Capabilities and limitations of detailed hillslope hydrological modelling

Abstract

Abstract:Hillslope hydrological modelling is considered to be of great importance for the understanding and quanti®-cation of hydrological processes in hilly or mountainous landscapes. In recent years a few comprehensive hydrological models have been developed at the hillslope scale which have resulted in an advanced representation of hillslope hydrological processes (including their interactions), and in some operational applications, such as in runo and erosion studies at the ®eld scale or lateral¯ow simulation in environmental and geotechnical engineering. An overview of the objectives of hillslope hydrological modelling is given, followed by a brief introduction of an exemplary comprehensive hillslope model, which stimulates a series of hydrological processes such as interception, evapotranspiration, in®ltration into the soil matrix and into macropores, lateral and vertical subsurface soil water¯ow both in the matrix and preferential¯ow paths, surface runo and channel discharge. Several examples of this model are presented and discussed in order to determine the model's capabilities and limitations. Finally, conclusions about the limitations of detailed hillslope modelling are drawn and an outlook on the future prospects of hydrological models on the hillslope scale is given.The model presented performed reasonable calculations of Hortonian surface runo and subsequent erosion processes, given detailed information of initial soil water content and soil hydraulic conditions. The vertical and lateral soil moisture dynamics were also represented quite well. However, the given examples of model applications show that quite detailed climatic and soil data are required to obtain satisfactory results. The limitations of detailed hillslope hydrological modelling arise from dierent points: diculties in the representations of certain processes (e.g. surface crusting, unsaturated±saturated soil moisture¯ow, macropore¯ow), problems of small-scale variability, a general scarcity of detailed soil data, incomplete process parametrization and problems with the interdependent linkage of several hillslopes and channel±hillslope interactions. Copyright # 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.KEY WORDS hillslope hydrology; runo processes; physically based modelling; distributed modelling; hillslope scale OBJECTIVES FOR HILLSLOPE HYDROLOGICAL MODELLINGIn the last two decades there has been increasing interest in hillslope hydrology (Kirkby, 1978(Kirkby, , 1988O'Loughlin, 1990;Gutknecht, 1996), which is shown by the increasing number of ®eld investigations at experimental hillslopes under dierent climatological, hydrological and pedological conditions in dierent parts of the world (e.g. Dunne and Black, 1970;Mosley, 1982;Greminger, 1984;Michiels et al., 1988;Germann, 1990;Fabis et al., 1993;Schramm, 1994;Honisch, 1996;Ritsema et al., 1996;Scherrer, 1997). In many cases, these experiments have been conducted jointly with the development, setting up, testing and application of hillslope hydrological models of dierent kinds. This paper reviews ...

Topographical Controls on Hillslope‐Scale Hydrology Drive Shrub Distributions on the Seward Peninsula, Alaska

“…In particular, the observed spatial heterogeneity of shrubs across the Kougarok Hillslope was not captured in our simulation that artificially ignored topography (Figure 7a), indicating that landscape hydrology is a crucial factor affecting shrub expansion. Although topographic controls of hillslope hydrology in watersheds have been represented in hydrological models (Bronstert, 1999; Clark et al., 2009; Ji et al., 2015; Stieglitz et al., 1999; Xiao et al., 1996), most large‐scale land surface models use hydrologically disconnected grid cells (Hazenberg et al., 2016) and thus ignore landscape level heterogeneity in soil water content. These models are not able to capture landscape level heterogeneity in soil water content and nutrients, thus likely biasing their predictions of tundra shrub expansion.…”

The role of bedrock topography on subsurface storm flow

“…Indeed, it should be expected that that given the complexity of the subsurface topography, further variations in the localized patterns of the topographic index and patterns of saturation would be expected if higher resolution data were available. Given this complexity of the hydrological responses for what was chosen as a relatively planar hillslope area, identification of a simplified nor even relatively complex physically based hydrological model structure (such as that of Bronstert [1999]) would be problematic. The question then is how important is this detail in the representation of responses at the catchment scale and whether general patterns that will not reflect all the local detail will suffice [e.g., Woods et al , 1997].…”

Spatial patterns of sediment delivery to valley floors: sensitivity to sediment transport capacity and hillslope hydrology relations

“…There is a growing literature documenting the complexity, variety and sensitivity of hillslope hydrology processes, yet simultaneously an acknowledgement that simpler models often perform as well as more complex, highly parameterized ones (Kirkby, 1988). With regards to the complexity and variety of hillslope hydrology, Bronstert (1999) argues that the most sensitive parameters for simple Hortonian runoff generation were saturated conductivity and saturated water content parameters of the soil, and the depth to a macro-porous layer. Given the reported high degree of sensitivity to these parameters, Bronstert found it necessary to calibrate each hillslope, as relatively small changes in infiltration rate produced significant changes in surface runoff.…”