CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 8Hydrology and Sediment Transport ProcessesFish Ecology and Management StudiesGroundwater and Watershed Analysis

A Waterbody Typology Derived from Catchment Controls Using Self-Organising Maps

Open access
Heasley, Eleanore L., Millington, James D. A., Clifford, Nicholas J., Chadwick, Michael A.·2019·Water
DOI 10.3390/w12010078
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Multiple catchment controls contribute to the geomorphic functioning of river systems at the reach-level, yet only a limited number are usually considered by river scientists and managers. This study uses multiple morphometric, geological, climatic and anthropogenic catchment characteristics to produce a single national typology of catchment controls in England and Wales. Self-organising maps, a machine learning technique, are used to reduce the complexity of the GIS-derived characteristics to classify 4485 Water Framework Directive waterbodies into seven types. The waterbody typology is mapped across England and Wales, primarily reflecting an upland to lowland gradient in catchment controls and secondarily reflecting the heterogeneity of the catchment landscape. The seven waterbody types are evaluated using reach-level physical habitat indices (including measures of sediment size, flow, channel modification and diversity) extracted from River Habitat Survey data. Significant differences are found between each of the waterbody types for most habitat indices suggesting that the GIS-derived typology has functional application for reach-level habitats. This waterbody typology derived from catchment controls is a valuable tool for understanding catchment influences on physical habitats. It should prove useful for rapid assessment of catchment controls for river management, especially where regulatory compliance is based on reach-level monitoring.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3390/w12010078

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Promising options for low-cost monitoring programs may lie in remote sensing, citizen science, inter-departmental collaboration within municipal governments, or collaboration with higher educational institutions.

    “Promising options for low-cost monitoring programs may lie in remote sensing (Matejicev et al. 2003;Heasley et al. 2020), citizen science (Cartwright et al. 2015;Shupe 2017;Kielstra et al. 2019), inter-departmental collaboration within municipal governments, or collaboration with higher educational institutions.”

    From Phase II MS4 challenges: moving toward effective stormwater management for small municipalities (2022) · cites this paper as Heasley et al. 2020

    Section 1.2 says GIS-derived datasets can support river management without survey data, and Section 4.2 says the typology can be updated at relatively low cost. But the paper does not identify remote sensing as a low-cost monitoring option; Section 4.2 also cautions that its typology is not a substitute for detailed surveys and monitoring. The Heasley citation is attached to the remote-sensing option, not the other options in the sentence. (LLM, conf=0.77)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 67

