Using a GIS Model to Identify Internally Drained Areas and Runoff Contribution in a Glaciated Watershed1

Macholl, Jacob A.; Clancy, Katherine; McGinley, Paul M.

doi:10.1111/j.1752-1688.2010.00495.x

Cited by 4 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Another additional research question raised by this study and others is the role of DEM resolution in the accuracy of different delineation methods [16] [22]. The PCSA method is sensitive to small elevation changes and will likely produce more accurate delineations as cell size decreases [16].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 84%

“…We initially hypothesized that the main variables impacting model performance would be watershed area, drainage density and percent internal drainage, with the SFM (that fill in sinks) experiencing the largest deviations from actual runoff totals [16] [22]. This was not the case for the watersheds studied, they instead did not show strong trends The CN model appears to perform differently for small and large storms when examining the model error in runoff volume versus storm size.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…Noncontributing areas serve more to store surface runoff rather than contribute it to the outlet and are characterized by a landscape with lakes and wetlands. Although the two types of internally drained areas are quite different, they can both lead to significant error in runoff and sediment estimates due to incorrect identification of contributing areas and runoff volumes [16] [18] [20]- [22].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Many hydrologic processes such as runoff and sediment transport are modeled under the assumption that all areas of the watershed are contributing. Previous studies have developed methods of processing internally drained areas within watersheds [16] [20] [24] and examined the implementation of some strategies in a handful of watersheds [22]. Alternatives to the SFM delineation method requires additional processing and time, and for these reasons they not as widely used.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Comparison of Three Delineation Methods Using the Curve Number Method to Model Runoff

Troolin¹,

Clancy²

2016

JWARP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Digital Elevation Models (DEMs) are spatial grids which are used to automate watershed boundary determination. Sinks are present within most DEMs. In order to easily process the watershed boundary, the sinks are reassigned to elevation equivalent to an adjacent cell. The derived DEM is called a "filled" DEM. Due to its relative simplicity, the use of the "filled" DEM is one of the most widely used methods to delineate watershed boundaries and works well in about 70 percent of the watersheds in the US. In landscapes with internal drainage, sinks may accurately represent these depressions. In this study, we compare two delineation methods that do not fill in sinks to another method that does fill in sinks. We examined ten gaged watersheds in Wisconsin and Minnesota. We found the spatial extent of the watersheds from the three methods were significantly different. To evaluate the delineation methods, we modeled ten runoff events using the Curve Number (CN) method and compared them to USGS gage discharge for each watershed. For small storms we found that there were no significant differences in the modeled runoff for three delineation methods. For large storms, we found the no-fill methods had a smaller error, but overall the difference was insignificant. This research suggests that capturing internal drainage by the delineation does not have much of an impact on the widely used CN model.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 84%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Comparison of Three Delineation Methods Using the Curve Number Method to Model Runoff

Troolin¹,

Clancy²

2016

JWARP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As the intensity of melting processes is correlated with elevation (Cuffey and Paterson ), therefore, elevation can serve as a proxy factor to affect the melt volumes (Guo et al ). The glaciated mountain catchments cannot easily be delineated vertically into potential and nonpotential contributing areas using only geographic information of the catchment elevation (Macholl et al ). In this paper, a critical zone approach is defined and applied in glacierized catchments to account for the spatial variability in temperature, precipitation, glacier area, altitudinal distributions of meltwater, and their effects on glacio‐hydrology.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Altitudinal Distribution of Meltwater and Its Effects on Glacio‐Hydrology in Glacierized Catchments, Central Asia

Shafeeque

Luo

Wang

et al. 2019

J American Water Resour Assoc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research Impact Statement: Critical zone controls larger portion of variability in meltwater and runoff, whereas temperature change is identified as dominant driver for total runoff changes in most of the glacierized catchments.ABSTRACT: In glacierized catchments, elevation is correlated with meltwater through its association with temperature, precipitation, and glacier hypsometry. The revelation of the altitudinal distribution of meltwater, unattended and not fully understood in previous work, might provide a better understanding of climate change impacts on glacio-hydrology. Here, critical zone approach was defined and applied in 12 glacierized catchments of the Tien Shan-Pamir-Karakorum Mountains, Central Asia using manually calibrated glacier-enhanced Soil and Water Assessment Tool model over 1966-2005. The critical zone, a sequence of elevation bands with aboveaverage snow and glacier melt, contributes maximum meltwater to total runoff. The critical zone shared 37%-95% (average = 80%) of meltwater contributions to total runoff, although its size was only 13%-30% of the total elevational relief. The critical zone controlled 76% and 82% variability in relative changes of glacier area and total runoff at the catchment scale, respectively. The increase in temperature was identified as the dominant driver for variations in total runoff in all catchments except Vakhsh and Yurungkash, where precipitation change remained dominant. Overall, glacier hypsometry limited the first-order control of meltwater distributions on glacio-hydrology. It is concluded that critical zone approach can interpret the proxy role of elevation to affect water availability under climate and glacier area change in glacierized catchments.(

show abstract

Improving Curve Number Runoff Estimates Using Dual Hydrologic Soil Classification and Potential Contributing Source Areas Delineation Methods

Miller¹,

Clancy²

2017

JWARP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Runoff models such as the Curve Number (CN) model are dependent upon land use and soil type within the watershed or contributing area. In regions with internal drainage (e.g. wetlands) watershed delineation methods that fill sinks can result in inaccurate contributing areas and estimations of runoff from models such as the CN model. Two methods to account for this inaccuracy have been 1) to adjust the initial abstraction value within the CN model; or 2) to improve the watershed delineation in order to better account for internal drainage. We used a combined approach of examining the watershed delineation, and refining the CN model by the incorporating of dual hydrologic soil classifications. For eighteen watersheds within Wisconsin, we compared the CN model results of three watershed delineation methods to USGS gaged values. We found that for large precipitation events (>100 mm) the CN model estimations are closer to observed values for watershed delineations that identify the directly connected watershed and use the undrained hydrologic soil classification.

show abstract

Using a GIS Model to Identify Internally Drained Areas and Runoff Contribution in a Glaciated Watershed1

Cited by 4 publications

References 28 publications

Comparison of Three Delineation Methods Using the Curve Number Method to Model Runoff

Comparison of Three Delineation Methods Using the Curve Number Method to Model Runoff

Altitudinal Distribution of Meltwater and Its Effects on Glacio‐Hydrology in Glacierized Catchments, Central Asia

Improving Curve Number Runoff Estimates Using Dual Hydrologic Soil Classification and Potential Contributing Source Areas Delineation Methods

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About