Journal of Hydrology (2007) 332, 30– 39

available at www.sciencedirect.com

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jhydrol

How does modifying a DEM to reflect

known hydrology affect subsequent terrain analysis?
a,*
John Nikolaus Callow , Kimberly P. Van Niel a, Guy S. Boggs b

a
University of Western Australia, School of Earth and Geographical Sciences, 35 Stirling Highway,
Crawley, Western Australia 6009, Australia
b
Charles Darwin University, School of Science and Primary Industries, Darwin 0909, Australia

Received 2 September 2005; received in revised form 26 April 2006; accepted 23 June 2006

KEYWORDS Summary Many digital elevation models (DEMs) have difficulty replicating hydrological pat-
Digital elevation model; terns in flat landscapes. Efforts to improve DEM performance in replicating known hydrology
Geographic information have included a variety of soft (i.e. algorithm-based approaches) and hard techniques, such
system; as ‘‘Stream burning’’ or ‘‘surface reconditioning’’ (e.g. Agree or ANUDEM). Using a represen-
Hydrology; tation of the known stream network, these methods trench or mathematically warp the original
Hydrological modelling DEM to improve how accurately stream position, stream length and catchment boundaries rep-
licate known hydrological conditions. However, these techniques permanently alter the DEM
and may affect further analyses (e.g. slope). This paper explores the impact that commonly
used hydrological correction methods (Stream burning, Agree.aml and ANUDEM v4.6.3 and
ANUDEM v5.1) have on the overall nature of a DEM, finding that different methods produce
non-convergent outcomes for catchment parameters (such as catchment boundaries, stream
position and length), and differentially compromise secondary terrain analysis.
All hydrological correction methods successfully improved calculation of catchment area,
stream position and length as compared to using the DEM without any modification, but they
all increased catchment slope. No single method performing best across all categories. Differ-
ent hydrological correction methods changed elevation and slope in different spatial patterns
and magnitudes, compromising the ability to derive catchment parameters and conduct sec-
ondary terrain analysis from a single DEM. Modification of a DEM to better reflect known hydrol-
ogy can be useful, however knowledge of the magnitude and spatial pattern of the changes are
required before using a DEM for subsequent analyses.
ª 2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Introduction

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +61 8 6488 3435; fax: +61 8 6488 Detecting surface hydrology features in flat landscapes
1054. using Digital Elevation Models (DEMs) is a known problem,
E-mail address: jcallow@segs.uwa.edu.au (J.N. Callow). and new analysis methodologies (Garbrecht and Martz,

