Advertisement

Complexity of streamflows in the west-flowing rivers of India

  • Ch. N. S. Srivalli
  • V. Jothiprakash
  • B. SivakumarEmail author
Original Paper
  • 106 Downloads

Abstract

Adequate knowledge of the complexity of streamflows in river basins is important for proper assessment, planning, and management of our water resources. However, identification of the complexity of streamflows is very challenging, due to the various mechanisms governing the streamflow process both in space and in time. The present study examines the complexity of daily streamflows in the west-flowing rivers of India. The false nearest neighbor (FNN) algorithm, a nonlinear dynamic-based method, is employed to determine the dimensionality of streamflow time series and, hence, to examine the complexity. The FNN method uses reconstruction of the single-variable streamflow time series in a multi-dimensional phase space, and identifies the FNNs in the reconstructed phase space. Daily streamflow time series from 13 gaging stations in the Tapi to Tadri basin are analyzed. The effect of delay time on the FNN dimension estimation of the 13 streamflow series is also investigated, by considering four different delay time values to represent different kinds of separation of elements in the phase space reconstruction vector (daily, annual, autocorrelation, mutual information). Collectively considering the different delay time values, the FNN dimensions for the 13 streamflow series are found to have a wide range of variability (with dimensions ranging from 5 to 20), indicating a wide range of complexity in the dynamics of streamflow in the Tapi to Tadri basin. The results generally reveal that: (1) for any given station, the FNN dimensions change with changes in delay time; and (2) for any given delay time, the FNN dimensions change for the different stations. There does not seem to be any clear pattern in the spatial variability of streamflow across the entire basin, although there are small pockets of local similarity. Based on the FNN dimension results, potential issues in the application of the FNN method to the streamflow series in the Tapi to Tadri basin (and streamflow, more broadly) are also discussed. The outcomes of the present study have important implications for streamflow data monitoring, streamflow modeling and forecasting, flood frequency analysis, environmental flow requirements, and water resource assessment, among others.

Keywords

Streamflow Complexity Dimensionality False nearest neighbor method Data noise India 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the two anonymous reviewers and the Associate Editor for their constructive comments and useful suggestions on an earlier version of this manuscript. Their comments and suggestions have led to significant improvements.

