Perhaps I tend to agree with some aspects of your analysis, Dear Gaur (even if I am not exactly a hydrologist). The simpler the best, but may be not easy. This is a very difficult research area and that may require really much time, work and research effort for such achievements. It may be politically much more successful, pragmatic and agreeable, developing research with contents that seem sometimes very limited or even practically irrelevant? According to a colleague: “garbage for scoring”? Of course that there are excellent works in every area. However, currently, it seems that the number of works published may be politically/socially and erroneously much more important that its contents?

Dr. Gaur, Unfortunately, you may be hitting the nail on the head, but as semi-retired, I may not be absolutely up to date.  Many researchgate questions seem to be about models to get them to function, rather than if they are applicable.  Modeling was a step in research after you developed a research plan, collected data, and tried to come up with relationships and understand watershed/stream functions.  The models of yesterday need a full review and update, perhaps rewrite or total revision.  As more and more hydrological data is collected and available, why are we not moving forward?  The problem may be as you say, many use what is available, crunch numbers in an office and do not conduct an appropriate degree of field review and data collection.  Today, we can get so much information from just GIS, and  research and stream gauging in general is perhaps getting underfunded.  Perhaps to some, hydrology is running models, maybe that is being taught too much.  And true, hydrology is not the easiest field to master, and the definition of a professional hydrologist may be blurred by the variability in expertise, as well as the complexity of water related subjects.  

Yes, hydrologists should be conducting field surveys, data collection, utilizing new technology especially LiDAR and high resolution aerial photos, testing and revising old models and developing new and improved ones.  There is nothing inherently wrong with high tech, but it should not replace attention to field data and developing that experience in being able to read the ground and stream conditions. Hydrology training should include some combination in existing models, data collection, analysis techniques and stream/watershed experience and field validation.  Hydrology studies are not necessarily quick, requiring long term funding and researcher committments.  Maybe there is a migration away, but many water issues affect life on this planet, so maybe the pendulum will swing back to better funding, long term committment, increased attention.

Regards, Bill

Thanks Arash

  Yes there is hidden treasure to work upon but success needs large inputs of time and efforts with least outputs of immediate research papers in high rank journals. Most of us expects high outputs in shortest time with least efforts. To the my way of thinking it does not suite 100 % well with such kind of research theme, where nature and its two universal signatures ( namely rainfall and runoff) are to be realistically modeled.

William,

Has given such a nice expression , with which any one can feel sensitized and energized. It deserves a big applaud. The use of ' swinging pendulam ' at last was total answer for my question. Thanks William.

Why I put that questions ? I would like to express the base here in a direct mode. Since 1985 I my self ( after graduation) had been in field, traveling and working on surfaces of natural catchments , travesing natural streams , planning designing and erecting various kind of runoff and sediment gauging structures , their operations maintenance, generation of hydrographs, treating lands with plethora of soil conservation measures, dealing more than 50 catchments of varying physics ( 1 sq m to 10000 Km2 in size) and attempting many alternative ways and means to generate true information/data on major and minor constituents of hydrologic cycle in different parts of India. But when u deal with such integrated R&D effort, there are very less chances to have systematic and dense organized uniform data , on one hand and ample time to understand, process and fine tune it on other hand . Such stories are enormous in number . Good workers, good researcher    have produced vast ground based information , but it remained unexplored and day be day month by month and year by year it became outdated or of no use. What William said, is the point here, the modern modelers and modeling plateforms must recognise and tape such worthy exposures or information and inject values to their models and make them ground based and more worthy for their replications to make predictions under ungauged situations more versatile and more reliable. Rather than ' garbage in and garbage out ' with good matching of simulated and observed and a good series of papers in high impact journals. I am no where critisiing the publications of such papers , but just sensitising the issue where, some time a poor and less understood data or finding can fetch a big advantage and all together change the value of a model.

last but not least, the traditional knowledge of farmers, rural people who are residing nearby to streams, rivers or areas affected with drought and floods, has ample scope to get translated into hydrologic terms/data and then attempting its in fusion into models.

Thanks William and thnaks Aras and thanks Antonio  for catching and keeping alive the theme of my tiny question.

