the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
The Hydrological Archetypes of Wetlands
Abstract. Wetlands are valuable and diverse environments that contribute to a vast range of ecosystem services, such as flood control, drought resilience, and carbon sequestration. The provision of these ecosystem services depends on their hydrological functioning, which refers to how water is stored and moved within a wetland environment. Since the hydrological functions of wetlands vary widely based on location, wetland type, hydrological connectivity, vegetation, and seasonality, there is no single approach to defining these functions. Consequently, accurately identifying their hydrological functions to quantify ecosystem services remains challenging. To address this issue, we investigate the hydrological regimes of wetlands, focusing on water extent, to better understand their hydrological functions. We achieve this goal using Sentinel-1 SAR imagery and a self-supervised deep learning model (DeepAqua) to predict surface water extent for 43 Ramsar sites in Sweden between 2020–2023. The wetlands are grouped into the following archetypes based on their hydrological similarity: 'autumn drying', ‘summer dry', 'spring surging', 'summer flooded', ‘spring flooded' and ‘slow drying'. The archetypes represent great heterogeneity, with flashy regimes being more prominent at higher latitudes and smoother regimes found preferentially in central and southern Sweden. Additionally, many archetypes show exceptional similarity in the timing and duration of flooding and drying events, which only became apparent when grouped. We attempt to link hydrological functions to the archetypes whereby headwater wetlands like the spring-surging archetype have the potential to accentuate floods and droughts, while slow-drying wetlands, typical of floodplain wetlands, are more likely to provide services such as flood attenuation and low flow supply. Additionally, although wetlands can be classified in myriad ways, we propose that classifying wetlands based on the hydrological regime is useful for identifying hydrological functions specific to the site and season. Lastly, we foresee that hydrological regime-based classification can be easily applied to other wetland-rich landscapes to understand the hydrological functions better and identify their respective ecosystem services.
- Preprint
(15752 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 25 Feb 2025)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-3248', Anonymous Referee #1, 07 Jan 2025
reply
The manuscript addresses an important topic in wetland hydrology, leveraging remote sensing and automated detection methods to classify wetlands into hydrological regimes. This novel approach offers insights into wetland functionality and highlights the potential of clustering techniques for ecosystem studies. However, some aspects of the manuscript require clarification and revision before publication. Below are specific comments:
Introduction
Line 84-86, how often is Sentinel-1, how often can you cover 43 Ramsar wetlands? Monthly? In one month, how many time revisit the same point?
Methods
Line 97-98, how do you define poor SAR data availability?
Section 2.3, lines 138-140, NDWI masks, why you call it NDWI masks, did you use NDWI to do classification? Can you give more details about how DeepAqua work? Also does Sentinel-1 and sentinel-2 have same revisit time, can you give more details about sentinel-1 and sentinel-2?
If NDWI mask is from Sentinel-2, since NDWI masks are critical as training labels for DeepAqua, how did you assess their accuracy before using them? Did you compare them with existing datasets or ground truth data?
How do you split training, validating, testing datasets in 2020-2023?
In methods section, no description about validation for water extent prediction. All the analysis is based on water extent result, validation for it should be described here.
In lines 115-116, where is the result of each site’s latitude, elevation, open water as a percentage of the total area, and general wetland type? Is it Figure 6? If yes, please cite it in lines 115-116.
Results and Analysis
In lines 183-186, what does it mean that VIF values 5.96 for Skewness, can you explain more how does VIF value work? In line 167, you mentioned VIF values measure between all variables. So VIF value 5.96 of skewness measures multicollinearity with all other variables or some variables?
Also, cite Table 1 in line 186 will be more clear for audiences to understand.
In lines 187-188, what does “n” mean in “n=12”?
In line 189, do you mean “Table 1”? I did not find Table 2.
In lines 204-205, can you explain the role of “level of non-collinearity” in VIF value?
What is the difference between Figure 4 and Table 1?
Is figure 5 same as figures A3-A8? One is relative water extent, one is absolute water extent?
In lines 274-282, The main topic of the paper is to classify wetlands based on hydrological regimes, but this paragraph is more about the classification of habitat types. Is this classification closely related to the main topic (hydrological regime)? It is recommended that the authors explain why this classification is necessary and how it contributes to the main line of research.
In lines 287-288, hydrological parameters are from water extent timing characteristics. So it is not unintentionally, it is intentionally in the input data.
In figure 7, legend is “water extent” but second y axis label is “wetland extent”. The whole manuscript is talking about water extent, please correct it.
In figure 7 caption, “water extent data between 2020-2023 (black lines) with monthly discharge data averaged from 2020 to 2023 for active on-site or nearby upstream stations (coloured lines)”, it seems “black lines” and “coloured lines” should be swapped or the line color in figures should be swapped.
In lines 302-321, you validated 5 wetland due to in-situ data limit, but in total there are 43 Ramsar sites are analyzed, for other 38 sites, should at least compare the water extent with other water extent datasets to validate its accuracy. In addition, the whole manuscript is based on the water extent result, so the validation part should be shown in the beginning of Section 3, instead of the last paragraph.
In lines 306 and 311, please tell the full name of “MSE”.
Discussion
Lines 330-341, seems a repetition of lines 210-220.
Lines 356-359, why did not you use longer period, after Sentinel is launched?
For section 4.1, lines 343-370, the logical relationship between the three paragraphs is loose, and the transition between paragraphs is not natural enough. It is recommended to add clearer transition sentences between paragraphs to help readers better understand the connection between the various parts.
Appendix
Figure A1-A8 is not referred in the main text part.
Figure A2, what is the meaning of this figure? I did not see anything related in the manuscript.
Figures A3-A8, all sub-figures have a blank box on the top-right.
General problems
Some figures are overly large and could be resized for better integration into the text.
In lines 495-496, the link is invalid (https://github.com/melqkiades/deepwetlands).
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3248-RC1
Data sets
Supplementary data Abigail E. Robinson https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.13833605
Model code and software
hydrological_archetypes Abigail E. Robinson https://github.com/ab-e-rob/hydrological_archetypes
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
151 | 35 | 5 | 191 | 1 | 2 |
- HTML: 151
- PDF: 35
- XML: 5
- Total: 191
- BibTeX: 1
- EndNote: 2
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1