Journal cover Journal topic
Hydrology and Earth System Sciences An interactive open-access journal of the European Geosciences Union
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 21, 2321-2340, 2017
https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-21-2321-2017
© Author(s) 2017. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.
Research article
05 May 2017
Flood risk reduction and flow buffering as ecosystem services – Part 1: Theory on flow persistence, flashiness and base flow
Meine van Noordwijk1,2, Lisa Tanika1, and Betha Lusiana1 1World Agroforestry Centre, Bogor, Indonesia
2Plant Production System, Wageningen University, Wageningen, the Netherlands
Abstract. Flood damage reflects insufficient adaptation of human presence and activity to location and variability of river flow in a given climate. Flood risk increases when landscapes degrade, counteracted or aggravated by engineering solutions. Efforts to maintain and restore buffering as an ecosystem function may help adaptation to climate change, but this require quantification of effectiveness in their specific social-ecological context. However, the specific role of forests, trees, soil and drainage pathways in flow buffering, given geology, land form and climate, remains controversial. When complementing the scarce heavily instrumented catchments with reliable long-term data, especially in the tropics, there is a need for metrics for data-sparse conditions. We present and discuss a flow persistence metric that relates transmission to river flow of peak rainfall events to the base-flow component of the water balance. The dimensionless flow persistence parameter Fp is defined in a recursive flow model and can be estimated from limited time series of observed daily flow, without requiring knowledge of spatially distributed rainfall upstream. The Fp metric (or its change over time from what appears to be the local norm) matches local knowledge concepts. Inter-annual variation in the Fp metric in sample watersheds correlates with variation in the flashiness index used in existing watershed health monitoring programmes, but the relationship between these metrics varies with context. Inter-annual variation in Fp also correlates with common base-flow indicators, but again in a way that varies between watersheds. Further exploration of the responsiveness of Fp in watersheds with different characteristics to the interaction of land cover and the specific realisation of space–time patterns of rainfall in a limited observation period is needed to evaluate interpretation of Fp as an indicator of anthropogenic changes in watershed conditions.

Citation: van Noordwijk, M., Tanika, L., and Lusiana, B.: Flood risk reduction and flow buffering as ecosystem services – Part 1: Theory on flow persistence, flashiness and base flow, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 21, 2321-2340, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-21-2321-2017, 2017.
Publications Copernicus
Short summary
Deforestation is commonly understood to increase and reforestation to reduce flood risk, but scientific evidence at the relevant landscape scale is scarce and contested. A measure of day-to-day flow persistence is defined here. It is proposed as simple performance indicator for watershed health that can respond to changes in climate and land cover quality, quantity and spatial pattern. Data for four watersheds show decrease or increase in flow persistence in degradation and restoration phases.
Deforestation is commonly understood to increase and reforestation to reduce flood risk, but...
Share