HYDROLOGICAL PROCESSES

Hydrol. Process. (2015)

Published online in Wiley Online Library
(wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/hyp.10422

Comparative analysis of baseflow characteristics of two

Andean catchments, Ecuador
P. Guzmn,1,2,3 O. Batelaan,1,2,4 M. Huysmans1 and G. Wyseure2*
1
Department of Hydrology and Hydraulic Engineering, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Pleinlaan 2, 1050 Brussel, Belgium
2
Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, KU Leuven, Celestijnenlaan 200e-bus 2410, 3001 Heverlee, Belgium
3
Programa de Manejo de Agua y Suelo, PROMAS, Universidad de Cuenca, Cuenca, Ecuador
4
National Centre for Groundwater Research and Training, School of the Environment, Flinders University, GPO Box 2100, Adelaide 5001 Australia

Abstract:
Baseow in the Andes is commonly considered to be related with the release of water stored in pramos. Pramo is the
predominant ecosystem above 3500 m a.s.l. and is characterized by a rainy and cold climate with low evapotranspiration.
However, this baseow concept is based on hydrological process studies in small Andean catchments of a few square kilometre
with a homogeneous land cover. Middle-sized Andean catchments, like the subcatchments of Tarqui and Yanuncay, Ecuador, are
rarely homogeneous or uniformly covered by pramo. The objectives of this study are therefore to investigate baseow
characteristics in heterogeneous Andean catchments and to identify relationships between baseow processes and physical
characteristics such as storage and recharge. Hereby, the contribution to baseow of pramo and other sources such as alluvial
aquifers is quantied.
This study uses nonlinear recession analysis, physically based lters and digital lters for comparison of baseow of
neighbouring but distinct subcatchments. The Yanuncay subcatchment shows a clearly different storage capacity and recession.
The storage capacity of Yanuncay is 50% higher than for Tarqui because of its higher coverage of pramo. On the other hand,
considerable storage capacity has also been found in the Tarqui subcatchment, which has a limited pramo area but a signicant
alluvial aquifer. It is shown that improved understanding of the specic baseow characteristics such as storage and recharge and
its relationships to the heterogeneity of the land cover in Andean catchments will lead to a better assessment of the water
resources and give new insights for effective management actions. Copyright 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

KEY WORDS baseow separation; Andean catchment; pramo; mountain hydrology; Ecuador

Received 25 February 2014; Accepted 22 December 2014

INTRODUCTION subsurface hydrological processes. Moreover, the knowl-

edge of the slow processes is crucial for the prediction of
Baseow is commonly related with the release from
low ows during droughts.
groundwater storage or other delayed sources like
Baseow rates of streams and springs have been
glaciers, lakes and wetlands (Smakhtin, 2001). The main
extensively investigated for more than a century
importance of baseow is that it maintains ow during
(Dewandel et al., 2003). A variety of studies investigate
periods without precipitation or direct runoff.
baseow in relation to climate and terrain factors (Van
Dunne (1983) has linked the occurrence of various
Dijk, 2010); storage (Tallaksen, 1995); recharge (Frhlich
runoff processes with topography, soils, climate, vegeta-
et al., 1994); retention characteristics of the catchment,
tion and land use in a logical framework (Figure 1).
groundwater storage, depletion and characteristics of the
Consequently, hydrographs reect the relative importance
groundwater reservoir (Wittenberg, 1999); and effects of
of the catchment processes, and more in particular,
seasonal and anthropogenic changes (Wittenberg, 2003;
baseow is an expression of different slow subsurface
Wang and Cai, 2010).
hydrological processes. Hence, studying baseow
Recession mechanisms have been subject of diverse
hydrographs of different catchments should allow
studies covering different scopes: mathematical develop-
identifying the relative importance of different slow
ment, basic assumptions and linearization problems (Hall,
1968); use of statistical packages to speed up the baseow
recession constant derivation and its eld application
*Correspondence to: G. Wyseure, Department of Earth and Environmental (Bako and Hunt, 1988; Bako and Owoade, 1988);
Sciences, KU Leuven, Celestijnenlaan 200e-bus 2410, 3001 Heverlee,
Belgium. geomorphological analysis and recession characteristics
E-mail: Guido.Wyseure@ees.kuleuven.be in mountainous watersheds (Zecharias and Brutsaert,

