Evaluating Regional and Global Hydrological Models against Streamflow and Evapotranspiration Measurements

Abstract

Abstract Land surface and global hydrological models are often used to characterize global water and energy fluxes and stores and to model their future trajectories. This study evaluates estimates of streamflow and evapotranspiration (ET) obtained with a priori parameterization from a land surface model [CSIRO Atmosphere Biosphere Land Exchange (CABLE)] and a global hydrological model (H08) against a global dataset of streamflow from 644 largely unregulated catchments and ET from 98 flux towers and benchmarks their performance against two lumped conceptual daily rainfall–runoff models [modèle du Génie Rural à 4 paramètres Journalier (GR4J) and a simplified version of the HYDROLOG model (SIMHYD)]. The results show that all four models perform poorly in simulating the monthly and annual runoff values, with the rainfall–runoff models outperforming both CABLE and H08. The model biases in runoff are generally reflected as a complementary opposite bias in ET. All models can generally reproduce the observed seasonal and interannual runoff variability. The correlations between the modeled and observed runoff time series are reasonable, with the rainfall–runoff models performing slightly better than CABLE and H08 at the monthly time scale and all four models performing similarly at the annual time scale. The results suggest that while the land surface and global hydrological models cannot adequately simulate the actual runoff time series and long-term average volumes, they can reasonably simulate the monthly and interannual runoff variability and trends and can therefore be reliably used for broadscale or comparative regional and global water and energy balance assessments and simulations of future trajectories. They can be improved through validating the models or calibrating some of the more sensitive and less physically based parameters.