Reach‐scale bankfull channel types can exist independently of catchment hydrology

Reach‐scale morphological channel classifications are underpinned by the theory that each channel type is related to an assemblage of reach‐ and catchment‐scale hydrologic, topographic, and sediment supply drivers. However, the relative importance of each driver on reach morphology is unclear, as is...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Earth surface processes and landforms 2020-07, Vol.45 (9), p.2179-2200
Hauptverfasser: Byrne, Colin F., Pasternack, Gregory B., Guillon, Hervé, Lane, Belize A., Sandoval‐Solis, Samuel
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 2200
container_issue 9
container_start_page 2179
container_title Earth surface processes and landforms
container_volume 45
creator Byrne, Colin F.
Pasternack, Gregory B.
Guillon, Hervé
Lane, Belize A.
Sandoval‐Solis, Samuel
description Reach‐scale morphological channel classifications are underpinned by the theory that each channel type is related to an assemblage of reach‐ and catchment‐scale hydrologic, topographic, and sediment supply drivers. However, the relative importance of each driver on reach morphology is unclear, as is the possibility that different driver assemblages yield the same reach morphology. Reach‐scale classifications have never needed to be predicated on hydrology, yet hydrology controls discharge and thus sediment transport capacity. The scientific question is: do two or more regions with quantifiable differences in hydrologic setting end up with different reach‐scale channel types, or do channel types transcend hydrologic setting because hydrologic setting is not a dominant control at the reach scale? This study answered this question by isolating hydrologic metrics as potential dominant controls of channel type. Three steps were applied in a large test basin with diverse hydrologic settings (Sacramento River, California) to: (1) create a reach‐scale channel classification based on local site surveys, (2) categorize sites by flood magnitude, dimensionless flood magnitude, and annual hydrologic regime type, and (3) statistically analyze two hydrogeomorphic linkages. Statistical tests assessed the spatial distribution of channel types and the dependence of channel type morphological attributes by hydrologic setting. Results yielded 10 channel types. Nearly all types existed across all hydrologic settings, which is perhaps a surprising development for hydrogeomorphology. Downstream hydraulic geometry relationships were statistically significant. In addition, cobble‐dominated uniform streams showed a consistent inverse relationship between slope and dimensionless flood magnitude, an indication of dynamic equilibrium between transport capacity and sediment supply. However, most morphological attributes showed no sorting by hydrologic setting. This study suggests that median hydraulic geometry relations persist across basins and within channel types, but hydrologic influence on geomorphic variability is likely due to local influences rather than catchment‐scale drivers. © 2020 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. In the Sacramento River basin, California, reach‐scale morphological channel types were found within nearly all sub‐basin hydrologic settings. This indicates that catchment‐scale hydrologic drivers, while influential to channel type dimensionality, are not a dominant contr
doi_str_mv 10.1002/esp.4874
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2420170698</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2420170698</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-a3504-18ea1de6ca85f74d3b662bb98612132c8e036e3c6425cfd1d35e34ee6fb41bf53</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kM9KxDAQh4MouK6CjxDw4qVr0qRpepRl_QMLiqvnkKYT2zWb1qSL9uYj-Iw-idX16mWG4fcxw3wInVIyo4SkFxC7GZc530MTSgqRFJLl-2hCaJEnBWP5ITqKcU0IpVwWE7R6AG3qr4_PaLQDXGr_YrfOYVNr78HhfuggYqM9hvcm9rjxFXQwFt-7Abd2jHpTb8YR10MVWtc-D8fowGoX4eSvT9HT1eJxfpMs765v55fLRLOM8IRK0LQCYbTMbM4rVgqRlmUhBU0pS40EwgQwI3iaGVvRimXAOICwJaelzdgUne32dqF93ULs1brdBj-eVClPCc2JGL-fovMdZUIbYwCrutBsdBgUJepHmRqVqR9lI5rs0LfGwfAvpxar-1_-G0wPbsc</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2420170698</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Reach‐scale bankfull channel types can exist independently of catchment hydrology</title><source>Access via Wiley Online Library</source><creator>Byrne, Colin F. ; Pasternack, Gregory B. ; Guillon, Hervé ; Lane, Belize A. ; Sandoval‐Solis, Samuel</creator><creatorcontrib>Byrne, Colin F. ; Pasternack, Gregory B. ; Guillon, Hervé ; Lane, Belize A. ; Sandoval‐Solis, Samuel</creatorcontrib><description>Reach‐scale morphological channel classifications are underpinned by the theory that each channel type is related to an assemblage of reach‐ and catchment‐scale hydrologic, topographic, and sediment supply drivers. However, the relative importance of each driver on reach morphology is unclear, as is the possibility that different driver assemblages yield the same reach morphology. Reach‐scale classifications have never needed to be predicated on hydrology, yet hydrology controls discharge and thus sediment transport capacity. The scientific question is: do two or more regions with quantifiable differences in hydrologic setting end up with different reach‐scale channel types, or do channel types transcend hydrologic setting