Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Influence of DEM Resolution On Drainage Network Extraction A PDF
Influence of DEM Resolution On Drainage Network Extraction A PDF
Influence of DEM Resolution On Drainage Network Extraction A PDF
Geomorphology
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/geomorph
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history:
Received 11 August 2014
Received in revised form 23 March 2015
Accepted 27 March 2015
Available online 18 April 2015
Keywords:
Drainage network geometry
DEM resolution
D8 algorithm
Multifractal analysis
Flow accumulation threshold
Terrain attributes
a b s t r a c t
Different hydrological algorithms have been developed to automatically extract drainage networks from digital
elevation models (DEMs). D8 is the most widely used algorithm to delineate drainage networks and catchments
from a DEM. This algorithm has certain advantages such as simplicity, the provision of a reasonable representation for convergent ow conditions and consistency among ow patterns, calculated contributing areas and the
spatial representation of subcatchments. However, it has limitations in selecting suitable ow accumulation
threshold values to determine the pixels that belong to drainage networks. Although the effects of DEM resolution on some terrain attributes, stream characterisation and watershed delineation have been studied, analyses of
the inuence of DEM resolution on ow accumulation threshold values have been limited. Recently, multifractal
analyses have been successfully used to nd appropriate ow accumulation threshold values. The application of
this type of analysis to evaluate the relationship between DEM resolution and ow accumulation threshold value
needs to be explored. Therefore, this study tested three DEM resolutions for four drainage basins with different
levels of drainage network distribution by comparing the Rnyi spectra of the drainage networks that were obtained with the D8 algorithm against those determined by photogrammetric restitution. According to the results,
DEM resolution inuences the selected ow accumulation threshold value and the simulated network morphology. The suitable ow accumulation threshold value increases as the DEM resolution increases and shows greater
variability for basins with lower drainage densities. The links between DEM resolution and terrain attributes
were also examined.
2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
A digital elevation model (DEM) is a numerical representation of the
Earth's surface that contains the terrain height (Felicsimo, 1994). A
DEM can be dened by means of i) contours with x, y coordinate pairs
along each contour line of a specied elevation, ii) a triangulated irregular network made up of irregularly distributed nodes and lines with
three-dimensional coordinates (x, y, and z) and iii) a two-dimensional
array of numbers that represents the spatial distribution of elevations
on a regular grid. The main advantage of the third denition is its computational efciency and lower storage requirements (Walker and
Willgoose, 1999). Thus, raster DEMs have been broadly applied to
modelling certain features of the surface hydrology such as catchments
(O'Callaghan and Mark, 1984; Jones, 2002), drainage networks
(O'Callaghan and Mark, 1984; Turcotte et al., 2001), channel heads
(Montgomery and Dietrich, 1988; Julian et al., 2012) and wetness
Corresponding author. Tel.: +34 957 212126; fax: +34 957 218455.
E-mail addresses: g82arvia@uco.es (A.B. Ariza-Villaverde), fjhornero@uco.es
(F.J. Jimnez-Hornero), eduardo@uco.es (E. Gutirrez de Rav).
URL: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4498-8797 (F.J. Jimnez-Hornero).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2015.03.040
0169-555X/ 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
indices (Beven and Kirkby, 1979; Vaze et al, 2010). A DEM reproduces
real hydrological features with accuracy and computational efciency
that are determined by its resolution, vertical and horizontal precision
and terrain attributes (Moore and Grayson, 1991; Quinn et al., 1991;
Wolock and Price, 1994; Deng et al., 2007; Wu et al., 2008a, 2008b;
Dehvari and Heck, 2013).
Several studies have veried the link between simulated hydrological features and DEM resolution. Zhang and Montgomery (1994)
explored the effects of grid size on landscape representation and hydrologic simulations. The lower the DEM resolution (i.e., large grid size), the
higher the mean topographic index because of increasing contributing
area and lower slopes. Similarly, Srensen and Seibert (2007) studied
the effects of DEM resolution on the calculation of topographic wetness
and established notable differences between different grid resolutions.
Kenward et al. (2000) analysed the effects of the vertical precision of
DEMs on the accuracy of hydrology predictions, pointing to the reduced
spatial coherence in images with lower vertical precision, and concluded that topography plays a fundamental role in hydrologic and geomorphologic modelling. This statement has been conrmed by Falorni et al.
