the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
High-resolution automated detection of headwater streambeds for large watersheds
Abstract. Streams are defined by the presence of a streambed, which is a linear depression where water flows between discernible banks. The upstream boundary of a stream is called a channel head. Headwater streams, which are small streams at the top of a watershed, account for the majority of the total length of streams, yet their exact locations are still not well known. For years, many algorithms were used to produce hydrographic networks that represent headwater streams with varying degrees of accuracy. Although digital elevation models derived from LiDAR have significantly improved headwater stream detection, the performance of the algorithms with different geomorphic characteristics remains unclear. Here, we address this issue by testing different combinations of algorithms using classification trees. Homogeneous hydrological processes were identified through hydrological classification. The results showed that in shallow soil that mainly consists of till deposits, the algorithms that recreate the surface runoff process provide the best explanation for the presence of a streambed. In contrast, streambeds in thick soil with high infiltration rates were primarily explained by a small-scale incision algorithm. Furthermore, the use of an iterative process that recreates water diffusion made it possible to more accurately detect streambeds than other methods tested, regardless of the hydrological classification. The method developed in this paper shows the importance of considering hydrological processes when aiming to identify headwater streams.
-
Notice on discussion status
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
-
Preprint
(1678 KB)
-
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(1678 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-1521', Anonymous Referee #1, 28 Jul 2023
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Francis Lessard, 02 Aug 2023
Thank you for your useful comments. It was indeed difficult to produce a methodology that would allow us to process such a large quantity of data with due regard for the geomorphological context. Your comments will certainly help to clarify our methodology and thereby improve understanding of the results.
See attached pdf for details.
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Francis Lessard, 02 Aug 2023
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-1521', Anonymous Referee #2, 06 Nov 2023
Dear Authors,
The developed approach is interesting and might be applicable for different landform and climate contexts. The presented work is also a good basis for further studies, which may consider streamflow regimes and shallow groundwater processes to detect headwater streambeds. However, I think the manuscript must be improved prior to its publication, especially regarding to the presentation of results. Please, see below my suggestions and comments:
- Describe in detail the specific objectives of the study.
- You should provide some photographs highlighting the main characteristics of the study area as supplementary material.
- In the text, you mention several times the word “permanent” relating to “stream”. However, I think you mean “perennial”.
- Table 1: I do not think that roads and urbanized areas have high infiltration rates.
- Please, provide a flowchart with the methodological steps of the work in the beginning of the methodological section. A short introduction of the applied approach is also valuable.
- Figure 3: show y-axis in logarithmic scale.
- You found that PROB is negatively correlated with TPI, with an R of -0.57. Does this multicollinearity have no impact on the presented classification tree models in Fig. 4?
- Please, improve the presentation of your results, giving more details about them. Moreover, what else can be explored or assessed from the surveyed data? Are there any spatial patterns? What if you compare the results from the different natural provinces?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1521-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Francis Lessard, 20 Nov 2023
Thank you, we appreciate your general comment as this is the main objective of the paper. We wanted to highlight the fact that by combining the two main stream modeling methods, it is possible to improve the detection of headwater streams. It should be noted that other ML methods such as Random Forest or GAM could have been used. Therefore, a simple classification tree was preferred for a better understanding of the results.
See attached pdf for details.
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-1521', Anonymous Referee #1, 28 Jul 2023
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Francis Lessard, 02 Aug 2023
Thank you for your useful comments. It was indeed difficult to produce a methodology that would allow us to process such a large quantity of data with due regard for the geomorphological context. Your comments will certainly help to clarify our methodology and thereby improve understanding of the results.
See attached pdf for details.
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Francis Lessard, 02 Aug 2023
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-1521', Anonymous Referee #2, 06 Nov 2023
Dear Authors,
The developed approach is interesting and might be applicable for different landform and climate contexts. The presented work is also a good basis for further studies, which may consider streamflow regimes and shallow groundwater processes to detect headwater streambeds. However, I think the manuscript must be improved prior to its publication, especially regarding to the presentation of results. Please, see below my suggestions and comments:
- Describe in detail the specific objectives of the study.
- You should provide some photographs highlighting the main characteristics of the study area as supplementary material.
- In the text, you mention several times the word “permanent” relating to “stream”. However, I think you mean “perennial”.
- Table 1: I do not think that roads and urbanized areas have high infiltration rates.
- Please, provide a flowchart with the methodological steps of the work in the beginning of the methodological section. A short introduction of the applied approach is also valuable.
- Figure 3: show y-axis in logarithmic scale.
- You found that PROB is negatively correlated with TPI, with an R of -0.57. Does this multicollinearity have no impact on the presented classification tree models in Fig. 4?
- Please, improve the presentation of your results, giving more details about them. Moreover, what else can be explored or assessed from the surveyed data? Are there any spatial patterns? What if you compare the results from the different natural provinces?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1521-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Francis Lessard, 20 Nov 2023
Thank you, we appreciate your general comment as this is the main objective of the paper. We wanted to highlight the fact that by combining the two main stream modeling methods, it is possible to improve the detection of headwater streams. It should be noted that other ML methods such as Random Forest or GAM could have been used. Therefore, a simple classification tree was preferred for a better understanding of the results.
See attached pdf for details.
Peer review completion
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
314 | 114 | 25 | 453 | 14 | 13 |
- HTML: 314
- PDF: 114
- XML: 25
- Total: 453
- BibTeX: 14
- EndNote: 13
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1
Francis Lessard
Naïm Perreault
Sylvain Jutras
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(1678 KB) - Metadata XML