Processes and Parameterization:
Runoff
IP3 Users/Stakeholders Community Workshop
18-19 March 2008, Canmore, Alberta
Runoff
ƒ The “left over” hydrological process
Runoff
ƒ
1) The total amount of liquid water leaving the region
(Dingman, 1994)
ƒ
2)) Water p
precipitated
p
into a catchment that is ultimately
y
discharged to a stream channel (Hornberger et al., 1998)
ƒ
3) i.Surface streams that appear after precipitation ii. The
flow of water in a stream (McGraw
(McGraw-Hill
Hill Dictionary of Earth
Science)
ƒ
4) Runoff (or streamflow) comprises the gravity movement
of water in channels which may vary in size from the one
containing the smallest ill-defined trickle to ones containing
the largest rivers such as the Amazon…(Ward and Robinson,
1990)
ƒ
5) In hydrology, runoff is the combination of surface runoff
and interflow. It also equivalent to quick flow. (Wikipedia)
Runoff in IP3
ƒ We are particularly concerned with the influence of
cold climate factors (snow, ice, frozen ground,
permafrost, organic soils) on runoff generation and
lateral redistribution of moisture.
ƒ We study runoff at a variety of scales from the plot to
the
h HRU to the
h entire
i basin,
b i identifying
id
if i
emergentt
properties of the system.
Runoff and Global Change
From Walvoord and Striegl (GRL, 2007) showing changing
winter flow regime. Increases in winter flow is most notable
in p
permafrost regions.
g
Runoff and Development
There are strong
practical implications
of runoff generation
from rapid expansion
of development in the
west and north.
Runoff - Plot and Hillslope (HRU) Studies
Detailed investigation of infiltration,
redistribution and soil physics that operate
to generate saturated conditions and
runoff.
Techniques
-High-frequency Sampling
-Synoptic Sampling
-Hydrometric
-Hydrochemical
Runoff – Plot and Hillslope (HRU) Studies
ƒOrganic Soils
0
depth (cm)
-10
-20
-30
-40
-50
50
0.1
1
10
100
1000
hydraulic conductivity (md-1)
10000
Runoff – Plot and Hillslope (HRU) Studies
Infiltration and percolation is
restricted when soils are ice-rich
(typical of permafrost soils),
soils)
enhancing runoff generation.
0.1
0.0
Organic
g
April 28
0.1
May 2
April 24
May 2
Depth (m)
0.2
0.2
April 24
April 28
0.3
0.3
Mineral
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.6
Organic
Mineral
0.6
East Slope
1998
0.0
West Slope
1998
0.0
April 30
0.1
April 13
May 10
Organic
May 10
0.2
May 25
0.2
Depth (m)
D
In contrast, infiltration and
percolation is unimpeded at dry
well drained sites, even when
frozen.
0.0
April 30
April 25
Mineral
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.6
0.5
0.8
Silt
0.6
0.7
North Slope
1997
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4 0.5
0.6
0.7
Liquid Water Content
1.0
South Slope
1997
0.8
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
Liquid Water Content
0.8
Runoff – Plot and Hillslope (HRU) Studies
Fall soil moisture (percent)
100
50
40
50
30
20
10
0
0
50
100
150
North Face
200
250
300
350
Valley
y Bottom
400
South Face
1
0
Spring Snow Water Equivalent (mm)
100
500
50
300
100
0
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
0
Runoff – Plot and Hillslope (HRU) Studies
Snowmelt Runoff (mm)
500
100
400
300
50
200
150
100
0
0
50
100
150
North Face
200
250
300
350
Valley Bottom
1
400
South Face
Flow Direction
100
50
0
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
0
Runoff – Plot and Hillslope (HRU) Studies
The position of the frost
table has strong control on
the delivery
y of water to the
drainage network. In cold
regions, appropriate
consideration of ground
thermal and moisture
conditions is essential
27 April
3 May
6 May
1 June
Runoff – Basin Scale Interactions
How do processes at the plot,
plot
hillslope/HRU scale “upscale” to the
basin
Is what we observe at larger scales
explainable by our small scale
observations
a)
b)
lake
c)
Runoff – The Influence of Glaciers
Opabin
L k
Lake
Opabin
Glacier
GW outlet
Runoff – The Influence of Glaciers
Opabin Creek in June 2005
Runoff – The Influence of Glaciers
Water Inputs and Output
snow melt
glacier melt
rain
stream flow
flux (m
m3/s)
1.5
1
0.5
0
5/1
5/21
6/10
6/30
7/20
2006
8/9
8/29
9/18
10/8
Runoff – the hydrograph
TLR
The hydrograph remains an
important
p
element of the
analysis of runoff processes,
particularly at larger spatial
scales.
