Linking hydrologic signatures to hydrologic processes: A review

Abstract Hydrologic signatures are metrics that quantify aspects of streamflow response. Linking signatures to underlying processes enables multiple applications, such as selecting hydrologic model structure, analysing hydrologic change, making predictions in ungauged basins, and classifying watersh...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Published in:Hydrological Processes
Main Author: McMillan, Hilary
Format: Article in Journal/Newspaper
Language:English
Published: Wiley 2020
Subjects:
Online Access:http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/hyp.13632
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/hyp.13632
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full-xml/10.1002/hyp.13632
id crwiley:10.1002/hyp.13632
record_format openpolar
spelling crwiley:10.1002/hyp.13632 2024-09-30T14:41:17+00:00 Linking hydrologic signatures to hydrologic processes: A review McMillan, Hilary 2020 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/hyp.13632 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/hyp.13632 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full-xml/10.1002/hyp.13632 en eng Wiley http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor Hydrological Processes volume 34, issue 6, page 1393-1409 ISSN 0885-6087 1099-1085 journal-article 2020 crwiley https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.13632 2024-09-05T05:09:52Z Abstract Hydrologic signatures are metrics that quantify aspects of streamflow response. Linking signatures to underlying processes enables multiple applications, such as selecting hydrologic model structure, analysing hydrologic change, making predictions in ungauged basins, and classifying watershed function. However, many lists of hydrologic signatures are not process‐based, and knowledge about signature‐process links has been scattered among studies from experimental watersheds and model selection experiments. This review brings together those studies to catalogue more than 50 signatures representing evapotranspiration, snow storage and melt, permafrost, infiltration excess, saturation excess, groundwater, baseflow, connectivity, channel processes, partitioning, and human alteration. The review shows substantial variability in the number, type, and timescale of signatures available to represent each process. Many signatures provide information about groundwater storage, partitioning, and connectivity, whereas snow processes and human alteration are underrepresented. More signatures are related to the seasonal scale than the event timescale, and land surface processes (ET, snow, and overland flow) have no signatures at the event scale. There are limitations in some signatures that test for occurrence but cannot quantify processes, or are related to multiple processes, making automated analysis more difficult. This review will be valuable as a reference for hydrologists seeking to use streamflow records to investigate a particular hydrologic process or to conduct large‐sample analyses of patterns in hydrologic processes. Article in Journal/Newspaper permafrost Wiley Online Library Hydrological Processes 34 6 1393 1409
institution Open Polar
collection Wiley Online Library
op_collection_id crwiley
language English
description Abstract Hydrologic signatures are metrics that quantify aspects of streamflow response. Linking signatures to underlying processes enables multiple applications, such as selecting hydrologic model structure, analysing hydrologic change, making predictions in ungauged basins, and classifying watershed function. However, many lists of hydrologic signatures are not process‐based, and knowledge about signature‐process links has been scattered among studies from experimental watersheds and model selection experiments. This review brings together those studies to catalogue more than 50 signatures representing evapotranspiration, snow storage and melt, permafrost, infiltration excess, saturation excess, groundwater, baseflow, connectivity, channel processes, partitioning, and human alteration. The review shows substantial variability in the number, type, and timescale of signatures available to represent each process. Many signatures provide information about groundwater storage, partitioning, and connectivity, whereas snow processes and human alteration are underrepresented. More signatures are related to the seasonal scale than the event timescale, and land surface processes (ET, snow, and overland flow) have no signatures at the event scale. There are limitations in some signatures that test for occurrence but cannot quantify processes, or are related to multiple processes, making automated analysis more difficult. This review will be valuable as a reference for hydrologists seeking to use streamflow records to investigate a particular hydrologic process or to conduct large‐sample analyses of patterns in hydrologic processes.
format Article in Journal/Newspaper
author McMillan, Hilary
spellingShingle McMillan, Hilary
Linking hydrologic signatures to hydrologic processes: A review
author_facet McMillan, Hilary
author_sort McMillan, Hilary
title Linking hydrologic signatures to hydrologic processes: A review
title_short Linking hydrologic signatures to hydrologic processes: A review
title_full Linking hydrologic signatures to hydrologic processes: A review
title_fullStr Linking hydrologic signatures to hydrologic processes: A review
title_full_unstemmed Linking hydrologic signatures to hydrologic processes: A review
title_sort linking hydrologic signatures to hydrologic processes: a review
publisher Wiley
publishDate 2020
url http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/hyp.13632
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/hyp.13632
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full-xml/10.1002/hyp.13632
genre permafrost
genre_facet permafrost
op_source Hydrological Processes
volume 34, issue 6, page 1393-1409
ISSN 0885-6087 1099-1085
op_rights http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor
op_doi https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.13632
container_title Hydrological Processes
container_volume 34
container_issue 6
container_start_page 1393
op_container_end_page 1409
_version_ 1811643685081710592