.1080/02626667909491834, 1979.
Boyle, D. P.: Multicriteria calibration of hydrologic models, The University
of Arizona, 2001.
Boyle, D. P., Gupta, H. V., Sorooshian, S., Koren, V., Zhang, Z., and Smith,
M.: Toward improved streamflow forecasts: value of semidistributed modeling,
Water Resour. Res., 37, 2749–2759, https://doi.org/10.1029/2000wr000207, 2001.
Butcher, J. C. and Goodwin, N.: Numerical methods for ordinary differential
equations, Wiley Online Library, 2008.
Clark, M. P. and Kavetski, D.: Ancient numerical daemons of conceptual
hydrological modeling: 1. Fidelity and efficiency of time stepping schemes,
Water Resour. Res., 46, 10, https://doi.org/10.1029/2009WR008894, 2010.
Clark, M. P., Slater, A. G., Rupp, D. E., Woods, R. A., Vrugt, J. A., Gupta,
H. V., Wagener, T., and Hay, L. E.: Framework for Understanding Structural
Errors (FUSE): A modular framework to diagnose differences between
hydrological models, Water Resour. Res., 44, W00b02
https://doi.org/10.1029/2007wr006735, 2008.
Clark, M. P., Kavetski, D., and Fenicia, F.: Pursuing the method of multiple
working hypotheses for hydrological modeling, Water Resour. Res., 47,
W09301, https://doi.org/10.1029/2010wr009827, 2011a.
Clark, M. P., McMillan, H. K., Collins, D. B. G., Kavetski, D., and Woods,
R. A.: Hydrological field data from a modeller's perspective: Part 2:
process-based evaluation of model hypotheses, Hydrol. Process., 25,
523–543, https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.7902, 2011b.
Clark, M. P., Nijssen, B., Lundquist, J. D., Kavetski, D., Rupp, D. E.,
Woods, R. A., Freer, J. E., Gutmann, E. D., Wood, A. W., Brekke, L. D.,
Arnold, J. R., Gochis, D. J., and Rasmussen, R. M.: A unified approach for
process-based hydrologic modeling: 1. Modeling concept, Water Resour.
Res., 51, 2498–2514, https://doi.org/10.1002/2015wr017198, 2015.
Craig, J. R., Brown, G., Chlumsky, R., Jenkinson, R. W., Jost, G., Lee, K.,
Mai, J., Serrer, M., Sgro, N., Shafii, M., Snowdon, A. P., and Tolson, B.
A.: Flexible watershed simulation with the Raven hydrological modelling
framework, Environ. Modell. Softw., 129, 104728, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2020.104728, 2020.
Dal Molin, M., Schirmer, M., Zappa, M., and Fenicia, F.: Understanding
dominant controls on streamflow spatial variability to set up a
semi-distributed hydrological model: the case study of the Thur catchment,
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 24, 1319–1345, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-24-1319-2020, 2020.
Dal Molin, M., Kavetski, D., and Fenicia, F.: SuperflexPy: The flexible language of hydrological modelling, SuperflexPy [code], available at: https://pypi.org/project/superflexpy and https://github.com/dalmo1991/superflexPy, last access: 18 October 2021a.
Dal Molin, M., Kavetski, D., and Fenicia, F.: SuperflexPy 1.3.0, Zenodo [code], https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5235158, 2021b.
Dal Molin, M., Kavetski, D., and Fenicia, F.: SuperflexPy, SuperflexPy, available at: https://superflexpy.readthedocs.io, last access: 18 October 2021c.
David, P. C., Oliveira, D. Y., Grison, F., Kobiyama, M., and Chaffe, P. L.
B.: Systematic increase in model complexity helps to identify dominant
streamflow mechanisms in two small forested basins, Hydrol. Sci.
J., 64, 455–472, https://doi.org/10.1080/02626667.2019.1585858, 2019.
Dowell, M. and Jarratt, P.: The “Pegasus” method for computing the root
of an equation, BIT, 12, 503–508, https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01932959,
1972.
