Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
]
On: 14 December 2010
Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 931124572]
Publisher Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 3741 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
To cite this Article Splinter, Dale K. , Dauwalter, Daniel C. , Marston, Richard A. and Fisher, William L.(2010) 'Watershed
Morphology of Highland and Mountain Ecoregions in Eastern Oklahoma', The Professional Geographer,, First published
on: 13 December 2010 (iFirst)
To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/00330124.2010.533575
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00330124.2010.533575
Richard A. Marston
Kansas State University
William L. Fisher
U.S. Geological Survey, Oklahoma Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit
The uvial system represents a nested hierarchy that reects the relationship among different spatial and
temporal scales. Within the hierarchy, larger scale variables inuence the characteristics of the next lower
nested scale. Ecoregions represent one of the largest scales in the uvial hierarchy and are dened by recurring
patterns of geology, climate, land use, soils, and potential natural vegetation. Watersheds, the next largest
scale, are often nested into a single ecoregion and therefore have properties that are indicative of a given
ecoregion. Differences in watershed morphology (relief, drainage density, circularity ratio, relief ratio, and
ruggedness number) were evaluated among three ecoregions in eastern Oklahoma: Ozark Highlands, Boston
Mountains, and Ouachita Mountains. These ecoregions were selected because of their high-quality stream resources and diverse aquatic communities and are of special management interest to the Oklahoma Department
of Wildlife Conservation. One hundred thirty-four watersheds in rst- through fourth-order streams were
compared. Using a nonparametric, two-factor analysis of variance ( = 0.05) we concluded that the relief,
drainage density, relief ratio, and ruggedness number all changed among ecoregion and stream order, whereas
circularity ratio only changed with stream order. Our study shows that ecoregions can be used as a broad-scale
framework for watershed management. Key Words: ecoregions, Oklahoma, streams, watershed morphology.
de escabrosidad) fueron evaluadas entre tres eco-regiones del oriente de Oklahoma: los Altos de las Ozark,
las Montanas
de Boston, y las Montanas
Ouachita. Se seleccionaron estas eco-regiones debido a su dotacion
de corrientes uviales de alta caliudad y diversas comunidades acuaticas, y porque son de especial interes de
manejo para el Departamento de Conservacion
de Vida Silvestre de Oklahoma. Se compararon ciento treinta
y cuatro cuencas con corrientes del primero al cuarto orden. Utilizando un analisis de varianza de dos factores
( = 0.05), no-parametrico, concluimos que el relieve, la densidad del drenaje, la razon
de relieve y el numero
de circularidad solo cambio con el orden de las corrientes. Nuestro estudio muestra que las eco-regiones
pueden utilizarse como un marco de escala amplia para el manejo de cuencas. Palabras clave: eco-regiones,
Oklahoma, corrientes, morfologa de cuencas.
Watershed Morphology
Geomorphologists use morphometric analysis
to investigate watershed morphology quantitatively (Chorley, Schumm, and Sugden 1984).
Horton (1932) introduced watershed analysis
to explain watershed function (Gregory and
Walling 1973). This quantitative morphometric analysis of watersheds was continued by a
series of methodological and theoretical papers
spanning more than a quarter century (Horton
1945; Langbein 1947; Strahler 1952, 1958,
1964; Schumm 1956). These papers helped
establish how morphometric analyses could
be used to differentiate geomorphological
processes in contrasting regions.
Morisawa (1962) investigated whether the
watersheds of the Allegheny Plateau, Allegheny
Mountains, and Cumberland Plateau regions of
the Appalachian Plateau were morphologically
different. She found that watershed morphology differed among these regions. Morisawa
stated that these ndings support separating
each of the three regions into distinct geomorphic sections. Lewis (1969) used similar
watershed characteristics to classify Indiana
into contrasting morphometric regions.
Morphometric analyses have recently
been used in process-based studies and for
environmental management. Jamieson et al.
