What Are the Key Drivers Controlling the Quality of Seasonal Streamflow Forecasts?
Recent technological advances in representation of processes in numerical climate models have led to skillful predictions, which can consequently increase the confidence of hydrological predictions and usability of hydroclimatic services. Given that many water‐related stakeholders are affected by se...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Water resources research 2020-06, Vol.56 (6), p.n/a |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | n/a |
---|---|
container_issue | 6 |
container_start_page | |
container_title | Water resources research |
container_volume | 56 |
creator | Pechlivanidis, I. G. Crochemore, L. Rosberg, J. Bosshard, T. |
description | Recent technological advances in representation of processes in numerical climate models have led to skillful predictions, which can consequently increase the confidence of hydrological predictions and usability of hydroclimatic services. Given that many water‐related stakeholders are affected by seasonal hydrological variations, there is a need to manage such variations to their advantage through better understanding of the drivers that influence hydrological predictability. Here we analyze the seasonal forecasts of streamflow volumes across about 35,400 basins in Europe, which lie along a strong gradient in terms of climatology, scale, and hydrological regime. We then link the seasonal volumetric errors to various physiographic‐hydroclimatic descriptors and meteorological biases in order to identify the key drivers controlling predictability. Streamflow volumes over Europe are well predicted, yet with some geographic and seasonal variability; however, the predictability deteriorates with increasing lead time particularly in the winter months. Nevertheless, we show that the forecast quality is well correlated to a set of descriptors, which vary depending on the initialization month. The forecast quality of seasonal streamflow volumes is strongly dependent on the basin's hydrological regime, with limited predictability in relatively flashy basins. On the contrary, snow and/or baseflow dominated regions with long recessions show high streamflow predictability. Finally, climatology and precipitation forecast biases are also related to streamflow predictability, highlighting the importance of developing robust bias adjustment methods. Overall, this investigation shows that the seasonal streamflow predictability can be clustered, and hence regionalized, based on a priori knowledge of local hydroclimatic conditions.
Plain Language Summary
Hydrological information for the months ahead is of great value to existing decision‐making practices, particularly to those affected by the vagaries of the climate and who would benefit from better understanding and managing climate‐related risks. Currently, there is limited knowledge of the factors controlling the quality of the seasonal streamflow forecasts. We analyze such forecasts over Europe and link their predictability to basin descriptors and meteorological biases. This allows the identification of the key drivers along a strong hydroclimatic gradient. The seasonal streamflow predictability varies geographically and |
doi_str_mv | 10.1029/2019WR026987 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_hal_p</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_hal_primary_oai_HAL_hal_04670911v1</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2425599744</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-a4022-86dd7c093f01bfcad402c4c53ab200c3710b440733bb71f098155351a2af53363</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp90F1LwzAUBuAgCs7pnT8g4JVg9eSjzXIlozonDsRO2WVIu8R1dIsm3Ub_vZ0V8cqrA-95eOEchM4JXBOg8oYCkbMMaCIH4gD1iOQ8ElKwQ9QD4CwiTIpjdBLCEoDwOBE9lM0WusZDb3C9MPjJNPjOl1vjA07duvauqsr1-_fuZaOrsm6ws3hqdHBrXeFp7Y1e2crt8Mh5U-hQh9tTdGR1FczZz-yjt9H9azqOJs8Pj-lwEmkOlEaDZD4XBUhmgeS20PM2LXgRM51TgIIJAjnnIBjLc0EsyAGJYxYTTbWNGUtYH112vQtdqQ9frrRvlNOlGg8nap8BTwRIQraktRed_fDuc2NCrZZu49sTgqKcxrGUgvNWXXWq8C4Eb-xvLQG1_7D6--GWs47vyso0_1o1y9KM8oRR9gWttnpJ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2425599744</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>What Are the Key Drivers Controlling the Quality of Seasonal Streamflow Forecasts?</title><source>Wiley-Blackwell Journals</source><source>Wiley-Blackwell AGU Digital Archive</source><source>EZB Electronic Journals Library</source><creator>Pechlivanidis, I. G. ; Crochemore, L. ; Rosberg, J. ; Bosshard, T.</creator><creatorcontrib>Pechlivanidis, I. G. ; Crochemore, L. ; Rosberg, J. ; Bosshard, T.