Topographic modelling of soil moisture conditions: a comparison and verification of two models

Summary Topography, as captured by a digital elevation model (DEM), can be used to model soil moisture conditions because water tends to flow and accumulate in response to gradients in gravitational potential energy. A widely used topographic index, the soil wetness index (SWI), was compared with a new algorithm that produces a cartographic depth-to-water (DTW) index based on distance to surface water and slope. Both models reflect the tendency for soil to be saturated. A 1 m resolution Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) DEM and a 10 m conventional photogrammetric DEM were used and results were compared with field-mapped wet soil areas for a 193 ha watershed in Alberta, Canada, for verification. The DTW model was closer to field-mapped conditions. Values of Kmatch90 (areal correspondence, smaller values indicating better performance) were 7.8% and 12.3% for the LiDAR and conventional DEM DTW models, respectively, and 88.5% and 86.7% for the SWI models. The two indices were poorly correlated spatially. Both DEMs were found to be useful for modelling soil moisture conditions using the DTW model, but the LiDAR DEM produced the better results. All major wet areas and flow connectivity were reproduced and a threshold value of 1.5 m DTW accounted for 71% of the observed wet areas. The poor performance of the SWI model is probably because of its over-dependence on flow accumulation. Incorporation of a flow accumulation algorithm that replicates the effects of dispersed flow showed some improvement in the SWI model for the conventional DEM but it still failed to replicate the full areal extent of wet areas. Local downslope topography and hydrologic conditions seemed to be more important in determining soil moisture conditions than is taken account of by the SWI. The DTW model has potential for application in distributed hydrologic modelling, precision forestry and agriculture and implementation of environmental soil management practices.

[1]  John F. O'Callaghan,et al.  The extraction of drainage networks from digital elevation data , 1984, Comput. Vis. Graph. Image Process..

[2]  C. Lant,et al.  The Effect of Wetland Mitigation Banking on the Achievement of No-Net-Loss , 1999, Environmental management.

[3]  J. R. Williamson,et al.  The influence of forest site on rate and extent of soil compaction and profile disturbance of skid trails during ground-based harvesting , 2000 .

[4]  Raymond Torres,et al.  Geomorphic analysis of tidal creek networks , 2004 .

[5]  Verifying calculated flow accumulation patterns of mapped and unmapped forest streams by culvert location , 2007 .

[6]  Tim Burt,et al.  Topographic controls of soil moisture distributions , 1985 .

[7]  K. Beven,et al.  THE PREDICTION OF HILLSLOPE FLOW PATHS FOR DISTRIBUTED HYDROLOGICAL MODELLING USING DIGITAL TERRAIN MODELS , 1991 .

[8]  P. Bolstad,et al.  An evaluation of DEM accuracy: elevation, slope, and aspect , 1994 .

[9]  Thomas M. Isenhart,et al.  Optimizing the placement of riparian practices in a watershed using terrain analysis , 2003 .

[10]  Aloysius Wehr,et al.  Airborne laser scanning—an introduction and overview , 1999 .

[11]  George M. Hornberger,et al.  RECENT ADVANCES IN WATERSHED MODELLING , 1995 .

[12]  W. W. Carson,et al.  Accuracy of a high-resolution lidar terrain model under a conifer forest canopy , 2003 .

[13]  David R. Maidment,et al.  GIS and Distributed Watershed Models. I: Data Coverages and Sources , 2001 .

[14]  M. Hodgson,et al.  An evaluation of LIDAR- and IFSAR-derived digital elevation models in leaf-on conditions with USGS Level 1 and Level 2 DEMs , 2003 .

[15]  K. Burnett,et al.  Comparison of Digital Elevation Models for Aquatic Data Development , 2003 .

[16]  D. H. McNabb,et al.  Soil Wetness and Traffic Level Effects on Bulk Density and Air‐Filled Porosity of Compacted Boreal Forest Soils , 2001 .

[17]  Jae Ogilvie,et al.  Mapping wetlands: A comparison of two different approaches for New Brunswick, Canada , 2007, Wetlands.

[18]  Jay C. Bell,et al.  Digital elevation model resolution: effects on terrain attribute calculation and quantitative soil-landscape modeling , 2001 .

[19]  I. Moore,et al.  Digital terrain modelling: A review of hydrological, geomorphological, and biological applications , 1991 .

[20]  P. Arp,et al.  Digital elevation modelling of soil type and drainage within small forested catchments , 2005 .

[21]  C. Pringle.  HYDROLOGIC CONNECTIVITY AND THE MANAGEMENT OF BIOLOGICAL RESERVES: A GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE , 2001 .

[22]  Rodger B. Grayson,et al.  Quantitative comparison of spatial fields for hydrological model assessment––some promising approaches , 2005 .

[23]  Paul E. Gessler,et al.  Modeling Soil–Landscape and Ecosystem Properties Using Terrain Attributes , 2000 .

[24]  Ian Moore,et al.  Digital terrain modelling in hydrology , 1991 .

[25]  Fan-Rui Meng,et al.  Stream network modelling using lidar and photogrammetric digital elevation models: a comparison and field verification , 2008 .

[26]  R. MacMillan,et al.  Automated analysis and classification of landforms using high-resolution digital elevation data: applications and issues , 2003 .

[27]  L. M Gomes Pereira,et al.  Suitability of laser data for deriving geographical information: A case study in the context of management of fluvial zones , 1999 .

[28]  S. Uhlenbrook,et al.  Modeling spatial patterns of saturated areas: An evaluation of different terrain indices , 2004 .

[29]  D. Tarboton.  A new method for the determination of flow directions and upslope areas in grid digital elevation models , 1997 .

[30]  Elaine Kennedy Sutherland,et al.  Spatial variability in soil nitrogen dynamics after prescribed burning in Ohio mixed-oak forests , 2000, Landscape Ecology.

[31]  James H. Brown,et al.  The Report of the Ecological Society of America Committee on the Scientific Basis for Ecosystem Management , 1996 .

[32]  K. N. Hjerdt,et al.  A new topographic index to quantify downslope controls on local drainage , 2004 .

[33]  T. Söderqvist,et al.  Ecological-economic analysis of wetlands; scientific integration for management and policy , 2000 .

[34]  M. Kaupenjohann,et al.  Landscape fate of nitrate fluxes and emissions in Central Europe: A critical review of concepts, data, and models for transport and retention , 2001 .

[35]  Susan M. Galatowitsch,et al.  Evaluating perturbations and developing restoration strategies for inland wetlands in the Great Lakes basin , 1999, Wetlands.

[36]  J. Bourdages,et al.  Response Time of Wetland Biodiversity to Road Construction on Adjacent Lands , 2000 .

[37]  Jurgen D. Garbrecht,et al.  GIS and Distributed Watershed Models. II: Modules, Interfaces, and Models , 2001 .