(2004) showed that tectonic zones in the
Indus Valley of Ladakh, in north India, can be
differentiated using morphometric analyses of
longitudinal valleys. Watersheds draining one
of the tectonic zones were shorter, narrower,
and had lower hypsometric integrals than
the other two. These watersheds have been
inuenced by thrust propagation that has led to
erosion and increased sediment delivery to the
main stem of the river and elevated local base
levels. Morphometric analyses have also been
conducted on paleodrainages in the deserts
of Kuwait to understand the genesis and hydrological implications of runoff (Al-Sulaimi,
Khalaf, and Mukhopadhyay 1997).
Watershed morphology inuences the response of a ood hydrograph for a given basin.
The shape of the ood hydrograph is dictated
by the routing of water through the watershed
(Ritter, Kochel, and Miller 2002). Patton and
Baker (1976) reported that drainage density
and stream frequency are good measures
to predict peak discharge for watersheds in
regions with unlike characteristics. Drainage
Study Area
We investigated to what extent the resisting
framework and driving forces acting within
ecoregions (Ozark Highlands, Boston Mountains, and Ouachita Mountains) had an effect
on watersheds in eastern Oklahoma (Figure 1).
These ecoregions have high-quality stream resources that support diverse aquatic communities (Dauwalter et al. 2008). Black bass (Micropterus spp.) are popular sport shes in these
streams, and recreational shing provides im-
Figure 1 Randomly selected pour points on streams (stream orders 14) in the Ozark Highlands, Boston
Mountains, and Ouachita Mountains ecoregions in eastern Oklahoma. Contributing watersheds above
each pour point were delineated and used in morphometric analyses.
Method
Watershed Selection
We randomly selected watersheds in the Ozark
Highlands, Boston Mountains, and Ouachita
Mountains ecoregions (Figure 1). To select watersheds, we randomly selected 149 pour points
on a stream network and delineated the watersheds for each pour point. The stream network
c using a 30-m
was delineated in ArcView 3.3
Table 1
Digital Elevation Model from the USGS National Elevation Dataset. We used a ow accumulation threshold of 1.35 km2 that matched
the extent of the stream network from 1:24,000
topographic maps and accurately depicted rstorder stream initiation. The number of watersheds selected per ecoregion was approximately
proportional to the area of each ecoregion:
twenty-ve in the Ozark Highlands, thirtyone in the Boston Mountains, and seventyeight in the Ouachita Mountains. Watersheds
within each ecoregion were equally distributed
among stream orders one through four. This allowed for comparable sampling coverage across
all three ecoregions and ensured that watersheds of both small and large streams were
sampled. Watersheds that were not at least 90
percent within one ecoregion were excluded.
Only a limited number of different fourthorder streams could be selected in the Ozark
Highlands and Boston Mountains because of
ecoregion size. Of the 149 watersheds originally selected, only 15 (10.1 percent) failed to
meet the 90 percent connement criteria and
the remaining 134 were used for the analysis.
Morphometric Variables
Five morphometric variables were measured
c and ArcGIS 9.1
c (ESRI,
using ArcView 3.3
Redlands, CA; Table 1). Drainage density was
calculated by dividing the sum of stream lengths
in the watershed by the watershed area (Horton
1945). Circularity ratio is the area of the
watershed divided by the area of a circle with
the same perimeter as the basin (Miller 1953).
