Professional Documents
Culture Documents
International Center for Water Hazard and Risk Management, Public Works Research Institute, Tsukuba, Ibaraki, Japan
Institute for Water and Watersheds and Department of Forest Engineering, Resources and Management, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, USA
3
Northern Rivers Institute, School of Geosciences, University of Aberdeen, Scotland, UK
4
Water Enterprise, San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, San Francisco, CA, USA
5
Humboldt Redwood Company, Scotia, CA, USA
Abstract:
Subsurface runoff dominates the hydrology of many steep humid regions, and yet the basic elements of water collection, storage, and
discharge are still poorly understood at the watershed scale. Here, we use exceptionally dense rainfall and runoff records from two
Northern California watersheds (~100 km2) with distinct wet and dry seasons to ask the simple question: how much water can a
watershed store? Stream hydrographs from 17 sub-watersheds through the wet season are used to answer this question where we use a
simple water balance analysis to estimate watershed storage changes during a rainy season (dV). Our ndings suggest a pronounced
storage limit and then storage excess pattern; i.e. the watersheds store signicant amounts of rainfall with little corresponding runoff
in the beginning of the wet season and then release considerably more water to the streams after they reach and exceed their storage
capacities. The amount of rainfall required to ll the storages at our study watersheds is the order of a few hundred millimeters
(200500 mm). For each sub-watershed, we calculated a variety of topographic indices and regressed these against maximum dV.
Among various indices, median gradient showed the strongest control on dV where watershed median slope angle was positively
related to the maximum volume of storage change. We explain this using a hydrologically active bedrock hypothesis whereby the
amount of water a watershed can store is inuenced by lling of unrequited storage in bedrock. The amount of water required to
activate rapid rainfallrunoff response is larger for steeper watersheds where the more restricted expansion of seepage from bedrock to
the soil limits the connectivity between stored water and stream runoff. Copyright 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
KEY WORDS
INTRODUCTION
Much of the focus of watershed hydrology has been aimed
at how much water a watershed can shed (Tetzlaff et al.,
2009). Such shedding mechanisms in humid regions have
focused on combinations of inltration excess overland ow
and saturation excess overland ow (Easton et al., 2008).
Surface water shedding is readily observed, and as a result, a
good conceptual framework for overland ow type and
occurrence based on aridity indices and precipitation
intensity is now well dened in the literature (Kirkby,
2005; Reaney et al., 2007). Of course, many landscapes do
not surface saturate, and in upland humid catchments,
subsurface stormow may dominate the shedding of water,
with rainfall : runoff ratios that sometimes rival overland
ow rates (Beckers and Alila, 2004). However, unlike
overland ow shedding processes, subsurface stormow
3900
T. SAYAMA ET AL.
CA
504
505
528
526
523
506
No. 533
509
511
517
510
533
519
183
188
522
534
3 km
No. 534
Figure 1. Map of Elk River watershed (110 km2) and Freshwater Creek watershed (76 km2). The black dots represent the 17 discharge gauging stations,
and the triangles represent the ten rain gauges in the two adjacent watersheds
Copyright 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
3901
METHODS
Water balance analysis for total storage change
We used water balance analysis to estimate total storage
changes for each sub-watershed. The total storage changes
were estimated as follows:
dV t
T
X
R t Q t E t
(1)
t1
3902
T. SAYAMA ET AL.
RESULTS
Total storage changes estimated by water balance analysis
Figure 3 illustrates the relative temporal changes in
dynamic storage (dV) estimated by the water balance
approach described in Equation (1), showing the storage in
each of the Elk River watersheds initialized at the
beginning of the data record (13 October 2006) and the
relative changes during the rainy season. In the entire Elk
River watershed (no. 509), the dynamic storage increased
by about 400 mm during the rainy season. The increase was
almost linear throughout November and December and
then reached a peak at approximately 350 mm in January.
After a month of relatively dry weather in January, the
storage reduced by about 30 mm but then increased back to
its peak value because of rainfall events in February. It is
interesting to note that, although a rainfall event in the end
of February (20 February4 March) was the largest of the
measured rainfall events (total of 237 mm as averaged over
the eight rain gauges of the Elk River watershed), the
storage increase in the watershed was only about 50 mm
during that event.
