Process, Heterogeneity and Scale in Modelling Soil Moisture Fluxes

  • Keith Beven
Part of the NATO ASI Series book series (volume 46)

Abstract

We know that hydrological processes are highly complex. We know that the techniques available to assess the complexity of hydrological processes and parameters are inadequate, even for small scale field studies. The observability problem is particularly acute for subsurface flow processes where most measurement techniques can give only a very local indication of the hydrological response. In a series of recent papers I have highlighted some of the problems of subsurface flow modelling in the context of predicting hydrological responses at the hillslope, catchment and larger scales ; the interlinked problems of process, of heterogeneity and of scale (Beven 1987,1989a,b, 1991, 1993). There have also been a number of recent papers that have discussed these problems such as Grayson et al. (1992) but, as yet, very little in the way of progress towards resolving those problems. With some exceptions, hydrological modelling of subsurface processes continues to rely on a Darcian or Richards equation framework coupled to a concept of effective parameters with an a priori assumption that such a concept is valid regardless of the scale of application.

Keywords

Microwave Radar Convolution Geophysics Kriging 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ambroise, B (1988) Interactions eaux souterraines-eaux de surface dans le bassin de Ringelbach a Soultzeren (Hautes-Vosges), France: role hydrologique des surfaces saturees. In P Dahlblom and G Lindh (Eds.), Interaction between Groundwater and Surface Water, Proc. Int. Symp. IAHR, Ystad, 231–238, Univ. Lund, Sweden.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, M G and T P Burt (1978) The role of topography in controlling throughflow generation, Earth Surface Processes, 3, 331–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bagley, J M (1964) An application of stochastic process theory top the rainfall runoff process, Technical Report No 35, Dept. Civ. Eng. Stanford University, 118 pp.Google Scholar
  4. Beven, K J (1978) The hydrological response of headwater and sideslope areas, Hydrol. Sci. Bull., 23, 419–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Beven, K J (1979) On the generalised kinematic routing method, Water Resources Research, 15, 1238–1242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Beven, K J (1986) Runoff production and flood frequency in catchments of order n: an alternative approach. In V K Gupta, I Rodriguez-Iturbe and E F Wood (eds.), Scale Problems in Hydrology, Dordrecht, Reidel, 107–131.Google Scholar
  7. Beven, K J (1987) Towards a new paradigm in hydrology, Int. Assoc. Sci. Hydrol., Pubn. No. 164, 393–403.Google Scholar
  8. Beven, K J (1989a) Changing ideas in hydrology: the case of physically-based models, J. Hydrol., 105, 157–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Beven, K J (1989b) Interflow, in H J Morel-Seytoux (Ed.), Proc NATO ARW on Unsaturated Flow in Hydrologie Modelling, Dordrecht, Kluwer, 191–219.Google Scholar
  10. Beven, K J (1991) Spatially distributed modelling: conceptual approach to runoff prediction, in D S Bowles and P E O’Connell (eds.), Recent Advances in the Modelling of Hydrologic Systems, 373–387, Dordrecht, Kluwer.Google Scholar
  11. Beven, K J (1993) Prophesy, reality and uncertainty in hydrological modelling, Advances in Water Resources, 16, 41–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Beven, K J, and A M Binley (1992) The future of distributed models: model calibration and predictive uncertainty, Hydrol. Process., 6, 279–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Beven, K J, A Calver and E M Morris (1987) The Institute of Hydrology Distributed Model, Institute of Hydrology Report No. 98, Wallingford.Google Scholar
  14. Beven, K J and P F Germann (1981) Water flow in soil macropores. II. A combined flow model. J. Soil Sci., 32, 15–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Beven, K J and P F Germann (1982) Macropores and water flow in soils, Water Resources Research, 18, 1311–1325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Beven, K J and P F Germann (1985) A distribution function model of channelling flow in soils based on kinematic wave theory, ILRI Pubi. 37, Wageningen, 89–100.Google Scholar
