Towards a process-oriented HRU-concept in SWAT: Catchment-related control on baseflow and storage of landscape units in medium to large river basins.

Similar documents
Hydrologic Modelling of the Upper Malaprabha Catchment using ArcView SWAT

Impact of DEM Resolution on Topographic Indices and Hydrological Modelling Results

Governing Rules of Water Movement

MODULE 8 LECTURE NOTES 2 REMOTE SENSING APPLICATIONS IN RAINFALL-RUNOFF MODELLING

Basin characteristics

Current and Future Plans. R. Srinivasan

SWAT2009_LUC: A TOOL TO ACTIVATE LAND USE CHANGE MODULE IN SWAT 2009

MODULE 7 LECTURE NOTES 5 DRAINAGE PATTERN AND CATCHMENT AREA DELINEATION

12 SWAT USER S MANUAL, VERSION 98.1

Characterisation of valleys from DEMs

HYDROLOGIC AND WATER RESOURCES EVALUATIONS FOR SG. LUI WATERSHED

How to integrate wetland processes in river basin modeling? A West African case study

Distinct landscape features with important biologic, hydrologic, geomorphic, and biogeochemical functions.

Susquehanna River Basin A Research Community Hydrologic Observatory. NSF-Funded Infrastructure Proposal in Support of River Basin Hydrologic Sciences

FRACTAL RIVER BASINS

Floodplain modeling. Ovidius University of Constanta (P4) Romania & Technological Educational Institute of Serres, Greece

13 Watershed Delineation & Modeling

Welcome to NetMap Portal Tutorial

2 Development of a Physically Based Hydrologic Model of the Upper Cosumnes Basin

Use of SWAT to Scale Sediment Delivery from Field to Watershed in an Agricultural Landscape with Depressions

Application of GIS to derive Hydrological Response Units for hydrological modelling in the Brol catchment, Germany

Surface Processes Focus on Mass Wasting (Chapter 10)

Overview of fluvial and geotechnical processes for TMDL assessment

SUB CATCHMENT AREA DELINEATION BY POUR POINT IN BATU PAHAT DISTRICT

Introduction Fluvial Processes in Small Southeastern Watersheds

Modelling wetland extent using terrain indices, Lake Taupo, NZ

International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research, Volume 6, Issue 8, August ISSN

Figure 1. Which part of the river is labelled in Figure 1? a) Mouth b) Source c) Lower course d) channel

mountain rivers fixed channel boundaries (bedrock banks and bed) high transport capacity low storage input output

A GIS-based Approach to Watershed Analysis in Texas Author: Allison Guettner

Laboratory Exercise #3 The Hydrologic Cycle and Running Water Processes

Delineating the major landforms of catchments using an objective hydrological terrain analysis method

ENGRG Introduction to GIS

How to Build a Landscape Topographic Map Exercise Walk Through Earth Science Essentials by Russ Colson

INTRODUCTION TO HEC-HMS

Using Earthscope and B4 LiDAR data to analyze Southern California s active faults

River Processes. Drainage Basin Morphometry

Flood Forecasting Tools for Ungauged Streams in Alberta: Status and Lessons from the Flood of 2013

Extension of the WASA model: Water and sediment routing in the river network

Pilot area description Aalborg south

Analysis of High Resolution Multi-frequency, Multipolarimetric and Interferometric Airborne SAR Data for Hydrologic Model Parameterization

Digital Elevation Models. Using elevation data in raster format in a GIS

Each basin is surrounded & defined by a drainage divide (high point from which water flows away) Channel initiation

Analyzing spatial and temporal variation of water balance components in La Vi catchment, Binh Dinh province, Vietnam

Liliana Pagliero June, 15 th 2011

Watershed Modeling with GIS and Remote Sensing

The role of near-stream riparian zones in the hydrology of steep upland catchments


Tropics & Sub-Tropics. How can predictive approaches be improved: Data Sparse Situations

Model Integration - How WEPP inputs are calculated from GIS data. ( ArcGIS,TOPAZ, Topwepp)

Dan Miller + Kelly Burnett, Kelly Christiansen, Sharon Clarke, Lee Benda. GOAL Predict Channel Characteristics in Space and Time

Hillslope Hydrology Q 1 Q Understand hillslope runoff processes. 2. Understand the contribution of groundwater to storm runoff.

ENGRG Introduction to GIS

Flow on terrains (II)

Using Remote Sensing to Analyze River Geomorphology

Objectives: After completing this assignment, you should be able to:

Applications of a GIS Floodplain Mapping Model valley identification, connectivity indexing, and emergency management.