Copyright 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

 P. GUZMN ET AL.
Figure 1. Diagram showing different hydrological processes leading to
runoff generation depending on climate and soil types (Dunne, 1983)
1988); automation of recession analysis towards devel-
opment of regional models for ungauged catchments
(Nathan and McMahon, 1990); relation of recession
constant and geology (Sugiyama, 1996); use of master
recession curves for estimating empirical catchment
averaged discharge-relative storage relationships (Lamb
and Beven, 1997); comparison of techniques for
hydrograph recession analysis (Sujono et al., 2004); and
base ow recession analysis for assessing human impact
on low ows (Wang and Cai, 2009).
Mountainous areas, like Andean catchments in Ecua-
dor, exhibit an important heterogeneity in function of the
elevation range. This range generates high spatial
variability of precipitation and temperature (Clleri
et al., 2007) and is hence one cause for the occurrence
of different ecosystems and different patterns of hydro-
logical response, among them baseow. So far, no
specic study has dealt with comparative baseow
analysis for the very particular Andean catchments.
The majority of hydrological process studies in Andean
catchments have focused on small catchments of a few
square kilometre and homogeneous land cover. Extensive
studies of soil properties, weather conditions, runoff and
land use have been carried out (Buytaert et al., 2004;
Buytaert et al., 2006a; Roa-Garca et al., 2011; Crespo
et al., 2011) mostly in the southern part of Ecuador.
In Andean catchments, pramo is a particular land
cover that largely affects the hydrological processes.
Pramo is a neotropical grassland ecosystem predominant
at high altitudes above 3500 m a.s.l. (Buytaert et al.,
2006b). The climate at these altitudes is characterized by
low temperatures with a mean annual temperature of
about 7C, an average precipitation mainly in the form of
rainfall of about 1400 mm/year and solar radiation almost
Copyright 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
constant throughout the year because of its proximity to
the equator (Buytaert et al., 2006a).
Pramo areas are located roughly between 11 north
and 8 south latitude, forming discontinuous patches from
the high mountains of Merida in Venezuela to the
Huancabamba depression in northern Per. It is also
found in an isolated small area in Costa Rica.
Geomorphologically, it is mostly dened by glacier
valleys formed by a mixture of high sloped hillsides
and plains (Buytaert et al., 2006c).
The soils of southern Ecuadorian pramo are primarily
Andosols that are formed on volcanic ash deposits in a
cold and wet climate. They have a very large water
retention capacity and a high saturated hydraulic
conductivity because of its open and porous structure
and high organic matter content. The hydraulic conduc-
tivity decreases sharply under unsaturated conditions
(Buytaert et al., 2005, 2006b). Dominant vegetation are
grasslands and patches of woody species such as
Polylepis sp. and Gynoxys sp. that occur along the water
streams and in wind sheltered locations (Buytaert et al.,
2006c).
The water quality in pramos is excellent; therefore, it
is an ideal source for drinking water. The baseow in
some Andean river catchments is attributed to water
provided by the pramo ecosystem, and it has been stated
that during dry periods it provides 100% of the baseow
(Buytaert et al., 2004; 2006c). The pramos are
considered to be the water towers of the Northern part
of the Andes.
Despite the iconic and characteristic occurrence of
pramo, middle size Andean catchments are rarely
homogeneous and uniformly covered by pramo. The
research on understanding hydrological response and
baseow characteristics in larger scale heterogeneous
catchments is limited (Clleri and Feyen, 2009).
It is expected that improved understanding of the
specic baseow characteristics such as storage and
recharge and its relationships to the heterogeneity of land
cover in Andean catchments will lead to better assessment