The large and small sub-watersheds of the Elk River
watershed showed similar temporal patterns of the parent
watershed with progressive storage lling followed by
Recession analysis
Streamow recession analysis is another powerful tool to
investigate the characteristics of storage feeding streams
(Tallaksen, 1995; Rupp and Selker, 2005; Brutsaert, 2008;
Rupp and Woods, 2008). A recession curve contains valuable
information concerning storage properties and aquifer
characteristics (Tague and Grant, 2004; Clark et al., 2008).
Brutsaert and Nieber (1977) proposed plotting an observed
recession slope of hydrograph dQ/dt versus discharge Q
in log-log space by eliminating time as a reference:
dQ=dt f Q
(2)
Figure 3. Temporal trends of total storage changes (dV) during the wet
season for the ten gauged watersheds. The numbers in the legend represent
watershed ID number with their sizes in square kilometers in the
parentheses
Hydrol. Process. 25, 38993908 (2011)
3903
Table I. Various topographic indices and maximum total storage change (dVmax) at each watershed are listed
Watershed
No.
COR
Elk
Fresh
509
511
510
183
188
533
517
519
522
534
523
528
504
506
505
526
527
Area
(km2)
Dd
R (m)
HYP
Geol
dVmax
(mm)
0.06
0.74*
0.32
0.23
0.12
N.A.
N.A.
111.7
56.9
50.3
19.5
16.2
6.3
5.7
4.9
4.3
3.0
22.8
12.0
11.9
8.2
6.2
5.1
4.6
1.15
1.25
1.06
1.04
1.02
0.91
1.48
1.12
1.15
1.24
1.01
1.39
0.97
1.41
1.04
0.96
1.25
W
W
W
Y
Y
W
W
W
W
W
F
W
F
W
F
F
W
418.3
354.3
455.9
297.7
438.7
268.7
462.2
430.5
514.9
544.4
286.7
514.1
294.3
651.7
392.4
232.3
408.7
18.7
20.8
16.2
16.6
15.6
16.6
28.1
15.3
13.8
13.9
16.6
24.4
16.0
22.5
17.5
14.8
19.5
2338
2328
2092
1853
1621
1179
821
1641
1197
815
2678
924
1961
2198
2111
1371
1297
0.372
0.353
0.453
0.529
0.511
0.407
0.458
0.493
0.621
0.568
0.509
0.501
0.449
0.358
0.441
0.636
0.440
COR represents correlation between each topographic index and dVmax. Area is a watershed area (km2). G is a median gradient [A 10-m resolution DEM
is used to compute all the topographic indices including the median gradient (G), which is the median value of slopes for all grid cells in a sub-watershed.
The slope value for each pixel is estimated as the maximum rate of elevation change between the cell and its eight-direction neighbors]. Dd is a drainage
density. R is a relief (elevation difference between basin summit and basin outlet). HYP is a hypsometric integral [A hypsometric distribution (e.g. Luo,
1998; Vivoni et al., 2008) is depicted as the relative height (h/H) versus the relative area (a/A), where a is the area of watershed above height h, A is the
total watershed area, h is the height above the watershed outlet, and H is the total relief of the basin. Hypsometric integral (HYP) is an index calculated by
the integral of the hypsometric distribution. HYP becomes large for a watershed with convex surface, whereas HYP becomes small for a watershed with
concave surface]. Geol is a dominant geologic type (W, Wildcat formation; Y, Yeger formation; F, Franciscan formation). An asterisk (*) indicates a
correlation coefcient that is statistically signicant (p < 0.05).
3904
T. SAYAMA ET AL.
Figure 5. The relationship between median gradient G for each subwatershed and its maximum total storage change (dVmax) during the rainy
season. The symbols represent the three basic geologic units that comprise
the overall watershed area
DISCUSSION
So how much water can a watershed store?
