water cycle physical processes – emerging science: land ......% old water 0.0 0.2 0.4 13-jun...
TRANSCRIPT
Water Cycle Physical Processes – Emerging Science: Land Surface Hydrology and Watershed Dynamics
Jim McNamara Boise State University
Idaho, USA
Context: Predictive models tasked with representing processes “need preceded science” (Rafael Bras)
time
Prec
ipita
tion
time
flux
What knowledge is essential to incorporate into models?
Problems • Problem: Calibrated models criticized for not representing processes
– Black Box can be “Right for the Wrong Reasons” – Flux right, internal states wrong – Next generation models should get fluxes AND states right
• Problem: Field experiments criticized for not asking the right questions
– Irrelevant answers – Site specific
time
Prec
ipita
tion
time
flux
?
Problems • Problem: Calibrated models criticized for not representing processes
– Black Box can be “Right for the Wrong Reasons” – Flux right, internal states wrong – Next generation models should get fluxes AND states right
• Problem: Field experiments criticized for not asking the right questions
– Irrelevant answers – Site specific
• Solution: – Identify significant processes and properties on the ground at
watershed scale – Develop new models informed by discovery
time
Prec
ipita
tion
time
flux
?
Problems
• Solution: – Processes are known – Incorporate BEHAVIOR into model evaluation strategies
• More than outputs, but INTERNAL DYNAMICS
?
“Emerging” Science significant processes and properties
• “Old water” dominates storm hydrographs
1969
The old “Old Water” problem Hundreds of case studies since 1969
Scores of local explanations -watershed behavior highly heterogeneous
Continued recent discoveries -See work by Jeff McDonnell et al…and Jim Kirchner et al. -not old vs new, but stormflow is composed of a continuum of ages
Challenges to remain -Still at odds with concepts embedded in many commonly used models (Hortonian Overland Flow)
Stre
amflo
w
Emerging since 1969
Until models get this right, they are “Right for the Wrong Reasons” and cannot handle change (paraphrased from Kirchner)
The Heterogeneity Problem • Two solutions
– Measure everything everywhere, unknowns are simply a matter of poor characterization
• Unrealistic (Newtonian, me, persevering science)
– Recognize patterns and emergent
properties • Watershed behavior is more the
accumulation of arrows (Darwinian, emerging science)
Emergent Behavior
-Watershed “lump” processes producing emergent properties -A physical basis for lumped parameter modeling
The Heterogeneity Issue Local controls vs General Concepts
Lumped Model Distributed Model,
Physics based Semi-Distributed Model,
Conceptual ),),(()( CAtPftQ =p
q
REW 1
REW 2 REW 3
REW 4
REW 5
REW 6 REW 7
Data Requirement:
Computational Requirement: Small Large
Process Representation: Parametric Physics-Based
Predicted States Resolution: Coarser Fine
ssQUt
+∇Γ∇+∇=∂∂ ).().( φφφ
Perceived Intellectual Value: Small Large
q q
Modified from Mukesh Kumar Model Structures
Lumped Model Distributed Model,
Physics based Semi-Distributed Model,
Conceptual ),),(()( CAtPftQ =p
q
REW 1
REW 2 REW 3
REW 4
REW 5
REW 6 REW 7
Outcome: Right for
Wrong Reasons Wrong for Right
Reasons
ssQUt
+∇Γ∇+∇=∂∂ ).().( φφφ
q q
History: Mathematical
Lumping Process
Understanding
Future: ? Process
Understanding
Modified from Mukesh Kumar
Physically Lumped Model Distributed Model,
Physics based ),),(()( CAtPftQ =
q
ssQUt
+∇Γ∇+∇=∂∂ ).().( φφφ
History: Mathematical Lumping
