No abstract

Abstract. Hydrological classification has emerged as a suitable procedure to disentangle the inherent hydrological complexity of river networks. This practice has contributed to determining key biophysical relations in fluvial ecosystems and the effects of flow modification. Thus, a plethora of classification approaches, which agreed in general concepts and methods but differed largely in specific procedures, have emerged in the last decades. However, few studies have compared the implication of applying contrasting approaches and specifications over the same hydrological data. In this work, using cluster analysis and modelling approaches, we classify the entire river network covering the northern third of the Iberian Peninsula. Specifically, we developed classifications of increasing level of detail, ranging from 2 to 20 class levels, either based on raw and normalized daily flow series and using two contrasting approaches to determine class membership: classify-then-predict (ClasF) and predict-then-classify (PredF). Classifications were compared in terms of their statistical strength, the hydrological interpretation, the ability to reduce the bias associated with underrepresented parts of the hydrological space and their spatial correspondnece. The results highlighted that both the data processing and the classification strategy largely influenced the classification outcomes and properties, although differences among procedures were not always statistically significant. The normalization of flow data removed the influence of flow magnitude and generated more complex classifications in which a wider range of hydrologic characteristics were considered. The application of the PredF strategy produced, in most of the cases, classifications with higher discrimination ability and presented greater ability to deal with the presence of distinctive gauges in the data set than using the ClasF strategy.

No abstract

<p>In hydrological modelling, the identification of hydrological model mechanisms best suited for representing individual hydrological (physical) processes is a major research and operational challenge. We present a statistical hypothesis-testing perspective to identify dominant hydrological mechanism. The method combines: (i) Bayesian estimation of posterior probabilities of individual mechanisms from a given ensemble of model structures; (ii) a test statistic that defines a “dominant” mechanism as a mechanism more probable than all its alternatives given observed data; (iii) a flexible modelling framework to generate model structures using combinations of available mechanisms. The uncertainty in the test statistic is approximated via bootstrap from the ensemble of model structures. Synthetic and real data experiments are conducted using 624 model structures from the hydrological modelling system FUSE and data from the Leizarán catchment in northern Spain. The findings show that the mechanism identification method is reliable: it identifies the correct mechanism as dominant in all synthetic trials where an identification is made. As data/model errors increase, statistical power (identifiability) decreases, manifesting as trials where no mechanism is identified as dominant. The real data case study results are broadly consistent with the synthetic analysis, with dominant mechanisms identified for 4 of 7 processes. Insights on which processes are most/least identifiable are also reported. The mechanism identification method is expected to contribute to broader community efforts on improving model identification and process representation in hydrology.</p>

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

In hydrological modeling, the identification of model mechanisms best suited for representing individual hydrological (physical) processes is of major scientific and operational interest. We present a statistical hypothesis‐testing perspective on this model identification challenge and contribute a mechanism identification framework that combines: (i) Bayesian estimation of posterior probabilities of individual mechanisms from a given ensemble of model structures; (ii) a test statistic that defines a “dominant” mechanism as a mechanism more probable than all its alternatives given observed data; and (iii) a flexible modeling framework to generate model structures using combinations of available mechanisms. The uncertainty in the test statistic is approximated using bootstrap sampling from the model ensemble. Synthetic experiments (with varying error magnitude and multiple replicates) and real data experiments are conducted using the hydrological modeling system FUSE (7 processes and 2–4 mechanisms per process yielding 624 feasible model structures) and data from the Leizarán catchment in northern Spain. The mechanism identification method is reliable: it identifies the correct mechanism as dominant in all synthetic trials where an identification is made. As data/model errors increase, statistical power (identifiability) decreases, manifesting as trials where no mechanism is identified as dominant. The real data case study results are broadly consistent with the synthetic analysis, with dominant mechanisms identified for 4 of 7 processes. Insights on which processes are most/least identifiable are also reported. The mechanism identification method is expected to contribute to broader community efforts on improving model identification and process representation in hydrology.