Eckhardt, K. and Ulbrich, U.: Potential impacts of climate change on
groundwater recharge and streamflow in a central European low mountain
range, J. Hydrol., 284, 244–252, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2003.08.005, 2003.
Fenicia, F., Savenije, H. H. G., Matgen, P., and Pfister, L.: Is the
groundwater reservoir linear? Learning from data in hydrological modelling,
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 10, 139–150, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-10-139-2006, 2006.
Fenicia, F., Savenije, H. H. G., Matgen, P., and Pfister, L.: Understanding
catchment behavior through stepwise model concept improvement, Water
Resour. Res., 44, 1, https://doi.org/10.1029/2006WR005563,
2008.
Fenicia, F., Wrede, S., Kavetski, D., Pfister, L., Hoffmann, L., Savenije,
H. H. G., and McDonnell, J. J.: Assessing the impact of mixing assumptions
on the estimation of streamwater mean residence time, Hydrol.
Process., 24, 1730–1741, https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.7595, 2010.
Fenicia, F., Kavetski, D., and Savenije, H. H. G.: Elements of a flexible
approach for conceptual hydrological modeling: 1. Motivation and theoretical
development, Water Resour. Res., 47, W11510, https://doi.org/10.1029/2010wr010174,
2011.
Fenicia, F., Kavetski, D., Savenije, H. H. G., Clark, M. P., Schoups, G.,
Pfister, L., and Freer, J.: Catchment properties, function, and conceptual
model representation: is there a correspondence?, Hydrol. Process.,
28, 2451–2467, https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.9726, 2014.
Fenicia, F., Kavetski, D., Savenije, H. H. G., and Pfister, L.: From
spatially variable streamflow to distributed hydrological models: Analysis
of key modeling decisions, Water Resour. Res., 52, 954–989,
https://doi.org/10.1002/2015wr017398, 2016.
Feyen, L., Kalas, M., and Vrugt, J. A.: Semi-distributed parameter
optimization and uncertainty assessment for large-scale streamflow
simulation using global optimization/Optimisation de paramètres
semi-distribués et évaluation de l'incertitude pour la simulation de
débits à grande échelle par l'utilisation d'une optimisation
globale, Hydrol. Sci. J., 53, 293–308, 2008.
Formetta, G., Antonello, A., Franceschi, S., David, O., and Rigon, R.:
Hydrological modelling with components: A GIS-based open-source framework,
Environ. Modell. Softw., 55, 190–200, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2014.01.019, 2014.
Futter, M. N., Erlandsson, M. A., Butterfield, D., Whitehead, P. G., Oni, S.
K., and Wade, A. J.: PERSiST: a flexible rainfall-runoff modelling toolkit
for use with the INCA family of models, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 18,
855–873, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-18-855-2014, 2014.
Gao, H., Hrachowitz, M., Fenicia, F., Gharari, S., and Savenije, H. H. G.:
Testing the realism of a topography-driven model (FLEX-Topo) in the nested
catchments of the Upper Heihe, China, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 18,
1895–1915, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-18-1895-2014, 2014.
Henn, B., Clark, M. P., Kavetski, D., Newman, A. J., Hughes, M., McGurk, B.,
and Lundquist, J. D.: Spatiotemporal patterns of precipitation inferred from
streamflow observations across the Sierra Nevada mountain range, J.
Hydrol., 556, 993–1012, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2016.08.009, 2018.
Houska, T., Kraft, P., Chamorro-Chavez, A., and Breuer, L.: SPOTting Model
Parameters Using a Ready-Made Python Package, PLoS One, 10,
e0145180, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0145180, 2015.
Hrachowitz, M., Fovet, O., Ruiz, L., Euser, T., Gharari, S., Nijzink, R.,
Freer, J., Savenije, H. H. G., and Gascuel-Odoux, C.: Process consistency in
models: The importance of system signatures, expert knowledge, and process
complexity, Water Resour. Res., 50, 7445–7469, https://doi.org/10.1002/2014wr015484,
2014.
Ibbitt, R. P. and O'Donnell, T.: Designing conceptual catchment models for
automatic fitting methods, IAHS Publication, 101, 462–475, 1971.