Process Understanding
Future: Process
Understanding Emergent properties
guide “lumping”
Physically lumped properties
Modified from Mukesh Kumar
Lumped Watershed Properties (emergent behavior)
• Hydrologic Connectivity
– Timing of hillslope-stream connectivity dictates response
• Thresholds – Non-linear response depending on hydrologic
state • Water residence time
– Disrtribution key to watershed dynamics
Emergent Behavior: Hydrologic Connectivity
• Facilitates lateral redistribution
Figure courtesy of Jeff McDonnell
LegendCalculation Value
High : 11.000000
Low : 4.000000
ln[UAA(m2)]
100
543,689 Stream
Riparian Boundary
Well
UAA 45,000 m2
UAA 9,000 m2
UAA 20,000 m2
Jencso et al., 2009 WRR
Hillslope-riparian-stream water table connection
Upslope Accumulated Area (m2)
1000 10000
% w
ater
year
0
20
40
60
80
100R2=0.91
Max bar height = 100% Of the year
Hydrologic connec-vity may be a good predictor of watershed runoff
Strong correla-ons between watershed form (UAA) and func-on (connec-vity)
Jencso et al., 2009 WRR
Frequency of connections controls watershed discharge rather than the magnitude at the connections
Models incorporating connectivity may lead to improved prediction
Emergent Behavior:
Thresholds at storm scale
Storm total precipitation (mm)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Sto
rm to
tal f
low
(mm
)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Panola, Georgia, USA (Tromp-van Meerveld and McDonnell, Chapter 1)Maimai, New Zealand (Mosley, 1979)Tatsunokuchi-yama exp. forest, Honsyu Island, Japan (Tani, 1997)H.J. Andrews exp. forest, Oregon, USA (McGuire, unpublished data)
PanolaH.J. Andrews
Maimai
Tatsunokuchi-ya
ma
Figure courtesy of Jeff McDonnell
Emergent Behavior: Thresholds at seasonal scale
0
200
400
600
7/2 8/31 10/30 12/29 2/27 4/28 6/27
Dept
h (m
m) Total Precipitation
Water InputEvapotranspiration
0
0.1
0.2
7/2 8/31 10/30 12/29 2/27 4/28 6/27
Soil
Moi
stur
e
0
10
20
30
Bedr
ock
Flow
(mm
)
15 cm30 cm65 cmBedrock Flow
0
20
40
60
7/2 8/31 10/30 12/29 2/27 4/28 6/27
Stre
amflo
w
(lite
rs/m
in)
5
8
(mg/
L)
Streamflow
dissolved solids
McNamara et al., 2005
Emergent Behavior: Residence time distribution
Figure courtesy Chris Soulsby
01/01/95 01/01/97 01/01/99 01/01/01 01/01/03 Con
cent
ratio
n pr
ecip
itatio
n (m
g l-1
)
0
20
40
60
80
100
Con
cent
ratio
n st
ream
wat
er (m
g l-1
)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35PrecipitationStreamwaterModelled
01/01/88 01/01/90 01/01/92 01/01/94 01/01/96 Con
cent
ratio
n pr
ecip
itatio
n (m
g l-1
)
0
20
40
60
80
100
Con
cent
ratio
n st
ream
wat
er (m
g l-1
)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35PrecipitationStreamwaterModelled
Transit times and catchment characteristics
Integrating across flows: Short TT (ca months) / Longer TT (ca years)
Fast responding catchments Deep-subsurface flow dominated catchments
Tetzlaff D, et al (2007) Journal of Hydrol. 346, 93-111.
Hrachowitz M, et al. (2009) Journal of Hydrol. doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2009.01.001
Cum
. den
sitie
s fu
nctio
n
50% 50%
Figure courtesy Chris Soulsby
Residence Time Predicted by Watershed Properties
Figure courtesy Chris Soulsby
Recent Theoretical Advances
Travel time distributions are a product of integrated catchment processes Can serve as a target to determine if models are right for the right reasons
Emerging science: Emergent properties
Connectivity Thresholds
Residence Time
How do we quantify? How do we incorporate in models?
