Deep learning (DL), a new generation of artificial neural network research, has transformed industries, daily lives, and various scientific disciplines in recent years. DL represents significant progress in the ability of neural networks to automatically engineer problem‐relevant features and capture highly complex data distributions. I argue that DL can help address several major new and old challenges facing research in water sciences such as interdisciplinarity, data discoverability, hydrologic scaling, equifinality, and needs for parameter regionalization. This review paper is intended to provide water resources scientists and hydrologists in particular with a simple technical overview, transdisciplinary progress update, and a source of inspiration about the relevance of DL to water. The review reveals that various physical and geoscientific disciplines have utilized DL to address data challenges, improve efficiency, and gain scientific insights. DL is especially suited for information extraction from image‐like data and sequential data. Techniques and experiences presented in other disciplines are of high relevance to water research. Meanwhile, less noticed is that DL may also serve as a scientific exploratory tool. A new area termed AI neuroscience, where scientists interpret the decision process of deep networks and derive insights, has been born. This budding subdiscipline has demonstrated methods including correlation‐based analysis, inversion of network‐extracted features, reduced‐order approximations by interpretable models, and attribution of network decisions to inputs. Moreover, DL can also use data to condition neurons that mimic problem‐specific fundamental organizing units, thus revealing emergent behaviors of these units. Vast opportunities exist for DL to propel advances in water sciences.

Many of the scientific and societal challenges in understanding and preparing for global environmental change rest upon our ability to understand and predict the water cycle change at large river basin, continent, and global scales. However, current large‐scale land models (as a component of Earth System Models, or ESMs) do not yet reflect the best hydrologic process understanding or utilize the large amount of hydrologic observations for model testing. This paper discusses the opportunities and key challenges to improve hydrologic process representations and benchmarking in ESM land models, suggesting that (1) land model development can benefit from recent advances in hydrology, both through incorporating key processes (e.g., groundwater‐surface water interactions) and new approaches to describe multiscale spatial variability and hydrologic connectivity; (2) accelerating model advances requires comprehensive hydrologic benchmarking in order to systematically evaluate competing alternatives, understand model weaknesses, and prioritize model development needs, and (3) stronger collaboration is needed between the hydrology and ESM modeling communities, both through greater engagement of hydrologists in ESM land model development, and through rigorous evaluation of ESM hydrology performance in research watersheds or Critical Zone Observatories. Such coordinated efforts in advancing hydrology in ESMs have the potential to substantially impact energy, carbon, and nutrient cycle prediction capabilities through the fundamental role hydrologic processes play in regulating these cycles.

Recent observations with varied schedules and types (moving average, snapshot, or regularly spaced) can help to improve streamflow forecasts, but it is challenging to integrate them effectively. Based on a long short‐term memory (LSTM) streamflow model, we tested multiple versions of a flexible procedure we call data integration (DI) to leverage recent discharge measurements to improve forecasts. DI accepts lagged inputs either directly or through a convolutional neural network unit. DI ubiquitously elevated streamflow forecast performance to unseen levels, reaching a record continental‐scale median Nash‐Sutcliffe Efficiency coefficient value of 0.86. Integrating moving‐average discharge, discharge from the last few days, or even average discharge from the previous calendar month could all improve daily forecasts. Directly using lagged observations as inputs was comparable in performance to using the convolutional neural network unit. Importantly, we obtained valuable insights regarding hydrologic processes impacting LSTM and DI performance. Before applying DI, the base LSTM model worked well in mountainous or snow‐dominated regions, but less well in regions with low discharge volumes (due to either low precipitation or high precipitation‐energy synchronicity) and large interannual storage variability. DI was most beneficial in regions with high flow autocorrelation: it greatly reduced baseflow bias in groundwater‐dominated western basins and also improved peak prediction for basins with dynamical surface water storage, such as the Prairie Potholes or Great Lakes regions. However, even DI cannot elevate performance in high‐aridity basins with 1‐day flash peaks. Despite this limitation, there is much promise for a deep‐learning‐based forecast paradigm due to its performance, automation, efficiency, and flexibility.

Earth System Models (ESMs) are essential tools for understanding and predicting global change, but they cannot explicitly resolve hillslope‐scale terrain structures that fundamentally organize water, energy, and biogeochemical stores and fluxes at subgrid scales. Here we bring together hydrologists, Critical Zone scientists, and ESM developers, to explore how hillslope structures may modulate ESM grid‐level water, energy, and biogeochemical fluxes. In contrast to the one‐dimensional (1‐D), 2‐ to 3‐m deep, and free‐draining soil hydrology in most ESM land models, we hypothesize that 3‐D, lateral ridge‐to‐valley flow through shallow and deep paths and insolation contrasts between sunny and shady slopes are the top two globally quantifiable organizers of water and energy (and vegetation) within an ESM grid cell. We hypothesize that these two processes are likely to impact ESM predictions where (and when) water and/or energy are limiting. We further hypothesize that, if implemented in ESM land models, these processes will increase simulated continental water storage and residence time, buffering terrestrial ecosystems against seasonal and interannual droughts. We explore efficient ways to capture these mechanisms in ESMs and identify critical knowledge gaps preventing us from scaling up hillslope to global processes. One such gap is our extremely limited knowledge of the subsurface, where water is stored (supporting vegetation) and released to stream baseflow (supporting aquatic ecosystems). We conclude with a set of organizing hypotheses and a call for global syntheses activities and model experiments to assess the impact of hillslope hydrology on global change predictions.