SCIENCE CHINA

Earth Sciences
• RESEARCH PAPER • doi: 10.1007/s11430-015-5074-x
doi: 10.1007/s11430-015-5074-x

Integrated research methods in watershed science

CHENG GuoDong & LI Xin*
Cold and Arid Regions Environmental and Engineering Research Institute, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Lanzhou 730000, China

Received November 12, 2014; accepted March 18, 2015

We discuss the concepts, research methods, and infrastructure of watershed science. A watershed is a basic unit and possesses
all of the complexities of the land surface system, thereby making it the best unit for practicing Earth system science. Water-
shed science is an Earth system science practiced on a watershed scale, and it has developed rapidly over the previous two
decades. The goal of watershed science is to understand and predict the behavior of complex watershed systems and support
the sustainable development of watersheds. However, watershed science confronts the difficulties of understanding complex
systems, achieving scale transformation, and simulating the co-evolution of the human-nature system. These difficulties are
fundamentally methodological challenges. Therefore, we discuss the research methods of watershed science, which include the
self-organized complex system method, the upscaling method dominated by statistical mechanics, Darwinian approaches based
on selection and evolutionary principles, hydro-economic and eco-economic methods that emphasize the human-nature system
co-evolution, and meta-synthesis for addressing unstructured problems. These approaches together can create a bridge between
holism and reductionism and work as a group of operational methods to combine hard and soft integrations and capture all as-
pects of both natural and human systems. These methods will contribute to the maturation of watershed science and to a meth-
odology that can be used throughout land-surface systems science.

watershed science, land-surface system science, Earth system science, self-organized complex system, scale, Darwinian
theory, human-nature system co-evolution, meta-synthesis, macro science

Citation: Cheng G D, Li X. 2015. Integrated research methods in watershed science. Science China: Earth Sciences, 58: 1–10,
doi: 10.1007/s11430-015-5074-x

Earth system science has undergone more than 20 years of
rapid development since its conception. The establishment
of dozens of Earth system models and the maturity of Earth
observation systems indicate that Earth system science has
left its infancy and is growing into an adolescent interdisci-
plinary science. However, striking advances in science and
technology have not produced parallel improvements in the
predictability of Earth systems. To achieve the goal of sus-
tainable development of human society, a wide gap must be
bridged, and the following scientific questions must be an-
swered (Reid et al., 2010): How do the achievements in
individual branches of Earth science fundamentally support
improvements in the predictability of the weather, climate,
*Corresponding author (email: lixin@lzb.ac.cn)
and environment systems? How can we better integrate the
achievements of social sciences so that the large role of
humans in Earth systems is fully understood? How can the
innovations in Earth system science and technology be used
to support a sustainable future Earth?
The study of Earth system science should certainly have
a global vision. However, one prominent problem in the
study of Earth system science is the difficulty of identifying
a basic system unit of the complex Earth. To provide clarity
and identify efficient methods of integrating the various
elements of the water-soil-air-plant-human continuum
(Cheng et al., 2014a) in Earth systems, it may be necessary
to initially focus on a basic unit of the greater Earth system:
The watershed.
Hydrologically, the watershed can be viewed as an

© Science China Press and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015 earth.scichina.com link.springer.com
2 Cheng G D, et al. Sci China Earth Sci
“atomic” unit. Watersheds are found worldwide and include
catchments, sub-watersheds, and major rivers basins. A riv-
er basin is a natural geographic unit formed by divisions of
a watershed. Water, sand, sediment and chemical matter are
cycled within a watershed and accumulate at the outlet via
water transport. Therefore, a watershed is a system that ex-
changes material, energy, and information with the external
world while remaining relatively closed within a clear
boundary.
Ecologically, the watershed is recognized as a natural
unit of the terrestrial ecosystem. One ecologist has said that
“studies of watershed ecology are significant in that the
watershed provides an appropriate experimental foundation
for assessments of ecological theories and practical applica-
tions” (Deng et al., 1998). Therefore, we can think of the
watershed as a complete although heterogeneous ecological
unit and study the material, energy, and information ex-
changes between highlands, coastal zones, and water bodies
to analyze and simulate the overall function of watershed
ecosystems and achieve ecological restoration using the
watershed as a unit (Cai et al., 1998; Chen and Ouyang,
2005).
Socioeconomically, a number of national and interna-
tional administrative boundaries correspond to major rivers
or watersheds of river basins, and economic activity often
develops along major rivers. Therefore, economic zones in
river basins are important units for planning economic ac-
tivities. Moreover, conflicts related to water usage between
upstream and downstream populations and other wa-
ter-related conflicts frequently occur in river basins. There-
fore, the river basin is an ideal unit for managing water re-
sources, land resources, and other resources and for study-
ing the issue of sustainable development.
Overall, a watershed is a relatively closed system, partic-
ularly from a hydrological perspective, and its interfaces
with external systems are relatively clear, which is helpful
for determining the boundaries of the system and perform-
ing research in a relatively isolated and controllable manner.
However, a watershed is also a complex system with a hier-
archical structure and integrated functions composed of
water resources, ecologic and socioeconomic systems
(Cheng et al., 2011, 2014a). Watersheds have the complex-
ity of land-surface systems; therefore, developing a better
understanding of these complex systems must involve near-
ly all disciplines pertaining to Earth system science. The
abovementioned two features of the watershed are insepara-
bly interconnected, which makes the watershed the best unit
for the practice of Earth system science.
After more than 20 years of continuous investigation, a
framework of watershed science has begun to emerge. A
preliminarily clarification of the research areas has been
proposed, and its integrated research methods have been
explored. During this period, reports from the National Re-
search Council (NRC) of the United States have played a
critical role. These reports include the following: Opportu-
January (2015) Vol.58 No.1
nities in the Hydrologic Sciences (NRC, 1991), Watershed
Research in the U.S. Geological Survey (NRC, 1997), New
Strategies for America’s Watersheds (NRC, 1999), River
Science at the U.S. Geological Survey (NRC, 2007), Chal-
lenges and Opportunities in the Hydrologic Sciences (NRC,
2012).