For fun ( it could be true too)  why not let us try to act and react on this and then pooled all the information/inputs from we all and transform it in to a good quality research paper .. which infact is no data based but an informative thought provoking write , securing its worthy place in some of the good journal.

thanks

Since I am no longer connected with any agency or university, or for that matter regular workload or position.  I do from time to time collaborate with some of my research associates.  I saw you have about 40 projects in the works, so I am not going to hold my breath, but if things wind down and you feel especially energetic on this subject, perhaps some long distance hydrology experiences and advice co-authoring may get enough attention for a paper, but I agree, a call to action seems more appropriate.  Water tends to be taken for granted, and people too easily forget the flood and drought when the water budget is considered.       

Thanks William. Its a proud privilege for a person like me who encountered with a rich experienced hydrologists , and beauty is forest hydrology..as it has been mine great taste of professional spectrum, though I could not do much.

  I like to give rise to a secondary research question, or we can say an offshoot to mine original research question....

In any of the natural catchment ( what ever may be the size or location, except micro experimental /man made catchments) the upper 20 to 25 % area remains to be dominated by plants /trees/shrubs which are often under forest or rangeland or grassland categories. If we term this upper segment of a natural catchment as part 'A" then other two could be a (B) middle body of catchment where cultivation with care (because most erosion problems , stream meandering, good potential for crops and in-situ rainwater /moisture build up, rainwater harvesting & its economical recycling to nearby tilted fields etc)   and (C) Lower segment of catchment with additional burdens of floods, off site adverse impacts of water catched in upstream, riparian degradation, and many such problems.

In most of the regions when we intend to apply the plans and schemes for hydrological planning, execution of soil and water or erosion control measures, spending huge money and budgetary allocations for it from public funds or even planning and conducting R&D......in all such situation,   ..the Segment 'A" of majority of catchments are either left as such unattended or given a least importance in above regards...why ? I consider that it is the forest hydrology which must be properly understood, researched and effectively interlinked with hydrology on other two segments ..The real generation of runoff ( rate, volume, velocity, erosive power, or many adverse hydrological influences on major and minor hydrological processes or components    in real sense initiates, germinates and flourished from  this "A" and their modifications, manipulation or control at down stream ( either in 'B' or 'C" certainly adds many uncertainties, costs, complexities, improper architecture of rainfall runoff models declining their predictive efficienices etc).

in nut shell....

FOREST HYDROLOGY and  its active integration in watershed based R&D projects , even the intended watershed treatments remains agricultural or other crop based dominated land uses...Sufficient scientific importance and ample budgetary provisions to treat forest lands even under low cost: benefit ratio ( if we avoid indirect environmental benefits).

Based upon mine little exposures where I had attempted to develop certain hydrological gauging set up using simplistic ways and means but under real ground conditions; I had a feeling that processes of interception, depression storages, initial infiltration and ground water dynamics is entirely different and uncertain in contrast to agricultural or other cultivable land surfaces/catchment plans.....

While working in forest many important clues and guess one can experience by tapping traditional knowledge of near by farmers/peoples. For example an old farmer living nearby to a forest village, depicted series of marks of highest flood flow levels in natural streams and the manner in which these water levels were seen experienced in past years over different periods/frequencies over prevailing time-space grid/domains. These marks are vital to generate valuable guess of flow depth- then using stream cross sections the peak stages and peak discharge rates and hen working out real field guess of  hydraulic roughness and its temporal and spatial variations under varied climate scenario what we are experiencing as on now....

pardon me , if i had been off the focus but it was just a natural response on important time and effort William has given on my tiny question...I need to learn a lot from persons like him, who inspite of retirement ..have equal spark on this important research domain and its conversions/modifications under changed generation...    

Dr Gaur,

You highlighted an important issue that we all hydrologists have to think over. Researchers are opting hi-tech applications like remote sensing and GIS to collect relevant data sets to ease the task of data collection and improve the accuracy of modelling and prediction. I think these tools provide valuable information on a larger spatial scale. Regarding modelling, very few actually work on development of models. We rather focus on application of developed models through calibration and validation of the developed codes. It is important that innovation should come from development of theories and equations to model the physical process of overland flow and transport. This requires lot of field level work and mathematical efforts. There are efforts made in the past to "model" the hydrological processes based on which the researchers, rather computer programmers, have developed software packages. And many of us are just using these software packages to study and analyse the facts pertinent to specific region, climate, land use or ecology. If someone, instead of collecting ground level information, rely largely on synthetic data, make many assumptions and use calibration as SOS tool. Then I agree that the concerned qualifies for affinity to 'comfort zone'.