  1. Frissell, C.A.; Liss, W.J.; Warren, C.E.; Hurley, M.D. A hierarchical framework stream habitat classification. Environ. Manag. 1986, 10, 199-214. [CrossRef] · DOI
  2. Brierley, G.; Fryirs, K. River styles, a geomorphic approach to catchment characterization: Implications for river rehabilitation in Bega Catchment, New South Wales, Australia. Environ. Manag. 2000, 25, 661-679. [CrossRef] · DOI
  3. Kondolf, G.M.; Montgomery, D.R.; Piégay, H.; Schmitt, L. Geomorphic classification of rivers and streams. In Tools in Fluv. Geomorphol; Kondolf, G.M., Piégay, H., Eds.; Wiley: Chichester, UK, 2003; pp. 171-204.
  4. Hynes, H.B.N. The stream and its valley. Edgardo Baldi Meml. Lect. SIL Proc. 1975, 19, 1-15. [CrossRef] · DOI
  5. Gurnell, A.M.; Rinaldi, M.; Belletti, B.; Bizzi, S.; Blamauer, B.; Braca, G.; Buijse, A.D.; Bussettini, M.; Camenen, B.; Comiti, F.; et al. A multi-scale hierarchical framework for developing understanding of river behaviour to support river management. Aquat. Sci. 2016, 78, 1-16. [CrossRef] · DOI · Paper page
  6. Downs, P.W.; Gregory, K.J. River Channel Management: Towards Sustainable Catchment Hydrosystems; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2004; ISBN 9780340759691.
  7. Beechie, T.J.; Sear, D.A.; Olden, J.D.; Pess, G.R.; Buffington, J.M.; Moir, H.; Roni, P.; Pollock, M.M. Process-based principles for restoring river ecosystems. BioScience 2010, 60, 209-222. [CrossRef] · DOI
  8. Church, M.; Ferguson, R.I. Morphodynamics: Rivers beyond steady state. Water Resour. Res. 2015, 51, 1883-1897. [CrossRef] · DOI
  9. England, J.; Gurnell, A.M. Incorporating catchment to reach scale processes into hydromorphological assessment in the UK. Water Environ. J. 2016, 30, 22-30. [CrossRef] · DOI
  10. Allan, J.D. Landcapes and Riverscapes: The influence of land use on stream ecosystems. Annu. Rev. Ecol. 2004, 35, 257-284. [CrossRef] · DOI · Paper page
  11. Rinaldi, M.; Gurnell, A.M.; del Tánago, M.G.; Bussettini, M.; Hendriks, D. Classification of river morphology and hydrology to support management and restoration. Aquat. Sci. 2016, 78, 17-33. [CrossRef] · DOI
  12. Acreman, M.; Dunbar, M.; Hannaford, J.; Mountford, O.; Wood, P.; Holmes, N.; Cowx, I.; Noble, R.; Extence, C.; Aldrick, J.; et al. Developing environmental standards for abstractions from UK rivers to implement the EU Water Framework Directive. Hydrol. Sci. J. 2008, 53, 1105-1120. [CrossRef] · DOI
  13. Naura, M.; Clark, M.J.; Sear, D.A.; Atkinson, P.M.; Hornby, D.D.; Kemp, P.; England, J.; Peirson, G.; Bromley, C.; Carter, M.G. Mapping habitat indices across river networks using spatial statistical modelling of River Habitat Survey data. Ecol. Indic. 2016, 66, 20-29. [CrossRef] · DOI
  14. Tadaki, M.; Brierley, G.; Cullum, C. River classification: Theory, practice, politics. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Water 2014, 1, 349-367. [CrossRef] · DOI
  15. Wright, J.F.; Moss, D.; Armitage, P.D.; Furse, M.T. A preliminary classification of running-water sites in Great Britain based on macro-invertebrate species and the prediction of community type using environmental data. Freshw. Biol. 1984, 14, 221-256. [CrossRef] · DOI
  16. Olden, J.D.; Kennard, M.J.; Pusey, B.J. A Framework for hydrologic classification with a review of methodologies and applications in ecohydrology. Ecohydrology 2012, 5, 503-518. [CrossRef] · DOI
  17. Rosgen, D.L. A Stream Classification System; Technical Report for Riparian Ecosystem and Their Management: Reconciling Conflicting Uses; First North American Riparian Conference; USDA Forest Service: Washington, DC, USA, 1985.
  18. Jeffers, J.N.R. Characterization of river habitats and prediction of habitat features using ordination techniques. Aquat. Conserv. Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 1998, 8, 529-540. [CrossRef] · DOI
  19. UKTAG. Guidance on Typology for Rivers for Scotland, England and Wales; UK Technical Advisory Group Water Framework Directive Work Progress Task 2a; Typology Rivers 2003; pp. 1-4. Available online: http://www.wfduk.org\T1\guilsinglrightfiles\T1\guilsinglrightMedia\T1\ guilsinglrightRiverstypology_Final_050603 (accessed on 11 May 2016).
  20. Schumm, S.A.; Lichty, R.W. Time, space, and causality in geomorphology. Am. J. Sci. 1965, 263, 110-119. [CrossRef] · DOI
  21. Holmes, N.T.H.; Boon, P.J.; Rowell, T.A. A revised classification system for British rivers based on their aquatic plant communities. Aquat. Conserv. Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 1998, 8, 555-578. [CrossRef] · DOI
  22. Bizzi, S.; Lerner, D.N. Characterizing physical habitats in rivers using map-derived drivers of fluvial geomorphic processes. Geomorphology 2012, 169, 64-73. [CrossRef] · DOI
  23. Liakos, K.G.; Busato, P.; Moshou, D.; Pearson, S.; Bochtis, D. Machine learning in agriculture: A review. Sensors 2018, 18, 2674. [CrossRef] · DOI · Paper page
