Journal of Hydrology, 39 (1978) 193--197 193

© Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company, Amsterdam -- Printed in The Netherlands

Discussion

Dl

WORLD-WIDE VARIATIONS IN H Y D R A U L I C GEOMETRY EXPONENTS

OF STRAM CHANNELS: AN ANALYSIS AND SOME OBSERVATIONS --
COMMENTS

DALLAS D. RHODES
Whittier College, Whittier, CA 90608 (U.S.A.)
(Received October 1, 1977; revised and accepted April 1, 1978)

Park's (1977) use of ternary diagrams to examine the simultaneous variation

of hydraulic geometry exponents is complimentary to m y application of
similar figures (Rhodes, 1977). As sometimes happens in science, two workers
have developed essentially the same idea at a b o u t the same time without any
knowledge of the others work. Although the fundamental idea of using
triangular coordinate diagrams is the same the specifics of our works are
different in several respects. However, this discussion is not intended to be a
criticism of Park's study, b u t rather a means of comparing, expanding, and
clarifying some important points contained in b o t h our analyses.
The major difference between Park's analysis of hydraulic geometry ex-
ponents and m y own is the criterion used to group the data. Largely because
most reports do not contain detailed information about the cross-sections
described b y published hydraulic geometry equations Park chose to interpret
the data on the basis of gross climatic differences. He plotted (pp. 138--139)
representative values for regions of proglacial, humid temperate, semi-arid,
and tropical environments. In each instance there was considerable scatter.
Park concluded (p. 141) that his climatic groupings offered "relatively little
' e x p l a n a t i o n ' " of the variability of the data. He further stated that (p. 141):
"It would seem logical to consider more local factors, if such information were available
in the corresponding literature."

My work was an a t t e m p t to analyze at-a-station hydraulic geometry ex-

ponents on the basis of local factors. The interpretation relies upon grouping
the channels according to their dynamic and morphological responses to
changing discharge. Five lines representing constant values of w i d t h / d e p t h
ratio (b = f), competence (m = f), F r o u d e number (m = f/2), velocity/cross-
sectional area ratio (m = b + f), and slope/roughness ratio (m = 2f/3) divide
the ternary diagram into ten areas (Fig. 1). Those channels represented b y
points which plot within one area of the diagram respond similarly to changes
in discharge regardless of the specific values of the exponents. Likewise, the
194

.ANoEs
b..00-.84
/\
// \
f: 01-.84 // ~ \
m:.03-.99/ ~ ] 2 ~
- . . . . . . . . .

// y" I-A- f - ....

J'"-"_--~ lo \

b~ - ~ - ~ ~!- ........... ~f
Fig. i . The divided b--f--m diagram. Shaded area indicates range of reported exponent
values.

responses are predictable. In this sense the b--f--m diagram is itself a tool for
the interpretation of hydraulic geometry rather than simply a device for
presenting the data graphically. This is the most fundamental difference be-
tween our studies.
Any ternary plot of the exponents provides a means of examining and
comparing the simultaneous variation of all three exponents. Because these
plots are much more informative than simple numerical comparisons of the
values they should find c o m m o n usage in studies of hydraulic geometry.
To facilitate easy comparison of the diagrams some standard form should be
established. Consistent orientation of the axes is especially important, other-
wise readers will find themselves turning pages at some odd angle and peering
through the back in order to compare patterns. Neither Park's orientation or
mine has any particular advantage in this regard. However, the b--f--m
diagram is more useful because the plotting position of a set of exponents
supplies information about the cross-section. Further usage and study will
prove the worth of this form. Consistency of style should aid the process.
The conclusions reached by b o t h studies were possible because of the large
a m o u n t of data now available. In fact, the sample of 139 sets of exponents
which Park used is small in comparison to the total quantity of published
data. At least 587 sets of exponents have been computed. The ranges of the
values are also larger than those stated b y Park. For the sample of 58'7 sets
of exponents the ranges are:
b: 0.00--0.84; f: 0.01--0.84; m: 0.03--0.99
These ranges encompass nearly all the possible combinations of at-a-station
 195