of the water resources and give new insights for effective
management actions.
The objectives of this study are therefore to investigate
baseow characteristics in heterogeneous Andean catch-
ments and to identify relationships between baseow
processes and physical characteristics such as storage
and recharge. Hereby, the contribution to baseow of
paramo and other sources such as alluvial aquifers is
quantied.
This study uses different methods for separating
baseow under Andean conditions. We compare between
neighbouring but distinctly different subcatchments to
assess differences and similarities in baseow character-
istics. This article constitutes a step forward in baseow
Hydrol. Process. (2015)
 BASEFLOW COMPARISON BETWEEN TWO ANDEAN CATCHMENTS, ECUADOR
analysis and contributes to the hydrological process
literature with new insights in baseow characteristics
of highly variable Andean catchments.
Study area
The Paute River catchment is an Andean mountain
catchment situated in the southern part of Ecuador. It is
characterized by a high spatial variability of altitude,
precipitation and temperature (Clleri et al., 2007).
The adjacent Paute subcatchments of Tarqui and
Yanuncay (Figure 2) show a clear contrast in topography.
Tarqui has a relatively at topography in the valley below
2700 m a.s.l., whilst Yanuncay has plateau areas at about
3500 m. Both subcatchments have a discharge station at
their outlets just upstream of their conuence.
Hydrogeologically, the Tarqui valley is characterized by
an alluvial aquifer in the lowest part of the subcatchment.
On the other hand, the neighbouring subcatchment of the
Yanuncay River has a narrow valley without evidence of
an aquifer. Yanuncay has substantially more pramo areas
as compared with the Tarqui subcatchment (Figure 3).
The at valley of Tarqui represents an attractive place
for urban expansion because of its limited distance from
the city of Cuenca, which has 500 000 inhabitants. The
Tarqui subcatchment will be potentially affected by
mining exploitation located in the pramo areas near its
watershed divide. Land use change by urban expansion
and potential mining activities represent potential hazards
for proper water resources management. Better knowl-
edge of the hydrological processes is necessary to
mitigate and regulate these threats.
Figure 2. Location and elevation of Tarqui and Yanuncay subcatchments, the available meteorological, river level and precipitation stations are indicated
as well
Copyright 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
The particular physical conditions of the two studied
subcatchments lead to differences in hydrological
behaviour. Thus, comparative analysis of both
subcatchments may explain differences in baseow
characteristics.
Perceptual models
In order to illustrate the different physical conditions in
the subcatchments, three perceptual models have been
constructed from eld observations, data analysis and
previous studies (Beven, 2012). In these, the possible
pathways in which surface water and groundwater move
through the Tarqui and Yanuncay catchment were
identied (Figure 3).
It is hypothesized that the hydrological response of
Tarqui can be explained by the concurrence of the three
models (A, B and C), whilst for Yanuncay mainly model
A, with a secondary role for model B, is relevant.
The perceptual model for the pramo dominated upper
catchment (A) is based on the concepts presented by
Buytaert and Beven (2011). The prevalent physical
conditions are highly saturated soils and low evapotrans-
piration as indicated in Figure 3. The hydrological
response of pramo is thought to be composed of a
combination of overland and shallow lateral subsurface
ow. As Yanuncay is mainly covered by pramo, the
expected response should predominantly follow model A.
Recharge to deeper groundwater is not likely in pramo
areas because of impervious bedrock at shallow depth,
but a slow response is caused by the combination of a
high water holding capacity of the soil and a low
Hydrol. Process. (2015)
 P. GUZMN ET AL.