0022-1694/$ - see front matter ª 2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2006.06.020
How does modifying a DEM to reflect known hydrology affect subsequent terrain analysis?
1997; Gallant and Dowling, 2003) and ways to recondition
DEMs for improved performance have been suggested
(Hutchinson, 1989; Hellweger, 1996; Soille et al., 2003).
Whilst some of these methods are soft solutions (e.g. flow
algorithms), others permanently alter the DEM. Soft meth-
ods are relatively well understood (Tarboton, 1997; Jones,
2002; Tarboton and Ames, 2002) and while impacts of DEM
error on secondary terrain analyses have been studied (Fish-
er, 1998; Holmes et al., 2000; Van Niel et al., 2004), the im-
pact of permanent alteration of a DEM on any further
analysis has not been investigated. This paper explores the
impact that altering DEM cell values to better represent
the known hydrology of a landscape (hydrological correc-
tion) has on the overall nature of a DEM, and how the
changes impact on any further terrain analysis. It demon-
strates different, non-convergent outcomes for secondary
terrain analyses due to the type of method used.
DEMs are widely used for modelling surface hydrology.
Analyses include the automatic delineation of catchment
areas (O’Callaghan and Mark, 1984; Martz and De Jong,
1998), development of terrain characteristics (Moore
et al., 1991) and drainage networks (Fairfield and Leymarie,
1991), the detection of channel heads (Montgomery and Die-
trich, 1988; Montgomery and Dietrich, 1992), estimating
hydrology and soil moisture (Beven and Kirkby, 1979;
O’Loughlin, 1986; McKenzie et al., 2003; English et al.,
2004), determination of flow accumulation (Peuker and
Douglas, 1975) and flow direction and routing (Tarboton,
1997; Tarboton, 2002), and automated extraction of param-
eters for hydrological or hydraulic modelling (Doan, 2000;
Ackerman, 2002).
The accuracy with which a DEM is able to replicate the
hydrological reality of a catchment is determined by the
scale of capture (i.e. cell size), the precision (i.e. vertical
accuracy and relative accuracy between adjacent, up-
stream and downstream cells) and strength of the landscape
gradient (i.e. flatness) (Gyasi-Agyei et al., 1995; Quinn
et al., 1991; Hutchinson and Dowling, 1994; Wolock and
Price, 1994; Zhang and Montgomery, 1994; Gallant and
Hutchinson, 1997; Walker and Willgoose, 1999; McMaster,
2002). Algorithms used to represent and extract real-world
processes from a DEM are also significant (Tarboton, 1997;
Jones, 1998; Tarboton and Ames, 2002; Gallant and Dow-
ling, 2003).
Thus, a number of methods for DEM improvement have
been suggested, such as the removal of spurious sinks (Jen-
son and Dominque, 1988; Soille et al., 2003), incorporation
of vector stream data for stream burning (Maidment, 1996;
Mizgallewicz and Maidment, 1996; Saunders, 1999) or sur-
face reconditioning (Hutchinson, 1989, 2004; Hellweger,
1996). Further problems in delineating surface hydrology
are caused by human impacts that have altered catchment
hydrological processes. For example, the incorporation of
road data into modelling of surface runoff has been identi-
fied as a significant process (Croke et al., 1999; Luce, 2002;
Duke et al., 2003).
Flat landscapes, such as the study catchment, which has
a mean drop per pixel of 0.32 m, require a vertical accuracy
of 32 cm for a 10 m DEM, according to the Gyasi-Agyei crite-
ria (Gyasi-Agyei et al., 1995). The best catchment-scale DEM
available for the study catchment has a vertical accuracy of
±1 m and, while it can delineate hydrology with good accu-
31
racy and precision in many areas, flatter regions which have
a mean drop per pixel up to two orders of magnitude lower
than the catchment mean require a DEM with centimetre to
sub-centimetre accuracy. DEMs of this accuracy are not
available for this study area, or for many others at the
catchment or sub-catchment scale.
The minimum resolution and precision of a DEM are
important when analysing surface hydrology (Quinn et al.,
1991; Hutchinson and Dowling, 1994; Wolock and Price,
1994; Zhang and Montgomery, 1994; Gyasi-Agyei et al.,
1995; Gallant and Hutchinson, 1997; Walker and Willgoose,
1999; McMaster, 2002). However, the required level of res-
olution and precision is often not available, particularly for
vast, flat landscapes. In these circumstances, methods of
DEM hydrological correction must be used. However, further
analyses are often conducted. There is little understanding
of the effect that the introduction of additional error by
hydrological correcting a DEM has on subsequent analysis.
In the study catchment, land managers have diverted
flow by constructing earth banks, successfully rerouting flow
within and between sub-catchments. Thus, alteration of the
DEM to replicate the new hydrological reality of the study
catchment is required. The rest of the paper discusses sur-
face reconditioning methods and explores their impact on
the nature of the DEM and subsequent terrain analy-
ses (slope) conducted using the hydrologically corrected
DEMs.
Study setting and methodology
The Kent River catchment in southwest Western Australia
(Fig. 1) drains an ancient and very flat landscape, where
stream gradients fall only tens of centimetres per kilometre
(Salama et al., 1993; Callow and Smettem, in press). A DEM
of the study region was purchased from the Department of
Land Information (DLI). Generated as part of the Land Mon-
itor Project (Allen and Beeston, 1999; Caccetta et al.,
2000), the DEM has a grid size of 10 m and a vertical accu-
racy of ±1 m (Caccetta et al., 2000). This DEM is at the high-
er end of available, catchment-scale DEMs in terms of the
grid size and vertical accuracy, compared to products by
professional agencies such as the United States Geological
Survey (USGS 30 m DEMs), Shuttle Radar Topography Mission
(SRTM 30 m or 90 m products) and British Ordnance Survey
(Land Form Profile 10 m DEMs). While DEMs created from
Light Detecting And Ranging (LIDAR) methods offer better
resolution and precision, they are not typically available
at the catchment scale and are usually produced for a spe-
cific project, rather than being widely available.
While pit-filling and flow direction algorithms are well
known to affect hydrological analysis (e.g. Tarboton,
1997; Tarboton and Ames, 2002; Soille et al., 2003), this pa-
per focuses on effects of hydrological correction algo-
rithms. All DEMs used in this paper were prepared using a
pit-filling algorithm (Jenson and Dominque, 1988), and flow
direction calculated using a D-8 algorithm (O’Callaghan and
Mark, 1984). This is the most commonly used approach when