Jakeman, A. J. and Hornberger, G. M.: How Much Complexity Is Warranted in a
Rainfall-Runoff Model, Water Resour. Res., 29, 2637–2649, https://doi.org/10.1029/93wr00877, 1993.
Jansen, K. F., Teuling, A. J., Craig, J. R., Dal Molin, M., Knoben, W. J.
M., Parajka, J., Vis, M., and Melsen, L. A.: Mimicry of a conceptual
hydrological model (HBV): What's in a name?, Water Resour. Res., 57,
e2020WR029143, https://doi.org/10.1029/2020WR029143, 2021.
Kavetski, D. and Clark, M. P.: Ancient numerical daemons of conceptual
hydrological modeling: 2. Impact of time stepping schemes on model analysis
and prediction, Water Resour. Res., 46, 10, https://doi.org/10.1029/2009wr008896, 2010.
Kavetski, D. and Fenicia, F.: Elements of a flexible approach for
conceptual hydrological modeling: 2. Application and experimental insights,
Water Resour. Res., 47, W11511, https://doi.org/10.1029/2011wr010748, 2011.
Kavetski, D. and Kuczera, G.: Model smoothing strategies to remove
microscale discontinuities and spurious secondary optima in objective
functions in hydrological calibration, Water Resour. Res., 43,
W03411, https://doi.org/10.1029/2006wr005195, 2007.
Kirchner, J. W.: Catchments as simple dynamical systems: Catchment
characterization, rainfall-runoff modeling, and doing hydrology backward,
Water Resour. Res., 45, W02429, https://doi.org/10.1029/2008wr006912, 2009.
Kneis, D.: A lightweight framework for rapid development of object-based
hydrological model engines, Environ. Modell. Softw., 68, 110–121, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2015.02.009, 2015.
Knoben, W. J. M., Freer, J. E., Fowler, K. J. A., Peel, M. C., and Woods, R.
A.: Modular Assessment of Rainfall-Runoff Models Toolbox (MARRMoT) v1.2: an
open-source, extendable framework providing implementations of 46 conceptual
hydrologic models as continuous state-space formulations, Geosci. Model. Dev.,
12, 2463–2480, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-12-2463-2019, 2019.
Kraft, P., Vaché, K. B., Frede, H.-G., and Breuer, L.: CMF: A
Hydrological Programming Language Extension For Integrated Catchment Models,
Environ. Modell. Softw., 26, 828–830, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2010.12.009, 2011.
Kuczera, G., Kavetski, D., Franks, S., and Thyer, M.: Towards a Bayesian
total error analysis of conceptual rainfall-runoff models: Characterising
model error using storm-dependent parameters, J. Hydrol., 331,
161–177, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2006.05.010, 2006.
Lam, S. K., Pitrou, A., and Seibert, S.: Numba: a LLVM-based Python JIT
compiler, Proceedings of the Second Workshop on the LLVM Compiler
Infrastructure in HPC, Association for Computing Machinery, Austin, Texas,
7 pp., 2015.
Leavesley, G. H.: Precipitation-runoff modeling system: User's manual, 4238,
US Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, Water Resources Division, 1984.
Lerat, J., Andreassian, V., Perrin, C., Vaze, J., Perraud, J.-M., Ribstein,
P., and Loumagne, C.: Do internal flow measurements improve the calibration
of rainfall-runoff models?, Water Resour. Res., 48, https://doi.org/10.1029/2010WR010179, 2012.
Lindstrom, G., Johansson, B., Persson, M., Gardelin, M., and Bergstrom, S.:
Development and test of the distributed HBV-96 hydrological model, J. Hydrol., 201, 272–288, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1694(97)00041-3, 1997.
Marsh, C. B., Pomeroy, J. W., and Wheater, H. S.: The Canadian Hydrological
Model (CHM) v1.0: a multi-scale, multi-extent, variable-complexity
hydrological model – design and overview, Geosci. Model Dev., 13, 225–247,
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-225-2020, 2020.
