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.

A brief analysis of conceptual model structure uncertainty using 36 models and 559 catchments

Uncertainty in High and Low Flows Due to Model Structure and Parameter Errors

Investigating the Uncertainty and Transferability of Parameters in Swat Model under Climate Change

On the Robustness of Conceptual Rainfall-Runoff Models to Calibration and Evaluation Data Set Splits Selection: A Large Sample Investigation

On Lack of Robustness in Hydrological Model Development Due to Absence of Guidelines for Selecting Calibration and Evaluation Data: Demonstration for Data‐Driven Models

Effects of Conceptual Model Structure Uncertainties on Actual Evapotranspiration Simulation

Does a large number of parameters enhance model performance? Comparative assessment of common catchment model structures on 429 catchments

Investigating the Model Hypothesis Space: Benchmarking Automatic Model Structure Identification With a Large Model Ensemble

Behind the scenes of runoff performance

Benchmarking high-resolution hydrologic model performance of long-term retrospective streamflow simulations in the contiguous United States

Evaluating Catchment Models as Multiple Working Hypotheses: on the Role of Error Metrics, Parameter Sampling, Model Structure, and Data Information Content

How well do the multi-satellite and atmospheric reanalysis products perform in hydrological modelling

Similarities and Differences among Fifteen Global Water Models in Simulating the Vertical Water Balance

Quantifying the Role of Calibration Strategies on Surface‐Subsurface Hydrologic Model Performance

Investigating the Appropriate Model Structure for Simulation of a Karst Catchment from the Aspect of Spatial Complexity

Hillslope scale conceptualization of hydrological processes for data-limited catchments and hypothesis testing by systematic model comparison

Prediction uncertainty of conceptual rainfall-runoff models caused by problems in identifying model parameters and structure

The impact of hydrological model structure on the simulation of extreme runoff events

On the importance of discharge observation uncertainty when interpreting hydrological model performance

Global evaluation of simulated high- and low-flows from 23 macro-scale models

Uncertainty in Simulation of Land-Use Change Impacts on Catchment Runoff with Multi-Timescales Based on the Comparison of the HSPF and SWAT Models