Tb
TLC
TLPC
TLP
Precipittation
Tw
Tc
Tr
twc
twe
Dischargge
tw0
tqq0
tppk tqqc
tqqe
Time
3
-1
Discha
arge (m s )
Runoff – the hydrograph
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.8
0.6
04
0.4
0.2
0.0
180
1999
160
140
0.35
1999
0.30
2000
2001
02
0.25
2002
2003
Runoff Ratio
2000
t*
120
100
80
60
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
0.20
0.15
0.10
40
0.05
20
2001
0.00
0
July
2002
2003
July
August
September
August
September
July
August
September
Changes in simple parameters such as the
runoff ratio and recession slope indicate strong
seasonal controls in runoff response.
Runoff - Thresholds
T i l saturation
Typical
t
ti
overland
l d fl
flow process
P
P
Fill
Fill-and-spill
d ill flow
fl
mechanism
h i
P
P
P
t3
At
3
At
SOF
P
At
3
At
2
2
SOF
t2
SSSF
t1
t2
SOF
t3
SSSF
t1
SOF
A
SSSF
adapted from McDonnell and Taylor (1987)
and Peters et al. (1995)
At
3
At
3
At
2
P = precipitation
A = contributing area
t = time
SOF = saturation overland flow
SSSF = subsurface storm flow
At
2
t3
t3
t2
t1
B
Runoff - Thresholds
May
,
June
y ,
100%
15%
a)
b)
J l
July
August - September
12%
e)
4%
f)
Runoff - Thresholds
12
< 1% chance
event threshold
10
mm/d
8
eventt threshold
th h ld
Qo-Q
Qi
6
< 10% chance
4
2
0
07-Jul-04
E
17-Jul-04
27-Jul-04
06-Aug-04
16-Aug-04
26-Aug-04
Runoff - Tracers
200
40
100
20
3500
30
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
May 1
0
May 16
June 1
June 16
July 1
July 16
0
25
20
15
10
5
‐1
3000
DOC (mg L )
60
35
‐1
80
300
The IP3 network is strongly
engaged in using tracers
as a means to identify
sources of water and
interactions, particularly
as scale increases.
0
Aug 1
120
a.
-1
90
Groundwater
80
SpC (μs cm-1)
100
SpC (μs c
cm )
Discharge (L s‐1)
400
4000
‐1
100
Specific Conductance ((ms cm )
500
Maajor Anion + Cation Flux (mg s )
Stage
Dilution
SpC A + C
DOC
85
80
Tracers can be used in
combination with hydrometric
data to validate both our
conceptual and numerical
models of the system in question.
75
70
65
-21
-20
δ18O
60
40
20
0
-22
Organic Layer
Water
-20
Rainfall
-18
δ O
18
-16
-14
Runoff - Tracers
Event Water FFraction
1.0
0.8
GB_01
GB_02
GB_03
HRUs can be identified
based on their unique
geochemical signature,
which is a particularly
useful tool for identifying
contributing areas in
ungauged basins.
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
April 30 May 10
May 30
June 9
June 19 June 29
GB_01
_
GB_02
GB_03
GB_04
Snow
Supra‐P.F. Grnd. Water
Sub‐P.F. Grnd. Water
‐160
δ2H(%0)
May 20
‐170
Stable isotopes of water
can be used to assess
ecosystem cycling of
water,, and how changes
g
in climate, soils and runoff
processes affect that
cycling.
‐180
‐190
‐26
‐24
‐22
δ O(%o)
18
‐20
Runoff Modelling
Runoff Modelling
ers
y
a
l
l
i
o
S
Sub-HRUs
avg. depth = 25 cm
avg. depth = 15 cm
avg. depth = 10 cm
10^9
25000
20000
15000
10000
5000
0
14-May
Friction Factor f
Requirements for
each layer:
•Thickness
•Porosity
•Specific Retention
•Soil Type
•Lag and Storage
•Slope
Drift Area (m2)
10^8
10^7
C=
10^6
~14
,50
0
10^5
y = -668.24x + 3E+07
R2 = 0.98
10^4
10^3
C=
f = C / NR
~30
0
10^2
10^1
0.001
24-May
0.0001
0.01
3-Jun
0.1
Reynolds Number NR
1.0
13-Jun
23-Jun
10.0
Runoff Modelling
Basic element of runoff and storage
can be modelled, and shortcomings
point to areas where future research
is needed.
Runoff Modelling
0.5
0.5
elevation (m
m)
permafrost
upland
no flow
w
1
1
wetland
0
0
-0.5
-0.5
0
0
5
5
10
10
15
15
20
20
25
25
30
30
observation well
1
1
0.5
0.5
0
0
-0.5
-0.5
0
0
5
5
10
10
15
15
20
20
distance (m)
Hayashi et al. (2005, IAHS Proceedings)
08/20/200
1
25
25
30
30
0
0
-0.1
-0.1
-0.2
-0.2
-03
-0.3
-0.3
ψ
Permafrost
Thank You