Identification

Title

Technical note: How many models do we need to simulate hydrologic processes across large geographical domains?

Abstract

Robust large-domain predictions of water availability and threats require models that work well across different basins in the model domain. It is currently common to express a model's accuracy through aggregated efficiency scores such as the Nash–Sutcliffe efficiency and Kling–Gupta efficiency (KGE), and these scores often form the basis to select among competing models. However, recent work has shown that such scores are subject to considerable sampling uncertainty: the exact selection of time steps used to calculate the scores can have large impacts on the scores obtained. Here we explicitly account for this sampling uncertainty to determine the number of models that are needed to simulate hydrologic processes across large spatial domains. Using a selection of 36 conceptual models and 559 basins, our results show that model equifinality, the fact that very different models can produce simulations with very similar accuracy, makes it very difficult to unambiguously select one model over another. If models were selected based on their validation KGE scores alone, almost every model would be selected as the best model in at least some basins. When sampling uncertainty is accounted for, this number drops to 4 models being needed to cover 95 % of investigated basins and 10 models being needed to cover all basins. We obtain similar conclusions for an objective function focused on low flows. These results suggest that, under the conditions typical of many current modelling studies, there is limited evidence that using a wide variety of different models leads to appreciable differences in simulation accuracy compared to using a smaller number of carefully chosen models.

Resource type

document

Resource locator

Unique resource identifier

code

https://n2t.net/ark:/85065/d73r0zbq

codeSpace

Dataset language

eng

Spatial reference system

code identifying the spatial reference system

Classification of spatial data and services

Topic category

geoscientificInformation

Keywords

Keyword set

keyword value

Text

originating controlled vocabulary

title

Resource Type

reference date

date type

publication

effective date

2016-01-01T00:00:00Z

Geographic location

West bounding longitude

East bounding longitude

North bounding latitude

South bounding latitude

Temporal reference

Temporal extent

Begin position

End position

Dataset reference date

date type

publication

effective date

2025-06-04T00:00:00Z

Frequency of update

Quality and validity

Lineage

Conformity

Data format

name of format

version of format

Constraints related to access and use

Constraint set

Use constraints

<span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:10pt;font-style:normal;" data-sheets-root="1">Copyright author(s). This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.</span>

Limitations on public access

None

Responsible organisations

Responsible party

contact position

OpenSky Support

organisation name

UCAR/NCAR - Library

full postal address

PO Box 3000

Boulder

80307-3000

email address

opensky@ucar.edu

web address

http://opensky.ucar.edu/

name: homepage

responsible party role

pointOfContact

Metadata on metadata

Metadata point of contact

contact position

OpenSky Support

organisation name

UCAR/NCAR - Library

full postal address

PO Box 3000

Boulder

80307-3000

email address

opensky@ucar.edu

web address

http://opensky.ucar.edu/

name: homepage

responsible party role

pointOfContact

Metadata date

2025-12-24T17:47:44.398424

Metadata language

eng; USA