See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/369921284

Hydrological assessment of the Tungabhadra River Basin based on CMIP6

GCMs and multiple hydrological models

Article  in  Journal of Water and Climate Change · April 2023

DOI: 10.2166/wcc.2023.272

CITATIONS READS

0 180

3 authors:

Rudraswamy G K Manikanta Velpuri

National Institute of Technology, Warangal National Institute of Technology, Warangal
1 PUBLICATION   0 CITATIONS    8 PUBLICATIONS   37 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Umamahesh V. Nanduri
National Institute of Technology, Warangal
94 PUBLICATIONS   1,089 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Climate Change Impact on Water Resources over a River Basin View project

M Tech thesis work View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Rudraswamy G K on 11 April 2023.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Uncorrected Proof

© 2023 The Authors Journal of Water and Climate Change Vol 00 No 0, 1 doi: 10.2166/wcc.2023.272

Hydrological assessment of the Tungabhadra River Basin based on CMIP6 GCMs

and multiple hydrological models

G. K. Rudraswamy*, Velpuri Manikanta and Nanduri Umamahesh

Department of Civil Engineering, National Institute of Technology Warangal, Warangal, India
*Corresponding author. E-mail: [email protected]

ABSTRACT

Climate change significantly impacts the natural systems, accelerating the global water cycle, and impacting various ecosystem services.
However, the expected effects of climate change on the frequency and severity of extreme events on hydrological systems vary significantly
with location. The present study investigates the uncertainties engulfed in hydrological predictions for the Tungabhadra River Basin. The
ensemble streamflow projections were generated using four hydrological models, five climate models, and four climate scenarios to illustrate
the associated uncertainties. The uncertainty in hydrological components such as streamflow (QQ), water availability (WA), and potential eva-
potranspiration (PET) was analysed in the future period (2015–2100). The results suggest that, in the monsoon period, precipitation
projections increase by about 10.43–222.5%, whereas QQ projections show an increment between 34.50 and 377.7%. The analysis of
variance (ANOVA) technique is used to further quantify the contribution of different sources to the total uncertainty. Furthermore, the
ensemble spread is optimized using quantile regression forests (QRF), and the post-processed flows are likely to decrease up to 7% in
June and increase up to 70% in September. This study is envisaged to give insights into the quantification of uncertainties in the prediction
of future streamflow for rational and sustainable policymaking.

Key words: climate change, CMIP6 GCMs, ensemble streamflow projections, hydrological models, quantile regression forests, uncertainty
quantification

HIGHLIGHTS

• Hydrological assessment of the Tungabhadra Basin using CMIP6 GCMs and multiple hydrological models.
• Diagnostic evaluation of performance of hydrological models were estimated.
• Uncertainty in the ensemble flows decomposed using the analysis of variance (ANOVA) technique.
• The ensemble spread is optimized using quantile regression forests (QRF), and the post-processed flows were generated using the QRF
method.

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence (CC BY 4.0), which permits copying, adaptation and
redistribution, provided the original work is properly cited (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/jwcc/article-pdf/doi/10.2166/wcc.2023.272/1204951/jwc2023272.pdf

by [email protected]
 Uncorrected Proof

Journal of Water and Climate Change Vol 00 No 0, 2

GRAPHICAL ABSTRACT

1. INTRODUCTION
Global climate change has altered the intensity and frequency of hydro-climatological extremes (Yuan et al. 2015; Piras et al.
2016). Accordingly, reliable streamflow prediction under climate change is imperative for better water resources planning and
management (Steinschneider et al. 2012; Singh et al. 2016). A typical approach for this purpose is to generate future stream-
flow by forcing future projections obtained from climate models under varying climate scenarios into a calibrated

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/jwcc/article-pdf/doi/10.2166/wcc.2023.272/1204951/jwc2023272.pdf

by [email protected]
 Uncorrected Proof

Journal of Water and Climate Change Vol 00 No 0, 3

hydrological model. However, the obtained projections suffer from inherent biases in both climate and hydrological models
(HMs) (Her et al. 2019; Wang et al. 2020). It is essential to account for and quantify these uncertainties to improve the skill of
future hydrologic projections. As projections from a single climate model cannot address the non-linear interactions research-
ers employed multi-model projections (Georgakakos et al. 2004; Harding et al. 2012; Hagemann et al. 2013; Tegegne et al.
2017; Keteklahijani et al. 2019; Adib et al. 2020).
Future climate projections are generally obtained from the outputs of state-of-the-art tools called global climate models
(GCMs), which represent the atmospheric processes through distinct mathematical expressions (Gouda et al. 2018). The
Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6) initiated by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC) has coordinated and compiled the simulation from climate model experiments obtained from various modelling
teams worldwide. The simulations in CMIP6-based climate models were generated under a set of scenarios using combi-
nations of various radiative forcing levels and shared socioeconomic pathways (Meinshausen et al. 2020). The
uncertainties in the future streamflow projections generated with the help of climate model outputs propagate from model
structures, sub-grid parameterizations and their simplification of processes, various forcing scenarios, initial conditions,
and choice of downscaling methods (Zhang et al. 2015b; Anil et al. 2021). Many of the studies reported so far addressing
the uncertainty in the future streamflow projections due to uncertainties in model structures, initial conditions, scenarios,
and downscaling methods (Knutti et al. 2010; Chen et al. 2011; Wang et al. 2019; Alam et al. 2021). The uncertainty corre-
sponding to the climate models has been reduced in the latest CMIP6 bundle of GCMs due to the advancement in
understanding the underlying physics of atmospheric processes over the last couple of decades (Gusain et al. 2020; Priestley
et al. 2020). However, the climate model uncertainty is considered a major contributor to the future streamflow projections’
uncertainty (Kwon et al. 2012). Moreover, it is essential to note that the hydrological model structure uncertainty has received
comparatively less emphasis so far than the former (Poulin et al. 2011; Steinschneider et al. 2012). The uncertainties associ-
ated with hydrological modelling include uncertainty in model structure, the spatial scale of the model, initial hydrologic
conditions, parameter equifinality, and uncertainty in the calibration data (Jakeman & Hornberger 1993; Beven 2006;
Kirchner 2006; Ludwig et al. 2009; Her & Chaubey 2015).
Basin-level hydrological studies assist policymakers and end-users in implementing better adaptation strategies for
improved water resources management under climate change. In this article, the uncertainty in the future ensemble stream-
flow projections of the Tungabhadra Basin is studied considering the projected hydrological alterations and low water use
efficiency. The future projections of the Tungabhadra Basin, a tributary to Krishna River, predicted severe drought and altera-
tions in hydrological variables such as streamflow, soil moisture, and evapotranspiration (Gosain et al. 2006; ACIWRM &
WRD 2012; Chanapathi et al. 2020). Singh et al. (2016) assessed the parametric uncertainty in simulating the extreme
peak and low flows in the Tungabhadra Basin using Soil Water Assessment Tool (SWAT). The results suggested the reliability
of SWAT performance in simulating the observed peak and low flows. Meenu et al. (2013) calibrated Hydrologic Engineering
Center Hydrologic Modeling System version 3.4 (HEC-HMS 3.4) and forced future climate projections obtained from a single
GCM to assess the impact of climate change on streamflow. The results of the study suggest increasing precipitation and
runoff, with decreasing evapotranspiration. In contrast, a recent study by Facer-Childs et al. (2021) shows a reduction in
the streamflow projections in the Tungabhadra Basin because of the increased frequency and severity of droughts due to cli-
mate change. Their study addressed the necessity to adapt ensemble streamflow prediction strategies to increase the reliability
of the design and operation of water resources systems. Moreover, the water usage in the Tungabhadra Basin is low leading to
unreliable allocation to all the users. Furthermore, the groundwater levels in Vedavati sub-basin are depleting due to over-
exploitation attributable to scanty rainfall and surface water availability (WA). Bejagam et al. (2020) reported that precipi-
tation from CMIP5-based models projects a decline of about 1.31–14.57% in the Tungabhadra Basin. Hence,
understanding the future streamflow projections from recent CMIP6-based climate models is quintessential for hydrological
applications such as reservoir operation, hydropower production, and irrigation in the Tungabhadra Basin. As per the authors
best of knowledge, very few studies have been reported so far on the hydrological modelling of the Tungabhadra Basin and
assessing the uncertainty in the ensemble streamflow projections (Meenu et al. 2013; Singh et al. 2013, 2016; Goyal & Khan
2017). However, no study has been reported on assessing the uncertainty in the future streamflow at the Tungabhadra Basin
using multiple GCMs and HMs.
The main objective of this study is to account for the uncertainties in the future streamflow projections of the Tungabhadra
Basin generated from multiple GCMs and multiple HMs for different future scenarios. For this purpose, five CMIP6-based
GCMs were selected based on their performance in replicating the historical statistics. A detailed description of the

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/jwcc/article-pdf/doi/10.2166/wcc.2023.272/1204951/jwc2023272.pdf

by [email protected]
 Uncorrected Proof

Journal of Water and Climate Change Vol 00 No 0, 4

methodology used for the selection of best-performing GCMs is mentioned in the succeeding sections. The climate projec-
tions obtained from the five selected GCMs for four different scenarios were forced into four HMs (with varying model
structures) to generate ensemble streamflow. Consequently, this study also shows how the uncertainty in future precipitation
and temperature projections are translated into hydrological variables such as streamflow, potential evapotranspiration
(PET), and WA. The total uncertainty in the generated ensemble streamflows is further decomposed using ANOVA to esti-
mate the contributions of three different sources (GCMs, HMs, and SSPs). An ensemble post-processing method is also
employed to correct the ensemble spread of the simulated flows during the future period.