Figure 3. Perceptual models for the hydrological processes for upper, middle and lower part of the Tarqui and Yanuncay subcatchments in function of
their relief. The different processes are the following: evapotranspiration (ET); inltration (Inf); recharge (Rech); hillslope runoff (Qhill); overland ow
(Qo); lateral subsurface ow (Qi); and low ow (Qs). Wt is the water table

evapotranspiration of the vegetation. In the alluvial

valley, model C is prevalent. In this model, groundwater
discharge (Qs) depends on the water table position (Wt). If
the water table depth becomes lower than the streambed,
the aquifer becomes disconnected (Wtl) and Qs ceases, but
deeper storage could still remain. Model B, is a concept in
which we expect inltration, recharge and a variable
water table.

DATA
A digital elevation model with a 5 5 m spatial resolution
was available (Table I). The subcatchments have a similar
mean, standard deviation and maximum slope. Yanuncay
has a more elongated shape with, therefore, a larger
perimeter. Figure 4 compares the altitude in function of
Figure 4. Altitude versus cumulative area for Yanuncay and Tarqui
the cumulative area for both subcatchments. Yanuncay subcatchments

Table I. Main elevation characteristics of the Tarqui and the

Yanuncay subcatchments has a clearly higher elevation, which has a distinct
inuence on the soil and vegetation characteristics as the
Characteristic Tarqui Yanuncay lower limit for pramo ecosystems is 3500 m a.s.l. Hence,
the predominance of pramo is obvious for Yanuncay
Maximum slope (%) 69 76
having almost 77% of its area over 3500 m a.s.l, whereas
Mean slope (%) 18 16
Std dev of slope (%) 10.7 11.5 for Tarqui this is only 11%. Moreover, the geomorpho-
Lowest altitude (m) 2528 2524 logy of Yanuncay does not provide space for an aquifer
Highest altitude (m) 3945 4366 adjacent to the river. The area in the Yanuncay
Mean altitude (m) 3040 3652 subcatchment higher than 3500 m up to 4000 m has
Std dev of altitude (m) 334 333
relatively mild slopes. The Tarqui subcatchment has a
Perimeter (km) 112.4 150.1
Area (km2) 476.3 418.9 wider valley and land use is mainly a combination of
pasture, forests and agricultural crops.

Copyright 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Hydrol. Process. (2015)
 BASEFLOW COMPARISON BETWEEN TWO ANDEAN CATCHMENTS, ECUADOR

Figure 5. Monthly average precipitation for Yanuncay and Tarqui stations
from July 1997 till 30 December 2011
Both Yanuncay and Tarqui have two precipitation
stations each (Figure 2). The precipitation was monitored
from 17 July 1997 until 30 December 2011 by a tipping
bucket rain gauge with an accuracy of 0.5 mm (Figure 5);
other characteristics of the stations are given in Table II.
The daily precipitation for each subcatchment was
estimated using Thiessen polygons.
For both Yanuncay and Tarqui, two river level gauging
stations are also available, one central station and one
near the outlet of the subcatchment (Figure 2). The
derived discharge records are based gauging of water
levels with 5-min interval and a calibrated stage
discharge relationship. Data of precipitation, water level
and discharge have been supplied by the drinking water
supply company of the city of Cuenca. The discharge
time series covers the same period as the precipitation but
shows several gaps (Table II). Both precipitation and
discharge data were processed and averaged using the
free software Hydraccess (Vauchel, 2005).
Potential evapotranspiration (ET0) is calculated using
the PenmanMonteith equation (Allen et al., 1998) for the
stations located at 2630 m a.s.l. in central Tarqui
(upstream of the outlets) and at 3761 m a.s.l. in the high
Tarqui (pramo) very close to the Yanuncay border
(Figures 2 and 6). The average ET0 in the lower valley at
Figure 6. Monthly potential evapotranspiration (ET0) at two different
altitudes for periods: June 2000 till June 2001 and August 2005 till
November 2012 at 2630 and 3761 m a.s.l., respectively
2630 m a.s.l. is 2.6 mm/day, whereas in the pramos
located at 3761 m, it is 1.96 mm/day. Buytaert et al.
(2006a) obtained similar values (1.90 mm/day) for
pramos located in the Paute catchment.
METHODS
Water balance
The general water balance for the catchments can be
stated as
P
Q
ET
G S (1)
where P is the precipitation (mm), Q is the river discharge
(mm), ET the actual evapotranspiration (mm), G the net
groundwater ow leaving the catchment boundary
without passing the river outlet (mm) and S the storage
change (mm) for a given period of time. The actual
evapotranspiration is calculated as
ET ET0 Kv Ks (2)
with ET0 the reference crop evapotranspiration in

Table II. Characteristics of precipitation and river level gauging stations in the Tarqui and Yanuncay subcatchments

Altitude Average Disch (m3/s) Std dev. Disch (m3/s)

m a.s.l ID station Type % Gaps Duration years precipitation (mm/day) precipitation (mm/day)

