This model archive provides all data, code, and modeling results used in Barclay and others (2023) to assess the ability of process-guided deep learning stream temperature models to accurately incorporate groundwater-discharge processes. We assessed the performance of an existing process-guided deep learning stream temperature model of the Delaware River Basin (USA) and explored four approaches for improving groundwater process representation: 1) a custom loss function that leverages the unique patterns of air and water temperature coupling resulting from different temperature drivers, 2) inclusion of additional groundwater-relevant catchment attributes, 3) incorporation of additional process model outputs, and 4) a composite model. The associated manuscript examines changes in the predictive accuracy, feature importance, and predictive ability in un-seen reaches resulting from each of the four approaches. This model archive includes four zipped folders for 1) Data Preparation, 2) Model Code, 3) Model Predictions, and 4) the catchment attributes that were compiled for reaches in the study area. Instructions for running data preparation and modeling code can be found in the README.md files in 01_Data_Prep and 02_Model_Code respectively. File dictionaries have also been included and serve as metadata documentation for the files and datasets within the four zipped folders.

This data release and model archive provides all data, code, and modelling results used in Topp et al. (2023) to examine the influence of deep learning architecture on generalizability when predicting stream temperature in the Delaware River Basin (DRB). Briefly, we modeled stream temperature in the DRB using two spatially and temporally aware process guided deep learning models (a recurrent graph convolution network - RGCN, and a temporal convolution graph model - Graph WaveNet). The associated manuscript explores how the architectural differences between the two models influence how they learn spatial and temporal relationships, and how those learned relationships influence a model's ability to accurately predict stream temperature as domains shift towards out-of-bounds conditions. This data release and model archive contains three zipped folders for 1) Data Preparation, 2) Modelling Code, and 3) Model Predictions. Instructions for running data preparation code and modelling code can be found in the README.md files in 01_Data_Prep and 02_Model_Code respectively.

This data release and model archive provides all data, code, and modelling results used in Topp et al. (2023) to examine the influence of deep learning architecture on generalizability when predicting stream temperature in the Delaware River Basin (DRB). Briefly, we modeled stream temperature in the DRB using two spatially and temporally aware process guided deep learning models (a recurrent graph convolution network - RGCN, and a temporal convolution graph model - Graph WaveNet). The associated manuscript explores how the architectural differences between the two models influence how they learn spatial and temporal relationships, and how those learned relationships influence a model's ability to accurately predict stream temperature as domains shift towards out-of-bounds conditions. This data release and model archive contains three zipped folders for 1) Data Preparation, 2) Modelling Code, and 3) Model Predictions. Instructions for running data preparation code and modelling code can be found in the README.md files in 01_Data_Prep and 02_Model_Code respectively.

This dataset includes model parameters and metadata used to configure models.

This dataset includes model parameters and metadata used to configure models.

This dataset includes evaluation data ("test" data) and performance metrics for water temperature predictions from multiple modeling frameworks. Process-Based (PB) models were configured and calibrated with training data to reduce root-mean squared error. Uncalibrated models used default configurations (PB0; see Winslow et al. 2016 for details) and no parameters were adjusted according to model fit with observations. Deep Learning (DL) models were Long Short-Term Memory artificial recurrent neural network models which used training data to adjust model structure and weights for temperature predictions (Jia et al. 2019). Process-Guided Deep Learning (PGDL) models were DL models with an added physical constraint for energy conservation as a loss term. These models were pre-trained with uncalibrated Process-Based model outputs (PB0) before training on actual temperature observations. Performance was measured as root-mean squared errors relative to temperature observations during the test period. Test data include compiled water temperature data from a variety of sources, including the Water Quality Portal (Read et al. 2017), the North Temperate Lakes Long-TERM Ecological Research Program (https://lter.limnology.wisc.edu/), the Minnesota department of Natural Resources, and the Global Lake Ecological Observatory Network (gleon.org). This dataset is part of a larger data release of lake temperature model inputs and outputs for 68 lakes in the U.S. states of Minnesota and Wisconsin (http://dx.doi.org/10.5066/P9AQPIVD).

This dataset includes evaluation data ("test" data) and performance metrics for water temperature predictions from multiple modeling frameworks. Process-Based (PB) models were configured and calibrated with training data to reduce root-mean squared error. Uncalibrated models used default configurations (PB0; see Winslow et al. 2016 for details) and no parameters were adjusted according to model fit with observations. Deep Learning (DL) models were Long Short-Term Memory artificial recurrent neural network models which used training data to adjust model structure and weights for temperature predictions (Jia et al. 2019). Process-Guided Deep Learning (PGDL) models were DL models with an added physical constraint for energy conservation as a loss term. These models were pre-trained with uncalibrated Process-Based model outputs (PB0) before training on actual temperature observations. Performance was measured as root-mean squared errors relative to temperature observations during the test period. Test data include compiled water temperature data from a variety of sources, including the Water Quality Portal (Read et al. 2017), the North Temperate Lakes Long-TERM Ecological Research Program (https://lter.limnology.wisc.edu/), the Minnesota department of Natural Resources, and the Global Lake Ecological Observatory Network (gleon.org). This dataset is part of a larger data release of lake temperature model inputs and outputs for 68 lakes in the U.S. states of Minnesota and Wisconsin (http://dx.doi.org/10.5066/P9AQPIVD).

This dataset includes evaluation data ("test" data) and performance metrics for water temperature predictions from multiple modeling frameworks. Process-Based (PB) models were configured and calibrated with training data to reduce root-mean squared error. Uncalibrated models used default configurations (PB0; see Winslow et al. 2016 for details) and no parameters were adjusted according to model fit with observations. Deep Learning (DL) models were Long Short-Term Memory artificial recurrent neural network models which used training data to adjust model structure and weights for temperature predictions (Jia et al. 2019). Process-Guided Deep Learning (PGDL) models were DL models with an added physical constraint for energy conservation as a loss term. These models were pre-trained with uncalibrated Process-Based model outputs (PB0) before training on actual temperature observations. Performance was measured as root-mean squared errors relative to temperature observations during the test period. Test data include compiled water temperature data from a variety of sources, including the Water Quality Portal (Read et al. 2017), the North Temperate Lakes Long-TERM Ecological Research Program (https://lter.limnology.wisc.edu/), the Minnesota department of Natural Resources, and the Global Lake Ecological Observatory Network (gleon.org). This dataset is part of a larger data release of lake temperature model inputs and outputs for 68 lakes in the U.S. states of Minnesota and Wisconsin (http://dx.doi.org/10.5066/P9AQPIVD).

This dataset includes compiled water temperature data from a variety of sources, including the Water Quality Portal (Read et al. 2017), the North Temperate Lakes Long-TERM Ecological Research Program (https://lter.limnology.wisc.edu/), the Minnesota department of Natural Resources, and the Global Lake Ecological Observatory Network (gleon.org). This dataset is part of a larger data release of lake temperature model inputs and outputs for 68 lakes in the U.S. states of Minnesota and Wisconsin (http://dx.doi.org/10.5066/P9AQPIVD).

This dataset provides model specifications used to estimate water temperature from a process-based model (Hipsey et al. 2019). The format is a single JSON file indexed for each lake based on the "site_id". This dataset is part of a larger data release of lake temperature model inputs and outputs for 68 lakes in the U.S. states of Minnesota and Wisconsin (http://dx.doi.org/10.5066/P9AQPIVD).