Clustering CAMELS using hydrological signatures with high spatial predictability

Abstract. The behavior of every catchment is unique. Still, we need ways to classify them as this helps to improve hydrological theories. Usually catchments are classified along either their attributes classes (e.g. climate, topography) or their discharge characteristics, which is often captured in hydrological signatures. However, recent studies have shown that many hydrological signatures have a low predictability in space and therefore only dubious hydrological meaning. Therefore, this study uses hydrological signatures with the highest predictability in space to cluster 643 catchments from the continental United States (CAMELS (Catchment Attributes and MEteorology for Large-Sample Studies) dataset) into ten groups. We then evaluated the connection between catchment attributes with the hydrological signatures with quadratic regression, both in the overall CAMELS dataset and the ten clusters. In the overall dataset, aridity had the strongest connection to the hydrological signatures, especially in the eastern United States. However, the clusters in the western United States showed a more heterogeneous pattern with a larger influence of forest fraction, the mean elevation or the snow fraction. From this, we conclude that catchment behavior can be mainly attributed to climate in regions with homogenous topography. In regions with a heterogeneous topography, there is no clear pattern of the catchment behavior, as catchments show high spatial variability in their attributes. The classification of the CAMELS dataset with the hydrological signatures allows testing hydrological models in contrasting environments.

[1]  Murugesu Sivapalan,et al.  Pattern, Process and Function: Elements of a Unified Theory of Hydrology at the Catchment Scale , 2006 .

[2]  R. Woods,et al.  Catchment Classification and Hydrologic Similarity , 2006, Geography Compass.

[3]  Thorsten Wagener,et al.  Identifying dominant controls on hydrologic parameter transfer from gauged to ungauged catchments – A comparative hydrology approach , 2014 .

[4]  Hilary McMillan,et al.  Uncertainty in hydrological signatures , 2015 .

[5]  Hoshin Vijai Gupta,et al.  Large-sample hydrology: a need to balance depth with breadth , 2013 .

[6]  A. Berg,et al.  Present and future Köppen-Geiger climate classification maps at 1-km resolution , 2018, Scientific Data.

[7]  M. Sivapalan,et al.  Catchment classification: Empirical analysis of hydrologic similarity based on catchment function in the eastern USA , 2011 .

[8]  T. McVicar,et al.  Regional variation in streamflow drivers across a continental climatic gradient , 2017 .

[9]  Martyn P. Clark,et al.  The CAMELS data set: catchment attributes and meteorology for large-sample studies , 2017 .

[10]  Brian L. McGlynn,et al.  Distributed assessment of contributing area and riparian buffering along stream networks , 2003 .

[11]  Ka Yee Yeung,et al.  Principal component analysis for clustering gene expression data , 2001, Bioinform..

[12]  Thorsten Wagener,et al.  Understanding hydrologic variability across Europe through catchment classification , 2016 .

[13]  L. Hay,et al.  Hydrometeorological dataset for the contiguous USA , 2014 .

[14]  M. Sivapalan,et al.  Exploring the physical controls of regional patterns of flow duration curves - Part 3: A catchment classification system based on regime curve indicators , 2012 .

[15]  C. Perrin,et al.  Neighbors: Nature’s own hydrological models , 2012 .

[16]  M. P. Clark,et al.  A Ranking of Hydrological Signatures Based on Their Predictability in Space , 2018, Water Resources Research.

[17]  Keith Beven,et al.  Uniqueness of place and process representations in hydrological modelling , 2000 .

[18]  M. Sivapalan,et al.  Exploring the physical controls of regional patterns of flow duration curves – Part 4: A synthesis of empirical analysis, process modeling and catchment classification , 2012 .