Search for: All records

Abstract Urbanisation is an important driver of changes in streamflow. These changes are not uniform across catchments due to the diverse nature of water sources, storage, and pathways in urban river systems. While land cover data are typically used in urban hydrology analyses, other characteristics of urban systems (such as water management practices) are poorly quantified which means that urbanisation impacts on streamflow are often difficult to detect and quantify. Here, we assess urban impacts on streamflow dynamics for 711 catchments across England and Wales. We use the CAMELS-GB dataset, which is a large-sample hydrology dataset containing hydro-meteorological timeseries and catchment attributes characterising climate, geology, water management practices and land cover. We quantify urban impacts on a wide range of streamflow dynamics (flow magnitudes, variability, frequency, and duration) using random forest models. We demonstrate that wastewater discharges from sewage treatment plants and urban land cover dominate urban hydrology signals across England and Wales. Wastewater discharges increase low flows and reduce flashiness in urban catchments. In contrast, urban land cover increases flashiness and frequency of medium and high flow events. We highlight the need to move beyond land cover metrics and include other features of urban river systems in hydrological analyses to quantify current and future drivers of urban streamflow. 

Hydrologic signatures are quantitative metrics that describe streamflow statistics and dynamics. Signatures have many applications, including assessing habitat suitability and hydrologic alteration, calibrating and evaluating hydrologic models, defining similarity between watersheds and investigating watershed processes. Increasingly, signatures are being used in large sample studies to guide flow management and modelling at continental scales. Using signatures in studies involving 1000s of watersheds brings new challenges as it becomes impractical to examine signature parameters and behaviour in each watershed. For example, we might wish to check that signatures describing flood event characteristics have correctly identified event periods, that signature values have not been biassed by data errors, or that human and natural influences on signature values have been correctly interpreted. In this commentary, we draw from our collective experience to present case studies where naïve application of signatures fails to correctly identify streamflow dynamics. These include unusual precipitation or flow regimes, data quality issues, and signature use in human-influenced watersheds. We conclude by providing guidance and recommendations on applying signatures in large sample studies.