Nonstationarity in threshold response of stormflow in southern <scp>A</scp>ppalachian headwater catchments

Scaife, Charles I.; Band, Lawrence E.

doi:10.1002/2017wr020376

Cited by 56 publications

(90 citation statements)

References 96 publications

(155 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The positive relationship between m 2 values (Table ) and break points during the preharvest period was previously noted by Scaife and Band () at Coweeta. It implies enhanced QF generation from catchments with larger break points for rainfall inputs above the threshold.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 82%

“…Nevertheless, there was often no QF for rainfalls below the preharvest break points identified in the piecewise regression analysis. This form of threshold behaviour was characterized as a hockey stick shape by Ali et al () and has been observed in other forest catchments where the slope of the relationship between stormflow and rainfall or rainfall combined with antecedent wetness is either 0 (e.g., Detty & McGuire, ; Graham & McDonnell, ) or slightly above 0 (e.g., Scaife & Band, ) below the break point. The ability of piecewise regression to capture the strength of the relation between QF and P in control and treatment catchments (as indicated by the adjusted R 2 values in Table ) was similar to R 2 values reported by Oswald et al () for discharge‐storage relationships in a forest catchment in northwestern Ontario but slightly lower than those found by Scaife and Band () for stormflow vs. rainfall plus antecedent wetness in Coweeta.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 54%

“…These values are similar to that reported for rainfall‐triggered QF events for a forested catchment in the Dorset region of south‐central Ontario (~50 mm of rainfall; Ali et al, ) and for forested catchments at the HJ Andrews Experimental forest in western Oregon (~50 mm of rainfall for events with greater than 5‐day antecedent drainage time; Graham & McDonnell, ). The increase in slope parameters from below‐ to above‐threshold rainfalls (Table ) may reflect a shift between slow and fast runoff processes in the catchment (Scaife & Band, ) with increasing input. Ali et al () suggested that intercatchment differences in rainfall thresholds are controlled by such catchment characteristics as mean soil depth and overburden depth.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Scaife and Band () reported shifts in threshold behaviour and linear stormflow response that they attributed to feedback in forest evaporation rates at seasonal and interannual time scales. Our results suggest that forest harvesting and recovery can produce similar shifts, and the increased number of QF events for small P inputs postharvest may have implications for solute and sediment delivery from the treatment catchments.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Graham and McDonnell () found a distinct threshold in storm runoff–precipitation relationships at the HJ Andrews Experimental Forest in western Oregon when events with >10 days of antecedent drainage were considered. Scaife and Band () identified thresholds in runoff response from forested catchments at Coweeta, NC, and indicated that variations in such thresholds during the growing season at annual and decadal time scales may be attributed to forest canopy response to water stress.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Quickflow response to forest harvesting and recovery in a northern hardwood forest landscape

Buttle

Webster

Hazlett

et al. 2018

Hydrological Processes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Forest harvesting often increases catchment quickflow (QF, water delivered rapidly to the stream channel), a metric of high‐flow events controlling a catchment's solute and sediment export. Nevertheless, our understanding of QF responses to various silvicultural strategies (e.g., clearcutting, selection harvest, and shelterwood harvest) is incomplete. We present a 31‐year examination of QF delivery from treatment (clearcut, selection harvest, and shelterwood harvest) and control catchments in a deciduous forest landscape in central Ontario, Canada. Growing season root‐zone storage capacity was estimated using a water balance approach to evaluate temporal changes in QF response to precipitation (P) for pretreatment and posttreatment periods. Threshold relationships between QF and P were assessed for control and treatment catchments for pretreatment and posttreatment periods using piecewise regression. Root‐zone storage capacity demarcated shifts in the hydrologic regime arising from forest harvesting and subsequent regeneration. This was particularly pronounced for clearcutting where postharvest decline in root‐zone storage capacity was followed by a rise to preharvest values. Similar pretreatment threshold relationships between QF and P, and near‐identical P thresholds for producing significant QF, reflected similar soil and overburden depths in the catchments. Harvesting effects were indicated by increases in QF/P ratios for relative small P and the number of P events that generated QF, thus changing treatment QF vs. P threshold relationships. Prior to harvesting there was no significant increase in QF with P below a threshold P of 35–45 mm; however, there was a significant QF vs. P relationship below this threshold for all treatments postharvest. Clearcutting increased the number of QF events for the entire postharvest period and the first 9‐year postharvest compared to the other treatments; nevertheless, evidence for intertreatment differences in total QF depth delivered from the catchments during the growing season was inconclusive. Our work suggests that changes in threshold relationships between QF and P, coupled with knowledge of the physical processes underlying them, are useful when evaluating hydrologic responses to forest harvesting.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 82%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 54%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Quickflow response to forest harvesting and recovery in a northern hardwood forest landscape