2. STUDY AREA AND DATA

2.1. Study area
Tungabhadra River, a tributary of the Krishna River, is formed by the conjunction of the rivers Tunga and Bhadra. Both rivers
are born at Gangamoola in Varahaparvatha hills located at the Western Ghats, at an elevation of 1,198 m above mean sea
level (MSL). They flow separately and later merge near Koodli village in Shivamogga district, where the river Tungabhadra
starts. Tungabhadra dam, an Interstate multipurpose project, is located at Munirabad, Koppala district of Karnataka near
Hosapete, and the basin, is located between 74°460 52″ E to 78°010 29″ E longitude and 13°80 60″ N to 16°130 35″ N latitude.
The catchment area of the river is 69,552 km2 up to its confluence with the Krishna River. In this study, the catchment with
Haralahalli as a gauge point with an area of 14,490 km2 is considered as the study area, where the observed streamflows are
available. The average annual rainfall in the basin is nearly 1,100 mm and the runoff due to the southwest monsoon is pre-
dominant in the catchment (Bisht et al. 2018). The location map along with the digital elevation model (DEM) of the study
area is shown in Figure 1.

2.2. Observed data

The gridded daily precipitation, maximum temperature, and minimum temperature data are obtained from the Indian
Meteorological Department (IMD). The daily precipitation dataset is available at a spatial resolution of 0.25°  0.25° (Pai
et al. 2014), and the daily maximum and daily minimum temperature data are available at a resolution of 1°  1° (Srivastava
et al. 2009). The gridded precipitation and temperature data were collected for the study area from 1975 to 2010 to set up
HMs. The observed daily streamflow of the Tungabhadra Basin at Haralahalli gauge station was collected from 1975 to
2010, from India Water Resources Information System (India-WRIS).

2.3. GCMs and emission scenarios

The future projections of precipitation and daily maximum and minimum temperature were obtained from the latest bundle
of CMIP6-based GCMs. A new set of five scenarios were considered in CMIP6-based GCMs, namely ‘shared socioeconomic
pathways’ (SSPs). These scenarios were developed based on socioeconomic factors such as urbanization, economic growth,
population, education, and the rate of technological development (Riahi et al. 2017). However, the raw GCM projections are
simulated at coarser spatial resolutions (.200 km2) that cannot be used in basin-scale climate change impact studies. More-
over, they are prone to inherent biases that should be corrected. Hence, bias-corrected projections are used in this study to
generate future ensemble streamflow. Mishra et al. (2020) developed a bias-corrected dataset for six countries in South Asia
using empirical quantile mapping (EQM) at a spatial resolution of 0.25° for the daily time step. In this study, future climate
projections (precipitation, maximum, and minimum temperature) obtained from CMIP6-based, bias-corrected 13 GCMs for
all 4 scenarios (i.e., SSP-126, SSP-245, SSP-370, and SSP-585) for the future period of 2015–2100 and historical projections
for the period 1975–2010 were also extracted for the study area (Mishra et al. 2020). The selected CMIP6 GCMs used in this
study and their originating institute, spatial resolutions, and country are tabulated in Table 1.

3. METHODOLOGY
3.1. Multiple hydrological models
To consider the uncertainty induced by hydrological modelling in the streamflow projections, three lumped conceptual and
physics-based semi-distributed HMs were used in this study. They are namely Hydrologiska Byråns Vattenbalansavdelning
(HBV), simple hydrology (SIMHYD); identification of unit hydrographs and component flows from rainfall, evaporation,
and streamflow data (IHACRES), and soil and water assessment tool (SWAT). The varying complexities of these models
in terms of model structures and spatial scale appraise the hydrologic predictive uncertainty. These models were calibrated

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/jwcc/article-pdf/doi/10.2166/wcc.2023.272/1204951/jwc2023272.pdf

by [email protected]
 Uncorrected Proof

Journal of Water and Climate Change Vol 00 No 0, 5

Figure 1 | Location map of the Tungabhadra River Basin along with digital elevation model.

and validated for 1975–2010 at daily time steps to simulate the future flows in the basin for 2015–2100. A brief description of
the selected HMs is presented in the succeeding sections.

3.1.1. HBV
HBV is a lumped conceptual rainfall-runoff model, developed by the Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute
(SMHI) for runoff simulation and hydrological forecasting in the early 1970s (Bergstrom 1975). The runoff generation process
is controlled through a set of 15 parameters, out of which 5 parameters address the snow routine and the remaining par-
ameters account for soil moisture, response, and routing routines (Mendez & Calvo-Valverde 2016). This model has been
widely used around the world attributable to its strong scientific foundation (Chen et al. 2012), and the model requires mini-
mal inputs such as basin-averaged precipitation, PET, and temperature (Ashagrie et al. 2006; Jin et al. 2009; Chen et al. 2012;
Seibert & Vis 2012).

3.1.2. SIMHYD
SIMHYD is a simple lumped conceptual rainfall-runoff model and different hydrologists have tested the applicability of the
model on various catchments (Chiew et al. 2009; Vaze et al. 2010). It consists of seven parameters and three storages to
account for interception losses, soil moisture, and groundwater. The simulated runoff in SIMHYD consists of three com-
ponents: surface runoff, interflow, and base flow. The surface runoff is generated through the infiltration excess
mechanism (simulated using the negative exponential function of soil wetness), whereas the interflow is generated based

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/jwcc/article-pdf/doi/10.2166/wcc.2023.272/1204951/jwc2023272.pdf

by [email protected]
 Uncorrected Proof

Journal of Water and Climate Change Vol 00 No 0, 6

Table 1 | CMIP6-based GCMs used in the study and their specifications

SI Resolution (Lat 
No Model Name Institution Name Lon) Country

1 ACCESS-CM2 Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization 1.25°  1.875° Australia
2 ACCESS-ESM1-5 Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization 1.25°  1.875° Australia
3 BCC_CSM2-MR Beijing Climate Centre 1.12°  1.13° China
4 CanESM5 National Centre for Atmospheric Research, Climate and Global 2.79°  2.81° The United States
Dynamics Laboratory
5 EC-EARTH3 EC-EARTH consortium published at Irish Centre for High-end 0.7°  0.7° Netherlands/
Computing Ireland
6 EC-EARTH3-VEG EC-EARTH consortium published at Irish Centre for High-end 0.7°  0.7° Netherlands/
Computing Ireland
7 INM-CM4-8 Institute for Numerical Mathematics 1.5°  2° Russia
8 INM-CM5-0 Institute for Numerical Mathematics 1.5°  2° Russia
9 MPI-ESM1-2-HR Max Planck Institute for Meteorology 0.94°  0.94° Germany
10 MPI-ESM1-2-LR Max Planck Institute for Meteorology 1.85°  1.88° Germany
11 MRI-ESM2-0 Meteorological Research Institute 1.12°  1.13° Japan
12 NorESM2-LM Centre for International Climate and Environmental Research 1.89°  2.5° Norway
13 NorESM2-MM Centre for International Climate and Environmental Research 0.94°  1.25° Norway

on the saturation excess mechanism. The surface runoff is estimated using a negative exponential function of soil wetness,
and the interflow and base flow are estimated as linear functions of soil wetness and groundwater storage, respectively.

3.1.3. IHACRES
IHACRES is a six-parameter lumped conceptual rainfall-runoff model based on the principle of unit hydrograph, developed
by the Integrated Catchment Assessment and Management Centre (iCAM), Australian National University, and the Institute
for Hydrology, Wallingford, UK (Jakeman et al. 1990; Chiew et al. 1993; Post & Jakeman 1996). A different version of this
model has been widely used in multiple applications across the globe (Croke & Jakeman 2004). Basically, the model identifies
unit hydrograph and flow components from rainfall, evaporation, and streamflow. The unit hydrographs corresponding to
quick and slow flows are defined to generate total runoff. The runoff generation mechanism consists of a non-linear and
linear module, where the former converts rainfall to effective rainfall, and the latter routes the effective rainfall. A detailed
description of the underlying equations in the IHACRES model can be found in Post & Jakeman (1996).

3.1.4. SWAT
SWAT is a physics-based semi-distributed hydrological model with a wide variety of applications and it was developed by the
United States Department of Agriculture–Agricultural Research Services (USDA–ARS) and Agricultural Experiment Station
in Temple, Texas. It efficiently performs long-term simulations (Singh et al. 2013). The SWAT model uses physically based
inputs such as the DEM, Land use and Land cover, Soil Map, and weather parameters for runoff simulation. The model
divides the entire catchment into sub-basins and these sub-basins are further divided into Hydrological Response Units
(HRUs) based on unique combinations of elevation, soil, and land use. The principle behind the SWAT model is the basic
water balance equation given in Equation (1).

