The blurred line between form and process: a comparison of stream classification frameworks
Author and article information
Abstract
Stream classification provides a means to understand the diversity and distribution of channels and floodplains that occur across a landscape while drawing linkages 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 the hydrogeomorphic processes operating therein. Despite this critical debate surrounding stream classifications, and their ongoing use in applied watershed management, direct comparisons of channel classification frameworks are rare. Here we apply four classification frameworks that contain a range of form- and process-based methods within a watershed of high conservation interest in 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. For stream network-based frameworks (Natural Channel Classification and River Styles) we compare classification outputs across the entire Middle Fork John Day Watershed. We found that the four frameworks consistently classified reach types into similar groups based on each reach or segment’s dominant hydrogeomorphic elements. Where divergence in classified channel types occurred, differences can 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. The relative agreement between frameworks indicates that criticism of classification based simply on whether a classification contains form-based measurements, devalues each framework’s relative merits. These form-based criticisms may also ignore the geomorphic tenet that channel form reflects formative hydrogeomorphic processes across a given landscape.
Cite this as
2015. The blurred line between form and process: a comparison of stream classification frameworks. PeerJ PrePrints 3:e885v2 https://doi.org/10.7287/peerj.preprints.885v2Author comment
This manuscript was submitted to and subsequently declined at Water Resources Research (WRR). We have incorporated WRR's reviewers' suggestions and the manuscript is currently formatted for submission to PLOS ONE.
Sections
Supplemental Information
Supplementary Materials for: Choosing the Right Tool for the Job: Comparing Stream Channel Classification Frameworks
Additional Information
Competing Interests
The authors declare they have no competing interests.
Author Contributions
Alan Kasprak conceived and designed the experiments, performed the experiments, analyzed the data, contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools, wrote the paper, prepared figures and/or tables, reviewed drafts of the paper.
Nate Hough-Snee conceived and designed the experiments, performed the experiments, analyzed the data, contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools, wrote the paper, prepared figures and/or tables, reviewed drafts of the paper.
Tim Beechie performed the experiments, analyzed the data, contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools, wrote the paper, reviewed drafts of the paper.
Nicolaas Bouwes contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools, wrote the paper, reviewed drafts of the paper.
Gary J. Brierley contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools, wrote the paper, reviewed drafts of the paper.
Reid Camp conceived and designed the experiments, performed the experiments, analyzed the data, contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools, wrote the paper, reviewed drafts of the paper.
Kirstie A. Fryirs contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools, wrote the paper, reviewed drafts of the paper.
Hiroo Imaki performed the experiments, analyzed the data, contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools, wrote the paper, reviewed drafts of the paper.
Martha L. Jensen contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools, wrote the paper, prepared figures and/or tables, reviewed drafts of the paper.
Gary O'Brien performed the experiments, analyzed the data, contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools, wrote the paper, reviewed drafts of the paper.
David L. Rosgen contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools, wrote the paper, reviewed drafts of the paper.
Joseph M. Wheaton performed the experiments, analyzed the data, contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools, wrote the paper, reviewed drafts of the paper.
Data Deposition
The following information was supplied regarding the deposition of related data:
Figshare: Link will be updated
Funding
Support for this manuscript was provided by grants from the Bonneville Power Administration to Eco Logical Research (BPA Project Number: 2003-017), Inc. and subsequent grants from ELR to Utah State University (USU Award ID: 100652). NH-S was supported in part by STAR Fellowship Assistance Agreement no. 91768201 – 0 awarded by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). This research has not been formally reviewed by the EPA, NOAA or BPA and the views expressed herein are solely those of the authors. The EPA, NOAA, and BPA do not endorse any products or commercial services mentioned in this publication. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
