Model simulations of flood and debris flow timing in steep catchments after wildfire

Debris flows are a typical hazard on steep slopes after wildfire, but unlike debris flows that mobilize from landslides, most postwildfire debris flows are generated from water runoff. The majority of existing debris flow modeling has focused on landslide‐triggered debris flows. In this study we exp...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Water resources research 2016-08, Vol.52 (8), p.6041-6061
Hauptverfasser: Rengers, F. K., McGuire, L. A., Kean, J. W., Staley, D. M., Hobley, D. E. J.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 6061
container_issue 8
container_start_page 6041
container_title Water resources research
container_volume 52
creator Rengers, F. K.
McGuire, L. A.
Kean, J. W.
Staley, D. M.
Hobley, D. E. J.
description Debris flows are a typical hazard on steep slopes after wildfire, but unlike debris flows that mobilize from landslides, most postwildfire debris flows are generated from water runoff. The majority of existing debris flow modeling has focused on landslide‐triggered debris flows. In this study we explore the potential for using process‐based rainfall‐runoff models to simulate the timing of water flow and runoff‐generated debris flows in recently burned areas. Two different spatially distributed hydrologic models with differing levels of complexity were used: the full shallow water equations and the kinematic wave approximation. Model parameter values were calibrated in two different watersheds, spanning two orders of magnitude in drainage area. These watersheds were affected by the 2009 Station Fire in the San Gabriel Mountains, CA, USA. Input data for the numerical models were constrained by time series of soil moisture, flow stage, and rainfall collected at field sites, as well as high‐resolution lidar‐derived digital elevation models. The calibrated parameters were used to model a third watershed in the burn area, and the results show a good match with observed timing of flow peaks. The calibrated roughness parameter (Manning's n) was generally higher when using the kinematic wave approximation relative to the shallow water equations, and decreased with increasing spatial scale. The calibrated effective watershed hydraulic conductivity was low for both models, even for storms occurring several months after the fire, suggesting that wildfire‐induced changes to soil‐water infiltration were retained throughout that time. Overall, the two model simulations were quite similar suggesting that a kinematic wave model, which is simpler and more computationally efficient, is a suitable approach for predicting flood and debris flow timing in steep, burned watersheds. Key Points: Calibrated model parameters successfully modeled hydrographs with intermittent debris flows in an uncalibrated watershed Kinematic wave can be used rather than the full shallow water equations to predict flow timing Water‐only models can simulate the timing of flow in postwildfire settings where floods transition to debris flows
doi_str_mv 10.1002/2015WR018176
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1827906124</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1827906124</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-a4671-156fa208957bb82d6924db7bc6e8aeb0e0f147213e18f380cd52f7e28bcf3f33</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp90E1LAzEQBuAgCtbqzR8Q8OLB1UyS3WSPUvwCRSiFHkN2d6Ipu5uabCn9926pB_HgaYbhYZh5CbkEdguM8TvOIF_OGWhQxRGZQCllpkoljsmEMSkyEKU6JWcprRgDmRdqQhZvocGWJt9tWjv40CcaHHVtCA21fUMbrKJP-8GWDr7z_Qf1PU0D4prWdqg_O-yHRK0bMNKtbxvnI56TE2fbhBc_dUoWjw-L2XP2-v70Mrt_zawsFGSQF85ypstcVZXmTVFy2VSqqgvUFiuGzIFUHASCdkKzusm5U8h1VTvhhJiS68PadQxfG0yD6XyqsW1tj2GTDGiuSlYAlyO9-kNXYRP78TgDJdOSA3A1qpuDqmNIKaIz6-g7G3cGmNknbH4nPHJx4OPfuPvXmuV8Nud87MU3pvV8Qw</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1908421127</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Model simulations of flood and debris flow timing in steep catchments after wildfire</title><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><source>Wiley-Blackwell AGU Digital Archive</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><creator>Rengers, F. K. ; McGuire, L. A. ; Kean, J. W. ; Staley, D. M. ; Hobley, D. E. J.</creator><creatorcontrib>Rengers, F. K. ; McGuire, L. A. ; Kean, J. W. ; Staley, D. M. ; Hobley, D. E. J.