Articles | Volume 15, issue 18
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-7017-2022
© Author(s) 2022. 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-15-7017-2022
© Author(s) 2022. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Development and technical paper
| 
16 Sep 2022
Development and technical paper |
| 16 Sep 2022
| 16 Sep 2022
RavenR v2.1.4: an open-source R package to support flexible hydrologic modelling
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada
James R. Craig
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada
Simon G. M. Lin
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada
Sarah Grass
GeoProcess Research Associates, Edmonton, AB, Canada
Leland Scantlebury
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada
Hydrologic Sciences Graduate Group, University of California, Davis, Davis, CA, USA
Genevieve Brown
Northwest Hydraulic Consultants Ltd, North Vancouver, BC, Canada
Rezgar Arabzadeh
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada
Related authors
Robert Chlumsky, James R. Craig, and Bryan A. Tolson
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 3387–3403, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-3387-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-3387-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
We aim to improve mapping of floods and present a new method for hydraulic modelling that uses a combination of novel geospatial analysis and existing hydraulic modelling approaches. This method is wrapped into a modelling software called Blackbird. We compared Blackbird with two other existing options for flood mapping and found that the Blackbird model outperformed both. The Blackbird model has the potential to support real-time and large-scale flood mapping applications in the future.
Robert Chlumsky, Juliane Mai, James R. Craig, and Bryan A. Tolson
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2023-69, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2023-69, 2023
Revised manuscript not accepted
Short summary
Short summary
A blended model allows multiple hydrologic processes to be represented in a single model, which allows for a model to achieve high performance without the need to modify its structure for different catchments. Here, we improve upon the initial blended version by testing more than 30 blended models in twelve catchments to improve the overall model performance. We validate our proposed, updated blended model version with independent catchments, and make this version available for open use.
Jonathan Romero-Cuellar, James R. Craig, Bryan A. Tolson, and Rezgar Arabzadeh
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.22541/essoar.176126736.60067506/v1, https://doi.org/10.22541/essoar.176126736.60067506/v1, 2025
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences (NHESS).
Short summary
Short summary
How confident are we in flood predictions? Traditional methods often give a single number, hiding uncertainty – especially with short records. Our new framework simulates thousands of weather and streamflow scenarios, combining hydrological and error models to reveal a full range of outcomes. Tested on Canadian rivers, it delivers clearer, uncertainty-aware estimates to guide safer, adaptive infrastructure planning.
Robert Chlumsky, James R. Craig, and Bryan A. Tolson
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 3387–3403, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-3387-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-3387-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
We aim to improve mapping of floods and present a new method for hydraulic modelling that uses a combination of novel geospatial analysis and existing hydraulic modelling approaches. This method is wrapped into a modelling software called Blackbird. We compared Blackbird with two other existing options for flood mapping and found that the Blackbird model outperformed both. The Blackbird model has the potential to support real-time and large-scale flood mapping applications in the future.
Robert Chlumsky, Juliane Mai, James R. Craig, and Bryan A. Tolson
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2023-69, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2023-69, 2023
Revised manuscript not accepted
Short summary
Short summary
A blended model allows multiple hydrologic processes to be represented in a single model, which allows for a model to achieve high performance without the need to modify its structure for different catchments. Here, we improve upon the initial blended version by testing more than 30 blended models in twelve catchments to improve the overall model performance. We validate our proposed, updated blended model version with independent catchments, and make this version available for open use.
Juliane Mai, Hongren Shen, Bryan A. Tolson, Étienne Gaborit, Richard Arsenault, James R. Craig, Vincent Fortin, Lauren M. Fry, Martin Gauch, Daniel Klotz, Frederik Kratzert, Nicole O'Brien, Daniel G. Princz, Sinan Rasiya Koya, Tirthankar Roy, Frank Seglenieks, Narayan K. Shrestha, André G. T. Temgoua, Vincent Vionnet, and Jonathan W. Waddell
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 26, 3537–3572, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-3537-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-3537-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Model intercomparison studies are carried out to test various models and compare the quality of their outputs over the same domain. In this study, 13 diverse model setups using the same input data are evaluated over the Great Lakes region. Various model outputs – such as streamflow, evaporation, soil moisture, and amount of snow on the ground – are compared using standardized methods and metrics. The basin-wise model outputs and observations are made available through an interactive website.