EXAMPLE WATERSHED CONFIGURATIONS

Nutrient Delivery from the Mississippi River to the Gulf of Mexico and Effects of Cropland Conservation

Coupling a basin erosion and river sediment transport model into a large scale hydrological model

Workshop: Build a Basic HEC-HMS Model from Scratch

Watershed concepts for community environmental planning

Introduction to the Hydrogeomorphic (HGM) Classification System

Two-Step Calibration Method for SWAT

Evaluation of the two stage ditch as a best management practice. A. Hodaj, L.C. Bowling, C. Raj, I. Chaubey

SNOW AND GLACIER HYDROLOGY

Earth Science Chapter 9. Day 6 - Finish Capillary Action Lab - Quiz over Notes - Review Worksheets over Sections 9.2 and 9.3

Challenges in Calibrating a Large Watershed Model with Varying Hydrogeologic Conditions

Forest Hydrology: Lect. 9. Contents. Runoff, soil water and infiltration

Flow regime, floodplain inundation and floodplain waterbody connectivity at Congaree National Park

Earth Science Chapter 6 Section 2 Review

Watershed Application of WEPP and Geospatial Interfaces. Dennis C. Flanagan

RIVERS, GROUNDWATER, AND GLACIERS

A Simple Drainage Enforcement Procedure for Estimating Catchment Area Using DEM Data

Lab Final Review 4/16/18

Defining the Limit of Regulated Areas. C.1 Defining the River or Stream Flood Hazard 138. C.2 Defining the River or Stream Erosion Hazard 139

Squaw Creek. General Information

Prentice Hall EARTH SCIENCE

1/28/16. EGM101 Skills Toolbox. Map types. Political Physical Topographic Climate Resource Road. Thematic maps (use one of the above as backdrop)

Lidar data in water resources applications. Paola Passalacqua CE 374K Lecture, April 5 th, 2012

Rapid Flood Mapping Using Inundation Libraries

UNRAVELING THE HISTORY OF A LANDSCAPE: Using geomorphology, tephrochronology, and stratigraphy. Photo by: Josh Roering

GRAPEVINE LAKE MODELING & WATERSHED CHARACTERISTICS

RESTORATION DESIGN FOR REROUTED WATERCOURSES

Assessment of solid load and siltation potential of dams reservoirs in the High Atlas of Marrakech (Moorcco) using SWAT Model

ADDRESSING GEOMORPHIC AND HYDRAULIC CONTROLS IN OFF-CHANNEL HABITAT DESIGN

Figure 0-18: Dendrogeomorphic analysis of streambank erosion and floodplain deposition (from Noe and others, 2015a)

How Do Human Impacts and Geomorphological Responses Vary with Spatial Scale in the Streams and Rivers of the Illinois Basin?

Ch 10 Deposition Practice Questions

Pilot area description Tissoe

ISSN Vol.03,Issue.10 May-2014, Pages:

Laboratory Exercise #4 Geologic Surface Processes in Dry Lands

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOMATICS AND GEOSCIENCES Volume 1, No 4, 2011

GeoWEPP Tutorial Appendix

Gully erosion and associated risks in the Tutova basin Moldavian Plateau

CE 394K.3 GIS in Water Resources Midterm Quiz Fall There are 5 questions on this exam. Please do all 5. They are of equal credit.

Landslides & Debris Flows

Fluvial Systems Lab Environmental Geology Lab Dr. Johnson

Stream Geomorphology. Leslie A. Morrissey UVM July 25, 2012

Dr. S.SURIYA. Assistant professor. Department of Civil Engineering. B. S. Abdur Rahman University. Chennai

Transcription:

Towards a process-oriented HRU-concept in SWAT: Catchment-related control on baseflow and storage of landscape units in medium to large river basins. Martin Volk 1), J.G. Arnold 2), P.M. Allen 3), Pei-Yu Chen 4) 1) UFZ Centre for Environmental Research Leipzig-Halle, Germany 2) USDA-ARS Grassland, Soil & Water Research Lab, Temple, Texas, USA 3) Baylor University, Department of Geology, Waco, Texas, USA 4) Blackland Research and Extension Center, TAES, Temple, Texas, USA Email: martin.volk@ufz.de http//www.ufz.de

Landscape units and storage: What are the main controlling factors for baseflow and storage? Different terrain units and landscape types show different hydrological characteristics (suitable land use and management systems!) Degree of complexity depends on landscape heterogeneity and scales Description of the hydrological connections (topology) in models is complex (HRUs) SWAT

Procedure: USDA-ARS - UFZ Differentiation between valley floor, hill slope and ridge top Relating the landscape positions to terrain-based metrics, climate and hydrological analysis Linkage of the resulting units

Study areas Example: Saale river basin and subbasins USDA-ARS - UFZ 16 Basins from 47 to 23,000 km² Excellent data base from joint project