Dear Dr Santosh

Very nice and I am happy to read your gesture and logical expression. I or even you are not here to criticize or demoralize the advanced tools and use of secondary or  other data on the table and releasing high impact publications. Yes that is also a tedious job/task , but mine point simply remains that- what a better position or situation it would be if there would have been a system where equal value, equal recognition, equal importance and more than above equal opportunity /platform to get recognized , be there in our so called research impact evaluation system, which is entirely driven and govern by '' publication of research paper in good quality high impact factor journal' may be they are beautiful carved bricks of data , on whome author does not have any knowledge or insights..that where the data was generated, who generated, what were the weaknesses, what were the constraints, what were the efforts, what were the shortcomings, what were the limitations, what were the errors visible, and what may be hidden errors in data itself. At most of the time the quantum and trend of these uncertainties remains excessively high and we overlook it or ignore it..JUST a good publication by turns and twists through so called high domain of gadgets and tools where numerals plays the sole role...tuning numerals will give what you have pre-conceived or hypothesized in your mind to suit the theme of paper or publication destination. 

Rainfall runoff modeling has and is focusing on all of the low-hanging fruit, so to speak -- that is, on all the surficial processes. And, not everything even there is fully resolved. For instance, no one seems to be interested in properly studying how to accurately model saddle overland flow (i.e. flow between large non-channel-connected depressions, which are so prevalent in Florida) once and for all. But a lot more raw research effort needs to go into linking the surficial processes to the largely unknown subsurface processes.

My suggestion is reading this interesting publications on the comparison between conceptual and physically-based hydrological modelling.

Easy to read and very informative!

http://www.hydrol-earth-syst-sci-discuss.net/hess-2016-433/

I completely agree with your issues Mr M L Gaur. The shift to "Modelling only" approach, one day, eventually leaves us  far behind the reality. I recommend that researchers should pay attention to the local conditions.

Thanks Luca

its really wonderful...and awsm..

Well! I suggest to read this blog by Prof. Riccardo Rigon:

http://abouthydrology.blogspot.it/2016/09/on-how-to-make-our-models-more.html

Dr. Gaur, My head is spinning again with so many ideas and questions.  You are kind to recognize my efforts, that were spark plugged into action by your inciteful questions.  I probably am not going to get to all of them, but added some papers on riparian corridors that are useful in protecting small headwater streams to the river floodplains.  In my work with USFS, we often included areas of headwaters to rivers, and places where the headwaters were protected, but the rolling hills were farmed in the past with little erosion control, developing a network of gullies and much sediment loss.  The riparian corridor concept recognizes the contributory headwaters as well as all other areas where concentrated flows develop, merge, concentrate and expand to a river system.  Some of the ownership is mixed public and private lands, so that always creates more issues.  In a recent estimate of erosion on a stabilizing gullied landscape, the erosion of gullied channel banks were contributing at about 80-90% of the total sediment, considering all sources.  Decisions made many decades ago in farming erodible lands and moving streams to maximize prime farm lands and avoid flooding through channelization continue to be a dominant part of water quality and aquatic habitat issues.  

Your message may have energized me too, as I was thinking I had better find some ideas on funded work options, and still have not figured out what that might be.  Having worked for a University in small forested catchment research and then a federal agency as a management consultant for my technical career, I was given opportunities that I believe might be rare today, ample funds, training opportunities, personal independence to develop, evaluate what needed to be done and do my best.  Right now, I am using researchgate as a mechanism to give something back to the career I love and have been so fortunate to find.  Perhaps a researcher's or technical professional's Facebook.  Perhaps that is enough.  It is always nice to help others, and especially now, any diversion from the abnormally toxic politics here is an improvement.

True, hydrology research is not generally for cranking out to support a publication mill and that may partially why the funding and researchers is on the decline.  We are perhaps technically gaining with better tools, more detail, but loosing in public understanding and awareness concerning hydrology, lives are being lost, structures poorly located and designed.  The blog suggested by Dr. Brocca seems interesting, but like an old house, requires a committment and maintenance to stay involved.  Hydrology in catchment and watershed research in some ways is quite a useful tool in developing, understanding, measuring, monitoring and supporting climate change.  It may be used more now that at first, but still alot of opportunity.  

Believe me Dr William,

I am feeling very high to discover most appropriate professional expert like you, who has a great tuning & depthful insights, what I use to think during last 2 or 3 decades even from initiation of my carrier.  I had a great inclination towards functions of forest towards water. In an innovative scientific mission, named as 'National Bamboo Mission" Govt of India. Enthusiastically I framed an innovating R&D project where 2 very peculiar & specific attributes of bamboo ( high tensile strength of its fibre & fastest growing plant on globe I guess that too under any adverse even water deficit conditions and offering great root binding to control erosion and high quantum of organic matter ( as a leaf / litter fall) plus  infinite number of its utilities in socio economic sphere across the globe.