Olivia Carpino, Kristine Haynes, Ryan Connon, James Craig, Élise Devoie, and William Quinton
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 25, 3301–3317, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-3301-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-3301-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
This study demonstrates how climate warming in peatland-dominated regions of discontinuous permafrost is changing the form and function of the landscape. Key insights into the rates and patterns of such changes in the coming decades are provided through careful identification of land cover transitional stages and characterization of the hydrological and energy balance regimes for each stage.
Cited articles
Albers, S.: tidyhydat: Extract and Tidy Canadian Hydrometric Data, J. Open Source Softw., 2, 511, https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.00511, 2017. a
Astagneau, P. C., Thirel, G., Delaigue, O., Guillaume, J. H. A., Parajka, J., Brauer, C. C., Viglione, A., Buytaert, W., and Beven, K. J.: Technical note: Hydrology modelling R packages – a unified analysis of models and practicalities from a user perspective, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 25, 3937–3973, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-3937-2021, 2021. a, b
Chadalawada, J., Herath, H. M. V. V., and Babovic, V.: Hydrologically Informed
Machine Learning for Rainfall‐Runoff Modeling: A Genetic
Programming‐Based Toolkit for Automatic Model Induction, Water Resour.
Res., 56, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019WR026933, 2020. a
Chlumsky, R., Craig, J. R., Brown, G., Scantlebury, L., Grass, S., Lin, S., and
Arabzadeh, R.: rchlumsk/RavenR: v2.1.4 release, Zenodo [code], https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5525041,
2021a. a
Chlumsky, R., Mai, J., Craig, J. R., and Tolson, B. A.: Simultaneous
Calibration of Hydrologic Model Structure and Parameters Using a Blended
Model, Water Resour. Res., 57, e2020WR029229,
https://doi.org/10.1029/2020WR029229, 2021b. a, b
Chlumsky, R., Craig, J. R., Brown, G., Scantlebury, L., Grass, S., Lin, S., and
Arabzadeh, R.: rchlumsk/RavenR_manuscript_2021: Initial pre-release
v0.2, Zenodo [data set], https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6421692, 2022a. a, b
Chlumsky, R., Craig, J. R., Scantlebury, L., Lin, S., Grass, S., Brown, G., and Arabzadeh, R.: RavenR: Raven Hydrological Modelling Framework R Support and Analysis, R package version 2.1.9, https://cran.r-project.org/package=RavenR,
last access: 20 July 2022b. a
Chlumsky, R., Craig, J. R., Scantlebury, L., Lin, S., Grass, S., Brown, G., and Arabzadeh, R.: rchlumsk/RavenR: latest release, Zenodo [code], https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3468441, 2022c. a
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. Rese., 44, 12,
https://doi.org/10.1029/2007WR006735, 2008. a
Clark, M. P., Kavetski, D., and Fenicia, F.: Pursuing the method of multiple
working hypotheses for hydrological modeling, Water Resour. Res., 47, 9,
https://doi.org/10.1029/2010WR009827, 2011. a
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, 2015. a
Coxon, G., Freer, J., Lane, R., Dunne, T., Knoben, W. J. M., Howden, N. J. K., Quinn, N., Wagener, T., and Woods, R.: DECIPHeR v1: Dynamic fluxEs and ConnectIvity for Predictions of HydRology, Geosci. Model Dev., 12, 2285–2306, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-12-2285-2019, 2019. a
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,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2020.104728, 2020. a, b, c, d, e
Csardi, G. and Nepusz, T.: The igraph software package for complex network
research, InterJournal, Complex Systems, 1695,
http://igraph.org (last access: 20 July 2022), 2006. a
Dal Molin, M., Kavetski, D., and Fenicia, F.: SuperflexPy 1.3.0: an open-source Python framework for building, testing, and improving conceptual hydrological models, Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 7047–7072, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-7047-2021, 2021. a
Euser, T., Winsemius, H. C., Hrachowitz, M., Fenicia, F., Uhlenbrook, S., and Savenije, H. H. G.: A framework to assess the realism of model structures using hydrological signatures, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 17, 1893–1912, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-17-1893-2013, 2013. a