adjustment to changing discharge (Fig. 1). Although not all of the intermediate
values between the extremes have been sampled there is no reason why they
should not exist. Indeed the ranges maybe somewhat larger than even the
present sample indicates. The most important idea to emerge from this
observation is that rivers adapt to variable bed and bank materials, sediment
load, and flow regimen by nearly every possible combination of the hy-
draulic geometry factors. In this regard Park's environmental analysis of the
data and my site specific approach reach the same conclusions with one
minor difference. Park (p. 140) stated that there were striking differences
between experimental flume data and that for rivers. Although it is true that
the flume data do not have values similar to the averages for natural channels
they are within the range of the field data.
Perhaps the most remarkable information about rivers revealed by this large
sample of hydraulic geometries is not a tendency for streams to accomplish
their basic tasks in one way, but rather that rivers may perform their primary
functions in such a large variety of ways. Acceptance of this idea could and
probably should change the emphasis of at-a-station hydraulic geometry
studies. Much effort has been expended in attempts to relate natural stream
data to some fixed, nearly Platonic form. Langbein and Leopold's (1964) set
of theoretically most probable values for the at-a-station exponents has been
regarded as the standard for channel adjustment to discharge. The practice of
estimating the extent to which quasi-equilibrium has been attained on the
basis of the similarity of natural stream data to these theoretical relationships
has overshadowed the importance of the variability of the data. As Park, even
with his limited sample noted, there are substantial deviations from the
theoretical values. Considering that their sample was larger than Park's, surely
it was not by chance that Langbein and Leopold (1964, p. 791) chose to
illustrate the close agreement of their most probable values and field data
only for the rate of change of depth (f). The mean values of b and rn deviate
much more from the theoretical values than does f. Even less instructive are
comparisons made to the hydraulic geometry equations which Leopold and
Maddock (1953) calculated for rivers in the midwestern U.S.A. These
exponents are averages of quite dissimilar cross-sections (Rhodes, 1977, p. 83),
and as standards for comparison their worth is highly questionable. An
argument can be made, and with some justification, that the available sample
is biased and not large enough to illustrate the characteristics of the popula-
tion of channel cross-sections. Furthermore, although largely ignored in later
literature, Langbein and Leopold (1964, p. 793) clearly stated that their
theory pertained only to rivers with morphologies not dominated by
lithological, structural, or historical controls. However, neither of these facts
negates the implications of the great variability of the reported values.
In essence more interest has been expressed in how streams are alike
rather than why they are different in terms of their hydraulic geometries.
The form of the question is relevant. Whether the expectation is that channels
should be similar or are naturally quite variable at least influences the manner
196

in which research results are reported. If hydraulic geometry is to b e c o m e a

practical analytic and predictive technique it is essential that the causes and
characteristics of the highly variable responses of rivers to changing discharge
be understood. Recently a few studies have been presented which address
these questions directly. Notable are Wilcock's (1971) research on the rela-
tionship of competence to channel form, Richards' (1973) study of form--
roughness relationships, Harvey (1975) on channel characteristics and riffle
spacing, Knighton (1974) dealing with width--discharge relationships and a
few others. However, these are only beginnings, and a great deal more study
is needed.
Among the first problems which should be confronted is the need for a
more representative sample of hydraulic geometries. The present sample of
published data is strongly biased in at least two respects. First, a great many
of the cross-sections studied are on straight channel reaches. Very few data
are available for meander bends, although asymmetrical channels m a y be the
most c o m m o n cross-sections. Some recent studies indicate that channel
pattern has an important influence on the hydraulic geometry of rivers, b u t
the absence of adequate data has hindered definitive conclusions (Knighton,
1975; Rhodes, 1977). The sample also has a definite climatic bias in that the
great majority of the data are for humid temperate areas. Comparitively little
work has been conducted on streams in tropical arid or semi-arid environments.
Although Park's analysis demonstrated no sharp climatic differentiation there
are some trends. For instance, rivers in semi-arid environments seem to
increase less rapidly in velocity and more rapidly in width than streams in
more humid areas. When more data are available these and other trends may
be more clearly defined. At a minimum the elimination of these biases will
produce a more representative sample of the natural responses of rivers to
changing discharge.
Because nearly all fluvial variables are interrelated it may not be possible
to completely characterize a river through the use of the simple hydraulic
geometry relations. Certainly more than one factor contributes to the specific
values of the exponents. For example, the rate of change of width appears
to be a function of channel pattern, the nature of the bank materials, and
the amount of time since a large flood. Ternary plots of the exponents have
demonstrated graphically that the controls are not simple or obvious. How-
ever, detailed analysis of the causes of variation should at least indicate which
are the most important variables and the general nature of the relationships.
The usefulness and possible practical application of hydraulic geometry can
only be enhanced b y such studies.

REFERENCES
Harvey, A.M., 1975. Some aspects of the relations between channel characteristics and
riffle spacing in meandering streams. Am. J. Sci., 275: 470--478.
 197

Knighton, A.D., 1974. Variation in width--discharge relation and some implications for
hydraulic geometry. Geol. Soc. Am. Bull., 85: 1069--1076.
Knighton, A.D., 1975. Variations in at-a-station hydraulic geometry. Am. J. Sci., 275:
186--218.
Langbein, W.B. and Leopold, L.B., 1964. Quasi-equilibrium states in channel morphology.
Am. J. Sci., 262: 782--794.
Leopold, L.B. and Maddock, T., 1953. The hydraulic geometry of stream channels and
some physiographic implications. U.S. Geol. Surv., Prof. Pap. 252, 57 pp.
Park, C.C., 1977. World-wide variations in hydraulic geometry exponents of stream
channels: an analysis and some observations. J. Hydrol., 33: 133--146.
Rhodes, D.D., 1977. The b--f--m diagram: graphical representation and interpretation of
at-a-station hydraulic geometry. Am. J. Sci., 277: 73--96.
Richards, K.S., 1973. Hydraulic geometry and channel r o u g h n e s s - a non-linear system.
Am. J. Sci., 273: 877--896.
Wilcock, D.N., 1971. Investigation into the relations between bedload transport and
channel shape. Geol. Soc. Am. Bull., 82: 2159--2176.