We believe that watershed science shares the characteris-
tics of fundamental research in Earth system science and
applied research in sustainability science. In relation to
Earth system science research, the goal of watershed sci-
ence is to understand and predict the complex behaviors of
watershed systems, and the research methods can be con-
sidered to be an embodiment of the research methods in
Earth system science on a watershed scale. In relation to
integrated river basin management, watershed science fo-
cuses on interactions between human and natural systems.
Therefore, it is also an applied science with a goal of sup-
porting sustainable development through optimized config-
urations of natural resources and human activities.
1 Research methods in watershed science
1.1 System science
Watershed science utilizes the same research methods used
in Earth system science, which is a discipline that has a ho-
listic perspective and incorporates both holism and reduc-
tionism. Schellnhuber (1999) noted that research methods in
Earth system science can generally be summarized as fol-
lows.
(1) The “bird’s-eye” principle, in which the Earth is ob-
served from outside. The striking achievements in Earth
observation systems over the past 50 years make it possible
to observe the Earth as a whole. On a watershed scale, there
are also many examples of high-resolution, real-time, and
integrated remote sensing and ground-based watershed ob-
servation systems.
(2) The digital-mimicry principle by which Earth system
models are developed. The modeling of complex Earth sys-
tems has been referred to as the second Copernican revolu-
tion. It has also become common to develop integrated wa-
tershed models.
(3) The “Lilliput” principle, in which physical models are
used to perform controlled experiments on complex sys-
tems. The most typical example is Biosphere No. 2, which
is a closed ecological system. We believe that watersheds
can be considered to be a “Lilliput” system in Earth system
science because they are relatively controllable semi-closed
and semi-open systems.
Holism dominates the philosophical principles of Earth
system science. Ontologically, watersheds can doubtless be
considered in their entirety. However, the specific scientific
practice of modeling and observation still relies on reduc-
tionism as the dominant research method (Bergandi and
Blandin, 1998). Methods of bridging holism and reduction-
 Cheng G D, et al. Sci China Earth Sci
ism will be the main topic of discussion in the following
sections (1.2–1.6).
1.2 Complex systems
Emerson wrote that “Nature is intricate, overlapped, inter-
weaved, and endless”1). Indeed, a watershed is an example
of such a giant and complex system (Qian, 1991). First, a
watershed’s complexity is reflected in its large size. For
instance, consider a simulation of a watershed with an area
of 105 km2 and at a spatial resolution of only 1 km. There
could be as many as 100 variables, including those that de-
scribe the model state and the ecological and hydrological
fluxes and parameters of each response unit (which can be
viewed as a sub-system). Thus, the number of degrees of
freedom in the entire system could be as many as 107, which
is comparable to the number of degrees of freedom in a
general circulation model applied on a global scale. Second,
watershed complexity is reflected in the watershed’s long
history because long time spans are required to simulate a
watershed's past and predict its future. Third, watershed
complexity is reflected in the numerous factors and complex
interactions involved in the functioning of a watershed. The
water-soil-air-plant-human continuum is merely a generali-
zation, and each element in the continuum contains a large
number of specific elements. These elements and relevant
factors outside the system are interconnected, and human
activities add to the complexity. Fourth, watershed com-
plexity is reflected in the inherent uncertainty in such sys-
tems. Heterogeneity is amplified on the watershed scale,
and certain processes that are ignored and simplified in
global scale models become prominent on a watershed
scale. Thus, watershed heterogeneity and associated uncer-
tainty (Li, 2013) may pose unprecedented challenges.
A watershed system is extremely complex, but it also ex-
hibits features of self-organization (Dooge, 1986; Sivapalan,
2005). For example, the topography, vegetation, and drain-
age system in a watershed exhibit self-similarity on various
scales, and the hydrological variables (e.g., soil moisture,
evapotranspiration, and groundwater depth) also exhibit
features of self-organization (Rodríguez-Iturbe and Rinaldo,
2001; Solé and Bascompte, 2006). In addition, different
watersheds with similar climatic-hydrological features also
exhibit similarity in terms of hydrological functions
(Wagener et al., 2007). Consequently, a watershed is a
complex system with a degree of self-organization (Si-
vapalan, 2005).
The self-organization of watersheds provides new op-
portunities for simulating the behaviors of watershed sys-
tems. Currently, fractal analysis and other methods used to
study self-organized complex systems have achieved suc-
cess in the simulation of watershed drainage pattern and
landform evolution (Rodriguez-Iturbe et al., 2011; Perron et
1) Ralph Waldo Emerson. 1860. Fate.
January (2015) Vol.58 No.1 3
al., 2012). However, the methods of self-organized complex
systems have not been applied successfully to allow for
modeling of hydrological functions and ecosystem dynam-
ics. Because self-organized complex systems exhibit ran-
dom and disordered features on the scale of system compo-
nents but a certain degree of order on the scale of the entire
system, approaches to simulating the behavior of self-
organized complex systems may require a combination of
deterministic and stochastic dynamics based on concepts of
statistical physics.
1.3 Scale problems
The spatial and temporal scales of watersheds span large
ranges. The spatial scale of hydrological processes, which
ranges from that of water molecules to soil cores, slopes,
catchments, sub-watersheds, and entire watersheds, can
range up to an order of 1015. The spatial scale of ecological
processes, which involves DNA to cells, leaves, communi-
ties, and ecological systems, can range from the molecular
scale to a scale of thousands of square kilometers. The
temporal scale of a watershed can range from that of ex-
tremely rapid biochemical processes to rainfall-runoff and
soil hydrological processes (minutes to hours), plant growth
processes (days, seasons, and years), community succession
(decades and hundreds of years) and on up to soil weather-
ing and morphological evolution (tens to hundreds of thou-
sands of years). Despite the wide range of temporal and
spatial scales, all of these processes are interconnected and
add to the complexity of watershed behaviors.
