Hydrologic Modeling of Wetlands

Reference work entry

Abstract

This chapter provides a brief compilation of reference works on hydrologic modeling of wetlands. Hydrology, which is the study of water circulation and its constituents through a water cycle on or near the land surface, is the primary driving force determining the structure and functions of wetlands. Developing a robust wetland model requires understanding the main hydrologic processes occurring in its drainage area. Succinct discussions of hydrologic model types, simulation models for wetland hydrology, and key modeling considerations are presented here.

Keywords

Hydrology Wetland water budget Hydrologic modeling 

References

  1. Arnold JG, Srinivasan R, Muttiah RS, Williams JR. Large‐area hydrologic modeling and assessment. Part I. Model development. J Am Water Resour Assoc. 1998;34(1):73–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arnold JG, Allen PM, Morgan D. Hydrologic model for design of constructed wetlands. Wetlands. 2001;21(2):167–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beasley DB, Huggins LF. ANSWERS: user manual. Great Lakes National Program Office. USEPA-905/9-82-001; 1982.Google Scholar
  4. Bekele EG, Demissie M, Lian Y. Optimizing the placement of best management practices (BMPs) in agriculturally-dominated watersheds in Illinois. In: World Environmental and Water Resources Congress; 2011. p. 2890–900.Google Scholar
  5. Bengston ML, Padmanabhan G. A review of models for investigating the influence of wetlands on flooding. Fargo: North Dakota Water Resources Research Institute; 1999.Google Scholar
  6. Broadhead RG, Skaggs RW. Hydrologic effects of peat mining. Paper no. 84-2068. St. Joseph: American Society of Agricultural Engineering; 1984.Google Scholar
  7. Campbell KL, Johnson HP. Hydrologic simulation of watersheds with artificial drainage. Water Resour Res. 1975;11(1):120–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Costanza R, Sklar FH. Articulation, accuracy, and effectiveness of mathematical models: a review of freshwater wetland applications. Ecol Model. 1985;27:45–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Demissie M, Akanbi AA, Khan A. Hydrologic modeling if landscape functions of wetlands. Champaign: Illinois State Water Survey; 1997.Google Scholar
  10. Donigan AS, Bicknell BR, Imhoff JC. HSPF: hydrological simulation program-Fortran. In: Singh VP, editor. Computer models of watershed hydrology. Englewood: Water Resources Publications; 1995.Google Scholar
  11. Feldman AD. HEC-1 flood hydrograph package In: Singh VP, editor. Computer models of watershed hydrology, Highlands Ranch, Colorado: Water Resources Publications; 1995.Google Scholar
  12. Haan CT, Johnson HP. Hydraulic model of runoff from depressional areas: development of the Model. ASAE. 1968;11(3):368–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Havnø K, Madsen MN, Dørge J. MIKE11: a generalized river modeling package. In: Singh VP, editor. Computer models of watershed hydrology. Englewood: Water Resources Publications; 1995. p. 733–82.Google Scholar
  14. Healy RW. Simulation of solute transport in variably saturated porous media with supplemental information on modification to the U.S. Geological Survey’s Computer Program VS2D. Water Resources Investigations Report 90-4025. Denver; 1990.Google Scholar
  15. Maidment DR. Hydrology. In: Maidment DR, editor. Handbook of hydrology. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1992.Google Scholar
  16. Mansell RS, Bloom SA, Sun G. A model for wetland hydrology: description and validation. Soil Sci. 2000;165(5):384–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. McDonald MG, Harbaugh AW. A modular three-dimensional finite-difference ground-water flow model. United States Geological Survey: techniques of water resources investigations report, Chapter A1; 1988.Google Scholar
  18. Moore ID, Larson CL. Effects of drainage projects on surface runoff from small depressional watersheds in the north central region. Water Resources Research Center: Bulletin No. 99. St. Paul: University of Minnesota; 1979.Google Scholar
  19. Nichols JC, Timpe MP. Use of HSPF to Stimulate the Dynamics of Phosphorus in floodplain wetlands over a Wide Range of Hydrologic Regimes. In: Proceedings of stormwater and water quality model users group meeting. 1985.Google Scholar
  20. Ogawa H, Male JW. Simulating the flood mitigation role of wetlands. J Water Resour Plan Manag. 1986;112(1):114–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Refsgaard JC, Storm B. MIKE SHE. In: Singh VP, editor. Computer models of watershed hydrology. Englewood: Water Resources Publications; 1995. p. 809–46.Google Scholar
  22. Rossman LA. Storm water management model user’s manual version 5.0. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development. Cincinnati: EPA/600/R-05/040; 2005.Google Scholar
  23. Skaggs RW. A water management model for artificially drained soils. Water Resources Research Institute: Bulletin No. 267. Raleigh: North Carolina State University; 1980.Google Scholar
  24. Sun G, Riekerk H, Comerford NB. Modeling the forest hydrology of wetland-upland ecosystems in Florida. J Am Water Resour Assoc. 1998;34(4):827–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Thompson JR, Refstrup SH, Gavin H, Refsgaard A. Application of the coupled MIKE SHE/MIKE 11 modeling system to a lowland wet grassland in Southeast England. J Hydrol. 2004;293:151–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. USACE. Comparison of modeling techniques for wetland areas. Hydrologic Engineering Center: Project Report No. 88-4. St. Paul; 1988.Google Scholar
  27. USEPA. Methods for evaluating wetland condition: wetland hydrology. Washington, DC: Office of Water; 2008.Google Scholar
  28. Walton R, Chapman RS, Davis JE. Development and application of the wetlands dynamic water budget model. Wetlands. 1996;16(3):347–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. William JM, Gosselink JG. Wetlands. 3rd ed. New York: Wiley; 2000.Google Scholar
  30. Yergeau SE. Development and application of a coupled SWMM-MODFLOW model for an urban wetland. New Brunswick: UMI Dissertations Publishing; 2010.Google Scholar

Copyright information

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

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Illinois State Water Survey, Prairie Research InstituteUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignChampaignUSA

Personalised recommendations