Environmental models tend to require increasing computational time and resources as physical process descriptions are improved or new descriptions are incorporated. Many-query applications such as sensitivity analysis or model calibration usually require a large number of model evaluations leading to high computational demand. This often limits the feasibility of rigorous analyses. Here we present a fully automated sequential screening method that selects only informative parameters for a given model output. The method requires a number of model evaluations that is approximately 10 times the number of model parameters. It was tested using the mesoscale hydrologic model mHM in three hydrologically unique European river catchments. It identified around 20 informative parameters out of 52, with different informative parameters in each catchment. The screening method was evaluated with subsequent analyses using all 52 as well as only the informative parameters. Subsequent Sobol's global sensitivity analysis led to almost identical results yet required 40% fewer model evaluations after screening. mHM was calibrated with all and with only informative parameters in the three catchments. Model performances for daily discharge were equally high in both cases with Nash-Sutcliffe efficiencies above 0.82. Calibration using only the informative parameters needed just one third of the number of model evaluations. The universality of the sequential screening method was demonstrated using several general test functions from the literature. We therefore recommend the use of the computationally inexpensive sequential screening method prior to rigorous analyses on complex environmental models.

Small-scale and headwater catchments are mostly ungauged, even though their observation could help to improve the understanding of hydrological processes. However, it is expensive to build and maintain conventional measurement networks. Thus, the heterogeneous characteristics and behavior of catchments are currently not fully observed. This study introduces a method to capture water stage with a flexible low-cost camera setup. By considering the temporal signature of the water surface, water lines are automatically retrieved via image processing. The image coordinates are projected into object space to estimate the actual water stage. This requires high-resolution 3D models of the river bed and bank area, which are calculated in a local coordinate system with structure from motion, employing terrestrial as well as unmanned aerial vehicle imagery. A medium-and a small-scale catchment are investigated to assess the accuracy and reliability of the introduced method. Results reveal that the average deviation between the water stages measured with the camera gauge and a reference gauge are below 6 mm in the medium-scale catchment. Trends of water stage changes are captured reliably in both catchments. The developed approach uses a low-cost camera design in combination with image-based water level measurements and high-resolution topography from structure from motion. In future, adding tracking algorithms can help to densify existing gauging networks.

Choosing (an) adequate model structure(s) for a given purpose, catchment, and data situation is a critical task in the modeling chain. However, despite model intercomparison studies, hypothesis testing approaches with modular modeling frameworks, and continuous efforts in model development and improvement, there are still no clear guidelines for identifying a preferred model structure. By introducing a framework for Automatic Model Structure Identification (AMSI), we support the process of identifying (a) suitable model structure(s) for a given task. The proposed AMSI framework employs a combination of the modular hydrological model RAVEN and the heuristic global optimization algorithm dynamically dimensioned search (DDS). It is the first demonstration of a mixed-integer optimization algorithm applied to simultaneously optimize model structure choices (integer decision variables) and parameter values (continuous decision variables) in hydrological modeling. The AMSI framework is thus able to sift through a vast number of model structure and parameter choices for identifying the most adequate model structure(s) for representing the rainfall-runoff behavior of a catchment. We demonstrate the feasibility of the approach by reidentifying given model structures that produced a specific hydrograph and show the limits of the current setup via a real-world application of AMSI on 12 MOPEX catchments. Results show that the AMSI framework is capable of inferring feasible model structure(s) reproducing the rainfall-runoff behavior of a given catchment. However, it is a complex optimization problem to identify model structure and parameters simultaneously. The variance in the identified structures is high due to near equivalent diagnostic measures for multiple model structures, reflecting substantial model equifinality. Future work with AMSI should consider the use of hydrologic signatures, case studies with multiple types of observation data, and the use of mixed-integer multiobjective optimization algorithms.

Abstract. Estimating the impact of different sources of uncertainty along the modelling chain is an important skill graduates are expected to have. Broadly speaking, educators can cover uncertainty in hydrological modelling by differentiating uncertainty in data, model parameters and model structure. This provides students with insights on the impact of uncertainties on modelling results and thus on the usability of the acquired model simulations for decision making. A survey among teachers in the Earth and environmental sciences showed that model structural uncertainty is the least represented uncertainty group in teaching. This paper introduces a computational exercise that introduces students to the basics of model structure uncertainty through two ready-to-use modelling experiments. These experiments require either Matlab or Octave, and use the open-source Modular Assessment of Rainfall-Runoff Models Toolbox (MARRMoT) and the open-source Catchment Attributes and Meteorology for Large-sample Studies (CAMELS) data set. The exercise is short and can easily be integrated into an existing hydrological curriculum, with only a limited time investment needed to introduce the topic of model structure uncertainty and run the exercise. Two trial applications at the Technische Universität Dresden (Germany) showed that the exercise can be completed in two afternoons or four 90 min sessions and that the provided setup effectively transfers the intended insights about model structure uncertainty.