preparing and processing DEMs for hydrological analysis
(Saunders, 1999; Jones, 2002). Hydrological modelling with
a pit-filled version of the raw land monitor DEM revealed
disagreement with the expected water catchment bound-
32
Figure 1 The upper Kent River study catchment, showing how the raw DEM incorrectly routes flow out of the Kent River catchment
and into the neighbouring Frankland River catchment to the west.
aries and stream network data in some (flatter) sub-catch-
ments. The raw DEM routes flow through a series of lakes
in the northwest of the catchment, and into the neighbour-
ing Frankland River catchment (Fig. 1). Field work and con-
sultation with local farmers and land managers identified
how flow should be routed through the lakes and channels
and into the Kent River catchment, as depicted in Fig. 2.
This study investigates three algorithms for modifying a
DEM to reflect known hydrology; ‘Stream burning’, ‘Agree’
and ‘ANUDEM’. While a large number of algorithms have
been developed for this purpose, these algorithms were se-
lected as they have been widely used (e.g. Saunders, 1999;
Renssen and Knoop, 2000; Turcotte et al., 2001; Doll and
Lehner, 2002; Soille et al., 2003) and represent three scales
of DEM modification. That is, Stream burning only modifies
the elevation value of stream cells within a DEM, while the
Agree algorithm modifies the value of streams cells and the
surrounding area within a user defined distance. The ANU-
DEM algorithm can potentially modify a whole landscape.
These algorithms therefore provide three contrasting ap-
J.N. Callow et al.
proaches that are likely to have variable effects on second-
ary terrain analysis.
Stream burning was developed to improve the replica-
tion of stream positions by using a raster representation of
a vector stream network to trench known hydrological pat-
terns into a DEM at a user specified depth (Maidment, 1996;
Mizgallewicz and Maidment, 1996; Saunders, 1999). Depths
of 1 m, 2 m, 5 m, 10 m and 100 m deep were used to assess
the trenching depth required to correct hydrology. Stream
burning has been used successfully in many other projects
(Saunders, 1999), but with some limitations, such as dis-
torted watershed boundaries (Saunders, 1999) and the cre-
ation of parallel streams (Hellweger, 1996). Stream
burning also creates a discrepancy between the original
DEM and the trenched ‘‘stream’’ cells, leading to a dramatic
jump in elevation, which is likely to affect derived proper-
ties such as slope particularly when a deep trench is re-
quired to correct hydrology. The advantages of this
method are its simplicity, computational efficiency and
the restriction of changes to fewer cells in the landscape.
How does modifying a DEM to reflect known hydrology affect subsequent terrain analysis?
Figure 2 Expected flow directions and catchment boundary from field work and people with expert knowledge.
Agree (Hellweger, 1996) uses a raster representation of
the known stream network to lower the landscape across
a user specified horizontal buffer distance and depth as well
as burning a stream at a selected depth. This method ad-
dresses the parallel drainage issues through creation of an
even sloped surface across the buffer distance, but in doing
so smooths the landscape, creating an even gradient and
uniform aspect perpendicular to the stream channel. A
greater number of cells are changed and a drop between flat
areas and stream cells still occurs where a channel is
trenched. After unsuccessful trial settings of 250 m, 500 m
and 750 m with drops of 1 m, 2 m and 5 m across the plain
with 1 m and 2 m drop at the channel, a successful setting
of 1000 m buffer distance, vertical drop of 5 m across the
buffer plain and a channelised depth of 2 m was selected,
which replicated the true site hydrology well.
ANUDEM (Hutchinson, 1988; Hutchinson, 1989; Hutchin-
son, 2003; Hutchinson, 2004) creates a smooth surface with-
out sinks by imposing a global drainage condition via a
iterative drainage enforcement algorithm, which is based
on input data that can include irregularly spaced elevation
data points (spot heights), contour lines, streamlines, sink
points (lakes) and cliff lines. Elevation across the entire
DEM can be altered when creating a new surface that en-
forces drainage and eliminates abrupt jumps between the
stream and non stream cells. Although ANUDEM allows the
user a larger range of input variables to correct hydrology,
for the sake of simplicity and consistency across the three
different methods, only the stream network data was used
to enforce drainage. ArcGIS 9 was used to create a 2 m con-
tour dataset (with the contour interval representing half the
vertical accuracy of the original DEM) and the UNGENERATE
command used in ARC/INFO to prepare the contour and
33
stream network data for processing in ANUDEM v5.1 using
default values for roughness penalties and standard errors
(Hutchinson, 2004). ANUDEM v4.6.3 (Hutchinson, 2003)
was also used through the TOPOGRID command in ArcGIS
9, with the data prepared as above and processes using sug-
gested default values. Both results were output as 10 m
grids.
The modified DEMs created using the four different
methods described above were then pit-filled (Jenson and
Dominque, 1988), before a stream network was extracted.
This was created using a critical contributing area value of
1.5 km2, as determined from application of the area/slope
method (Tarboton et al., 1991) and checked against stream
head position on aerial photography. The catchment bound-
ary was delineated from an outlet point at the junction of
this sub-catchment with the main channel of the Kent River.
Catchment area and stream networks derived for each DEM
were compared visually against the expected result and val-
ues for catchment area, stream length, mean and maximum
slope used to quantify the success of different methods.
The successful and least severe (i.e. the shallowest
trench) Stream burning, Agree and ANUDEM v4 and ANUDEM
v5 DEMs were then further analysed to determine the spatial
pattern and magnitude of changes caused by hydrological
correction. An assumption was made that while the raw
DEM contained error (causing the incorrect routing of flow),
it represented the best representation of real catchment
topography. A residual grid was created by subtracting the
various hydrologically corrected grids from the original
DEM (pit-filled version of the raw DEM). Three-dimensional
plots with histograms and values for mean, standard devia-
tion, total root mean squared (RMS) error, minimum and
maximum change were used as a means of assessing the
