Advertisement

The Wetland Book pp 1483-1489 | Cite as

Wetland Classification: Hydrogeomorphic System

  • Christine A. Semeniuk
  • Vic Semeniuk
Reference work entry

Abstract

The hydrogeomorphic classification of wetlands emphasises wetland hydrological processes and functions and their ecological significance within a generalized landscape context. In the hydrogeomorphic classification wetlands are defined as areas inundated or saturated at a frequency to support, and which normally do support, plants adapted to saturated or inundated conditions. The classification system is based on (1) geomorphic setting (i.e., topographic location), (2) dominant water source and its transport (precipitation, surface flow, subsurface flows, groundwater discharge, and artesian upwelling), and (3) hydrodynamics (e.g., the direction of flow and the strength of water movement within the wetland), and groups wetlands into seven classes: (1) DEPRESSIONAL, (2) RIVERINE, (3) MINERAL SOIL WET FLATS, (4) ORGANIC SOIL WET FLATS, (5) ESTUARINE (also referred to as TIDAL FRINGE), (6) LACUSTRINE (also referred to as LACUSTRINE FRINGE), and (7) SLOPES. The classes are considered to have distinctive “ecological character” as they represent the hydrogeomorphic functions of wetlands relating to plant structures, primary production rates, biogenic accumulation rates, and wetland sedimentary fills.

Keywords

wetland classification hydrogeomorphic classification definition of wetland 

References

  1. Brinson MM. A hydrogeomorphic classification for wetlands. Wetlands Research Program Technical Report WRP-DE-4. Vicksburg: US Army Engineer Waterways Experimental Station; 1993.Google Scholar
  2. Brinson MM. Assessing wetland functions using the hydrogeomorphic approach. Nat Wetl Newsl. 1996;18:10–6.Google Scholar
  3. Brinson MM. The United States hydrogeomorphic approach. In: Maltby E, Barker T, editors. The wetlands handbook: Wiley & Blackwell; 2009. p. 486–512.Google Scholar
  4. Brinson MM, Malvárez AI. Temperate freshwater wetlands: types, status, and threats. Environ Conserv. 2002;29(2):115–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cajander AK. Studien uber die moore Finnlands. Acta Forrestalia Fennica. 1913;2(3):1–208.Google Scholar
  6. Cajander AK. Uber Waldtypen. Acta Forrestalia Fennica. 1909;1(1):1–175.Google Scholar
  7. Couwenberg J, Joosten H, editors. CA Weber and the raised bog of Augstumal. Tula, Russia: Grif & K; 2002. p. 6–21.Google Scholar
  8. Davis CA. Peat: Essays on its origin, uses and distribution in Michigan. Report to the State Board of the Geological Survey Michigan for 1906; 1907. p. 105–73.Google Scholar
  9. Gharani S, Hrachowitz M, Fenicia F, Savenije HHG. Hydrological landscape classification: investigating the performance of HAND (height above nearest drainage) based landscapes classifications in a Central Europe mesoscale catchment. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci. 2011;15:3275–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gilvear DJ, Tellam JH, Lloyd JW, Lerner DN. The hydrodynamics of East Anglian fen systems. Edgbaston: Hydrogeology Research Group, School of Earth Sciences, University of Birmingham; 1989.Google Scholar
  11. Horton RE. Erosional development of streams and their drainage basins: hydrophysical approach to quantitative morphology. Bull Geol Soc Am. 1945;56:275–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Novitzki RP. Hydrologic characteristics of Wisconsin’s wetlands and their influence on floods, streamflow, and sediment. In: Greeson PE, Clark JR, Clark JE, editors. Wetland functions and values: the state of our understanding. Minneapolis: American Water Resource Association; 1979. p. 377–88.Google Scholar
  13. O’Brien AL, Motts WS. Hydrogeologic evaluation of wetland basins for land use planning. Water Resour Bull. 1980;16:785–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Odum HT, Copeland BJ, McMahan EA, editors. Coastal ecological systems of the United States, vol. 1. Washington, DC: The Conservation Foundation; 1974.Google Scholar
  15. Ramsar Convention. Ramsar Convention Resolution VII.10. 7th Meeting of the Conference of the Contracting Parties to the Convention on Wetlands (Ramsar, Iran, 1971), San José, Costa Rica, 10–18 May 1999.Google Scholar
  16. Rosgen DL. A classification of natural rivers. Catena. 1994;22:169–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Semeniuk CA, Semeniuk V. A geomorphic approach to global classification for inland wetlands. Vegetatio. 1995;118(1-2):103–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Semeniuk CA, Semeniuk V. A comprehensive classification of inland wetlands of Western Australia using the geomorphic-hydrologic approach. J Royal Soc West Aust. 2011;94:449–64.Google Scholar
  19. Shreve F. The ecological plant geography of Maryland; coastal zone; Western Shore District. In: Shreve F, Chrysler MA, Blodgett FH, Besley FW, editors. The plant life of Maryland. Baltimore: John Hopkins Press; 1910.Google Scholar
  20. Strahler AN. Quantitative analysis of watershed geomorphology. Am Geophy Union Transcripts. 1957;38:913–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Strahler AN. Quantitative geomorphology of drainage basins and channel networks. In: Chow VT, editor. Handbook of applied hydrology. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1964 . Sections 4–11.Google Scholar
  22. United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. Hydrogeomorphic wetland classification system: an overview and modification to better meet the needs of the Natural Resources Conservation Service. Technical Note No. 190–8–76, Feb 2008.Google Scholar
  23. Winter TC. The concept of hydrologic landscapes. J Am Water Resour Assoc. 2001;37(2):335–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.V and C Semeniuk Research GroupWarwickAustralia

Personalised recommendations