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. a
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, 11, https://doi.org/10.1029/2010WR010174, 2011. a
Grolemund, G. and Wickham, H.: Dates and Times Made Easy with lubridate,
J. Stat. Softw., 40, 1–25, https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v040.i03, 2011. a
Gupta, H. V., Kling, H., Yilmaz, K. K., and Martinez, G. F.: Decomposition of
the mean squared error and NSE performance criteria: Implications for
improving hydrological modelling, J. Hydrol., 377, 80–91,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2009.08.003, 2009. a
Hoey, S. V., Seuntjens, P., van Der Kwast, J., and Nopens, I.: A qualitative
model structure sensitivity analysis method to support model selection,
J. Hydrol., 519, 3426–3435, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2014.09.052,
2014. a
Hutton, C., Wagener, T., Freer, J., Han, D., Duffy, C., and Arheimer, B.: Most
computational hydrology is not reproducible, so is it really science?, Water
Resour. Res., 52, 7548–7555, https://doi.org/10.1002/2016WR019285, 2016. a
Jackson, E. K., Roberts, W., Nelsen, B., Williams, G. P., Nelson, E. J., and
Ames, D. P.: Introductory overview: Error metrics for hydrologic modelling
– A review of common practices and an open source library to facilitate use
and adoption, Environ. Modell. Softw., 119, 32–48,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2019.05.001, 2019. a
Kavetski, D. and Fenicia, F.: Elements of a flexible approach for conceptual
hydrological modeling: 2. Application and experimental insights, Water
Resour. Res., 47, 11, https://doi.org/10.1029/2011WR010748, 2011. a
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. a
Knoben, W. J. M., Freer, J. E., Peel, M. C., Fowler, K. J. A., and Woods,
R. A.: A brief analysis of conceptual model structure uncertainty using 36
models and 559 catchments, Water Resour. Res., 56, 9,
https://doi.org/10.1029/2019WR025975, 2020. a
LaZerte, S. E. and Albers, S.: weathercan: Download and format weather data
from Environment and Climate Change Canada, J. Open Source
Softw., 3, 571,
https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.00571, 2018. a
Leavesley, G. H., Markstrom, S. L., Restrepo, P. J., and Viger, R. J.: A
modular approach to addressing model design, scale, and parameter estimation
issues in distributed hydrological modelling, Hydrol. Process., 16,
173–187, 2002. a
Mai, J., Craig, J. R., and Tolson, B. A.: Simultaneously determining global sensitivities of model parameters and model structure, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 24, 5835–5858, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-24-5835-2020, 2020. a, b
McLaughlin, D. L., Kaplan, D. A., and Cohen, M. J.: A significant nexus:
Geographically isolated wetlands influence landscape hydrology, Water
Resour. Res., 50, 7153–7166, https://doi.org/10.1002/2013WR015002, 2014. a
Nash, J. E. and Sutcliffe, J. V.: River flow forecasting through conceptual
models part I – A discussion of principles, J. Hydrol., 10,
282–290, https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1694(70)90255-6, 1970. a
Orellana, B., Pechlivanidis, I., Mcintyre, N., Wheater, H., and Wagener, T.: A
Toolbox for the Identification of Parsimonious Semi-Distributed
Rainfall-Runoff Models: Application to the Upper Lee Catchment, in:
International Congress on Environmental Modelling and Software,
https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2723&context=iemssconference (last access: 15 September 2021),
2008. a
Perrin, C., Michel, C., and Andréassian, V.: Improvement of a parsimonious
model for streamflow simulation, J. Hydrol., 279, 275–289, 2003. a
Pilz, T., Francke, T., Baroni, G., and Bronstert, A.: How to Tailor my
Process‐based Hydrological Model? Dynamic Identifiability Analysis of
Flexible Model Structures, Water Resour. Res., 56, 8, https://doi.org/10.1029/2020WR028042, 2020. a
R Core Team: R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing, R
Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria,
https://www.R-project.org/ (last access: 15 September 2021), 2021.
