Topographic parameterization in continental hydrology: A study in scale

Hydrological Processes

Volumn 17, Issue 18, 2003, Pages 3763-3781

  Armstrong, Robert N ^a   Martz, Lawrence W ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SASKATCHEWAN   (Canada)

Author keywords

Digital elevation model; Geomorphometry; Grid cell; Hydrological modelling; Hydrology; Modelling; Resolution

Indexed keywords

AUTOMATION; COMPUTER SIMULATION; DRAINAGE; INFORMATION ANALYSIS; PARAMETER ESTIMATION; STATISTICAL METHODS;

DELINEATION; TOPOGRAPHY;

WEATHER FORECASTING;

DIGITAL ELEVATION MODEL; DRAINAGE NETWORK; HYDROLOGICAL MODELING; PARAMETERIZATION; RESOLUTION; RIVER BASIN; TOPOGRAPHY;

CANADA; MACKENZIE RIVER; MISSOURI RIVER; NORTH AMERICA; NORTHWEST TERRITORIES; UNITED STATES;

EID: 0346056674     PISSN: 08856087     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/hyp.1352     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. Bates PD, Anderson MG, Horbitt M. 1998. Terrain information in geomorphological models: stability, resolution and sensitivity. In Landform Monitoring and Analysis, Lane SN, Richards KS, Chandler JH (eds). Wiley and Sons: Chichester.
2. Brasington J, Richards K. 1998. Interactions between model predictions, parameters and DTM scales for TOPMODEL. Computers and Geosciences 24: 299-314.
3. Chang K, Tsai B. 1991. The effect of DEM resolution on slope and aspect mapping. Cartography and Geographic Information Systems 18: 69-77.
4. Fairfield J, Leymarie P. 1991. Drainage networks from grid digital elevation models. Water Resources Research 27: 29-61.
5. Florinsky IV. 1998. Combined analysis of digital terrain models and remotely sensed data in landscape investigations. Progress in Physical Geography 22: 33-60.
6. Garbrecht J, Martz LW. 2000. TOPAZ v3·1: an automated digital landscape analysis tool for topographic evaluation, drainage identification, watershed segmentation and subcatchment parameterization. TOPAZ User Manual, Report #2-00 Grazinglands Research Laboratory, USDA. Agricultural Research Service, El Reno, OK; 143.
7. Graham ST, Famiglietti JS, Maidment DR. 1999. Five-minute, 1/2°, and 1° data sets of continental watersheds and river networks for use in regional and global hydrologic and climate system modeling studies. Water Resources Research 35: 583-587.
8. Hutchinson MF. 1989. A new method for gridding elevation and stream line data with automatic removal of pits. Journal of Hydrology 106: 211-232.
9. Hutchinson MF. 1996. A locally adaptive approach to the interpolation of digital elevation models. In Proceedings, Third International Conference/Workshop on Integrating GIS and Environmental Modeling, Santa Fe, New Mexico, 21-26 January. National Center for Geographic Information and Analysis: Santa Barbara, CA.
10. Hutchinson MF, Dowling TI. 1991. A continental hydrological assessment of a new grid-based digital elevation model of Australia. Hydrological Processes 5: 45-58.
11. Kite GW. 1995. Scaling of input data for macroscale hydrologic modelling. Water Resources Research 31: 2769-2781.
12. Kouwen N, Soulis ED, Pietroniro A, Donald J, Harrington RA. 1993. Grouping response units for distributed hydrologic modelling. ASCE Journal of Water Resources Management and Planning 119: 289-305.
13. Krauss TW. 1995. The Mackenzie GEWEX Study (MAGS): Basic information and critical characteristics of the Mackenzie River Basin and its energy and water fluxes: In Mackenzie GEWEX study: 1995-2000 Workshop Proceedings and Other Documents (cd-rom). GEWEX/MAGS Secretariat, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada.
14. Lacroix M, Martz LW, Kite GW, Garbrecht J. 2002. Using digital terrain analysis modeling techniques for the parameterization of a hydrologic model. Environmental Modelling and Software 17: 125-134.
15. Leese JA. 1999. GEWEX Continental-Scale Project (GCIP): major activities plan for the large-scale area-northwest (Missouri River basin). IGPO Publication Series 33. International GEWEX Project Office, Washington, DC.
16. Ma X, Fukushmira Y, Hiyama T, Hashimoto T, Ohata T. 2000. A macro-scale hydrological analysis of the Lena River basin. Hydrological Processes 14: 639-651.
17. Mark DM. 1975. Geomorphometric parameters: a review, evaluation. Geografiska Annaler 57: 165-177.
18. Martz LW, de Jong E. 1988. Catch: a FORTRAN program for measuring catchment area from digital elevation models. Computers, Geosciences 14: 627-640.
19. Martz LW, Garbrecht J. 1992. Numerical definition of drainage network, subcatchment areas from digital elevation models. Computers, Geosciences 18: 747-761.
20. Martz LW, Garbrecht J. 1998. The treatment of flat areas, depressions in automated drainage analysis of raster digital elevation models, Hydrological Processes 12: 843-855.
21. Moore ID, Grayson RB, Ladson AR. 1991. Digital terrain modelling: a review of hydrological, geomorphological, biological applications. Hydrological Processes 5: 3-30.
22. MRNRC. 1998. Missouri River Environmental Assessment Program. Publication of the Missouri River Natural Resources Committee, in partnership with the US Geological Survey, Biological Resources Division; 33.
23. O'Callaghan JF, Mark DM. 1984. The extraction of drainage networks from digital elevation data. Computer Vision, Graphics, Image Processing 28: 323-344.
24. Shaw D. 2002. Preserving segment variability for flow routing in distributed hydrological models-An automated method. MSc thesis, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada.
25. Speight JG. 1968. Parametric description of landform. In Land Evaluation, Papers of CSIRO Symposium, in co-op UNESCO; 239-250.
26. Speight JG. 1980. The role of topography in controlling throughflow generation: a discussion. Earth Surface Processes, Landforms 5: 187-191.
27. Strahler AN. 1964. Quantitative geomorphology of drainage basins, channel networks. In Handbook of Applied Hydrology, Chow VT (ed.). McGraw-Hill: New York; 4-40-4-74.
28. Tribe A. 1992. Automated recognition of valley lines, drainage networks from grid digital elevation models: a review, a new method. Journal of Hydrology 139: 263-293.
29. USGS EROS Data Center, 1999. North America shaded relief. In National Atlas of the United States. http://nationalatlas.gov (accessed spring 2002).
30. Veregin H. 1997. The effects of vertical errors in digital elevation models on the determination of flow-path directions. Cartography, GIS 24: 67-79.
31. Wolock DM, McCabe GJ. 2000. Differences in topographic characteristics computed from 100-, 1000-m resolution digital elevation model data. Hydrological Processes 14: 987-1002.
32. Zevenbergen LW, Thorne CR. 1987. Quantitative analysis of land surface topography. Earth Surface Processes, Landforms 12: 47-56.
33. Zhang X, Drake NA, Wainwright J, Mulligan M. 1999. Comparison of slope estimates from low resolution DEMs: scaling issues and fractal method for their solution. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 24: 763-769.