Gemma Coxon | Geology Reports

USGS2026

Continental-scale prediction of hydrologic signatures and processes

Understanding how dominant hydrologic processes and their drivers vary across diverse continental-scale landscapes is critical for hydrologic modeling and water management applications. Our research addresses this question by synthesizing large-sample watershed datasets, Caravan and GAGES-II, and developing random forest models to identify patterns in hydrologic function. We assessed dominant processes by examining hydrologic signatures – summary indicators of watershed function derived from hydroclimatic time series and random forest models across 14 146 gauged United States watersheds. The results reveal clear continental-scale gradients in hydrologic processes, including baseflow, overland flow, storage, and water balance losses. Our map of dominant processes highlights, for example, the transition from baseflow to fast responses and back to baseflow along the elevation gradient from the Appalachian spine, through the Piedmont, to the Eastern Coastal Plain; a distinct outer ring around the Great Lakes region; and sharp contrasts between coastal and inland processes in the West. Variable importance analysis from random forest models show that processes in the western U.S. are primarily controlled by climate, whereas in the eastern U.S., soil, geology, and topography play larger roles, with distinct human influences apparent in urban areas. Our approach of estimating dominant processes and their drivers facilitates extending process knowledge from research watersheds to the continental scale, assessing current hydrological understanding, and evaluating hydrological model structures.

conterminous United States↗

USGS2018

A comparison of methods for streamflow uncertainty estimation

Streamflow time series are commonly derived from stage‐discharge rating curves, but the uncertainty of the rating curve and resulting streamflow series are poorly understood. While different methods to quantify uncertainty in the stage‐discharge relationship exist, there is limited understanding of how uncertainty estimates differ between methods due to different assumptions and methodological choices. We compared uncertainty estimates and stage‐discharge rating curves from seven methods at three river locations of varying hydraulic complexity. Comparison of the estimated uncertainties revealed a wide range of estimates, particularly for high and low flows. At the simplest site on the Isère River (France), full width 95% uncertainties for the different methods ranged from 3 to 17% for median flows. In contrast, uncertainties were much higher and ranged from 41 to 200% for high flows in an extrapolated section of the rating curve at the Mahurangi River (New Zealand) and 28 to 101% for low flows at the Taf River (United Kingdom), where the hydraulic control is unstable at low flows. Differences between methods result from differences in the sources of uncertainty considered, differences in the handling of the time‐varying nature of rating curves, differences in the extent of hydraulic knowledge assumed, and differences in assumptions when extrapolating rating curves above or below the observed gaugings. Ultimately, the selection of an uncertainty method requires a match between user requirements and the assumptions made by the uncertainty method. Given the significant differences in uncertainty estimates between methods, we suggest that a clear statement of uncertainty assumptions be presented alongside streamflow uncertainty estimates.

Water Resources Research↗