The Blurred Line between Form and Process: A Comparison of Stream Channel Classification Frameworks.

Show simple item record Kasprak, Alan en Hough-Snee, Nate en Beechie, Tim en Bouwes, Nicolaas en Brierley, Gary en Camp, Reid en Fryirs, Kirstie en Imaki, Hiroo en Jensen, Martha en O'Brien, Gary en Rosgen, David en Wheaton, Joseph en 2018-10-16T03:04:16Z en 2016-01 en
dc.identifier.issn 1932-6203 en
dc.identifier.uri en
dc.description.abstract Stream classification provides a means to understand the diversity and distribution of channels and floodplains that occur across a landscape while identifying links between geomorphic form and process. Accordingly, stream classification is frequently employed as a watershed planning, management, and restoration tool. At the same time, there has been intense debate and criticism of particular frameworks, on the grounds that these frameworks classify stream reaches based largely on their physical form, rather than direct measurements of their component hydrogeomorphic processes. Despite this debate surrounding stream classifications, and their ongoing use in watershed management, direct comparisons of channel classification frameworks are rare. Here we implement four stream classification frameworks and explore the degree to which each make inferences about hydrogeomorphic process from channel form within the Middle Fork John Day Basin, a watershed of high conservation interest within the Columbia River Basin, U.S.A. We compare the results of the River Styles Framework, Natural Channel Classification, Rosgen Classification System, and a channel form-based statistical classification at 33 field-monitored sites. We found that the four frameworks consistently classified reach types into similar groups based on each reach or segment's dominant hydrogeomorphic elements. Where classified channel types diverged, differences could be attributed to the (a) spatial scale of input data used, (b) the requisite metrics and their order in completing a framework's decision tree and/or, (c) whether the framework attempts to classify current or historic channel form. Divergence in framework agreement was also observed at reaches where channel planform was decoupled from valley setting. Overall, the relative agreement between frameworks indicates that criticism of individual classifications for their use of form in grouping stream channels may be overstated. These form-based criticisms may also ignore the geomorphic tenet that channel form reflects formative hydrogeomorphic processes across a given landscape. en
dc.format.medium Electronic-eCollection en
dc.language eng en
dc.relation.ispartofseries PloS one en
dc.rights Items in ResearchSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated. Previously published items are made available in accordance with the copyright policy of the publisher. Details obtained from en
dc.rights.uri en
dc.rights.uri en
dc.subject Animals en
dc.subject Salmon en
dc.subject Ecosystem en
dc.subject Water Movements en
dc.subject Environmental Monitoring en
dc.subject Principal Component Analysis en
dc.subject United States en
dc.subject Floods en
dc.title The Blurred Line between Form and Process: A Comparison of Stream Channel Classification Frameworks. en
dc.type Journal Article en
dc.identifier.doi 10.1371/journal.pone.0150293 en
pubs.issue 3 en
pubs.begin-page e0150293 en
pubs.volume 11 en
dc.rights.holder Copyright: The authors en
dc.identifier.pmid 26982076 en
pubs.publication-status Published en
dc.rights.accessrights en
pubs.subtype Comparative Study en
pubs.subtype Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't en
pubs.subtype research-article en
pubs.subtype Research Support, U.S. Gov't, Non-P.H.S. en
pubs.subtype Journal Article en
pubs.elements-id 525652 en Science en School of Environment en
dc.identifier.eissn 1932-6203 en
pubs.record-created-at-source-date 2016-03-17 en
pubs.dimensions-id 26982076 en

Files in this item

Find Full text

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record


Search ResearchSpace