Factors affecting dominant peak-flow runoff-generation mechanisms among five neighbouring granitic headwater catchments |
| |
Authors: | Kenta Iwasaki Masanori Katsuyama Makoto Tani |
| |
Affiliation: | 1. Doto Station, Forestry Research Institute, Hokkaido Research Organization, Shintoku, Japan;2. Graduate School of Agriculture, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan Graduate School of Life and Environmental Sciences, Kyoto Prefectural University, Kyoto, Japan;3. University of Human Environments, Okazaki, Japan |
| |
Abstract: | We examined how and why dominant peak-flow runoff-generation mechanisms differ among neighbouring headwater catchments. We monitored runoff and groundwater levels and performed terrain analyses in a granitic second-order catchment and its four neighbouring subcatchments in the Kiryu Experimental Watershed in Japan. Our analysis of lag times from peak rainfall to peak runoff suggests differences in the dominant peak-flow runoff-generation mechanisms among the five catchments. For two of the three zero-order catchments, with few perennial groundwater bodies, subsurface flow from hillslopes was the dominant mechanism at some events. However, the dominant mechanisms were channel precipitation and riparian runoff at almost all events in first- and second-order catchments and in the third zero-order catchment, which has a large perennial groundwater body over a bedrock depression in the riparian zone. In this zero-order catchment, the quick-flow ratio was the smallest of the five catchments because subsurface flow from the hillslope was buffered at the riparian zone. These facts suggest that the channel length, riparian buffering, and hillslope connectivity were the factors governing the different dominant peak-flow runoff-generation mechanisms among the catchments. Riparian buffering was affected, not only by surface topography, but also by bedrock topography and bedrock groundwater (BGW) dynamics. Our findings indicate that both of BGW dynamics and topography are important for catchment classification, and the relative importance of topography increases with the change from baseflow to stormflow. Furthermore, mismatching between a geographic source and a flow path resulted in different catchment classifications depending on the approach. Therefore, multiple approaches during both baseflow and stormflow periods are necessary for catchment classification to apply information obtained from one headwater catchment to other headwater catchments within the same region. |
| |
Keywords: | bedrock depression bedrock groundwater catchment classification hillslope connectivity lag time riparian buffering |
|
|