34
magnitude and spatial patterns of changes caused by hydro-
logical correction. Slope (Horn, 1981) (in percent) was cal-
culated from the raw and corrected DEMs, with residuals
calculated as above to determine the effects that hydrolog-
ical correction on a subsequent terrain analysis.
Results
Stream burning required a 10 m deep trench in this flat
landscape to correct hydrology. Fig. 3b and c identifies that
trenching up to 5 m has little effect on stream position and
catchment area. Trenching depths of 1 m, 2 m and 5 m mar-
ginally increased stream length, while catchment area re-
mained the same as the original DEM. Stream burning with
10 m and 100 m trench replicated stream network length
( 1%) and position (Fig. 3d) the best out of all methods,
with catchment area close to the expected value ( 7%).
While trenching 10 m or 100 m produced identical catch-
ment areas and similar stream lengths, the deeper trench
caused mean (2.4–5.2%) and maximum slope (59.7–
562.8%) to increase significantly compared to the original
DEM. Also of note are the truncated catchment boundaries
in the lower catchment (Fig. 3d and e), a characteristic
downfall of Stream burning as identified by Saunders (1999).
Agree, ANUDEM v4 and ANUDEM v5 all improved the
delineation of catchment boundary and stream locations
over the original DEM. Fig. 3f shows that the catchment
delineated by Agree is close to the expected result (+3%)
and has corrected the issue with the truncated catchment
boundary in the lower catchment. Stream length was
slightly shorter than expected ( 3%), and stream position
replication was poorer than other successful methods, as
an area of overlapping buffer distance caused drainage to
meander tortuously. Smoothing topography across the buf-
fer distance mitigated the effects of Stream burning, result-
ing in the smallest increase in mean slope (+3%), thought
maximum slope increased significantly (+172%).
ANUDEM v4 and v5 performed similarly, producing catch-
ment areas close to the expected result ( 3% and 7%,
respectively), with ANUDEM v4 and Agree the best at repli-
cating catchment area (ANUDEM v4 3%, Agree +3%). Repli-
cation of stream length was acceptable for both ANUDEM
methods (+5%, +6%, respectively), as was stream position
though some differences in the upper catchment are evi-
dent (compare Fig. 3g and f to 3a). Results for increased
mean and maximum slope did, however, show some differ-
ence between the two methods. ANUDEM v4 performed bet-
ter than ANUDEM v5 for mean slope (+6% to +9%), but
ANUDEM v5 performed best at minimising increases in max-
imum slope (+37% to +57%) slope. Both ANUDEM v4 and v5
performed well in replicating stream length, position and
catchment area and were consistent with the true hydrology
of the catchment.
Residual grids of elevation (Fig. 4) show the spatial pat-
tern and magnitude of changes caused by the different
hydrological correction methods, compared to the original
(pit-filled) DEM. Stream burning with a 10 m trench changed
the least number of cells, with the lowest mean difference
compared to the original DEM ( 0.01 m lower), lowest
range and RMS (0.265) (Fig. 4a). Agree altered cells across
a larger area, and caused significant lowering where topog-
J.N. Callow et al.
raphy was flattened across the buffer zone. The resulting
surface is on average 0.70 m lower, with more cells altered
than any other method and the highest RMS error (2.277)
and range. ANUDEM v4 and v5 produced a slightly lower sur-
face ( 0.43 m and 0.42 m, respectively) (Fig. 4c and d).
ANUDEM v5 performed slightly better than ANUDEM v4, with
a lower residual, standard deviation, range and RMS error,
though results were very similar. For the ANUDEM results
(Fig. 4c and d), slight undulation in the error surface away
from the stream network results from conversion of grid
elevation data to contour data for processing by the ANU-
DEM algorithm and back to a DEM. Stream burning produced
the least change in elevation, with ANUDEM v5 and v4 per-
forming equally second best. Agree caused the most signif-
icant change in elevation compared to the original surface.
The slope residuals plots in Fig. 5 identify the spatial pat-
terns of changes caused by the different hydrological cor-
rection methods on a secondary terrain variable. The ways
that different hydrological correction methods have altered
elevation to improve hydrology (Fig. 4) are reflected in the
spatial patterns and magnitudes of change to a secondary
terrain variable (slope). Stream burning increased mean
slope by 0.05% and altered the least number of cells, but
it also caused the largest increase in individual cell slope
of all methods.
While Agree had the greatest effect on elevation, flat-
tening the lower portion of the catchment (see Fig. 4b). This
smoothing of the landscape across the buffer distance re-
duced overall slope, and counteracted the effects of the
2 m trench which increased slope adjacent to the stream
cells. The resulting error surface has a lower mean slope
( 0.02%) than the original (pit-filled) DEM, and low RMS
(0.623) and range. If Agree was used in a flatter landscape,
without the dissected terrain in the lower part of the sub-
catchment, smoothing of the landscape across the buffer
distance would be less significant and mean slope would
increase.
ANUDEM v4 and v5 performed relatively well, with mini-
mal increases in slope (0.15% and 0.21% steeper, respec-
tively). RMS was lowest for ANUDEM v5 (1.347), with
ANUDEM v4 very close (1.349). ANUDEM v5 has a tighter
range than ANUDEM v4, with both close to results for Agree
(ANUDEM v5 has a tighter range than Agree). The results for
the ANUDEM residuals are also affected by the minor
changes away from the stream network used to warp eleva-
tion. Based on the raw statistics for the error surfaces,
Agree appears to create the least change, however, visual
inspection of error surfaces reveals that both ANUDEM
methods (Fig. 4c and d) create smooth error surfaces in
comparison to both Agree and particularly Stream burning.
Discussion and conclusions
DEMs are an important tool for spatially modelling hydrol-
ogy, but surface reconditioning of DEMs is often required
to improve their representation of true hydrology. However,
correction of the surface hydrology has been shown in this
study to further impact terrain analyses, and selection of
the method chosen will lead to very different results.
Stream burning was the simplest method, altering the least
number of cells and performing well for replicating stream
How does modifying a DEM to reflect known hydrology affect subsequent terrain analysis? 35