because hydrologic setting is not a dominant control at the reach scale? This study answered this question by isolating hydrologic metrics as potential dominant controls of channel type. Three steps were applied in a large test basin with diverse hydrologic settings (Sacramento River, California) to: (1) create a reach‐scale channel classification based on local site surveys, (2) categorize sites by flood magnitude, dimensionless flood magnitude, and annual hydrologic regime type, and (3) statistically analyze two hydrogeomorphic linkages. Statistical tests assessed the spatial distribution of channel types and the dependence of channel type morphological attributes by hydrologic setting. Results yielded 10 channel types. Nearly all types existed across all hydrologic settings, which is perhaps a surprising development for hydrogeomorphology. Downstream hydraulic geometry relationships were statistically significant. In addition, cobble‐dominated uniform streams showed a consistent inverse relationship between slope and dimensionless flood magnitude, an indication of dynamic equilibrium between transport capacity and sediment supply. However, most morphological attributes showed no sorting by hydrologic setting. This study suggests that median hydraulic geometry relations persist across basins and within channel types, but hydrologic influence on geomorphic variability is likely due to local influences rather than catchment‐scale drivers. © 2020 John Wiley &amp; Sons, Ltd. In the Sacramento River basin, California, reach‐scale morphological channel types were found within nearly all sub‐basin hydrologic settings. This indicates that catchment‐scale hydrologic drivers, while influential to channel type dimensionality, are not a dominant control on morphological variability at the reach‐scale.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0197-9337</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1096-9837</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1002/esp.4874</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Bognor Regis: Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</publisher><subject>basin hydrology ; Catchment area ; Catchment hydrology ; Catchment scale ; Catchments ; channel‐reach morphology ; Flood magnitude ; Floods ; Geomorphology ; Hydraulic geometry ; hydrogeomorphic ; Hydrogeomorphology ; Hydrologic regime ; Hydrologic studies ; Hydrology ; Morphology ; multivariate classification ; Questions ; River channels ; Sediment ; Sediment transport ; Sediments ; Site surveys ; Spatial distribution ; Statistical analysis ; Statistical tests ; Streams ; Surveys</subject><ispartof>Earth surface processes and landforms, 2020-07, Vol.45 (9), p.2179-2200</ispartof><rights>2020 John Wiley &amp; Sons, Ltd.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-a3504-18ea1de6ca85f74d3b662bb98612132c8e036e3c6425cfd1d35e34ee6fb41bf53</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-a3504-18ea1de6ca85f74d3b662bb98612132c8e036e3c6425cfd1d35e34ee6fb41bf53</cites><orcidid>0000-0003-0329-3243 ; 0000-0003-4752-2503 ; 0000-0003-2331-7038 ; 0000-0002-6297-8253 ; 0000-0002-1977-4175</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002%2Fesp.4874$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002%2Fesp.4874$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,1417,27924,27925,45574,45575</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Byrne, Colin F.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pasternack, Gregory B.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Guillon, Hervé</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lane, Belize A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sandoval‐Solis, Samuel</creatorcontrib><title>Reach‐scale bankfull channel types can exist independently of catchment hydrology</title><title>Earth surface processes and landforms</title><description>Reach‐scale morphological channel classifications are underpinned by the theory that each channel type is related to an assemblage of reach‐ and catchment‐scale hydrologic, topographic, and sediment supply drivers. However, the relative importance of each driver on reach morphology is unclear, as is the possibility that different driver assemblages yield the same reach morphology. Reach‐scale classifications have never needed to be predicated on hydrology, yet hydrology controls discharge and thus sediment transport capacity. The scientific question is: do two or more regions with quantifiable differences in hydrologic setting end up with different reach‐scale channel types, or do channel types transcend hydrologic setting because hydrologic setting is not a dominant control at the reach scale? This study answered this question by isolating hydrologic metrics as potential dominant controls of channel type. Three steps were applied in a large test basin with diverse hydrologic settings (Sacramento River, California) to: (1) create a reach‐scale channel classification based on local site surveys, (2) categorize sites by flood magnitude, dimensionless flood magnitude, and annual hydrologic regime type, and (3) statistically analyze two hydrogeomorphic linkages. Statistical tests assessed the spatial distribution of channel types and the dependence of channel type morphological attributes by hydrologic setting. Results yielded 10 channel types. Nearly all types existed across all hydrologic