Charles Darwin University

CDU eSpace
Institutional Repository

 
CDU Staff and Student only
 

How does modifying a DEM to reflect known hydrology affect subsequent terrain analysis?

Callow, John Nikolaus, Van Niel, Kimberley P. and Boggs, Guy S. (2007). How does modifying a DEM to reflect known hydrology affect subsequent terrain analysis?. Journal of Hydrology,332(1-2):30-39.

Document type: Journal Article
Citation counts: Scopus Citation Count Cited 51 times in Scopus Article | Citations

Google Scholar Search Google Scholar

IRMA ID 75034168xPUB14
Title How does modifying a DEM to reflect known hydrology affect subsequent terrain analysis?
Author Callow, John Nikolaus
Van Niel, Kimberley P.
Boggs, Guy S.
Journal Name Journal of Hydrology
Publication Date 2007
Volume Number 332
Issue Number 1-2
ISSN 0022-1694   (check CDU catalogue  open catalogue search in new window)
Scopus ID 2-s2.0-33845562930
Start Page 30
End Page 39
Total Pages 10
Place of Publication Netherlands
Publisher Elsevier Science
Field of Research EARTH SCIENCES
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
ENGINEERING
HERDC Category C1 - Journal Article (DEST)
Abstract Many digital elevation models (DEMs) have difficulty replicating hydrological patterns in flat landscapes. Efforts to improve DEM performance in replicating known hydrology have included a variety of soft (i.e. algorithm-based approaches) and hard techniques, such as Stream burning or surface reconditioning (e.g. Agree or ANUDEM). Using a representation of the known stream network, these methods trench or mathematically warp the original DEM to improve how accurately stream position, stream length and catchment boundaries replicate known hydrological conditions. However, these techniques permanently alter the DEM and may affect further analyses (e.g. slope). This paper explores the impact that commonly used hydrological correction methods (Stream burning, Agree.aml and ANUDEM v4.6.3 and ANUDEM v5.1) have on the overall nature of a DEM, finding that different methods produce non-convergent outcomes for catchment parameters (such as catchment boundaries, stream position and length), and differentially compromise secondary terrain analysis. All hydrological correction methods successfully improved calculation of catchment area, stream position and length as compared to using the DEM without any modification, but they all increased catchment slope. No single method performing best across all categories. Different hydrological correction methods changed elevation and slope in different spatial patterns and magnitudes, compromising the ability to derive catchment parameters and conduct secondary terrain analysis from a single DEM. Modification of a DEM to better reflect known hydrology can be useful, however knowledge of the magnitude and spatial pattern of the changes are required before using a DEM for subsequent analyses.
Keywords digital elevation model
geographic information system
hydrology
hydrological modelling
Algorithms
Extraction
Australia
DOI http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2006.06.020   (check subscription with CDU E-Gateway service for CDU Staff and Students  check subscription with CDU E-Gateway in new window)
 
Versions
Version Filter Type
Access Statistics: 60 Abstract Views  -  Detailed Statistics
Created: Fri, 12 Sep 2008, 08:35:25 CST by Administrator