Search

• Daily flow statistics (indicators) are key to understanding flow-ecology interaction. • This study examined whether monthly data can be used to describe daily flow regimes. • A suite of 173 flow indicators were converted to a monthly timestep where possible. • Around half of monthly indicators had strong correlations with their daily versions. • Using only monthly data, good predictions were achieved for 90% of daily indicators. Flow indicators based on daily flow data are commonly used to characterize the hydrologic regimes of rivers and to investigate links between flow and ecological condition. Discharge data measured at a daily timestep is considered essential for such investigations because there is an underlying premise that longer timesteps (e.g. monthly) are not suitable for capturing the variability in flow behaviour of most relevance to ecologically important processes. This paper investigates this assumption by examining the information content of daily and monthly streamflow data for a diversity of perennial, intermittent and ephemeral flow regimes across Australia, using a novel approach of comparing daily and monthly flow indicators rather than observed flow timeseries. Results show that many flow indicators derived using daily and monthly data are strongly correlated (Spearman ρ greater than 0.9). Partial least squares regression shows that the majority of daily flow indicators can be predicted using monthly flow indicators, and that as few as six monthly flow indicators can be used to estimate a wide range of daily flow characteristics, including those relating to flow magnitudes, and durations of high and low flow events. Daily indicators relating to the frequency and seasonal timing of high and low flows cannot be predicted as accurately (R2 between 0.4 and 0.9), suggesting that information on these facets of the flow regime is partially lost when aggregating to a monthly timestep. Results from this study point to the utility of monthly-based flow indicators in river ecology, opening new opportunities to overcome limitations in gauge network coverage and data resolution in many parts of the world. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Remote sensing provides a way to monitor irrigation water use at the catchment scale. • Accurate irrigation simulations are observed over a range of catchment sizes and crop types. • Better results are seen in wetter years (water allocations above 40%). • Long term negative drought indices (SPIs), indicating dry years, shows a decrease in accuracy. Irrigated agriculture has been identified as using approximately 72% of water globally. Australia, like many places in the world, is subject to water sharing plans that cross government boarders and are subject to a mixture of management policies. There is a pressing need to develop a method to monitor irrigation water use to aid in water resource assessments and monitoring. This paper aims to test a method previously developed which monitors irrigation water use using remotely sensed observations over the catchment scale, without the need for in-situ observations, ground data or in-depth knowledge of crops and their planting dates. Using conservative assumptions about agricultural land management practice, irrigation is calculated as I r r = A E T - P. The method uses three vegetation indices derived from Landsat images to calculate crop coefficients (K c) based on multiple published relationships. These are combined through the FAO56 methodology using gridded rainfall and two reference evapotranspiration ( E T o) products to find actual evapotranspiration as A E T = E T o × K c , providing six E T o - K c combinations. Results indicate this study method can effectively assess irrigation water use over a range of catchment sizes from ~6000 to ~600,000 ha, although issues arise when regions have a designated low allocation volume for that season (less than40%). Comparisons with the Standardised Precipitation Index (SPI) and Evaporative Stress Index (ESI) show that the proposed method is robust to the rapid onset and short-term droughts, However, its performance was poor during the long term droughts with low water allocation years. The study results during these years has been predominately attributed to water stress in certain crops being undetected, agricultural managers skipping annual crop commodities as well as stock and domestic water use making up larger portions of total water use. This is a limitation of this approach, although when only comparing results in years with greater than 40% allocations, the results improved significantly showing it can monitor water use effectively. When adequate water is available, this approach is able to accurately predict irrigation water use for the sites examined. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]