Matgen, P., Fenicia, F., Heitz, S., Plaza, D., de Keyser, R., Pauwels, V. R.
N., Wagner, W., and Savenije, H.: Can ASCAT-derived soil wetness indices
reduce predictive uncertainty in well-gauged areas? A comparison with in
situ observed soil moisture in an assimilation application, Adv.
Water Resour., 44, 49–65, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advwatres.2012.03.022, 2012.
Maxwell, R. M.: A terrain-following grid transform and preconditioner for
parallel, large-scale, integrated hydrologic modeling, Adv. Water
Resour., 53, 109–117, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advwatres.2012.10.001, 2013.
McInerney, D., Thyer, M., Kavetski, D., Githui, F., Thayalakumaran, T., Liu,
M., and Kuczera, G.: The Importance of Spatiotemporal Variability in
Irrigation Inputs for Hydrological Modeling of Irrigated Catchments, Water
Resour. Res., 54, 6792–6821, https://doi.org/10.1029/2017wr022049, 2018.
Meyer, B.: Object-oriented software construction, Prentice Hall, New York,
1988.
Moore, R. J. and Clarke, R. T.: A distribution function approach to
rainfall runoff modeling, Water Resour. Res., 17, 1367–1382,
https://doi.org/10.1029/WR017i005p01367, 1981.
Moradkhani, H. and Sorooshian, S.: General review of rainfall-runoff
modeling: model calibration, data assimilation, and uncertainty analysis,
in: Hydrological modelling and the water cycle, Springer, 1–24, 2009.
Moser, A., Wemyss, D., Scheidegger, R., Fenicia, F., Honti, M., and Stamm,
C.: Modelling biocide and herbicide concentrations in catchments of the
Rhine basin, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 22, 4229–4249,
https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-22-4229-2018, 2018.
Nash, J.: The form of the instantaneous unit hydrograph, Int.
Assoc. Sci. Hydrol., 3, 114–121, 1957.
Nijzink, R. C., Samaniego, L., Mai, J., Kumar, R., Thober, S., Zink, M.,
Schäfer, D., Savenije, H. H. G., and Hrachowitz, M.: The importance of
topography-controlled sub-grid process heterogeneity and semi-quantitative
prior constraints in distributed hydrological models, Hydrol. Earth Syst.
Sci., 20, 1151–1176, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-20-1151-2016, 2016.
Paszke, A., Gross, S., Massa, F., Lerer, A., Bradbury, J., Chanan, G.,
Killeen, T., Lin, Z., Gimelshein, N., and Antiga, L.: PyTorch: An imperative
style, high-performance deep learning library, Adv. Neur. In., 8024–8035, 2019.
Pedregosa, F., Varoquaux, G., Gramfort, A., Michel, V., Thirion, B., Grisel,
O., Blondel, M., Prettenhofer, P., Weiss, R., and Dubourg, V.: Scikit-learn:
Machine learning in Python, J. Mach. Learn. Res., 12,
2825–2830, 2011.
Perrin, C., Michel, C., and Andréassian, V.: Improvement of a
parsimonious model for streamflow simulation, J. Hydrol., 279,
275–289, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1694(03)00225-7, 2003.
Press, W. H., Teukolsky, S. A., Flannery, B. P., and Vetterling, W. T.:
Numerical recipes in Fortran 77, Vol. 1, Volume 1 of Fortran numerical
recipes: the art of scientific computing, Cambridge University Press, 1992.
Refsgaard, J.: Terminology, Modelling Protocol And Classification of
Hydrological Model Codes, in: Distributed Hydrological Modelling, 22, p. 17, 1996.
Refsgaard, J. C. and Storm, B.: MIKE SHE, in: Computer Models of Watershed
Hydrology, edited by: Singh, V. P., Water Resources Publications, Colorado,
809–846, 1995.
Reichert, P. and Mieleitner, J.: Analyzing input and structural uncertainty
of nonlinear dynamic models with stochastic, time-dependent parameters,
Water Resour. Res., 45, 10, https://doi.org/10.1029/2009wr007814, 2009.
