• The choice of energy-balance or temperature-index snowmelt modules is often ad-hoc. • Two snowmelt modules under two snow density functions are examined in SWAT model. • Cascade of uncertainty for future projections varies across spatiotemporal scales. • Snow density approach is a major control of snow depth simulation and projection. • Unlike mountains, in plain, snowmelt module uncertainties are scanty but vary in time. Snowmelt is a major driver of the hydrological cycle in cold regions, as such, its accurate representation in hydrological models is key to both regional snow depth and streamflow prediction. The choice of a proper method for snowmelt representation is often improvised; however, a thorough characterization of uncertainty in such process representations particularly in the context of climate change has remained essential. To fill this gap, this study revisits and characterizes performance and uncertainty around the two general approaches to snowmelt representation, namely Energy-Balance Modules (EBMs) and Temperature-Index Modules (TIMs). To account for snow depth simulation and projection, two common Snow Density formulations (SNDs) are implemented that map snow water equivalent (SWE) to snow depth. The major research questions we address are two-fold. First, we examine the dominant controls of uncertainty in snow depth and streamflow simulations across scales and in different climates. Second, we evaluate the cascade of uncertainty of snow depth projections resulting from impact model parameters, greenhouse gas emission scenarios, climate models and their internal variability, and downscaling processes. We enable the Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) by coupling EBM, TIM, and two SND modules for examination of different snowmelt representation methods, and Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) for uncertainty decomposition and attribution. These analyses are implemented in mountainous, foothill, and plain regions in a large snow-dominated watershed in western Canada. Results show, rather counter-intuitively, that the choice of SND is a major control of performance and uncertainty of snow depth simulation rather than the choice between TIMs and EBMs and of their uncertain parameters. Also, analysis of streamflow simulations suggest that EBMs generally overestimate streamflow on main tributaries. Finally, uncertainty decompositions show that parameter uncertainty related to snowmelt modules dominantly controls uncertainty in future snow depth projections under climate change, particularly in mountainous regions. However, in plain regions, the uncertainty contribution of model parameters becomes more variable with time and less dominant compared with the other sources of uncertainty. Overall, it is shown that the hydro-climatic and topographic conditions of different regions, as well as input data availability, have considerable effect on reproduction of snow depth, snowmelt and resulting streamflow, and on the share of different uncertainty sources when projecting regional snow depth.

A new flow for Canadian young hydrologists: Key scientific challenges addressed by research cultural shiftsCaroline Aubry-Wake1, Lauren D. Somers2,3, Hayley Alcock4, Aspen M. Anderson5, Amin Azarkhish6, Samuel Bansah7, Nicole M. Bell8, Kelly Biagi9, Mariana Castaneda-Gonzalez10, Olivier Champagne9, Anna Chesnokova10, Devin Coone6, Tasha-Leigh J. Gauthier11, Uttam Ghimire6, Nathan Glas6, Dylan M. Hrach11, Oi Yin Lai14, Pierrick Lamontagne-Halle3, Nicolas R. Leroux1, Laura Lyon3, Sohom Mandal12, Bouchra R. Nasri13, Natasa Popovic11, Tracy. E. Rankin14, Kabir Rasouli15, Alexis Robinson16, Palash Sanyal17, Nadine J. Shatilla9, 18, Brandon Van Huizen11, Sophie Wilkinson9, Jessica Williamson11, Majid Zaremehrjardy191 Centre for Hydrology, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK, Canada2 Civil and Environmental Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, MA, USA3 Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, McGill University, Montreal QC4 Department of Natural Resource Science, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada5 Department of Earth Sciences, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC, Canada6 School of Engineering, University of Guelph, Ontario, ON, Canada7 Department of Geological Sciences, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada8 Centre for Water Resources Studies, Department of Civil & Resource Engineering, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada9 School of Geography and Earth Sciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.10 Department of Construction Engineering, Ecole de technologie superieure, Montreal, QC, Canada11 Department of Geography & Environmental Management, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada12 Department of Geography and Environmental Studies, Ryerson University, Toronto, ON, Canada13 Department of Mathematics and Statistics, McGill University, Montreal, Qc, Canada14 Geography Department, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada15 Meteorological Service of Canada, Environment and Climate Change Canada, Dorval, QC, Canada16 Department of Geography and Planning, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON17 Global Institute for Water Security, University of Saskatchewan.18 Lorax Environmental Services Ltd, Vancouver, BC, Canada.19 Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada