Advertisement

Quantifying Discontinuity, Connectivity, Variability, and Hierarchy in Overland Flow Generation: Comparison of Different Modeling Methods

  • Xuefeng ChuEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Water Science and Technology Library book series (WSTL, volume 81)

Abstract

Under the influence of surface topography, overland flow generation and surface runoff exhibit extremely high variability and discontinuity, featuring a hierarchical pattern of connectivity and threshold behavior. Quantifying these properties is crucial to better understand the intrinsic mechanisms of overland flow generation and further improve hydrologic and water quality modeling across varying spatiotemporal scales. This research focused on the theory of threshold hydrology, including new methods for delineation of depression-dominated land surfaces and new approaches for modeling of puddle filling-spilling-merging-splitting dynamics. Comparisons with traditional delineation and modeling approaches demonstrated the existence of threshold behavior in overland flow generation, nonuniformity in evolution of hydrologic connectivity and runoff initiation, and hierarchy in drainage network development. This research emphasized the dominance of surface topography on surface and subsurface hydrologic processes.

Notes

Acknowledgements

This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. EPSCoR Award IIA-1355466 and EAR-0907588. The author would like to thank Jianli Zhang and Jun Yang for their various contributions to the related research.

References

  1. Abedini MJ, Dickinson WT, Rudra RP (2006) On depressional storages: the effect of DEM spatial resolution. J Hydrol 318(1–4):138–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Antoine M, Javaux M, Bielders C (2009) What indicators can capture runoff-relevant connectivity properties of the micro-topography at the plot scale? Adv Water Resour 32(8):1297–1310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Antoine M, Javaux M, Bielders C (2011) Integrating subgrid connectivity properties of the micro-topography in distributed runoff models, at the interrill scale. J Hydrol 403:213–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Appels WM, Bogaart PW, van der Zee SEATM (2011) Influence of spatial variations of microtopography and infiltration on surface runoff and field scale hydrological connectivity. Adv Water Resour 34(2):303–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chi Y, Yang J, Bogart D, Chu X (2012) Fractal analysis of surface microtopography and its application in understanding hydrologic processes. Trans ASABE 55(5):1781–1792CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chu X (2011) Characterization of microtopography and its hydrologic significance. In: Wang X (ed) Modeling hydrologic effects of microtopographic features. Nova Science Publishers Inc., pp 1–14Google Scholar
  7. Chu X (2015) Delineation of pothole-dominated wetlands and modeling of their threshold behaviors. J Hydrol Eng D5015003Google Scholar
  8. Chu X, Marino MA (2005) Determination of ponding condition and infiltration into layered soils under unsteady conditions. J Hydrol 313:195–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chu X, Zhang J, Chi Y, Yang J (2010) An improved method for watershed delineation and computation of surface depression storage. In: Potter KW, Frevert DK (eds) Watershed management 2010: innovations in watershed management under land use and climate change, Proceedings of the 2010 watershed management conference. American Society of Civil Engineers, pp 1113–1122Google Scholar
  10. Chu X, Yang J, Chi Y, Zhang J (2013) Dynamic puddle delineation and modeling of puddle-to-puddle filling-spilling-merging-splitting overland flow processes. Water Resour Res 49(6):3825–3829CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chu X, Padmanabhan G, Bogart D (2015) Microtopography-controlled overland flow generation: laboratory and field experiments. Appl Environ Soil Sci 2015:11 (Article ID 642952)Google Scholar
  12. Darboux F, Huang C (2005) Does soil roughness increase or decrease water and particle transfer? Soil Sci Soc Am J 69(3):748–756CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Darboux F, Davy P, Gascuel-Odoux C, Huang C (2001) Evolution of soil surface roughness and flowpath connectivity in overland flow experiments. Catena 46(2–3):125–139Google Scholar
  14. Garbrecht J, Martz LW (2000) TOPAZ: an automated digital landscape analysis tool for topographic evaluation, drainage identification, watershed segmentation and subcatchment parameterization: TOPAZ User Manual. Grazinglands Research Laboratory, USDA Agricultural Research Services, El Reno, OKGoogle Scholar
  15. Govers G, Takken I, Helming K (2000) Soil roughness and overland flow. Agronomie 20(2):131–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hansen B, Schjonning P, Sibbesen E (1999) Roughness indices for estimation of depression storage capacity of tilled soil surfaces. Soil Tillage Res 52(1–2):103–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jenson SK, Domingue JO (1988) Extracting topographic structure from digital elevation data for geographic information system analysis. Photogramm Eng Remote Sens 54(11):1593–1600Google Scholar
