A Ranking of Hydrological Signatures Based on Their Predictability in Space

Hydrological signatures are now used for a wide range of purposes, including catchment classification, process exploration, and hydrological model calibration. The recent boost in the popularity and number of signatures has however not been accompanied by the development of clear guidance on signatu...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Water resources research 2018-11, Vol.54 (11), p.8792-8812
Hauptverfasser: Addor, N., Nearing, G., Prieto, C., Newman, A. J., Le Vine, N., Clark, M. P.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 8812
container_issue 11
container_start_page 8792
container_title Water resources research
container_volume 54
creator Addor, N.
Nearing, G.
Prieto, C.
Newman, A. J.
Le Vine, N.
Clark, M. P.
description Hydrological signatures are now used for a wide range of purposes, including catchment classification, process exploration, and hydrological model calibration. The recent boost in the popularity and number of signatures has however not been accompanied by the development of clear guidance on signature selection. Here we propose that exploring the predictability of signatures in space provides important insights into their drivers and their sensitivity to data uncertainties and is hence useful for signature selection. We use three complementary approaches to compare and rank 15 commonly used signatures, which we evaluate in 600+ U.S. catchments from the Catchment Attributes and MEteorology for Large‐sample Studies (CAMELS) data set. First, we employ machine learning (random forests) to explore how attributes characterizing the climatic conditions, topography, land cover, soil, and geology influence (or not) the signatures. Second, we use simulations of the Sacramento Soil Moisture Accounting model to benchmark the random forest predictions. Third, we take advantage of the large sample of CAMELS catchments to characterize the spatial autocorrelation (using Moran's I) of the signature field. These three approaches lead to remarkably similar rankings of the signatures. We show (i) that signatures with the noisiest spatial pattern tend to be poorly captured by hydrological simulations, (ii) that their relationship to catchments attributes are elusive (in particular they are not well explained by climatic indices), and (iii) that they are particularly sensitive to discharge uncertainties. We suggest that a better understanding of the drivers of hydrological signatures and a better characterization of their uncertainties would increase their value in hydrological studies. Key Points We used machine learning and a hydrological model to simulate 15 hydrological signatures over 600+ catchments in the United States The predictability of the signatures is highly correlated with the smoothness of their spatial pattern, which we quantified using Moran's I Poorly predicted signatures vary abruptly in space, they are particularly sensitive to streamflow errors, and their links to catchment attributes are elusive
doi_str_mv 10.1029/2018WR022606
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2157698140</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2157698140</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-a4111-79832437c2c0580c9c79a407da97607164f7936626922dc3d3c7fd80ce9130413</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp90DFPwzAQBWALgUQpbPwAS6wE7mzHjsdSAUVUAqVFHSPjOMUlJMVOhfLvCSoDE9NbPr07PULOEa4QmL5mgNkqB8YkyAMyQi1EorTih2QEIHiCXKtjchLjBgBFKtWIPE5obpp336xpW9FZX4a2btfempou_Lox3S64SG9MdCVtG7p8cz7Q5-BKbzvz6mvf9dQ3dLE11p2So8rU0Z395pi83N0up7Nk_nT_MJ3MEyMQcfgo40xwZZmFNAOrrdJGgCqNVhIUSlEpzaVkUjNWWl5yq6pygE4jB4F8TC72vdvQfu5c7IpNuwvNcLJgmCqpMxQwqMu9sqGNMbiq2Ab_YUJfIBQ_cxV_5xo43_MvX7v-X1us8mnOeCqRfwP1tGj4</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2157698140</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>A Ranking of Hydrological Signatures Based on Their Predictability in Space</title><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><source>Wiley-Blackwell AGU Digital Library</source><creator>Addor, N. ; Nearing, G. ; Prieto, C. ; Newman, A. J. ; Le Vine, N. ; Clark, M. P.</creator><creatorcontrib>Addor, N. ; Nearing, G. ; Prieto, C. ; Newman, A. J. ; Le Vine, N. ; Clark, M. P.</creatorcontrib><description>Hydrological signatures are now used for a wide range of purposes, including catchment classification, process exploration, and hydrological model calibration. The recent boost in the popularity and number of signatures has however not been accompanied by the development of clear guidance on signature selection. Here we propose that exploring the predictability of signatures in space provides important insights into their drivers and their sensitivity to data uncertainties and is hence useful for signature selection. We use three complementary approaches to compare and rank 15 commonly used signatures, which we evaluate in 600+ U.S. catchments from the Catchment Attributes and MEteorology for Large‐sample Studies (CAMELS) data set. First, we