2528 STRH08 River level 44.6 7.90 7.41 7.64

3000 STRH09D River level 4.7 13.80 5.81 6.24
2533 STRH11 River level 15.4 15.40 4.16 5.05
2630 STRH12D River level 0.8 14.30 1.52 2.02
3000 STRH09R Precipitation 6.2 13.60 2.70 4.33
3538 STRH10 Precipitation 0.0 14.40 2.50 4.02
2630 STRH12R Precipitation 0.0 14.40 2.29 4.37
3174 STRH14 Precipitation 1.1 14.30 3.10 5.48

Copyright 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Hydrol. Process. (2015)
 P. GUZMN ET AL.
millimetre, Kv a vegetation coefcient and Ks a stress
factor. To take into account the spatial distribution of the
ET in the subcatchment, a weighted value of ET has been
proposed:
Ap
Al
ET ET0p Kvp Ksp ET0l K l (3) strict and hence too few recession periods were found.
AT AT
with A the area, where the subscript p denotes pramo, l
the agricultural land (mainly pasture) lower than 3500 m
a.s.l. and subscript T the total catchment. Kvp and Ksp are
0.62 and 1, respectively, and have been estimated by
closing the water balance for two pramo
microcatchments located in upper Tarqui close to the
Yanuncay boundary over a longer period. Studies in
pramo show values as low as 0.42 and 1.0 for Kvp and
Ksp, respectively (Buytaert et al., 2006a). We assume one
factor Kl, which averages the evapotranspiration in time
and space of the different vegetation types, located below
3500 m a.s.l.
Over a longer period, the terms G and S in Equation 1
can be neglected, resulting in a Kl of 0.70 as estimated by
closing the water balance. Then, the actual ET is
calculated with Equation 3.
The altitude is considered as the main factor
inuencing the spatial variation of evapotranspiration.
For similar altitude in Yanuncay and Tarqui, the average
evapotranspiration is expected to show the same temporal
behaviour.
Baseow assessment
There is no direct way to continuously measure baseow
(Furey and Gupta, 2001). Only during longer dry periods,
pure baseow can be observed. For other periods, baseow
separation methods are used. The majority of baseow
separation methods do not have a clear physical basis.
However, more recently, Furey and Gupta (2001) and
Huyck et al. (2005) developed physically based lters for
separating baseow from stream ow.
In order to investigate if baseow shows a distinct
behaviour in the contrasting but adjacent Tarqui and
Yanuncay subcatchments, we have estimated and com-
pared baseow using nonlinear recession analysis,
physically based lters and digital lters.
Nonlinear recession analysis
Baseow is a continuous component of the hydrograph,
hence, we need to identify the starting and end points for
baseow separation (Chow et al., 1988). Chapman (1999)
who compared several methods for separation of baseow
from stream hydrographs dened the starting and end
point by identifying the moment when the direct runoff
starts and ends, respectively.
Copyright 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
The recession rate of baseow is studied during periods
with little or no precipitation (Tallaksen, 1995). In this
research, the starting criterion to select the moment for a
depletion period was initially set to ten consecutive days
without precipitation. However, this criterion was too
Therefore, the rule was relaxed to 10 days with an average
daily precipitation of less than 0.5 mm/day, which is
substantially lower than the potential evapotranspiration,
even at higher altitudes.
Although, recession discharge characteristics are by
nature nonlinear, Wittenberg (1999) pointed out that
because of the easier mathematical formulation, concep-
tual models for runoff processes have been predominantly
linear. Therefore, recession curves are often section by
section approximated by linear reservoirs with different
recession constants (k). If the resulting set of k-values is
different, there is a strong indication for the nonlinear
character of the recession. This is especially true when
they vary in a systematic way according to the stage level
(Prasad, 1967; Wittenberg, 1994). The nonlinear storage
equation is expressed as (Wittenberg, 1999).
S aQb (4)
with S being storage in m3, Q discharge in m3/s, and a a
factor with dimension m3
3b sb. The exponent b is
dimensionless. If b is equal to 1, Equation 4 changes
into the well-known linear reservoir storage equation
(Maillet, 1905). Combining Equation 4 with the continu-
ity equation without recharge gives
d aQb