X
t
SWt i ¼ SW0 þ (Rday i  Qsurf i  Ea i  Wseep i  Qgw i ) in terms of mm of water (H2 O) (1)
i¼1

where SWt i is the soil water content at the end of the day i, SW0 is the amount of initial soil water content on an ith day, t is
the time in days, Rday i is the amount of precipitation on day i, Qsurf i is the amount of surface runoff on day i, Ea i is the amount

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/jwcc/article-pdf/doi/10.2166/wcc.2023.272/1204951/jwc2023272.pdf

by [email protected]
 Uncorrected Proof

Journal of Water and Climate Change Vol 00 No 0, 7

of evapotranspiration on day i, Wseep i is the amount of water entering the vadose zone from the soil profile on the day i, and
Qgw i is the amount of return flow on the day i.
All three lumped models were calibrated using the genetic algorithm and the SWAT model was calibrated with the help of
SWAT-CUP software using the Sequential Uncertainty Fitting (SUFI-2) algorithm. The parameters of the HMs are fine-tuned
to match the observed discharge during the period 1975–1993. The calibrated parameters were validated for the period 1994–
2010. A diagnostic evaluation of the performance of all the selected HMs is conducted using a set of metrics. The metrics
were chosen such that they emphasize on distinct features of hydrograph such as low flows, high flows, and overall water
balance (Manikanta & Vema 2022). The selected metrics along with their equation ranges, and ideal values are mentioned
in Table 2. The calibrated parameters were used to generate the future projections during 2015–2100, using the best-perform-
ing GCMs under four climate scenarios.

3.2. Selection of best-performing GCMs

Previous studies reported that the performance of GCMs is region specific. Hence, employing a large ensemble of GCMs with
models that do not perform well in the study area plausibly impacts the projected streamflow (Srinivasa Raju et al. 2017;
Chhin & Yoden 2018; Raju & Kumar 2020). In this regard, a set of best-performing GCMs are chosen for climate change
impact assessment studies by evaluating the performance of GCMs in replicating the observed data during the historical simu-
lation period. In this study, a Multi-Criteria Decision-Making method is adopted to rank the performance of GCMs (Raju &
Kumar 2014; Srinivasa Raju et al. 2017). Three performance evaluation measures that yield distinct information about the
match between observed and simulated data were chosen, namely, NSE, skill score (SS), and PBIAS. A payoff matrix (M)
is populated with the computed three metrics as criteria and each GCM as an alternative. Considering that the ranges of
criteria are different, they are normalized using the linear sum normalization technique and a normalized payoff matrix

Table 2 | Performance evaluation metrics along with equation, range, and ideal values

Sl No Performance evaluation metric Equation Range Ideal value

2 3
1 Percent Bias (PBIAS) P
n
0 ∞ to þ∞ 0
6 (Yi  Y i )7
6i¼1 7
PBIAS ¼ 6 7100
4 P
n 5
Yi
i¼1

2 3
2 Nash–Sutcliffe Coefficient of Efficiency (NSE) Pn
0 2 0 to ∞ 1
6 (Yi  Y i ) 7
6i¼1 7
NSE ¼ 1  6 n 7
4P  52
(Yi  Y)
i¼1

2 3
3 Logarithmic Nash–Sutcliffe Coefficient of Efficiency (logNSE) P
n
0 2 ∞ to 1 1
6 (log Y i  log Y i ) 7
6 7
logNSE ¼ 1  6i¼1 7
4P n 2 5
(log Yi  log Y)
i¼1

4 Mean Absolute Error (MAE) P

n 0 to ∞ 0
j(Y 0 i  Yi )j
i¼1
MAE ¼
n
vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
5 Fourth Root Mean Quadrupled Error (R4MS4E) uP 0 to ∞ 0
un
(Y  Y 0 i )
4
u
4
ti¼1 i
R4MS4E ¼
n

6 Skill Score (SS) Pbn min( f , f )

m o 0 to 1 1
SS ¼
i¼1 bn
 is the mean observed discharge, n represents the total sample size of data, fm , fo
where Yi and Y 0i represent the observed and simulated discharge values, respectively, and Y
represent the frequency of simulated and observed streamflows for a particular bin. bn represents the total number of bins selected to analyse the match between PDFs between
simulated and observed flows.

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/jwcc/article-pdf/doi/10.2166/wcc.2023.272/1204951/jwc2023272.pdf

by [email protected]
 Uncorrected Proof

Journal of Water and Climate Change Vol 00 No 0, 8

(N) is generated using Equation (2).

Mxy
Nxy ¼ (2)
P
X
Mxy
x¼1

where x denotes the GCM and y represents the indicator. X represents the total number of GCMs.
The entropy technique was used to obtain the weights of the three indicators in the normalized payoff matrix. The entropy
method allocates weights based on the amount of information that is available and how important the indicators are with
respect to that information. The entropy for each criterion (column) in the payoff matrix is estimated using Equation (3)

1 X X
Ey ¼ Nxy ln (Nxy ) (3)
ln (X) x¼1

where Ey is the entropy of the yth metric.

Degree of diversification (Dy ) is computed using Equation (4)

Dy ¼ 1  Ey (4)

Weights are assigned for each performance indicator obtained from the entropy method (Wy ) using Equation (5)

Dy
Wy ¼ (5)
P
Y
Dy
y¼1

where Y represents the total number of GCMs.

Compromise programming (CP) is used to rank the performance of GCMs based on the computed indices. CP computes
the distance between alternatives and the ideal solution using a distance-based measure Lp metric is given by Equation (6)

" #1
X
Y
p p
Lp (x) ¼ wpy jNy  Nxy j (6)
y¼1

where Ny is the normalized ideal value of the indicator y; p is a parameter whose value is set as 2 to estimate the Euclidean
distance.
The ranking is given to the GCMs at each grid and the ranking pattern in each grid is plausibly different. Hence, to facilitate
impact assessment studies for a region, a group decision-making approach is used to extract the suitable set of GCMs for the
entire study area. A detailed description of group decision-making methodology can be found in Srinivasa Raju et al. (2017).
The group decision-making in this study is performed over all three variables at all grids to obtain five best-performing GCMs
for carrying out further study. From the analysis, it was found that models CanESM5, INM-CM5-0, MPI-ESM1-2-HR, MPI-
ESM1-2-LR, and MRI-ESM2-0 were found to be the best-performing models. The complete analysis is carried out using these
selected five models in the subsequent section.

3.3. Quantification of uncertainty from multiple GCMs and multiple HMs

The difference between maximum and minimum values (ranges) of projected climate variables (precipitation and tempera-
ture) and hydrological components (QQ, DR, SS, etc.) was calculated as a measure of the amount of uncertainty
contained in ensemble predictions made using multiple GCMs and multiple HMs. Uncertainty in ensemble hydrological com-
ponents obtained from the multiple GCMs and multiple HMs were first quantified. Then, the uncertainty amount was
quantified for two different sources, multiple GCMs, and multiple HMs.
One of the popular approaches to overcome the uncertainty in model prediction is to pool the ensemble members from all
the models, also known as equal weighting. It is challenging to assign weights to individual GCMs based on past performance

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/jwcc/article-pdf/doi/10.2166/wcc.2023.272/1204951/jwc2023272.pdf

by [email protected]
 Uncorrected Proof

Journal of Water and Climate Change Vol 00 No 0, 9

and create a weighted ensemble mean. Assigning weights based on the representation of history requires a comprehensive
knowledge of the model’s performance (Curry & Webster 2011). However, the weights will highly depend on the evaluation
procedure, ground truth data, region of interest, and parameters evaluated. Hence, in this study, a simple ensemble mean is
employed to maintain the information about the spread of the ensemble. Uncertainty in ensemble projections due to each
GCM is quantified by estimating the range (difference between maximum and minimum) and rank is given to individual
GCMs in the contribution of overall uncertainty among the selected GCMs. GCM with higher uncertainty given the first
rank and GCM with the least uncertainty given the last rank. Then, flow duration curves (FDCs) were drawn from the ensem-
ble streamflows obtained to quantify the uncertainty in multiple HMs. In addition, the relationships between the quantities of
uncertainty in the ensemble projections of the climate variables and hydrological components were then investigated to see
which climate variables (precipitation, maximum, and minimum temperature) exerted the most significant influence on the
hydrological prediction uncertainty.
To quantify the uncertainty present in future streamflows, the ANOVA technique was used in the present study. ANOVA
approach quantifies the contributions of various sources and their interactions to the total uncertainty by splitting the overall
variance into its several origins (Aryal et al. 2019). The total variance, calculated as the sum of squared errors, is split into two
parts: individual effects and interaction effects. Three-way ANOVA has been carried out in the present study, which splits up
the total uncertainty into seven fractions, out of which, the first three fractions represent the individual contributions and the
remaining four fractions belong to their interactions as shown in Equation (7). In this study, an ensemble of 80 streamflow
projections were obtained using 5 best-performed GCMs, 4 HMs, and 4 climate scenarios (SSPs). The uncertainties in the
future streamflows due to the three sources were quantified using ANOVA for two time periods near future (2021–2060)
and far future (2061–2100).

SSTOTAL ¼ SSHM þ SSSSP þ SSGCM þ SSHMSSP þ SSHMGCM þ SSSSPGCM þ SSHMSSPGCM (7)

where SSHM , SSSSP , and SSGCM represents the total sum of squares corresponding to the hydrological model, climate scen-
arios, and climate models, respectively. A detailed flowchart depicting the workflow of the present study in the generation of
ensemble streamflow is given in Figure 2.