employ machine learning (random forests) to explore how attributes characterizing the climatic conditions, topography, land cover, soil, and geology influence (or not) the signatures. Second, we use simulations of the Sacramento Soil Moisture Accounting model to benchmark the random forest predictions. Third, we take advantage of the large sample of CAMELS catchments to characterize the spatial autocorrelation (using Moran's I) of the signature field. These three approaches lead to remarkably similar rankings of the signatures. We show (i) that signatures with the noisiest spatial pattern tend to be poorly captured by hydrological simulations, (ii) that their relationship to catchments attributes are elusive (in particular they are not well explained by climatic indices), and (iii) that they are particularly sensitive to discharge uncertainties. We suggest that a better understanding of the drivers of hydrological signatures and a better characterization of their uncertainties would increase their value in hydrological studies. Key Points We used machine learning and a hydrological model to simulate 15 hydrological signatures over 600+ catchments in the United States The predictability of the signatures is highly correlated with the smoothness of their spatial pattern, which we quantified using Moran's I Poorly predicted signatures vary abruptly in space, they are particularly sensitive to streamflow errors, and their links to catchment attributes are elusive</description><identifier>ISSN: 0043-1397</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1944-7973</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1029/2018WR022606</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Washington: John Wiley &amp; Sons, Inc</publisher><subject>Autocorrelation ; Camelids ; Camels ; Catchment area ; catchment behavior ; Catchments ; Climatic conditions ; Climatic indexes ; Computer simulation ; Data processing ; Exploration ; Forests ; Geology ; Hydrologic models ; Hydrologic studies ; hydrological signatures ; Hydrology ; Land cover ; large‐sample hydrology ; Learning algorithms ; Machine learning ; Meteorology ; Signatures ; Soil ; Soil moisture ; spatial autocorrelation ; Topography (geology) ; Uncertainty</subject><ispartof>Water resources research, 2018-11, Vol.54 (11), p.8792-8812</ispartof><rights>2018. American Geophysical Union. All Rights Reserved.</rights><rights>2018. American Geophysical Union. All rights reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-a4111-79832437c2c0580c9c79a407da97607164f7936626922dc3d3c7fd80ce9130413</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-a4111-79832437c2c0580c9c79a407da97607164f7936626922dc3d3c7fd80ce9130413</cites><orcidid>0000-0001-7031-6770 ; 0000-0001-8796-0861 ; 0000-0002-6693-0396 ; 0000-0002-2186-2625 ; 0000-0002-6057-3930 ; 0000-0002-1492-447X</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%2F2018WR022606$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029%2F2018WR022606$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,777,781,1412,11495,27905,27906,45555,45556,46449,46873</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Addor, N.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nearing, G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Prieto, C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Newman, A. J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Le Vine, N.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Clark, M. P.</creatorcontrib><title>A Ranking of Hydrological Signatures Based on Their Predictability in Space</title><title>Water resources research</title><description>Hydrological signatures are now used for a wide range of purposes, including catchment classification, process exploration, and hydrological model calibration. The recent boost in the popularity and number of signatures has however not been accompanied by the development of clear guidance on signature selection. Here we propose that exploring the predictability of signatures in space provides important insights into their drivers and their sensitivity to data uncertainties and is hence useful for signature selection. We use three complementary approaches to compare and rank 15 commonly used signatures, which we evaluate in 600+ U.S. catchments from the Catchment Attributes and MEteorology for Large‐sample Studies (CAMELS) data set. First, we employ machine learning (random forests) to explore how attributes characterizing the climatic conditions, topography, land cover, soil, and geology influence (or not) the signatures. Second, we use simulations of the Sacramento Soil Moisture Accounting model to benchmark the random forest predictions. Third, we take advantage of the large sample of CAMELS catchments to characterize the spatial autocorrelation (using Moran's I) of the signature field. These three approaches lead to remarkably similar rankings of the signatures. We show (i) that signatures with the noisiest spatial pattern tend to be poorly captured by hydrological simulations, (ii) that their relationship