4.6 Article

Are big basins just the sum of small catchments?

Journal

HYDROLOGICAL PROCESSES
Volume 18, Issue 16, Pages 3195-3206

Publisher

JOHN WILEY & SONS LTD
DOI: 10.1002/hyp.5739

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Many challenges remain in extending our understanding of bow hydrologic processes within small catchments scale to larger river basins. In this study we examine how low-flow runoff varies as a function of basin scale at 11 catchments, many of which are nested, in the 176 km(2) Neversink River watershed in the Catskill Mountains of New York. Topography, vegetation, soil and bedrock structure are similar across this river basin, and previous research has demonstrated the importance of deep groundwater springs for maintaining low-flow stream discharge at small scales in the basin. Therefore, we hypothesized that deep groundwater would contribute an increasing amount to low-flow discharge as basin scale increased, resulting in increased runoff. Instead, we find that, above a critical basin size of 8 to 21 km(2), low-flow runoff is similar within the Neversink watershed. These findings are broadly consistent with those of a previous study that examined stream chemistry as a function of basin scale for this watershed. However, we find physical evidence of self-similarity among basins greater than 8 kin 2, whereas the previous study found gradual changes in stream chemistry among basins greater than 3 km(2). We believe that a better understanding of self-similarity and the subsurface flow processes that affect stream runoff will be attained through simultaneous consideration of both chemical and physical evidence. We also suggest that similar analyses of stream runoff in other basins that represent a range of spatial scales, geomorphologies and climate conditions will further elucidate the issue of scaling of hydrologic processes. Copyright (C) 2004 John Wiley Sons, Ltd.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available