</creatorcontrib><description>Debris flows are a typical hazard on steep slopes after wildfire, but unlike debris flows that mobilize from landslides, most postwildfire debris flows are generated from water runoff. The majority of existing debris flow modeling has focused on landslide‐triggered debris flows. In this study we explore the potential for using process‐based rainfall‐runoff models to simulate the timing of water flow and runoff‐generated debris flows in recently burned areas. Two different spatially distributed hydrologic models with differing levels of complexity were used: the full shallow water equations and the kinematic wave approximation. Model parameter values were calibrated in two different watersheds, spanning two orders of magnitude in drainage area. These watersheds were affected by the 2009 Station Fire in the San Gabriel Mountains, CA, USA. Input data for the numerical models were constrained by time series of soil moisture, flow stage, and rainfall collected at field sites, as well as high‐resolution lidar‐derived digital elevation models. The calibrated parameters were used to model a third watershed in the burn area, and the results show a good match with observed timing of flow peaks. The calibrated roughness parameter (Manning's n) was generally higher when using the kinematic wave approximation relative to the shallow water equations, and decreased with increasing spatial scale. The calibrated effective watershed hydraulic conductivity was low for both models, even for storms occurring several months after the fire, suggesting that wildfire‐induced changes to soil‐water infiltration were retained throughout that time. Overall, the two model simulations were quite similar suggesting that a kinematic wave model, which is simpler and more computationally efficient, is a suitable approach for predicting flood and debris flow timing in steep, burned watersheds. Key Points: Calibrated model parameters successfully modeled hydrographs with intermittent debris flows in an uncalibrated watershed Kinematic wave can be used rather than the full shallow water equations to predict flow timing Water‐only models can simulate the timing of flow in postwildfire settings where floods transition to debris flows</description><identifier>ISSN: 0043-1397</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1944-7973</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1002/2015WR018176</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Washington: John Wiley &amp; Sons, Inc</publisher><subject>Approximation ; Calibration ; Catchment area ; Catchments ; Combustion ; Complexity ; Computer simulation ; Constraints ; Debris flow ; Detritus ; Drainage ; Drainage area ; Elevation ; Fires ; flood ; Floods ; High resolution ; Hydraulic conductivity ; Hydrologic models ; Hydrology ; Infiltration ; Kinematic waves ; Kinematics ; Landslides ; Landslides &amp; mudslides ; Lidar ; Mathematical models ; Moisture ; Moisture content ; Mountains ; numerical modeling ; Numerical models ; Parameters ; Rain ; Rainfall ; Rainfall-runoff modeling ; Rainfall-runoff relationships ; Resolution ; Roughness ; Runoff ; Runoff models ; Shallow water ; Shallow water equations ; Slope ; Slopes ; Soil ; Soil infiltration ; Soil moisture ; Soil water ; Soils ; Spatial distribution ; Storms ; Time series ; Water ; Water flow ; Water infiltration ; Watersheds ; wildfire ; Wildfires</subject><ispartof>Water resources research, 2016-08, Vol.52 (8), p.6041-6061</ispartof><rights>2016. American Geophysical Union. All Rights Reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-a4671-156fa208957bb82d6924db7bc6e8aeb0e0f147213e18f380cd52f7e28bcf3f33</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-a4671-156fa208957bb82d6924db7bc6e8aeb0e0f147213e18f380cd52f7e28bcf3f33</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002%2F2015WR018176$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002%2F2015WR018176$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,1411,11493,27901,27902,45550,45551,46443,46867</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Rengers, F. K.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>McGuire, L. A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kean, J. W.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Staley, D. M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hobley, D. E. J.