This variable expresses the overall shape of
the watersheds. A value of one represents a
Variable
Source
Calculation
Drainage density
(km/km2 )
Circularity ratio
Horton (1945)
Miller (1953)
Relief (m)
Strahler (1952),
Schumm (1956)
Schumm (1956)
Relief ratio
Ruggedness number
Watershed relief/Watershed
length
Drainage density Basin relief
Purpose
Expresses the overall
dissection of the watershed
Represents how quickly water
enters and exits the stream
Influences the erosion potential
of the watershed
Represents the overall
steepness of the watershed
Used to measure the flash
flood potential of streams
Statistical Analysis
Although our primary interest was in how watershed morphology varied among ecoregions
and stream orders, we used Spearman rank correlations to show the interrelationships among
watershed morphology variables. Differences
in watershed morphology among ecoregions
and stream orders were determined using a
nonparametric, two-factor analysis of variance
with watershed morphology as the response
variable, and the ecoregion and stream order
as the main effects. Analyses were done on
ranked data because variances were different
among stream orders for some variables. Linear contrasts were used to determine pairwise
differences in watershed morphology among
ecoregions when an ecoregion main effect was
evident (Kuehl 2000). Polynomial contrasts
were used to test for trends in watershed morphology with stream order (Kuehl 2000). Type
Table 2 Summary data for watershed morphology: Means and standard deviation (in parentheses) for
each of the variables by stream orders are reported
Number
Drainage
density
(km/km2 )
Circularity
ratio
6
7
19
9
6
22
9
7
19
7
5
18
0.33 (0.27)
0.42 (0.25)
0.50 (0.26)
0.49 (0.06)
0.70 (0.16)
0.64 (0.13)
0.63 (0.04)
0.68 (0.08)
0.71 (0.11)
0.65 (0.02)
0.71 (0.04)
0.72 (0.06)
0.64 (0.05)
0.60 (0.11)
0.55 (0.14)
0.53 (0.06)
0.45 (0.10)
0.48 (0.11)
0.41 (0.09)
0.42 (0.11)
0.40 (0.10)
0.32 (0.05)
0.40 (0.05)
0.41 (0.06)
Relief
(m)
118.81 (71.48)
58.77 (23.36)
157.06 (78.14)
175.94 (49.80)
79.64 (20.26)
223.50 (136.29)
256.10 (41.52)
134.29 (41.24)
320.20 (124.83)
379.88 (76.37)
152.80 (10.77)
379.41 (181.26)
Relief
ratio
Ruggedness
number
0.06 (0.03)
0.02 (0.01)
0.06 (0.04)
0.04 (0.02)
0.02 (0.01)
0.03 (0.01)
0.02 (0.01)
0.01 (0.01)
0.02 (0.01)
0.01 (0.00)
0.01 (0.00)
0.01 (0.01)
0.05 (0.05)
0.03 (0.02)
0.07 (0.05)
0.09 (0.03)
0.06 (0.02)
0.15 (0.11)
0.16 (0.03)
0.09 (0.02)
0.22 (0.09)
0.25 (0.05)
0.11 (0.01)
0.27 (0.11)
Circularity ratio
Relief (m)
Relief ratio
0.590
0.694
0.601
0.784
0.791
0.853
0.806
0.703
0.974
0.762
0.707
0.411
0.456
0.601
0.690
0.558
0.579
0.456
0.942
0.581
0.561
0.247
0.563
0.529
0.372
0.600
0.549
0.013
0.663
0.243
All correlations are significant ( p < 0.05) except those with an asterisk ( ).
Relief
Relief differed among ecoregions, F (2, 128) =
34.12, p < 0.001, and stream order, F (3, 128)
= 30.75, p < 0.001. Relief was lower in
the Ozark Highlands than in the Ouachita
Mountains, F (128) = 66.36, p = 0.001, and
Boston Mountains, F (128) = 39.96, p = 0.001.
No difference in relief existed between the
Ouachita Mountains and Boston Mountains,
F (128) = 0.65, p = 0.420. Polynomial contrasts showed that relief increased with stream
order in all ecoregions, F (128) = 88.20,
p < 0.001.