However, existing hydrological and ecological models of
watersheds have primarily been developed by viewing the
land surface as homogeneous; thus, methods of upscaling
these models to a watershed scale with high heterogeneity
and by non-linear processes domination have presented a
fundamental problem in the study of watershed science
(Dooge, 1986; NRC, 1991).
At present, the upscaling problem in watershed hydrolo-
gy is typically resolved by adopting the following ap-
proaches. (1) Micro models are used to represent macro
models by adopting the equivalent parameters as the input
of model; therefore, the differences between the micro-scale
and macro-scale are all attributed to equivalent parameters
that depend on the scale. (2) Macro models are redefined by
assuming that the watershed behaviors are dominated by
various physical laws rather than the established mi-
cro-scale laws. In this approach, semi-physical and semi-
empirical models are developed on a macro-scale based on
the conservation of water and energy. The typical model in
this approach is the Budyko hypothesis and its variants
(Budyko, 1974; Yang et al., 2007). In this approach, the
input often consists of macro features of the watershed, such
as the runoff, averaged temporal-spatial climatic, hydrolog-
4 Cheng G D, et al. Sci China Earth Sci
ical variables and fluxes, average geomorphological fea-
tures, and statistics of vegetation distribution. (3) Mac-
ro-scale processes are simulated from a statistical mechan-
ics perspective. In this approach, the microscopic physical
laws are assumed to be correct, and the macro-scale system
is considered to be a statistical ensemble composed of nu-
merous scale-invariant microscopic dynamic systems that
obey the microscopic physical laws. Through this approach,
the upscaling problem becomes a dynamic-statistical prob-
lem and can be solved using various methods of statistical
mechanics. The methods of ensemble averaging and en-
semble forecasting that are used in hydrology are rooted in
this concept.
Currently, a number of case studies are available for de-
veloping upscaling methods in watershed science, but the
general theory of upscaling has rarely been examined. In
addition, the upscaling methods themselves are difficult to
verify, which is related to the lack of multi-scale observa-
tions (Vereecken et al., 2007). In recent years, the rapid
development of multi-scale observations and experimenta-
tion has provided new opportunities for the validation and
development of upscaling methods.
1.4 Newtonism vs. Darwinism
Watershed science inherits the legacies of two disciplines of
natural science that have different intellectual traditions:
hydrology and ecology. Hydrology reflects the traditions of
Newtonism. It is a dynamical system based on the continui-
ty equation and energy, mass, and momentum-balance
equations. Ecology, in contrast, reflects the traditions of
Darwinism, with selection and evolution as the principle of
system dynamics. The modeling of ecosystem dynamics
often involves optimizing a cost function based on the prin-
ciple of maximum entropy or using evolutionary calcula-
tions. Newtonism emphasizes universality, simplicity, and
predictability, whereas Darwinism emphasizes special
properties, contingency, and self-organization.
The practice of watershed science in recent decades in-
dicates that watersheds have a common property of being
controlled by the basic laws of water and energy balance;
however, each watershed does exhibit its distinct character-
istics. Therefore, it is unclear whether watershed science is
a science of place. Does universality or contingency play a
dominate role? Are the research methods of Newtonism and
Darwinism in conflict with each other? Is there any room
for compromise between universality and contingency?
Research methods dominated by Newtonism currently
play a much more important role in the study of watershed
science because a majority of ecological and hydrological
models are based on Newtonian concepts, and these models
use equations based on Newtonian mechanics to describe
watershed processes. There is growing interest in develop-
ing more complex models with an increasing number of
parameters, and there is a tendency toward developing hy-
January (2015) Vol.58 No.1
per-resolution models (Beven et al., 2015). However, tradi-
tional models are not necessarily successful, and they often
face problems of being overly complex, over-parameterized,
and equifinality; moreover, it is difficult to estimate, trace,
and control the modeling uncertainty.
Recently, Darwinian methods have received more atten-
tion in watershed science. Despite the endless heterogeneity
of watersheds (as mentioned in section 1.2), watersheds of
various sizes exhibit self-organizing features and various
types of self-similarities. The factors controlling this self-
organization and self-similarity likely are the principles of
selection and evolution advocated by Darwinism. Therefore,
since the 1980s, the forerunners of hydrologic science and
pioneers of eco-hydrology have advanced new ideas based
on Darwinism, such as the “new hydrological theory”, “hy-
drological law” and “laws at the macroscale” (Dooge, 1986;
Sivapalan, 2005). However, the pace of scientific practice in
general lags behind these forward-looking concepts. Studies
of the self-organization and self-similarity of watersheds
still primarily focus on the stage of pattern generation, and
these studies have not yielded an operational and predicta-
ble method. At present, a hydrological model has not been
developed based entirely on the principle of Darwinian sys-
tem evolution. However, in simulations of the biogeograph-
ical distribution of vegetation and the evolution of ecosys-
tems, concepts based on Darwinism have achieved certain
successes (e.g., Phillips et al., 2006).
We believe that watershed science should not be a sci-
ence of place but rather should move toward a universal
theory, which is required to extend the scientific practice
from one watershed to another watershed and to land-
surface system science. To achieve this goal, Newtonian
and Darwinian worldviews must be synthesized by examin-
ing watersheds from the different perspectives of hydrology
and ecology. In addition, different methodologies in the
study of system dynamics and system evolution must be
integrated (Harte, 2002). Because Newtonian and Darwini-
an theories differ in terms of their philosophical traditions
and operational practices, works that truly synthesize these
two approaches are rare (King and Caylor, 2012). The syn-
thesis of Newtonism and Darwinism is an important direc-
tion for future methodological developments in watershed
science and Earth system science (Eagleson, 2002; Harte,
2002).
