Delineating floodplain and upland areas for hydrologic models: a comparison of methods
Delineating floodplain and upland areas for hydrologic models: a comparison of methods
复制标题
为水文模型描绘洪泛区和高地地区：方法比较
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2016
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
M. Volk
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
H. Rathjens;K. Bieger;I. Chaubey;J. Arnold;P. Allen;R. Srinivasan;D. Bosch;M. Volk
水文模型中流域水文和输运过程的空间分布表示有助于确定关键源区以及管理和保护措施的安排。洪泛区是重要的景观特征，在水文过程和功能方面与邻近的高地不同。因此，流域建模的一个重要步骤是流域内洪泛区和高地的表示。本研究的目的是（1）评估四个洪泛平原高地划定方法，使用现成的地形数据（地形湿度指数，坡位，均匀洪水位，可变洪水位）方面的水文模型的适用性和（2）介绍一个评估计划划定景观单元。这些方法在美国三个流域进行测试，流域面积从334到629平方公里，具有不同的气候，水文和地貌特征。景观划定方法的评估包括视觉比较、误差矩阵（即划定数据与参考数据的交叉表）和几何精度指标。参考数据来自土壤调查地理（SSURGO）数据库和联邦应急管理局（FEMA）洪水图。结果表明，坡位法和变洪水位法在三个流域都有较好的应用效果。通过比较划定数据和参考数据，获得了正确分配的洪泛区和高地面积的总体百分比。边坡位置的值范围为83 - 93%，可变洪水位方法的值范围为80 - 95%。未来的研究将把这两个洪泛区高地划定方法纳入子流域水文模型土壤和水评估工具（SWAT），以提高洪泛区和高地地区水文过程的代表性。版权所有© 2016约翰威利父子有限公司.
A spatially distributed representation of basin hydrology and transport processes in hydrologic models facilitates the identification of critical source areas and the placement of management and conservation measures. Floodplains are critical landscape features that differ from neighbouring uplands in terms of their hydrological processes and functions. Accordingly, an important step in watershed modelling is the representation of floodplain and upland areas within a watershed. The aim of this study is (1) to evaluate four floodplain–upland delineation methods that use readily available topographic data (topographic wetness index, slope position, uniform flood stage, and variable flood stage) with regard to their suitability for hydrological models and (2) to introduce an evaluation scheme for the delineated landscape units. The methods are tested in three U.S. watersheds ranging in size from 334 to 629 km2 with different climatic, hydrological, and geomorphological characteristics. Evaluation of the landscape delineation methods includes visual comparisons, error matrices (i.e. cross‐tabulations of delineated vs reference data), and geometric accuracy metrics. Reference data were obtained from the Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) database and Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood maps. Results suggest that the slope position and the variable flood stage method work very well in all three watersheds. Overall percentages of floodplain and upland areas allocated correctly were obtained by comparing delineated and reference data. Values range from 83 to 93% for the slope position and from 80 to 95% for the variable flood stage method. Future studies will incorporate these two floodplain–upland delineation methods into the subwatershed‐based hydrologic model Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) to improve the representation of hydrological processes within floodplain and upland areas. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.