<p>Modular hydrological modeling has been around for some time, with early examples such as the Modular Modeling System (MMS) developed in 1996. In 2011,Fenicia et al. introduced the SUPERFLEX modeling framework, refined by Molin et al. (2021) as the Python package SurperflexPy. A framework with an even larger library of processes is the Raven modeling framework introduced by Craig et al. (2020).</p> <p>This work introduces a c++ based R package prioritizing convenience while still offering flexibility for semi-distributed hydrological modelling. The EDCHM framework defines five basic layers: atmosphere, snow pack, land, soil, and ground, with the soil and ground layers able to be further divided into sublayers. Each layer has its own characteristics and state variables such as capacity and water volume. EDCHM defines 12 basic processes, including 10 hydrological and 2 meteorological processes such as evapotranspiration and infiltration. Each process has a single flux output, and it can occur within a single layer or between layers. The input requirements are flexible and depend on the specific method used. A process with a specific method is referred to as a module in EDCHM. EDCHM also includes 34 predefined model structures with fixed connections between processes and layers, ranging from 6 to 15 processes. The key feature of EDCHM is the model builder, which allows users to easily generate the model function just by selecting the process methods, the input data list, and the parameter list with ranges will also be created. This makes it fast and efficient for users to build and calibrate models. EDCHM is implemented in c++ and supports vectorization and parallelization through R-Package Rcpp and furrr. Users can easily build new models with their own ideas or ideas from literature.</p> <p>EDCHM has been tested on 34 east-german catchments, with over 60 models calibrated in lumped form and 6 catchments calibrated with 3 and 5 sub-catchments or more than 50 HRUs. Our results show that EDCHM is highly effective in the application of hydrological modeling, with a key feature being its efficiency.</p> <p> </p> <p>Craig et al. (2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2020.104728</p> <p>Fenicia et al. (2011). https://doi.org/10.1029/2010WR010174</p> <p>EDCHM: https://github.com/LuckyKanLei/EDCHM</p>

No abstract

In order to get a clearer picture on if and how uncertainty is currently taught to students in the field of Earth-and Environmental Sciences a quick survey on "Teaching Uncertainty in Hydrological Modelling" was conducted via the survey software surveymonkey.com. The main questions we wanted to answer were:

<p>Recent studies have introduced methods to simultaneously calibrate model structure choices and parameter values to identify an appropriate (conceptual) model structure for a given catchment. This can be done through mixed-integer optimization to identify the graph structure that links dominant flow processes (Spieler et al., 2020) or, likewise, by continuous optimization of weights when blending multiple flux equations to describe flow processes within a model (Chlumsky et al., 2021). Here, we use the combination of the mixed-integer optimization algorithm DDS and the modular modelling framework RAVEN and refer to it as Automatic Model Structure Identification (AMSI) framework.</p><p>This study validates the AMSI framework by comparing the performance of the identified AMSI model structures to two different benchmark ensembles. The first ensemble consists of the best model structures from the brute force calibration of all possible structures included in the AMSI model space (7488+). The second ensemble consists of 35+ MARRMoT structures representing a structurally more divers set of models than currently implemented in the AMSI framework. These structures stem from the MARRMoT Toolbox introduced by Knoben et al. (2019) providing established conceptual model structures based on hydrologic literature.</p><p>We analyze if the model structure(s) AMSI identifies are identical to the best performing structures of the brute force calibration and comparable in their performance to the MARRMoT ensemble. We can conclude that model structures identified with the AMSI framework can compete with the structurally more divers MARRMoT ensemble. In fact, we were surprised to see how well we do with a simple two storage structure over the 12 tested MOPEX catchments (Duan et al.,2006). We aim to discuss several emerging questions, such as the selection of a robust model structure, Equifinality in model structures, and the role of structural complexity.</p><p> </p><p>Spieler et al. (2020). https://doi.org/10.1029/2019WR027009</p><p>Chlumsky et al. (2021). https://doi.org/10.1029/2020WR029229</p><p>Knoben et al. (2019). https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-12-2463-2019</p><p>Duan et al. (2006). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2005.07.031</p>