References

  1. Aittokallio T, Gyllenberg M, Hietarinta J, Kuusela T, Multamäki T (1999) Improving the false nearest neighbors method with graphical analysis. Phys Rev E 60(416–421):782Google Scholar
  2. Anand J, Gosain AK, Khosa R, Srinivasan R (2018) Regional scale hydrologic modeling for prediction of water balance, analysis of trends in streamflow and variations in streamflow: the case study of the Ganga River basin. J Hydrol Reg Stud 16:32–53Google Scholar
  3. Asokan SM, Dutta D (2008) Analysis of water resources in the Mahanadi River basin, India under projected climate conditions. Hydrol Process 22:3589–3603Google Scholar
  4. Cao L (1997) Practical method for determining the minimum embedding dimension of a scalar time series. Physica D 110:43–50Google Scholar
  5. Carrión IM, Antúnez EA, Castillo MMA, Canals JJM (2010) Parallel implementations of the false nearest neighbors method to study the behavior of dynamical models. Math Comput Model 52:1237–1242Google Scholar
  6. Carrión IM, Antúnez EA, Castillo MMA, Canals JJM (2011) A prediction method for nonlinear time series analysis by combining the false nearest neighbors and subspace identification methods. Int J Appl Math Inform 5:258–265Google Scholar
  7. Central Water Commission (2014) West flowing rivers from Tapi to Tadri. Ministry of Water Resources, Government of India, New DelhiGoogle Scholar
  8. Dhanya CT, Nagesh Kumar D (2011) Predictive uncertainty of chaotic daily streamflow using ensemble wavelet networks approach. Water Resour Res 47:W06507Google Scholar
  9. Dhanya CT, Nagesh Kumar D (2013) Predictability and chaotic nature of daily streamflow. Aust J Wat Resour 17(1):1–12Google Scholar
  10. Fraser AM, Swinney HL (1986) Independent coordinates for strange attractors from mutual information. Phys Rev A 33(2):1134–1140Google Scholar
  11. Grassberger P, Procaccia I (1983) Measuring the strangeness of strange attractors. Physica D 9:189–208Google Scholar
  12. Grayson RB, Blöschl G (2000) Spatial patterns in catchment hydrology: observations and modeling. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  13. Heald JPM, Stark J (2000) Estimation of noise levels for models of chaotic dynamical systems. Phys Rev Lett 84(11):2366–2369Google Scholar
  14. Hegger R, Kantz H (1999) Improved false nearest neighbor method to detect determinism in time series data. Phys Rev E 60(4):4970–4973Google Scholar
  15. Holzfuss J, Mayer-Kress G (1986) An approach to error-estimation in the application of dimension algorithms. In: Mayer-Kress G (ed) Dimensions and entropies in chaotic systems. Springer, New York, pp 114–122Google Scholar
  16. Islam MN, Sivakumar B (2002) Characterization and prediction of runoff dynamics: a nonlinear dynamical view. Adv Water Resour 25:179–190Google Scholar
  17. Jayawardena AW, Lai FZ (1994) Analysis and prediction of chaos in rainfall and streamflow time series. J Hydrol 153(1–4):23–52Google Scholar
  18. Jayawardena AW, Xu PC, Li WK (2008) A method of estimating the noise level in a chaotic time series. Chaos 18(2):023115.  https://doi.org/10.1063/1.2903757 Google Scholar
  19. Jothiprakash V, Fathima TA (2013) Chaotic analysis of reservoir inflow series-a case study on Koyna reservoir inflow. J Inst Eng (India) 94(2):89–97Google Scholar
  20. Jothiprakash V, Magar RB (2012) Multi-time-step ahead daily and hourly intermittent reservoir inflow prediction by artificial intelligent technique using lumped and distributed data. J Hydraul Eng 138(6):563–572Google Scholar
  21. Kantz H, Schreiber T (2004) Nonlinear time series analysis. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  22. Kennel MB, Abarbanel HDI (2002) False nearest neighbors and false strands: a reliable minimum embedding dimension algorithm. Phys Rev E 66(026209):1–19Google Scholar
  23. Kennel MB, Buhl M (2003) Estimating good discrete partitions from observed data: symbolic fast nearest neighbors. Phys Rev Lett 91(8):084102Google Scholar
  24. Kennel MB, Brown R, Abarbanel HDI (1992) Determining embedding dimension for phase-space reconstruction using a geometrical construction. Phys Rev A 45(6):3403–3411Google Scholar
  25. Khatibi R, Sivakumar B, Ghorbani MA, Kisi O, Koçak K, Farsadi Zadeh D (2012) Investigating chaos in river stage and discharge time series. J Hydrol 414–415:108–117Google Scholar
  26. Kim HS, Lee KH, Kyoung MS, Sivakumar B, Lee ET (2009) Measuring nonlinear dependence in hydrologic time series. Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess 23:907–916Google Scholar
  27. Kostelich EJ, Yorke JA (1988) Noise reduction in dynamical systems. Phys Rev A 38(3):1649–1652Google Scholar