Figure 3 The catchment area and stream position expected from expert knowledge (a), against the results from the original DEM
data (b), unsuccessful Stream burning to 5 m (c), successful Stream burning at 10 m and 100 m (d & e, note: similar results with
different depth of trench), Agree (f), ANUDEM v4.6.3 (g) and ANUDEM v5.1 (h).
36 J.N. Callow et al.

Figure 4 Residual surface showing difference in elevation between the original (pit-filled) DEM and hydrological corrected (pit-
filled) DEM created using Stream burning (a), Agree (b), ANUDEM v4.6.3 (c) and ANUDEM v5.1 (d). Note that vertical axis has been
reversed for the purposes of display.

length and position, but performed poorly for calculating
catchment area and significantly affected subsequent ter-
rain analysis of slope proximal to the channel network.
Agree performed well for determining catchment area and
reasonably for stream length. While mean slope was close
to the expected result, hydrologically correcting using
Agree fundamentally changed the way that the landscape
was represented in the DEM. This was evident from the
change in elevation (See Fig. 4b). ANUDEM v4 and v5 pro-
duced very similar results to each other, performed consis-
tently across most of the criteria, and maintained landscape
integrity. ANUDEM v4 was equal best for determining catch-
How does modifying a DEM to reflect known hydrology affect subsequent terrain analysis? 37

Figure 5 Residual surface showing difference in slope between the original (pit-filled) DEM and hydrological corrected (pit-filled)
DEM created using Stream burning (a), Agree (b), ANUDEM v4.6.3 (c) and ANUDEM v5.1 (d).

