Intersite Comparisons of Rainfall‐Runoff Processes

Jones, Julia A.

doi:10.1002/0470848944.hsa129

Cited by 15 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Further advances in catchment hydrology hinge on establishing meaningful metrics for catchment comparison across and within physiographically diverse regions (Robinson, 1993; Jones, 2005; McDonnell et al , 2007; Wagener et al , 2007). It is essential to synthesize the heterogeneous wealth of information generated from decades of case studies that document hydrological processes in individual catchments (e.g.…”

Section: The Case For Storagementioning

confidence: 99%

Single Molecule Force Spectroscopy on G‐Quadruplex DNA

Lynch

Baker

Byker

et al. 2009

Chemistry A European J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Interest in guanine (G) quadruplexes [1] has intensified over the past decade because they are found in human telomeres,[2] the chromosome ends that govern gene stability, and other parts of the genome, especially in promoters.[3] They have been shown to inhibit the activity of telomerase, an enzyme which maintains the proper length of telomere DNAs and is overexpressed in many types of cancer. [4] As such, the G-quadruplex DNA has been an attractive target for cancer therapy. [5] Despite the wide interest in the topology of G-quadruplexes, their physical properties are not well-understood. [6] There are large differences between the kinetic data obtained in solution using fluorescence and on surfaces using surface plasmon resonance (SPR) approaches, [7] possibly due to destabilization by fluorophore labelling [7a-c] and surface hindrance in the indirect hybridization based SPR approach.[7d] The kinetics and thermodynamics are expected to be different for G-quadruplexes formed from uni-, bi-, and tetra-molecular DNA strands. Furthermore, G-quadruplexes formed from a single DNA strand may have different conformations, [6.7] where minor changes in the DNA sequence may result in significant differences in their thermodynamic properties. [6] By taking measurements directly on unlabelled individual single molecules, one at a time, avoiding ensemble averaging, single-molecule (SM) force spectroscopy (FS) based on atomic force microscopy (AFM) has been demonstrated as a powerful tool to gain insights to a wide range of biological problems: protein folding, [8] protein-ligand interactions, [9] and DNA base pairing. [10] Given the large number of G-quadruplex topologies possible,[1.2] SM-FS can potentially provide unique insights into their structure, function, and stability. Further, the recent development of theoretical analysis for SM approaches has enabled reliable estimates of the kinetic and thermodynamic parameters. [11] To the best of our knowledge, the AFM SM-FS has not been used to study G-quadruplex.[12] Herein, we present the first AFM based SM-FS study on a bi-molecular G-quadruplex system.We used a bi-molecular G-quadruplex formed between the AFM probe and a gold surface as the model system in this SM-FS study (see Fig. 1). The DNA sequences and their abbreviations are given in NIH-PA Author ManuscriptNIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript surface were functionalized with a self-assembled monolayer (SAM) of the 3G or 4G DNA, [13] each having two G-rich domains, diluted by the spacer DNA at a ratio of 1:5.[13] Such dilution greatly reduces the possibility for the 3G/4G DNAs from forming intra-surface quadruplexes,[13d] while ensuring the forming of an inter-surface G-quadruplex when the probe and surface are brought into close proximity, and the observation of specific Gquadruplex SM rupture events when they are pulled apart. A representative force-distance curve for the 4G/3G DNAs is shown in Fig. 1, which highlights an adhesion event followed by a stretching and the rupture of the G-qu...

show abstract

Section: The Case For Storagementioning

confidence: 99%

Single Molecule Force Spectroscopy on G‐Quadruplex DNA

Lynch

Baker

Byker

et al. 2009

Chemistry A European J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It is also a simple visual means of assessing whether our measurements of basin hydrology for a particular hydroclimatic situation represent the range of these first-order controls or if our efforts have been concentrated in only a few locations in T 3 space. This assessment in turn would facilitate the type of inter-site comparison of rainfall-runoff processes advocated by Jones (2005) for evaluating both the range in streamflow response under undisturbed conditions as well as how streamflow may change in light of natural and anthropogenic disturbance. Finally, our ability to classify basins in terms of these (or other) firstorder controls on streamflow properties may assist in informing and constraining our predictions of streamflow in ungauged basins in a given landscape, which is the focus of the ongoing PUB (prediction in ungauged basins) initiative (Sivapalan, 2003).…”