</creatorcontrib><title>Model simulations of flood and debris flow timing in steep catchments after wildfire</title><title>Water resources research</title><description>Debris flows are a typical hazard on steep slopes after wildfire, but unlike debris flows that mobilize from landslides, most postwildfire debris flows are generated from water runoff. The majority of existing debris flow modeling has focused on landslide‐triggered debris flows. In this study we explore the potential for using process‐based rainfall‐runoff models to simulate the timing of water flow and runoff‐generated debris flows in recently burned areas. Two different spatially distributed hydrologic models with differing levels of complexity were used: the full shallow water equations and the kinematic wave approximation. Model parameter values were calibrated in two different watersheds, spanning two orders of magnitude in drainage area. These watersheds were affected by the 2009 Station Fire in the San Gabriel Mountains, CA, USA. Input data for the numerical models were constrained by time series of soil moisture, flow stage, and rainfall collected at field sites, as well as high‐resolution lidar‐derived digital elevation models. The calibrated parameters were used to model a third watershed in the burn area, and the results show a good match with observed timing of flow peaks. The calibrated roughness parameter (Manning's n) was generally higher when using the kinematic wave approximation relative to the shallow water equations, and decreased with increasing spatial scale. The calibrated effective watershed hydraulic conductivity was low for both models, even for storms occurring several months after the fire, suggesting that wildfire‐induced changes to soil‐water infiltration were retained throughout that time. Overall, the two model simulations were quite similar suggesting that a kinematic wave model, which is simpler and more computationally efficient, is a suitable approach for predicting flood and debris flow timing in steep, burned watersheds. Key Points: Calibrated model parameters successfully modeled hydrographs with intermittent debris flows in an uncalibrated watershed Kinematic wave can be used rather than the full shallow water equations to predict flow timing Water‐only models can simulate the timing of flow in postwildfire settings where floods transition to debris flows</description><subject>Approximation</subject><subject>Calibration</subject><subject>Catchment area</subject><subject>Catchments</subject><subject>Combustion</subject><subject>Complexity</subject><subject>Computer simulation</subject><subject>Constraints</subject><subject>Debris flow</subject><subject>Detritus</subject><subject>Drainage</subject><subject>Drainage area</subject><subject>Elevation</subject><subject>Fires</subject><subject>flood</subject><subject>Floods</subject><subject>High resolution</subject><subject>Hydraulic conductivity</subject><subject>Hydrologic models</subject><subject>Hydrology</subject><subject>Infiltration</subject><subject>Kinematic waves</subject><subject>Kinematics</subject><subject>Landslides</subject><subject>Landslides &amp; mudslides</subject><subject>Lidar</subject><subject>Mathematical models</subject><subject>Moisture</subject><subject>Moisture content</subject><subject>Mountains</subject><subject>numerical modeling</subject><subject>Numerical models</subject><subject>Parameters</subject><subject>Rain</subject><subject>Rainfall</subject><subject>Rainfall-runoff modeling</subject><subject>Rainfall-runoff relationships</subject><subject>Resolution</subject><subject>Roughness</subject><subject>Runoff</subject><subject>Runoff models</subject><subject>Shallow water</subject><subject>Shallow water equations</subject><subject>Slope</subject><subject>Slopes</subject><subject>Soil</subject><subject>Soil infiltration</subject><subject>Soil moisture</subject><subject>Soil water</subject><subject>Soils</subject><subject>Spatial distribution</subject><subject>Storms</subject><subject>Time series</subject><subject>Water</subject><subject>Water flow</subject><subject>Water infiltration</subject><subject>Watersheds</subject><subject>wildfire</subject><subject>Wildfires</subject><issn>0043-1397</issn><issn>1944-7973</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2016</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp90E1LAzEQBuAgCtbqzR8Q8OLB1UyS3WSPUvwCRSiFHkN2d6Ipu5uabCn9926pB_HgaYbhYZh5CbkEdguM8TvOIF_OGWhQxRGZQCllpkoljsmEMSkyEKU6JWcprRgDmRdqQhZvocGWJt9tWjv40CcaHHVtCA21fUMbrKJP-8GWDr7z_Qf1PU0D4prWdqg_O-yHRK0bMNKtbxvnI56TE2fbhBc_dUoWjw-L2XP2-v70Mrt_zawsFGSQF85ypstcVZXmTVFy2VSqqgvUFiuGzIFUHASCdkKzusm5U8h1VTvhhJiS68PadQxfG0yD6XyqsW1tj2GTDGiuSlYAlyO9-kNXYRP78TgDJdOSA3A1qpuDqmNIKaIz6-g7G3cGmNknbH4nPHJx4OPfuPvXmuV8Nud87MU3pvV8Qw</recordid><startdate>201608</startdate><enddate>201608</enddate><creator>Rengers, F. K.