  17. Beven, K J, D E Henderson and A D Reeves (1993) Dispersion parameters for undisturbed partially saturated soil, J. Hydrology, 143, 19–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Beven, K J and M J Kirkby (1979) A physically-based, variable contributing area model of basin hydrology, Hydrol. Sci. Bull., 24, 43–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Beven, K J and E F Wood (1993) Flow Routing and the hydrological response of channel networks, in K J Beven and M J Kirkby (eds.), Channel Network Hydrology, Chichester, Wiley, 99–128.Google Scholar
  20. Binley, A M, K J Beven and J Elgy (1989) A physically-based model of heterogeneous hillslopes. II Effective hydraulic conductivities, Water Resour. Res., 25, 1227–1233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Binley, A M and K J Beven (1991) Physically-based modelling of catchment hydrology: a likelihood based approach to reducing predictive uncertainty, in D G Farmer and M J Rycroft (Eds.), Computer Modelling in the Environmental Sciences, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 75–88.Google Scholar
  22. Binley, A M, K J Beven, A Calver and L G Watts (1991) Changing responses in hydrology: assessing the uncertainty in physically-based predictions, Water Resour. Res., 27, 1253–1262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Brun, C, R Bernard, D Vidal-Madjar, C Gascuel-Odoux, P Merot, J Duchesne and H Nicholas (1990) Mapping saturated areas with a helicopter-borne C Band scatterometer, Water Resources Research, 26, 945–955.Google Scholar
  24. Burt, T P and D P Butcher (1985a) Topographic controls of soil moisture distribution, J. Soil Sci., 36, 469–486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Burt, T P and D P Butcher (1985b) On the generation of delayed peaks in stream discharge, J. Hydrology, 78, 361–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Dunne, T P, T R Moore and C H Taylor (1975) Recognition and prediction of runoff producing zones in humid regions, Hydrol. Sci. Bull., 20, 305–327.Google Scholar
  27. Ganoulis, J G (1989) Multiphase flow in porous media: description at the pore and macroscopic scale, in H J Morel-Seytoux (Ed.), Unsaturated Flow in Hydrologic Modeling, 27–52, Dordrecht, Kluwer.Google Scholar
  28. Genereux, D P, H F Hemond, and P J Mulholland (1993) Spatial and temporal variability in streamflow generation on the West Fork of Walker Branch watershed, J. Hydrology, 142, 137–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Gerke, H H and M T van Genuchten (1993) A dual-porosity model for simulating the preferential movement of water and solutes in structured porous media, Water Resources Research, 29, 305–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Grayson, R B, I D Moore and T A McMahon (1992) Physically based hydrologic modeling. 2. Is the concept realistic?, Water Resources Research, 26, 2659–2666.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hoogmoed, W D and J Bouma (1980) A simulation model for predicting infiltration into cracked soil. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. J. 44, 458–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hornberger, G M, K J Beven, B J Cosby and D E Sappington (1985) Shenandoah Watershed Study: calibration of a topography-based, variable contributing area model to a small forested catchment, Water Resour. Res., 21, 1841–1850.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Homberger, G M and R C Spear (1981) An approach to the preliminary analysis of environmental systems, J. Environ. Manag., 12, 7–18.Google Scholar
  34. Huff, D D, R V O’Neill, W R Emanuel, J W Elwood and J D Newbold (1982) Flow variability and hillslope hydrology, Earth Surf. Process. Landf., 7, 91–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Jakeman, A J, I G Littlewood and P G Whitehead (1990) Computation of the instantaneous unit hydrograph and identifiable component flows with application to two small upland catchments, J. Hydrology, 117, 275–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Jensen, K H and A Mantoglou (1992) Application of stochastic unsaturated flow theory: numerical simulations and comparisons to field observations, Water Resources Research, 28, 269–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kirkby, M J (1976a) Tests of the random network model and its application to basin hydrology, earth Surface Processes, 1, 197–212.Google Scholar
  38. Kirkby, M J (1976b) Hydrograph Modelling Strategies, in R Peel, M Chisholm and P Haggett (Eds.), Processes in Physical and Human Geography, Heinemann.Google Scholar
  39. Loague, K M (1990) R-5 revisited. 2. Reevaluation of a quasi-physically-based rainfall-runoff model with supplemental information, Water Resour. Res., 26, 973–987.Google Scholar