1.5 Research methods of hydro-economics and eco-
economics
Current watershed science studies of the effects of human
activities are primarily focused on economic impacts. Rele-
vant studies have benefited from the development of three
disciplines: hydro-economics (Harou et al., 2009), eco-
economics (Costanza et al., 2007), and water resource-
economics (Cai, 2008). The focuses of these three disci-
plines are different, although they share certain common
 Cheng G D, et al. Sci China Earth Sci
orientations. Each discipline involves the study of the
co-evolution of and interdependence between economic
activities and natural systems, and they all emphasize that
social-economic behaviors are an indispensable component
of natural ecosystems and can reshape the entire system. In
addition, all of these fields are oriented toward sustainable
development.
Similar to the research methods of natural systems, stud-
ies of watershed economic systems also apply a variety of
modeling methods. However, watershed economic models
and eco-hydrological models are not tightly coupled. Cur-
rently, the modeling approach in river basin management is
to investigate the impacts of socioeconomics on the hydro-
logical and ecological processes based on static socioeco-
nomic scenarios and using these scenarios to drive hydro-
logical and ecological models. Although this approach may
take into account the human-nature relationship, it does not
establish a dynamic feedback loop from the natural system
to the socioeconomic system, and there is a lack of repre-
sentation of the coevolution of human-nature systems. The
emerging field of social-hydrology (Sivapalan et al., 2012)
suggests that economic and social factors should be used as
endogenous variables in the integrated model, and a dy-
namic method of human-nature interactions should be de-
veloped to explicitly account for the co-evolution of the
human-nature system.
The valuation of ecosystem services is another challenge
in coupling economic and eco-hydrological models. The
focus of natural system models is the material cycle and
energy flow in ecological and hydrological systems, and
economic models eventually value the material cycle and
energy flow. However, the valuation of ecosystem services
is currently considered to be “an imperfect art” (Harou et
al., 2009), and calculating the value of such services using
different valuation methods can produce significantly dif-
ferent results. Nevertheless, in the study of eco-economics
and hydro-economics, understanding that natural capital is
irreplaceable and emphasizing justice, equality, and
long-term sustainable development will advance studies of
watershed management and sustainable development and
become indispensable aspects of watershed science.
1.6 Meta-synthesis
Hydrology, ecology, and economics are three major disci-
plines in the integrated study of watershed science, and re-
search in these fields is dominated by quantitative methods.
However, in addition to the traditional factors considered in
these three disciplines, social factors such as politics, legis-
lation, policies, culture, religion, habits, customs, behaviors,
and psychology must be considered in watershed science
studies, particularly in the integrated management of river
basins. It is difficult, however, to quantify these social fac-
tors in watershed modeling. Often, those problems that can
be represented by mathematical equations and solved with
January (2015) Vol.58 No.1 5
quantitative methods are referred to as structured problems,
and problems related to social factors that are difficult to
quantify and formalize are often referred to as unstructured,
ill-structured, or wicked problems. New approaches to these
problems must be developed.
In recent decades, a series of methods called meta-
synthesis or soft systems methodology have emerged to
address complex unstructured problems. Typical methods
include the “meta-synthesis from qualitative hypothesis to
quantitative validation,” which was proposed by Chinese
system scientist Xuesen Qian (Hsue-Shen Tsien). This
method later evolved into an operational method known as
the “hall for a workshop of meta-synthetic engineering
(HWMSE)” (Qian et al., 1990). The core of this methodol-
ogy is the co-participation of computer technology and ex-
perts in qualitative and quantitative analysis. After more
than ten years of development, this methodology has gradu-
ally matured operationally. HWMSE has three components:
a human experts system, a knowledge system, and a ma-
chine system. It integrates the intelligence of experts, multi-
ple sources of data and information, various computer mod-
els, and high-speed computing power to combine “the sci-
entific theories of various disciplines and human experienc-
es” (Qian et al., 1990), thereby forming an enormous intel-
ligent system. We believe that the operational process of
HWMSE is a method of combining holism and reduction-
ism, which can be summarized as follows. In step one, an
issue, which is defined from a macro-qualitative perspective
as a problem for which a definite definition is difficult to
provide, is proposed, and the assumptions and scenarios of
the issue are defined. This process emphasizes the overall
qualitative understanding of the issue. In step two of the
HWMSE, ideas and knowledge (primarily qualitative) from
experts are synthesized by relying on computer-supported
cooperative work. In addition, computers are used to collect
and analyze the data and information from numerous data-
bases on the internet. When sufficient data, information, and
knowledge have been collected, various decision methods
are applied to integrate these inputs. Based on the above
procedures, a conceptual model is then proposed. During
this step, synchronous and asynchronous human-computer
interactions and computer-aided human-human interactions
are critical. In step three, versatile computer models, in-
cluding simulation models, data-driven models, case-based
reasoning models, and other types of models, are developed,
and the models are run to provide quantitative information.
In step four, a computer-assisted group discussion of the
model results is conducted in the HWMSE, and if the re-
sults are not satisfactory, the issue is then reconsidered, and
the conceptual model of the issue may be refined. Through
this recursive process of qualitative and quantitative hu-
man-computer interactions, our understanding of complex
systems is increased, and eventually, solutions to the issue
are proposed primarily based on a quantitative understand-
ing (Qian et al., 1990; Yu and Zhou, 2002; Li et al., 2004;
6 Cheng G D, et al. Sci China Earth Sci
Gu and Tang, 2005).
HWMSE is a virtual environment composed of humans
and computers and based on the rapid development of in-
formation technology. Internet technology, including web
search engines, online encyclopedias, e-mail, instant mes-
saging, social networking sites, blogs, web chats, web con-
ferencing, and groupware that support group discussion and
collective thinking, make it possible to rapidly integrate
collective wisdom and a variety of information. Moreover,
the mining of big data and progress in semantic analysis
provide additional possibilities for decision-making in-
formed not only by causation but also by correlations found
in the data.
As for integrated river basin management, HWMSE may
be considered to be a new-generation decision support sys-
tem (DSS) (Tang, 2007) because it can be used to effec-
tively address unstructured problems and support group
decision-making.
