the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Leveraging a time-series event separation method to untangle time-varying hydrologic controls influence on wildfire disturbed streamflow
Abstract. Watershed disturbances can have broad, long-lasting impacts that result in a range of streamflow response. Increasing disturbance regimes, particularly from wildfire, is a growing concern for watershed management. The influence of watershed disturbances on rainfall-runoff patterns has proved challenging to isolate from undisturbed streamflow variability due to the role of hydrologic controls that vary through time, including water year type, seasonality, and antecedent precipitation. To better assess the influence of watershed disturbance on rainfall-runoff event patterns we developed the Rainfall-Runoff Event Detection and Identification (RREDI) toolkit. The RREDI toolkit is a novel time-series event separation method that automates the pairing and attribution of precipitation and streamflow events, leveraging and building on existing event separation methods. A rainfall-runoff event dataset of 5042 events was generated by the RREDI toolkit from a collection of nine western US study watersheds spanning a range of streamflow regimes, watershed properties, and burn characteristics. Through analyzing the rainfall-runoff event dataset, we found that water year type and season were significant controls on rainfall-runoff metrics. The significance of antecedent precipitation was variable between watersheds, indicating a more complex relationship for this control. The watershed-specific permutations of significant controls resulted in unique significant condition group trends in the rainfall storm depth and peak runoff relationship in two contrasting watersheds. In general, for each of the significant condition groups post-fire peak runoff was higher than undisturbed peak runoff except during winter in snow-dominated watersheds. Consideration of the time-varying hydrologic controls, particularly water year type and season, were identified as important when untangling the influence of wildfire on the rainfall-runoff patterns. The RREDI toolkit can be further applied to investigate the influence of other watershed disturbances and controls to increase understanding of rainfall-runoff patterns across the landscape.
- Preprint
(2670 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(2895 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 14 May 2024)
-
CC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-2875', Yanchen Zheng, 09 Mar 2024
reply
The study from Canham et al. explores the time-varying hydrological controls on 5042 rainfall-runoff events from 9 western US watersheds, with aiming to untangle the influence of wildfire on streamflow. The paper is well-crafted, with the supporting data and text well recorded in the supplementary file. However, my main concern is that I think the focus of this paper should be on exploring the influence of wildfire on streamflow. Given that there are already lots of studies focus on rainfall-runoff event separation method or large sample events temporal-spatial controls investigation. Thus, the novelty of this paper should be exploring the wildfire influence on streamflow. Yet, the current paper structure contains large proportion of text describing event separation and also the controls for undisturbed events. So I think the structure of the paper should be adjusted to highlight your contributions on untangling the wildfire impact on streamflow. My detailed comments can be found below.
- Table1: It would be better to add hydrologic characteristics in this table for these catchments, i.e., mean annual precipitation, mean annual potential evapotranspiration, mean annual streamflow and also maybe the streamflow regimes that you mentioned in the line 120-123.
- Line 132: Can you explain what PRISM means?
- Line 240-242: why it needs to use two different statistical tests to evaluate the effect of WYT and season/antecedent precipitation respectively? In Figure 7, you compared their results in one figure, yet I’m not sure whether the results of these two methods are comparable or not?
- Table 2: Does symbol # represent the number of events? If so, please clarify.
- Line 289: How you selected these two contrasting watersheds? The explanation of why you selected these two watersheds as example is needed. Is that possible to compare the results between Arroyo Seco and Valley Creek (this one has similar characteristics with Clear Creek)? Or Maybe Arroyo Seco and Shitike Creek (this one has similar contributing area with Arroyo Seco)? Will the results you observed from Arroyo Seco and Clear Creek also apply to Arroyo Seco and Valley Creek?
- Figure 6: Can you explain what negative values on the x-axis for volume, peak flow and response time mean?
- Line 329: How do you calculate this relative significance rates?
- Line 350: Can you re-phrase this sentence? It is a bit confused by ‘for in no metric groups’.
