4.7 Article

European hydraulic geometries for continental SCALE environmental modelling

Journal

JOURNAL OF HYDROLOGY
Volume 329, Issue 3-4, Pages 553-567

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2006.03.009

Keywords

river width; lake depth; digital terrain model; regression analysis; continental scale environmental modelling

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This paper presents a geo-exploratory analysis carried out using publicly accessible data to estimate river channel width and mean take depth. These two parameters, combined with other more readily available information, are key in many environmental assessment applications such as sedimentotogical and ecological studies, and the prediction of surface water residence times. For river width, runoff estimates have been used to produce a European map of mean annual discharge based on the flow accumulation computed for the GTOPO30 digital elevation model (DEM). A regression equation is fitted to predict river width as a function of river discharge. For take depth, a landscape roughness index has been calculated on the GTOPO30 DEM. Based on this index, a regression equation predicts take depth, allowing to populate the existing geographic databases with information on estimated depth. Using these models for river width and take depth it is possible to compute representative values of velocity and depth in rivers, as well as residence time in takes at a pan-European level. These parameters define the hydraulic geometry of European inland waters for typical conditions with errors on the predictions generally within a factor of 2. Errors are generally unbiased, and geographic patterns (such as macroscopic differentiation of catchments and physiographic environments) are reproduced in a qualitatively correct way, so that overall representativeness of the values for continental scale modelling is further corroborated. (c) 2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available