3.4. QRF for post-processing technique

The future streamflows generated using multiple GCMs, multiple HMs, and multiple scenarios are highly uncertain with a
high ensemble spread. However, it is worth noting that the ensemble spread plays a vital role in decision-making under uncer-
tainty. Hence, the correction of ensemble spread to reduce the uncertainty bands assists the policymakers in better decision-
making (Zhang et al. 2022; Manikanta et al. 2023). For this purpose, QRF, a non-parametric method is used to post-process
the ensemble streamflows (Meinshausen 2017). In QRF, conditional quantiles and median values of the response variable are
estimated for high-dimensional predictors. The conditional quantiles are estimated using binary regression trees known as
classification and regression trees (CARTs). Sequentially, in each tree, iterative binary splitting is employed to determine a
new vector of predictors and its associated leaf. This iterative binary splitting between predictors aggregates the observations
according to their forecasts. Therefore, for every generated streamflow event, an ensemble of observations is restored to create
an empirical cumulative distribution function (CDF). The final CDF is estimated as the weighted mean of the CDFs obtained
from all the trees, from which the predictive quantiles are determined. For more details on QRF methodology, the readers are
encouraged to refer to Taillardat et al. (2016). In this study, 20 ensemble members generated by 5 GCMs and 4 HMs were
forced as predictors for post-processing the spread of historical ensemble streamflows under each SSP. The hyper-parameters
such as the maximum terminal node size are set to 20 with a tree size of 1,000. The model established during the historical
period is used to correct the ensemble spread of generated future streamflows. The post-processing of future ensemble stream-
flows using QRF is performed with the help of an R package called ‘quantregForest’ (Meinshausen 2017).

4. RESULTS
4.1. Diagnostic evaluation of the performance of HMs
The model structural uncertainty plays a key role in a hydrological prediction system (Moriasi et al. 2007). Hence, using mul-
tiple model structures is essential to account for the uncertainties in future streamflow projection. In this study, four different
HMs (SWAT, HBV, IHACRES, and SIMHYD) were calibrated and validated in simulating the observed streamflow. The

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/jwcc/article-pdf/doi/10.2166/wcc.2023.272/1204951/jwc2023272.pdf

by [email protected]
 Uncorrected Proof

Journal of Water and Climate Change Vol 00 No 0, 10

Figure 2 | Flowchart representing the workflow of the present study.

ranges of parameters and their fitted values are presented in Table 3. Nash–Sutcliffe Efficiency (NSE) is used as an objective
function to calibrate the selected HMs. The NSE values for HBV, IHACRES, SIMHYD, and SWAT were 0.71, 0.65, 0.59,
and 0.73, respectively, during the calibration period (1975–1993) and 0.76, 0.72, 0.71, and 0.73, respectively, during the vali-
dation period (1994–2010). The performance of selected models during both calibration and validation periods in terms of
NSE was reasonably acceptable (Moriasi et al. 2007, 2015). However, it is necessary to understand the performance of
the simulated streamflow in capturing different flow segments of the observed hydrograph. The performance metrics such
as fourth root mean quadrupled error (R4MS4E), Logarithmic Nash–Sutcliff coefficient of efficiency (logNSE), percentage
bias (PBIAS), SS, and mean absolute error (MAE) are estimated to evaluate the performance of simulated flows from the cali-
brated HMs.
For instance, the indicator R4MS4E emphasizes more on peak flows, whereas logNSE is sensitive to low flows. The volu-
metric error is measured using PBIAS and the match between observed and simulated frequencies is measured using SS,
and MAE yields the unbiased error estimate. The computed performance evaluation metrics for the calibration and vali-
dation periods are tabulated in Table 4. From the R4MS4E values, it is clear that the SWAT and HBV models
performing well in capturing high flows in both calibration and validation periods. The logNSE values show that the
HBV model performance in simulating the low flows is best in both calibration and validation periods. The PBIAS
value of SWAT is lower (between +5%) than that of other models, whereas the bias in HBV simulated flow is within
acceptable limits. In terms of SS, all four models exhibit similar performance during both calibration and validation
periods, with the HBV model exhibiting slightly better performance. The performance of HBV and SWAT in terms of
MAE is found to be good during calibration and validation. The SIMHYD simulated flows are highly underestimating
the observed flows leading to declined performance. SWAT being a physics-based semi-distributed model, and the inclu-
siveness of spatial variability in rainfall and physical characteristics of the catchment is the reason behind its better
performance (Singh et al. 2013). The process description of the HBV model structure is the plausible reason for its
better performance.

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/jwcc/article-pdf/doi/10.2166/wcc.2023.272/1204951/jwc2023272.pdf

by [email protected]
 Uncorrected Proof

Journal of Water and Climate Change Vol 00 No 0, 11

Table 3 | Parameters used in the selected hydrological models along with their range and fitted value

Model Fitted
Name Parameters Range value

HBV SCF – Snow correction factor 0.9 to1.5 1.27

DDF – Degree day factor (mm/°C/time step) 0 to 5 2.77
Tr – threshold temperature above which precipitation is rain (°C) 1 to 3 1.86
Ts – Threshold temperature below which precipitation is snow (°C) 3 to 1 1.17
Tm – Threshold temperature above which melt starts 2 to 2 0.11
LPrat – Parameter related to the limit for potential evaporation 0 to 1 0.96
FC – Field capacity, i.e., max soil moisture storage (mm) 0 to 600 194.36
BETA – The non-linear parameter for runoff production 0 to 20 0.18
k0 – Storage coefficient for very fast response (time step) 0 to 2 0.39
k1 – Storage coefficient for fast response (time step) 2 to 30 19.79
k2 – Storage coefficient for slow response (time step) 30 to 250 47.66
Lsuz – Threshold storage state, i.e., the very fast response starts if exceeded (mm) 1 to 100 46.04
cperc – Constant percolation rate (mm/time step) 0 to 8 0.28
bmax – Maximum base at low flows (time step) 0 to 30 5.94
Croute – Free scaling parameter (timestep2/mm) 0 to 50 38.29
SIMHYD Insc – Interception store capacity (mm) 0.5 to 5 0.53
Coeff – Max Infiltration loss (mm) 50 to 400 290.75
Sq – Infiltration loss exponent 0 to 6 1.21
Smsc – Soil moisture store capacity (mm) 50 to 500 122.15
Sub – Constant of proportionality in interflow equation 0 to 1 0.03
Crak – Constant of proportionality in groundwater recharge equation 0 to 1 0.99
K – Baseflow linear recession parameters 0.003 to 0.3 0.21
IHACRES f – Catchment Moisture Deficit (CMD) stress threshold as a proportion of d 0.01 to 3 0.44
e – Temperature to PET conversion factor 0.01 to 1.5 0.05
d – CMD threshold for producing flow 50 to 800 334.80
tau_s – Recession coefficient for Soil Storage discharge (days) 0 to 3 2.99
tau_q – Recession coefficient for quick flow (days) 0 to 3 2.80
v_s – Fraction of effective rainfall that goes to groundwater 0 to 1 0.96
SWAT R_CN2.mgt – Initial SCS Curve number 0.2 to 0.2 0.18
V_ALPHA_BF.gw – Baseflow alpha factor (day1) 0 to 1 0.31
V_GW_DELAY.gw – Groundwater Delay from soil to channel (days) 0 to 500 30.06
V_GWQMN.gw – Threshold depth of water in the shallow aquifer required for return flow to 0 to 5,000 1,026.73
occur (mm of H2O)
V_ESCO.hru – Soil evaporation compensation factor 0 to 1 0.58
V_ALPHA_BNK.rte – Baseflow alpha factor for bank storage. 0 to 1 0.67
V_CH_N2.rte – Manning’s n value for the main channel 0.01 to 0.02
0.3
V_CH_K2.rte – Hydraulic conductivity of the main channel (mm/h) 0.01 to 70.89
500
R_SOL_K.sol – Saturated Hydraulic conductivity 0.2 to 0.2 0.18
V_GW_REVAP.gw – Groundwater revap coefficient 0.02 to 0.2 0.11

4.2. Changes in projected precipitation and temperature

The precipitation and temperature projections obtained from selected GCMs for four climate scenarios were averaged over
months to examine the future climate in the study area. However, maximum precipitation in the basin is received during the
monsoon season (June to October); the projected changes in the monsoon precipitation were analysed in this section. The
average increment in the monsoon precipitation was analysed by considering the ratio of projected to historical values of
total precipitation, variance, and maximum precipitation for each scenario. It is noticed from Figure 3 that the total precipi-
tation, variance, and maximum precipitation is likely to increase during the future period and the increment is varying across
months. The increased variability and maximum precipitation indicate the intensification of precipitation patterns in June
month for all future scenarios (Katzenberger et al. 2021). The increment in total mean precipitation component during
August and October is more (more than 2.5 times greater than historical values), with minimal variation in variance. July

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/jwcc/article-pdf/doi/10.2166/wcc.2023.272/1204951/jwc2023272.pdf

by [email protected]
 Uncorrected Proof

Journal of Water and Climate Change Vol 00 No 0, 12

Table 4 | Performance evaluation metrics of hydrological models during the calibration and validation periods

Models R4MS4E NSE LogNSE PBIAS SS MAE

Calibration (1975–1993)
HBV 546.24 0.71 0.61 12.00 0.70 96.24
IHACRES 563.83 0.65 2.40 21.17 0.64 121.92
SIMHYD 623.08 0.59 25.96 35.03 0.66 128.80
SWAT 489.83 0.73 0.36 5.17 0.71 95.62
Validation (1994–2010)
HBV 539.79 0.76 0.25 0.75 0.79 90.07
IHACRES 553.22 0.72 3.17 9.04 0.73 107.14
SIMHYD 577.88 0.71 27.61 23.52 0.75 105.62
SWAT 536.28 0.73 0.31 0.78 0.73 108.86

Figure 3 | Variations in projected changes of precipitation (projected/historical) for monthly mean, monthly maximum, and monthly variance
for the monsoon period for all SSPs.