</creatorcontrib><description>Recent technological advances in representation of processes in numerical climate models have led to skillful predictions, which can consequently increase the confidence of hydrological predictions and usability of hydroclimatic services. Given that many water‐related stakeholders are affected by seasonal hydrological variations, there is a need to manage such variations to their advantage through better understanding of the drivers that influence hydrological predictability. Here we analyze the seasonal forecasts of streamflow volumes across about 35,400 basins in Europe, which lie along a strong gradient in terms of climatology, scale, and hydrological regime. We then link the seasonal volumetric errors to various physiographic‐hydroclimatic descriptors and meteorological biases in order to identify the key drivers controlling predictability. Streamflow volumes over Europe are well predicted, yet with some geographic and seasonal variability; however, the predictability deteriorates with increasing lead time particularly in the winter months. Nevertheless, we show that the forecast quality is well correlated to a set of descriptors, which vary depending on the initialization month. The forecast quality of seasonal streamflow volumes is strongly dependent on the basin's hydrological regime, with limited predictability in relatively flashy basins. On the contrary, snow and/or baseflow dominated regions with long recessions show high streamflow predictability. Finally, climatology and precipitation forecast biases are also related to streamflow predictability, highlighting the importance of developing robust bias adjustment methods. Overall, this investigation shows that the seasonal streamflow predictability can be clustered, and hence regionalized, based on a priori knowledge of local hydroclimatic conditions.
Plain Language Summary
Hydrological information for the months ahead is of great value to existing decision‐making practices, particularly to those affected by the vagaries of the climate and who would benefit from better understanding and managing climate‐related risks. Currently, there is limited knowledge of the factors controlling the quality of the seasonal streamflow forecasts. We analyze such forecasts over Europe and link their predictability to basin descriptors and meteorological biases. This allows the identification of the key drivers along a strong hydroclimatic gradient. The seasonal streamflow predictability varies geographically and seasonally with acceptable values for the first lead months. Predictability deteriorates with increasing lead time particularly in the winter months. The hydrological regime is strongly linked to the forecast quality, with quickly reacting basins showing low values. Basin climatology and precipitation forecast biases are also related to the predictability of streamflow.
Key Points
Forecast quality of seasonal streamflow volume varies geographically and seasonally, while streamflow predictability can be regionalized
Streamflow predictability is strongly dependent on the basin's hydrological regime, climatology, and precipitation forecast biases
Predictability is higher in river systems of long streamflow memory than in systems immediately responding to the precipitation signal</description><identifier>ISSN: 0043-1397</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1944-7973</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1029/2019WR026987</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Washington: John Wiley & Sons, Inc</publisher><subject>Base flow ; Basins ; Climate ; Climate models ; Climate science ; Climatology ; Confidence ; continental models ; Decision making ; Earth Sciences ; Environmental management ; hydroclimate services ; Hydrologic regime ; hydrologic similarities ; Hydrology ; Lead time ; Mathematical analysis ; pan‐European scale ; performance attribution ; Precipitation ; Quality ; Quality control ; Robustness (mathematics) ; Sciences of the Universe ; Seasonal forecasting ; Seasonal variability ; Seasonal variation ; Seasonal variations ; Stream discharge ; Stream flow ; Streamflow forecasting ; Weather forecasting ; Winter</subject><ispartof>Water resources research, 2020-06, Vol.56 (6), p.n/a</ispartof><rights>2020. The Authors.</rights><rights>2020. This article is published under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><rights>Attribution</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-a4022-86dd7c093f01bfcad402c4c53ab200c3710b440733bb71f098155351a2af53363</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-a4022-86dd7c093f01bfcad402c4c53ab200c3710b440733bb71f098155351a2af53363</cites><orcidid>0000-0001-5776-6275 ; 0000-0002-3416-317X</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029%2F2019WR026987$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029%2F2019WR026987$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,780,784,885,1417,11514,27924,27925,45574,45575,46468,46892</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://hal.science/hal-04670911$$DView record in HAL$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Pechlivanidis, I. G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Crochemore, L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rosberg, J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bosshard, T.