Q (5)
dt
integrating this equation results in an equation for the
depletion of a nonlinear reservoir, starting at any initial
discharge Qo (Coutagne, 1948)
 1=b
1
1
bQ1
b
Qt Qo 1 o
t (6)
ab
The coefcient a can be estimated by
Qi
1 Qi t
a
(7)
2 Qbi
1 Qbi
This storage parameter a can be determined by an
iterative least-squares calibration of a recession time
series. As a and b are strongly correlated, the value of b
was changed gradually from 0.4 to 0.6 in order to observe
differences among subcatchments and different scales,
The value for b recommended by Wittenberg and
Hydrol. Process. (2015)
 BASEFLOW COMPARISON BETWEEN TWO ANDEAN CATCHMENTS, ECUADOR
Sivapalan (1999), Wittenberg (1999) and Chapman
(1999) is equal to 0.5.
Physically based lters
Graphical and lter approaches lack a physical base
(Furey and Gupta, 2001). Comparing the subcatchments,
we expect that the different physical characteristics will
produce different baseow patterns. Hence, a physical
conceptual basis for the baseow separation method is
desirable.
The physical lter developed by Furey and Gupta
(2001) is derived from a mass balance equation for
baseow from a hillside. Details on the development and
tests of this lter can be found in Furey and Gupta (2000,
2001, 2003). The main assumptions of the lter are that
the catchment is composed of n hillsides and that
channelled water can be routed instantaneously within
the time step of the model from each hillside to the outlet.
Under these conditions, mean baseow and streamow
are dened as
qb B; j ni1 qb i; j (8a)
QB; j ni1 Qi; j (8b)
where the subscript B indicates the basin, i the hillside, j
the time step, qb the baseow and Q total discharge. To
preserve the mass
c1 c2 c3 1 (9)
where c1, c2, c3 are fractions of precipitation transformed
into overland ow, evapotranspiration and recharge,
respectively. The values of c1, c2, c3 for a hillside are
similar for a catchment. Over a long period, the net
change in storage of water in a basin is close to zero,
hence c2, can be calculated as
j0T
jj0 QB; j
c2 1
j0T
(10)
jj0 PB; j
where P is the precipitation. The physical lter equations
become then (Furey and Gupta, 2001)
qb B;j 1
qb B; j
1
   (Eckhardt, 2005). However, the high-frequency compo-
c3
QB; j
d
1
qb B; j
d
1 (11)
c1
QB; j 1
QB; j
1
 
