This paper is the outcome of a community initiative to identify major unsolved scientific problems in hydrology motivated by a need for stronger harmonisation of research efforts. The procedure involved a public consultation through on-line media, followed by two workshops through which a large number of potential science questions were collated, prioritised, and synthesised. In spite of the diversity of the participants (230 scientists in total), the process revealed much about community priorities and the state of our science: a preference for continuity in research questions rather than radical departures or redirections from past and current work. Questions remain focussed on process-based understanding of hydrological variability and causality at all space and time scales. Increased attention to environmental change drives a new emphasis on understanding how change propagates across interfaces within the hydrological system and across disciplinary boundaries. In particular, the expansion of the human footprint raises a new set of questions related to human interactions with nature and water cycle feedbacks in the context of complex water management problems. We hope that this reflection and synthesis of the 23 unsolved problems in hydrology will help guide research efforts for some years to come.

The new Scientific Decade 2013–2022 of IAHS, entitled “Panta Rhei—Everything Flows”, is dedicated to research activities on change in hydrology and society. The purpose of Panta Rhei is to reach an improved interpretation of the processes governing the water cycle by focusing on their changing dynamics in connection with rapidly changing human systems. The practical aim is to improve our capability to make predictions of water resources dynamics to support sustainable societal development in a changing environment. The concept implies a focus on hydrological systems as a changing interface between environment and society, whose dynamics are essential to determine water security, human safety and development, and to set priorities for environmental management. The Scientific Decade 2013–2022 will devise innovative theoretical blueprints for the representation of processes including change and will focus on advanced monitoring and data analysis techniques. Interdisciplinarity will be sought by increased efforts to connect with the socio-economic sciences and geosciences in general. This paper presents a summary of the Science Plan of Panta Rhei, its targets, research questions and expected outcomes. Editor Z.W. Kundzewicz Citation Montanari, A., Young, G., Savenije, H.H.G., Hughes, D., Wagener, T., Ren, L.L., Koutsoyiannis, D., Cudennec, C., Toth, E., Grimaldi, S., Blöschl, G., Sivapalan, M., Beven, K., Gupta, H., Hipsey, M., Schaefli, B., Arheimer, B., Boegh, E., Schymanski, S.J., Di Baldassarre, G., Yu, B., Hubert, P., Huang, Y., Schumann, A., Post, D., Srinivasan, V., Harman, C., Thompson, S., Rogger, M., Viglione, A., McMillan, H., Characklis, G., Pang, Z., and Belyaev, V., 2013. “Panta Rhei—Everything Flows”: Change in hydrology and society—The IAHS Scientific Decade 2013–2022. Hydrological Sciences Journal. 58 (6) 1256–1275.

The General Lake Model (GLM) is a one-dimensional open-source code designed to simulate the hydrodynamics of lakes, reservoirs, and wetlands. GLM was developed to support the science needs of the Global Lake Ecological Observatory Network (GLEON), a network of researchers using sensors to understand lake functioning and address questions about how lakes around the world respond to climate and land use change. The scale and diversity of lake types, locations, and sizes, and the expanding observational datasets created the need for a robust community model of lake dynamics with sufficient flexibility to accommodate a range of scientific and management questions relevant to the GLEON community. This paper summarizes the scientific basis and numerical implementation of the model algorithms, including details of sub-models that simulate surface heat exchange and ice cover dynamics, vertical mixing, and inflow–outflow dynamics. We demonstrate the suitability of the model for different lake types that vary substantially in their morphology, hydrology, and climatic conditions. GLM supports a dynamic coupling with biogeochemical and ecological modelling libraries for integrated simulations of water quality and ecosystem health, and options for integration with other environmental models are outlined. Finally, we discuss utilities for the analysis of model outputs and uncertainty assessments, model operation within a distributed cloud-computing environment, and as a tool to support the learning of network participants.

A large number and wide variety of lake ecosystem models have been developed and published during the past four decades. We identify two challenges for making further progress in this field. One such challenge is to avoid developing more models largely following the concept of others (‘reinventing the wheel’). The other challenge is to avoid focusing on only one type of model, while ignoring new and diverse approaches that have become available (‘having tunnel vision’). In this paper, we aim at improving the awareness of existing models and knowledge of concurrent approaches in lake ecosystem modelling, without covering all possible model tools and avenues. First, we present a broad variety of modelling approaches. To illustrate these approaches, we give brief descriptions of rather arbitrarily selected sets of specific models. We deal with static models (steady state and regression models), complex dynamic models (CAEDYM, CE-QUAL-W2, Delft 3D-ECO, LakeMab, LakeWeb, MyLake, PCLake, PROTECH, SALMO), structurally dynamic models and minimal dynamic models. We also discuss a group of approaches that could all be classified as individual based: super-individual models (Piscator, Charisma), physiologically structured models, stage-structured models and trait-based models. We briefly mention genetic algorithms, neural networks, Kalman filters and fuzzy logic. Thereafter, we zoom in, as an in-depth example, on the multi-decadal development and application of the lake ecosystem model PCLake and related models (PCLake Metamodel, Lake Shira Model, IPH-TRIM3D-PCLake). In the discussion, we argue that while the historical development of each approach and model is understandable given its ‘leading principle’, there are many opportunities for combining approaches. We take the point of view that a single ‘right’ approach does not exist and should not be strived for. Instead, multiple modelling approaches, applied concurrently to a given problem, can help develop an integrative view on the functioning of lake ecosystems. We end with a set of specific recommendations that may be of help in the further development of lake ecosystem models.

It is increasingly acknowledged that, in order to sustainably manage global freshwater resources, it is critical that we better understand the nature of human–hydrology interactions at the broader catchment system scale. Yet to date, a generic conceptual framework for building models of catchment systems that include adequate representation of socioeconomic systems – and the dynamic feedbacks between human and natural systems – has remained elusive. In an attempt to work towards such a model, this paper outlines a generic framework for models of socio-hydrology applicable to agricultural catchments, made up of six key components that combine to form the coupled system dynamics: namely, catchment hydrology, population, economics, environment, socioeconomic sensitivity and collective response. The conceptual framework posits two novel constructs: (i) a composite socioeconomic driving variable, termed the Community Sensitivity state variable, which seeks to capture the perceived level of threat to a community's quality of life, and acts as a key link tying together one of the fundamental feedback loops of the coupled system, and (ii) a Behavioural Response variable as the observable feedback mechanism, which reflects land and water management decisions relevant to the hydrological context. The framework makes a further contribution through the introduction of three macro-scale parameters that enable it to normalise for differences in climate, socioeconomic and political gradients across study sites. In this way, the framework provides for both macro-scale contextual parameters, which allow for comparative studies to be undertaken, and catchment-specific conditions, by way of tailored "closure relationships", in order to ensure that site-specific and application-specific contexts of socio-hydrologic problems can be accommodated. To demonstrate how such a framework would be applied, two socio-hydrological case studies, taken from the Australian experience, are presented and the parameterisation approach that would be taken in each case is discussed. Preliminary findings in the case studies lend support to the conceptual theories outlined in the framework. It is envisioned that the application of this framework across study sites and gradients will aid in developing our understanding of the fundamental interactions and feedbacks in such complex human–hydrology systems, and allow hydrologists to improve social–ecological systems modelling through better representation of human feedbacks on hydrological processes.