(2005) based on the strong inuence of relief on the vertical accuracy of
DEMs and derived terrain attributes. Regarding the effects on DEM resolutions, McMaster (2002) explored the effects of DEM resolution on
244
245
246
Mi
M0
q1
q1Dq
Mi
R
;
L
M0
where M0 is the total mass of the cluster or lattice mass, and L is the lattice size, which is equal to 1 after normalisation. This normalisation does
not modify the measure, as it is a geometrically invariant transformation
(Falconer, 1990).
Considering the ratio Mi/M0 as a probability distribution on an approximating fractal, the following averaged expression can be derived
as follows:
*
+ q1Dq
M R q1
R
:
M0
L
R=L0
ln hMR=M 0 i
:
ln R=L
Fig. 3. Comparison of the drainage networks for a threshold value of 1% of the maximum ow accumulation against those provided by photogrammetric restitution.
247
1318
327
52
0.1439
0.1551
0.1509
0.1323
0.3028
0.7300
0.1248
0.2736
0.7300
0.1199
0.2382
0.7300
0.0951
0.1693
0.7256
0.0791
0.1662
0.7018
0.0637
0.1600
0.6435
0.0486
0.1501
0.5384
0.0269
0.1225
0.3535
0.0381
0.0252 (0.15%)
0.2473
Root mean square error (RMSE) basin 4
DEM (5 m)
0.0862 0.0701
0.0638
DEM (10 m) 0.0861 0.0381
0.0352
DEM (25 m) 0.0828 0.0796 (0.28%) 0.0889
0.0590
0.0332
0.1087
0.0121 (0.075%)
0.0588
0.2489
1401
352
57
0.1841
0.1542
0.2100
0.1044
0.3753
0.4454
0.0983
0.3596
0.4491
0.0798
0.3217
0.4439
0.0559
0.2728
0.4393
0.0472
0.2461
0.4389
0.0284
0.1851
0.4029
0.0186
0.1348
0.3283
0.0107 (0.14%)
0.0744
0.2545
0.0529
0.0523
0.0933
Root mean square error (RMSE) basin 3
DEM (5 m)
0.0778 0.0591
0.0545
DEM (10 m) 0.0816 0.0795
0.07889
DEM (25 m) 0.0423 0.0182 (0.26%) 0.0599
0.0538
0.0735
0.0844
0.0417
0.0112 (0.28%)
0.2433
887
226
35
0.0388
0.0293
0.0429
0.0414
0.1253
0.8280
0.0387 (0.73%)
0.1185
0.8196
0.0460
0.1059
0.8056
0.0531
0.0990
0.7965
0.0537
0.0955
0.7412
0.0678
0.0583
0.5540
0.0799
0.0324 (0.92%)
0.4474
0.0824
0.0389
0.2523
0.0913
0.0691
0.0682
0.0914
0.0695
0.0365
Root mean square error (RMSE) basin 2
DEM (5 m)
0.1092 0.0926
0.0925
DEM (10 m) 0.0744 0.0715
0.0712
DEM (25 m) 0.0658 0.0410
0.0289 (0.57%)
0.0893
0.0598
0.1088
1085
275
44
0.0659
0.0387
0.0618
0.0277
0.3048
0.6360
0.0175 (0.9 %)
0.2735
0.5428
0.0344
0.2674
0.4995
0.0565
0.2558
0.4936
0.0618
0.1838
0.4853
0.1033
0.1134
0.4813
0.1217
0.0572 (1.32%)
0.4689
0.1704
0.0770
0.4089
0.2961
0.2203
0.1430
0.3700
0.2911
0.0260 (0.57%)
Root mean square error (RMSE) basin 1
DEM (5 m)
0.4087 0.3975
0.3829
DEM (10 m) 0.3387 0.3067
0.3040
DEM (25 m) 0.1981 0.1137
0.0724
0.2401
0.1481
0.2803
50
10
15
20
25
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1%
1% of the
maximum ow
accumulation
248
249
250
Table 2
Multifractal dimensions for each study basin and DEM resolution.