n11 c1 Pi; j
1
c1 Pi;j
1 c3 Pi; j
d
1
(12)
where subscript d is a delayed time for recharge,
Copyright 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
considering recharge as a delayed response to precipita-
tion. 1
is the recession constant of the catchment
dened as a non-dimensional parameter, which describes
the rate at which stream ow decreases whilst recharged
by groundwater (Vogel and Kroll, 1996).
To estimate the parameters , c1 and c3, Furey and
Gupta (2001) use Equation 12 under the conditions of
precipitation (PB; j ; PB; j
1 ; PB; j
d
1 , resulting in
QB; j
1
if PB; j PB; j
1 PB; j
d
1
QB; j
1
0 (13)
QB; j 1
QB; j
1
c1 if PB; j > 0; PB; j
1
PB; j
PB; j
d
1 0 (14)
where c2 is calculated using Equation 10, and c3 by
Equation 9. The specic conditions of precipitation in
Equations 13 and 14 are very difcult to nd in the
precipitation records of the studied subcatchments.
Therefore, we apply Equation 13 for
PB; j PB; j
1 PB; j
d
1 0:5 (15)
we assume that during these specic events, the
inuence of precipitation in the discharge is negligible
(Equation 12).
Digital lters
Alternatively, digital lters are attractive for long-time
series of data. Arnold and Allen (1999a) indicate that the
strength of these lters is the reproducibility, although they
do not have any physical basis. Furey and Gupta (2001)
corroborate this idea and add that they are arguably more
objective than the graphical approach and often easier and
faster to implement. Results of digital lters look realistic
because baseow is arbitrarily constrained such that it does
not exceed stream ow nor becomes negative.
The baseow lter BFLOW (Lyne and Hollick, 1979),
and the Eckhardt lter are based on the idea that high
frequency waves can be associated with direct runoff, and
low frequency waves can be associated with baseow
nent may represent only a part of the surface runoff rather
than the total surface runoff, so that the physical
interpretation of baseow as low frequency component
and direct runoff as high frequency component may be
incorrect (Spongberg, 2000).
The digital lters of Lyne and Hollick or BFLOW
(Equation 16) and Eckhardt (Equation 17) are integrated
in the web Geographical Information System hydrograph
analysis tool (WHAT) (Lim et al., 2005).
Hydrol. Process. (2015)
 P. GUZMN ET AL.
The BFLOW lter is dened as
1
qdt qdt
1 Qt
Qt
1 (16)
2
where, qdt is the ltered direct runoff at time step t (m3/s);
qdt
1 is the ltered direct runoff at time step t
1 (m3/s);
is the lter parameter; Qt is the total streamow at time
step t (m3/s); and Qt
1 is the total stream ow at time
step t
1 (m3/s).
The Eckhardt lter is dened by
1
BFImax qbt
1 1
BFImax Qt
qbt
1
BFImax
(17)
where bt and bt
1 are the baseow (m3/s) at time step t and
t
1, respectively. BFImax is dened as the maximum
value of the baseow index, that is, the long-term ratio of
baseow to total streamow. An extended explanation of
the index is given in Eckhardt (2005). In order to minimize
the inuence of a subjective choice of BFImax, BFImax
values have been suggested for different hydrogeological
conditions (Eckhardt, 2005). BFImax values vary from
0.25 over 0.50 to 0.80 for perennial streams with hard rock
aquifers, intermittent streams with porous aquifers and
perennial streams with porous aquifer, respectively.
As the studied subcatchments lack groundwater level
data, we applied WHAT using different values of BFImax
0.25, 0.5 and 0.80, in order to infer if the baseow
response of the subcatchments corresponds to one of the
aquifer types.
The described methods for baseow analysis and
separation (nonlinear recession analysis, physically based
lter and digital lters) were applied at a daily basis.
It should be noted that the expressions derived for
digital lters (Equations (16) and (17)) have a similar
form to the physically based lter expression (Equation
Figure 7. Correlation between specic runoff of the Tarqui and Yanuncay subcatchments for the periods 24 October 1998 till 8 May 2002 and 4
February 2008 till 14 August 2011
Copyright 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
11), but the coefcients of physical lters provide the
possibility of explaining processes like recharge.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Hydrograph correlation and water balance
Two time series of specic runoff (24 October 19988
May 2002 and 4 February 200814 August 2011) for
Tarqui and Yanuncay were compared. The specic runoff
in mm/day is calculated by dividing the discharge by the
area of the subcatchment. The linear correlation assessed
with the R2 Pearson coefcient shows a similar response
in both subcatchments with correlations of 0.76 and 0.62,
respectively, for 19982002 and 20082011 (Figure 7).
Table III shows the cumulative precipitation, discharge
and evapotranspiration for Tarqui and Yanuncay. The
analyzed 1230 days correspond to the longest common
period of continuous series of precipitation and discharge.
Total precipitation and specic runoff for Tarqui are
lower than for Yanuncay, 6% and 55%, respectively.
Higher specic runoff for Yanuncay is likely related to
the pramo and is consistent with results presented by
Buytaert and Beven (2011).
The evapotranspiration estimated using Equation 3 is
higher in Tarqui, the difference is related directly to the
altitude distribution of the subcatchments.
Table III. Long term water balance for Yanuncay and Tarqui for a
period of 1230 days (2 April 200814 August 2011)
Yanuncay %P Tarqui %P
Precipitation P (mm) 3343 3147
Specic runoff Q (mm) 1854 55 800 25
Evapotranspiration ET (mm) 1697 51 2154 68
P-Q-ET -6 7
Hydrol. Process. (2015)
 BASEFLOW COMPARISON BETWEEN TWO ANDEAN CATCHMENTS, ECUADOR