and September months have the least variability concerning total mean precipitation. It can be observed from the figure that
there is more than a two-fold increment in precipitation present for the future except for June month in all scenarios. Precipi-
tation projections were highly variable under four climate scenarios, SSP-585 shows a greater increment with SSP-126 being
minimal increment during the entire monsoon period. October month shows a greater spread in total, variance, and maxi-
mum precipitation in all the SSPs.
Figure 4 represents the difference between historical and projected monthly mean values of maximum and minimum temp-
eratures from the selected GCMs for all SSPs. The difference between the monthly averaged future (2015–2100) and historical
values of Tmax and Tmin ranges from 3.0 to þ3.4 °C and 1.8 to þ1.8 °C, respectively. Tmax projections would decrease for
the future period under all scenarios except for June, July, and August. Tmax projection shows a positive increment for June

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/jwcc/article-pdf/doi/10.2166/wcc.2023.272/1204951/jwc2023272.pdf

by [email protected]
 Uncorrected Proof

Journal of Water and Climate Change Vol 00 No 0, 13

Figure 4 | Variations in projected changes of monthly maximum and minimum temperature (Projected–historical) for all SSPs.

having a maximum increment (more than 2 °C) in all the climate scenarios and maximum variation (spread) being observed
in the monsoon period. It is also observed from Figure 4, that the variation of Tmin (means spread in boxplot) in the study
area is more as compared to Tmax. When Tmin variability along month-wise is considered, the minimum temperature is
highly variable in all the months except May. SSP-370 and SSP-585 scenarios show a positive increment in Tmin projections,
whereas SSP-126 and SSP-245 show decrement. The climate projections over the basin under future period is highly sub-
jected to GCM uncertainty.

4.3. Changes in projected hydrological variables

The change in the future projections of various hydrological components like precipitation (PR), streamflow (QQ), WA, and
PET over the basin concerning the historical data (i.e., observed data) shown in Figure 5 for the monsoon period. The mean
monthly values of hydrological components for the future period are obtained by computing the average mean monthly
values of all 20 ensembles (obtained by forcing selected 5 GCMs into 4 HMs) for each SSP. The ratio of projected values
of hydrological components to that of historical values in the monsoon period for each scenario is computed and presented
in Figure 5. It could be noticed that the components like PP, QQ, and WA are expected to increase throughout the monsoon
season in the basin in the future period in all scenarios except WA in June under all scenarios, with the highest increment
being observed in the SSP-585 scenario and variation among scenarios is slightly variable. The decrease in PET values in Sep-
tember and October might be the possible reason for the increase in PP and QQ projections. For SSP-126, the PP projections

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/jwcc/article-pdf/doi/10.2166/wcc.2023.272/1204951/jwc2023272.pdf

by [email protected]
 Uncorrected Proof

Journal of Water and Climate Change Vol 00 No 0, 14

Figure 5 | Mult-GCM and multi-hydrologic model projections of overall changes of hydrological components of the study area for four climate
scenarios.

are likely to increase from 10.43 to 180%, and for QQ projections, the increment is about 56 to 307%. In the case of SSP-245
and SSP-370, the PP projection shows an increase of up to 207.60%, and the increment in QQ projection ranges between
34.50 and 364%. Maximum increment in PP projections is noticed in the SSP-585 scenario, ranging between 21.70 and
222.5% and a similar trend can be noticed in QQ projection with an increment of 78.6–377.70%. Though both PP and
QQ projections tend to increase in the future for all scenarios, the increment in QQ projections is comparatively higher.
This is due to the fact that there is a reduction in PET projections in future scenarios. A study by Fu et al. (2007) revealed
20% precipitation increase might result in a streamflow increment of 48%, provided that the projected long-term mean temp-
erature is only 1 °C lower than the long-term historical mean. However, the increase in the streamflow will only increase to a
meagre 4% if the projected long-term mean temperature is 1.8 °C higher than the long-term historical mean. WA projections
were likely to increase under all SSP scenarios, except in June, with increments being observed along months with a maxi-
mum increment in October of about 41.40%. It could be noted that the PET values in June month are high due to an
increment in Tmax projections and show decrement up to 9.4% in October.

4.4. Uncertainty introduced by the climate models

In order to assess the uncertainty induced by each individual GCM to the uncertainty in the GCM ensemble, each GCM was
given a rank based on the amount of uncertainty (Figure 6). GCMs with higher uncertainty are given top rank. It can be
noticed from Figure 6 that the contribution of individual GCM to the uncertainty in the obtained ensemble is varying
with respect to the hydrological components. Overall, projections obtained from the model CanESM5 subjected to the
least uncertainty and uncertainty contributed by the MPI-ESM1-2-HR, MPI-ESM1-2-LR, and MRI-ESM2-0 are higher in
PP, QQ, and WA projections for the basin, whereas CanESM5 and INM-CM5-0 models contributes least. Similarly, for
Tmax and PET projections, MRI-ESM2-0 and MPI-ESM1-2-HR induce larger uncertainty and CanESM5 exhibits the least
uncertainty. In the case of Tmin projections, models INM-CM5-0 and MPI-ESM1-2-HR uncertainty contribution are
higher, and CanESM5 and MRI-ESM2-0 models contribute the least uncertainty. Identifying the individual GCM uncertainty
contribution is necessary to select the best suitable GCMs to reduce the uncertainty under the climate change impact study.
The GCMs with unrealistic projections will be screened first for reliable hydrological projections under climate change when
multiple GCMs outputs are available. Therefore, at the initial stages, this analysis will reward the user in minimizing the trans-
lation effect of uncertainty in climate variables to various hydrological components.

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/jwcc/article-pdf/doi/10.2166/wcc.2023.272/1204951/jwc2023272.pdf

by [email protected]
 Uncorrected Proof

Journal of Water and Climate Change Vol 00 No 0, 15

Figure 6 | The contribution of GCM to the uncertainty in the multi-GCM ensemble projections composed of hydrological components and
climate variables. The numbers on the right-side colour bar represent the ranks of GCMs’ contributions to the overall uncertainty (the GCM
with the largest contribution is given the highest rank and vice versa).

4.5. Relation between uncertainty in climate variables and hydrological variables

The correlation between the uncertainty of different climate variables projection and hydrological components of the HBV
model at a monthly scale was plotted (Figure 7) under all scenarios. The figure shows that the correlation between PP and
hydrological components QQ and WA is greater than 0.9 for all SSPs. These results indicate the translation of uncertainty
in PP projection into QQ and WA projections, indicating that substantial efforts are needed to enhance the accuracy of pre-
cipitation projections for reliable hydrological simulations under changing climate. In the same way, a moderate correlation
can be noticed between PET and Tmax is greater than 0.70 in all scenarios. The correlation between QQ and WA projections
for all scenarios in the HBV model is greater than 0.9, whereas the correlation varies for other models (refer to Supplemen-
tary Figures S1–S3). The varying correlation among the HMs indicates the model’s structural uncertainty in simulating
the WA.

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/jwcc/article-pdf/doi/10.2166/wcc.2023.272/1204951/jwc2023272.pdf

by [email protected]
 Uncorrected Proof

Journal of Water and Climate Change Vol 00 No 0, 16

Figure 7 | Correlation between the uncertainty in climate variable and hydrological components for HBV model for all four scenarios.

4.6. Uncertainty in the streamflow projections

The frequency distribution of flows can be graphically visualized using FDCs at the outlet point. The historical FDC is plotted
in Figure 8 in red line along with uncertainty (shaded polygon between maximum and minimum) in the FDCs of the ensemble
streamflow. Projections generated by forcing the climate variables of selected five GCMs into four calibrated HMs. The high
flows (exceedance probability between 0 and 20%) were found to be increasing in the future period for all the scenarios for all
HMs except SWAT. Similarly, the low flows (exceedance probability between 80 and 100%) were found to be decreasing in all
scenarios except for HBV. The plausible reason for this is the intensification of precipitation patterns in future projections.
The slope of FDC for streamflow projections simulated by SIMHYD and IHACRES models is high in all the scenarios indi-
cating the flashiness of the flows. The variation of FDCs simulated through multiple model structures shows slight variation
with respect to scenarios except for SSP-370 where high flow variability is less than all other scenarios. The results in Figure 8
can be understood in a better way than the results obtained in Section 4.1. The SWAT and HBV simulated FDCs were slightly

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/jwcc/article-pdf/doi/10.2166/wcc.2023.272/1204951/jwc2023272.pdf

by [email protected]
 Uncorrected Proof

Journal of Water and Climate Change Vol 00 No 0, 17

Figure 8 | Flow duration curves for multiple GCMs and multiple hydrological model ensemble projections for four climate scenarios. (The
y-axis of the main figure is plotted on the logarithmic scale and the y-axis of the inset figure is plotted on the normal scale). Please refer to the
online version of this paper to see this figure in colour: https://doi.org/10.2166/wcc.2023.272.

deviating from the observed flows at higher exceedance probabilities when compared to FDCs simulated by the other two
HMs. Hence, it is highly recommended to generate ensemble streamflows using multiple HMs to account for the uncertainty
in the streamflow projections in a more reasonable way.