The creation of live bamboo check dams in gullied land and streams of different orders and also along stream banks and riparian zones, gave excellent results in short durations. Three most notoriuos rivers of India who creates >90 % ravines & gullies in nation ( namely Chambal, Yamuna and Mahi river) were encompassed and bamboo check dams using 4-5 different varieties and different geometrical configurations were adopted, clubbed with hydrological gauging setups to record event based hydrographs, sediment fluxes and also the sediment entrapments behinds the so created bamboo checkdams which within 1 or 2 years became totally dense & capable to withheld sizeable silt and converting stream beds into small terrace kind of beds. farmers got high income of even Rs 100000 per ha , if harvested with controlled roaster.

Another forest catchment being most degraded catchment (500 ha) where most of the trees were cut by people to meet their needs/greeds and most of the shrubs & grasses were under intensive open grazing pressure. catchment was devoid of a thing called 'good soil' . The only visible surface was a stony or rocky look with scattered loose boulders all around . My experience ( 1990-1998) reveled that only collecting the loose stones and putting/rearranging them on contours , converted that land into a dense vegetated forest within just 2- 3 years. A field hydrological experimentation pocket was planned and generated there inside the catchment under real field conditions with a provision of standard size runoff plots, multislot devisors, silt samplers, self recording raingauges, crest gauges to record peak stages of flow in forest streams of different orders.

It was attempted well away from institute & labs, so the end observations were remained voluminous in quantity but a bit inferior in systematic organized and continuous nature  of records. to be honest no body was in the supportive opinion to put high cost ( labour, machine, time) on forest land where direct benefits use to be manifold lower than what it could be from arable or agricultural land.

Assigning real value to intangible benefits (what we expect if forest too given ample importance towards a sound soil and water conservation plan ) was a very difficult task, is a very difficult even now too. Thats why its difficult to convince policy planners to treat forest catchments with equal dignity & interests what we do for other lands. Even as on today its not a easy task for many of we hydrologist  to answer few basic questions,

1. How much rain is intercepted by trees in a region - different variety/type and at different stages of time during rains or during different growth stages of trees? Do we have models for real field applications ? Its easy to blend empirical, mathematical, numerical and philosophical ingredients but actual ball to be hit is well beyond reach of batsman, who wanted to be not out and wanted to be within his creez...Research have to come out and hit the ball....

2. If rain falls , what is exact loss - volumes & rates at micro scale ? just getting and applying any value of hortons infiltration model parameter or phi index ..is not a good way to march ahead...hydrologists n researchers must divert and incline their heads to wards catchment surfaces/body and must traveres and move upon it to get acquainted with real configurations and then build the modeling archetecture, rather than getting a readymade model and numericaly or other way fine tuning the model parameters to get a well matched hydrographs  -  simulated v/s observed.

I have much insights and many more things to share, but i understand it may not be so readable, understandable or even interesting too, as  as a reader you have your own limitations n reservations....

at the end i felt extremly gratified with your words and thank all the readers and all who has answered or contributed their bits on a tiny question which i just casually raised on this high plateform...it was my 1st question here..but surely I got confidence to have dozens of such in future after learning n enriching from you and other experienced researchers here.. 

Thanks

I too had many experiences without time to prepare and publish or present.  I worked only 4+ years in research, and 38 years as a forest hydrology specialist.  Obviously some things are never to be done, but research gate does offer a way to upload reports, etc.  We all can only do so much, and hopefully some ideas transfer for the next generation for a better world.

The first and foremost gap is ' working out realisitc loss function' we often start the rainfall runoff modeling with this dangerous estimation nearing to phi index as we do not have infiltration and other loss functions or their regional parameters values at initiation phase of our modeling efforts. So starting any physical modeling with fusion of this great error , which indeed severly influence the rainfall excess function i.e. the input to model in other words.

surprisingly putting a half correct input , it self is a killing of true potential of that excellent runoff prediction model...and we i mean most of the researcher over look it and for the sake of so called faboulous publications just fine tune the entities giving a nice looking model efficiency and matching observed with predicted..forgetting the blunder we did at input stage..

sorry  but its my personal feeling ..i may too be not fully correct ..like to that poor input....but this question needs a debate ..in my opinion..