Evaluating hydrologic region assignment techniques for ungaged basins in Alaska, USA

Building continental‐scale hydrologic models in data‐sparse regions requires an understanding of spatial variation in hydrologic processes. Extending these models to ungaged locations requires techniques to group ungaged locations with gaged ones to make process importance and model parameter transf...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:River research and applications 2022-11, Vol.38 (9), p.1569-1584
Hauptverfasser: Barnhart, Theodore B., Farmer, William H., Hammond, John C., Sexstone, Graham A., Curran, Janet H., Koch, Joshua C., Driscoll, Jessica M.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 1584
container_issue 9
container_start_page 1569
container_title River research and applications
container_volume 38
creator Barnhart, Theodore B.
Farmer, William H.
Hammond, John C.
Sexstone, Graham A.
Curran, Janet H.
Koch, Joshua C.
Driscoll, Jessica M.
description Building continental‐scale hydrologic models in data‐sparse regions requires an understanding of spatial variation in hydrologic processes. Extending these models to ungaged locations requires techniques to group ungaged locations with gaged ones to make process importance and model parameter transfer decisions to ungaged locations. This analysis (1) tested the utility of fundamental streamflow statistics (FDSS) in defining hydrologic regions across Alaska, USA; (2) evaluated if the hydrologic regions represented different hydrologic processes; and (3) tested the ability of random forest and direct assignment techniques, informed by statistically estimated FDSS (FDSSest) and basin characteristics (BCs), to correctly assign ungaged locations to hydrologic regions. Six hydrologic regions were identified across the domain using FDSS. Differences in mean flow, phase shift of the seasonal cycle, and skewness were the primary characteristics defining each region. Two regions represented arctic and continental climates, generally in the northern portion of the domain; four regions represented the southern, maritime portion of the domain. Random forest modeling with BCs (67% success rate) outperformed FDSSest (58% success rate) suggesting that no statistically estimated streamflow was needed to assign ungaged locations to a region. For regions with many sites, most region assignment techniques performed similarly. Random forest modeling performance declined when BCs and FDSSest were both used to predict region membership, suggesting FDSSest had little information in addition to BCs. This analysis demonstrated that FDSS‐based hydrologic regions discern process differences across a data‐sparse and hydrologically diverse landscape. Process importance rankings from random forest‐derived BCs provided model‐independent information for making modeling decisions. Key points Fundamental daily streamflow statistics produce distinct hydrologic regions across Alaska, USA Distinct hydrologic processes are recognizable in the identified hydrologic regions Using basin characteristics, random forest modeling was best able to assign ungaged locations to hydrologic regions Random forest‐derived predictor importance suggests that hydroclimatic factors and permafrost presence/absence drive hydrologic region assignment
doi_str_mv 10.1002/rra.4028
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2731035273</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2731035273</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c2238-5b49c502a9fc847c91bea75d0ea063966eea66ab504da5c6e232029fd4e1909e3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp10M9LwzAUB_AgCs4p-CcEvHiwM0mbtjmW4S8YCHM7h9f0tcvs0pl0yv57OyfePH3f4cN7jy8h15xNOGPi3nuYJEzkJ2TEZSwjnqTZ6d8s1Tm5CGHNGM9ylY_I4uET2h301jV0ta9813aNNdRjYztHIQTbuA26nvZoVs5-7DDQuvN05xposKIlBOsCtY4WLYR3uKPLt-KSnNXQBrz6zTFZPj4sps_R7PXpZVrMIiNEnEeyTJSRTICqTZ5kRvESIZMVQ2BprNIUEdIUSsmSCqRJUcSCCVVXCXLFFMZjcnPcu_Xd4bNer7udd8NJLbKYs1gOMajbozK-C8FjrbfebsDvNWf60JkeOtOHzgYaHemXbXH_r9PzefHjvwH8_G0g</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2731035273</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Evaluating hydrologic region assignment techniques for ungaged basins in Alaska, USA</title><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><creator>Barnhart, Theodore B. ; Farmer, William H. ; Hammond, John C. ; Sexstone, Graham A. ; Curran, Janet H. ; Koch, Joshua C. ; Driscoll, Jessica M.</creator><creatorcontrib>Barnhart, Theodore B. ; Farmer, William H. ; Hammond, John C. ; Sexstone, Graham A. ; Curran, Janet H. ; Koch, Joshua C. ; Driscoll, Jessica M.