The number of global precipitation datasets (PPs) is on the rise and they are commonly used for hydrological applications. A comprehensive evaluation on their performance in hydrological modeling is required to improve their performance. This study comprehensively evaluates the performance of eight widely used PPs in hydrological modeling by comparing with gauge-observed precipitation for a large number of catchments. These PPs include the Global Precipitation Climatology Centre (GPCC), Climate Hazards Group Infrared Precipitation with Station dataset (CHIRPS) V2.0, Climate Prediction Center Morphing Gauge Blended dataset (CMORPH BLD), Precipitation Estimation from Remotely Sensed Information using Artificial Neural Networks Climate Data Record (PERSIANN CDR), Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission multi-satellite Precipitation Analysis 3B42RT (TMPA 3B42RT), Multi-Source Weighted-Ensemble Precipitation (MSWEP V2.0), European Center for Medium-range Weather Forecast Reanalysis 5 (ERA5) and WATCH Forcing Data methodology applied to ERA-Interim Data (WFDEI). Specifically, the evaluation is conducted over 1382 catchments in China, Europe and North America for the 1998-2015 period at a daily temporal scale. The reliabilities of PPs in hydrological modeling are evaluated with a calibrated hydrological model using rain gauge observations. The effectiveness of PPs-specific calibration and bias correction in hydrological modeling performances are also investigated for all PPs. The results show that: (1) compared with the rain gauge observations, GPCC provides the best performance overall, followed by MSWEP V2.0; (2) among the eight PPs, the ones incorporating daily gauge data (MSWEP V2.0 and CMORPH BLD) provide superior hydrological performance, followed by those incorporating 5-day (CHIRPS V2.0) and monthly (TMPA 3B42RT, WFDEI, and PERSIANN CDR) gauge data. MSWEP V2.0 and CMORPH BLD perform better than GPCC, underscoring the effectiveness of merging multiple satellite and reanalysis datasets; (3) regionally, all PPs exhibit better performances in temperate regions than in arid or topographically complex mountainous regions; and (4) PPs-specific calibration and bias correction both can improve the streamflow simulations for all eight PPs in terms of the Nash and Sutcliffe efficiency and the absolute bias. This study provides insights on the reliabilities of PPs in hydrological modeling and the approaches to improve their performance, which is expected to provide a reference for the applications of global precipitation datasets.

Ensemble precipitation forecasts (EPFs) derived from single numerical weather predictions (NWPs) often miss extreme events, and individual hydrological models (HMs) often fail to accurately capture all types of flows, including flood peaks. To address these shortcomings, this study introduced four “EPF + HM” schemes for ensemble flood forecasting (EFF) by combining two EPFs and two HMs. A generator-based post-processing (GPP) method was applied to correct biases and under-dispersion within the raw EPF data. The effectiveness of these schemes in delivering high-quality flood forecasts was assessed using both deterministic and probabilistic metrics. The results indicate that, once post-processed by GPP, all proposed schemes show improvements in both deterministic and probabilistic performances, with skillful flood forecasts for 1–7 lead days. The deterioration in forecast performance with extended lead times is also lessened. Notably, the results indicate that uncertainty within hydrological models has a more pronounced impact on capturing flood peaks than uncertainty in precipitation inputs. This study recommends combining individual EPF with multiple hydrological models for reliable flood forecasting. In conclusion, effective flood forecasting necessitates employing post-processing techniques to correct EPFs and accounting for the uncertainty inherent in hydrological models, rather than relying solely on the uncertainty of the input data.