Renard, B., Kavetski, D., Leblois, E., Thyer, M., Kuczera, G., and Franks,
S. W.: Toward a reliable decomposition of predictive uncertainty in
hydrological modeling: Characterizing rainfall errors using conditional
simulation, Water Resou. Res., 47, 11, https://doi.org/10.1029/2011WR010643, 2011.
Samaniego, L., Kumar, R., and Attinger, S.: Multiscale parameter
regionalization of a grid-based hydrologic model at the mesoscale, Water
Resour. Res., 46, 5, https://doi.org/10.1029/2008wr007327, 2010.
Seibert, J. and McDonnell, J. J.: On the dialog between experimentalist and
modeler in catchment hydrology: Use of soft data for multicriteria model
calibration, Water Resour. Res., 38, 23-21–23-14,
https://doi.org/10.1029/2001wr000978, 2002.
Seibert, J., Rodhe, A., and Bishop, K.: Simulating interactions between
saturated and unsaturated storage in a conceptual runoff model, Hydrol.
Process., 17, 379–390, 2003.
Sivapalan, M., Beven, K., and Wood, E. F.: On hydrologic similarity: 2. A
scaled model of storm runoff production, Water Resour. Res., 23,
2266–2278, https://doi.org/10.1029/WR023i012p02266, 1987.
Sivapalan, M., Blöschl, G., Zhang, L., and Vertessy, R.: Downward
approach to hydrological prediction, Hydrol. Process., 17, 2101–2111,
https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.1425, 2003.
van Esse, W. R., Perrin, C., Booij, M. J., Augustijn, D. C. M., Fenicia, F., Kavetski, D., and Lobligeois, F.: The influence of conceptual model structure on model performance: a comparative study for 237 French catchments, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 17, 4227–4239, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-17-4227-2013, 2013.
Vitolo, C., Wells, P., Dobias, M., and Buytaert, W.: fuse: An R package for
ensemble Hydrological Modelling, Journal of Open Source Software, 1, 52,
https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.00052, 2016.
Wagener, T., Sivapalan, M., Troch, P., and Woods, R.: Catchment
Classification and Hydrologic Similarity, Geography Compass, 1, 901–931,
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-8198.2007.00039.x, 2007.
Walt, S. V. D., Colbert, S. C., and Varoquaux, G.: The NumPy Array: A
Structure for Efficient Numerical Computation, Comput. Sci.
Eng., 13, 22–30, https://doi.org/10.1109/mcse.2011.37, 2011.
Westra, S., Thyer, M., Leonard, M., Kavetski, D., and Lambert, M.: A
strategy for diagnosing and interpreting hydrological model nonstationarity,
Water Resour. Res., 50, 5090–5113, https://doi.org/10.1002/2013wr014719, 2014.
Wrede, S., Fenicia, F., Martínez-Carreras, N., Juilleret, J., Hissler,
C., Krein, A., Savenije, H. H. G., Uhlenbrook, S., Kavetski, D., and
Pfister, L.: Towards more systematic perceptual model development: a case
study using 3 Luxembourgish catchments, Hydrol. Process., 29,
2731–2750, https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.10393, 2015.
Young, P.: Data-based mechanistic modelling of environmental, ecological,
economic and engineering systems, Environ. Modell. Softw., 13, 105–122,
https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-8152(98)00011-5, 1998.
Young, P. C.: Stochastic, dynamic modelling and signal processing: time
variable and state dependent parameter estimation, Nonlinear and
nonstationary signal processing, in: Nonstationary and Nonlinear Time Series Analysis, 74–114, 2000.
Young, P. C., Tych, W., and Taylor, C. J.: The Captain Toolbox for Matlab,
IFAC Proceedings Volumes, 42, 758–763, https://doi.org/10.3182/20090706-3-FR-2004.00126, 2009.
Short summary
This paper introduces SuperflexPy, an open-source Python framework for building flexible conceptual hydrological models. SuperflexPy is available as open-source code and can be used by the hydrological community to investigate improved process representations, for model comparison, and for operational work.
This paper introduces SuperflexPy, an open-source Python framework for building flexible...