Watershed relief in the Ozark Highlands was
lower in all stream orders than the relief in the
Ouachita Mountains and the Boston Mountains (Figure 2). The Ozark Highlands are
more closely associated with plateau-like characteristics (i.e., Springeld Plateau) than the
more rugged Ouachita Mountains and Boston
Mountains. The watersheds of the Ozark
Highlands, however, tend to be moderately to
highly dissected, with well-established stream
networks. Maximum elevations in the Ozark
Highlands are approximately 450 m, and minimum elevations are less than 120 m in the valley bottoms (Woods et al. 2005). The Boston
Mountains consist of low mountains and rolling
hills with higher maximum and minimum elevations than the Ozark Highlands. Maximum
elevations are approximately 520 m, with minimum elevations of approximately 140 m. The
Ouachita Mountains have both the highest and
lowest elevations among the three ecoregions.
Drainage Density
Drainage density differed among ecoregions,
F (2, 128) = 11.88, p < 0.001, and stream order,
F (3, 128) = 17.27, p < 0.001. Drainage density was lower in the Boston Mountains than
in the Ouachita Mountains, F (128) = 22.70,
p = 0.001, and Ozark Highlands, F (128) =
12.54, p = 0.001. No difference in drainage
density existed between the Ouachita Mountains and Ozark Highlands, F (128) = 0.07,
p = 0.799. Polynomial contrasts showed that
drainage density increased with stream order
in all ecoregions, F (128) = 48.64, p < 0.001.
Drainage density is often a function of relief
(Schumm 1956; Mosley 1974; Montgomery
and Dietrich 1989). Watersheds with high
relief have erosion potentials greater than
watersheds with lower relief, which allows high
relief streams to downcut and migrate upslope
in a headward direction (Chorley, Schumm,
and Sugden 1984). In the analysis of drainage
density, this relationship was not veried in
all ecoregions. The highest drainage densities
occurred in the Ozark Highlands and the Ouachita Mountains (Figure 2). The relationship
Figure 2 Watershed characteristics by ecoregion and stream order. Mean values are shown, and error
bars are 1 SE. Ecoregions with different letters were significantly different ( = 0.05) as determined
by linear contrasts.
Circularity Ratio
Circularity ratio changed with stream order,
F (2, 128) = 24.79, p < 0.001, but did not differ among ecoregions, F (2, 128) = 0.33, p =
0.718). Circularity decreased with stream order
in all ecoregions, F (128) = 70.07, p 0.001
(Figure 2). These results show that basin shape
does not differ among the three ecoregions.
Relief Ratio
Relief ratio differed among ecoregions, F (2,
128) = 18.17, p < 0.001, and stream order, F (3,
128) = 41.89, p < 0.001. Relief ratio was lower
in the Ozark Highlands than in the Ouachita
Mountains, F (128) = 32.48, p 0.001, and
Boston Mountains, F (128) = 26.94, p 0.001.
No difference in relief ratio existed between
the Ouachita Mountains and Boston Mountains, F (128) = 0.17, p = 0.685. Polynomial
contrasts suggested that relief ratio decreases
with stream order in all ecoregions, F (128) =
119.26, p < 0.001.
The relief ratio of the Ozark Highlands was
lower than in the other ecoregions, which is
a result of the overall low relief of the region
(Figure 2). Less change exists in relief ratio by
watershed size in the Ozark Highlands than the
Boston Mountains or the Ouachita Mountains.
Relief ratio in all three ecoregions decreased as watershed size increased but decreased slower in the Ozark Highlands than in
the Boston Mountains or Ouachita Mountains.
Ruggedness Number
Ruggedness number differed among ecoregions, F (2, 128) = 26.67, p < 0.001, and
stream order, F (3, 128) = 50.84, p < 0.001.
Ruggedness number was lower in the Ozark
Highlands than in the Ouachita Mountains,
F (128) = 53.03, p 0.001, and Boston Mountains, F (128) = 18.48, p 0.001. Ruggedness
number for the Boston Mountains was less
than the Ouachita Mountains, F (128) = 5.93,
p = 0.016. Polynomial contrasts suggested that
Conclusion
Literature Cited