2 Building an infrastructure of watershed sci-
ence
Research methods in watershed science will not mature
without significant advances in Earth observation technol-
ogy and information technology. Investigators have applied
concepts of cyber-infrastructure and e-science to describe
the required infrastructure (such as observation, modeling,
and information systems) for the study of watershed sci-
ence, and such infrastructure can be conceptualized as a 3M
(monitoring, modeling, and data manipulating) integrated
platform (Cheng et al., 2014a).
2.1 Observation systems
Earth system science thrives with the use of Earth observa-
tion systems. Similarly, an important precondition for the
development of watershed science is the establishment of
watershed observation systems. The advances in satellite
and ground-based observation techniques have substantially
propelled the development of individual branches of water-
shed science and reshaped the nature of these disciplines.
Satellite remote sensing has proven immensely useful in
measuring the primary hydrological and ecological varia-
bles and fluxes (NRC, 2008) and has allowed for focused
scientific objectives and increasingly finer spatial and tem-
poral resolutions. In addition, a number of new technologies
in ground-based observations have emerged in recent years,
including sensor networks and a variety of footprint-scale
observational techniques, such as cosmic-ray soil moisture
observing systems and large-aperture scintillometers. These
new techniques have provided unprecedented opportunities
for watershed observations, and they have been rapidly in-
corporated into mainstream watershed observation ap-
proaches. Thus, it is possible to establish distributed, mul-
January (2015) Vol.58 No.1
ti-scale, and real-time controlled watershed observation
systems.
Over the past ten years, distributed observation systems
on a watershed scale have become increasingly popular, and
several watershed observation systems have become well
established, including the Critical Zone Observatory (CZO),
which is supported by the National Science Foundation of
the United States; the Terrestrial Environmental Observa-
tions (TERENO) of Europe (Zacharias et al., 2011; Bogena
et al., 2015); the Danish Hydrological Observatory (HOBE)
(Jensen and Illangasekare, 2011); the Changing Cold Re-
gions Network (CCRN) of Canada (Debeer et al., 2015);
and the Watershed Observation System in the Heihe River
Basin, China (Li et al., 2010a, 2013). The features that these
observation systems share are that they (1) provide mul-
ti-variable and multi-scale observations, (2) apply sensor
network techniques, (3) provide test beds for new observa-
tional technologies, (4) use airborne remote sensing to ac-
quire high-resolution data (such as super-high-resolution
digital elevation models), (5) are used to conduct controlled
experiments, (6) are integrated with modeling systems, and
(7) are tightly integrated with information systems.
2.2 Modeling platform
The study of watershed science requires various models that
may be applicable to the integrated study of the water-
ecosystem-economy system throughout an entire watershed
as well as to single-discipline studies. Such models may be
applicable on the scale of an entire watershed and on the
relatively small scales of catchments and single sites. In
addition, models may be applicable to understanding a
complex watershed system and verifying scientific hypoth-
eses and applicable to integrated management of river ba-
sins. Therefore, a modeling platform for managing multiple
models must be developed; such a platform is defined as a
“computer software platform that supports the efficient de-
velopment of integrated models and convenient coupling of
existing models or modules, model management, data
pre-processing, parameter calibration, and visualization” (Li
et al., 2010b). Compared with the model itself, the modeling
platform is generally an integrated information technology
system. Various model platforms have been developed us-
ing various architectural structures and technical schemes in
the previous few decades (Nan et al., 2011).
From the perspective of watershed science infrastructure,
the new generation of modeling platforms should provide
the following features: (1) Inclusion of models of natural
system, such as surface water, groundwater, land-surface
processes, the cryosphere, ecological processes, and vegeta-
tion growth, and models of human system, such as land use,
water resource allocation and management, economics, and
policies; (2) support for scale transformation to a watershed
scale; (3) support for simulations of time scales ranging
from minutes to years, decades, or even tens of thousands of
 Cheng G D, et al. Sci China Earth Sci
years; (4) support for data assimilation and mod-
el-observation fusion; (5) integration of knowledge systems
and use of unstructured information; (6) integration of ma-
chine learning techniques; (7) the capability to operate in
network environments and in support of cloud computation;
and (8) the capability to rapidly customize a DSS.
2.3 Data platform
The narrow definition of watershed cyber-infrastructure
primarily refers to the data and information systems of a
watershed, which highlights the significance of the data
platform in watershed science. The core function of a tradi-
tional data platform is data management, but the data plat-
form required for watershed science should also be capable
of integrating a large amount of observational and model
data and generating new data (Li et al., 2010c). In addition,
the platform should support data integration on three levels:
(1) Database integration, which primarily refers to a unified
database that can manage all types of spatial data and sup-
port interoperations of data from different sources and with
different structures; (2) data content integration, which re-
fers to the integration of multi-source and multi-resolution
data into the datasets used for the development, verification,
and improvement of models; and (3) data reanalysis, which
refers to the application of data assimilation methods to
integrate multiple types of data from ground observations,
remote sensing observations, and model output to generate
innovative new data products.
The era of big data raises new challenges for data inte-
gration in watershed science. A variety of new data tech-
niques are emerging; however, these techniques have pri-
marily been developed based on information technology
and often ignore the integration of data and models. In the
information age, critical issues that require resolution in-
clude addressing the data deluge, relieving the pressure on
data processing, and dedicating more time and effort to
solving problems using the data rather than processing the
data. Therefore, data platforms should focus more on
achieving seamless, automatic, and intelligent data-model
integration (Koike et al., 2015). Thus, high-level automated
data quality control, high-level data integration, and new
data provision technologies are all critical in watershed sci-
ence.
3 Integrated study of the eco-hydrological pro-
cesses of the Heihe River Basin
The Heihe River Basin has been used as an experimental
river basin for the integrated study of the water-soil-
air-plant-human continuum in China (Cheng et al., 2008;
Cheng, 2009). The goals of such integrated studies include
exploring integrated research methods, improving the theo-
ry of land-surface system science, developing a DSS for
January (2015) Vol.58 No.1 7
integrated river basin management based on scientific mod-
els, and eventually creating a tool to support the sustainable
development of river basins. These goals are undoubtedly
consistent with the goals of watershed science.