Multifractal parameters
Basin 1 DEM 5 m
Photogrammetric restitution
D8 algorithm
Basin 1 DEM 10 m
Photogrammetric restitution
D8 algorithm
Basin 1 DEM 25 m
Photogrammetric restitution
D8 algorithm
Basin 2 DEM 5 m
Photogrammetric restitution
D8 algorithm
Basin 2 DEM 10 m
Photogrammetric restitution
D8 algorithm
Basin 2 DEM 25 m
Photogrammetric restitution
D8 algorithm
Basin 3 DEM 5 m
Photogrammetric restitution
D8 algorithm
Basin 3 DEM 10 m
Photogrammetric restitution
D8 algorithm
Basin 3 DEM 25 m
Photogrammetric restitution
D8 algorithm
Basin 4 DEM 5 m
Photogrammetric restitution
D8 algorithm
Basin 4 DEM 10 m
Photogrammetric Restitution
D8 algorithm
Basin 4 DEM 25 m
Photogrammetric restitution
D8 algorithm
D0
D1
D2
R/Llower
R/Lupper
R2
Net points
Maximum number
of channel order
1.4208
1.4183
1.3438
1.3513
1.2941
1.3117
3.0
2.9
1.39
1.39
0.9992
0.9992
2596
2473
4
4
1.4402
1.3799
1.3944
1.3434
1.3554
1.3128
3.0
2.9
1.39
1.39
0.9988
0.9937
1280
783
4
4
1.4564
1.4894
1.4149
1.4495
1.3803
1.4191
2.8
3.6
1.39
1.39
0.9984
0.9980
509
412
4
4
1.6918
1.6651
1.6826
1.6451
1.6738
1.6303
2.8
2.5
1.39
1.39
0.9992
0.9991
3032
2409
3
3
1.6856
1.6545
1.6795
1.6369
1.6723
1.6270
2.9
2.4
1.39
1.39
0.9994
0.9992
1509
765
3
3
1.6961
1.7046
1.6907
1.6817
1.6858
1.6622
2.8
2.8
1.39
1.39
0.9990
0.9989
597
407
3
4
1.6578
1.6624
1.6174
1.6334
1.5995
1.6140
3.6
3.5
1.39
1.39
0.9987
0.9992
6805
7161
4
5
1.7363
1.7358
1.7126
1.7062
1.6951
1.6850
3.7
3.1
1.39
1.39
0.9987
0.9993
3389
2813
4
4
1.7595
1.7454
1.7375
1.7292
1.7224
1.7204
3.4
3.5
1.39
1.39
0.9984
0.9986
1320
950
4
5
1.6761
1.6857
1.6682
1.6721
1.6599
1.6613
4.3
4.2
1.39
1.39
0.9993
0.9990
7584
8632
4
5
1.6779
1.6699
1.6713
1.6506
1.6646
1.6355
4.4
4.0
1.39
1.39
0.9994
0.9990
3759
2422
4
4
1.6903
1.6146
1.6868
1.5927
1.6835
1.5777
4.0
3.0
1.39
1.39
0.9990
0.9982
1468
732
4
4
Dd varies with DEM resolution (Table 3). In the case of the denser
drainage network distributions (basins 3 and 4), the D8 algorithm provides higher Dd values as the DEM resolution increases. However, this
relationship was not observed for sparser drainage network (basins 1
and 2).
Table 3
Geomorphologic indexes of the study basins for 5, 10 and 25 m DEM resolutions. L: total stream length; A: area of the basin; Lb: linear distance between the mouth of the basin and the
point most distant from the mouth; Hmin: minimum height of the basin; Hmax: maximum height of the basin; H: difference in the maximum and minimum height; Dd: drainage density;
Rn: ruggedness index; Rr: relief ratio.