  24. Feld, C.K.; Segurado, P.; Gutiérrez-Cánovas, C. Analysing the impact of multiple stressors in aquatic biomonitoring data: A 'cookbook' with applications in R. Sci. Total Environ. 2016, 573, 1320-1339. [CrossRef] [PubMed] · DOI
  25. Kohonen, T. Self-organized formation of topologically correct feature maps. Biol. Cybern. 1982, 43, 59-69. [CrossRef] · DOI · Paper page
  26. Astel, A.; Tsakovski, S.; Barbieri, P.; Simeonov, V. Comparison of self-organizing maps classification approach with cluster and principal components analysis for large environmental data sets. Water Res. 2007, 41, 4566-4578. [CrossRef] [PubMed] · DOI
  27. Walley, W.J.; Martin, R.W.; O'Connor, M.A. Self-Organising Maps for the classification and diagnosis of river quality from biological and environmental data. In IFIP-The International Federation for Information Processing; Springer: Boston, MA, USA, 1999; pp. 27-41.
  28. Morris, D.G.; Flavin, R.W. A digital terrain model for hydrology. In Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium of Spatial Data Handling, Zürich, Switzerland, 23-27 July 1990; pp. 250-262.
  29. Perry, M.; Hollis, D. The generation of monthly gridded datasets for a range of climatic variables over the UK. Int. J. Climatol. 2005, 25, 1041-1054. [CrossRef] · DOI
  30. Harvey, G.L.; Gurnell, A.M.; Clifford, N.J. Characterisation of river reaches: The influence of rock type. Catena 2008, 76, 78-88. [CrossRef] · DOI
  31. Vaughan, I.P.; Merrix-Jones, F.L.; Constantine, J.A. Successful predictions of river characteristics across England and Wales based on ordination. Geomorphology 2013, 194, 121-131. [CrossRef] · DOI
  32. Knighton, D. Fluvial Forms and Processes: A New Perspective, 3rd ed.; Routledge: London, UK, 1998.
  33. Rice, S.P.; Church, M. Grain size along two gravel-bed rivers: Statistical variation, spatial pattern and sedimentary links. Earth Surf. Process. Landf. 1998, 23, 345-363. [CrossRef] · DOI
  34. Weiss, A.D. Topographic position and landforms analysis. In Proceedings of the ESRI User Conference, San Diego, CA, USA, 9-13 July 2001.
  35. Benda, L.; Poff, N.L.; Miller, D.; Dunne, T.; Reeves, G.; Pess, G.; Pollock, M. The network dynamics hypothesis: How channel networks structure riverine habitats. BioScience 2004, 54, 413-427. [CrossRef] · DOI
  36. Beven, K.J.; Kirkby, M.J. A physically based, variable contributing area model of basin hydrology. Hydrol. Sci. Bull. 1979, 24, 43-69. [CrossRef] · DOI · Paper page
  37. Willgoose, C.; Hancock, G. Revisiting the hypsometric curve as an indicator of form and process in transport-limited catchment. Earth Surf. Process. Landf. 1998, 23, 611-623. [CrossRef] · DOI
  38. Gregory, K.J.; Walling, D.E. Drainage Basin Form and Process; Wiley: Chichester, UK, 1973.
  39. Singh, V.P. Effect of spatial and temporal variability in rainfall and watershed characteristics on stream flow hydrograph. Hydrol. Process. 1997, 11, 1649-1669. [CrossRef] · DOI
  40. Flores, A.N.; Bledsoe, B.P.; Cuhaciyan, C.O.; Wohl, E.E. Channel-reach morphology dependence on energy, scale, and hydroclimatic processes with implications for prediction using geospatial data. Water Resour. Res. 2006, 42, 1-15. [CrossRef] · DOI
  41. Holmes, M.G.R.; Young, A.R.; Gustard, A.; Grew, R. A region of influence approach to predicting flow duration curves within unguaged catchments. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 2002, 6, 721-731. [CrossRef] · DOI
  42. Dadson, S.J.; Hall, J.W.; Murgatroyd, A.; Acreman, M.; Bates, P.; Beven, K.; Holden, J.; Holman, I.P.; Lane, S.N.; Connell, E.O.; et al. A restatement of the natural science evidence concerning flood management in the UK. Proc. R. Soc. A 2017, 473. [CrossRef] [PubMed] · DOI
  43. Wharton, G.; Mohajeri, S.H.; Righetti, M. The pernicious problem of streambed colmation: A multi- disciplinary reflection on the mechanisms, causes, impacts, and management challenges. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Water 2017, 4, e1231. [CrossRef] · DOI
  44. Kohonen, T. Self-Organizing Maps, 3rd ed.; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2001; ISBN 9783642569272.
  45. Park, Y.S.; Tison, J.; Lek, S.; Giraudel, J.L.; Coste, M.; Delmas, F. Application of a self-organizing map to select representative species in multivariate analysis: A case study determining diatom distribution patterns across France. Ecol. Inform. 2006, 1, 247-257. [CrossRef] · DOI
  46. Vesanto, J. Neural network tool for data mining: SOM toolbox. In Proceedings of the Symposium on Tool Environments and Development Methods for Intelligent Systems, Helsinki, Finland, 18 April 2000; pp. 184-196.
  47. Davies, D.L.; Bouldin, D.W. A cluster separation measure. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Learn. Intell. 1979, 1, 224-227. [CrossRef] · DOI · Paper page
  48. Raven, P.J.; Fox, P.; Everard, M.; Holmes, N.T.H.; Dawson, F.H. River Habitat Survey: A new system for classifying rivers according to their habitat quality. In Freshwater Quality: Defining the Indefinable? Boon, P.J., Howell, D.L., Eds.; The Stationery Office: Edinburgh, Scotland, UK, 1996; pp. 215-234.
