Adam Migliore Meyer
Mean Wetness Index of the watershed is 4.959.
M = 0.4517 m-1
Mean Saturation Index
S = 2.5
S = 3.0
S=3.5
S=4.0
S = 3.19
April 1, 2012
M = 0.4517 m-1
Adam Migliore Meyer
Maps of Saturated Areas
S = 2.5
S = 3.0
S=3.5
S=4.0
April 1, 2012
S = 3.19
M = 0.4517 m-1
Adam Migliore Meyer
Maps of Return Flow Areas (Runoff)
S = 2.5
S = 3.0
S=3.5
S=4.0
S = 3.19
April 1, 2012
M = 0.4517 m-1
Adam Migliore Meyer
Table 1.
SAT_DEF SAT_AREA
CAT_AREA
VAR_AREA
2.50
334700
16134800
3.00
207600
16134800
3.19
171900
16134800
3.50
132800
16134800
4.00
83400
16134800
0.0207
0.0129
0.0107
0.0082
0.0052
April 1, 2012
M = 0.75 m-1
Adam Migliore Meyer
Mean Saturation Index
S = 2.5
S = 3.0
S=3.5
S=4.0
April 1, 2012
S = 3.19
M = 0.75 m-1
Adam Migliore Meyer
Map of Saturated Areas
S = 2.5
S = 3.0
S=3.5
S=4.0
April 1, 2012
S = 3.19
M = 0.75 m-1
Adam Migliore Meyer
Map of Return Flow Areas (Runoff)
S = 2.5
S = 3.0
S=3.5
S=4.0
S = 3.19
April 1, 2012
M = 0.75 m-1
Adam Migliore Meyer
Table 2.
SAT_DEF SAT_AREA
CAT_AREA
VAR_AREA
2.50
865700
16134800
3.00
640000
16134800
3.19
574700
16134800
3.50
481000
16134800
4.00
361900
16134800
0.0537
0.0397
0.0356
0.0298
0.0224
April 1, 2012
Adam Migliore Meyer
M = 0.75 m-1
April 1, 2012
Adam Migliore Meyer
Discussion
M = 0.75 m-1
April 1, 2012
The saturation dynamics were sensitive to both the mean saturated deficit and values of m. In Run 1 and Run 2 (with different m values), there was an
inverse relationship between the mean saturation deficit and the amount of saturated area. As the saturation deficit increased, the amount of saturated
area decreased. This was expected because as the watershed became drier (larger saturation deficit), it would seem logical that less of it would be wet
(i.e., saturated). In Run 1, the variable source area (saturated area / total catchment area) decreased from 0.0207 at a saturation deficit of 2.5 to 0.0052
at a deficit of 4.0. In Run 2, the variable source area also decreased: from 0.0537 to 0.0224 for the same range of saturation deficit values.
As mentioned, saturation dynamics were also sensitive to values of m. The m parameter controls how the mean saturation deficit is distributed across
the watershed surface. A larger m value signifies that the mean saturation deficit decreases more across the surface than a smaller m value as the units
are meters-1. Run 2 used a larger m value, 0.75 m-1 compared to the value in Run 1: 0.4517 m-1. Therefore the mean saturation deficit in Run 2
decreased more across the watershed than in Run 1. Since the deficit decreased more, it would be expected that the watershed would be wetter,
thereby more saturated. This hypothesis was confirmed in the results from Run 2. The watershed model images, graphs, and calculated saturated
areas confirm this. The calculated saturated areas were significantly higher in Run 2 (see Table 2) than in Run 1 (Table 1). Also, the graph comparing
the two runs shows Run 2 shifted up from Run 1 indicating that the variable source areas in Run 2 were greater. Qualitatively, the Run 2 watershed
model images show more saturated pixels than those from Run 1.