settings, which is perhaps a surprising development for hydrogeomorphology. Downstream hydraulic geometry relationships were statistically significant. In addition, cobble‐dominated uniform streams showed a consistent inverse relationship between slope and dimensionless flood magnitude, an indication of dynamic equilibrium between transport capacity and sediment supply. However, most morphological attributes showed no sorting by hydrologic setting. This study suggests that median hydraulic geometry relations persist across basins and within channel types, but hydrologic influence on geomorphic variability is likely due to local influences rather than catchment‐scale drivers. © 2020 John Wiley &amp; Sons, Ltd. In the Sacramento River basin, California, reach‐scale morphological channel types were found within nearly all sub‐basin hydrologic settings. This indicates that catchment‐scale hydrologic drivers, while influential to channel type dimensionality, are not a dominant control on morphological variability at the reach‐scale.</description><subject>basin hydrology</subject><subject>Catchment area</subject><subject>Catchment hydrology</subject><subject>Catchment scale</subject><subject>Catchments</subject><subject>channel‐reach morphology</subject><subject>Flood magnitude</subject><subject>Floods</subject><subject>Geomorphology</subject><subject>Hydraulic geometry</subject><subject>hydrogeomorphic</subject><subject>Hydrogeomorphology</subject><subject>Hydrologic regime</subject><subject>Hydrologic studies</subject><subject>Hydrology</subject><subject>Morphology</subject><subject>multivariate classification</subject><subject>Questions</subject><subject>River channels</subject><subject>Sediment</subject><subject>Sediment transport</subject><subject>Sediments</subject><subject>Site surveys</subject><subject>Spatial distribution</subject><subject>Statistical analysis</subject><subject>Statistical tests</subject><subject>Streams</subject><subject>Surveys</subject><issn>0197-9337</issn><issn>1096-9837</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2020</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp1kM9KxDAQh4MouK6CjxDw4qVr0qRpepRl_QMLiqvnkKYT2zWb1qSL9uYj-Iw-idX16mWG4fcxw3wInVIyo4SkFxC7GZc530MTSgqRFJLl-2hCaJEnBWP5ITqKcU0IpVwWE7R6AG3qr4_PaLQDXGr_YrfOYVNr78HhfuggYqM9hvcm9rjxFXQwFt-7Abd2jHpTb8YR10MVWtc-D8fowGoX4eSvT9HT1eJxfpMs765v55fLRLOM8IRK0LQCYbTMbM4rVgqRlmUhBU0pS40EwgQwI3iaGVvRimXAOICwJaelzdgUne32dqF93ULs1brdBj-eVClPCc2JGL-fovMdZUIbYwCrutBsdBgUJepHmRqVqR9lI5rs0LfGwfAvpxar-1_-G0wPbsc</recordid><startdate>202007</startdate><enddate>202007</enddate><creator>Byrne, Colin F.</creator><creator>Pasternack, Gregory B.</creator><creator>Guillon, Hervé</creator><creator>Lane, Belize A.</creator><creator>Sandoval‐Solis, Samuel</creator><general>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7TG</scope><scope>7UA</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>F1W</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>H96</scope><scope>KL.</scope><scope>KR7</scope><scope>L.G</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0329-3243</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4752-2503</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2331-7038</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6297-8253</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1977-4175</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>202007</creationdate><title>Reach‐scale bankfull channel types can exist independently of catchment hydrology</title><author>Byrne, Colin F. ; Pasternack, Gregory B. ; Guillon, Hervé ; Lane, Belize A. ; Sandoval‐Solis, Samuel</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-a3504-18ea1de6ca85f74d3b662bb98612132c8e036e3c6425cfd1d35e34ee6fb41bf53</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2020</creationdate><topic>basin hydrology</topic><topic>Catchment area</topic><topic>Catchment hydrology</topic><topic>Catchment scale</topic><topic>Catchments</topic><topic>channel‐reach morphology</topic><topic>Flood magnitude</topic><topic>Floods</topic><topic>Geomorphology</topic><topic>Hydraulic geometry</topic><topic>hydrogeomorphic</topic><topic>Hydrogeomorphology</topic><topic>Hydrologic regime</topic><topic>Hydrologic studies</topic><topic>Hydrology</topic><topic>Morphology</topic><topic>multivariate classification</topic><topic>Questions</topic><topic>River channels</topic><topic>Sediment</topic><topic>Sediment transport</topic><topic>Sediments</topic><topic>Site surveys</topic><topic>Spatial distribution</topic><topic>Statistical analysis</topic><topic>Statistical tests</topic><topic>Streams</topic><topic>Surveys</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Byrne, Colin F.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pasternack, Gregory B.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Guillon, Hervé</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lane, Belize A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sandoval‐Solis, Samuel</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Meteorological &amp; Geoastrophysical Abstracts</collection><collection>Water Resources Abstracts</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ASFA: Aquatic Sciences and Fisheries Abstracts</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Aquatic Science &amp; Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) 2: Ocean Technology, Policy &amp; Non-Living Resources</collection><collection>Meteorological &amp; Geoastrophysical Abstracts - Academic</collection><collection>Civil Engineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Aquatic Science &amp; Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) Professional</collection><jtitle>Earth surface processes and landforms</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Byrne, Colin F.