The National Natural Science Foundation of China
launched a major research plan titled “Integrated Study of
the Eco-hydrological Processes of the Heihe River Basin”
(referred to as the “Heihe Plan”) in 2010. The Heihe Plan is
a program that will help China advance the study of water-
shed science to international frontiers based on existing in-
tegrated studies of the Heihe River Basin.
The scientific objectives of the Heihe Plan are to reveal
the interactions of eco-hydrological processes in an inland
river basin at various scales, i.e., leaf, individual plant,
community, landscape, and watershed scales; identify the
mechanisms of eco-hydrological processes in inland river
basins under the impacts of climate change and human ac-
tivities; develop methods of scale transformation in eco-
hydrological processes; establish an integrated watershed
model of the water-ecosystem-economy system; and im-
prove the understanding of the formation and transfor-
mation mechanisms of water resources in inland river basins
and the potential for sustainable management. This plan will
increase the international profile of watershed-scale eco-
hydrological studies in China. To achieve these scientific
goals, a research platform that integrates observations, ex-
periments, model simulations, scenario analyses, and deci-
sion support will be established through a collaboration
among scientists from various disciplines.
Since the Heihe plan was launched, a systematic eco-
hydrological observation network and a data platform have
been established, comprehensive observational experiments
in typical sub-watersheds have been performed, the cou-
pling mechanism of ecological and hydrological processes
have been preliminarily revealed, and a distributed eco-
hydrological, surface water–groundwater coupled model for
the entire river basin has been constructed (Yao et al., 2015;
Yang et al., 2015), which has provided a foundation for the
optimal management of water resources in the Heihe River
Basin (Cheng et al., 2014b).
At present, the Heihe Plan has entered the stage of inte-
grated research. We believe that the existing and ongoing
exploration and practice of integrated research methods in
the Heihe River Basin will substantially enrich the method-
ologies of watershed science.
4 Challenges, prospects, and summary
4.1 Challenges
Watershed science, which inherits the epistemology and
methodology of Earth system science, can be thought of as
the practice of Earth system science on a watershed scale. A
watershed is a relatively controllable unit, and its scale is
moderate; however, land surface complexity and heteroge-
8 Cheng G D, et al. Sci China Earth Sci
neity are more prominent on a watershed scale. Therefore,
the practice of watershed science is unique in ways that can
enrich the theory and methodology of Earth system science.
Watershed science is a macro science: This means that,
epistemologically, the water-soil-air-plant-human continu-
um should be studied as a whole, and multi-scale heteroge-
neity should be treated as an integral part of a watershed
(Sivapalan, 2005). Methodologically, macro laws and
methods of analyzing a watershed as a whole should be de-
veloped, and effort should be focused on achieving these
goals by developing operational research methods that
combine holism and reductionism.
The development of watershed science confronts chal-
lenges that are quite different from those faced by tradition-
al watershed hydrology and watershed ecology.
First, there are the challenges at the macro science level,
such as determining how the self-organizing features of
hydrological and ecological systems that affect the function
of watershed systems and further affect the hydrological and
ecological processes in a watershed are closely related to
scale. After Dooge (1986) proposed the search for laws in
hydrology, the forerunners of hydrologic science once op-
timistically speculated that the scale problem would be
solved relatively soon. However, progress in this area has
not been significant. Although the progress in developing
philosophical concepts has been encouraging, theoretical
work is uncommon, and empirical work is even rarer. The
limited number of empirical case studies exhibit a lack of
universality. Thus, there remain questions, such as those of
developing a universal upscaling method based on sound
theory and establishing hydrological and ecological laws
that address the macro-scale watersheds with heterogeneity.
All of these issues remain serious challenges for the devel-
opment of watershed science.
Second, the integration of human factors into the study of
watershed hydrology and watershed ecology remains a
challenge. Natural systems and socioeconomic systems are
co-evolving systems, and during the Anthropocene, acceler-
ating human activity has irreversibly affected the Earth sys-
tem, which no longer exhibits its previous rhythms, thereby
leading to numerous unknown unknowns2). Therefore, un-
derstanding, modeling, forecasting, controlling, and man-
aging the co-evolving human-nature system is another ma-
jor challenge confronting watershed science.
4.2 Prospects
Over the previous 100 years, scientific advances in statisti-
cal mechanics, control theory, general system theory, and
complex systems theory have profoundly affected Earth
system science. Various concepts in these fields have be-
come conceptual pillars of Earth system science. However,
not every new theory has transformed into an operational
2) Rumsfeld matrix, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/There_are_known_knowns
January (2015) Vol.58 No.1
methodology, and transformations from concept to applica-
tion requires further work and investigation. Watershed
science requires its own methodology, which will contribute
to the development of mature methodologies in Earth sys-
tem science.
As the theory and methodology of complex systems ma-
ture along with Earth observation techniques and infor-
mation technology, we can expect breakthroughs to occur in
the research methods of watershed science in the next ten
years.
Exploration from multiple approaches including statisti-
cal mechanics methods, self-organizing complex systems
methods, and models based on evolutionary principles may
yield breakthroughs regarding the scale problem, which will
lead to mathematical equations suitable for representing the
macro-scale hydrological and ecological processes with
heterogeneity. Using these new macro equations as the con-
trolling equations of hydrological and ecological models,
we will be able to develop scale-explicit and universal
eco-hydrological models on a watershed scale. In addition,
model uncertainty will be significantly reduced.
Moreover, more universal, effective, and operational
meta-synthesis methods that make effective use of unstruc-
tured information and knowledge will be developed. These
methods will be capable of reproducing and forecasting the
co-evolution of the human-nature system and therefore in-
corporating human factors into watershed science. The hu-
man factor will become a mark of watershed science. In
addition, improved scientific understanding and scientific
models will play a more-significant role in integrated river
basin management (Cai et al., 2015).