</creatorcontrib><title>What Are the Key Drivers Controlling the Quality of Seasonal Streamflow Forecasts?</title><title>Water resources research</title><description>Recent technological advances in representation of processes in numerical climate models have led to skillful predictions, which can consequently increase the confidence of hydrological predictions and usability of hydroclimatic services. Given that many water‐related stakeholders are affected by seasonal hydrological variations, there is a need to manage such variations to their advantage through better understanding of the drivers that influence hydrological predictability. Here we analyze the seasonal forecasts of streamflow volumes across about 35,400 basins in Europe, which lie along a strong gradient in terms of climatology, scale, and hydrological regime. We then link the seasonal volumetric errors to various physiographic‐hydroclimatic descriptors and meteorological biases in order to identify the key drivers controlling predictability. Streamflow volumes over Europe are well predicted, yet with some geographic and seasonal variability; however, the predictability deteriorates with increasing lead time particularly in the winter months. Nevertheless, we show that the forecast quality is well correlated to a set of descriptors, which vary depending on the initialization month. The forecast quality of seasonal streamflow volumes is strongly dependent on the basin's hydrological regime, with limited predictability in relatively flashy basins. On the contrary, snow and/or baseflow dominated regions with long recessions show high streamflow predictability. Finally, climatology and precipitation forecast biases are also related to streamflow predictability, highlighting the importance of developing robust bias adjustment methods. Overall, this investigation shows that the seasonal streamflow predictability can be clustered, and hence regionalized, based on a priori knowledge of local hydroclimatic conditions.
Plain Language Summary
Hydrological information for the months ahead is of great value to existing decision‐making practices, particularly to those affected by the vagaries of the climate and who would benefit from better understanding and managing climate‐related risks. Currently, there is limited knowledge of the factors controlling the quality of the seasonal streamflow forecasts. We analyze such forecasts over Europe and link their predictability to basin descriptors and meteorological biases. This allows the identification of the key drivers along a strong hydroclimatic gradient. The seasonal streamflow predictability varies geographically and seasonally with acceptable values for the first lead months. Predictability deteriorates with increasing lead time particularly in the winter months. The hydrological regime is strongly linked to the forecast quality, with quickly reacting basins showing low values. Basin climatology and precipitation forecast biases are also related to the predictability of streamflow.
Key Points
Forecast quality of seasonal streamflow volume varies geographically and seasonally, while streamflow predictability can be regionalized
Streamflow predictability is strongly dependent on the basin's hydrological regime, climatology, and precipitation forecast biases
Predictability is higher in river systems of long streamflow memory than in systems immediately responding to the precipitation signal</description><subject>Base flow</subject><subject>Basins</subject><subject>Climate</subject><subject>Climate models</subject><subject>Climate science</subject><subject>Climatology</subject><subject>Confidence</subject><subject>continental models</subject><subject>Decision making</subject><subject>Earth Sciences</subject><subject>Environmental management</subject><subject>hydroclimate services</subject><subject>Hydrologic regime</subject><subject>hydrologic similarities</subject><subject>Hydrology</subject><subject>Lead time</subject><subject>Mathematical analysis</subject><subject>pan‐European scale</subject><subject>performance attribution</subject><subject>Precipitation</subject><subject>Quality</subject><subject>Quality control</subject><subject>Robustness (mathematics)</subject><subject>Sciences of the Universe</subject><subject>Seasonal forecasting</subject><subject>Seasonal variability</subject><subject>Seasonal variation</subject><subject>Seasonal variations</subject><subject>Stream discharge</subject><subject>Stream flow</subject><subject>Streamflow forecasting</subject><subject>Weather forecasting</subject><subject>Winter</subject><issn>0043-1397</issn><issn>1944-7973</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2020</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>24P</sourceid><sourceid>WIN</sourceid><recordid>eNp90F1LwzAUBuAgCs7pnT8g4JVg9eSjzXIlozonDsRO2WVIu8R1dIsm3Ub_vZ0V8cqrA-95eOEchM4JXBOg8oYCkbMMaCIH4gD1iOQ8ElKwQ9QD4CwiTIpjdBLCEoDwOBE9lM0WusZDb3C9MPjJNPjOl1vjA07duvauqsr1-_fuZaOrsm6ws3hqdHBrXeFp7Y1e2crt8Mh5U-hQh9tTdGR1FczZz-yjt9H9azqOJs8Pj-lwEmkOlEaDZD4XBUhmgeS20PM2LXgRM51TgIIJAjnnIBjLc0EsyAGJYxYTTbWNGUtYH112vQtdqQ9frrRvlNOlGg8nap8BTwRIQraktRed_fDuc2NCrZZu49sTgqKcxrGUgvNWXXWq8C4Eb-xvLQG1_7D6--GWs47vyso0_1o1y9KM8oRR9gWttnpJ</recordid><startdate>202006</startdate><enddate>202006</enddate><creator>Pechlivanidis, I. G.