to catchments attributes are elusive (in particular they are not well explained by climatic indices), and (iii) that they are particularly sensitive to discharge uncertainties. We suggest that a better understanding of the drivers of hydrological signatures and a better characterization of their uncertainties would increase their value in hydrological studies. Key Points We used machine learning and a hydrological model to simulate 15 hydrological signatures over 600+ catchments in the United States The predictability of the signatures is highly correlated with the smoothness of their spatial pattern, which we quantified using Moran's I Poorly predicted signatures vary abruptly in space, they are particularly sensitive to streamflow errors, and their links to catchment attributes are elusive</description><subject>Autocorrelation</subject><subject>Camelids</subject><subject>Camels</subject><subject>Catchment area</subject><subject>catchment behavior</subject><subject>Catchments</subject><subject>Climatic conditions</subject><subject>Climatic indexes</subject><subject>Computer simulation</subject><subject>Data processing</subject><subject>Exploration</subject><subject>Forests</subject><subject>Geology</subject><subject>Hydrologic models</subject><subject>Hydrologic studies</subject><subject>hydrological signatures</subject><subject>Hydrology</subject><subject>Land cover</subject><subject>large‐sample hydrology</subject><subject>Learning algorithms</subject><subject>Machine learning</subject><subject>Meteorology</subject><subject>Signatures</subject><subject>Soil</subject><subject>Soil moisture</subject><subject>spatial autocorrelation</subject><subject>Topography (geology)</subject><subject>Uncertainty</subject><issn>0043-1397</issn><issn>1944-7973</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2018</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp90DFPwzAQBWALgUQpbPwAS6wE7mzHjsdSAUVUAqVFHSPjOMUlJMVOhfLvCSoDE9NbPr07PULOEa4QmL5mgNkqB8YkyAMyQi1EorTih2QEIHiCXKtjchLjBgBFKtWIPE5obpp336xpW9FZX4a2btfempou_Lox3S64SG9MdCVtG7p8cz7Q5-BKbzvz6mvf9dQ3dLE11p2So8rU0Z395pi83N0up7Nk_nT_MJ3MEyMQcfgo40xwZZmFNAOrrdJGgCqNVhIUSlEpzaVkUjNWWl5yq6pygE4jB4F8TC72vdvQfu5c7IpNuwvNcLJgmCqpMxQwqMu9sqGNMbiq2Ab_YUJfIBQ_cxV_5xo43_MvX7v-X1us8mnOeCqRfwP1tGj4</recordid><startdate>201811</startdate><enddate>201811</enddate><creator>Addor, N.</creator><creator>Nearing, G.</creator><creator>Prieto, C.</creator><creator>Newman, A. J.</creator><creator>Le Vine, N.</creator><creator>Clark, M. P.</creator><general>John Wiley &amp; Sons, Inc</general><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><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7031-6770</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8796-0861</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6693-0396</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2186-2625</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6057-3930</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1492-447X</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>201811</creationdate><title>A Ranking of Hydrological Signatures Based on Their Predictability in Space</title><author>Addor, N. ; Nearing, G. ; Prieto, C. ; Newman, A. J. ; Le Vine, N. ; Clark, M. P.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-a4111-79832437c2c0580c9c79a407da97607164f7936626922dc3d3c7fd80ce9130413</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2018</creationdate><topic>Autocorrelation</topic><topic>Camelids</topic><topic>Camels</topic><topic>Catchment area</topic><topic>catchment behavior</topic><topic>Catchments</topic><topic>Climatic conditions</topic><topic>Climatic indexes</topic><topic>Computer simulation</topic><topic>Data processing</topic><topic>Exploration</topic><topic>Forests</topic><topic>Geology</topic><topic>Hydrologic models</topic><topic>Hydrologic studies</topic><topic>hydrological signatures</topic><topic>Hydrology</topic><topic>Land cover</topic><topic>large‐sample hydrology</topic><topic>Learning algorithms</topic><topic>Machine learning</topic><topic>Meteorology</topic><topic>Signatures</topic><topic>Soil</topic><topic>Soil moisture</topic><topic>spatial autocorrelation</topic><topic>Topography (geology)</topic><topic>Uncertainty</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Addor, N.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nearing, G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Prieto, C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Newman, A. J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Le Vine, N.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Clark, M. P.</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Aqualine</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Industrial and Applied Microbiology Abstracts (Microbiology A)</collection><collection>Meteorological &amp; 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 &amp; Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) 2: Ocean Technology, Policy &amp; Non-Living Resources</collection><collection>Meteorological &amp; Geoastrophysical Abstracts - Academic</collection><collection>Civil Engineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Aquatic Science &amp; Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) Professional</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><jtitle>Water resources research</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Addor, N.