4.3 Summary
We discussed the concepts, research methods, and required
infrastructure of watershed science and developed the fol-
lowing conclusions.
(1) As a microcosm of the Earth system, the watershed is
the best unit for the study of land-surface system science.
The water, ecosystem, and human activities within a water-
shed must be considered as a whole. Watershed science,
from a fundamental science viewpoint, is a macro science
whose aim is to understand and forecast complex watershed
systems from the perspective of an entire watershed. From
an applied science viewpoint, watershed science emphasizes
human impacts and aims to provide a scientific basis for
achieving integrated management of water resources and
other natural and social resources and, eventually, the sus-
tainable development of watersheds.
(2) The research methods of watershed science should be
neo-holistic, i.e., reflect a holism that operates through sci-
entific practices. In addition, we expect that these methods
can combine hard integration and soft integration and cap-
 Cheng G D, et al. Sci China Earth Sci
ture all aspects of both natural and human systems. We be-
lieve the following methods will play major roles in the
integrated study of complex watershed systems: self-
organized complex system methods; upscaling methods
dominated by statistical mechanics; Darwinian approaches,
which are based on the principles of selection and evolution
and emphasize contingency and self-organization; hy-
dro-economic and eco-economic concepts, which empha-
size human-nature system co-evolution and long-term sus-
tainable development; and meta-synthesis methods, which
address unstructured complex problems. By applying these
methods from multiple approaches, breakthroughs in the
research methods of watershed science and, possibly,
land-surface system science can be achieved.
(3) The systematic practice of research methods in wa-
tershed science is critical and should be integrated with
philosophical conceptualization, theorization, methodologi-
cal exploration, infrastructure construction, and field ex-
perimentation. The integrated study of the Heihe River Ba-
sin follows this research approach, and the exploration of
integrated research methods in this study will contribute to
the newly emerging field of watershed science.
This paper represents the opening remarks and summary regarding the
special topic “Watershed science: Bridging new advances in hydrological
science with good management of river basins”, which was published in
Science China: Earth Sciences. The publication of this special topic was
supported by Prof. Chen Fahu. The authors thank Prof. Chen Fahu for the
help. The work represented by this paper was funded by the Major Re-
search Plan of the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant
Nos. 91225302, 91425303) and the Cross-disciplinary Collaborative
Teams Program for Science, Technology, and Innovation of the Chinese
Academy of Sciences.
Bergandi D, Blandin P. 1998. Holism vs. reductionism: Do ecosystem
ecology and landscape ecology clarify the debate? Acta Biotheor, 46:
185–206
Bogena H, Bol R, Borchard N, et al. 2015. A terrestrial observatory ap-
proach to the integrated investigation of the effects of deforestation on
water, energy, and matter fluxes. Sci China Earth Sci, 58: 61–75
Budyko M I. 1974. Climate and Life. New York: Elsevier
Beven K, Cloke H, Pappenberger F, et al. 2015. Hyperresolution infor-
mation and hyperresolution ignorance in modelling the hydrology of
the land surface. Sci China Earth Sci, 58: 25–35
Cai Q H, Wu Gang, Liu J K. 1998. Watershed ecology: A new approach
for study and conserve the biodiversity of aqua ecosystems (in Chi-
nese). Sci Technol Rev, 5: 24–26
Cai X. 2008. Implementation of holistic water resources-economic optimi-
zation models for river basin management-reflective experiences. En-
viron Modell Softw, 23: 2–18
Cai X M, Marston L, Ge Y C. 2015. Decision support for integrated river
basin management-Scientific research challenges. Sci China Earth Sci,
58: 16–24
Chen Q W, Ouyang Z Y. 2005. Watershed ecology and modeling system
(in Chinese). Acta Ecol Sin, 25: 1184–1190
Cheng G D. 2009. Integrated Management of the Water-Ecology-Economy
System in the Heihe River Basin (in Chinese). Beijing: Science Press
Cheng G D, Li X, Zhao W Z, et al. 2014a. Integrated study of the wa-
ter-ecosystem-economy in the Heihe River Basin. Nat Sci Rev, 1:
413–428
Cheng G D, Xiao H L, Fu B J, et al. 2014b. Advances in synthetic research
January (2015) Vol.58 No.1 9
on the eco-hydrological process of the Heihe River Basin (in Chinese).
Adv Earth Sci, 29: 431–437
Cheng G D, Xiao H L, Li C Z, et al. 2008. Water saving eco-agriculture
and integrated water resources management in the Heihe River Basin,
northwest China (in Chinese). Adv Earth Sci, 23: 661–665
Cheng G D, Xu Z M, Zhong F L. 2011. Happiness oriented water resources
management strategic planning in the Zhangye prefecture (in Chinese).
J Glaciol Geocryol, 33: 1193–1202
Costanza R, d’Arge R, de Groot R, et al. 1997. The value of the world’s
ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature, 387: 253–260
Deng H B, Wang Q L, Cai Q H. 1998. Watershed ecology-New discipline,
new idea and new approach (in Chinese). Chin J Appl Ecol, 9: 443–449
Dooge J C I. 1986. Looking for hydrologic laws. Water Resour Res, 22:
46S–58S
DeBeer C M, Wheater H, Quinton W L, et al. 2015. The Changing Cold
Regions Network: Observation, diagnosis, and prediction of environ-
mental change in the Saskatchewan and Mackenzie River Basins, Can-
ada. Sci China Earth Sci, 58: 46–60
Eagleson P S. 2002. Ecohydrology: Darwinian Expression of Vegetation
Form and Function. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Gu J F, Tang X J. 2005. Meta-synthesis approach to complex system mod-
eling. Eur J Oper Res, 166: 597–614
Harte J. 2002. Toward a synthesis of the Newtonian and Darwinian
worldviews. Physics Today, 55: 29–34
Harou J J, Pulido-Velazquez M, Rosenberg D E, et al. 2009. Hy-
dro-economic models: Concepts, design, applications, and future pro-
spects. J Hydrol, 375: 627–643
Jensen K H, Illangasekare T H. 2011. HOBE: A hydrological observatory.