Emergent properties are a function of storage
P-ET-Q =dS/dt
Connectivity Thresholds
Residence Time
Storage
A Tale of Two Catchments
A Natural Storage Experiment
0
20
40
60
Thaw
Dep
th (c
m)
0
2
4
6
13-Jun 3-Jul 23-Jul 12-Aug
Flow
(cm
s)
65
75
85
13-Jun 13-Jul 12-Aug
% O
ld W
ater
0.0
0.2
0.4
13-Jun 13-Jul 12-Aug
Run
off R
atio
Storage Capacity
McNamara et al., 1998
Storage-Discharge • In SOME watersheds, discharge can be
modeled as a single function of storage • The shape of the S-D curve may contain
information about the watershed
Kirchner, 2009
Importance of Storage
0
20
40
60
Thaw
Dep
th (c
m)
0
2
4
6
13-Jun 3-Jul 23-Jul 12-Aug
Flow
(cm
s)
65
75
85
13-Jun 13-Jul 12-Aug
% O
ld W
ater
0.0
0.2
0.4
13-Jun 13-Jul 12-Aug
Run
off R
atio
• The mechanisms by
which catchments STORE water ultimately characterize the hydrologic SYSTEM
• Storage regulates fluxes (ET, Recharge, Streamflow)
• Storage is responsible for emergent behavior such as connectivity, thresholds, and residence time
Storage Capacity P-ET-Q =dS/dt
Importance of Storage
0
20
40
60
Thaw
Dep
th (c
m)
0
2
4
6
13-Jun 3-Jul 23-Jul 12-Aug
Flow
(cm
s)
65
75
85
13-Jun 13-Jul 12-Aug
% O
ld W
ater
0.0
0.2
0.4
13-Jun 13-Jul 12-Aug
Run
off R
atio
• We should focus on Runoff Prevention mechanisms in addition to runoff generation mechanisms
• We should concern ourselves with how catchments Retain Water in addition to how they release water
Storage Capacity P-ET-Q =dS/dt
The Storage Problem • Storage is not commonly measured
• Storage is often estimated as the residual of a water balance
• Storage is treated as a secondary model calibration target
Our Modeling Experience
• Soil Water Assessment Tool (SWAT)
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
Jan-
02
Apr
-02
Jul-0
2
Oct
-02
Jan-
03
Apr
-03
Jul-0
3
Oct
-03
Jan-
04
Apr
-04
Jul-0
4
Oct
-04
Jan-
05
Date
Flo
w (
m^3
/s)
Observed
Predicted
0
50
100
150
200
250
Jan-
05
Apr
-05
Jul-0
5
Oct
-05
Jan-
06
Apr
-06
Jul-0
6
Oct
-06
Jan-
07
Apr
-07
Jul-0
7
Oct
-07
Date
Soi
l Moi
stur
e of
Soi
l Col
mn
(mm
)
SWAT Soil MoistureAverage Soil Moisture BFU and BFL
Hydrograph “Right” Storage Wrong
Stratton et al., 2009
Improved storage characterization will lead to improved prediction
Seyfried et al., 2009, Hydrological Processes
Throughflow
SWI
Snow Water Input (ISNOBAL)
Get the inputs right (accumulation, STORAGE,and ablation of snow) Get the 1D soil water storage right Ignore all lateral movement No calibration to streamflow See what happens
• Throughflow occurs when soil column water holding capacity is exceeded
• Soil water storage parameterized by field
capacity, plant extraction limit, soil depth
Soil Capacitance Model (Reynolds Creek)
Seyfried et al., 2009, Hydrological Processes
Throughflow
SWI
0
0.1
0.2
7/2 8/31 10/30 12/29 2/27 4/28 6/27
Soil
Moi
stur
e
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
65 cm
15 cm
30 cm
Өfc
Өpel
i
numlayeri
iiTS ∑
=
=
=1θ i
numlayeri
ifcFC TSi∑
=
=
=1θ
Distributed Model
No lateral flow simulated
Distributed energy balance forcing
Distributed soil properties by similarity classes
Simulated storage excess agrees with streamflow
PELFC
PELN SS
SSS−−=
Connec-vity Index
CUAHSI Catchment Comparison Exercise
Dry Creek, Idaho, USA Snowy, semi-arid, ephemeral
Reynolds Creek, Idaho, USA Snowy, semi-arid, perennial
Panola, Georgia, USA Rain, humid, perennial
Girnock, Scotland, Rain, humid
Gårdsjön, Sweden, Snow, ephemeral
Storage-Discharge
S = 786.Q0.32
S = 253Q0.11
S = 251Q0.05
S = 219Q0.06
S = 87Q0.05
10
100
1000
10000
0.0 0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0Streamflow (mm)
Stor
age
(mm
)
Dry CreekGårdsjönGirnockReynoldsPanola
Signature of geology?
McNamara et al., 2011
Summary • Use internal BEHAVIOR of watersheds, in
addition to states and fluxes
• Discover metrics of internal behavior (emerging science of emergent properties)
• Requires creative coupled field and modeling experiments
Summary • Watersheds “lump” processes producing emergent
behavior manifested in – Connectivity, Thresholds, Residence Time
Distributions (old water)
• Incorporate into new model structures or serve as validation targets
• Evaluate model performance on watershed behavior, or
internal dynamics, in addition to traditional states and fluxes time series.
• Quantifying Storage ….quantify emergent properties • Get the States right, and the Fluxes will follow