Buttle

Webster

Hazlett

et al. 2018

Hydrological Processes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Disturbance Hydrology: Preparing for an Increasingly Disturbed Future

Mirus

Ebel

Mohr

et al. 2017

Water Resources Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This special issue is the result of several fruitful conference sessions on disturbance hydrology, which started at the 2013 AGU Fall Meeting in San Francisco and have continued every year since. The stimulating presentations and discussions surrounding those sessions have focused on understanding both the disruption of hydrologic functioning following discrete disturbances, as well as the subsequent recovery or change within the affected watershed system. Whereas some hydrologic disturbances are directly linked to anthropogenic activities, such as resource extraction, the contributions to this special issue focus primarily on those with indirect or less pronounced human involvement, such as bark‐beetle infestation, wildfire, and other natural hazards. However, human activities are enhancing the severity and frequency of these seemingly natural disturbances, thereby contributing to acute hydrologic problems and hazards. Major research challenges for our increasingly disturbed planet include the lack of continuous pre and postdisturbance monitoring, hydrologic impacts that vary spatially and temporally based on environmental and hydroclimatic conditions, and the preponderance of overlapping or compounding disturbance sequences. In addition, a conceptual framework for characterizing commonalities and differences among hydrologic disturbances is still in its infancy. In this introduction to the special issue, we advance the fusion of concepts and terminology from ecology and hydrology to begin filling this gap. We briefly explore some preliminary approaches for comparing different disturbances and their hydrologic impacts, which provides a starting point for further dialogue and research progress.

show abstract

Thresholds for run‐off generation in a drained closed depression

Williams

Livingston

Heathman

et al. 2019

Hydrological Processes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Hydrological threshold behaviour has been observed across hillslopes and catchments with varying characteristics. Few studies, however, have evaluated rainfall-run-off response in areas dominated by agricultural land use and artificial subsurface drainage. Hydrograph analysis was used to identify distinct hydrological events over a 9year period and examine rainfall characteristics, dynamic water storage, and surface and subsurface run-off generation in a drained and farmed closed depression in north-eastern Indiana, USA. Results showed that both surface flow and subsurface tile flow displayed a threshold relationship with the sum of rainfall amount and soil moisture deficit (SMD). Neither surface flow nor subsurface tile flow was observed unless rainfall amount exceeded the SMD. Timing of subsurface tile flow relative to soil moisture response on the shoulder slope of the depression indicated that the formation and drainage of perched water tables on depression hillslopes were likely the main mechanism that produced subsurface connectivity. Surface flow generation was delayed compared with subsurface tile flow during rainfall events due to differences in soil water storage along depression hillslopes and run-off generation mechanisms.These findings highlight the substantial impact of subsurface tile drainage on the hydrology of closed depressions; the bottom of the depression, the wettest area prior to drainage installation, becomes the driest part of the depression after installation of subsurface drainage. Rapid connectivity of localized subsurface saturation zones during rainfall events is also greatly enhanced because of subsurface drainage. Thus, less fill is required to generate substantial spill. Understanding hydrologic processes in drained and farmed closed depressions is a critical first step in developing improved water and nutrient management strategies in this landscape.

show abstract

Nonstationarity in threshold response of stormflow in southern Appalachian headwater catchments

Cited by 56 publications

References 96 publications

Quickflow response to forest harvesting and recovery in a northern hardwood forest landscape

Quickflow response to forest harvesting and recovery in a northern hardwood forest landscape

Disturbance Hydrology: Preparing for an Increasingly Disturbed Future

Thresholds for run‐off generation in a drained closed depression

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About