  28. Krasovskaia I, Gottschalk L, Kundzewicz ZW (1999) Dimensionality of Scandinavian river flow regimes. Hydrol Sci J 44(5):705–723Google Scholar
  29. Labat D, Sivakumar B, Mangin A (2016) Evidence for deterministic chaos in long-term high-resolution karstic streamflow time series. Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess 30:2189–2196Google Scholar
  30. Lambrakis N, Andreou AS, Polydoropoulos P, Georgopoulos E, Bountis T (2000) Nonlinear analysis and forecasting of a brackish karstic spring. Water Resour Res 36(4):875–884Google Scholar
  31. Liu Q, Islam S, Rodriguez-Iturbe I, Le Y (1998) Phase-space analysis of daily streamflow: characterisation and prediction. Adv Water Resour 21:463–475Google Scholar
  32. Maity R, Nagesh Kumar D (2008) Basin-scale streamflow forecasting using the information of large-scale atmospheric circulation phenomena. Hydrol Process 22:643–650Google Scholar
  33. Maity R, Bhagwat PP, Bhatnagar A (2010) Potential of support vector regression for prediction of monthly streamflow using endogenous property. Hydrol Process 24:917–923Google Scholar
  34. Mishra V, Lilhare R (2016) Hydrologic sensitivity of Indian sub-continental river basins to climate change. Glob Planet Change 139:78–96Google Scholar
  35. Mujumdar PP, Ghosh S (2008) Modeling GCM and scenario uncertainty using a possibilistic approach: application to the Mahanadi River, India. Water Resour Res 44:W06407.  https://doi.org/10.1029/2007WR006137 Google Scholar
  36. Nerenberg MAH, Essex C (1990) Correlation dimension and systematic geometric effects. Phys Rev A 42(12):7065–7074Google Scholar
  37. Niu J (2010) Precipitation in the Pearl River basin, South China: scaling, regional patterns, and influence of large-scale climate anomalies. Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess 27(5):1253–1268Google Scholar
  38. Packard NB, Crutchfield JP, Farmer JD, Shaw RS (1980) Geometry from a time series. Phys Rev Lett 45(9):712–716Google Scholar
  39. Panda DK, Kumar A, Ghosh S, Mohanty RK (2013) Streamflow trends in the Mahanadi River basin (India): linkages to tropical climate variability. J Hydrol 495:135–149Google Scholar
  40. Porporato A, Ridolfi L (1997) Nonlinear analysis of river flow time sequences. Water Resour Res 33(6):1353–1367Google Scholar
  41. Ramdani S, Bouchara F, Casties JF (2007) Detecting determinism in short time series using a quantified averaged false nearest neighbors approach. Phys Rev E 76(3):036204Google Scholar
  42. Regonda S, Sivakumar B, Jain A (2004) Temporal scaling in river flow: can it be chaotic? Hydrol Sci J 49:373–385Google Scholar
  43. Reshmidevi TV, Nagesh Kumar D, Mehrotra R, Sharma A (2018) Estimation of the climate change impact on a catchment water balance using an ensemble of GCMs. J Hydrol 556:1192–1204Google Scholar
  44. Rhodes C, Morari M (1997) False-nearest-neighbor algorithm and noise-corrupted time series. Phys Rev E 55:6162–6170Google Scholar
  45. Salas JD, Delleur JR, Yevjevich VM, Lane WL (1995) Applied modeling of hydrologic time series. Water Resources Publications, LittletonGoogle Scholar
  46. Salas JD, Kim HS, Eykholt R, Burlando P, Green TR (2005) Aggregation and sampling in deterministic chaos: implications for chaos identification in hydrological processes. Nonlinear Proc Geophys 12:557–567Google Scholar
  47. Sangoyomi TB, Lall U, Abarbanel HDI (1996) Nonlinear dynamics of Great Salt lake: dimension estimation. Water Resour Res 32(1):149–159Google Scholar
  48. Schertzer D, Tchiguirinskaia I, Lovejoy S, Hubert P, Bendjoudi H (2002) Which chaos in the rainfall-runoff process? A discussion on ‘Evidence of chaos in the rainfall-runoff process’ by Sivakumar et al. Hydrol Sci J 47(1):139–147Google Scholar
  49. Schouten JC, Takens F, van den Bleek CM (1994) Estimation of the dimension of a noisy attractor. Phys Rev E 50(3):1851–1861Google Scholar
  50. Schreiber T (1993a) Determination of the noise level of chaotic time series. Phys Rev E 48(1):R13–R16Google Scholar
  51. Schreiber T (1993b) Extremely simple nonlinear noise reduction method. Phys Rev E 47(4):2401–2404Google Scholar
  52. Shi H, Li T, Liu R, Chen J, Li J, Zhang A, Wang G (2015) A service-oriented architecture for ensemble flood forecast from numerical weather prediction. J Hydrol 527:933–942Google Scholar
  53. Singh VP (2013) Entropy theory and its application in environmental and water engineering. Wiley, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  54. Sivakumar B (2001) Rainfall dynamics at different temporal scales: a chaotic perspective. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 5(4):645–651Google Scholar
