Identifying runoff processes on the plot and catchment scale

Abstract

Abstract. Rainfall-runoff models that adequately represent the real hydrological processes and that do not have to be calibrated, are needed in hydrology. Such a model would require information about the runoff processes occurring in a catchment and their spatial distribution. Therefore, the aim of this article is (1) to develop a methodology that allows the delineation of dominant runoff processes (DRP) in the field and with a GIS, and (2) to illustrate how such a map can be used in rainfall-runoff modelling.Soil properties were assessed of 44 soil profiles in two Swiss catchments. On some profiles, sprinkling experiments were performed and soil-water levels measured. With these data, the dominant runoff processes (DRP) were determined using the Scherrer and Naef (2003) process decision scheme. At the same time, a simplified method was developed to make it possible to determine the DRP only on the basis of maps of the soil, topography and geology. In 67% of the soil profiles, the two methods indicated the same processes; in 24% with minor deviations.By transforming the simplified method into a set of rules that could be introduced into a GIS, the distributions of the different DRPs in two catchments could be delineated automatically so that maps of the dominant runoff processes could be produced. These maps agreed well with manually derived maps and field observations. Flood-runoff volumes could be quite accurately predicted on the basis of the rainfall measured and information on the water retention capacity contained in the DRP map. This illustrates the potential of the DRP maps for defining the infiltration parameters used in rainfall-runoff models.Correspondence to: P. Schmocker-Fackel

HESS Opinions: The complementary merits of competing modelling philosophies in hydrology

“…When carefully implemented, spatially distributed formulations, e.g. based on hydrological response units or related concepts (Beven and Kirkby, 1979;Knudsen et al, 1986;Flügel, 1995;Winter, 2001;Seibert et al, 2003;Uhlenbrook et al, 2004, 2010Schmocker-Fackel et al, 2007Gharari et al, 2011;Zehe et al, 2014;Haghnegahdar et al, 2015), with an equilibrated balance between process heterogeneity and information/data availability and tested and evaluated against multivariate observed response dynamics, and conceptual models have been shown to be versatile enough to identify and represent the dominant hydrological processes and their heterogeneity in a catchment (e.g. Boyle et al, 2001;Fenicia et al, 2008a, b;Winsemius et al, 2008;Kumar et al, 2013;Hrachowitz et al, 2014;Nijzink et al, 2016a) within limited uncertainty.…”

Improving the GIS-DRP Approach by Means of DelineatingRunoff Characteristics with New Discharge Relevant Parameters

“…The mentioned approach was developed and applied effectively in Switzerland [8,9]. Generally, this method integrates climatic and physiographic characteristics [5,9,10,19]. The methodology uses as main parameters: land use, vegetation, soil, relief and geology [5,8,9,20].…”

“…Therefore, nowadays, it is common to use different kinds of hydrologic models or GIS applications to simulate runoff generation [4]. Several GIS-based methods to identify runoff processes, ranging from the plot scale to the meso-scale were developed over the past years (e.g., [5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13]). However, most of the existing approaches refer only to micro-scale catchments and are based on very detailed geo-data (e.g., soil-maps 1:5,000, landscape mappings, forest site mappings etc.).…”

Identification of prevailing storm runoff generation mechanisms in an intensively cultivated catchment

“…This issue is well known, and has been identified by several authors, e.g. Beven (2001), Grayson et al (1992), Schmocker-Fackel et al (2007). The problem is to identify the prevailing mechanism for each rainfall-runoff event or annual period, especially when only limited data are available.…”