How do hydrologists perceive watersheds? A survey and analysis of perceptual model figures for experimental watersheds
How do hydrologists perceive watersheds? A survey and analysis of perceptual model figures for experimental watersheds
复制标题
DOI：
10.1002/hyp.14845
复制
发表时间：
2023-02
影响因子：
3.2
通讯作者：
H. McMillan;R. Araki;S. Gnann;R. Woods;Thorsten Wagener
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
H. McMillan;R. Araki;S. Gnann;R. Woods;Thorsten Wagener
为了描述流域尺度上的过程知识，水文学家通常会参考“感知模型”，这是对流域及其径流过程的专家总结，通常得到实地观察的支持。感知模型通常以示意图的形式呈现，尽管这样的图必然会简化水文学家复杂的心理模型。在本文中，我们的目的是了解什么构成了流域过程知识的视觉专家总结，并评估如何感知模型可以用来共享水文过程信息在更大的尺度。为此，我们对文献进行了系统的回顾，发现了63个感知模型图。我们计算和分类的商店和通量在每个图中使用的分类和量化的各种图属性，包括空间或时间的分区，包括植被，土壤，地形和地质数据和考虑的不确定性。我们的分析表明，一个典型的图形有1个表面通量，4个地下通量，3-4个地下商店和0-1个通道商店; 63个图形中有28个使用子图形来显示时间动态（例如，湿/干条件），63个中有12个显示了空间区域。因此，感知模型的数字，提供了一个简洁的总结流域过程的复杂性与许多概念水文模型。然而，只有四个数字显示了关于不确定性或知识差距的信息。我们建议，通过一致的数字标题来帮助自动搜索，以及更广泛地使用标准数字注释（如图例和比例标记），以确保信息完全传达给用户，可以轻松地增加感知数字价值。如果感性的数字被提出作为一个主要的方法来分享过程信息，水文界应该考虑如何链接更详细的文字描述的数字，以及如何表示过程的不确定性。
To describe process knowledge at the watershed scale, hydrologists commonly refer to a ‘perceptual model’, an expert summary of the watershed and its runoff processes often supported by field observations. Perceptual models are often presented as a schematic figure, although such a figure will necessarily simplify the hydrologist's complex mental model. In this paper, our aim was to understand what constitutes a visual expert summary of watershed process knowledge, and to evaluate how perceptual models could be used to share hydrological process information at larger scales. To do so, we conducted a systematic review of the literature and found 63 perceptual model figures. We counted and categorized the stores and fluxes in each figure using a taxonomic classification and quantified a variety of figure attributes including spatial or temporal zonation, inclusion of vegetation, soils, topographical and geological data and consideration of uncertainty. Our analysis showed that a typical figure has 1 surface flux, 4 subsurface fluxes, 3–4 subsurface stores and 0–1 channel stores; 28 out of 63 figures use sub‐figures to show temporal dynamics (e.g., wet/dry conditions), and 12 out of 63 show spatial zones. Perceptual model figures, therefore, provide a concise summary of watershed processes with a complexity comparable to that of many conceptual hydrological models. However, only four figures showed any information on uncertainty or knowledge gaps. We recommend that perceptual figure value could be easily increased by consistent captioning of figures to assist automated search, and wider use of standard figure annotations such as legends and scale markings to ensure that information is fully conveyed to the user. If perceptual figures are proposed as a primary method for sharing process information, the hydrological community should consider how to link more detailed text descriptions to figures, and how to represent process uncertainty.