</creator><creator>McGuire, L. A.</creator><creator>Kean, J. W.</creator><creator>Staley, D. M.</creator><creator>Hobley, D. E. J.</creator><general>John Wiley &amp; Sons, Inc</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QH</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7T7</scope><scope>7TG</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>7UA</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>F1W</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>H96</scope><scope>KL.</scope><scope>KR7</scope><scope>L.G</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>P64</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201608</creationdate><title>Model simulations of flood and debris flow timing in steep catchments after wildfire</title><author>Rengers, F. K. ; McGuire, L. A. ; Kean, J. W. ; Staley, D. M. ; Hobley, D. E. J.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-a4671-156fa208957bb82d6924db7bc6e8aeb0e0f147213e18f380cd52f7e28bcf3f33</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2016</creationdate><topic>Approximation</topic><topic>Calibration</topic><topic>Catchment area</topic><topic>Catchments</topic><topic>Combustion</topic><topic>Complexity</topic><topic>Computer simulation</topic><topic>Constraints</topic><topic>Debris flow</topic><topic>Detritus</topic><topic>Drainage</topic><topic>Drainage area</topic><topic>Elevation</topic><topic>Fires</topic><topic>flood</topic><topic>Floods</topic><topic>High resolution</topic><topic>Hydraulic conductivity</topic><topic>Hydrologic models</topic><topic>Hydrology</topic><topic>Infiltration</topic><topic>Kinematic waves</topic><topic>Kinematics</topic><topic>Landslides</topic><topic>Landslides &amp; mudslides</topic><topic>Lidar</topic><topic>Mathematical models</topic><topic>Moisture</topic><topic>Moisture content</topic><topic>Mountains</topic><topic>numerical modeling</topic><topic>Numerical models</topic><topic>Parameters</topic><topic>Rain</topic><topic>Rainfall</topic><topic>Rainfall-runoff modeling</topic><topic>Rainfall-runoff relationships</topic><topic>Resolution</topic><topic>Roughness</topic><topic>Runoff</topic><topic>Runoff models</topic><topic>Shallow water</topic><topic>Shallow water equations</topic><topic>Slope</topic><topic>Slopes</topic><topic>Soil</topic><topic>Soil infiltration</topic><topic>Soil moisture</topic><topic>Soil water</topic><topic>Soils</topic><topic>Spatial distribution</topic><topic>Storms</topic><topic>Time series</topic><topic>Water</topic><topic>Water flow</topic><topic>Water infiltration</topic><topic>Watersheds</topic><topic>wildfire</topic><topic>Wildfires</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Rengers, F. K.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>McGuire, L. A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kean, J. W.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Staley, D. M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hobley, D. E. J.</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Aqualine</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Industrial and Applied Microbiology Abstracts (Microbiology A)</collection><collection>Meteorological &amp; Geoastrophysical Abstracts</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS 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>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</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><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><jtitle>Water resources research</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Rengers, F. K.</au><au>McGuire, L. A.</au><au>Kean, J. W.</au><au>Staley, D. M.</au><au>Hobley, D. E. J.