4.7. Uncertainty decomposition

The uncertainty contribution of different sources obtained from 3-way ANOVA for the near future (2021–2060) and far future
(2061–2100) is plotted in Figure 9(a) and 9(b), respectively. In summary, the contributions of HMs and SSPs as individual and
their interaction is found to be negligible in both time periods. The contribution of uncertainty in GCMs output and their
interaction with HMs and SSPs accounts for the major portion of the total uncertainty. The interaction between SSPs and
GCMs is the highest contributor among all other sources ranging from 44.19 to 58.62% in the near future and 40.24 to
59.37% in the far future. The second highest contributor corresponds to the combined effect of HMs, SSPs, and GCMs
with a share ranging between 29.18 and 38.79% in the near future and 30.14 to 40.85% in the far future. It is worth
noting that the individual contributions of GCMs (5.04–9.48% in the near future and 5.06–9.26% in the far future) and
SSPs (0.57–0.82% in the near future and 0.57–1.03% in the far future) to the total uncertainty is very low. Contrastingly,
their interaction is the major contributor to the uncertainty.

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/jwcc/article-pdf/doi/10.2166/wcc.2023.272/1204951/jwc2023272.pdf

by [email protected]
 Uncorrected Proof

Journal of Water and Climate Change Vol 00 No 0, 18

Figure 9 | Contribution of various sources of uncertainty in terms of variance fraction for (a) near future (2021–2060) and (b) far future
(2061–2100).

4.8. Post-processing of ensemble spread of streamflows

The ensemble streamflows generated by forcing the GCM outputs for the calibration period (1975–1993) are post-processed
using QRF to reduce the ensemble spread and to capture the observed streamflow. The model fitted during the calibration
period is extrapolated to post-process the ensemble streamflows during the validation period. Figure (10) represents the
FDC plotted using the ensemble streamflows before post-processing (hereby referred to as EnSF) and after post-processing
(QRF-EnSF) during the validation period (1994–2010). In summary, the ensemble spread is highly optimized in the QRF-
EnSF, where the ensemble spread captures observed FDC between the exceedance probabilities of 0.05 and 0.8 efficiently
with minimal spread. It can also be noticed that the spread in EnSF is comparatively high. Moreover, the FDC by EnSF
tends to overpredict the high flows and underpredict the low flows. The performance of both EnSF and QRF-EnSF is not

Figure 10 | FDC of ensemble streamflows before and after post-processing during the validation period (1994–2010). The coloured envelope
represents 0.25 and 0.75 interquartile values.

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/jwcc/article-pdf/doi/10.2166/wcc.2023.272/1204951/jwc2023272.pdf

by [email protected]
 Uncorrected Proof

Journal of Water and Climate Change Vol 00 No 0, 19

satisfactory in capturing the streamflow extremes (extremely low and high values of streamflows). The results of the analysis
suggest that QRF post-processed flows efficiently capture the majority of the flows and can be used to reduce the uncertainty
in the generated streamflows.
The QRF post-processing is further applied to the generated future streamflows for 2020–2100 under all SSPs and the
changes obtained after and before the post-process are shown in Figure 11. From the figure, it is found that mean flows in
the monsoon period in the QRF post-processed flows are comparatively lower than the values obtained before post-proces-
sing (refer to Section 4.3). The mean flows after post-processing are likely to be reduced up to 7% in June and increase up to
70% in September under all scenarios. The increment in the mean flows was found to be highest in October in un-post-pro-
cessed flows, whereas the results from QRF post-processed flows show that August is likely to have the highest increment.

5. DISCUSSION
The Tungabhadra River serves as an essential source of irrigation, hydropower generation, and water supply in major portions
of Karnataka regions. Hence, assessing the WA under changing climate scenarios is a crucial issue in this basin. Limited
studies have been reported so far assessing the impact of climate change on the streamflow of the Tungabhadra Basin
(Meenu et al. 2013; Singh et al. 2013, 2016; Janga Reddy & Nagesh Kumar 2020; Venkatesh et al. 2020b). Moreover, no
study was reported so far considering the hydrological model uncertainty along with GCM uncertainty in the future stream-
flow projections in the Tungabhadra Basin. Hence, the present study comprehensively measured the influence of uncertainty
in climate projections and hydrological model structure uncertainty on different hydrological variables for the Tungabhadra
Basin. The total uncertainty in the future streamflows is decompounded as the contribution of individual sources (GCMs,
HMs, and SSPs) and their interactions using the ANOVA technique. Furthermore, a statistical post-processing method is
used to calibrate the ensemble spread intended to reduce the uncertainty in the streamflows. From previous studies, it was
suggested that the selection of suitable GCMs based on the past performance (Srinivasa Raju & Nagesh Kumar 2015;
Anil et al. 2021), which is also followed in the present study using a widely accepted approach such as CP (Srinivasa Raju
et al. 2017). Four HMs (SWAT, HBV, SIMHYD, and IHACRES) were calibrated and validated in simulating the observed
streamflow at the Haralahalli gauge point. The performance of all the calibrated models was found to be satisfactory.
SWAT is s physics-based semi-distributed model and the previous studies supported the results for the hydrological

Figure 11 | Changes in hydrological component QQ before and after application of QRF post-processing technique.

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/jwcc/article-pdf/doi/10.2166/wcc.2023.272/1204951/jwc2023272.pdf

by [email protected]
 Uncorrected Proof

Journal of Water and Climate Change Vol 00 No 0, 20

assessment of the basin (Singh et al. 2013, 2016; Venkatesh et al. 2020a), proved its efficiency again with better performance
in the present study. From Section 4.1, conceptual model HBV performance is equally good with SWAT in simulating future
streamflow. Models IHACRES and SIMHYD performance might not match well with the other models mentioned before but
their performance in simulating future streamflow cannot be ignored owing to the fact that model structure is one of the major
sources of uncertainty.
The analysis shows that all the streamflow projections project an increase in the higher streamflow values and a decrease in
the lower streamflow values which is in line with the previous studies (Zhang et al. 2015a). The results obtained from the
ANOVA method demonstrated that the contribution of interaction between GCMs and SSPs to the total uncertainty was
found to be significantly higher (between 44.19 and 58.62% in the near future and 40.24 and 59.37% in the far future). Despite
having lower individual contributions, i.e., GCMs (5.04–9.48% in the near future and 5.06–9.26% in the far future) and SSPs
(0.57–0.82% in the near future and 0.57–1.03% in the far future), their interaction has a major share in total uncertainty. It is
also important to note that the uncertainty in the future ensemble streamflows is also due to the temporal uncertainty in the
GCMs. It implies that the daily projections obtained from the GCMs vary drastically leading to high variations in the pro-
jected streamflow values. The uncertainty in the climate projections obtained from GCMs varies over different months,
recommending improved GCM simulations for reliable basin-level impact assessment studies (Her et al. 2019). However,
the current study using multiple HMs yields better insights into the uncertainties in the streamflow projections (Her et al.
2019; Wang et al. 2020). Since the inherent complexity is present among various parameters in the modelling chain, it is dif-
ficult to generalize a single hydrological model for a catchment. From higher QQ projections, it is understood that more
intense precipitation is expected in the future with fewer rainy days (Meenu et al. 2013). The QRF post-processing technique
was applied to reduce the uncertainty bands in the ensemble streamflow projections. The post-processed ensemble stream-
flows were found to be efficiently capturing the observed streamflows during the validation period with lower ensemble
spread. The post-processed future streamflows also project increment in the future streamflows, but the increment is signifi-
cantly lower than the ensemble streamflows before post-processing. The results of the present study are useful in framing
adaptation strategies such as enhancing irrigation efficiency, managing water demand, and installing water harvesting
schemes considering the future WA in the Tungabhadra Basin.

6. CONCLUSION
This study focuses on quantifying the uncertainty in the ensemble streamflow projections introduced by multiple GCMs and
multiple HMs. The conclusions are as follows:

• The performance of selected HMs was found to be satisfactory with an acceptable NSE value (.0.6) during both calibration
and validation periods and diagnostic evaluation of model performance indicates that SWAT and HBV performed better in
simulating low flows.
• The ability of SWAT to account for rainfall spatial variability and spatial heterogeneity of catchment characteristics is
attributable to its better performance, which agrees with previous studies (Singh et al. 2013). The performance of HBV,
being a lumped model, was equally good as SWAT in simulating streamflows.
• Uncertainty in climate projections during the monsoon period was appraised and results show that the overall increment in
PP projections ranges from 10.43 to 222.5% and QQ projections range from 34.50 to 377.7% in the monsoon season. Both
Tmax and Tmin were found to be increasing with respect to scenarios. It was found that the changes in projected Tmax
range from 3.0 to þ3.4 °C, and Tmin ranges from 1.8 to þ1.8 °C.
• • FDCs obtained from the models HBV, IHACRES, and SIMHYD show that the frequency of high flows is likely to be
increased under all SSPs, and the frequency of low flows is expected to decrease in the future scenarios for SIMHYD
and IHACRES models. The above results indicate that the flashiness of the catchment (slope of flow duration curve)
may increase indicating higher variability of flows in future scenarios.
• Uncertainty decomposition using 3-way ANOVA suggested that the interaction between SSPs and GCMs is the highest con-
tributor among all other sources ranging from 44.19 to 58.62% in the near future and 40.24 to 59.37% in the far future. The
second highest contributor corresponds to the combined effect of HMs, SSPs, and GCMs with a share ranging between
29.18 and 38.79% in the near future and 30.14 and 40.85% in the far future. SSPs and HMs individual contributions are
negligible.

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/jwcc/article-pdf/doi/10.2166/wcc.2023.272/1204951/jwc2023272.pdf

by [email protected]
 Uncorrected Proof

Journal of Water and Climate Change Vol 00 No 0, 21

• The mean flows after post-processing are likely to be reduced up to 7% in June and increase up to 70% in September under
all scenarios. The increment in the mean flows was found to be highest in October in un-post-processed flows, whereas the
results from QRF post-processed flows show that August is likely to have the highest increment. The ensemble spread has
been reduced after the QRF post-processing application.

DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

All relevant data are available from an online repository or repositories.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST
The authors declare there is no conflict.

REFERENCES

ACIWRM & WRD 2012 River basin profile Tungabhadra Sub-Basin Karnataka. In: Advanced Centre for Integrated Water Resources
Management (ACIWRM) Water Resources Department (WRD), pp. 1–20.
Adib, M. N. M., Rowshon, M. K., Mojid, M. A. & Habibu, I. 2020 Projected streamflow in the Kurau River Basin of Western Malaysia under
future climate scenarios. Scientific Reports 10 (1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-65114-w.
Alam, S., Ali, M. M., Rahaman, A. Z. & Islam, Z. 2021 Multi-model ensemble projection of mean and extreme streamflow of Brahmaputra
River Basin under the impact of climate change. Journal of Water and Climate Change 12 (5), 2026–2044. https://doi.org/10.2166/wcc.
2021.286.
Anil, S., Manikanta, V. & Pallakury, A. R. 2021 Unravelling the influence of subjectivity on ranking of CMIP6 based climate models: a case
study. International Journal of Climatology. https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.7164.
Aryal, A., Shrestha, S. & Babel, M. S. 2019 Quantifying the sources of uncertainty in an ensemble of hydrological climate-impact projections.
Theoretical and Applied Climatology 135 (1–2), 193–209. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00704-017-2359-3.
Bergstrom, S. 1975 The development of a snow routine for the HBV-2 rainfall-runoff. Nordic Hydrology 6, 73–92. Available from: https://
iwaponline.com/hr/article-pdf/6/2/73/9298/73.pdf
Beven, K. 2006 A manifesto for the equifinality thesis. Journal of Hydrology 320 (1–2), 18–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2005.07.007.
Bisht, D. S., Chatterjee, C., Raghuwanshi, N. S. & Sridhar, V. 2018 Spatio-temporal trends of rainfall across Indian river basins. Theoretical
and Applied Climatology 132 (1–2), 419–436. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00704-017-2095-8.
Chanapathi, T., Thatikonda, S., Keesara, V. R. & Ponguru, N. S. 2020 Assessment of water resources and crop yield under future climate
scenarios: a case study in a Warangal district of Telangana, India. Journal of Earth System Science 129 (1). https://doi.org/10.1007/
s12040-019-1294-3.
Chen, J., Brissette, F. P. & Leconte, R. 2011 Uncertainty of downscaling method in quantifying the impact of climate change on hydrology.
Journal of Hydrology 401 (3–4), 190–202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2011.02.020.
Chen, H., Xu, C. Y. & Guo, S. 2012 Comparison and evaluation of multiple GCMs, statistical downscaling and hydrological models in the
study of climate change impacts on runoff. Journal of Hydrology 434–435, 36–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2012.02.040.
Chhin, R. & Yoden, S. 2018 Ranking CMIP5 GCMs for model ensemble selection on regional scale: case study of the Indochina region.
Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres 123 (17), 8949–8974. https://doi.org/10.1029/2017JD028026.
Chiew, F. H. S., Teng, J., Vaze, J., Post, D. A., Perraud, J. M., Kirono, D. G. C. & Viney, N. R. 2009 Estimating climate change impact on runoff
across southeast Australia: method, results, and implications of the modeling method. Water Resources Research 45 (10), 1–17. https://
doi.org/10.1029/2008WR007338.
Croke, B. F. W. & Jakeman, A. J. 2004 A catchment moisture deficit module for the IHACRES rainfall-runoff model. Environmental
Modelling and Software 19 (1), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2003.09.001.
Curry, J. A. & Webster, P. J. 2011 Climate science and the uncertainty monster. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 92 (12),
1667–1682. https://doi.org/10.1175/2011BAMS3139.1.
Facer-Childs, K., Anju, A. K. & Mujumdar, P. P. 2021 Hydrological Status and Outlooks.
Fu, G., Charles, S. P. & Chiew, F. H. S. 2007 A two-parameter climate elasticity of streamflow index to assess climate change effects on annual
streamflow. Water Resources Research 43 (11), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1029/2007WR005890.
Georgakakos, K. P., Seo, D. J., Gupta, H., Schaake, J. & Butts, M. B. 2004 Towards the characterization of streamflow simulation uncertainty
through multimodel ensembles. Journal of Hydrology 298 (1–4), 222–241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2004.03.037.
Gosain, A. K., Rao, S. & Basuray, D. 2006 Climate change impact assessment on hydrology of Indian river basins. Current Science 90 (3),
346–353.
Gouda, K. C., Nahak, S. & Goswami, P. 2018 Evaluation of a GCM in seasonal forecasting of extreme rainfall events over continental India.
Weather and Climate Extremes 21, 10–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wace.2018.05.001.
Goyal, M. K. & Khan, M. 2017 Assessment of spatially explicit annual water-balance model for Sutlej River Basin in eastern Himalayas and
Tungabhadra River Basin in peninsular India. Hydrology Research 48 (2), 542–558. https://doi.org/10.2166/nh.2016.053.

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/jwcc/article-pdf/doi/10.2166/wcc.2023.272/1204951/jwc2023272.pdf

by [email protected]
 Uncorrected Proof

Journal of Water and Climate Change Vol 00 No 0, 22

Gusain, A., Ghosh, S. & Karmakar, S. 2020 Added value of CMIP6 over CMIP5 models in simulating Indian summer monsoon rainfall.
Atmospheric Research 232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosres.2019.104680.
Hagemann, S., Chen, C., Clark, D. B., Folwell, S., Gosling, S. N., Haddeland, I., Hanasaki, N., Heinke, J., Ludwig, F., Voss, F. & Wiltshire,
A. J. 2013 Climate change impact on available water resources obtained using multiple global climate and hydrology models. Earth
System Dynamics 4 (1), 129–144. https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-4-129-2013.
Harding, B. L., Wood, A. W. & Prairie, J. R. 2012 The implications of climate change scenario selection for future streamflow projection in the
Upper Colorado River Basin. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences 16 (11), 3989–4007. https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-16-3989-2012.
Her, Y. & Chaubey, I. 2015 Impact of the numbers of observations and calibration parameters on equifinality, model performance, and output
and parameter uncertainty. Hydrological Processes 29 (19), 4220–4237. https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.10487.
Her, Y., Yoo, S. H., Cho, J., Hwang, S., Jeong, J. & Seong, C. 2019 Uncertainty in hydrological analysis of climate change: multi-parameter vs.
multi-GCM ensemble predictions. Scientific Reports 9 (1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-41334-7.
Jakeman, A. J. & Hornberger, G. M. 1993 How much complexity is warranted in a rainfall-runoff model? Water Resources Research 29 (8),
2637–2649. https://doi.org/10.1029/93WR00877.
Jakeman, A. J., Littlewood, I. G. & Whitehead, P. G. 1990 Computation of the instantaneous unit hydrograph and identifiable component
flows with application to two small upland catchments. Journal of Hydrology 117 (1–4), 275–300. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-
1694(90)90097-H.
Janga Reddy, M. & Nagesh Kumar, D. 2020 Evolutionary algorithms, swarm intelligence methods, and their applications in water resources
engineering: a state-of-the-art review. H2Open Journal 3 (1), 135–188. https://doi.org/10.2166/h2oj.2020.128.
Katzenberger, A., Schewe, J., Pongratz, J. & Levermann, A. 2021 Robust increase of Indian monsoon rainfall and its variability under future
warming in CMIP6 models. Earth System Dynamics 12 (2), 367–386. https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-12-367-2021.
Keteklahijani, V. K., Alimohammadi, S. & Fattahi, E. 2019 Predicting changes in monthly streamflow to Karaj dam reservoir, Iran, in
climate change condition and assessing its uncertainty. Ain Shams Engineering Journal 10 (4), 669–679. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asej.
2018.11.004.
Kirchner, J. W. 2006 Getting the right answers for the right reasons: linking measurements, analyses, and models to advance the science of
hydrology. Water Resources Research 42 (3), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1029/2005WR004362.
Knutti, R., Furrer, R., Tebaldi, C., Cermak, J. & Meehl, G. A. 2010 Challenges in combining projections from multiple climate models. Journal
of Climate 23 (10), 2739–2758.
Kwon, H. H., de Assis de Souza Filho, F., Block, P., Sun, L., Lall, U. & Reis, D. S. 2012 Uncertainty assessment of hydrologic and climate
forecast models in Northeastern Brazil. Hydrological Processes 26 (25), 3875–3885. https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.8433.
Ludwig, R., May, I., Turcotte, R., Vescovi, L., Braun, M., Cyr, J. F., Fortin, L. G., Chaumont, D., Biner, S., Chartier, I., Caya, D. & Mauser, W.
2009 The role of hydrological model complexity and uncertainty in climate change impact assessment. Advances in Geosciences 21,
63–71. https://doi.org/10.5194/adgeo-21-63-2009.
Manikanta, V. & Vema, V. K. 2022 Formulation of wavelet based multi-scale multi-objective performance evaluation (WMMPE) metric for
improved calibration of hydrological models. Water Resources Research 58 (7), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1029/2020WR029355.
Manikanta, V., Nikhil Teja, K., Das, J. & Umamahesh, N. V. 2023 On the verification of ensemble precipitation forecasts over the Godavari
River basin. Journal of Hydrology 616, 128794. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2022.128794.
Meenu, R., Rehana, S. & Mujumdar, P. P. 2013 Assessment of hydrologic impacts of climate change in Tunga-Bhadra river basin, India with
HEC-HMS and SDSM. Hydrological Processes 27 (11), 1572–1589. https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.9220.
Meinshausen, N. 2017 Package ‘quantregForest’. Quantile Regression Forests. (R Packag e Version 1.3–7).
Meinshausen, M., Nicholls, Z. R. J., Lewis, J., Gidden, M. J., Vogel, E., Freund, M., Beyerle, U., Gessner, C., Nauels, A., Bauer, N., Canadell,
J. G., Daniel, J. S., John, A., Krummel, P. B., Luderer, G., Meinshausen, N., Montzka, S. A., Rayner, P. J., Reimann, S. & … Wang, R. H. J.
2020 The shared socio-economic pathway (SSP) greenhouse gas concentrations and their extensions to 2500. Geoscientific Model
Development 13 (8), 3571–3605. https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-3571-2020.
Mendez, M. & Calvo-Valverde, L. 2016 Development of the HBV-TEC hydrological model. Procedia Engineering 154, 1116–1123. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2016.07.521.
Mishra, V., Bhatia, U. & Tiwari, A. D. 2020 Bias-corrected climate projections for south Asia from Coupled Model Intercomparison Project-6.
Scientific Data 7 (1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-020-00681-1.
Moriasi, D. N., Arnold, J. G., Van Liew, M. W., Bingner, R. L., Harmel, R. D. & Veith, T. L. 2007 Model evaluation guidelines for systematic
quantification of accuracy in watershed simulations. Transactions of the ASABE 50 (3), 885–900. https://doi.org/10.13031/2013.23153.
Pai, D. S., Sridhar, L., Rajeevan, M., Sreejith, O. P., Satbhai, N. S. & Mukhopadhyay, B. 2014 Development of a new high spatial resolution
(0.25°  0.25°) long period (1901-2010) daily gridded rainfall data set over India and its comparison with existing data sets over the
region. Mausam 65 (1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.54302/mausam.v65i1.851.
Piras, M., Mascaro, G., Deidda, R. & Vivoni, E. R. 2016 Impacts of climate change on precipitation and discharge extremes through the use of
statistical downscaling approaches in a Mediterranean basin. Science of the Total Environment 543, 952–964. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.scitotenv.2015.06.088.
Post, D. A. & Jakeman, A. J. 1996 Relationships between catchment attributes and hydrological response characteristics in small Australian
mountain ash catchments. Hydrological Processes 10 (6), 877–892. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1085(199606)10:6,877::AID-
HYP377 . 3.0.CO;2-T.