</creatorcontrib><description>Building continental‐scale hydrologic models in data‐sparse regions requires an understanding of spatial variation in hydrologic processes. Extending these models to ungaged locations requires techniques to group ungaged locations with gaged ones to make process importance and model parameter transfer decisions to ungaged locations. This analysis (1) tested the utility of fundamental streamflow statistics (FDSS) in defining hydrologic regions across Alaska, USA; (2) evaluated if the hydrologic regions represented different hydrologic processes; and (3) tested the ability of random forest and direct assignment techniques, informed by statistically estimated FDSS (FDSSest) and basin characteristics (BCs), to correctly assign ungaged locations to hydrologic regions. Six hydrologic regions were identified across the domain using FDSS. Differences in mean flow, phase shift of the seasonal cycle, and skewness were the primary characteristics defining each region. Two regions represented arctic and continental climates, generally in the northern portion of the domain; four regions represented the southern, maritime portion of the domain. Random forest modeling with BCs (67% success rate) outperformed FDSSest (58% success rate) suggesting that no statistically estimated streamflow was needed to assign ungaged locations to a region. For regions with many sites, most region assignment techniques performed similarly. Random forest modeling performance declined when BCs and FDSSest were both used to predict region membership, suggesting FDSSest had little information in addition to BCs. This analysis demonstrated that FDSS‐based hydrologic regions discern process differences across a data‐sparse and hydrologically diverse landscape. Process importance rankings from random forest‐derived BCs provided model‐independent information for making modeling decisions. Key points Fundamental daily streamflow statistics produce distinct hydrologic regions across Alaska, USA Distinct hydrologic processes are recognizable in the identified hydrologic regions Using basin characteristics, random forest modeling was best able to assign ungaged locations to hydrologic regions Random forest‐derived predictor importance suggests that hydroclimatic factors and permafrost presence/absence drive hydrologic region assignment</description><identifier>ISSN: 1535-1459</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1535-1467</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1002/rra.4028</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Chichester, UK: John Wiley &amp; Sons, Ltd</publisher><subject>Alaska ; Decision analysis ; Decision trees ; Domains ; Hydrologic models ; hydrologic region ; Hydrology ; Identification ; Locations (working) ; Modelling ; Permafrost ; Process parameters ; random forest ; regionalization ; Regions ; Seasonal variation ; Skewness ; Spatial variations ; Statistical analysis ; Statistical methods ; Statistics ; Stream discharge ; Stream flow</subject><ispartof>River research and applications, 2022-11, Vol.38 (9), p.1569-1584</ispartof><rights>Published 2022. This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public domain in the USA.</rights><rights>2022 John Wiley &amp; Sons, Ltd.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c2238-5b49c502a9fc847c91bea75d0ea063966eea66ab504da5c6e232029fd4e1909e3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c2238-5b49c502a9fc847c91bea75d0ea063966eea66ab504da5c6e232029fd4e1909e3</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-2865-2196 ; 0000-0003-3097-9603 ; 0000-0002-9682-3217 ; 0000-0001-7180-6982</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%2Frra.4028$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002%2Frra.4028$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,1411,27901,27902,45550,45551</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Barnhart, Theodore B.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Farmer, William H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hammond, John C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sexstone, Graham A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Curran, Janet H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Koch, Joshua C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Driscoll, Jessica M.</creatorcontrib><title>Evaluating hydrologic region assignment techniques for ungaged basins in Alaska, USA</title><title>River research and applications</title><description>Building continental‐scale hydrologic models in data‐sparse regions requires an understanding of spatial variation in hydrologic processes. Extending these models to ungaged locations requires techniques to group ungaged locations with gaged ones to make process importance and model parameter transfer decisions to ungaged locations. This analysis (1) tested the utility of fundamental streamflow statistics (FDSS) in defining hydrologic regions across Alaska, USA; (2) evaluated if the hydrologic regions represented different hydrologic processes; and (3) tested the ability of random forest and direct assignment techniques, informed by statistically estimated FDSS (FDSSest) and basin characteristics (BCs), to correctly assign ungaged locations to hydrologic regions. Six hydrologic regions were identified across the domain using FDSS. Differences in mean flow, phase shift of the seasonal cycle, and skewness were the primary characteristics defining each region. Two regions represented arctic and continental climates, generally in the northern portion of the domain; four regions represented the southern, maritime portion of the domain. Random forest modeling with BCs (67% success rate) outperformed FDSSest (58% success rate) suggesting that no statistically estimated streamflow was