Machine learning method is an alternative for the hydrological model in an alpine catchment in the Tianshan region, Central Asia

Journal of Hydrology Regional Studies, 2023

Full text Open access: Gold Metadata (CSL-JSON)
DOI 10.1016/j.ejrh.2023.101492
Data confidence 85 high
How this score is calculated

It is built from checkable properties of the record itself: whether the article has a DOI, how many independent sources confirmed its data, whether the required fields are filled in, and how recent the latest confirmation is. Disagreement between sources and a missing identifier lower it. A value of 80 or above means the record was published without further checking; 60 to 79 means it is published at reduced confidence, with a manual check advisable. A record verified by an editor by hand is never pushed below 90 by a recalculation. This scores our data about the article, not the article itself.

Abstract

Kaidu River catchment in the Tianshan Mountain, northwestern China. This paper compared the applicability and accuracy of four machine learning models and two hydrological ones to simulate the daily streamflow and extreme streamflow of the Kaidu River catchment. The machine learning models are Support Vector Regression (SVR), eXtreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost), Random Forests (RF), and Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM), while the hydrological models are the Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) and the extended SWAT with a glacier dynamic module (SWAT-Glacier). LSTM achieved better model performance in simulating daily streamflow than SWAT and SWAT-Glacier, with Kling-Gupta efficiency of 0.92, 0.82, and 0.80, respectively. Meanwhile, SVR, XGBoost, and RF showed satisfactory performance, with KGE of 0.67, 0.71, and 0.70, respectively. LSTM, SWAT and SWAT-Glacier could well simulate the annual peak flow (i.e., annual maximum 1-day streamflow and 5-day average streamflow) but failed to mimic the annual minimum 7-day average streamflow, with PBIAS exceeding 28%. Furthermore, all the models failed to reproduce the dates of hydrological extremes. Nevertheless, using the quantile loss function in the LSTM model resulted in significantly improved model performance in the low streamflow indices, compared to that using mean squared error as the loss function. Overall, LSTM could be a good alternative for simulating daily streamflow and extreme streamflow in data-scarce catchments.