Geomorphologic indexes obtained for drainage networks provided by D8 algorithm
L
(km)
A
(km2)
Lb
(km)
Hmin
(m)
Hmax
(m)
H
(m)
Dd
(km1)
Basin 1
DEM 5 m
DEM 10 m
DEM 25 m
10.30
8.80
11.40
2.71
2.71
2.71
2.50
2.50
2.50
241
242
241
584
583
582
343
341
341
Basin 2
DEM 5 m
DEM 10 m
DEM 25 m
9.90
8.53
11.38
2.24
2.24
2.24
2.20
2.20
2.20
154
155
157
544
545
543
Basin 3
DEM 5 m
DEM 10 m
DEM 25 m
30.90
23.16
22.21
3.50
3.50
3.50
2.60
2.60
2.60
391
390
392
Basin 4
DEM 5 m
DEM 10 m
DEM 25 m
38.00
27.05
20.48
3.30
3.30
3.30
3.60
3.60
3.60
163
163
163
Rn
Rh
3.801
3.247
4.208
1.3036
1.1073
1.4348
0.1372
0.1364
0.1364
390
390
386
4.419
3.808
5.080
1.7209
1.4851
1.9610
0.1773
0.1773
0.1755
556
556
555
165
166
163
8.829
6.617
6.346
1.4567
1.0984
1.0344
0.0628
0.0638
0.0627
274
274
274
111
111
109
11.515
8.197
6.206
1.2801
0.9099
0.6765
0.0308
0.0308
0.0303
Fig. 5. Rnyi or generalised dimension spectra for the simulated D8 and photogrammetric restitution drainage networks.
251
252
A.B. Ariza-Villaverde et al. / Geomorphology 241 (2015) 243254
Fig. 6. Drainage network map generated with the D8 algorithm and by photogrammetric restitution for the selected ow accumulation threshold value.
253
De Bartolo, S.G., Primavera, L., Gaudio, R., D'Ippolito, A., Veltri, M., 2006b. Fixed mass
multifractal analysis of river networks and braided channels. Phys. Rev. E 74 (2),
026101.
Dehvari, A., Heck, R.J., 2013. Effect of LIDAR derived DEM resolution on terrain attributes,
stream characterization and watershed delineation. Int. J. Agric. Crop Sci. 6 (13),
949967.
Deng, Y., Wilsong, J.P., Bauer, B.O., 2007. DEM resolution dependencies of terrain attributes across a landscape. Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci. 21 (12), 187213.
Dombrdi, E., Timr, G., Bada, G., Cloetingh, S., Horvth, F., 2007. Fractal dimension estimations of drainage network in the CarpathianPannonian system. Glob. Planet.
Chang. 58 (14), 197213.
Falconer, K.J., 1990. Fractal Geometry: Mathematical Foundations and Applications. 2nd
ed. John Wiley, Chichester, UK.
Falorni, G., Teles, V., Vivoni, E.R., Bras, R.L., Amaratunga, K.S., 2005. Analysis and characterization of the vertical accuracy of digital elevation models from the Shuttle Radar Topography Mission. J. Geophys. Res. 110, F02005.
Felicsimo, A.M., 1994. Modelos Digitales de Terreno. Introduccin y aplicaciones en las
ciencias ambientales (Digital Elevation Model: Introduction and Applications to Environmental Sciences). Pentalfa, Oviedo, Spain.
Freeman, T.G., 1991. Calculating catchment area with divergent ow based on a regular
grid. Comput. Geosci. 17 (3), 413422.
Gallant, J.C., Wilson, J.P., 1996. Tapes-g: a grid-based terrain analysis program for the environmental sciences. Comput. Geosci. 22 (7), 713722.
Gaudio, R., De Bartolo, S., Primavera, L., Vertri, M., Gabriele, S., 2004. Procedures in
Multifractal Analysis of River Networks: A State-of-the-Art Review. 15 (2), 228237.
Gaudio, R., De Bartolo, S.G., Primavera, L., Grabiele, S., Veltri, M., 2006. Lithologic control
on the multifractal spectrum of river networks. J. Hydrol. 327 (34), 365375.
Gericke, A., Venohr, M., 2012. Improving the estimation of erosion-related suspended
solid yields in mountainous, non-alpine river catchments. Environ. Model Softw. 37,
3040.
Grassberger, P., 1983. Generalized dimensions of strange attractors. Phys. Rev. Lett. 97 (6),
227230.
Grassberger, P., Procaccia, I., 1983. Characterization of strange attractors. Phys. Rev. Lett.
50, 346349.
Jones, R., 2002. Algorithms for using a DEM for mapping catchment areas of stream sediment samples. Comput. Geosci. 28 (9), 10511060.
Julian, J.P., Elmore, A.J., Guinn, S.M., 2012. Channel head locations in forested watersheds
across the mid-Atlantic United States: a physiographic analysis. Geomorphology
177178, 194203.