Vadose Zone J, 10: 1–7
King E G, Caylor K K. 2011. Ecohydrology in practice: strengths, conven-
iences, and opportunities. Ecohydrology, 4: 608–612
Koike T, Koudelova P, Jaranilla-Sanchez P A, et al. 2015. River manage-
ment system development in Asia based on Data Integration and Anal-
ysis System (DIAS) under GEOSS. Sci China Earth Sci, 58: 76–95
Li X. 2013. Characterization, controlling and reduction of uncertainties in
the modeling and observation of land-surface systems. Sci China Earth
Sci, 57: 80–87
Li X, Cheng G D, Liu S M, et al. 2013. Heihe Watershed Allied Telemetry
Experimental Research (HiWATER): Scientific objectives and experi-
mental design. Bull Amer Meteorol Soc, 94: 1145–1160
Li X, Cheng G D, Ma M G, et al. 2010a. Digital Heihe River Basin. 4:
Watershed observing system (in Chinese). Adv Earth Sci, 25: 866–876
Li X, Cheng G D, Kang ES, et al. 2010b. Digital Heihe River Basin. 3:
Model integration (in Chinese). Adv Earth Sci, 25: 851–865
Li X, Wu L Z, Ma M G, et al. 2010c. Digital Heihe River Basin. 2: Data
integration (in Chinese). Adv Earth Sci, 25: 306–316
Li Y D, Cui X, Dai R W. 2004. The framework, design and implementa-
tion of Hall for Workshop of Meta-Synthetic Engineering (in Chinese).
Complex Systems Complex Sci, 1: 27–32
Nan Z T, Shu L L, Zhao Y B, Li X, Ding Y J, 2011. Integrated modeling
environment and a preliminary application on the Heihe River Basin,
China. Sci China Technol Sci, 54: 2145–2156
National Research Council. 1991. Opportunities in the Hydrologic Scienc-
es. Washington D C: National Academy Press. 368
National Research Council. 1997. Watershed Research in the U.S. Geolog-
ical Survey. Washington D C: National Academies Press. 96
National Research Council. 1999. New strategies for America’s Water-
sheds. Washington D C: National Academies Press. 328
National Research Council. 2007. River Science at the U.S. Geological
Survey. Washington D C: National Academies Press. 206
National Research Council. 2012. Challenges and Opportunities in the
Hydrologic Sciences. Washington D C: National Academies Press. 188
National Research Council. 2008. Earth Observations from Space: The
First 50 Years of Scientific Achievements. National Academies Press
Perron J T, Richardson P W, Ferrier K L, et al. 2012. The root of branching
river networks. Nature, 492: 100–103
Phillips S J, Anderson R P, Schapire R E. 2006. Maximum entropy model-
ing of species geographic distributions. Ecol Model, 190: 231–259
Qian X S. 1991. On the contents and methodology of geographic science
10 Cheng G D, et al. Sci China Earth Sci
(in Chinese). Acta Geogr Sin, 46: 257–265
Qian X S, Yu J Y, Dai R W. 1990. A new discipline of science-The study
of open complex giant system and its methodology (in Chinese). Nat
Mag, 13: 3–10
Reid W V, Chen D, Goldfarb L, et al. 2010. Earth system science for glob-
al sustainability: Grand challenges. Science, 330: 916–917
Rodríguez-Iturbe I, Rinaldo A. 2001. Fractal River Basins: Chance and
Self-Organization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Rodriguez-Iturbe I, Caylor K K, Rinaldo A. 2011. Metabolic principles of
river basin organization. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA, 108: 11751–11755
Schellnhuber H J. 1999. ‘Earth system’ analysis and the second Copernican
revolution. Nature, 402: 19–23
Sivapalan M. 2005. Pattern, process and function: elements of a unified
theory of hydrology at the catchment scale. In: Anderson M, ed. Ency-
clopedia of Hydrological Sciences. New York: Wiley. 193–219
Solé R V, Bascompte J. 2006. Self-Organization in Complex Ecosystems.
Princeton: Princeton University Press
Sivapalan M, Savenije H H, Blöschl G. 2012. Socio-hydrology: A new
science of people and water. Hydrol Process, 26: 1270–1276
Tang X J. 2007. Towards meta-synthetic support to unstructured problem
January (2015) Vol.58 No.1
solving. Int J Inform Technol Decis Making, 6: 491–508
Vereecken H, Kasteel R, Vanderborght J, et al. 2007. Upscaling hydraulic
properties and soil water flow processes in heterogeneous soils: A re-
view. Vadose Zone J, 6: 1–28
Wagener T, Sivapalan M, Troch P, et al. 2007. Catchment classification
and hydrologic similarity. Geography Compass, 1: 901–931
Yang D W, Sun F, Liu Z, et al. 2007. Analyzing spatial and temporal vari-
ability of annual water-energy balance in nonhumid regions of China
using the Budyko hypothesis. Water Resour Res, 43, doi:
10.1029/2006WR005224
Yang D W, Gao B, Jiao Y, et al. 2015. A distributed scheme developed for
eco-hydrological modeling in the upper Heihe River. Sci China Earth
Sci, 58: 36–45
Yao Y Y, Zheng C M, Tian Y, et al. 2015. Numerical modeling of regional
groundwater flow in the Heihe River Basin, China: Advances and new
insights. Sci China Earth Sci, 58: 3–15
Yu J Y, Zhou X J. 2002. The realization and application of meta-synthesis
(in Chinese). Systems Eng-Theory Pract, 22: 26–32
Zacharias S, Bogena H, Samaniego L, et al. 2011. A network of terrestrial
environmental observatories in Germany. Vadose Zone J, 10: 955–973