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Model simulations of flood and debris flow timing in steep catchments after wildfire</atitle><jtitle>Water resources research</jtitle><date>2016-08</date><risdate>2016</risdate><volume>52</volume><issue>8</issue><spage>6041</spage><epage>6061</epage><pages>6041-6061</pages><issn>0043-1397</issn><eissn>1944-7973</eissn><abstract>Debris flows are a typical hazard on steep slopes after wildfire, but unlike debris flows that mobilize from landslides, most postwildfire debris flows are generated from water runoff. The majority of existing debris flow modeling has focused on landslide‐triggered debris flows. In this study we explore the potential for using process‐based rainfall‐runoff models to simulate the timing of water flow and runoff‐generated debris flows in recently burned areas. Two different spatially distributed hydrologic models with differing levels of complexity were used: the full shallow water equations and the kinematic wave approximation. Model parameter values were calibrated in two different watersheds, spanning two orders of magnitude in drainage area. These watersheds were affected by the 2009 Station Fire in the San Gabriel Mountains, CA, USA. Input data for the numerical models were constrained by time series of soil moisture, flow stage, and rainfall collected at field sites, as well as high‐resolution lidar‐derived digital elevation models. The calibrated parameters were used to model a third watershed in the burn area, and the results show a good match with observed timing of flow peaks. The calibrated roughness parameter (Manning's n) was generally higher when using the kinematic wave approximation relative to the shallow water equations, and decreased with increasing spatial scale. The calibrated effective watershed hydraulic conductivity was low for both models, even for storms occurring several months after the fire, suggesting that wildfire‐induced changes to soil‐water infiltration were retained throughout that time. Overall, the two model simulations were quite similar suggesting that a kinematic wave model, which is simpler and more computationally efficient, is a suitable approach for predicting flood and debris flow timing in steep, burned watersheds. Key Points: Calibrated model parameters successfully modeled hydrographs with intermittent debris flows in an uncalibrated watershed Kinematic wave can be used rather than the full shallow water equations to predict flow timing Water‐only models can simulate the timing of flow in postwildfire settings where floods transition to debris flows</abstract><cop>Washington</cop><pub>John Wiley &amp; Sons, Inc</pub><doi>10.1002/2015WR018176</doi><tpages>21</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0043-1397
ispartof Water resources research, 2016-08, Vol.52 (8), p.6041-6061
issn 0043-1397
1944-7973
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1827906124
source Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete; Wiley-Blackwell AGU Digital Archive; EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals
subjects Approximation
Calibration
Catchment area
Catchments
Combustion
Complexity
Computer simulation
Constraints
Debris flow
Detritus
Drainage
Drainage area
Elevation
Fires
flood
Floods
High resolution
Hydraulic conductivity
Hydrologic models
Hydrology
Infiltration
Kinematic waves
Kinematics
Landslides
Landslides & mudslides
Lidar
Mathematical models
Moisture
Moisture content
Mountains
numerical modeling
Numerical models
Parameters
Rain
Rainfall
Rainfall-runoff modeling
Rainfall-runoff relationships
Resolution
Roughness
Runoff
Runoff models
Shallow water
Shallow water equations
Slope
Slopes
Soil
Soil infiltration
Soil moisture
Soil water
Soils
Spatial distribution
Storms
Time series
Water
Water flow
Water infiltration
Watersheds
wildfire
Wildfires
title Model simulations of flood and debris flow timing in steep catchments after wildfire
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-04T23%3A44%3A31IST&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=Model%20simulations%20of%20flood%20and%20debris%20flow%20timing%20in%20steep%20catchments%20after%20wildfire&rft.jtitle=Water%20resources%20research&rft.au=Rengers,%20F.%20K.&rft.date=2016-08&rft.volume=52&rft.issue=8&rft.spage=6041&rft.epage=6061&rft.pages=6041-6061&rft.issn=0043-1397&rft.eissn=1944-7973&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002/2015WR018176&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1827906124%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=1908421127&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true