Case Study

Automated Linear and Nonlinear Reservoir Approaches

for Estimating Annual Base Flow
Arpana Rani Datta1; Tirupati Bolisetti2; and Ram Balachandar3

Abstract: Three automated base flow separation techniques based on linear and nonlinear reservoir approaches are used to identify the
seasonal variation of base flow and to quantify the annual base flow for three subwatersheds of the Essex region in Southwestern Ontario,
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/17/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Canada. Significant differences in annual base flow estimated by linear and nonlinear reservoir algorithms are observed. In the nonlinear
reservoir approach, the recession parameter is considered to be a seasonally variable parameter. The nonlinear reservoir approach fits stream-
flow recession better than the linear reservoir approach. The steeper slopes of seasonal flow duration curves in the 90% to 100% flow
exceedance range show that the groundwater contribution to streamflow is relatively small in the study area. The precipitation-streamflow
relationships show faster response of base flow during the period of high recharge. All of the methods show similar base flow estimation
during the period of high evapotranspiration losses. The nonlinear reservoir approach represents the base flow response to precipitation better
than the other methods. Therefore, the annual base flow estimated by the nonlinear reservoir approach is considered as the most reasonable
estimation for the formulation of water budget of the study area. The method quantifies the occurrence of average annual baseflow as 34% of
average annual streamflow. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)HE.1943-5584.0000450. © 2012 American Society of Civil Engineers.
CE Database subject headings: Base flow; Reservoirs; Case studies; Canada.
Author keywords: Automated methods of base flow separation; Recession analysis; Linear reservoir; Nonlinear reservoir; Base flow
estimation.

Introduction
Base flow is one of the most important components of the hydro-
logical cycle as it provides a broad understanding of the surface
water to groundwater interaction. It originates from either ground-
water storage or other delayed sources, such as shallow subsurface
storage, lakes, melting glaciers, etc., (Smakhtin 2001) and contrib-
utes to streamflow during periods of low flows, direct flows, and
flood flows. Sometimes, it can be approximated as recharge over a
long time period in some watersheds if the evapotranspiration
and other losses from groundwater are insignificant (Risser et al.
2005). Estimation of base flow is necessary for the formulation of
water budget in any watershed. It is often used for calibration
(Gutiérrez-Magness and McCuen 2005) and validation (Ferket et al.
2010) of hydrological models. Since we cannot directly measure
the base flow or the processes affecting base flow (Lin et al.
2007) and the variability in recession behavior in different condi-
tions, the estimation of base flow through its separation from
streamflow has been “one of the most desperate analysis techniques
in use in hydrology” (Hewlett and Hibbert 1967). A reliable hydro-
graph separation method can be used for prediction of surface
1
Ph.D. Candidate, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Univ.
of Windsor, Windsor, ON, Canada, N9B 3P4. E-mail: dattaa@uwindsor.ca
2
Assistant Professor, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Univ. of Windsor, Windsor, ON, Canada, N9B 3P4 (corresponding author).
E-mail: tirupati@uwindsor.ca
3
Professor, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Univ. of
Windsor, Windsor, ON, Canada, N9B 3P4. E-mail: rambala@uwindsor.ca
Note. This manuscript was submitted on October 11, 2010; approved on
May 26, 2011; published online on May 28, 2011. Discussion period open
until September 1, 2012; separate discussions must be submitted for
individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Hydrologic Engi-
neering, Vol. 17, No. 4, April 1, 2012. ©ASCE, ISSN 1084-0699/2012/4-
554–564/$25.00.
runoff (Tan et al. 2009). Ferket et al. (2010) used a physically based
base flow separation algorithm to validate the internal model
dynamics of conceptual rainfall-runoff models.
Numerous techniques are available for separating base flow
from a streamflow hydrograph and analyzing streamflow recession.
The streamflow recession represents the storage-outflow relation-
ship of the watershed aquifer if other outer influences such as sur-
face water storage, groundwater abstraction, and evapotranspiration
are negligible (Wittenberg 1999). Among different types of base
flow separation techniques, digital filter approaches, such as
smoothed minima technique (Aksoy et al. 2009, 2008; Piggott et al.
2005; Institute of Hydrology 1980) and recursive digital filter
(Echardt 2005; Arnold and Allen 1999; Chapman 1999), are often
used to generate base flow hydrograph for a long-term period
(Smakhtin 2001). The recession analysis techniques can be classi-
fied into four groups: analysis by using basic flow equations,
storage-outflow concept, autoregressive process, and empirical
relationships (Tallaksen 1995). Most of the recession analysis tech-
niques are based on linear and nonlinear solutions of the Dupuit-
Boussinesq stream-aquifer model (Chen et al. 2006). Griffiths and
Clausen (1997) developed a streamflow recession formula consid-
ering different water storages such as depression, detention, snow
and ice, channel bank, aquifer, and cavern. The various conceptual
storage-outflow models of recession analysis are summarized in
Dewandel et al. (2003).
The shape of recession curves varies with the aquifer types,
watershed characteristics, climate, and season as well as with
the soil saturation properties of the watershed (Dewandel et al.
2003). The groundwater storage-outflow relationship is usually lin-
ear in a confined aquifer and quadratic in an unconfined aquifer
(Chapman 1999). The recession curves in an unconfined aquifer
can be modeled better by the use of the nonlinear groundwater
storage-outflow relationship rather than the linear one (Wittenberg
1999, 2003). The nonlinearity in streamflow recession curve may

554 / JOURNAL OF HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING © ASCE / APRIL 2012

J. Hydrol. Eng. 2012.17:554-564.

 arise because of the presence of different losses from groundwater
(Wittenberg and Sivapalan 1999) and because of the presence of
base flow from other sources, such as bank storage (Chen et al.
2006), multiple aquifers (Schwartz 2007), snow melt, etc. The
recession parameter, such as retention constant, can vary with
the initial value of groundwater storage and thus, it shows a sys-
tematic increase for the lower parts of the typical recession curves
(Wittenberg 1999). Therefore, the recession parameter can vary
seasonally for a watershed due to the seasonal variation of ground-
water storage. Considering the variable recession parameter in base
flow separation from the streamflow hydrograph, the losses from
groundwater attributed to evapotranspiration or groundwater
abstraction can be estimated (Wittenberg 2003).
The study uses both linear and nonlinear reservoir approaches to
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/17/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
estimate baseflow for three subwatersheds of the Essex region, in
southwestern Ontario, Canada. The objective of this paper is to
identify the seasonal variation of base flow and to quantify the
annual base flow. The purpose of base flow estimation is to use
the estimated value in formulating the annual water budget and
making a water management plan for the region. To this end, three
automated base flow separation techniques are selected. The auto-
mated methods are often recommended in base flow studies for
being economical to use and technically sound (Nejadhashemi et al.
2009). Two of the automated methods used in the present study are
on the basis of linear reservoir concept and one is on the basis of
nonlinear reservoir concept. No measured or field data on subsur-
face flow or direct runoff is available in the study area to verify the
value of base flow estimated by the selected methods. In addition,
the parameters affecting the streamflow recession are very sensitive
for separating base flow from the streamflow hydrograph. There-
fore, the recession behavior of the candidate recession segments for
the subwatersheds are studied by using the linear and nonlinear
storage-outflow relationship and the recession parameter corre-
sponding to the linear and nonlinear reservoir approaches is esti-
mated. The nonlinear reservoir approach with a seasonally variable
recession parameter is selected in the study to identify the losses
from groundwater because of evapotranspiration. The seasonal
variation of base flow and the differences of the annual base flow
obtained from both linear and nonlinear reservoir methods are
examined carefully to provide the most likely estimation of annual
base flow in the study area. In the subsequent two sections, the
methodology, and the study area and data used in the study are
presented. The recession behavior of the subwatersheds is
described in the “Recession Analysis” section and the results
obtained from the selected methods are presented in the “Results
and Discussion” section. In the last section, the conclusions are
summarized.
Methodology
Two computer programs of automated base flow separation under
the linear reservoir concept are selected in the study to separate
base flow from the streamflow hydrograph. They are PART devel-
oped by Rutledge (1998) and BFLOW developed by Arnold and
Allen (1999). These techniques are chosen since they are easy to
apply and are being widely used for base flow separation. A com-
puter program called BNLP developed by Wittenberg (1999) is
selected as a nonlinear reservoir approach of base flow separation.
The BNLP was successfully applied to the watersheds of
North America, Australia, and Europe for base flow separation
(Wittenberg 1999; Wittenberg and Sivapalan 1999; Hammond
and Han 2006; Lin et al. 2007). A computer program called
RECESS developed by Rutledge (1998) is used to analyze the
JOURNAL OF HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING © ASCE / APRIL 2012 / 555
J. Hydrol. Eng. 2012.17:554-564.
recession behavior under the linear storage-outflow concept and
the recession constant is estimated for the subwatersheds of the
region. The nonlinearity in streamflow recession is examined
and the nonlinear recession parameter is estimated following the
approach described by Wittenberg (1999) and Wittenberg and
Sivapalan (1999). The details of the recession behavior are presented
in the ”Recession Analysis“ section. Using the estimated recession
parameter, the daily base flow is separated from the daily observed
streamflow hydrograph by the three computer programs. The theo-
retical background of the linear and nonlinear reservoir concept and
the computer programs PART (Rutledge 1998), BFLOW (Arnold
and Allen 1999), and BNLP (Wittenberg 1999; Wittenberg and
Sivapalan 1999) are briefly described in the following subsections.
Linear Reservoir Approach
The simple linear reservoir ðS ¼ kQÞ is the most widely used ap-
proach for hydrograph separation, where k = retention constant
with a dimension of time; S = storage; and Q = outflow. The
exponential form for the recession from a linear reservoir
(Chapman 1999) is expressed as follows:


t
Qt ¼ Q0 × exp
ð1Þ
k
where Qt = outflow at any time (t); and Q0 = initial discharge. The
equation is based on the Boussinesq (1877) equation of flow in
aquifers. The term expð
1k Þ can be replaced by recession constant
(K) for the selected time units.
In PART (Rutledge 1998), the antecedent recession requirement
is used to identify the days when groundwater discharge equals
streamflow and a linear interpolation is applied to separate base
flow from daily streamflow data during periods of surface runoff.
A decline of daily streamflow not more than 0.1 log cycle is
ensured during the days of no surface runoff. The duration of time
for the significant influence of quick flow on streamflow is esti-
mated by the following equation (Linsley et al. 1982).
N ¼ 1:2A0:2 ð2Þ
Where N = number of days after the peak; and A = drainage area (in
square kilometers). In Eq. (2), the effects of other basin features,
such as infiltration capacity, topographic slope, drainage density,
groundwater system and surface storage characteristics (Stewart
et al. 2007) are ignored for estimating the duration of quick flow.
The program, BFLOW (Arnold and Allen 1999) is based on a
one-parameter filter technique originally used in signal analysis.
The technique is objective and robust, but it does not have any true
physical basis and is very sensitive to the filter parameter (Chen
et al. 2008). The equation of the filter used in BFLOW (Arnold
and Allen 1999) is:
1þf
qt ¼ f qt
1 þ × ðQt
Qt
1 Þ; qt ≥ 0 ð3Þ
2
Where qt = filtered surface runoff (quick response); t = time step
(one day); Qt = total streamflow; and f = filter parameter. When the
quick runoff component is ceased, the filter parameter gets the sig-
nificance of the recession constant and can be derived objectively
from recession analysis (Eckhardt 2005). The base flow, (bt ) is cal-
culated as follows:
bt ¼ Qt
qt ð4Þ
In terms of base flow, the filter equation can be written as (Eckhardt
2005)
 1
f
bt ¼ f bt
1 þ ðQt þ Qt
1 Þ; bt ≤ Qt ð5Þ
2 sheds varies from approximately 175 m to 195 m above sea level.
The value of filter parameter and the number of filter passes
vary with the hydrological and physical characteristics of the
watersheds.
Nonlinear Reservoir Approach
In the nonlinear reservoir approach, a nonlinear storage-outflow
relationship ðS ¼ aQb Þ is used to estimate base flow from stream-
flow data. The exponent b is dimensionless and when b ¼ 1, the
storage-outflow relationship represents a linear reservoir. If storage
(S) is expressed in (m3 ) and outflow (Q) is expressed in m3 ∕s, the
unit of recession parameter, (a) is m3
3b sb .
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/17/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
In BNLP (Wittenberg 1999), the nonlinear reservoir equation
ðS ¼ aQb Þ and the continuity equation of a reservoir without inflow
ðds
dt ¼
QÞ are combined and the discharge after time (t) with an
initial discharge (Q0 ) is expressed as
 1∕ðb
1Þ
ð1
bÞQ1
b
Qt ¼ Q0 1 þ 0
t ð6Þ
a< m : mi > b
Computing backward in time, the base flow at (t
Δt) is estimated
in BNLP (Wittenberg 1999) by inverting the previous equation as
follows:
 
tðb
1Þ 1∕ðb
1Þ
Qt
Δt ¼ Qb
1
t þ ð7Þ
ab
Where b controls the concavity of the recession curve and a lower
value for b represents a more concave recession curve (Hammond
and Han 2006). The values of parameters a and b are calibrated for
the selected recession candidates by an iterative least-squares fitting
method as suggested by Wittenberg (1999). By systematically
varying the value of b, the value of a is determined by the following
equation (Wittenberg 1999):
ΣðQt
1 þ Qt ÞΔt
a¼ ð8Þ
2ΣðQbt
1
Qbt Þ
It is assumed that the parameters a and b, that give the minimum
sum of square errors from the observed recession curve, are the
true values for the watershed (Wittenberg 1999). Wittenberg and
Sivapalan (1999) observed seasonal variation of the factor a due
to the seasonally varying rate of evapotranspiration loss from
the groundwater aquifer. They obtained strong negative correlation
of Pan evaporation with estimated seasonal values of a assuming a
fixed value of b. In the study, the values of parameters a and b are
estimated for the candidate recession segments and an average
value of b is used to determine the seasonal variability of the param-
eter, a. The mean monthly values of a are fitted to the Fourier series
and the coefficients of the Fourier equation are determined to use
them in the automated program BNLP (Wittenberg 1999). The
limitation of BNLP (Wittenberg 1999) lies in its application to base
flow recessions where there is little or no influence from recent
storm runoff (Hammond and Han 2006).
Study Area and Data
The Essex region (see Fig. 1) is located in southwestern Ontario,
Canada. It is bounded by the Great Lakes system on three sides:
Lake St. Clair, the Detroit River, and Lake Erie on the north, west,
and south, respectively. The major land use in the region is agri-
culture. Most of the urban land use is in the north-western area.
The Essex region is formed by glacial soils. The subwatersheds
556 / JOURNAL OF HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING © ASCE / APRIL 2012
J. Hydrol. Eng. 2012.17:554-564.
consist of relatively flat clay plains. The elevation of the subwater-
A series of aquifers such as an overburden aquifer, a contact aqui-
fer, and a bedrock aquifer is present in the region [Essex Region
Conservation Authority (ERCA) 2007]. All of these aquifers are
not present everywhere and, also, it is rare for all the aquifers to
be absent (ERCA 2007). The overburden aquifers include confined
and unconfined aquifers. The water table in the study area is seldom
deeper than 5 m. A schematic cross section of the aquifer system
of the study area based on Waterloo Hydrogeologic (2004) and
ERCA (2007) is shown in Fig. 2. From the available literature,
the lateral hydraulic conductivity of the shaded area in Fig. 2
ranges from 2 × 10
7 to 1 × 10
12 m∕s in the region (Waterloo
Hydrogeologic 2004).
The study is carried out using the daily streamflow data of three
gauge stations (see Fig. 1) of Water Survey of Canada (WSC) for
which long-term streamflow data are available. These are located
on the Ruscom River, the Canard River, and the Little River (see
Fig. 1). The study estimates annual base flows for these subwater-
sheds (see Fig. 1) using the measured streamflow data. The length
of streamflow data is from 1972 to 2003 for the Ruscom River,
from 1977 to 2003 for the Canard River, and from 1983 to
2003 for the Little River. The Ruscom River and the Little River
flow northward into Lake St. Clair while the Canard River flows
westward into the Detroit River. Four climatic stations (see Fig. 1)
of Atmospheric Environment Service (AES) of Environment
Canada are used in the study. The meteorological data from
Woodslee station are used for the Ruscom River subwatershed
while the data from Windsor Airport are used for Little River sub-
watershed. Since there is no climatic station in the Canard River
subwatershed, the data from Windsor Airport, Harrow, and
Amherstburg are used to estimate the climatic variables.
At present, there are nine Provincial Groundwater Monitoring
Network (PGMN) wells in the Essex region. Considering the
location of the groundwater wells (see Fig. 1), four groundwater
wells [identification numbers (IDs) W0000205-2, W0000205-3,
W0000112-1, and W0000203-1] are selected to observe the
groundwater level fluctuation. All of the four wells are located
in bedrock aquifers. The groundwater level was recorded from
the year 2003 and the data availability at each of the wells varied
between 2–5 years.
The Essex region receives less precipitation in the form of snow
in comparison to the other cold climate regions of Canada. Most of
the rainfall during summer comes in the form of showers and thun-
derstorms. The region receives most of its snow from December to
February. Approximately 1/10 of the snow is treated as an equiv-
alent millimeter (mm) of snowfall by Environment Canada. The
snowfall constitutes 11–12% of the total precipitation in the region
(ERCA 2007). The characteristics of the selected subwatersheds of
the Essex region are shown in Table 1. The values of potential
evapotranspiration (PET) are estimated using the Penman-Monteith
approach (Allen et al. 1998).
Recession Analysis
For analyzing the recession behavior, some characteristic recession
segments for the subwatersheds are selected. In the linear recession
analysis by RECESS (Rutledge 1998), streamflow recession during
low evapotranspiration losses (October to April) are considered for
estimating the recession constant so that the recession parameter is
not influenced by the evapotranspiration losses from groundwater.
In the nonlinear recession analysis, streamflw recession segments
during low and high evapotranspiration losses from January to
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/17/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 1. Map of study area (Essex region, Ontario, Canada)

December are used to identify the seasonal variability of the reces-
sion parameter (a). The recession segments from October to April
are the same in both RECESS (Rutledge 1998) and nonlinear
recession analysis. The number of recession segments analyzed
by RECESS (Rutledge 1998) are 46, 41, and 31, respectively, from
the Ruscom River, the Canard River, and the Little River subwa-
tersheds. During July and August, fewer characteristic recessions
with short durations are observed in the region and hence, the re-
cession of at least seven days duration are used for recession
analysis.
Wittenberg and Sivapalan (1999) considered the starting point
for base flow recession not earlier than two days after the inflection

Table 1. Characteristics of Selected Subwatersheds in Essex Region

Subwatershed (data period) A (km2 ) P (mm) Q (mm) PET (mm)
Ruscom River (1972–2003) 125.0 860 277 907
Canard River (1977–2003) 159.0 905 316 898
Little River (1983–2003) 50.5 918 302 909
Note: A = drainage area at gauge station; P = average annual precipitation;
Q = average annual streamflow; and PET = average annual potential eva-
Fig. 2. Schematic cross section of the aquifer system of the study area
potranspiration.

JOURNAL OF HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING © ASCE / APRIL 2012 / 557

J. Hydrol. Eng. 2012.17:554-564.

 point of the hydrograph. Nejadhashemi et al. (2007) used the start-
ing point for base flow recession and the inflection point as the
same point on the streamflow hydrograph. The inflection point
was defined as the point on the recession limb where the second
derivative according to Eq. (9) is zero.

∂ 2 Qt Qiþ1
t
2Qit þ Qi
1
t
¼ ð9Þ
∂t 2 ðΔtÞ2

where Qit = streamflow at time step i; and Δt = time interval (here it

is one day). In the study, the duration of time for the influence of
quick flow on streamflow is estimated by using Eq. (2) (Linsley
et al. 1982) and the starting time of recession after the peak flow
is estimated by the method proposed by Nejadhashemi et al.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/17/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(2007). The results obtained from Nejadhashemi et al. (2007) vary

from recession to recession in a month and also from month to
month in a subwatershed. Comparing the results obtained from
Eqs. (2) and (9) with that proposed by Wittenberg and Sivapalan
(1999), the influence of quick runoff on streamflow is considered
for three days after the occurrence of peak streamflow. The char-
acteristic recession segments are analyzed to estimate the reces-
sion parameter and the results are presented in the following
subsections.

Estimation of Recession Constant by Linear Recession
Analysis
The minimum, maximum, and median recession indices (K)
obtained by linear recession analysis using RECESS (Rutledge
1998) are shown in Table 2. The retention constant (k) increases
with the decrease of streamflow during the recession (Chapman
2003) and therefore, the recession constant (K) will be increased.
The mean monthly flow of the Canard River is higher than the other
two rivers in the study area. This is why the recession is faster in the
Canard River subwatershed than the Ruscom River subwatershed,
even though the Canard River subwatershed has higher drainage
area. The faster recession occurs in the Little River subwatershed
due to the lowest drainage area.
Estimation of Recession Parameter by Nonlinear
Recession Analysis
The semi logarithmic plot of recession segments show that there
exist some nonlinearity in streamflow recession of the study area.
The semilogarithmic plot of recession segments for February, a
month of lower evapotranspiration losses, and July, a month of
higher evapotranspiration losses, are shown in Fig. 3. The starting
date and duration of recession for the recession segments used in
Fig. 3 are shown in Table 3. The values of parameters a and b are
estimated for the candidate recession segments by the least square
method as described in the “Methodology” section and the average
value of b is observed to be 0.5. Some examples of fitting stream-
flow recession during March and July using the nonlinear storage-
outflow equation are shown in Fig. 4. The values of parameters a
and b of the recession segments and the root mean square error
(RMSE) for fitting the nonlinear recession curve are shown in
Fig. 3. Recession curves: (a) February; (b) July
Table 4. For comparison, the values of recession constant K cor-
responding to the same recession segments and RMSE for fitting
the recession curves by using linear recession analysis are included
in the Table 4. The table shows that the nonlinear reservoir ap-
proach fits the recession curves better than that of linear reservoir
approach. In both approaches, the recession parameters vary with
months and show lower value in the month of July. However, the
seasonal variation of recession parameter cannot be implemented in
PART (Rutledge 1998), and BFLOW (Arnold and Allen 1999) for
separating base flow from streamflos hydrograph.
In the nonlinear recession analysis, the recession is faster in the
Little River subwatershed and slower in the Ruscom River subwa-
tershed than the Canard River subwatershed (see Fig. 5). The mean
monthly values of a reach their lowest during July–August and the
highest values in February (see Fig. 5). The authors assume that the
seasonal variation of the parameter a is attributed to the occurrence
of higher evapotranspiration losses during July–August and lower
losses during November–March. However, the assumption is veri-
fied in the “Results and Discussion” section. It is observed that the
values of a are lower in January than in March (see Fig. 5). This
may happen because of the occurrence of frequent freezing temper-
ature during January and because of the occurrence of frequent
above-freezing temperatures in March that cause snowmelt. In
the study area, the mean of daily minimum temperature is lower
and the mean monthly snowfall are higher in January than
in March.
Results and Discussion

Table 2. Recession Behavior Using Linear Reservoir Approach The daily streamflow and base flow hydrographs of the subwater-
sheds are examined to select the suitable value of filter parameter
Recession index, K (days/log cycle)
and number of filter passes for estimating base flow by the filter
Subwatershed Minimum Median Maximum based linear reservoir approach, BFLOW (Arnold and Allen
Ruscom River 4.0 8.5 15.7 1999) program. The daily streamflow and base flow hydrographs
for the year 1979 using different filter parameters and filter passes
Canard River 4.5 7.1 10.7
for the Canard River subwatershed are presented in Fig. 6. The
Little River 3.5 6.1 12.5
figure shows that base flow decreases with the increase of filter

558 / JOURNAL OF HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING © ASCE / APRIL 2012

J. Hydrol. Eng. 2012.17:554-564.

 Table 3. Starting and Duration of Selected Recession Curves in February and July
February
Subwatershed Start of recession Duration (days)
Ruscum River February 2, 1975
Canard River February 9, 1986
Little River January 30, 1994
parameter and number of filter passes. As shown in Fig. 6(a), for
any value of the filter parameter, the daily base flow hydrograph
obtained from the first pass intersects the daily streamflow hydro-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/17/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
graph just after the occurrence of streamflow peak. Hence, base
flow obtained by the first pass may be overestimated because of
the presence of quick runoff. Moreover, the value of filter parameter
higher than 0.925 intersects the daily streamflow hydrograph later
than the time of cessation of surface runoff, as shown in Fig. 6(b),
and can underestimate the occurrence of base flow. Hence, base
flow estimated by BFLOW (Arnold and Allen 1999) with the
Fig. 4. Modeling of streamflow recession during March and July by
nonlinear reservoir approach
J. Hydrol. Eng. 2012.17:554-564.
July
Start of recession Duration (days)
13 July 4, 1978 10
9 July 8, 1983 9
15 July 7, 1994 8
second pass and with the filter parameter of 0.925 is considered
to be suitable for the study area.
The program PART (Rutledge 1998) does not require estimating
any recession parameter to separate base flow from streamflow
data. For estimating base flow by the nonlinear reservoir approach
based program, BNLP (see Wittenberg 1999), the daily recession
parameter is determined from the seasonal variation of the param-
eter a. In this regard, the average value of b is considered to be fixed
for the candidate recession segments and the mean monthly values
of a are fitted to the three harmonic Fourier series (see Fig. 5) and
the daily recession parameter is estimated for the program BNLP
(Wittenberg 1999). The third harmonic of Fourier series has
explained 6.0% of total variance.
The daily base flow is estimated by the three base flow separa-
tion programs. Since this paper aims to identify the seasonal varia-
tion of base flow and to estimate the annual base flow for the study
area, the estimated daily base flow is converted to monthly and
yearly time scales. The variation of mean monthly base flow in
the subwatersheds is presented in Fig. 7. Both linear and nonlinear
reservoir approaches of base flow separation show similar seasonal
variation in mean monthly base flow hydrographs (see Fig. 7). Base
flow starts to rise in October, reaches the peak in March, starts to
fall in April, and reaches the lowest value in August. The sudden
rise in base flow hydrograph in the month of September may be the
result of occurrence of very high precipitation in September 1990.
The seasonal distribution of precipitation is almost uniform over the
study area. The coefficient of variation for monthly precipitation
ranges from 13.5% to 16% in the region. Therefore, the seasonal
variation of base flow may occur because of the seasonal variation
in evapotranspiration losses. To evaluate the seasonal pattern of
base flow, the possible time for occurrences of recharge in the
study area is identified. From October to March, the evapotranspi-
ration losses are lower in the study area than that of April to
September. The highest evapotranspiration losses occur in July
(see Fig. 5). Conversely, most of the snowfall occurs from
December to March. From October, the soil moisture can be
saturated if high precipitation occurs in terms of rain and/or snow.
This results in an increase in recharge during October. From
November to March, the soil is usually saturated and most of
the recharge occurs during this period. In March, the maximum
recharge occurs because of snowmelt and low evapotranspiration
losses. In April, the evapotranspiration losses start to increase;
snowfall is lower than that of in March and recharge starts to fall.
During the period of high evapotranspiration losses from June to
September, the soil moisture may be removed by evapotranspira-
tion before it gets saturated (Nejadhashemi et al. 2008). Thus, soil
moisture may not reach the water table during the period of high
evapotranspiration losses and may result in low recharge.
The observed daily groundwater levels in the monitoring well
W0000205-3 from June 2004 to May 2005, and from June 2005 to
May 2006 are shown in Fig. 8. There are discontinuities in the
observed groundwater level data and the dotted line in the figure
indicates missing data. The groundwater level is lowered during
June to September months and starts to increase from October.
JOURNAL OF HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING © ASCE / APRIL 2012 / 559
 Table 4. Values of Recession Parameters in Nonlinear and Linear Reservoir Approaches for Some Recession Segments and Corresponding Values of RMSE
Nonlinear reservoir approacha Linear reservoir approach
Subwatershed Recession segments a ðm1:5 s0:5 Þ RMSE (m3 ∕s) K (days/log cycle) RMSE (m3 ∕s)
Ruscum River March 1985 8.6 0.06 10.1 0.94
Ruscum River July 1986 1.7 0.01 5.2 1.43
Canard River March 1985 7.9 0.03 8.7 1.07
Canard River July 1983 2.9 0.01 6.8 0.12
Little River March 1999 2.5 0.01 5.8 0.21
Little River July 1983 2.1 0.02 4.8 0.63
a
The values of b are equal to 0.5.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/17/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Since the monitoring well W0000205-3 is located in the bedrock
aquifer, it is most likely that the hydraulic connectivity of the
bedrock aquifer with the river is low. Therefore, the groundwater
monitoring well data cannot be related with the occurrence of base
flow/recharge in the study area. In July and August, the ground-
water abstraction is the highest in the area for agricultural use.
However, according to the Permit to Take Water (PTTW) database
of the Ministry of Environment (MOE), Ontario, Canada, there is
no groundwater abstraction in the Ruscom River subwatershed
during the period from October to May. In the Little River subwa-
tershed, there is no loss from the groundwater storage attributed to
pumping in any month. Therefore, the seasonal variability of non-
linear recession parameter cannot be related to the variability of
groundwater abstraction.

Fig. 5. Mean monthly variation of potential evapotranspiration and

fitted Fourier series to mean monthly values of a

Fig. 6. Daily streamflow and base flow hydrographs for the year 1979
using different filter parameters and filter passes for the Canard River Fig. 7. Mean monthly variation of base flow using three base flow
subwatershed: (a) Pass 1; (b) Pass 2 separation methods

560 / JOURNAL OF HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING © ASCE / APRIL 2012

J. Hydrol. Eng. 2012.17:554-564.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/17/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 8. Observed daily groundwater level in well W0000205-3
During the period of high evapotranspiration losses, the occur-
rence of quick runoff is low because of the occurrence of low ante-
cedent soil moisture condition. The type of vegetation and the
depth of shallow aquifer of the study area are also in favor of
occurrence of water losses from groundwater storage attributed
to evapotranspiration. This may cause an increase in hydraulic
gradient and faster streamflow recession during this period. Alter-
natively, during the period of high recharge, the scenario can be
reversed and the nonlinear recession parameter can show a higher
value. Therefore, the seasonal variability of recession parameter in
the study area is most likely attributed to the variation of hydraulic
gradient caused by the variation of occurrence of evapotranspira-
tion losses.
The daily base flow hydrograph for the year 2003 is shown in
Fig. 9 to identify the base flow response of the subwatersheds to
precipitation. The nonlinear reservoir approach usually shows
faster response of base flow to precipitation. For better understand-
ing of the response of the watershed aquifer to precipitation on
seasonal basis, the relationship between observed seasonal precipi-
tation and observed seasonal streamflow is developed graphically
for the subwatersheds. For developing the seasonal precipitation-
streamflow response curves, the following procedure is adopted.
In the first step, the probability of exceedance curve of seasonal
total precipitation and streamflow for each season is constructed.
The shape of the streamflow exceedance curve corresponding to
50 to 100% flow exceedance range can be used for the interpreta-
tion of groundwater and/or subsurface contribution to streamflow
(Smakhtin 2001). The seasonal precipitation value (P50) corre-
sponding to 50% flow exceedance is estimated from the exceed-
ance probability curves. Using the seasonal precipitation ranging
from 0 to P50 and the corresponding streamflow response, the
precipitation-streamflow response curve for any season is devel-
oped. The slopes of the response curves show that during periods
of high evapotranspiration losses and low recharge, the streamflow
response to precipitation is smooth and during periods of low
evapotranspiration losses and high recharge, the response is rela-
tively fast. Therefore, it is most likely that the occurrence of
groundwater and/or subsurface flow is relatively high during
periods of low evapotranspiration losses and high recharge. In
the study area, the tile drains are used for the removal of excess
JOURNAL OF HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING © ASCE / APRIL 2012 / 561
J. Hydrol. Eng. 2012.17:554-564.
Fig. 9. Daily streamflow and base flow hydrographs for the year 2003
using three base flow separation methods
water from the fine-textured clayey soil to facilitate the root zone
aeration and agricultural operations (Tan et al. 2002). Moreover,
soybean and wheat, two major crops of the region are mostly grown
with no-tillage condition. The tile drain with no-tillage, can con-
tribute to the formation of macropores in the soils (Fleming and
Ford 2006). This may result in fast movement of water during peri-
ods of low evapotranspiration losses and high recharge. Due to the
fast response of base flow to precipitation in the nonlinear reservoir
approach, the base flow estimation is higher in this approach than
that in linear reservoir approach. Schilling and Helmers (2008)
studied the effects of subsurface drainage on watershed hydrology
and observed occurrence of higher base flow in the tile-drained
condition than that of no tile drain condition.
Because no field data on subsurface flow information is avail-
able, the seasonal flow duration curves of the subwatersheds (see
Fig. 10) are used for obtaining qualitative information on occur-
rence of base flow and for distinguishing the base flow estimation
of the selected methods. The slope of the flow duration curve cor-
responding to 50 to 90% flow exceedance range is steeper during
periods of high evapotranspiration losses (June to September) and
low recharge (October to November) than that during the periods of
high recharge (December to March and April to May). This indi-
cates that the contribution of groundwater discharge to streamflow
during the periods of high evapotranspiration losses and low re-
charge is smaller than that during the periods of low evapotranspi-
ration losses and high recharge. In any season, the slope of the
curve corresponding to 90 to 100% flow exceedance range is
steeper than that corresponding to 50 to 90% flow exceedance
 XN

¼1
D ðA
A2 Þi ð10Þ
N i¼1 1

where D=
mean difference (mm); N = number of years of data; A1 =

annual base flow estimated by Method 1 for year i (mm); and
A2 = annual base flow estimated by Method 2 for year i (mm).
The mean differences obtained from different methods are
shown in Table 5. The table shows that the differences in estimated
annual values of base flow are very high for any of the subwater-
sheds. Moreover, the nonlinear reservoir method provides higher
annual base flow than the linear reservoir methods and the filter
method (BFLOW) (Arnold and Allen 1999) generates the lowest
annual base flow. The average annual base flow and the base flow
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/17/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

index (BFI) are the lowest in the filter based base flow separation
method than the other methods (see Table 6). The BFI is estimated
as the ratio of long-term average annual base flow to annual
streamflow.
The study reveals that the base flow response of the subwater-
sheds to precipitation is smooth during the period of high evapo-
transpiration losses and fast during the period of high recharge. The
Fig. 10. Seasonal flow duration curves for the subwatersheds filter based linear reservoir approach (BFLOW) (Arnold and Allen
1999) shows a relatively small contribution of groundwater dis-
charge to streamflow and smooth response of base flow to precipi-
range. This is an indication of small contribution of groundwater tation during the period of high evapotranspiration losses than that
discharge to streamflow in the study area in any season of the year. of the other two methods. The results of nonlinear reservoir ap-
In July, the mean difference between the monthly base flow es- proach during the period of high evapotranspiration losses are con-
timated by the filter method and the nonlinear reservoir approach is sistent with that of other methods. During high recharge periods,
the nonlinear reservoir approach represents the catchment behavior

3:0 mm in three subwatersheds. In August, the mean difference is
better than the other methods. Hence, the seasonal base flow pattern

1:0 mm in the Ruscom River and the Canard River watersheds
estimated by the nonlinear reservoir approach is considered to be
whereas it is
2:0 mm in the Little River watershed. Moreover, the
the most likely situation of the study area. McLean and Watt (2005)
monthly base flow estimated by the computer program PART is
developed regional low flow frequency relations for central Ontario
consistent with that of the filter algorithm from July to September.
by analyzing streamflow data of 38 basins and reported the values
Thus, during the period of high evapotranspiration losses, both of
of BFI varying from 0.21 to 0.70 with the median value of 0.54.
the linear reservoir approaches provide similar results and the mean
They noticed that the basins with fine-grained soils and flat topog-
difference of estimated base flow in July and August between the
raphy had the value of BFI lower than the average value. Therefore,
linear and nonlinear reservoir approaches is negligible. Therefore,
BFI estimated by three methods are within the range of the values
there is consistency in base flow estimation in all of the methods
of BFI described by McLean and Watt (2005). However, the non-
during the period of high evapotranspiration losses. The effects of
linear reservoir approach fits streamflow recession better and rep-
tile drainage on base flow estimation is higher during high recharge
resents the aquifer response to precipitation better than that of the
periods (Schilling and Helmers 2008). The nonlinear storage-
linear reservoir approach. So the average annual base flow quanti-
outflow relation fits streamflow recession better than the other
fied by the nonlinear reservoir approach is considered as the best
two methods and the nonlinear reservoir approach provides
relatively high base flow estimation during high recharge periods.
Therefore, it can be considered that the nonlinear reservoir
Table 5. Mean Differences between Annual Base Flow (mm) Estimated by
approach represents the effects of tile drainage on streamflow Different Methods
recession better than the other two methods and can provide
reasonable base flow estimation in the study area. Mean differences between
In the case of annual base flow the differences between the Subwatershed BFLOW-BNLP BFLOW-PART BNLP-PART
methods are tested statistically using the paired t-test. Before ap-
Ruscom River
41
25 16
plying the paired t-test, the normality of the distribution of esti-
mated annual base flows is tested using the Anderson-Darling Canard River
46
23 23
(A-D) test because it gives more weight to the tails than does Little River
39
22 17
the Kolmogorov-Smirnov (K-S) test. The distribution of annual
base flows estimated by the nonlinear reservoir approach is more
skewed than those obtained from the linear reservoir approach. The Table 6. Average Annual Base Flow (mm) and BFI Estimated by Different
test results show that the annual base flow values estimated by all of Methods
the methods are normally distributed and cannot be rejected at 95%
PART BFLOW BNLP
confidence level. The results of the paired t-test show that all of the
base flow methods differ significantly at 95% confidence level in Subwatershed Base flow BFI Base flow BFI Base flow BFI
all of the subwatersheds. Because the differences in annual base Ruscom River 86 0.31 61 0.21 102 0.37
flow estimates are statistically significant, the mean differences Canard River 83 0.26 60 0.19 106 0.34
between any two methods are determined according to following Little River 79 0.26 57 0.19 96 0.32
Eq. (10) (Risser et al. 2005)

562 / JOURNAL OF HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING © ASCE / APRIL 2012

J. Hydrol. Eng. 2012.17:554-564.

 possible base flow estimation for formulating the annual water
budget in the study area.
Conclusions
The study is carried out to identify the seasonal variation of base
flow and to quantify the annual base flow for the study area. The
base flow is separated from the daily streamflow hydrograph using
both linear and nonlinear reservoir approaches. The recession
parameter is estimated by analyzing the candidate recession seg-
ments using the linear and nonlinear storage-outflow relationships.
In the nonlinear recession analysis, the recession parameter is
considered to be a seasonally variable parameter. The study reveals
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/17/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
that the nonlinear reservoir approach fits streamflow recession
better than the linear reservoir approach and the variability in
the monthly recession parameter in the nonlinear reservoir ap-
proach is attributed to the variation of occurrence of evapotranspi-
ration losses. The study identifies the significant differences in
the annual base flow estimated by linear and nonlinear reservoir
algorithms. In the nonlinear reservoir approach, the occurrence
of average annual base flow is 34% of average annual streamflow.
The steeper slopes of seasonal flow duration curves in the 90%
to 100% flow exceedance range show smaller contribution of
groundwater to streamflow in any subwatershed of the region.
The seasonal streamflow-precipitation response curves show fast
response of base flow to precipitation during the period of high
recharge and smooth response of base flow to precipitation during
the period of low recharge. The nonlinear reservoir approach rep-
resents the watershed aquifer response to precipitation better than
the other methods. So the average annual base flow estimated by
the nonlinear reservoir approach is considered as the best possible
base flow estimation for the study area.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to express special thanks to Dr. Hartmut
Wittenberg for the source codes of BNLP.
References
Aksoy, H., Kurt, I., and Eris, E. (2009). “Filtered smoothed minima base-
flow separation method.” J. Hydrol., 372(1–4), 94–101.
Aksoy, H., Unal, N. E., and Pektas, A. E. (2008). “Smoothed minima base-
flow separation tool for perennial and intermittent streams.” Hydrol.
Processes, 22(22), 4467–4476.
Allen, R. G., Pereira, L. S., Raes, D., and Smith, M. (1998). “Crop evapo-
transpiration: Guidelines for computing crop water requirements.” Food
and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) Irrigation
and Drainage Paper no. 56, Rome, Italy.
Arnold, J. G., and Allen, P. M. (1999). “Automated methods for estimating
baseflow and ground water recharge from streamflow records.” J. Am.
Water Resour. Assoc., 35(2), 411–424.
Boussinesq, J. (1877). “Essai sur la théorie des eaux courantes.” MeÂm.
preÂs. par divers savants aÁ l'Acad. des Sci. de l'Inst. Nat. de France,
23(1), 1–680 (in French).
Chapman, T. G. (1999). “A comparison of algorithms for stream flow re-
cession and baseflow separation.” Hydrol. Processes, 13(5), 701–714.
Chapman, T. G. (2003). “Modelling stream recession flows.” Environ.
Modell. Software, 18(8–9), 683–692.
Chen, L., Zheng, H., Chen, Y. D., and Liu, C. (2008). “Base-flow separa-
tion in the source region of the yellow river.” J. Hydrol. Eng., 13(7),
541–548.
Chen, X., Chen, D. Y., and Chen, X.-H. (2006). “Simulation of baseflow
accounting for the effect of bank storage and its implication in baseflow
separation.” J. Hydrol., 327(3–4), 539–549.
JOURNAL OF HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING © ASCE / APRIL 2012 / 563
J. Hydrol. Eng. 2012.17:554-564.
Dewandel, B., Lachassagne, P., Bakalowiczc, M., Weng, Ph., and
Al-Malki, A. (2003). “Evaluation of aquifer thickness by analysing re-
cession hydrographs. Application to the oman ophiolite hard-rock aqui-
fer.” J. Hydrol., 274(1–4), 248–269.
Eckhardt, K. (2005). “How to construct recursive digital filters for baseflow
separation.” Hydrol. Processes, 19(2), 507–515.
Essex Region Conservation Authority (ERCA). (2007). “Draft conceptual
water budget assessment report.” Essex, ON, Canada.
Ferket, B. V.A., Samain, B., and Pauwels, V. R. N. (2010). “Internal vali-
dation of conceptual rainfall-runoff models using baseflow separation.”
J. Hydrol., 381(1–2), 158–173.
Fleming, R., and Ford, R. (2006). “Relationship of NMAN output to tile
drain water nutrient levels—Field study.” Final Rep., Univ. of Guelph,
Ridgetown, On, Canada, 2–5.
Gutiérrez-Magness, A. L., and McCuen, R. H. (2005). “Effect of flow pro-
portions on HSF model calibration accuracy.” J. Hydrol. Eng., 10(5),
343–352.
Griffiths, G. A., and Clausen, B. (1997). “Streamflow recession in basins
with multiple water storages.” J. Hydrol., 190(1–2), 60–74.
Hammond, M., and Han, D. (2006). “Recession curve estimation for storm
event separations.” J. Hydrol., 330(3–4), 573–585.
Hewlett, J. D., and Hibbert, A. R. (1967). “Factors affecting the response of
small watersheds to precipitation in humid areas.” Int. Symp. on Forest
Hydrology, W. E. Sopper and H. W. Lull, eds., Pergamon: New York,
275–290.
Institute of Hydrology. (1980). “Low flow studies.” Research Rep., Institute
of Hydrology, Wallingford, Oxfordshire, UK.
Lin, K., Guo, S., Zhang, W., and Liu, P. (2007). “A new baseflow separation
method based on analytical solutions of the horton infiltration capacity
curve.” Hydrol. Processes, 21(13), 1719–1736.
Linsley, R. K., Jr., Kohler, M. A., and Paulhus, J. L. H. (1982). Hydrology
for engineers, 3rd Ed., McGraw-Hill, NY, 508.
McLean, R. K., and Watt, W. E. (2005). “Regional low flow frequency
relations for central ontario.” Can. Water Resour. J., 30(3), 179–196.
Nejadhashemi, A. P., Sheridan, J. M., Shirmohammadi, A., and
Montas, H. J. (2007). “Hydrograph separation by incorporating
climatological factors: Application to small experimental watersheds.”
J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc., 43(3), 744–756.
Nejadhashemi, A. P., Shirmohammadi, A., Montas, H. J., Sheridan, J. M.,
and Bosch, D. D. (2008). “Watershed physical and hydrological effects
on baseflow separation.” J. Hydrol. Eng., 13(10), 971–980.
Nejadhashemi, A. P., Shirmohammadi, A., Sheridan, J. M., Montas, H. J.,
and Mankin, K. R. (2009). “Case study: Evaluation of streamflow par-
titioning methods.” J. Irrig. Drain. Eng., 135(6), 791–801.
Piggott, A. R., Moin, S., and Southam, C. (2005). “A revised approach to
the UKIH method for the calculation of baseflow.” Hydrol. Sci. J.,
50(5), 911–920.
Risser, D. W., Gburek, W. J., and Folmar, G. J. (2005). “Comparison of
methods for estimating ground-water recharge and base flow at a small
watershed underlain by fractured bedrock in the eastern united states.”
Scientific Investigations Rep. 2005-5038, U.S. Geological Survey,
Reston, VA, 2.
Rutledge, A. T. (1998). “Computer programs for describing the recession of
ground-water discharge and for estimating mean ground-water recharge
and discharge from streamflow data.” U.S. Geological Survey Water-
Resources Investigations Rep. 98-4148, 34–40.
Schilling, K. E., and Helmers, M. (2008). “Effects of subsurface drainage
tiles on streamflow in Iowa agricultural watersheds: Exploratory hydro-
graph analysis.” Hydrol. Processes, 22(23), 4497–4506.
Schwartz, S. S. (2007). “Automated algorithms for heuristic base-flow sep-
aration.” J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc., 43(6), 1583–1594.
Smakhtin, V. U. (2001). “Low flow hydrology: A review.” J. Hydrol.,
240(3–4), 147–186.
Stewart, M., Cimino, J., and Ross, M. (2007). “Calibration of base flow
separation methods with streamflow conductivity.” Ground Water,
45(1), 17–27.
Tallaksen, L. M. (1995). “A review of baseflow recession analysis.”
J. Hydrol., 165(1–4), 349–370.
Tan, C. S., Drury, C. F., Gaynor, J. D., Welacky, T. W., and Reynolds, W. D.
(2002). “Effect of tillage and water table control on evapotranspiration,
 surface runoff, tile drainage and soil water content under maize on a
clay loam soil.” Agric. Water Manage., 54(3), 173–188.
Tan, S. B. K., Lo, E. Y., Shuy, E. B., Chua, L. H., and Lim, W. H. (2009).
“Hydrograph separation and development of empirical relationships
using single-parameter digital filters.” J. Hydrol. Eng., 14(3), 271–279.
Waterloo Hydrogeologic. (2004). Six Conservation Authorities FEFLOW
groundwater model, conceptual model report, Upper Thames River
Conservation Authority, London, ON, Canada.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/17/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
564 / JOURNAL OF HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING © ASCE / APRIL 2012
J. Hydrol. Eng. 2012.17:554-564.
Wittenberg, H. (1999). “Baseflow recession and recharge as nonlinear stor-
age processes.” Hydrol. Processes, 13(5), 715–726.
Wittenberg, H. (2003). “Effects of season and man-made changes on base-
flow and flow recession: Case studies.” Hydrol. Processes, 17(11),
2113–2123.
Wittenberg, H., and Sivapalan, M. (1999). “Watershed groundwater
balance estimation using streamflow recession analysis and baseflow
separation.” J. Hydrol., 219(1–2), 20–33.