Natural and anthropogenic influences on the scaling of discharge with drainage area for multiple watersheds

Discharge is the independent variable primarily responsible for shaping the hydraulic geometry and longitudinal profile of rivers. The assumption is frequently made that discharge and drainage area scale linearly or nearly linearly, i.e., Q = kAc , where k is the theoretical discharge for a unit area watershed ( A = 1), Q is river discharge (m3/s), A is drainage area (m2), and c is the scaling power dependency. Watershed and longitudinal profile modeling enjoy simplified assumptions if discharge grows linearly with drainage area, and this assumption is widely applied. This paper investigates the scaling relationship between discharge and drainage area for five large rivers, with an emphasis on exploring the linearity of the discharge-area relationship and suggesting causes for significant departure from linearity. The five large main-stem rivers explored (John Day, Salmon, Wabash, Greenbrier, and Yellowstone) all have a minimum of 60 years of continuous discharge records and have been selected to represent a wide geographic area spanning different land uses, climate, and topography. Peak annual flow and mean annual flow are compiled from the U.S. Geological Survey national surface-water database, and a linear regression analysis was completed for each year for the discharges. The five rivers were selected to minimize, but not eliminate, the impacts of dams and diversions such as for irrigation on river discharges. The scaling factor ( c ) exhibits both secular and nonsecular trends over the length of record for these five rivers. The results show that the studied watersheds can be grouped into two broad categories based on their respective c values: (1) those rivers where c is 1 or nearly 1, and (2) those rivers where c is significantly <1. The John Day, Salmon, Wabash, and Greenbrier rivers scale at values of ∼0.8 with natural variables including slope, elevation, and evapotranspiration potentially accounting for c values slightly <1. The second category is c values of ∼0.5, as exhibited by the Yellowstone River. The Yellowstone watershed is unique for our study because of its secular trend, as well as its overall lower average c values. Climatic trends that control the timing of winter snowpack melting, increased frequency and intensity of forest fires, and increased human consumptive water use in downstream areas may all contribute to the observed behavior in c for this watershed. The results from this set of rivers have broad implications for studies ranging from the modeling of fluvial erosion in numeric landscape evolution models to allocations of water resources for human and environmental purposes.

[1]  Richard N. Weisman,et al.  Effects of urbanization on watershed hydrology: The scaling of discharge with drainage area , 2006 .

[2]  V. Gupta,et al.  Effects of excess rainfall on the temporal variability of observed peak-discharge power laws , 2005 .

[3]  J. Spotila,et al.  The form and function of headwater streams based on field and modeling investigations in the southern Appalachian Mountains , 2005 .

[4]  Irantzu Lexartza Artza,et al.  Knickpoint recession rate and catchment area: the case of uplifted rivers in Eastern Scotland , 2005 .

[5]  O. B. Christensen,et al.  Climate Change Impact on Snow Coverage, Evaporation and River Discharge in the Sub-Arctic Tana Basin, Northern Fennoscandia , 2005 .

[6]  A. Iroumé,et al.  Summer flows in experimental catchments with different forest covers, Chile , 2005 .

[7]  G. Tucker,et al.  Effect of limited storm duration on landscape evolution, drainage basin geometry, and hydrograph shapes , 2004 .

[8]  K. Whipple BEDROCK RIVERS AND THE GEOMORPHOLOGY OF ACTIVE OROGENS , 2004 .

[9]  R. Bras,et al.  Network‐scale dynamics of grain‐size sorting: implications for downstream fining, stream‐profile concavity, and drainage basin morphology , 2004 .

[10]  F. Ogden,et al.  Peak Discharge Scaling in Small Hortonian Watershed , 2003 .

[11]  D. Montgomery,et al.  Effects of orographic precipitation variations on the concavity of steady-state river profiles , 2002 .

[12]  G. Boer,et al.  Effects of simulated climate change on the hydrology of major river basins , 2001 .

[13]  A. Baltensweiler,et al.  Spatially distributed hydrotope-based modelling of evapotranspiration and runoff in mountainous basins , 1999 .

[14]  M. Inbar,et al.  Runoff and erosion processes after a forest fire in Mount Carmel, a Mediterranean area , 1998 .

[15]  D. Goodrich,et al.  Linearity of basin response as a function of scale in a semiarid watershed , 1997 .

[16]  Pratap Singh,et al.  Hydrological response of snowpack under rain-on-snow events: a field study , 1997 .

[17]  G. Tucker,et al.  Drainage basin responses to climate change , 1997 .

[18]  L. Shevenell Analysis of well hydrographs in a karst aquifer: Estimates of specific yields and continuum transmissivities , 1994 .

[19]  H. Kooi,et al.  Escarpment evolution on high‐elevation rifted margins: Insights derived from a surface processes model that combines diffusion, advection, and reaction , 1994 .

[20]  R. Balling,et al.  Climate change in Yellowstone National Park: Is the drought-related risk of wildfires increasing? , 1992 .

[21]  J. D. Helvey EFFECTS OF A NORTH CENTRAL WASHINGTON WILDFIRE ON RUNOFF AND SEDIMENT PRODUCTION , 1980 .

[22]  M. Wolman,et al.  Magnitude and Frequency of Forces in Geomorphic Processes , 1960, The Journal of Geology.

[23]  L. Swift,et al.  Climatology and Hydrology , 1988 .

[24]  Ronald B. Smith The Influence of Mountains on the Atmosphere , 1979 .