  55. Sivakumar B (2003) Forecasting monthly streamflow dynamics in the western United States: a nonlinear dynamical approach. Environ Model Softw 18:721–728Google Scholar
  56. Sivakumar B (2005) Correlation dimension estimation of hydrologic series and data size requirement: myth and reality. Hydrol Sci J 50(4):591–604Google Scholar
  57. Sivakumar B (2008) Dominant processes concept, model simplification and classification framework in catchment hydrology. Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess 22(6):737–748Google Scholar
  58. Sivakumar B (2011a) Global climate change and its impacts on water resources plannning and management: assessment and challenges. Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess 25(4):583–600Google Scholar
  59. Sivakumar B (2011b) Hydropsychology: the human side of water research. Hydrol Sci J 56(4):719–732Google Scholar
  60. Sivakumar B (2017) Chaos in hydrology: bridging determinism and stochasticity. Springer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  61. Sivakumar B, Berndtsson R (2010) Advances in data-based approaches for hydrologic modeling and forecasting. World Scientific Publishing Company, SingaporeGoogle Scholar
  62. Sivakumar B, Singh VP (2012) Hydrologic system complexity and nonlinear dynamic concepts for a catchment classification framework. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 16:4119–4131Google Scholar
  63. Sivakumar B, Phoon KK, Liong SY, Liaw CY (1999) A systematic approach to noise reduction in chaotic hydrological time series. J Hydrol 219(3–4):103–135Google Scholar
  64. Sivakumar B, Berndtsson R, Persson M (2001a) Monthly runoff prediction using phase-space reconstruction. Hydrol Sci J 46(3):377–387Google Scholar
  65. Sivakumar B, Sorooshian S, Gupta HV, Gao X (2001b) A chaotic approach to rainfall disaggregation. Water Resour Res 37(1):61–72Google Scholar
  66. Sivakumar B, Berndtsson R, Olsson J, Jinno K (2002a) Reply to ‘which chaos in the rainfall-runoff process?’ by Schertzer et al. Hydrol Sci J 47(1):149–158Google Scholar
  67. Sivakumar B, Persson M, Berndtsson R, Uvo CB (2002b) Is correlation dimension a reliable indicator of low-dimensional chaos in short hydrological time series? Water Resour Res.  https://doi.org/10.1029/2001wr000333 Google Scholar
  68. Sivakumar B, Wallender WW, Puente CE, Islam MN (2004) Streamflow disaggregation: a nonlinear deterministic approach. Nonlinear Process Geophys 11:383–392Google Scholar
  69. Sivakumar B, Wallender WW, Horwath WR, Mitchell JP, Prentice SE, Joyce BA (2006) Nonlinear analysis of rainfall dynamics in California’s Sacramento Valley. Hydrol Process 20(8):1723–1736Google Scholar
  70. Sivakumar B, Jayawardena AW, Li WK (2007) Hydrologic complexity and classification: a simple data reconstruction approach. Hydrol Process 21(20):2713–2728Google Scholar
  71. Smith LA (1988) Intrinsic limits on dimension calculations. Phys Lett A 133(6):283–288Google Scholar
  72. Srinivas VV, Srinivasan K (2005) Hybrid moving block bootstrap for stochastic simulation of multi-site multi-season streamflows. J Hydrol 302(1–4):307–330Google Scholar
  73. Stehlik J (1999) Deterministic chaos in runoff series. J Hydrol Hydromech 47(4):271–287Google Scholar
  74. Sun J, Zhao Y, Zhang J, Luo X, Small M (2007) Reducing coloured noise for chaotic time series in the local phase space. Phys Rev E 76:026211Google Scholar
  75. Takens F (1981) Detecting strange attractors in turbulence. In: Rand DA, Young LS (eds) Dynamical systems and turbulence, vol 898. Lecture notes in mathematics. Springer, Berlin, pp 366–381Google Scholar
  76. Tongal H, Demirel MC, Booij MJ (2013) Seasonality of low flows and dominant processes in the Rhine River. Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess 27:489–503Google Scholar
  77. Vignesh R, Jothiprakash V, Sivakumar B (2015) Streamflow variability and classification using false nearest neighbor method. J Hydrol 531(3):706–715Google Scholar
  78. Wang Q, Gan TY (1998) Biases of correlation dimension estimates of streamflow data in the Canadian prairies. Water Resour Res 34(9):2329–2339Google Scholar
  79. Wu Y, Li T, Sun L, Chen J (2013) Parallelization of a hydrological model using the message passing interface. Environ Model Softw 43:124–132Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil EngineeringIndian Institute of Technology BombayPowaiIndia
  2. 2.UNSW Water Research Centre, School of Civil and Environmental EngineeringThe University of New South WalesSydneyAustralia
  3. 3.State Key Laboratory of Hydroscience and EngineeringTsinghua UniversityBeijingChina

Personalised recommendations