a
Remmers, J. O., Teuling, A. J., and Melsen, L. A.: Can model structure families
be inferred from model output?, Environ. Model. Softw., 133, 104817, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2020.104817, 2020. a
Ryan, J. A. and Ulrich, J. M.: xts: eXtensible Time Series,
r package version
0.12.1, https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=xts (last access: 15 September 2022), 2020. a
Slater, L. J., Thirel, G., Harrigan, S., Delaigue, O., Hurley, A., Khouakhi, A., Prosdocimi, I., Vitolo, C., and Smith, K.: Using R in hydrology: a review of recent developments and future directions, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 23, 2939–2963, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-23-2939-2019, 2019. a, b
Spieler, D., Mai, J., Craig, J. R., Tolson, B. A., and Schütze, N.: Automatic
Model Structure Identification for Conceptual Hydrologic Models, Water
Resour. Res., 56, 9, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019WR027009, 2020. a, b
Stroustrup, B.: The C++ programming language, Addison-Wesley, Upper Saddle
River, NJ, 4th Edn., ISBN 978-0321563842, 2013. a
Van Rossum, G. and Drake, F. L.: Python 3 Reference Manual, CreateSpace, Scotts
Valley, CA, ISBN 1441412697, 2009. a
Vanderkam, D., Allaire, J., Owen, J., Gromer, D., and Thieurmel, B.: dygraphs:
Interface to “Dygraphs” Interactive Time Series Charting Library,
r package
version 1.1.1.6, https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=dygraphs (last access: 15 September 2021), 2018. a
Vereecken, H., Huisman, J. A., Hendricks Franssen, H. J., Brüggemann, N.,
Bogena, H. R., Kollet, S., Javaux, M., van der Kruk, J., and Vanderborght,
J.: Soil hydrology: Recent methodological advances, challenges, and
perspectives, Water Resour. Res., 51, 2616–2633,
https://doi.org/10.1002/2014WR016852, 2015. a
Wickham, H.: ggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis, Springer-Verlag New
York, https://ggplot2.tidyverse.org (last access: 15 September 2021), 2016. a
Wickham, H.: tidyr: Tidy Messy Data,
r package version
1.1.3, https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=tidyr (last access: 15 September 2021), 2021. a
Wickham, H., François, R., Henry, L., and Müller, K.: dplyr: A Grammar of
Data Manipulation,
r package version 1.0.5, https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=dplyr (last access: 15 September 2021), 2021a. a
Wickham, H., Hester, J., and Chang, W.: devtools: Tools to Make Developing R
Packages Easier,
r package version 2.4.0, https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=devtools (last access: 15 September 2021), 2021b. a
Zambrano-Bigiarini, M.: hydroGOF: Goodness-of-fit functions for comparison of
simulated and observed hydrological time series, r package version 0.4-0, Zenodo [code], https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.839854,
2020. a
Short summary
We introduce the open-source RavenR package, which has been built to support the use of the hydrologic modelling framework Raven. The R package contains many functions that may be useful in each step of the model-building process, including preparing model input files, running the model, and analyzing the outputs. We present six reproducible use cases of the RavenR package for the Liard River basin in Canada to demonstrate how it may be deployed.
We introduce the open-source RavenR package, which has been built to support the use of the...