ment area (with Agree), while ANUDEM v5 caused the least
increase in maximum slope, though the other methods were
superior for determining stream length and mean catch-
ment slope (refer to Table 1).
The dataset used in this study is at the better end of
available catchment scale DEMs, when compared with
those used in other studies, in both its grid resolution
and vertical accuracy. However, it is unable to replicate
hydrology with the accuracy required for modelling hydro-
logical processes across the study catchment. While the
performance of the raw DEM for delineating stream posi-
tion and catchment area in this portion of the study area
is poor, in other equally flat parts of the catchment its per-
formance was acceptable. Elsewhere, the raw DEM repli-
cated ‘‘natural’’ hydrology accurately, but the actions of
land managers in diverting flow means that hydrological
38 J.N. Callow et al.

Table 1 Results achieved by the original DEM and different hydrological correction methods in replicating known hydrological
conditions and catchment parameters
Hydrologically correct Catchment area (km2) Stream length (km) Mean slope (%) Max slope (%)
Expected result 69.5 34.7 2.4 16.9
Original DEM No 11.9 ( 83%) 5.2 ( 85%) 3.5 (+46%) 12.5 ( 26%)
Trench 1 m No 11.9 ( 83%) 5.2 ( 85%) 3.6 (+50%) 12.6 ( 25%)
Trench 2 m No 11.9 ( 83%) 5.7 ( 84%) 3.6 (+50%) 15.2 ( 10%)
Trench 5 m No 11.9 ( 83%) 5.7 ( 84%) 3.8 (+58%) 31.8 (+88%)
Trench 10 m Yes 64.5 ( 7%) 34.2 ( 1%) 2.7 (+14%) 59.7 (+253%)
Trench 100 m Yes 64.5 ( 7%) 34.3 ( 1%) 5.2 (+117%) 562.8 (+3230%)
Agree Yes 71.6 (+3%) 33.7 ( 3%) 2.5 (+3%) 46 (+172%)
ANUDEM v4 Yes 67.6 ( 3%) 36.3 (+5%) 2.6 (+6%) 26.6 (+57%)
ANUDEM v5 Yes 64.5 ( 7%) 36.9 (+6%) 2.6 (+9%) 23.15 (+37%)
The most successful method for each parameter is identified in bold.