- The results section contains an large proportion of analysis on undisturbed rainfall-runoff events, while the analysis of wildfire impacts on streamflow is not sufficiently thorough. Only examples from two watersheds were presented. The focus of the paper should be on wildfire disturbed streamflow. Adjustment of results proportions and focus of analysis is needed.
- Discussions with more recent large sample rainfall-runoff events controls analysis should be added, i.e. Jahanshahi and Booij (2024) https://doi.org/10.1080/02626667.2024.2302420 ,Zheng et al. (2023) https://doi.org/10.1029/2022WR033226.
- In the discussion section, it should also have a separate subtitle and section focus more on the impact of wildfire to streamflow.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2875-CC1 -
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-2875', Yanchen Zheng, 11 Mar 2024
reply
The study from Canham et al. explores the time-varying hydrological controls on 5042 rainfall-runoff events from 9 western US watersheds, with aiming to untangle the influence of wildfire on streamflow. The paper is well-crafted, with the supporting data and text well recorded in the supplementary file. However, my main concern is that I think the focus of this paper should be on exploring the influence of wildfire on streamflow. Given that there are already lots of studies focus on rainfall-runoff event separation method or large sample events temporal-spatial controls investigation. Thus, the novelty of this paper should be exploring the wildfire influence on streamflow. Yet, the current paper structure contains large proportion of text describing event separation and also the controls for undisturbed events. So I think the structure of the paper should be adjusted to highlight your contributions on untangling the wildfire impact on streamflow. My detailed comments can be found below. By the way, I was accidently uploaded my review comments as community comment before. Just ignore the community comment.
- Table1: It would be better to add hydrologic characteristics in this table for these catchments, i.e., mean annual precipitation, mean annual potential evapotranspiration, mean annual streamflow and also maybe the streamflow regimes that you mentioned in the line 120-123.
- Line 132: Can you explain what PRISM means?
- Line 240-242: why it needs to use two different statistical tests to evaluate the effect of WYT and season/antecedent precipitation respectively? In Figure 7, you compared their results in one figure, yet I’m not sure whether the results of these two methods are comparable or not?
- Table 2: Does symbol # represent the number of events? If so, please clarify.
- Line 289: How you selected these two contrasting watersheds? The explanation of why you selected these two watersheds as example is needed. Is that possible to compare the results between Arroyo Seco and Valley Creek (this one has similar characteristics with Clear Creek)? Or Maybe Arroyo Seco and Shitike Creek (this one has similar contributing area with Arroyo Seco)? Will the results you observed from Arroyo Seco and Clear Creek also apply to Arroyo Seco and Valley Creek?
- Figure 6: Can you explain what negative values on the x-axis for volume, peak flow and response time mean?
- Line 329: How do you calculate this relative significance rates?
- Line 350: Can you re-phrase this sentence? It is a bit confused by ‘for in no metric groups’.
- The results section contains an large proportion of analysis on undisturbed rainfall-runoff events, while the analysis of wildfire impacts on streamflow is not sufficiently thorough. Only examples from two watersheds were presented. The focus of the paper should be on wildfire disturbed streamflow. Adjustment of results proportions and focus of analysis is needed.
- Discussions with more recent large sample rainfall-runoff events controls analysis should be added, i.e. Jahanshahi and Booij (2024) https://doi.org/10.1080/02626667.2024.2302420 ,Zheng et al. (2023) https://doi.org/10.1029/2022WR033226.
- In the discussion section, it should also have a separate subtitle and section focus more on the impact of wildfire to streamflow.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2875-RC1
Model code and software
Rainfall-Runoff Event Detection and Identification (RREDI) toolkit Haley A. Canham and Belize A. Lane https://www.hydroshare.org/resource/797fe26dfefb4d658b8f8bc898b320de/
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
200 | 78 | 16 | 294 | 21 | 8 | 7 |
- HTML: 200
- PDF: 78
- XML: 16
- Total: 294
- Supplement: 21
- BibTeX: 8
- EndNote: 7
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1