</au><au>Nearing, G.</au><au>Prieto, C.</au><au>Newman, A. J.</au><au>Le Vine, N.</au><au>Clark, M. P.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>A Ranking of Hydrological Signatures Based on Their Predictability in Space</atitle><jtitle>Water resources research</jtitle><date>2018-11</date><risdate>2018</risdate><volume>54</volume><issue>11</issue><spage>8792</spage><epage>8812</epage><pages>8792-8812</pages><issn>0043-1397</issn><eissn>1944-7973</eissn><abstract>Hydrological signatures are now used for a wide range of purposes, including catchment classification, process exploration, and hydrological model calibration. The recent boost in the popularity and number of signatures has however not been accompanied by the development of clear guidance on signature selection. Here we propose that exploring the predictability of signatures in space provides important insights into their drivers and their sensitivity to data uncertainties and is hence useful for signature selection. We use three complementary approaches to compare and rank 15 commonly used signatures, which we evaluate in 600+ U.S. catchments from the Catchment Attributes and MEteorology for Large‐sample Studies (CAMELS) data set. First, we employ machine learning (random forests) to explore how attributes characterizing the climatic conditions, topography, land cover, soil, and geology influence (or not) the signatures. Second, we use simulations of the Sacramento Soil Moisture Accounting model to benchmark the random forest predictions. Third, we take advantage of the large sample of CAMELS catchments to characterize the spatial autocorrelation (using Moran's I) of the signature field. These three approaches lead to remarkably similar rankings of the signatures. We show (i) that signatures with the noisiest spatial pattern tend to be poorly captured by hydrological simulations, (ii) that their relationship to catchments attributes are elusive (in particular they are not well explained by climatic indices), and (iii) that they are particularly sensitive to discharge uncertainties. We suggest that a better understanding of the drivers of hydrological signatures and a better characterization of their uncertainties would increase their value in hydrological studies. Key Points We used machine learning and a hydrological model to simulate 15 hydrological signatures over 600+ catchments in the United States The predictability of the signatures is highly correlated with the smoothness of their spatial pattern, which we quantified using Moran's I Poorly predicted signatures vary abruptly in space, they are particularly sensitive to streamflow errors, and their links to catchment attributes are elusive</abstract><cop>Washington</cop><pub>John Wiley &amp; Sons, Inc</pub><doi>10.1029/2018WR022606</doi><tpages>21</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7031-6770</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8796-0861</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6693-0396</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2186-2625</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6057-3930</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1492-447X</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0043-1397
ispartof Water resources research, 2018-11, Vol.54 (11), p.8792-8812
issn 0043-1397
1944-7973
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_2157698140
source Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete; Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals; Wiley-Blackwell AGU Digital Library
subjects Autocorrelation
Camelids
Camels
Catchment area
catchment behavior
Catchments
Climatic conditions
Climatic indexes
Computer simulation
Data processing
Exploration
Forests
Geology
Hydrologic models
Hydrologic studies
hydrological signatures
Hydrology
Land cover
large‐sample hydrology
Learning algorithms
Machine learning
Meteorology
Signatures
Soil
Soil moisture
spatial autocorrelation
Topography (geology)
Uncertainty
title A Ranking of Hydrological Signatures Based on Their Predictability in Space
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-18T16%3A51%3A14IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=A%20Ranking%20of%20Hydrological%20Signatures%20Based%20on%20Their%20Predictability%20in%20Space&rft.jtitle=Water%20resources%20research&rft.au=Addor,%20N.&rft.date=2018-11&rft.volume=54&rft.issue=11&rft.spage=8792&rft.epage=8812&rft.pages=8792-8812&rft.issn=0043-1397&rft.eissn=1944-7973&rft_id=info:doi/10.1029/2018WR022606&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2157698140%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2157698140&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true