Hydrologic Resource Sheds and the U.S.
Great Lakes Applications

  • 1. Department of Geography, Western Michigan University, 3234 Wood Hall, Kalamazoo, MI 49008-5424, U.S.A.;
    2. Institute of Geographic Sciences and Natural Resources Research, CAS, Beijing 100101, China;
    3. Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory, 4840 S. State Rd., Ann Arbor, MI 48108-9719, U.S.A.

Received date: 2010-01-22

  Revised date: 2010-02-23

  Online published: 2010-03-31


“Hydrological resource shed” is defined as a geographic area that contributes material (e.g. water, nutrients, and sediments) over one time interval, passing through a location of interest over another time interval. While similar to the concept of watershed, this relatively new concept has some unique features. First, the boundary of a watershed is delineated by topography and relatively more stable.  The boundary of a hydrologic resource shed, however, is delineated by the contributing sources of water and materials to a river or lake during hydrologic events, and changes over both space and time. Second, the concept of watershed emphasizes temporal distribution of water and materials within a given space, and the hydrologic resource shed focuses on both temporal and spatial distribution of water and materials within a changing space. Third, the concept of hydrologic resource shed incorporates the space-time variability in studying watershed patterns and processes. Taking advantage of current tracing, remote sensing, mapping, and modeling technologies, hydrologic  resource shed  provides a new way of discovering, understanding, and simulating the transport and distribution of water and materials across multiple space and time scales. An example is presented for computing the hydrologic resource shed distributions using a hydrologic model, Distributed Large Basin Runoff Model (DLBRM)  in the Maumee River watershed in western Lake Erie Basin of the U.S.

Cite this article

HE Chansheng, Thomas E. Croley II . Hydrologic Resource Sheds and the U.S.
Great Lakes Applications[J]. Journal of Resources and Ecology, 2010
, 1(1) : 25 -30 . DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1674-764x.2010.01.003


      Chang M, and C Cardelino. 2000. Application of the urban airshed model to forecasting next-day peak ozone concentrations in Atlanta, Georgia.  Journal of the Air and Waste Management, 50(11):2010–2024.

      Chow V T, D R Maidment, and L W Mays. 1988. Applied Hydrology. New York: McGraw-Hill Inc.

      Croley II T E, and He C S. 2005. Distributed-parameter large basin runoff model I: model development.  Journal of Hydrologic Engineering, 10(3):173–181.

      Croley II T E, and He C S. 2006.  A watershed surface and subsurface spatial intraflows model.  Journal of Hydrologic Engineering, 11(10):12–20.

      Croley II T E, He C S, and D H Lee. 2005. Distributed-parameter large basin runoff model II: application.  Journal of Hydrologic Engineering, 10(3):182–191.

      Croley II T E, D F Raikow, He C S, and J F Atkinson. 2008. Hydrological Resource Sheds.  Journal of Hydrologic Engineering, 13 (9):873–885.

      He C S, and T E Croley II. 2007. Application of a Distributed Large Basin Runoff Model in the Great Lakes Basin.  Control Engineering Practice, 15 (8): 1001–1011.

      He C, C DeMarchi, T E Croley, Feng Q, and T Hunter. 2009. Modeling the Hydrology of the Heihe Watershed in Northwestern China. Journal of Glaciology and Geocryology, 31 (3):420–421. 

      Lowe W H, G E Likens, and M E Power. 2006. Linking scales in stream ecology. BioScience, 56(7):591–597.  

      Michel S M. 2000. Defining hydrocommons governance along the border of the Californias: A case study of transbasin diversions and water quality in the Tijuana-San Diego metropolitan region. Natural Resources Journal, 40:931–972.

      Morawska L, D Vishvakarman, K Mengersen, and S Thomas. 2002. Spatial variation of airborne pollutant concentrations in Brisbane, Australia and its potential impact on population exposure assessment. Atmospheric Environment, 36(21):3545–3555.

      National Research Council. 1999.  New Strategies for America’s Watersheds. Washington, D. C.: National Academy Press.

      Oswood M W, J B Reynolds, J G Irons, and A M Milner. 2000. Distribution of freshwater fishes in ecoregions and hydroregions of Alaska.  Journal of the North American Benthological Soceity, 19(3):405–418.

      Paola C, E Foufoula-Georgiou, W E Dietrich, M Hondzo, D Mohrig, G Parker, M E Power, I Rodriguez-Iturbe, V Voller, and P Wilcock. 2006. Toward a unified science of the Earth’s surface: Opportunities for synthesis among hydrology, geomorphology, geochemistry, and ecology. Water Reources Research, 42(3), W03S10, doi:10.1029/2005WR004336. 

      Post DM, M W Doyle, J L Sabo, and J C Finlay. 2007. The Problem of boundaries in defining ecosystems: A potential landmine for uniting geomorphology and ecology. Geormorphology, 89(2007):111–126. 

      Power M E. 2006. Environmental controls on food web regimes: A fluvial Perspective. Progress in Oceanography, 68(2006):125–133. 

      Power M E, and W E Rainey. 2000.  Food webs and resource sheds: towards spatially delimiting trophic interactions. In: Hutchings M J, E A John, and A J A Stewart (eds), The Ecological Consequences of Environmental Heterogeneity, Oxford, U.K.: Blackwell Science, 291–314.

      Raikow D F, J F Atkinson, and T E Croley II. 2010. Development of resource shed delineation in aquatic ecosystems. Environ. Sci. Technol. 44(1): 329–334.  

      Santoul F, A Soulard, J Figuerola, R C?r?ghino, and S Mastrorillo. 2004. Environmental factors influencing local fish species richness and differences between hydroregions in South-Western France.  International Review of Hydrobiology, 89(1):79–87.

      Tullar I V, and I H Suffet. 1975. Fate of vanadium in an urban airshed-Lower Delaware River Valley.  Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association, 25(3):282–286.

      U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1995. Watershed Protection: A Statewide Approach.  Washington, D. C.: Office of  Water, EPA 841-R-95-004.