correction was required to replicate the new hydrological
reality of the catchment.
The difficulty of delineating drainage direction in this
landscape is further highlighted because delineation of the
correct flow paths required the consultation with people
who have decades of expert knowledge of the area and
the fact that there was even some discrepancy between
these experts (that was finally reconciled). Using only the
stream position predicted by experts with knowledge of
the area, four different methods were able to hydrologically
correct the DEM so that the catchment area and stream net-
work matched or approximated the predicted result. If the
purpose of a study is to create a DEM that is able to replicate
the stream position, length and catchment boundaries, then
all methods were relatively successful in achieving this goal.
Many projects involving the use of DEMs require accurate
development of secondary parameters such as aspect,
slope, wetness index or predicted rates of water movement
through the landscape. Surface reconditioning compromises
these outcomes. In this study, the precision and minimisa-
tion of additional error was different between the methods
and for different parameters. The variable performance of
these models indicates the importance of assessing their
suitability for deriving specific secondary attributes on a
case-by-case basis.
Hydrologically correcting DEMs is a necessary step for
many hydrological modelling projects. All of the methods
provided a significant improvement for the delineation of
the catchment boundary and stream position on the original
dataset, by warping the dataset. However, the DEM may
ultimately be altered in such a way that further hydrological
calculation cannot be performed with the certainty and
accuracy required to model further hydrological processes
in the catchment.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to than Mike Hutchinson (CRES – Austra-
lian National University) for making ANUDEM v5.1 available
for use in this project. Thanks also to Murray Gangell and
Rob Webb for sharing their expert knowledge of flow direc-
tions. This study was completed as part of a Ph.D. Thesis at
the University of Western Australia, with the support of an
Australia Postgraduate Award for the first author. Sugges-
tions of two anonymous referees improved the final
manuscript.
References
Ackerman, C.T., 2002. HEC-GeoRAS 3.1. US Army Corps of
Engineers, Institute for Water Resources. Hydrologic Engineering
Centre, Davis, CA.
Allen, A. Beeston, B., 1999. The land monitor project: a multi-
agency project of the Western Australian Salinity Action Plan
supported by the Natural Heritage Trust, WALIS.
Beven, K., Kirkby, M.J., 1979. A physically based, variable contrib-
uting area model of basin hydrology. Hydrological Sciences
Bulletin 24 (1), 43–69.
Caccetta, P.A., Allen, A. Watson, I., 2000. The land monitor
project, Land Monitor Project.
Callow, J.N., Smettem, K.R.J., in press. Channel response to a new
hydrological regime in southwestern Australia. Geomorphology.
Croke, J.C., Hairsine, P., Fogarty, P.J., 1999. Runoff generation
and re-distribution in logged eucalyptus forests, south-eastern
Australia. Journal of Hydrology 216, 56–77.
Doan, J.H., 2000. Geospatial Hydrologic Modelling Extension HEC-
GeoHMS. US Army Corps of Engineers, Institute for Water
Resources, Hydrologic Engineering Centre, Davis, CA.
Doll, P., Lehner, B., 2002. Validation of a new global 30-min drainage
direction map. Journal of Hydrology 258 (1–4), 214–231.
Duke, G.D., Kienzle, S.W., Johnson, D.L., Byrne, J.M., 2003. Improv-
ing overland flow routing by incorporating ancillary road data into
digital elevation models. Journal of Spatial Hydrology 3 (2), 1–27.
English, P., Richardson, P., Glover, M., Cresswell, H., Gallant, J.,
2004. Interpreting Airborne Geophysics as an adjunct to Hydro-
geological Investigations for Salinity Management: Honeysuckle
Creek Catchment, Victoria. 18/04, CSIRO Land and Water.
Fairfield, J., Leymarie, P., 1991. Drainage networks from grid
digital elevation models. Water Resources Research 27 (5), 709–
717.
Fisher, P., 1998. Improved modelling of elevation error with
geostatistics. GeoInformatica 2 (3), 215–233.
Gallant, J.C., Dowling, T.I., 2003. A multiresolution index of valley
bottom flatness for mapping depositional areas. Water
Resources Research 39 (12), 1–4, ESG.
Gallant, J.C., Hutchinson, M.F., 1997. Scale dependence in terrain
analysis. Mathematics and Computers in Simulation 43 (3–6),
313–321.
Garbrecht, J., Martz, L., 1997. The assignment of drainage
direction over flat surfaces in raster digital elevation models.
Journal of Hydrology 193, 204–213.
How does modifying a DEM to reflect known hydrology affect subsequent terrain analysis?
Gyasi-Agyei, Y., Willgoose, G., de Troch, F.P., 1995. Effects of
vertical resolution and map scale of digital elevation models on
geomorphological parameters used in hydrology. Hydrological
Processes 9, 363–382.
Hellweger, R., 1996. Agree.aml. Center for Research in Water
Resources, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX.
Holmes, K.W., Chadwick, O.A., Kyriakidis, P.C., 2000. Error in a
USGS 30-meter digital elevation model and its impact on terrain
modelling. Journal of Hydrology 233 (1–4), 154–173.
Horn, B.K.P., 1981. Hillshading and the reflectance map. Proceed-
ings of the IEEE 69 (1), 14–47.
Hutchinson, M.F., 1988. Calculation of hydrologically sound digital