Kenward, T., Lettenmaier, D.P., Wood, E.F., Fielding, E., 2000. Effects of digital elevation
model accuracy on hydrologic predictions. Remote Sens. Environ. 74 (3), 432444.
Lea, N.L., 1992. An Aspect Driven Kinematic Routing Algorithm, in Overland Flow: Hydraulics and Erosion Mechanics. Chapman and Hall, New York.
Lombardo, F., Volpi1, E., Koutsoyiannis, D., Papalexiou, S.M., 2014. Just two moments! A
cautionary note against use of high-order moments in multifractal models in hydrology. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 18, 243255.
Lpez-Vicente, M., Poesen, J., Navas, A., Gaspar, L., 2013. Predicting runoff and sediment
connectivity and soil erosion by water for different land use scenarios in the Spanish
Pre-Pyrenees. Catena 102, 6273.
Mach, J., Mas, F., Sagus, F., 1995. Two representations in multifractal analysis. J. Phys. A
28, 56075622.
Maidment, D.R., 2002. ArcHydro: GIS for Water Resources. ESRI Press, Redlands.
Martz, L.W., Garbrecht, J., 1992. Numerical denition of drainage network and
subcatchment areas from digital elevation models. Comput. Geosci. 18 (6), 747761.
Martz, L.W., Garbrecht, J., 1998. The treatment of at areas and depressions in automated
drainage analysis of raster digital elevation models. Hydrol. Process. 12 (6), 843855.
McMaster, K.J., 2002. Effects of digital elevation model resolution on derived stream
network positions. Water Resour. Res. 38 (4). http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/
2000WR000150.
Montgomery, D., Dietrich, W., 1988. Where do channels begin? Nature 336 (6196), 232234.
Montgomery, D.R., Dietrich, W.E., 1992. Channel initiation and the problem of landscape
scale. Science 255 (5046), 826830.
Moore, I.D., Grayson, R.B., 1991. Terrain-based catchment partitioning and runoff prediction using vector elevation data. Water Resour. Res. 27 (6), 11771191.
O'Callaghan, J., Mark, D.M., 1984. The extraction of drainage networks from digital elevation data. Comput. Vis. Graph. Image Process. 28 (3), 323344.
Orlandini, S., Moretti, G., 2009. Comment on Global search algorithm for nondispersive
ow path extraction by Kyungrock Paik. J. Geophys. Res. 114, F04004.
Orlandini, S., Moretti, G., Franchini, M., 2003. Path-based methods for the determination
of nondispersive drainage directions in grid-based digital elevation models. Water
Resour. Res. 39 (6), 1144. http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2002WR001639.
Orlandini, S., Tarolli, P., Moretti, G., Dalla Fontana, G., 2011. On the prediction of channel
heads in a complex alpine terrain using gridded elevation data. Water Resour. Res.
47, W02538. http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2010WR009648.
Orlandini, S., Moretti, G., Gavioli, A., 2014. Analytical basis for determining slope lines in
grid digital elevation models. Water Resour. Res. 50 (1), 526539.
Paik, K., 2008. Global search algorithm for nondispersive ow path extraction. J. Geophys.
Res. 113 (F4), F04001. http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2007JF000964.
Pawelzik, K., Schuster, H.G., 1987. Generalized dimensions and entropies from a measured times series. Phys. Rev. A 35 (1), 481484.
Quinn, P.F., Beven, K.J., Chevalier, P., Planchon, O., 1991. The prediction of hillslope ow
paths for distributed hydrological modeling using digital elevation models. Hydrol.
Process. 5, 5979.
Rigon, R., Rinaldo, A., Rodriguez-Iturbe, I., Ijjasz-Vasquez, E., Bras, R.L., 1993. Optimal
channel networks: a framework for the study of river basin morphology. Water
Resour. Res. 29 (6), 16351646.
254
Rinaldo, A., Rodriguez-Iturbe, I., Rigon, R., Bras, R.L., Ijjasz-Vasquez, E., Marani, A., 1992.
Minimum energy and fractal structures of drainage networks. Water Resour. Res.
28 (9), 21832195.