  18. Johnson CB, Mannering JV, Moldenhauer WC (1979) Influence of surface roughness and clod size and stability on soil and water losses. Soil Sci Soc Am J 43:772–777CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kamphorst EC, Jetten V, Guerif J, Pitkanen J, Iversen BV, Douglas JT, Paz A (2000) Predicting depression storage from soil surface roughness. Soil Sci Soc Am J 64(5):1749–1758CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lehmann P, Hinz C, McGrath G, Tromp-van Meerveld HJ, McDonnell JJ (2007) Rainfall threshold for hillslope outflow: an emergent property of flow pathway connectivity. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 11:1047–1063CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Leibowitz SG, Vining KC (2003) Temporal connectivity in a prairie pothole complex. Wetlands 23(1):13–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Maidment DR (2002) Arc hydro GIS for water resources. ESRI Press, CalifGoogle Scholar
  23. Martin Y, Valeo C, Tait M (2008) Centimetre-scale digital representations of terrain and impacts on depression storage and runoff. Catena 75(2):223–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Martz LW, Garbrecht J (1993) Automated extraction of drainage network and watershed data from digital elevation models. Water Resour Bull 29(6):901–908CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. McDonnell JJ (2003) Where does water go when it rains? Moving beyond the variable source area concept of rainfall-runoff response. Hydrol Process 17:1869–1875CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mushet DM, Goldhaber MB, Mills CT, McLean KI, Aparicio VM, McCleskey RB, Holloway JM, Stockwell CA (2015) Chemical and biotic characteristics of Prairie Lakes and Large Wetlands in South-Central North Dakota—effects of a changing climate, Scientific Investigations Report 2015-5126, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VAGoogle Scholar
  27. O’Callaghan JF, Mark DM (1984) The extraction of drainage networks from digital elevation data. Comput Vis Graph Image Process 28:323–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Spence C (2007) On the relation between dynamic storage and runoff: a discussion on thresholds, efficiency, and function. Water Resour Res 43:W12416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Tarboton DG (1997) A new method for the determination of flow directions and contributing areas in grid digital elevation models. Water Resour Res 33(2):309–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Tarboton DG, Sazib N, Dash P (2015) TauDEM 5.3 quick start guide to using the TauDEM, ArcGIS, Toolbox. Available at http://hydrology.usu.edu/taudem/taudem5/documentation.html
  31. USACE (2013) HEC-GeoHMS geospatial hydrologic modeling extension, User’s Manual, Version 10.1, CPD-77. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Hydrologic Engineering Center, Davis, CAGoogle Scholar
  32. USACE (2015) Hydrologic modeling system HEC-HMS, User’s Manual, Version 4.1, CPD-74A. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Hydrologic Engineering Center, Davis, CAGoogle Scholar
  33. Van der Kamp G, Hayashi M (2009) Groundwater-wetland ecosystem interaction in the semiarid glaciated plains of North American. J Hydrogeol 17(1):203–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Winter TC, Carr MR (1980) Hydrologic setting of wetlands in the Cottonwood Lake Area, Stutsman County, North Dakota. Water-Resources Investigations, U.S. Geological Survey, Denver, CO, pp 80–99Google Scholar
  35. Winter TC, LaBaugh JW (2003) Hydrologic considerations in defining isolated wetlands. Wetlands 23(3):532–540CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. WMS (2015) Watershed modeling system, User Manual, v10.0. Aquaveo, LLC, Provo, UtahGoogle Scholar
  37. Yang J, Chu X (2013) Quantification of the spatio-temporal variations in hydrologic connectivity of small-scale topographic surfaces under various rainfall conditions. J Hydrol 505:65–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Yang J, Chu X (2015) A new modeling approach for simulating microtopography-dominated, discontinuous overland flow on infiltrating surfaces. Adv Water Resour 78:80–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Zehe E, Sivapalan M (2009) Threshold behaviour in hydrological systems as (human) geo-ecosystems: manifestations, controls, implications. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 13:1273–1297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Zhang J, Chu X (2015) Impact of DEM resolution on puddle characterization: comparison of different surfaces and methods. Water 7:2293–2313CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil and Environmental EngineeringNorth Dakota State UniversityFargoUSA

Personalised recommendations