elevation models. In: Third International Symposium on Spatial
Data Handling. International Geographical Union, Columbus, OH.
Hutchinson, M.F., 1989. A new procedure for gridding elevation and
streamline data with automatic removal of spurious pits. Journal
of Hydrology 106, 211–232.
Hutchinson, M.F., 2003. ANUDEM Version 4.6.3. Australian National
University. Centre for Environmental Studies, Canberra.
Hutchinson, M.F., 2004. ANUDEM Version 5.1. The Australian
National University (ANU), Canberra, Australia.
Hutchinson, M.F., Dowling, T.I., 1994. A continental hydrological
assessment of a new grid-based digital elevation model of
Australia. Hydrological Processes 5 (1), 45–58.
Jenson, S.K., Dominque, J.O., 1988. Extracting topographic struc-
ture from digital elevation data for geographic information
systems. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing 54
(11), 1593–1600.
Jones, K.H., 1998. A comparison of algorithms used to compute hill
slope as a property of the DEM. Computers and Geosciences 24
(4), 315–323.
Jones, R., 2002. Algorithms for using a DEM for mapping catchment
areas of stream sediment samples. Computers and Geosciences
28, 1051–1060.
Luce, C.H., 2002. Hydrological processes and pathways affected by
forest roads: what do we still need to learn? Hydrological
Processes 16, 2901–2904.
Maidment, D., 1996. GIS and hydrological modelling: an assessment
of progress. In: Third International Conference on GIS and
Environmental Modelling, Santa Fe, NM, 20–25 January, 1996.
Martz, L., De Jong, E., 1998. CATCH: A FORTRAN program for
measuring catchment area from digital elevation models.
Computers and GeoSciences 14 (5), 627–640.
McKenzie, N., Gallant, J. Gregory, L., 2003. Estimating water
storage capacities in soil at catchment scales. 03/03, CRC
Catchment Hydrology.
McMaster, K.J., 2002. Effects of digital elevation model resolution
on derived stream network positions. Water Resources Research
38 (4), 13–19.
Mizgallewicz, P.J. Maidment, D., 1996. Modelling agricultural
transport in Midwest Rivers using Geographic Information
Systems. Online Report 96-6, Centre for Research Water
Resources, University of Texas, Austin, TX.
Montgomery, D., Dietrich, W., 1988. Where do channels begin?
Nature 336, 232–234.
Montgomery, D., Dietrich, W., 1992. Channel initiation and the
problem of landscape scale. Science 225, 826–830.
39
Moore, I., Grayson, R., Ladson, A., 1991. Digital terrain modelling: a
review of hydrological, geomorphological, and biological appli-
cations. Hydrological Processes 5, 3–30.
O’Callaghan, J.F., Mark, D.M., 1984. The extraction of drainage
networks from digital elevation data. Computer Vision, Graphics
and Image Processing 28, 323–344.
O’Loughlin, E.M., 1986. Prediction of surface saturation zones in
natural catchments by topographic analysis. Water Resources
Research 22 (5), 794–804.
Peuker, T., Douglas, D., 1975. Detection of surface-specific points
by local parallel processing of digital terrain elevation data.
Computer Graphics and Image Processing 4, 375–387.
Quinn, P., Beven, K., Chevallier, P., Planchon, O., 1991. The
prediction of hillslope flow paths for distributed hydrological
modelling using digital terrain models. Hydrological Processes 5,
59–79.
Renssen, H., Knoop, J.M., 2000. A global river routing network for
use in hydrological modeling. Journal of Hydrology 230 (3–4),
230–243.
Salama, R.B., Farrington, P., Bartle, G.A., Watson, G.D., Hawkes,
G., 1993. Salinity investigations in selected wheatbelt catch-
ments of Western Australia: base data from east Perenjori
catchment, Technical Memorandum 93/9. Division of Water
Resources, CSIRO.
Saunders, W., 1999. Preparation of DEMs for use in environmental
modelling analysis, 1999 ESRI User Conference. ESRI Online, San
Diego, CA.
Soille, P., Vogt, J.V., Colombo, R., 2003. Carving and adaptive
drainage enforcement of grid digital elevation models. Water
Resources Research 39 (12), 1366–1379.
Tarboton, D.G., 1997. A new method for the determination of flow
directions and upslope areas in grid digital elevation models.
Water Resources Research 33 (2), 309–319.
Tarboton, D.G., 2002. Terrain analysis using digital elevation
models (TauDEM), Utah State University, Logan, UT, USA.
Tarboton, D.G., Ames, D.P., 2002. Advances in the mapping of flow
networks from digital elevation data. World Water and Environ-
mental Resources Congress, Orlando, FL.
Tarboton, D.G., Bras, R.L., Rodriguez-Iturbe, I., 1991. On the
extraction of channel networks from digital elevation data.
Hydrological Processes 5, 81–100.
Turcotte, R., Fortin, J.-P., Rousseau, A.N., Massicotte, S., Ville-
neuve, J.-P., 2001. Determination of the drainage structure of a
watershed using a digital elevation model and a digital river and
lake network. Journal of Hydrology 240 (3–4), 225–242.
Van Niel, K.P., Laffan, S.W., Lees, B.G., 2004. Effect of error in the
DEM on environmental variables or predictive vegetation mod-
elling. Journal of Vegetation Science 15 (6), 747–756.
Walker, J.P., Willgoose, G.R., 1999. On the effect of digital
elevation model accuracy on hydrology and geomorphology.
Water Resources Research 35, 2259–2268.
Wolock, D.M., Price, C.V., 1994. Effects of digital elevation model
map scale and data resolution on a topography-based watershed
model. Water Resources Research 30, 3041–3052.
Zhang, W., Montgomery, D., 1994. Digital elevation model grid size,
landscape representation and hydrologic simulations. Water
Resources Research 30, 1019–1028.