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.

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

Investigating Dynamic Parameter Importance of a High-Complexity Hydrological Model and Implications for Parameterization

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

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

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

Model complexity and data requirements in snow hydrology: seeking a balance in practical applications

Comparison of Conceptual Model Performance Using Different Representations of Spatial Variability

How Much Can We Gain with Increasing Model Complexity with the Same Model Concepts?

Dynamics of hydrological-model parameters: mechanisms, problems and solutions

Behind the scenes of runoff performance

Meta‐analysis of Flow Modeling Performances—to Build a Matching System Between Catchment Complexity and Model Types

Pros and cons of various efficiency criteria for hydrological model performance evaluation

A Comparison of Simple and Complex Versions of the Xinanjiang Hydrological Model in Predicting Runoff in Ungauged Basins

Impact of Robustness of Hydrological Model Parameters on Flood Prediction Uncertainty

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

Patterns in time-dependent parameters reveal deficits of a catchment-scale herbicide transport model

Using Expert Knowledge to Increase Realism in Environmental System Models Can Dramatically Reduce the Need for Calibration

Parsimonious Parameterization of a Large-Scale Hydrological Model: Validation in Worldwide Large River Basins

Parameter estimation and uncertainty analysis in hydrological modeling

Exploring the Hydrological Robustness of Model-Parameter Values with Alpha Shapes

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