</creator><creator>Crochemore, L.</creator><creator>Rosberg, J.</creator><creator>Bosshard, T.</creator><general>John Wiley & Sons, Inc</general><general>American Geophysical Union</general><scope>24P</scope><scope>WIN</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QH</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7T7</scope><scope>7TG</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>7UA</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>F1W</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>H96</scope><scope>KL.</scope><scope>KR7</scope><scope>L.G</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>1XC</scope><scope>VOOES</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5776-6275</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3416-317X</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>202006</creationdate><title>What Are the Key Drivers Controlling the Quality of Seasonal Streamflow Forecasts?</title><author>Pechlivanidis, I. G. ; Crochemore, L. ; Rosberg, J. ; Bosshard, T.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-a4022-86dd7c093f01bfcad402c4c53ab200c3710b440733bb71f098155351a2af53363</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2020</creationdate><topic>Base flow</topic><topic>Basins</topic><topic>Climate</topic><topic>Climate models</topic><topic>Climate science</topic><topic>Climatology</topic><topic>Confidence</topic><topic>continental models</topic><topic>Decision making</topic><topic>Earth Sciences</topic><topic>Environmental management</topic><topic>hydroclimate services</topic><topic>Hydrologic regime</topic><topic>hydrologic similarities</topic><topic>Hydrology</topic><topic>Lead time</topic><topic>Mathematical analysis</topic><topic>pan‐European scale</topic><topic>performance attribution</topic><topic>Precipitation</topic><topic>Quality</topic><topic>Quality control</topic><topic>Robustness (mathematics)</topic><topic>Sciences of the Universe</topic><topic>Seasonal forecasting</topic><topic>Seasonal variability</topic><topic>Seasonal variation</topic><topic>Seasonal variations</topic><topic>Stream discharge</topic><topic>Stream flow</topic><topic>Streamflow forecasting</topic><topic>Weather forecasting</topic><topic>Winter</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Pechlivanidis, I. G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Crochemore, L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rosberg, J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bosshard, T.</creatorcontrib><collection>Wiley Online Library Open Access</collection><collection>Wiley Free Archive</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Aqualine</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Industrial and Applied Microbiology Abstracts (Microbiology A)</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Water Resources Abstracts</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ASFA: Aquatic Sciences and Fisheries Abstracts</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Aquatic Science & Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) 2: Ocean Technology, Policy & Non-Living Resources</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts - Academic</collection><collection>Civil Engineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Aquatic Science & Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) Professional</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Hyper Article en Ligne (HAL)</collection><collection>Hyper Article en Ligne (HAL) (Open Access)</collection><jtitle>Water resources research</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Pechlivanidis, I. G.</au><au>Crochemore, L.</au><au>Rosberg, J.</au><au>Bosshard, T.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>What Are the Key Drivers Controlling the Quality of Seasonal Streamflow Forecasts?