  40. Loague, K M (1992) Soil water content at R-5. Part 2. Impact of antecedent conditions on rainfall-runoff simulations, J. Hydrology, 139, 253–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Loague, K M and R A Freeze (1985) A comparison of rainfall-runoff modelling techniques on small upland catchments, Water Resour. Res., 21, 229–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Manabe, S and R T Wetherall (1980) On the distribution of climate change resulting from an increase in CO2 content of the atmosphere, J. Atmospheric Science, 37, 99–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. McDonnell, J J (1990) A rationale for old water discharge through macropores in a steep, humid catchment, Water Resources Research, 26, 2821–2832.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Nielsen, D R, J W Biggar and K T Erh (1973) Spatial variability of field measured soil properties, Hilgardia, 42, 215–260.Google Scholar
  45. Omoti, U and A Wild (1979) Use of fluorescent dyes to mark the pathways of solute movement through soils under leaching conditions. 2. Field Experiments, Soil Science, 128, 98–104.Google Scholar
  46. Quinn, P F, K J Beven, P Chevallier and O Planchon (1991) The prediction of hillslope flow paths for distributed hydrological modelling using digital terrain models, Hydrological Processes, 5, 59–80; also in K J Beven and I D Moore (Eds.), Terrain analysis and distributed modelling in hydrology, 63–84, Chichester, Wiley.Google Scholar
  47. Refsgaard, J C, S M Seth, J C Bathurst, M Erlich, B Storm, G H Jorgensen and S Chandra (1992) Application of the SHE to catchments in India. Part 1. General Results; Part2. Field experiments and simulation studies with the SHE on the Kolar subcatchment of the Narmada River, J. Hydrology, 140, 1–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Rodriguez-Iturbe, I (1993) The Geomorphological Unit Hydrograph, in K J Beven and M J Kirkby (eds.), Channel Network Hydrology, Chichester, Wiley, 99–128.Google Scholar
  49. Schmugge, T (1993) Passive microwave sensing of soil moisture, this volume.Google Scholar
  50. Seilars, P J, Y Mintz, Y C Sud and A Dalcher (1986) A simple biosphere model (SiB) for use within General Circulation Models, J. Atmospheric Science, 43, 505–531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Sempere-Torres, D, J Y Rodriguez and Ch Oiled (1992) Using the DPFT Approach to improve flood forecasting models, Natural Hazards, 5, 17–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Sherman, L K (1932) Streamflow from runoff by the unit-hydrograph method, Engin. News. Ree, 108, 801–805.Google Scholar
  53. Sivapalan, M, K J Beven and E F Wood (1987) On hydrological similarity II. A scaled model of storm runoff production, Water Resources Research, 23, 2266–2278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Sivapalan, M, E F Wood, and K J Beven (1990) On hydrological similarity III. A dimensionless flood frequency model using a generalised geomorphological unit hydrograph and partial area runoff generation, Water Resources Research, 26, 43–58.Google Scholar
  55. Sklash, M G (1990) Environmental isotope studies of storm and snowmelt runoff generation, in M G Anderson and T P Burt (Eds.), Process studies in Hillslope Hydrology, 401–436, Chichester, Wiley.Google Scholar
  56. Troch, P A, F P De Troch and W Brutsaert (1993) Effective water table depth to describe initial conditions prior to storm rainfall in humid regions, Water Resources Research, 29, 427–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Wood, E F, M Sivapalan, K J Beven and L Band (1988) Effects of spatial variability and scale with implications to hydrological modelling, J. Hydrology, 102, 29–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Wood, E F, M Sivapalan, and K J Beven (1990) Similarity and scale in catchment storm response, Reviews of Geophysics, 28, 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Wilson, G V, P M Jardine, J D O’Dell and M Collineua (1993) Field-scale transport from a buried line source in variably saturated soil, J. Hydrology, 145, 83–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Young, P C and K J Beven (1991) Computation of the instantaneous unit hydrograph and identifiable component flows with application to two small upland catchments - Comment. J. Hydrology, 129, 389–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Keith Beven
    • 1
  1. 1.Centre for Research on Environmental Systems and Statistics Institute of Environmental and Biological SciencesLancaster UniversityLancasterUK

Personalised recommendations