Abstract. International collaboration between research institutes and universities is a promising way to reach consensus on hydrological model development. Although model comparison studies are very valuable for international cooperation, they do often not lead to very clear new insights regarding the relevance of the modelled processes. We hypothesise that this is partly caused by model complexity and the comparison methods used, which focus too much on a good overall performance instead of focusing on a variety of specific events. In this study, we use an approach that focuses on the evaluation of specific events and characteristics. Eight international research groups calibrated their hourly model on the Ourthe catchment in Belgium and carried out a validation in time for the Ourthe catchment and a validation in space for nested and neighbouring catchments. The same protocol was followed for each model and an ensemble of best-performing parameter sets was selected. Although the models showed similar performances based on general metrics (i.e. the Nash–Sutcliffe efficiency), clear differences could be observed for specific events. We analysed the hydrographs of these specific events and conducted three types of statistical analyses on the entire time series: cumulative discharges, empirical extreme value distribution of the peak flows and flow duration curves for low flows. The results illustrate the relevance of including a very quick flow reservoir preceding the root zone storage to model peaks during low flows and including a slow reservoir in parallel with the fast reservoir to model the recession for the studied catchments. This intercomparison enhanced the understanding of the hydrological functioning of the catchment, in particular for low flows, and enabled to identify present knowledge gaps for other parts of the hydrograph. Above all, it helped to evaluate each model against a set of alternative models.

Abstract. Streamflow is often the only variable used to evaluate hydrological models. In a previous international comparison study, eight research groups followed an identical protocol to calibrate 12 hydrological models using observed streamflow of catchments within the Meuse basin. In the current study, we quantify the differences in five states and fluxes of these 12 process-based models with similar streamflow performance, in a systematic and comprehensive way. Next, we assess model behavior plausibility by ranking the models for a set of criteria using streamflow and remote-sensing data of evaporation, snow cover, soil moisture and total storage anomalies. We found substantial dissimilarities between models for annual interception and seasonal evaporation rates, the annual number of days with water stored as snow, the mean annual maximum snow storage and the size of the root-zone storage capacity. These differences in internal process representation imply that these models cannot all simultaneously be close to reality. Modeled annual evaporation rates are consistent with Global Land Evaporation Amsterdam Model (GLEAM) estimates. However, there is a large uncertainty in modeled and remote-sensing annual interception. Substantial differences are also found between Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) and modeled number of days with snow storage. Models with relatively small root-zone storage capacities and without root water uptake reduction under dry conditions tend to have an empty root-zone storage for several days each summer, while this is not suggested by remote-sensing data of evaporation, soil moisture and vegetation indices. On the other hand, models with relatively large root-zone storage capacities tend to overestimate very dry total storage anomalies of the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE). None of the models is systematically consistent with the information available from all different (remote-sensing) data sources. Yet we did not reject models given the uncertainties in these data sources and their changing relevance for the system under investigation.

Abstract. Streamflow is often the only variable used to constrain hydrological models. In a previous international comparison study, eight research groups followed an identical protocol to calibrate a total of twelve hydrological models using observed streamflow of catchments within the Meuse basin. In the current study, we hypothesize that these twelve process-based models with similar streamflow performance have similar representations of internal states and fluxes. We test our hypothesis by comparing internal states and fluxes between models and we assess their plausibility using remotely-sensed products of evaporation, snow cover, soil moisture and total storage anomalies. Our results indicate that models with similar streamflow performance represent internal states and fluxes differently. Substantial dissimilarities between models are found for annual and seasonal evaporation and interception rates, the number of days per year with water stored as snow, the mean annual maximum snow storage and the size of the root-zone storage capacity. Relatively small root-zone storage capacities for several models lead to drying-out of the root-zone storage and significant reduction of evaporative fluxes each summer, which is not suggested by remotely-sensed estimates of evaporation and root-zone soil moisture. These differences in internal process representation imply that these models cannot all simultaneously be close to reality. Using remotely-sensed products, we could evaluate the plausibility of model representations only to some extent, as many of these internal variables remain unknown, highlighting the need for experimental research. We also encourage modelers to rely on multi-model and multi-parameter studies to reveal to decision-makers the uncertainties inherent to the heterogeneity of catchments and the lack of evaluation data.

Abstract. International collaboration between research institutes and universities is a promising way to reach consensus on hydrological model development. Although comparative studies are very valuable for international cooperation, they do often not lead to very clear new insights regarding the relevance of the modelled processes. We hypothesise that this is partly caused by model complexity and the comparison methods used, which focus too much on a good overall performance instead of focusing on specific events. In this study, we use an approach that focuses on the evaluation of specific events and characteristics. Eight international research groups calibrated their hourly model on the Ourthe catchment in Belgium and carried out a validation in time for the Ourthe catchment and a validation in space for nested and neighbouring catchments. The same protocol was followed for each model and an ensemble of best performing parameter sets was selected. Although the models showed similar performances based on general metrics (i.e. Nash–Sutcliffe Efficiency), clear differences could be observed for specific events. The results illustrate the relevance of including a very quick flow reservoir preceding the root zone storage to model peaks during low flows and including a slow reservoir in parallel with the fast reservoir to model the recession for the Ourthe catchment. This intercomparison enhanced the understanding of the hydrological functioning of the catchment and, above all, helped to evaluate each model against a set of alternative models.

La compréhension de l’évolution actuelle du climat et des risques naturels qui lui sont associés passe par une meilleure connaissance de la variabilité climatique passée. Des méthodes de reconstruction existent mais leurs validités sont difficiles à établir notamment en l’absence de valeurs de référence sur les périodes anciennes. Ce travail s’inscrit dans le cadre d’un projet de recherche sur les extrêmes hydrologiques de la Moselle (RECRET) pour lequel des reconstitutions de longues séries climatiques (précipitations et températures) ont été réalisées. Pour permettre une évaluation relative de ces séries, nous proposons de comparer les séries de précipitations mensuelles à des reconstructions climatiques issues de différents travaux. La comparaison repose sur cinq méthodes : RECRET (Delus et al., 2018), une méthode fondée sur le Gradient Régional de Pression (Grelier et al., 2017), SCOPE Climate (Caillouet et al., 2019), FYRE Daily (Devers et al., 2019) et SAFRAN (Vidal et al., 2010). L'étude se concentre sur la cohérence entre les estimations de précipitations issues de ces différentes méthodes. Les séries RECRET et FYRE Daily présentent des résultats convergents et proches de SAFRAN.