Quantifying the Role of Calibration Strategies on Surface‐Subsurface Hydrologic Model Performance
Salam A. Abbas,Ryan T. Bailey,Jeremy T. White,Jeffrey G. Arnold,Michael J. White
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.15298
IF: 3.784
2024-10-11
Hydrological Processes
Abstract:We study the impact of the number and type of calibration parameters on surface‐subsurface hydrologic model performance. We employ a framework of sensitivity analysis, uncertainty analysis, and parameter estimation. We use results to evaluate parameterisation choices for two watersheds of diverse hydrologic features. We investigate the effect of calibration versus testing period length on the robustness of hydrologic model performance, providing insights into temporal considerations for model evaluation. Distributed, coupled surface‐groundwater hydrologic models are high‐dimensional, given the necessity to reflect the spatially diverse nature of complex hydrologic processes. Furthermore, inverse/inference problems involving these high‐dimensional models are naturally ill‐posed, given the limited information content of state observations that are typically assimilated. Many inversion/inference algorithms do not cope well with high dimensionality, leaving the practitioner to make subjective choices related to uncertain model inputs. The objective of this study is to evaluate the impact of these subjective calibration choices within a formal sensitivity analysis, uncertainty analysis, and parameters estimation (SA‐UA‐PE) framework on model testing for a surface‐subsurface hydrologic model. In doing so, we address the concepts of 'over‐parameterisation' and 'under‐parameterisation'. We completed a series of numerical experiments, testing several otherwise subjective aspects of the calibration process: (1) the number (5, 10, 15, 20) and type (soil, aquifer, land surface, channel) of calibration parameters selected); (2) the type of state observations assimilated (streamflow, groundwater head); and (3) the length of testing period (1 to 14 years), using monthly streamflow and groundwater head as testing data. The experiments were completed for models of the Winnebago River watershed (Minnesota, Iowa), (significant tile drainage) and the Nanticoke River watershed (Delaware, Maryland (significant groundwater‐channel interactions). The selected hydrologic model is SWAT+, using the gwflow module for physically based groundwater storage and flow modelling, and simulations are run for the 2000–2015 period. Through this process, we found that increasing the number of parameters from 5 to 15 improves the representation of streamflow, principally through an improvement of groundwater storage representation and baseflow generation, but minimal improvement when increasing to 20 parameters. Therefore, the SA‐UA‐PE process can be optimised based on an ideal number of parameters that yield adequate results while maintaining a lower computational burden. The method presented here can be used for any watershed, using integrated surface‐subsurface hydrologic models.
water resources