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/jwcc/article-pdf/doi/10.2166/wcc.2023.272/1204951/jwc2023272.pdf

by [email protected]
 Uncorrected Proof

Journal of Water and Climate Change Vol 00 No 0, 23

Poulin, A., Brissette, F., Leconte, R., Arsenault, R. & Malo, J. S. 2011 Uncertainty of hydrological modelling in climate change impact studies
in a Canadian, snow-dominated river basin. Journal of Hydrology 409 (3–4), 626–636. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2011.08.057.
Priestley, M. D. K., Ackerley, D., Catto, J. L., Hodges, K. I., McDonald, R. E. & Lee, R. W. 2020 An overview of the extratropical storm tracks
in CMIP6 historical simulations. Journal of Climate 33 (15), 6315–6343. https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-19-0928.1.
Raju, K. S. & Kumar, D. N. 2014 Ranking of global climate models for India using multicriterion analysis. Climate Research 60 (2), 103–117.
https://doi.org/10.3354/cr01222.
Raju, K. S. & Kumar, D. N. 2020 Review of approaches for selection and ensembling of GCMS. Journal of Water and Climate Change 11 (3),
577–599. https://doi.org/10.2166/wcc.2020.128.
Riahi, K., van Vuuren, D. P., Kriegler, E., Edmonds, J., O’Neill, B. C., Fujimori, S., Bauer, N., Calvin, K., Dellink, R., Fricko, O., Lutz, W.,
Popp, A., Cuaresma, J. C., KC, S., Leimbach, M., Jiang, L., Kram, T., Rao, S., Emmerling, J. & … Tavoni, M. 2017 The shared
socioeconomic pathways and their energy, land use, and greenhouse gas emissions implications: an overview. Global Environmental
Change 42, 153–168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.05.009.
Seibert, J. & Vis, M. J. P. 2012 Teaching hydrological modeling with a user-friendly catchment-runoff-model software package. Hydrology and
Earth System Sciences 16 (9), 3315–3325. https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-16-3315-2012.
Singh, V., Bankar, N., Salunkhe, S. S., Bera, A. K. & Sharma, J. R. 2013 Hydrological stream flow modelling on Tungabhadra catchment:
parameterization and uncertainty analysis using SWAT CUP. Current Science 104 (9), 1187–1199.
Singh, V., Goyal, M. K. & Chu, X. 2016 Multicriteria evaluation approach for assessing parametric uncertainty during extreme peak and low
flow conditions over snow glaciated and inland catchments. Journal of Hydrologic Engineering 21 (1), 04015044. https://doi.org/10.
1061/(asce)he.1943-5584.0001217.
Srinivasa Raju, K. & Nagesh Kumar, D. 2015 Ranking general circulation models for India using TOPSIS. Journal of Water and Climate
Change 6 (2), 288–299. https://doi.org/10.2166/wcc.2014.074.
Srinivasa Raju, K., Sonali, P. & Nagesh Kumar, D. 2017 Ranking of CMIP5-based global climate models for India using compromise
programming. Theoretical and Applied Climatology 128 (3–4), 563–574. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00704-015-1721-6.
Srivastava, A. K., Rajeevan, M. & Kshirsagar, S. R. 2009 Development of a high resolution daily gridded temperature data set (1969-2005) for
the Indian region. Atmospheric Science Letters 10 (4), 249–254. https://doi.org/10.1002/asl.232.
Steinschneider, S., Polebitski, A., Brown, C. & Letcher, B. H. 2012 Toward a statistical framework to quantify the uncertainties of hydrologic
response under climate change. Water Resources Research 48 (11), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1029/2011WR011318.
Taillardat, M., Mestre, O., Zamo, M. & Naveau, P. 2016 Calibrated ensemble forecasts using quantile regression forests and ensemble model
output statistics. Monthly Weather Review 144 (6), 2375–2393. https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-15-0260.1.
Tegegne, G., Park, D. K. & Kim, Y. O. 2017 Comparison of hydrological models for the assessment of water resources in a data-scarce region,
the Upper Blue Nile River Basin. Journal of Hydrology: Regional Studies 14, 49–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrh.2017.10.002.
Vaze, J., Chiew, F. H. S., Perraud, J. M., Viney, N., Post, D., Teng, J., Wang, B., Lerat, J. & Goswami, M. 2010 Rainfall-runoff modelling across
southeast Australia: datasets, models and results. Australian Journal of Water Resources 14 (2), 101–116. https://doi.org/10.1080/
13241583.2011.11465379.
Venkatesh, K., Krakauer, N. Y., Sharifi, E. & Ramesh, H. 2020a Evaluating the performance of secondary precipitation products through
statistical and hydrological modeling in a mountainous tropical basin of India.
Venkatesh, K., Srinivas, K. & Preethi, K. 2020b Evaluation and integration of reanalysis rainfall products under contrasting climatic
conditions in India. Atmospheric Research, 105121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosres.2020.105121.
Wang, H. M., Chen, J., Xu, C. Y., Chen, H., Guo, S., Xie, P. & Li, X. 2019 Does the weighting of climate simulations result in a better
quantification of hydrological impacts? Hydrology and Earth System Sciences 23 (10), 4033–4050. https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-23-4033-
2019.
Wang, H. M., Chen, J., Xu, C. Y., Zhang, J. & Chen, H. 2020 A framework to quantify the uncertainty contribution of GCMs over multiple
sources in hydrological impacts of climate change. Earth’s Future 8 (8). https://doi.org/10.1029/2020EF001602.
Yuan, X., Wood, E. F. & Ma, Z. 2015 A review on climate-model-based seasonal hydrologic forecasting: physical understanding and system
development. WIREs Water 2 (5), 523–536. https://doi.org/10.1002/wat2.1088.
Zhang, A., Zheng, C., Wang, S. & Yao, Y. 2015a Analysis of streamflow variations in the Heihe River Basin, northwest China: trends, abrupt
changes, driving factors and ecological influences. Journal of Hydrology: Regional Studies 3, 106–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrh.
2014.10.005.
Zhang, Y., Su, F., Hao, Z., Xu, C., Yu, Z., Wang, L. & Tong, K. 2015b Impact of projected climate change on the hydrology in the headwaters
of the Yellow River basin. Hydrological Processes 29 (20), 4379–4397. https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.10497.
Zhang, Y., Ye, A., Nguyen, P., Analui, B., Sorooshian, S. & Hsu, K. 2022 Comparing machine learning and deep learning models for
probabilistic post-processing of satellite precipitation-driven streamflow simulation.

First received 18 July 2022; accepted in revised form 27 March 2023. Available online 10 April 2023

Downloaded fromView
http://iwaponline.com/jwcc/article-pdf/doi/10.2166/wcc.2023.272/1204951/jwc2023272.pdf
publication stats
by [email protected]