</au><au>Pasternack, Gregory B.</au><au>Guillon, Hervé</au><au>Lane, Belize A.</au><au>Sandoval‐Solis, Samuel</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Reach‐scale bankfull channel types can exist independently of catchment hydrology</atitle><jtitle>Earth surface processes and landforms</jtitle><date>2020-07</date><risdate>2020</risdate><volume>45</volume><issue>9</issue><spage>2179</spage><epage>2200</epage><pages>2179-2200</pages><issn>0197-9337</issn><eissn>1096-9837</eissn><abstract>Reach‐scale morphological channel classifications are underpinned by the theory that each channel type is related to an assemblage of reach‐ and catchment‐scale hydrologic, topographic, and sediment supply drivers. However, the relative importance of each driver on reach morphology is unclear, as is the possibility that different driver assemblages yield the same reach morphology. Reach‐scale classifications have never needed to be predicated on hydrology, yet hydrology controls discharge and thus sediment transport capacity. The scientific question is: do two or more regions with quantifiable differences in hydrologic setting end up with different reach‐scale channel types, or do channel types transcend hydrologic setting because hydrologic setting is not a dominant control at the reach scale? This study answered this question by isolating hydrologic metrics as potential dominant controls of channel type. Three steps were applied in a large test basin with diverse hydrologic settings (Sacramento River, California) to: (1) create a reach‐scale channel classification based on local site surveys, (2) categorize sites by flood magnitude, dimensionless flood magnitude, and annual hydrologic regime type, and (3) statistically analyze two hydrogeomorphic linkages. Statistical tests assessed the spatial distribution of channel types and the dependence of channel type morphological attributes by hydrologic setting. Results yielded 10 channel types. Nearly all types existed across all hydrologic settings, which is perhaps a surprising development for hydrogeomorphology. Downstream hydraulic geometry relationships were statistically significant. In addition, cobble‐dominated uniform streams showed a consistent inverse relationship between slope and dimensionless flood magnitude, an indication of dynamic equilibrium between transport capacity and sediment supply. However, most morphological attributes showed no sorting by hydrologic setting. This study suggests that median hydraulic geometry relations persist across basins and within channel types, but hydrologic influence on geomorphic variability is likely due to local influences rather than catchment‐scale drivers. © 2020 John Wiley &amp; Sons, Ltd. In the Sacramento River basin, California, reach‐scale morphological channel types were found within nearly all sub‐basin hydrologic settings. This indicates that catchment‐scale hydrologic drivers, while influential to channel type dimensionality, are not a dominant control on morphological variability at the reach‐scale.</abstract><cop>Bognor Regis</cop><pub>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</pub><doi>10.1002/esp.4874</doi><tpages>22</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0329-3243</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4752-2503</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2331-7038</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6297-8253</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1977-4175</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0197-9337
ispartof Earth surface processes and landforms, 2020-07, Vol.45 (9), p.2179-2200
issn 0197-9337
1096-9837
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_2420170698
source Access via Wiley Online Library
subjects basin hydrology
Catchment area
Catchment hydrology
Catchment scale
Catchments
channel‐reach morphology
Flood magnitude
Floods
Geomorphology
Hydraulic geometry
hydrogeomorphic
Hydrogeomorphology
Hydrologic regime
Hydrologic studies
Hydrology
Morphology
multivariate classification
Questions
River channels
Sediment
Sediment transport
Sediments
Site surveys
Spatial distribution
Statistical analysis
Statistical tests
Streams
Surveys
title Reach‐scale bankfull channel types can exist independently of catchment hydrology
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-03T22%3A31%3A34IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Reach%E2%80%90scale%20bankfull%20channel%20types%20can%20exist%20independently%20of%20catchment%20hydrology&rft.jtitle=Earth%20surface%20processes%20and%20landforms&rft.au=Byrne,%20Colin%20F.&rft.date=2020-07&rft.volume=45&rft.issue=9&rft.spage=2179&rft.epage=2200&rft.pages=2179-2200&rft.issn=0197-9337&rft.eissn=1096-9837&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002/esp.4874&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2420170698%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2420170698&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true