Section: Invited Commentarymentioning

confidence: 99%

Mapping first‐order controls on streamflow from drainage basins: the T³ template

Buttle

2006

Hydrological Processes

100

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent calls for drainage basin classification have highlighted the advantages of such efforts, including: identification of important controls on water fluxes and pathways; guidance on basin similarities and differences that could facilitate modelling and experimental approaches; and provision of a common language to assist in the discussions of inter-basin similarities and differences at regional, national, and global scales (McDonnell and Woods, 2004). There are several examples of basin classification in terms of hydrograph characteristics, such as the work of Richards (1990) and Poff et al. (1997) in North America and Harris et al. (2000) in the United Kingdom.These classification schemes have often been based on streamflow response, which integrates spatial patterns in hydrological processes that control streamflow measured at the gauging station (Beven, 2000), with the goal of identifying the linkages between streamflow properties and aquatic ecology. These classification efforts may be of considerable assistance in understanding the ecological significance of flow regimes and their management in order to protect or restore fluvial systems (Harris et al., 2000). However, their ability to infer the nature, magnitude, and spatial and temporal distribution of intra-basin hydrologic processes based on streamflow behaviour is limited. Information on the internal hydrologic behaviour of drainage basins is particularly needed to identify inter-basin similarities and differences in terms of their response to natural and anthropogenic disturbance (e.g. climatic change, fire, insect infestation, forest management, urban development).Alternative basin classification systems provide greater insight into the hydrologic controls on streamflow produced from drainage basins. One example is the 'hydrologic landscapes' concept proposed by Winter (2001) and colleagues (Wolock et al., 2004) for the United States. A statistical approach was used to subdivide the country into hydrologic landscape regions (HLRs) based on the combination of natural factors (climate, geology, topography) that are assumed to control the delivery of water to stream channels. Landscapes were delimited according to the balance between annual precipitation and potential evapotranspiration (P-PET), bedrock permeability, percent of sand content in soil cover, and topography. Cluster analysis was used to group over 40 000 basins (each ∼200 km 2 in size) into 20 non-contiguous regions. Wolock et al. (2004) suggest that these HLRs can assist in a variety of environmental management efforts, such as water-quality sampling network design, synthesis of results

show abstract

“…One way to further understand hydrologic behaviour is through site intercomparisons that leverage existing physiographic, hydrometric, and climate data along with robust statistical approaches. Such comparison exercises maximize the value of existing datasets and answer calls to better define first-order controls on catchment response (Ali, Roy, Turmel, & Courchesne, 2010;Blume, Zehe, & Bronstert, 2007;Jones, 2006;Jones & Swanson, 2001;Uchida, McDonnell, & Asano, 2006). Paired catchment studies have been performed extensively in forest hydrology (Bosch & Hewlett, 1982;Uchida et al, 2006), but they mostly focused on a limited number of response metrics (e.g., peak event discharge) for neighbouring catchments (Dunne, 1978;Jones, 2000).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of event‐specific rainfall–runoff responses and their controls in contrasting geographic areas

Ross

Ali

Spence

et al. 2019

Hydrological Processes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Numerous studies have examined the event‐specific hydrologic response of hillslopes and catchments to rainfall. Knowledge gaps, however, remain regarding the relative influence of different meteorological factors on hydrologic response, the predictability of hydrologic response from site characteristics, or even the best metrics to use to effectively capture the temporal variability of hydrologic response. This study aimed to address those knowledge gaps by focusing on 21 sites with contrasting climate, topography, geology, soil properties, and land cover. High‐frequency rainfall and discharge records were analysed, resulting in the delineation of over 1,600 rainfall–runoff events, which were described using a suite of hydrologic response metrics and meteorological factors. Univariate and multivariate statistical techniques were then applied to synthesize the information conveyed by the computed metrics and factors, notably measures of central tendency and variability, variation partitioning, partial correlations, and principal component analysis. Results showed that some response magnitude metrics generally reported in the literature (e.g., runoff ratio and area‐normalized peak discharge) did not vary significantly among sites. The temporal variability in site‐specific hydrologic response was often attributable to the joint influence of storage‐driven (e.g., total event rainfall and antecedent precipitation) and intensity‐driven (e.g., rainfall intensity and antecedent potential evapotranspiration) meteorological factors. Mean annual temperature and potential evapotranspiration at a given site appeared to be good predictors of hydrologic response timing (e.g., response lag and lag to peak). Response timing metrics, particularly those associated with response initiation, were also identified as the metrics most critical for capturing intrasite response variability. This study therefore contributes to the growing knowledge on event‐specific hydrologic response by highlighting the importance of response timing metrics and intensity‐driven meteorological factors, which are infrequently discussed in the literature. As few correlations were found between physiographic variables and response metrics, more data‐driven studies are recommended to further our understanding of landscape–hydrology interactions.

show abstract

Intersite Comparisons of Rainfall‐Runoff Processes

Cited by 15 publications

References 31 publications

Single Molecule Force Spectroscopy on G‐Quadruplex DNA

Single Molecule Force Spectroscopy on G‐Quadruplex DNA

Mapping first‐order controls on streamflow from drainage basins: the T³ template

Comparison of event‐specific rainfall–runoff responses and their controls in contrasting geographic areas

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Intersite Comparisons of Rainfall‐Runoff Processes

Cited by 15 publications

References 31 publications

Single Molecule Force Spectroscopy on G‐Quadruplex DNA

Single Molecule Force Spectroscopy on G‐Quadruplex DNA

Mapping first‐order controls on streamflow from drainage basins: the T3 template

Comparison of event‐specific rainfall–runoff responses and their controls in contrasting geographic areas

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Mapping first‐order controls on streamflow from drainage basins: the T³ template