The number of numerical weather prediction (NWP) models is on the rise, and they are commonly used for ensemble precipitation forecast (EPF) and ensemble streamflow prediction (ESP). This study evaluated the reliabilities of two well-behaved NWP centers in the Observing System Research and Predictability Experiment (THORPEX) Interactive Grand Global Ensemble (TIGGE), the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF) and the National Centers for Environmental Prediction (NCEP), in EPF and ESP over a mountain river basin in China. This evaluation was carried out based on both deterministic and probabilistic metrics at a daily temporal scale. The effectiveness of two postprocessing methods, the Generator-based Postprocessing (GPP) method, and the Bayesian Model Averaging (BMA) method were also investigated for EPF and ESP. Results showed that: (1) The ECMWF shows better performances than NCEP in both EPF and ESP in terms of evaluation indexes and representation of the hydrograph. (2) The GPP method performs better than BMA in improving both EPF and ESP performances, and the improvements are more significant for the NCEP with worse raw performances. (3) Both ECMWF and NCEP have good potential for both EPF and ESP. By using the GPP method, there are desirable EPF performances for both ECMWF and NCEP at all 7 lead days, as well as highly skillful ECMWF ESP for 1~5 lead days and average moderate skillful NCEP ESP for all 7 lead days. The results of this study can provide a reference for the applications of TIGGE over mountain river basins.

Based on the ensemble precipitation forecast data in the summers of 2014–2018 from the Observing System Research and Predictability Experiment (THORPEX) Interactive Grand Global Ensemble (TIGGE), a comparative study of two multi-model ensemble methods, the Bayesian model average (BMA) and the logistic regression (LR), was conducted. Meanwhile, forecasts of heavy precipitation from the two models over the Wujiang River Basin in China for the summer of 2018 were compared to verify their performances. The training period sensitivity test results show that a training period of 2 years was the best for BMA probability forecast model. Compared with the BMA method, the LR model required more statistical samples and its optimal length of the training period was 5 years. According to the Brier score (BS), for precipitation events exceeding 10 mm with lead times of 1–7 days, the BMA outperformed the LR and the raw ensemble prediction system forecasts (RAW) except for forecasts with a lead time of 1 day. Furthermore, for heavy rainfall events exceeding 25 and 50 mm, the RAW and the BMA performed much the same in terms of prediction. The reliability diagram of the two multi-model ensembles (i.e., BMA and LR) was more reliable than the RAW for heavy and moderate rainfall forecasts, and the BMA model had the best performance. The BMA probabilistic forecast can produce a highly concentrated probability density function (PDF) curve and can also provide deterministic forecasts through analyzing percentile forecast results. With regard to the heavy rainfall forecast in mountainous areas, it is recommended to refer to the forecast with a larger percentile between the 75th and 90th percentiles. Nevertheless, extreme events with low probability forecasts may occur and cannot be ignored.

Ensemble precipitation forecasts (EPFs) can help to extend lead times and provide reliable probabilistic forecasts, which have been widely applied for streamflow predictions by driving hydrological models. Nonetheless, inherent biases and under-dispersion in EPFs require post-processing for accurate application. It is imperative to explore the skillful lead time of post-processed EPFs for summer streamflow predictions, particularly in mountainous regions. In this study, four popular EPFs, i.e., the CMA, ECMWF, JMA, and NCEP, were post-processed by two state of art methods, i.e., the Bayesian model averaging (BMA) and generator-based post-processing (GPP) methods. These refined forecasts were subsequently integrated with the Xin’anjiang (XAJ) model for summer streamflow prediction. The performances of precipitation forecasts and streamflow predictions were comprehensively evaluated before and after post-processing. The results reveal that raw EPFs frequently deviate from ensemble mean forecasts, particularly underestimating torrential rain. There are also clear underestimations of uncertainty in their probabilistic forecasts. Among the four EPFs, the ECMWF outperforms its peers, delivering skillful precipitation forecasts for 1–7 lead days and streamflow predictions for 1–4 lead days. The effectiveness of post-processing methods varies, yet both GPP and BMA address the under-dispersion of EPFs effectively. The GPP method, recommended as the superior method, can effectively improve both deterministic and probabilistic forecasting accuracy. Moreover, the ECMWF post-processed by GPP extends the effective lead time to seven days and reduces the underestimation of peak flows. The findings of this study underscore the potential benefits of adeptly post-processed EPFs, providing a reference for streamflow prediction over mountain river basins.