The question of how much water a watershed requires is,
in some ways, the type of analysis of the available runoff
data advocated by Dooge (1986) and Sivapalan (2009) to
gain insights into the functioning of catchments, the
underlying landscape controls on water ux and the search
for macroscale hydrological laws. The method presented
here of watershed intercomparison capitalizes on the
extremely intensive gauging network the densest of its
kind that we are aware rather than relying on mapped
storage volumes (e.g. Spence et al., 2010). Our approach
goes beyond variable source area (Hewlett and Hibbert,
1967) and hydrogeomorphic (Sidle et al., 2000) concepts
Hydrol. Process. 25, 38993908 (2011)
3905
3906
T. SAYAMA ET AL.
Figure 7. A conceptual diagram of hydrologically active bedrock hypothesis. A steeper watershed (e.g. no. 534, right side) requires more water to ll the
weathered bedrock zone even if the depths of the soil and bedrock layers are the same as the gentler sloping watershed (e.g. no. 533, left side). In
addition, the area of bedrock groundwater exltration to the soil layers tends to be smaller at the steeper watershed; as a result, it still stores some
additional water even after the commencement of rapid runoff response
CONCLUSIONS
This work has explored watershed storage dynamics and
function associated with collection and release of water
across multiple nested watersheds in Northern California.
In many ways, the work presented in this paper is a
response to Dooges (1986) call for looking for macroscale
laws and, more recently, Sivapalans (2009) call for more
creative analysis of standard hydrological data. Our water
balance analysis from the 17 nested macroscale watersheds
revealed that each watershed stores different amounts
(varying between 200 and 500 mm of precipitation) before
actively generating storm runoff. The regression analysis
Hydrol. Process. 25, 38993908 (2011)
REFERENCES
Anderson SP, Dietrich WE. 2001. Chemical weathering and runoff
chemistry in a steep headwater catchment. Hydrological Processes 15:
17911815. DOI:10.1002/hyp.240.
Anderson SP, Dietrich WE, Montgomery DR, Torres R, Conrad ME,
Loague K. 1997. Subsurface ow paths in a steep unchanneled
catchment. Water Resources Research 33: 26372653.
Beckers J, Alila Y. 2004. A model of rapid preferential hillslope runoff
contributions to peak ow generation in a temperate rain forest
watershed. Water Resources Research 40: W03501. DOI:10.1029/
2003WR002582.
Beven K. 2006. Searching for the Holy Grail of scientic hydrology: Qt = (S,
R, t)A as closure. Hydrology Earth System Sciences 10: 609618.
Black PE. 1997. Watershed functions. Journal of the American Water
Resources Association 33(1): 111.
Brutsaert W. 2005. Hydrology: an introduction. Cambridge University
Press: UK; 605.
Brutsaert W. 2008. Long-term groundwater storage trends estimated from
streamow records: climatic perspective. Water Resources Research 44:
W02409. DOI:10.1029/2007WR006518.
Brutsaert W, Nieber JL. 1977. Regionalized drought ow hydrographs from
a mature glaciated plateau. Water Resources Research 13(3): 637643.
Burgess SSO, Dawson TE. 2004. The contribution of fog to the water
relations of Sequoia sempervirens (D. Don): foliar uptake and prevention
of dehydration. Plant, Cell & Environment 27(8): 10231034.
DOI:10.1111/j.1365-3040.2004.01207.x.
Burns DA, Plummer LN, McDonnell JJ, Busenburg E, Casile GC, Kendall
C, Hooper RP, Freer JE, Peters NE, Beven K, Schlosser P. 2003. The
geochemical evolution of riparian groundwater in a forested piedmont
catchment. Groundwater 41(7): 913925. DOI: 10.1111/j.17456584.2003.tb02434.x.
Clark MP, Rupp DE, Woods RA, Meerveld T, Peters NE, Freer JE. 2008.
Consistency between hydrological models and eld observations:
linking processes at the hillslope scale to hydrological responses at
the watershed scale. Hydrological Processes. 23(2): 311319.
DOI:10.1002/hyp.7154.
Collins ME, Doolittle JA, Rourke RV. 1989. Mapping depths to bedrock
on a glaciated landscape with ground-penetrating radar. Soil Science
Society of America Journal 53(6): 18061812.
Copyright 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
3907
3908
T. SAYAMA ET AL.