Overview: Existing concepts for HRUs and other process units USDA-ARS - UFZ - Hydrological Similarity Units (HSU), Dynamic Topmodel, (Beven & Freer 2001, Tilch et al., 2002) - HRU concept by Jena group (PRMS, MMS, OMS; Flügel 1996, Staudenrausch 2001,Bongartz 2002) -- cooperation - Multi-resolution Index for Valley Bottom Flatness (MRVBF) (Gallant & Dowling 2003) -- cooperation

Slope position (USDA Forest Service 1999) Valleys and ridgelines are identified via flow accumulation (Grid module in Arc/Info). All cells with a downhill flow accumulation greater or equal than the limit for minimum flow accumulation valley will be considered as valley floor, and receive a value of 0 in the outgrid. The uphill flow accumulation at a cell is equal to the number of cells downridge of that cell. It is calculated by multiplying elevation by 1 and then calculating downhill flow accumulation.

Slope position (USDA Forest Service 1999) Slope position is calculated for the cells in the output grid as the elevation of each cell relative to the elevation of the valley the cell flows down to and the ridge it flows up to (vertical distance z). This is presented as a ratio, ranging from 0 (valley floor) to 100 (ridge top). Method shows good results (better as with object-based program ecognition, using very complex algorithms ) - problem is to find the right threshold values for defining valley floor, hill slope and ridge top

Slope position (USDA Forest Service 1999) - How to validate? (a) Floodplain sediments and soils (b) Different scales (c) Morphometric parameters Relief amplitude LS-Factor LS-Factor

Landscape units, basin characteristics and storage Dimensionless Indices used for basin characterization (Selection): Basin areas Proportion of delineated landscape units Average slope angle Stream length and drainage density (L/A) Hypsometric Integral Climate index (rainfall/pet) Mean soil AWC Baseflow index (bf/strf) Int = Elev mean Elev min Elev max - Elev min

Hydrological analysis Streamflow data Area-weighted to basins Input for baseflow recession analysis Baseflow separation and recession analysis Contribution of baseflow to streamflow Recession constant alpha resp. baseflow days as an indicator for transmissivity and storage. Low number bfd = rapid drainage and little storage High number bfd = slow drainage and high storage

First results Strongest correlations to: basin size (r²= 0.81) stream length (r² = 0.81) climate index (r²= 0.75) baseflow index (r²= 0.75) drainage density (r²= 0.72) valley floor (r²= 0.59) Best results for basins >300 km² (more linear behavior) Results confirmed by testing a macro model on 49 other gauges of the Saale river basin Further development of the macro model

Scale- and catchment-related control on storage behavior Controlling factors Increasing Linear behavior (integrating effects) Basin area Channel length Non-linear behavior (importance of single factors) Climate index Base flow index Drainage density Subsurface contact time Landscape units (proportion) Topographic Index Land use (arable land) Hypsometric Integral Stream flow response level Slope, soil, etc. surface flow Base flow stream 0 300-500 Several thousand Basin size [km 2 ] M. Volk, 2004

Next steps (1): Storage volume on different scale levels - testing the methods River basin level (1): simple approach: V FP = Area FP * Depth soil * Water content variable River basin level (2): Maximum Baseflow (Filter): V m = Q 0 / α Level valley section / river cross profile: comparison calculation river basin / small-size (numerical approach)

Level Valley section / river cross profile: Comparison calculation River basin / small-size (numerical approach) Level Valley section : Naumburg- 231.2 188.1 18.6 Level river cross profile : Saaleck V s = Sy YW (α 1 + (Y / w tanβ) - Profiles and calculated volumes have been multiplied. Areas 1.9 to 3.9% deviation compared to GIS-delineation Valley Storage volume Storage volume Deviation section V FP = Floodplain Profile area * floodplain Valley depth area * Specific Yield [%] - Sections Halle-Naumburg [mm] and [mm] Naumburg-Saaleck have Hallebeen selected. 212.8 212.5 0.1 Naumburg

Next steps (2) Methods for a rule-based delineation of the units (among others streamorder - valley width) Maximum Storage of valley floors Comparing and testing the new concept and developments in areas with hydrological instrumentation and/or surveys : Linear vs. non-linear methods (coop. with H. Wittenberg) Tracer experiments (isotopes) to quantify the water flows Existing HRU vs. new concept(s) Transforming the application into the Preprocessing tool of AVSWAT

SWAT 200X. Current research: Landscape positions (new HRUs: valley-, slope- and ridge top areas) Riparian zones (cooperation with other institutes) Bank Storage Over Bank Flood Plain Soil Flood Plain Riparian Zone Shallow Aquifer Flood Plain Hillslope HRU s

Thank you! USDA-ARS - UFZ