Rinaldo, A., Rodriguez-Iturbe, I., Rigon, R., Ijjaszvasquez, E., Bras, R.L., 1993. Self-organized
fractal river networks. Phys. Rev. Lett. 70 (6), 822825.
Rivas-Martnez, S., 1987. Map of Vegetation Series of Spain. National Institute for Nature
Conservation, Madrid.
Rodriguez, F., Bocher, E., Chancibault, K., 2013. Terrain representation impact on
periurban catchment morphological properties. J. Hydrol. 485, 5467.
Russel, D., Hanson, J., Ott, E., 1980. Dimension of strange attractors. Phys. Rev. Lett. 45,
11751178.
Saa, A., Gasco, G., Grau, J.B., Anton, J.M., Tarquis, A.M., 2007. Comparison of gliding box and
box counting methods in river network analysis. Nonlinear Process. Geophys. 14,
603613.
Saunders, W., 1999. Preparation of DEMs for Use in Environmental Modelling Analysis,
1999 ESRI User Conference. ESRI Online, San Diego, CA.
Srensen, R., Seibert, J., 2007. Effects of DEM resolution on the calculation of topographical
indices: TWI and its components. J. Hydrol. 347 (12), 7989.
Tarboton, D.G., 1997. A new method for the determination of ow directions and upslope
areas in grid digital elevation models. Water Resour. Res. 33 (2), 309319.
Tarboton, D.G., Bras, R.L., Rodriguez-Iturbe, I., 1988. The fractal nature of river networks.
Water Resour. Res. 24 (8), 13171322.
Tl, T., Flp, ., Vicsek, T., 1989. Determination of fractal dimensions for geometrical
multifractals. Physica A 159 (2), 155166.
Thieken, A.H., Lcke, A., Diekkrger, B., Richter, O., 1999. Scaling input data by GIS for
hydrological modelling. Hydrol. Process. 13, 611630.
Tribe, A., 1992. Automated recognition of valley lines and drainage networks from grid
digital elevation models: a review and a new method. J. Hydrol. 139 (14), 263293.
Tucker, G.E., Bras, R.L., 1998. Hillslope processes, drainage density, and landscape morphology. Water Resour. Res. 34 (10), 27512764.
Tucker, G.E., Bras, R.L., 2000. A stochastic approach to modelling the role of rainfall variability in drainage basin evolution. Water Resour. Res. 36 (7), 19531964.
Tucker, G.E., Slingerland, R., 1997. Drainage basin responses to climate change. Water
Resour. Res. 33 (8), 20312047.
Turcotte, R., Fortin, J.-P., Rousseau, A.N., Massicotte, S., Villeneuve, J.-P., 2001. Determination of the drainage structure of a watershed using a digital elevation model and a
digital river and lake network. J. Hydrol. 240 (34), 225242.
Vaze, J., Teng, J., Spencer, G., 2010. Impact of DEM accuracy and resolution on topographic
indices. Environ. Model Softw. 25 (10), 10861098.
Vicsek, T., 1990. Mass multifractal. Physica A 168, 490497.
Vicsek, T., Family, F., Meakin, P., 1990. Multifractal geometry of diffusion-limited aggregates. Europhys. Lett. 12 (3), 217222.
Walker, J.P., Willgoose, G.R., 1999. On the effect of digital elevation model accuracy on hydrology and geomorphology. Water Resour. Res. 35 (7), 22592268.
Wolock, D.M., Price, C.V., 1994. Effect of digital elevation model and map scale and data
resolution on a topography-based watershed model. Water Resour. Res. 30 (11),
30413052.
Wu, S., Li, J., Huang, G.H., 2008a. A study on DEM-derived primary topographic attributes
for hydrologic applications: sensitivity to elevation data resolution. Appl. Geogr. 28,
210223.
Wu, W., Fan, Y., Wang, Z., Liu, H., 2008b. Assessing effects of digital elevation model
resolutions on soil-landscape correlations in a hilly area. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ.
126 (34), 209216.
Zeleke, T.B., Si, B.C., 2005. Scaling relationships between saturated hydraulic conductivity
and soil physical properties. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 69 (6), 16911702.
Zhang, W., Montgomery, D.R., 1994. Digital elevation model grid size, landscape representation, and hydrologic simulations. Water Resour. Res. 30 (4), 10191028.