needed to assign ungaged locations to a region. For regions with many sites, most region assignment techniques performed similarly. Random forest modeling performance declined when BCs and FDSSest were both used to predict region membership, suggesting FDSSest had little information in addition to BCs. This analysis demonstrated that FDSS‐based hydrologic regions discern process differences across a data‐sparse and hydrologically diverse landscape. Process importance rankings from random forest‐derived BCs provided model‐independent information for making modeling decisions. Key points Fundamental daily streamflow statistics produce distinct hydrologic regions across Alaska, USA Distinct hydrologic processes are recognizable in the identified hydrologic regions Using basin characteristics, random forest modeling was best able to assign ungaged locations to hydrologic regions Random forest‐derived predictor importance suggests that hydroclimatic factors and permafrost presence/absence drive hydrologic region assignment</description><subject>Alaska</subject><subject>Decision analysis</subject><subject>Decision trees</subject><subject>Domains</subject><subject>Hydrologic models</subject><subject>hydrologic region</subject><subject>Hydrology</subject><subject>Identification</subject><subject>Locations (working)</subject><subject>Modelling</subject><subject>Permafrost</subject><subject>Process parameters</subject><subject>random forest</subject><subject>regionalization</subject><subject>Regions</subject><subject>Seasonal variation</subject><subject>Skewness</subject><subject>Spatial variations</subject><subject>Statistical analysis</subject><subject>Statistical methods</subject><subject>Statistics</subject><subject>Stream discharge</subject><subject>Stream flow</subject><issn>1535-1459</issn><issn>1535-1467</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2022</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp10M9LwzAUB_AgCs4p-CcEvHiwM0mbtjmW4S8YCHM7h9f0tcvs0pl0yv57OyfePH3f4cN7jy8h15xNOGPi3nuYJEzkJ2TEZSwjnqTZ6d8s1Tm5CGHNGM9ylY_I4uET2h301jV0ta9813aNNdRjYztHIQTbuA26nvZoVs5-7DDQuvN05xposKIlBOsCtY4WLYR3uKPLt-KSnNXQBrz6zTFZPj4sps_R7PXpZVrMIiNEnEeyTJSRTICqTZ5kRvESIZMVQ2BprNIUEdIUSsmSCqRJUcSCCVVXCXLFFMZjcnPcu_Xd4bNer7udd8NJLbKYs1gOMajbozK-C8FjrbfebsDvNWf60JkeOtOHzgYaHemXbXH_r9PzefHjvwH8_G0g</recordid><startdate>202211</startdate><enddate>202211</enddate><creator>Barnhart, Theodore B.</creator><creator>Farmer, William H.</creator><creator>Hammond, John C.</creator><creator>Sexstone, Graham A.</creator><creator>Curran, Janet H.</creator><creator>Koch, Joshua C.</creator><creator>Driscoll, Jessica M.</creator><general>John Wiley &amp; Sons, Ltd</general><general>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QH</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7SS</scope><scope>7ST</scope><scope>7UA</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>F1W</scope><scope>H95</scope><scope>H96</scope><scope>L.G</scope><scope>SOI</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2865-2196</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3097-9603</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9682-3217</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7180-6982</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>202211</creationdate><title>Evaluating hydrologic region assignment techniques for ungaged basins in Alaska, USA</title><author>Barnhart, Theodore B. ; Farmer, William H. ; Hammond, John C. ; Sexstone, Graham A. ; Curran, Janet H. ; Koch, Joshua C. ; Driscoll, Jessica M.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c2238-5b49c502a9fc847c91bea75d0ea063966eea66ab504da5c6e232029fd4e1909e3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2022</creationdate><topic>Alaska</topic><topic>Decision analysis</topic><topic>Decision trees</topic><topic>Domains</topic><topic>Hydrologic models</topic><topic>hydrologic region</topic><topic>Hydrology</topic><topic>Identification</topic><topic>Locations (working)</topic><topic>Modelling</topic><topic>Permafrost</topic><topic>Process parameters</topic><topic>random forest</topic><topic>regionalization</topic><topic>Regions</topic><topic>Seasonal variation</topic><topic>Skewness</topic><topic>Spatial variations</topic><topic>Statistical analysis</topic><topic>Statistical methods</topic><topic>Statistics</topic><topic>Stream discharge</topic><topic>Stream flow</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Barnhart, Theodore B.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Farmer, William H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hammond, John C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sexstone, Graham A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Curran, Janet H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Koch, Joshua C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Driscoll, Jessica M.