</atitle><jtitle>Water resources research</jtitle><date>2020-06</date><risdate>2020</risdate><volume>56</volume><issue>6</issue><epage>n/a</epage><issn>0043-1397</issn><eissn>1944-7973</eissn><abstract>Recent technological advances in representation of processes in numerical climate models have led to skillful predictions, which can consequently increase the confidence of hydrological predictions and usability of hydroclimatic services. Given that many water‐related stakeholders are affected by seasonal hydrological variations, there is a need to manage such variations to their advantage through better understanding of the drivers that influence hydrological predictability. Here we analyze the seasonal forecasts of streamflow volumes across about 35,400 basins in Europe, which lie along a strong gradient in terms of climatology, scale, and hydrological regime. We then link the seasonal volumetric errors to various physiographic‐hydroclimatic descriptors and meteorological biases in order to identify the key drivers controlling predictability. Streamflow volumes over Europe are well predicted, yet with some geographic and seasonal variability; however, the predictability deteriorates with increasing lead time particularly in the winter months. Nevertheless, we show that the forecast quality is well correlated to a set of descriptors, which vary depending on the initialization month. The forecast quality of seasonal streamflow volumes is strongly dependent on the basin's hydrological regime, with limited predictability in relatively flashy basins. On the contrary, snow and/or baseflow dominated regions with long recessions show high streamflow predictability. Finally, climatology and precipitation forecast biases are also related to streamflow predictability, highlighting the importance of developing robust bias adjustment methods. Overall, this investigation shows that the seasonal streamflow predictability can be clustered, and hence regionalized, based on a priori knowledge of local hydroclimatic conditions.
Plain Language Summary
Hydrological information for the months ahead is of great value to existing decision‐making practices, particularly to those affected by the vagaries of the climate and who would benefit from better understanding and managing climate‐related risks. Currently, there is limited knowledge of the factors controlling the quality of the seasonal streamflow forecasts. We analyze such forecasts over Europe and link their predictability to basin descriptors and meteorological biases. This allows the identification of the key drivers along a strong hydroclimatic gradient. The seasonal streamflow predictability varies geographically and seasonally with acceptable values for the first lead months. Predictability deteriorates with increasing lead time particularly in the winter months. The hydrological regime is strongly linked to the forecast quality, with quickly reacting basins showing low values. Basin climatology and precipitation forecast biases are also related to the predictability of streamflow.
Key Points
Forecast quality of seasonal streamflow volume varies geographically and seasonally, while streamflow predictability can be regionalized
Streamflow predictability is strongly dependent on the basin's hydrological regime, climatology, and precipitation forecast biases
Predictability is higher in river systems of long streamflow memory than in systems immediately responding to the precipitation signal</abstract><cop>Washington</cop><pub>John Wiley & Sons, Inc</pub><doi>10.1029/2019WR026987</doi><tpages>19</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5776-6275</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3416-317X</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0043-1397 |
ispartof | Water resources research, 2020-06, Vol.56 (6), p.n/a |
issn | 0043-1397 1944-7973 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_hal_primary_oai_HAL_hal_04670911v1 |
source | Wiley-Blackwell Journals; Wiley-Blackwell AGU Digital Archive; EZB Electronic Journals Library |
subjects | Base flow Basins Climate Climate models Climate science Climatology Confidence continental models Decision making Earth Sciences Environmental management hydroclimate services Hydrologic regime hydrologic similarities Hydrology Lead time Mathematical analysis pan‐European scale performance attribution Precipitation Quality Quality control Robustness (mathematics) Sciences of the Universe Seasonal forecasting Seasonal variability Seasonal variation Seasonal variations Stream discharge Stream flow Streamflow forecasting Weather forecasting Winter |
title | What Are the Key Drivers Controlling the Quality of Seasonal Streamflow Forecasts? |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-07T19%3A19%3A54IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_hal_p&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=What%20Are%20the%20Key%20Drivers%20Controlling%20the%20Quality%20of%20Seasonal%20Streamflow%20Forecasts?&rft.jtitle=Water%20resources%20research&rft.au=Pechlivanidis,%20I.%20G.&rft.date=2020-06&rft.volume=56&rft.issue=6&rft.epage=n/a&rft.issn=0043-1397&rft.eissn=1944-7973&rft_id=info:doi/10.1029/2019WR026987&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_hal_p%3E2425599744%3C/proquest_hal_p%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2425599744&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |