The Pennsylvania State University

The Graduate School

College of Engineering

CATCHMENT CLASSIFICATION

– UNDERSTANDING HYDROLOGIC SIMILARITY

W
THROUGH CATCHMENT FUNCTION

IE
A Dissertation in
EV
Civil Engineering

by
PR

Keith A. Sawicz

 2013 Keith A. Sawicz

Submitted in Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements
for the Degree of

Doctor of Philosophy
August 2013
 UMI Number: 3576575

All rights reserved

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS

The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.

W
IE
UMI 3576575
Published by ProQuest LLC (2013). Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author.
EV
Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.
All rights reserved. This work is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code
PR

ProQuest LLC.
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346
The dissertation of Keith A. Sawicz was reviewed and approved* by the following:

Thorsten Wagener
Associate Professor of Civil Engineering
Dissertation Advisor
Chair of Committee

Alfonso Mejia
Assistant Professor of Civil Engineering

W
Murugesu Sivapalan
IE
Professor of Civil Engineering and Geography
University of Illinois, Urbana – Champaign
Special Member
EV

Christopher Duffy
Professor of Civil Engineering
PR

Robert Crane
Professor of Geography

Peggy Johnson
Professor of Civil Engineering
Department Head of Civil and Environmental Engineering

*Signatures are on file in the Graduate School

 iii

ABSTRACT

The dissertation presented in this document focuses on understanding the challenges and
opportunities for the use of catchment classification to advance hydrologic
understanding. The work is broken up into three main components briefly outlined below.

[1] The first portion of this work includes the derivation and identification of key
hydrologic characteristics (denoted as “hydrologic signatures”, or “signatures”) based on
the hydrologic behavior of a catchment. These signatures are subsequently used to create
a catchment classification system for about 300 US basins. [2] The second part then uses
a model-based strategy to catchment classification and to understanding dominant

W
hydrologic controls on these signatures. A top-down modeling framework with model
structures of increasing complexity is applied to the same catchments used in part 1. The
minimum complexity needed to represent model structures is identified. Catchments
IE
requiring similar model complexities are considered hydrologically similar. [3] In the
third study, the temporal consistency of a signature-based classification is assessed over a
EV
period of over 40 years. This work provides insight into the potential hydrological
implications of climate and land use change.

Throughout this thesis we assume that hydrologic similarity is derived from the
PR

hydrologic behavior of a catchment. This notion is different from the previous

classification strategies focused on physical and climatic characteristics without explicit
mapping between these characteristics and the observed or expected hydrologic behavior.
 iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................ vii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................................................ x

CHAPTER 1 ....................................................................................................................... 1

INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1

1.1 Background ............................................................................................................ 2

1.2 Dissertation Objectives, Scope and Organization ................................................... 4
1.2.1 Study I: Empirical Classification ................................................................. 6
1.2.2 Study II: Understanding Hydrologic Controls Using A Top-Down
Modeling Approach ...................................................................................... 6

W
1.2.3 Study III: Nonstationarity of Hydrologic Similarity ..................................... 7
1.3 References ............................................................................................................. 8

CHAPTER 2 ....................................................................................................................... 11
IE
Study I – Empirical Analysis of Hydrologic Similarity based on Catchment Function in
the Eastern USA .......................................................................................................... 11
EV
2.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................... 12
2.2 Study Catchments and Data ................................................................................... 16
2.3 Signatures .............................................................................................................. 17
2.3.1 Runoff Ratio ............................................................................................... 18
2.3.2 Slope of the Flow Duration Curve ............................................................... 18
PR

2.3.3 Baseflow Index ........................................................................................... 19

2.3.4 Streamflow Elasticity .................................................................................. 20
2.3.5 Snow Day Ratio .......................................................................................... 20
2.3.6 Rising Limb Density ................................................................................... 21
2.4 Methods: Cluster Analysis ..................................................................................... 21
2.5 Results and Discussion .......................................................................................... 23
2.5.1 Signature Relationships and Spatial Variability............................................ 23
2.5.2 Cluster Analysis .......................................................................................... 27
2.5.3 Discussion ................................................................................................... 37
2.6 Conclusions ........................................................................................................... 43
2.7 Appendix ............................................................................................................... 44

Figure A6. Figure showing plots of precipitation and streamflow for two catchments of
which one (a) has the highest RLD (0.65) and very flashy response, while the other
(b) has the lowest RLD (0.15) and a very gradual response. ......................................... 48

2.8 References ............................................................................................................. 48

CHAPTER 3 ....................................................................................................................... 57
 v
Study II – Understanding Hydrologic Controls Using a Top-Down Modeling Approach...... 57

3.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................... 58

3.2 Methods ................................................................................................................ 60
3.2.1 Top-down modeling framework .................................................................. 60
3.2.2 Signatures and Time Scales ......................................................................... 65
Flow Duration Curve ........................................................................................... 67
The Flow Duration Curve (FDC) is the ranked transformation of the daily data
reflecting the percentage time that a particular streamflow value is
exceeded. The sorting step in the creation of the FDC removes the exact
timing of an event occurring, but preserves information about the
variability and magnitude of streamflow and more generally, how flashy or
filtered (damped) the hydrologic response of a catchment is. ......................... 67
3.2.2 Objective Functions..................................................................................... 67
3.2.3 Fuzzy Metric ............................................................................................... 68
3.3 Data....................................................................................................................... 69

W
3.4 Results and Discussion .......................................................................................... 70
3.4.1 How do appropriate model structures vary with signatures and time
scales? .......................................................................................................... 70
3.4.2 Do appropriate model structures exhibit spatial patterns? ............................. 73
IE
3.4.3 Is the appropriate model structure related to catchment and climate
descriptors? .................................................................................................. 75
3.4.4 Are the top-down modeling results consistent with our previous empirical
study?........................................................................................................... 76
EV
3.5 Conclusions ........................................................................................................... 77
3.6 References ............................................................................................................. 78

CHAPTER 4 ....................................................................................................................... 96
PR

Study III – Catchment Classification: Temporal Stability of Catchment Classification ......... 96

4.1. Introduction .......................................................................................................... 97

4.2. Data and Study Catchments .................................................................................. 98
4.3. Methods ............................................................................................................... 100
4.3.1 Signatures ................................................................................................... 100
4.3.2 Clustering Algorithm................................................................................... 101
3.3 Decision Tree ................................................................................................. 101
4.4, Results and Discussion ......................................................................................... 102
4.4.1 Catchment Classification for Baseline Decade (1948-1958) ......................... 102
4.4.2 CART Analysis to Understand Class Separations ........................................ 104
4.4.3 Signature Values during the Four Decades ................................................... 107
4.4.4 Interpretation of Change by Region ............................................................. 109
4.5. Conclusions and Open Questions .......................................................................... 115
4.6 References ..................................................................................................... 116

CHAPTER 5 ....................................................................................................................... 122

Synthesis ............................................................................................................................ 122

 vi
5.1 Summary of Scientific Contribution ....................................................................... 123
5.2 Recommendations for Future Work ....................................................................... 125
5.3 References ............................................................................................................. 126

W
IE
EV
PR
 vii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1.1. Two similar catchments with respect to landscape features show very
different types of streamflow hydrographs. South Tyne at Featherstone, UK (top)
nad Kennet at Theale, UK (bottom). The red line indicated the 90th percentile of
daily streamflow, and the shaded areas indicate volumes below the 50th percentile of
daily streamflow. Picture and hydrographs are taken from Bloeschl et. al, 2013. .......... 2

Figure 1.2. Definitions and relationships between catchment functions, signatures, and
services. [From Wagener et al. (2007)] ....................................................................... 4

Figure 2.1. Distributions of individual signatures shown as histograms and correlations

W
between the signatures shown as scatter plots as well as numerical values.
Correlation (C) is calculated using linear correlation (Lin) and Spearman Rank (SR)
correlation coefficients, both ranging from zero to one. ................................................ 24
IE
Figure 2.2. Maps showing the spatial distribution of signatures for each of the study
catchments. The color of the catchment corresponds to the high (red) and low (blue)
values, as shown by the colorbar. Plots show spatial distributions of: (a) Mean
annual runoff ratio (RQP). (b) Slope of the FDC (SFDC). (c) Streamflow elasticity
EV
(EQP). (d) Base flow index (IBF). (e) Ratio (or fraction) of snow days (RSD). (f) Rising
Limb Density (RLD). The actual range in values can be found in the supplemental
material. ...................................................................................................................... 26

Figure 2.3. (a) Distribution of the primary class membership probability for all 280
PR

catchments. (b) Histogram of the number of catchments within each class. (c)
Relative class strength. Measure of how similar catchments are in a particular class
normalized to the strongest class (value of 1 is the strongest value, all other classes
are less). ...................................................................................................................... 28

Figure 2.4. Distribution of signature values for each class. Classes are sorted by median
value from low to high (left to right). (a) Mean annual runoff ratio (RQP). (b) Slope
of the FDC (SFDC). (c) Streamflow elasticity (EQP). (d) Base flow index (IBF). (e)
Ratio (or fraction) of snow days (RSD). (f) Rising Limb Density (RLD).......................... 30

Figure 2.5. The top figure represents the spatial distribution of catchments according to
their classes. The catchments are color coded according to Class # as shown in the
lower part of the recursive pattern plot below (this plot type is also sometimes called
a heat map). The first 6 rows of the recursive pattern plot show signature values
(high values shown as red, low being blue). The 7th row indicates the probability of
a catchment’s primary class assignment. The 8th and last row represents the class
color code used the in the map above. .......................................................................... 31
 viii
Figure 2.6. Box-Whisker plots of the clusters with respect to landscape and climatic
characteristics. Explanations of abbreviations can be found in Table 1. ........................ 33

Figure 2.7. Parallel coordinate plot in which the median signature values of the individual
clusters are connected. This plot visualizes relationships between the signature
values of the different clusters. E.g. inverse relation between EQP and IBF can be
identified by the cluster lines crossing each other. ........................................................ 39

Figure 2.8. Spatial maps of selected climatic and physical characteristics of the study
catchments. ................................................................................................................. 41

Figure 2.9. Five-dimensional plot of signature runoff ratio versus soil, vegetation and
climate characteristics. Triangles are color coded by Runoff Ratio. Size of triangles
is proportional to drainage area (large point means large value). Triangles pointed
upwards mean water limited catchments (pointed down means energy limited
[AI>1], upwards means water limited). ........................................................................ 42

W
Figure 3.1. Schematic representation of model structural components included in the top-
down modeling framework. ......................................................................................... 61
IE
Figure 3.2. Schematic of the model structural components used in the top-down modeling
framework, including snow modules, soil moisture accounting modules, routing
modules, and the phenology and canopy interception modules. .................................... 63
EV
Figure 3.3. Model components organized by model structure. Models S1-S6 are a
combination of model components in a single bucket configuration, whereas Models
M1-M6 are combinations of model components in a multiple bucket configuration. ..... 64

Figure 3.4. Flowchart showing Monte Carlo-based top-down modeling framework. ............ 65
PR

Figure 3.5. Fuzzy metric (FM) as defined in this study. Values for d are defined for each
of the signatures used. The red dashed line represents the membership function
threshold (between 0 and 1) between an acceptable model result (below the red line)
and an unacceptable model result (above the red line). An MF value of 0.5 is used
here. Values for d are defined in the results section. ..................................................... 69

Figure 3.6. Visual display of the membership function value calculated for each of the
seven signatures. The three signatures are, from left to right, Daily Streamflow (Q),
the 10th Percentile Streamflow (Q10), the 90th Percentile Streamflow (Q90), the Flow
Duration Curve (FDC), Regime Curve (RC), Interannual Streamflow (Qann), and the
Decadal Runoff Ration (RQP). The vertical axis shows the 256 catchments in
ascending order of catchment size beginning with the smallest catchment at the
bottom of the figure and the largest catchment located at the top of the figure. The
horizontal axis is an order of model complexity beginning with the simplest model
(S1) on the left hand side and the most complex model (M6) on the right hand side.
The order of the 12 models from left to right is S1, M1, S2, M2, S3, M3, S4, M4,
S5, M5, S6, and M6. The value of the membership function is shown as a color
scale with a membership function value of 0 represented as blue, a MF value of 1
 ix
represented as red, and a color scale representing values of the MF between 0 and 1
as specified by the color scale color bar on the right side. The *** located on the
color bar is located at an MF value of 0.5, which represents the cutoff between
acceptable (MF>0.5) and unacceptable (MF<0.5) model performance. Catchments
are ordered from low values to high values of Aridity Index (AI) from the bottom to
top. .............................................................................................................................. 71

Figure 3.7. Histogram of appropriate model structures for the seven signatures shown as
the frequency with which a particular model structure was selected as appropriate
for a particular signature. Model structures are color-coded and increase in
complexity from left to right. ....................................................................................... 72

Figure 3.8. Spatial distribution of minimally appropriate model complexity for each
catchment and for each signature. The color-bar indicates the specific model
structure. ..................................................................................................................... 75

W
Figure 4.1. Results of cluster analysis based on 6 hydrological signatures as described by
their physical and climatic properties. .......................................................................... 102

Figure 4.2. Box-Whisker plots of signature characteristics for each cluster. ......................... 104
IE
Figure 4.3. CART decision tree showing what physical and climatic characteristics
control the classification, including separation thresholds. ........................................... 105
EV
Figure 4.4. Analysis of CART analysis results with respect to the percentage of classes
that have been assigned (correct assignment: min is 76%; avg. is 91%). Colors are
used to show miss-classification through CART. ......................................................... 106

Figure 5a-c. Maps highlighting those catchments that change class assignment from one
PR

decade to the next, including interpretation of change. The inner color of each
marker describes the initial class (see Fig. 1 for color scheme legend) and the border
color describes the new class in which catchments transition during the decade under
study. A catchment with a key change in SFDC is visualized as a triangle, in RSD as a
pentagon, in RQP as a square, and Q90 as a circle. .......................................................... 112
 x

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

There are many people that I owe a debt of gratitude to over the course of the past 4

years. First and foremost, I wanted to thank Thorsten Wagener for the undying level of support

and guidance over these many years. Without his patience and diligence, this degree would not

have been attainable. I also would like to thank the comments and guidance that my committee

has offered, including in Patrick Reed, Chris Duffy, Murugesu Sivapalan, Chris Forest, Alfonso

Mejia, and Robert Crane. Special thanks go to the wonderful group of people that I have been

lucky enough to work with on the problem of hydrologic similarity, including Peter Troch,

W
Gustavo Carrillo, and again, Murugesu Sivapalan.

Another special thank you goes to my family, whose love and support helped to keep me
IE
motivated throughout the process. I know it has been a long road, and I am sure they are as happy

to see this journey come to fruition as I am. Thank you to my cubicle-mate during the majority of
EV

my graduate experience, Riddhi Singh, for offering many helpful suggestions and days worth of

great conversation over the years. Thank you to my first cubicle-mate and co-author Christa
PR

Kelleher for her positive demeanor and motivational work ethic. I wish another special thank you

to both Joe Kasprzyk and Emil Laftchiev for always offering sage-level advice, both

professionally and personally. Thank you to Kandis Snyder, who helped to support me through

the low times. Thank you generally to the wonderful community that we have on the 4th floor of

Sackett, because I know wherever I go, I will never have quite the same dynamic of people.
 CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

W
IE
EV
PR
 2

1.1 Background
Every branch of science is concerned with understanding their respective objects or
systems of study. In the natural sciences, the objects of study often exhibit a great deal of
variability, e.g. due to the natural heterogeneity in our environment, which means that
organizing and cataloging the objects must entail a cardinal and comprehensive effort to
characterize the system. In hydrology, the system that is studied most often is the
catchment. The characteristics that define each catchment in a hydrologically meaningful
way should be based on the hydrologic behavior of the catchment, i.e. how the catchment
filters water from when it enters to when it exits. Winter (2001) states that if the physical
structure of catchments is similar between catchments (catchment form), then they should

W
also exhibit similar hydrologic behavior (catchment function).

IE
EV
PR

Figure 1 Figure 2.1. Two similar catchments with respect to landscape features show very
different types of streamflow hydrographs. South Tyne at Featherstone, UK (top) nad
Kennet at Theale, UK (bottom). The red line indicated the 90th percentile of daily
streamflow, and the shaded areas indicate volumes below the 50th percentile of daily
streamflow. Picture and hydrographs are taken from Bloeschl et. al, 2013.
 3

As shown in the figure above, there are a number of physical features or climatic forcing
(catchment form) that can result in differing behavior with respect to a catchments
streamflow. Therefore, if the relevant structural characteristics can be quantified, and if
we know how these translate into a particular hydrologic behavior, then the degree of
similarity or dissimilarity between systems can be assessed. The mapping between
structural catchment characteristics and behavioral characteristics is therefore essential
for a meaningful grouping of catchments. Achieving such a grouping, i.e. a classification,
would (after Wagener et al., 2007; and McDonnell and Woods, 2004):
- Provide an important organizing principle in itself, complementing the

W
concept of the hydrologic cycle and the principle of mass conservation,
- help with both modeling and experimental approaches to hydrology, by

-
IE
providing guidance on the similarities and differences between catchments,
improve communication by providing a common language for discussions,
EV
- allow the rational testing of hypotheses about the similarity of hydrologic
systems from around the globe, as well as better design of experimental and
monitoring networks by focusing on measuring the most important controls,
- provide better guidance for choosing appropriate models for poorly
PR

understood hydrologic systems,

- be a major advancement toward guidance for the applicability of various
simulation methods for predictions in ungauged basins,
- provide constraints and diagnostic metrics that can be used for model
evaluation/diagnostics and application and ungauged locations, and,
- provide, to first order, insights into the potential impacts of land use and
climate changes on the catchment scale hydrologic response in different parts
of the world.
Hydrologic behavior can be thought of as a collection of hydrologic functions
occurring within a catchment (considered “catchment functions”). Black (1997) and later
Wagener et al. (2007) discuss 3 catchment functions (Fig. 1.1): partition – how water is
separated into different flow paths and stores; storage – in what form (e.g. fluid or solid),
 4

where and for how long water is stored in a catchment and release, i.e. how water leaves
the catchment, e.g. as evapotranspiration or as runoff. These functions and the
corresponding hydrologic signatures, i.e. indices derived from hydrologic variables from
which we can gain insight into the catchment functions, form the basis for a classification
system developed in this dissertation.

W
IE
EV
PR

Figure 1.2. Definitions and relationships between catchment functions,

signatures, and services. [From Wagener et al. (2007)]

1.2 Dissertation Objectives, Scope and Organization

The main objective of this dissertation is to develop a catchment classification

framework based on the notion of catchment function, and to test its ability to enhance
hydrologic understanding and to reduce predictive uncertainty. The creation of a
 5

classification system has been investigated by Grigg (1965, 1967), who lists three main
reasons for the classification of geographical data:
1. to give names to things, i.e. the main classification step,
2. to permit transfer of information, i.e. regionalization of information,
3. to permit development of generalizations, i.e. to develop new theory,
In addition to these three, a fourth reason is added in the presence of significant
non-stationarity of hydrologic systems (Milly et al., 2008):
4. to provide a first order environmental change impact assessment, i.e. the
hydrologic implications of climate and land use change.
Here, I pursue these four objectives in the context of catchment classification. My

W
overall work is broken up into three studies with different key questions:
Study I
-
IE
What are the key hydrologic signatures that tell us about catchment
function?
EV
- When these signatures are combined into metrics of similarity and group
similar catchments together, what can be said about the resulting class
structure?
- What are the key physical/ climatic and dimensionless controls of
PR

important hydrologic signatures?

- How well could the classifcation structure from Phase I be predicted?
Study II
- How much improvement can be provided to hydrologic models using
signature values to contrain output in a classical calibration framework?
- When calibration is not available (Ungauged basins)?
- How does model structure and complexity relate to the improvement of
model output contraint?
Study III
- What signatures are more sensitive to change through time?
- How well can the change of signatures through time be predicted or at
least explained?
 6

- How sensitive are groups of similar catchment behavior across different

clustering algorithms and through time?

1.2.1 Study I: Empirical Classification

Phase 1 presents the very first step of a new approach to catchment classification that is
based on the notion of “functional” similarity (Black, 1997). Hydrologic similarity
between catchments, derived from similarity in how catchments respond to precipitation

W
input, is the basis for catchment classification, for transferability of information, for
generalization of our hydrologic understanding and also for understanding the potential
impacts of environmental change. An important question in this context is: how can
IE
widely available hydrologic information (precipitation-temperature-streamflow data and
generally available physical descriptors) be used to create a first order grouping of
EV
hydrologically similar catchments? We utilize a heterogeneous dataset of 280 catchments
located in the Eastern US to understand hydrologic similarity in a 6-dimensional
signature space across a region with strong environmental gradients. Signatures are
PR

defined as hydrologic response characteristics that provide insight into the hydrologic
function of catchments. A Bayesian clustering scheme is used to separate the catchments
into 9 homogeneous classes, which enable us to interpret hydrologic similarity with
respect to similarity in climatic and landscape attributes across this region. We finally
derive several hypotheses regarding controls on individual signatures from the analysis
performed here.

1.2.2 Study II: Understanding Hydrologic Controls Using A Top-Down Modeling Approach

We use the modeling framework introduced by Bai et al. (2009) to uncerstand the
dominant hydrological controls across the same catchments studied in study 1, where we
 7

used an empirical strategy. The complexity in model structure necessary to simulate

individual signatures in a particular catchment provides insight into hydrological
controls. Previous work by others (incl. Atkinson et al., 2002; Farmer et al., 2003)
suggests that relationships between hydrologic signatures and model complexity can be
identified in this manner, though it has thus far not been attempted for a large number of
catchments. Hypotheses investigated are: (1) It is possible to use a top-down modeling
approach to provide strong and reliable insight into the dominant processes and thus on
expected catchment behavior. (2) It is possible to determine appropriate levels of model
complexity for each classification group. (3) The complexity in model structure will
correspond to how important specific signatures are in different locations. We expect that

W
models of different complexity are sensitive to specific signature ranges and
combinations, and that a single minimum complexity model structure can be found for
each classification group.
IE
EV

1.2.3 Study III: Temporal Stability of Catchment Classification

PR

Given that we derived a classification system from observed catchment dynamics, it is

likely that climate (and potentially other boundary conditions) will impact the
hydrological behavior of the catchments under study. We therefore have to test in how far
signatures are periodic, variable, or stable in time. For example, Kumar and Duffy (2009)
studied 4 catchments in the Colorado River basin and showed the change of 3 time-series
characteristics that described most of the variance. They found that depending on the
time-scale of study, different trends and periods were identified. The intra-annual time
scale had a noticeable periodic (seasonal) behavior. We explore possible trends in each
signature through time and their impact on the overall classification system.Hypothesis
investigated are: (1) Signature values that are controlled by geologic properties (i.e.
Baseflow Index) will show smaller variability over time than signatures based on
vegetation or climate (Streamflow elasticity). (2) Seasonality of streamflow will be
 8

captured by calculating intra-annual values for some signatures. (3) The classification
structure will maintain its 9 distinct groups, however catchments will move from one
group to another in time.

1.3 References

Andreassian, V. (2004). A New Phase of the Model Parameter Estimation Experiment

(MOPEX). Eos, Trans. AGU, 85(22), 217-218.

W
Arnell, N.W., Livermore, M.J.L., Kovats, S., Levy, P.E. Nicholls, R., Parry, M.L., and
Gaffin, S.R (2004). Climate and socio-economic scenarios for global-scale climate
change impacts assessments: characterizing the SRES storylines. Global
IE
Environmental Change. 14. 3-20
Archfield, S. A. , R. M. Vogel, P. A. Steeves, S. L. Brandt, P. K. Weiskel, and S. P.
EV
Garabedian (2009),The Massachusetts Sustainable-Yield Estimator: A decision-
support tool to assess water availability at ungaged stream locations in
Massachusetts, Scientific Investigations Report 2009–5227 USGS.
PR

Atkinson, S.E., R.A. Woods, M. Sivapalan (2002). Climate and landscape controls on
water balance model complexity over changing timescales. Water Resources
Research. 38. 12.
Bai, Y., T. Wagener, P. and Reed (2009). A top-down framework for watershed model
evaluation and selection under uncertainty. Environmental Modeling and Software,
doi:10.1016/j.envsoft.2008.12.012.
Black, P. E. (1997), Watershed functions, JAWRA, 33, 1-11.
Bloschl, G. and M. Sivapalan (1995). Scale issues in hydrological modeling: a review.
Hydrologic Processes. 251-290.
 9

Bloeschl, G., Sivapalan, M., Wagener, T., Viglione, A., Savenije, H., Runoff Prediction
in Ungauged Basins: Synthesis Across Processes, Places and Scales. Cambridge
University Press. 2013.
Clausen, B. and B.J.F. Biggs (2000). Flow variables for ecological studies in temperate
streams: groupings based on covariance. Journal of Hydrology. 237. 184-197.
Dooge, J.C.I. (1986). Looking for hydrologic laws. Water Resources Research, 22(9),
46S-58S.
Duan Q., J. Schaake, V. Andreassian, S. Franks, H. V. Gupta, Y. M. Gusev, F. Habets, A.
Hall, L. Hay, T. S. Hogue, M. Huang, G. Leavesley, X. Liang, O. N. Nasonova, J.
Noilhan, L. Oudin, S. Sorooshian, T. Wagener, and E. F. Wood (2006), Model
Parameter Estimation Experiment (MOPEX): Overview and Summary of the

W
Second and Third Workshop Results, J. Hydrol., 320, 3-17.
Farmer, D., M. Sivapalan and Jothityangkoon, C. (2003). Climate, soil and vegetation
IE
controls upon the variability of water balance in temperate and semi-arid
landscapes: Downward approach to hydrological prediction. Water Resources
EV
Research, 39(2), 1035, doi: 10.1029/2001WR000328.
Kirchner, J.W. (2006). Getting the right answers for the right reasons: Linking
measurements, analyses, and models to advance the science of hydrology. Water
Resources Research, 42, W03S04, doi:10.1029/2005WR004362.
PR

Klemeŝ, V. (1983). Conceptualization and scale in hydrology. Journal of

Hydrometeorology, 65, 1-23.
Kottek, M., J. Grieser, C. Beck, B. Rudolf, and F. Rubel (2006). World Map of the
Köppen-Geiger climate classification updated. Meteorol. Z. 15. 259–263.
Kumar, M and C. Duffy (2009). Detecting hydroclimatic chance using spatio-temporal
analysis of time series in Colorado River Basin. Journal of Hydrology. 374. 1-15.
Noilhan, J.,Oudin, L., Sorooshian, S., Wagener, T. and Wood, E.F. (2006). Model
Parameter Estimation Experiment (MOPEX): Overview and Summary of the
Second and Third Workshop Results. Journal of Hydrology, 320(1-2), 3-17.
Olden, J. D., and Poff, N. L. (2003). Redundancy and the choice of hydrologic indices for
characterizing streamflow regimes. River Research and Applications 19. pp. 101–
121.
 10

Omernik, J. M. (1987), Ecoregions of the conterminous United States, Ann. Ass. Am.
780 Geog., 77, 118-125.
Poff, N., Olden, J. D., Pepin, D. M., Bledsoe, B. P. (2006). Placing global stream flow
variability in geographic and geomorphic contexts. River Research and
Applications 22. 149–166.
Sawicz, K. A. (2009). Catchment Classification: An empirical approach to hydrologic
similarity. Masters Thesis.
Sivapalan, M. (2005). Pattern, Process and Function: Elements of a Unified Theory of
Hydrology at the Watershed Scale. In: Encyclopaedia of Hydrological Sciences, M.
G. Anderson (Managing Editor), J. Wiley & Sons, in Press.

W
van Werkhoven, K., T. Wagener, P. Reed, Y. Tang (2009). Sensitivity-guided reduction
of parametric dimensionality for multi-objective calibration of watershed models.
IE
Advance in Water Resources. 32. 1154-1169.
Wagener, T. and Wheater, H.S. 2006. Parameter estimation and regionalization for
EV
continuous rainfall-runoff models including uncertainty. Journal of Hydrology. 320.
132-154.
Wagener, T., Sivapalan, M., Troch, P., and Woods, R., (2007). Watershed Classification
and Hydrologic Similarity, Geography Compass 1/4 2007, 901-
PR

931,10.1111/j.1749-8198,2007,00039.x
Wojcik, R. Troch, P A. Stricker, H. Torfs, P. (2006). Mixtures of Gaussians for
Uncertainty Description in Bivariate Latent Heat Flux Proxies. Journal of
Hydrometeorology. 7. 330-345
Wolock, D. M., Winter, T. C., and McMahon, G. (2004). Delineation and evaluation of
hydrologic-landscape regions in the United States using geographic information
system tools and multivariate statistical analyses. Environmental Management. 34.
S71-S88.
Yadav, M., Wagener, T. and Gupta, H.V. (2007). Regionalization of constraints on
expected watershed response behavior for improved predictions in ungauged basins.
Advances in Water Resources. 30. 1756–1774.
 11

CHAPTER 2

Study I – Empirical Analysis of Hydrologic Similarity based on Catchment

Function in the Eastern USA

W
IE
EV
PR

Published as Sawicz, K., Wagener, T., Sivapalan, M., Troch, P. A., and Carrillo, G.:
Catchment classification: Empirical analysis of hydrologic similarity based on catchment
function in the eastern USA, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 15, 2895-2911, doi:10.5194/hess-
15-2895-2011, 2011.
 12

2.1 Introduction

Catchments provide a sensible (though not the only possible) unit for a hydrological
classification system. Despite the degree of uniqueness and complexity that each
catchment exhibits (Beven, 2000), we generally assume that some level of organization
and therefore a degree of predictability of the functional behavior of a catchment exists
(Dooge, 1986). This organization may be a result of natural self-organization or the co-
evolution of climate, soils, vegetation and topography (Sivapalan, 2005). The uniqueness
of catchments limits the success of hydrological regionalization, but the long-term use of
statistical methods in hydrology suggests that some information transfer is possible.

W
Hydrology has thus far not established a common catchment classification system that
would provide order and structure to the global assemblage of these heterogeneous spatial
IE
units (McDonnell and Woods, 2004; Wagener et al., 2007) and which would provide a
first order grouping of hydrologically similar catchments with implications for
hydrological theory, observations and modeling (Gupta et al., 2008, McMillan et al.,
EV
2010).
Identifying and categorizing dominant catchment functions as revealed through a
suite of hydrologic response characteristics, such as those extracted from observed
PR

streamflow-precipitation-temperature datasets, is one strategy to quantify the degree of

similarity that may exist between catchments (McIntyre et al., 2005; Wagener et al.,
2007; Oudin et al., 2008; 2010; Samaniego et al., 2010; Lyon and Troch, 2010; Haltas
and Kavas, 2011). Understanding how and why certain functional behavior occurs in a
given catchment would ultimately shed new light on the reasons for the degree of
similarity or dissimilarity that is exhibited between catchments (Gottschalk, 1985; Dooge,
1986). A range of benefits would be obtained if both catchment functions and their
causes could be understood and formalized in a similarity framework, and therefore in a
classification scheme (Grigg 1965; 1967):
4. To give names to things, i.e. the main classification step.
5. To permit transfer of information, i.e. regionalization of information.
6. To permit development of generalizations, i.e. to develop new theory.
 13

In the light of increasing concerns about non-stationarity of the responses of hydrologic

systems (Milly et al., 2008; Wagener et al., 2010), we add a fourth benefit:
7. To provide a first order environmental change impact assessment, i.e., the
hydrologic implications of climate, land use and land cover change.
All four of the above listed benefits are objectives of a catchment classification
system to achieve order and new understanding while also providing predictive power.
Achieving a generalization of knowledge beyond individual catchments or beyond a
particular dataset has been a particular struggle in hydrology, as well as in other sciences
related to the natural world (Beven, 2000; Harte, 2002). We believe that the task of
catchment classification will be an essential element in this much hoped for

W
generalization. So how should one define hydrologic similarity or dissimilarity in a
catchment classification system? Past strategies for classification have largely focused on
IE
physical similarity (e.g., similarity in physical characteristics, or how the catchments
look) or on similarity of some (narrowly defined) characteristic of the streamflow record
EV
(mainly based on flow regimes). Below we argue that both approaches fall short in
achieving all of the four benefits listed above, and that the general idea of catchment
function (Black, 1997; Sivapalan, 2005; Wagener et al. 2007) can bridge the gap between
these strategies and help fulfill the needs of a more general classification system.
PR

Previous studies have demonstrated the usefulness of empirical analysis of large

datasets through clustering to identify homogeneous groups of hydrologically-relevant
entities. Examples include Ramachandra Rao and Srinivas (2006) for catchments,
Bormann et al. (1999) for hydrologic response units, Bormann (2010) for soil types,
McNeil et al. (2005) for water bodies and Panda et al. (2006) for chemical water types.
At the catchment scale, Winter (2001) introduced the idea of hydrologic landscapes,
which are defined on the basis of similarity of climate, topography and geology,
assuming that catchments that are similar with respect to these three criteria will behave
similarly in a hydrological sense. This approach clusters the USA into 20 non-contiguous
regions using over 40,000 units of about 200km2 size (Wolock et al., 2004). In a similar
manner, Buttle (2006) suggests that, within a particular hydro-climatic region, three
factors should provide first-order controls on the streamflow response of catchments: [1]