  49. Belletti, B.; Rinaldi, M.; Buijse, A.D.; Gurnell, A.M.; Mosselman, E. A review of assessment methods for river hydromorphology. Environ. Earth Sci. 2015, 73, 2079-2100. [CrossRef] · DOI
  50. Harvey, G.L.; Clifford, N.J.; Gurnell, A.M. Towards an ecologically meaningful classification of the flow biotope for river inventory, rehabilitation, design and appraisal purposes. J. Environ. Manag. 2008, 88, 638-650. [CrossRef] · DOI
  51. Raven, P.J.; Holmes, N.T.H.; Dawson, F.H.; Everard, M. Quality assessment using River Habitat Survey data. Aquat. Conserv. Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 1998, 8, 477-499. [CrossRef] · DOI
  52. Davenport, A.J.; Gurnell, A.M.; Armitage, P.D. Habitat survey and classification of urban rivers. River Res. Appl. 2004, 20, 687-704. [CrossRef] · DOI
  53. Emery, J.C.; Gurnell, A.M.; Clifford, N.J.; Petts, G.E. Characteristics and controls of gravel-bed riffles: An analysis of data from the river-habitat survey. Water Environ. J. 2004, 18, 210-216. [CrossRef] · DOI
  54. Simpson, E.H. Measurement of diversity. Nature 1949, 163, 688. [CrossRef] · DOI
  55. Benjamini, Y.; Hochberg, Y. Controlling the false discovery rate: A practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. B (Methodological) 1995, 57, 289-300. [CrossRef] · DOI · Paper page
  56. ASCE. Artificial Neural Networks in hydrology: Preliminary concepts. J. Hydrol. Eng. 2000, 5, 115-123. [CrossRef] · DOI
  57. Newson, M.D.; Clark, M.J.; Sear, D.A.; Brookes, A. The geomorphological basis for classifying rivers. Aquat. Conserv. Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 1998, 8, 415-430. [CrossRef] · DOI
  58. Jusik, S.; Szoszkiewicz, K.; Kupiec, J.M.; Lewin, I.; Samecka-Cymerman, A. Development of comprehensive river typology based on macrophytes in the mountain-lowland gradient of different Central European ecoregions. Hydrobiologia 2015, 745, 241-262. [CrossRef] · DOI
  59. Bunn, S.E.; Arthington, A.H. Basic principles and ecological consequences of altered flow regimes for aquatic biodiversity. Environ. Manag. 2002, 30, 492-507. [CrossRef] · DOI · Paper page
  60. Raven, E.K.; Lane, S.N.; Bracken, L.J. Understanding sediment transfer and morphological change for managing upland gravel-bed rivers. Prog. Phys. Geogr. 2010, 34, 23-45. [CrossRef] · DOI
  61. Church, M. Geomorphic thresholds in riverine landscapes. Freshw. Biol. 2002, 47, 541-557. [CrossRef] · DOI
  62. Vannote, R.; Minshall, G.; Cummins, K.; Sedell, J.; Cushing, C. The River Continuum Concept. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 1980, 37, 130-137. [CrossRef] · DOI · Paper page
  63. Gurnell, A.M.; O'Hare, J.M.; O'Hare, M.T.; Dunbar, M.J.; Scarlett, P.M. An exploration of associations between assemblages of aquatic plant morphotypes and channel geomorphological properties within British rivers. Geomorphology 2010, 116, 135-144. [CrossRef] · DOI
  64. Downs, P.W.; Gregory, K.J.; Brookes, A. How integrated is river basin management? Environ. Manag. 1991, 15, 299-309. [CrossRef] · DOI
  65. Berrie, A.D. The chalk-stream environment. Hydrobiologia 1992, 248, 3-9. [CrossRef] · DOI
  66. Poff, N.L.; Allan, J.D.; Bain, M.B.; Karr, J.R.; Prestegaard, K.L.; Richter, B.D.; Sparks, R.E.; Stromberg, J.C. A paradigm for river conservation and restoration. BioScience 1997, 47, 769-784. [CrossRef] · DOI · Paper page
  67. Walsh, C.J.; Roy, A.H.; Feminella, J.W.; Cottingham, P.D.; Groffman, P.M.; Raymond, P.M. The urban stream syndrome: Current knowledge and the search for a cure. J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc. 2005, 24, 706-723. [CrossRef] · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Heasley, E. L., Millington, J. D. A., Clifford, N. J., & Chadwick, M. A.
Affiliations
  • King's College London (GB)
  • Loughborough University (GB)
Corresponding author
Heasley, Eleanore L.
ORCID
Venue
Water
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2019-12-24
Volume
12
Issue
1
Pages
78
ISSN
2073-4441 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.3390/w12010078
OpenAlex
W2997934714
Cited by
8
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 3
FWCI
0.63
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Water (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
Natural Environment Research Council (NE/L002485/1)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Hydrology and Sediment Transport Processes
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Nature and Landscape Conservation › Fish Ecology and Management Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Engineering › Groundwater and Watershed Analysis
Keywords
Water Framework Directive, self-organizing maps, catchment morphometry, River Habitat Survey, river management, England and Wales

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review