</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Aqualine</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Entomology Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>Water Resources Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ASFA: Aquatic Sciences and Fisheries Abstracts</collection><collection>Aquatic Science &amp; Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) 1: Biological Sciences &amp; Living Resources</collection><collection>Aquatic Science &amp; Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) 2: Ocean Technology, Policy &amp; Non-Living Resources</collection><collection>Aquatic Science &amp; Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) Professional</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><jtitle>River research and applications</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Barnhart, Theodore B.</au><au>Farmer, William H.</au><au>Hammond, John C.</au><au>Sexstone, Graham A.</au><au>Curran, Janet H.</au><au>Koch, Joshua C.</au><au>Driscoll, Jessica M.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Evaluating hydrologic region assignment techniques for ungaged basins in Alaska, USA</atitle><jtitle>River research and applications</jtitle><date>2022-11</date><risdate>2022</risdate><volume>38</volume><issue>9</issue><spage>1569</spage><epage>1584</epage><pages>1569-1584</pages><issn>1535-1459</issn><eissn>1535-1467</eissn><abstract>Building continental‐scale hydrologic models in data‐sparse regions requires an understanding of spatial variation in hydrologic processes. Extending these models to ungaged locations requires techniques to group ungaged locations with gaged ones to make process importance and model parameter transfer decisions to ungaged locations. This analysis (1) tested the utility of fundamental streamflow statistics (FDSS) in defining hydrologic regions across Alaska, USA; (2) evaluated if the hydrologic regions represented different hydrologic processes; and (3) tested the ability of random forest and direct assignment techniques, informed by statistically estimated FDSS (FDSSest) and basin characteristics (BCs), to correctly assign ungaged locations to hydrologic regions. Six hydrologic regions were identified across the domain using FDSS. Differences in mean flow, phase shift of the seasonal cycle, and skewness were the primary characteristics defining each region. Two regions represented arctic and continental climates, generally in the northern portion of the domain; four regions represented the southern, maritime portion of the domain. Random forest modeling with BCs (67% success rate) outperformed FDSSest (58% success rate) suggesting that no statistically estimated streamflow was needed to assign ungaged locations to a region. For regions with many sites, most region assignment techniques performed similarly. Random forest modeling performance declined when BCs and FDSSest were both used to predict region membership, suggesting FDSSest had little information in addition to BCs. This analysis demonstrated that FDSS‐based hydrologic regions discern process differences across a data‐sparse and hydrologically diverse landscape. Process importance rankings from random forest‐derived BCs provided model‐independent information for making modeling decisions. Key points Fundamental daily streamflow statistics produce distinct hydrologic regions across Alaska, USA Distinct hydrologic processes are recognizable in the identified hydrologic regions Using basin characteristics, random forest modeling was best able to assign ungaged locations to hydrologic regions Random forest‐derived predictor importance suggests that hydroclimatic factors and permafrost presence/absence drive hydrologic region assignment</abstract><cop>Chichester, UK</cop><pub>John Wiley &amp; Sons, Ltd</pub><doi>10.1002/rra.4028</doi><tpages>16</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2865-2196</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3097-9603</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9682-3217</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7180-6982</orcidid></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1535-1459
ispartof River research and applications, 2022-11, Vol.38 (9), p.1569-1584
issn 1535-1459
1535-1467
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_2731035273
source Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete
subjects Alaska
Decision analysis
Decision trees
Domains
Hydrologic models
hydrologic region
Hydrology
Identification
Locations (working)
Modelling
Permafrost
Process parameters
random forest
regionalization
Regions
Seasonal variation
Skewness
Spatial variations
Statistical analysis
Statistical methods
Statistics
Stream discharge
Stream flow
title Evaluating hydrologic region assignment techniques for ungaged basins in Alaska, USA
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-08T08%3A02%3A21IST&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=Evaluating%20hydrologic%20region%20assignment%20techniques%20for%20ungaged%20basins%20in%20Alaska,%20USA&rft.jtitle=River%20research%20and%20applications&rft.au=Barnhart,%20Theodore%20B.&rft.date=2022-11&rft.volume=38&rft.issue=9&rft.spage=1569&rft.epage=1584&rft.pages=1569-1584&rft.issn=1535-1459&rft.eissn=1535-1467&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002/rra.4028&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2731035273%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=2731035273&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true