Protocols for Hydrologic Classification and a Review of Australian Applications

Appendix 2 Protocols for hydrologic classification and a review of Australian applications J.D. Olden1, C.A. Reidy Liermann1, B.J. Pusey2 and M.J. Kennard2 1 School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA 2 Australian Rivers Institute, Griffith University, Nathan, Queensland, Australia 1 Summary Hydrologic classification is the process of systematically arranging streams, rivers or catchments into groups that are most similar with respect to characteristics of their flow regime. Previous classification efforts have relied on a plethora of hydrologic metrics that account for characteristics of flow variability that are hypothesised to be important in shaping ecological and physical processes in lotic ecosystems. We review the process of hydrologic classification by (i) exploring its past application in the ecological sciences; (ii) reviewing existing statistical approaches to identify and characterise hydrologic classes; and (iii) providing a methodological framework for hydrologic classification that depicts critical components of the classification process. Ecologists have used hydrologic classification to place individual streams and rivers into a broader spatial context with the goal of maximising the transferability of knowledge among rivers of the same hydrologic class. Regionalisation analyses to predict streamflow behaviour in ungauged catchments often comprise a set of regression models based on several different classes of certain hydrological information at gauged sites. Consequently, by dividing a study area into homogeneous groups that are considered to exhibit similar hydrologic characteristics, records may be extrapolated with more precision, and regionalisation models based on catchment characteristics may be used with greater confidence. Hydrologic classification plays a central role in environmental flow assessments aimed at the development of ecologically sustainable practices for water management. Holistic methods to assess environmental flows either implicitly or explicitly involve the hydrologic classification of rivers as they can help establish the expected ecological condition of river basins by class, which alleviates the burden of developing ecological standards on a river-by-river basis. Recent interest has focused on the conservation planning of freshwater ecosystems for regional-scale biodiversity and hydrologic classification may be a useful tool for the targeted management of streams, rivers or entire catchments with representative flow regimes, and therefore, representative biological communities. A variety of classification techniques have been used in the past to derive hydrological classifications and regionalisations. These include: hierarchical and flat clustering algorithms, self-organising maps, multivariate ordination and hard and soft classification algorithms such as fuzzy clustering and Bayesian classification. We reviewed the different methods available and the information needs and processes required to satisfy several statistical assumptions and requirements. We used a protocol for classification that addresses issues about data quality and comparability, choice of classification method and assessment of results. We also reviewed previous applications of hydrological classification in Australia, covering Australian examples of both hydrological and ecohydrological classifications but coverage of the former is not exhaustive. These prior classifications provided a means of comparing the outcomes of the classification developed in the present project. 2 2.1 Introduction Hydrologic classification is the process of systematically arranging streams, rivers or catchments into groups that are most similar with respect to characteristics of their flow regime. This process has frequently been applied by hydrologists seeking to extend insights gained from well-gauged regions to ungauged or sparsely gauged regions or rivers (Bates 1994). Typically, only specific components of the flow regime are included (e.g. flood series) (Nathan and McMahon 1990; Bower et al. 2004). Hydrologic classification is playing an increasing role in the ecological sciences for understanding riverine flow variability (Mosley 1981; Haines et al. 1988; Poff 1996; Harris et al. 2000), exploring the influence of streamflow on biological communities and ecological processes (Jowett and Duncan 1990; Poff and Allan 1995; Pusey et al. 2000; Snelder et al. 2004; Monk et al. 2006, 2007), aiding hydrologic modeling in regionalisation analyses (Nathan and McMahon 1990), providing an inventory of hydrologic types for water resource management (Snelder and Biggs 2002; Wolock et al. 2004; Arthington et al. 2006), and prioritising conservation efforts for freshwater ecosystems (Nel et al. 2007; Snelder et al. 2007). Consequently, hydrologic classification has practical use as an organising framework for both river research and management purposes. Three broad categories of hydrologic classification exist that serve to describe flow regime similarities among rivers: those according to geographic proximity, environmental attributes, or hydrologic characteristics. Geographical regions have been identified based upon political, administrative, river basin and climatic boundaries (Arnell et al. 1990). The delineated regions are located in close geographic proximity to one another, however this often does not guaranteed that the regions will be hydrological homogenous. An alternative approach is to define classes based on the environmental factors that are assumed to broadly produce similar hydrological responses. This represents a deductive approach to hydrologic classification that is often geographically-independent and depicted by a mosaic pattern of hydrologic types across the landscape (Detenbeck et al. 2000). Numerous physical-based or geomorphic classifications of rivers have been conducted; including those based on geology, topography, and climate (e.g. Kondolf 1995), as well as combined hydrogeomorphic typologies (e.g. Snelder and Biggs 2002; Snelder et al. 2005; Dollar et al. 2007; Schmitt et al. 2007; reviewed in Kondolf et al. 2003). These classifications are common, but do not reflect only hydrological variation because they encompass more general principles concerning the causes of spatial variation in ecological characteristics of streams and rivers. To overcome these difficulties, delineating patterns in hydrologic character have also been identified directly through empirically-based methods that use hydrologic metrics describing different components of the multi-facet riverine flow regime. In this application, hydrologic classification schemes attempt to provide order to inherently complex flow data by identifying and characterising similarities among rivers according to a set of diagnostic hydrologic attributes that vary spatially across the landscape (Mosley 1981; Jowett and Duncan 1990; Poff 1996; Harris et al. 2000). This approach to hydrologic classification is the focus of this section. A number of hydrologic characteristics comprise the natural flow regime, including the seasonal patterning of flows; timing of extreme flows; the frequency, predictability, and duration of floods, droughts, and intermittent flows; daily, seasonal, and annual flow variability; and rates of change (Poff et al. 1997). Accordingly, previous classification efforts have relied on a plethora of hydrologic metrics that account for characteristics of flow variability that are hypothesised to be important in shaping ecological and physical processes in lotic ecosystems (Hughes 1987; Poff and Ward 1989; Hughes and James 1989; Pusey and Arthington 1996; Richter et al. 1996; Poff et al. 1997; Puckridge et al. 1998; Clausen and Biggs 2000; Harris et al. 2000; Bunn and Arthington 2002; reviewed by Olden and Poff 2003; Bower et al. 2004; Monk et al. 2006). Many of these metrics have proven to be highly suitable for hydrologic classification. Moreover, these aspects of the hydrologic regime are likely to be most frequently altered 3 by human activities such as river regulation by dams (Poff et al. 2007), and are predicted to be sensitive to global climate change (Milly et al. 2005). Researchers have applied a number of statistical approaches and used a variety of hydrologic metrics in attempts to develop hydrologic classifications at catchment, regional, national, continental and global scales (Table 2.1). For example, efforts at global or continental scales have primarily focused on certain aspects of the hydrograph such as seasonality, flood behaviour or low flow characteristics, whereas regional classifications have utilised a larger suite of hydrologic metrics. Challenged by the need to quantify flow similarities among rivers and map their distribution across hydrologic landscapes (sensu Winter 2001), ecologists have turned to a bewildering array of statistical approaches using an equally diverse set of protocols to conduct their hydrologic classification (Table 2.1). During the last two decades considerable effort has gone into analysis and development of methodological approaches to hydrologic classification. As a result, several groups of methods are in use, and to-date no single approach has been demonstrated to yield universally acceptable results. Consequently, most researchers reach into their same statistical toolbox when required to tackle a classification problem and are unaware of important considerations and new techniques available to them. Herein, we review the process of hydrologic

Load more