Table III shows that the water balance (P
Q
ET) is Table V. Variation of the ratio a/Area in function of b for
not completely closed, pointing to inaccuracies in the Yanuncay and Tarqui subcatchments for the middle reach and
downstream station
measured data, estimation of the evapotranspiration or
change in storage and net groundwater (Equation 1). a/Area (m3
3b sb m
2)
Despite uncertainties in the estimation of the water
balance terms, Yanuncay and Tarqui show clearly Yanuncay Yanuncay Tarqui Tarqui
b downstream middle downstream middle
different hydrological patterns.
0.4 2.53E-07 2.03E-07 1.49E-07 1.53E-07
Nonlinear recession analysis 0.5 1.89E-07 1.65E-07 1.13E-07 1.24E-07
0.6 1.48E-07 1.39E-07 9.03E-08 1.09E-07
Wittenberg (1999) shows that the analysis of ow
recession curves allow the determination of characteristics
of the groundwater reservoir. In an analysis comparing
Chinese and German catchments, the last showed substantially more pramo area than Tarqui, 322 versus
signicantly higher values of a, and hence higher storage 52 km2, respectively. The at sedimentary valley of Tarqui
capacity than the Chinese catchments (Wittenberg, 1994). (25 km2) below 2700 m a.s.l. is not large enough to
Similarly, we aim to characterize the storage of the compensate the storage capacity of the pramo of
subcatchments of Yanuncay and Tarqui by comparing the Yanuncay.
values of a for gauging stations in the middle reach and We have calculated the ratio between a and the
downstream (total) for each of the two subcatchments. corresponding drainage area (a/Area) for each station
Comparing a in function of b values shows that for (middle and downstream) in order to compare the storage
each of the four subcatchments, a consistently reduces capacity per unit of area (m2) (Table V).
with increasing b (Table IV). This consistency was tested The ratio a/area shows that Yanuncay downstream has
in order to compare the storage capacity of different the highest storage capacity per unit of area. Comparing
subcatchments xing the value of b. with tendencies of a (Table IV), the a/Area ratio in
The Yanuncay downstream discharge series shows Yanuncay middle is now closer to Yanuncay downstream
higher a values than for the stations of Tarqui and the and is 46% higher than Tarqui downstream. On the other
Yanuncay middle. The storage capacity of Yanuncay hand, the Tarqui middle a/Area ratio is closer to the
downstream is 55%, 46% and 216% higher than Tarqui downstream ratio.
Yanuncay middle, Tarqui downstream and middle, Values in Table V conrm the inuence of different
respectively (for b equal to 0.5). Larger subcatchments ecosystems on the storage of the subcatchments.
generally show higher storage. This is noticed when
comparing the total and middle stations within the same Physically based lter
subcatchment. We assess the delay time for recharge d by applying
Tarqui downstream and Yanuncay middle show a Equation 11 on the discharge and baseow series whilst
similar storage capacity. There is a 6% difference for b gradually varying d. With d equal to zero days, the
equal to 0.5. The area of Tarqui is 167 km2 (54%) larger simulated baseow tends to be shifted to the right. Whilst
than Yanuncay middle. d increases, the shift also increases. As a consequence,
Besides the area, the composition and proportion of the adopting d equal to zero seems appropriate. This indicates
different ecosystems in the subcatchments appear to that the response of the subcatchment occurs within the
inuence the storage. The Yanuncay subcatchment has same day as the rainfall.

Table IV. Variation of the nonlinear recession parameter a

(m3
3b sb) in function of b for Yanuncay and Tarqui Table VI. Parameter values obtained by application of physical
subcatchments for the middle reach and downstream station lters

a (m3
3b sb) Yanuncay Tarqui

Yanuncay Yanuncay Tarqui Tarqui (1
) 0.96 0.94

b downstream middle downstream middle c3/c1 13.30 6.85
c1 3.62E-02 4.01E-02
0.4 106 63 71 31 c2 4.82E-01 6.85E-01
0.5 79 51 54 25 c3 4.82E-01 2.75E-01
0.6 62 43 43 22 BFI 0.93 0.87

Copyright 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Hydrol. Process. (2015)
 P. GUZMN ET AL.
The estimated recession constants (1
) (Table VI)
are consistent with literature values, slightly higher values
for (1
) were found for the subcatchment of Yanuncay.
Overland ow and recharge (c1 and c3) in Yanuncay
are, respectively, 10% lower and 75% higher than in
Tarqui. As a consequence, the ratio c3/c1 is higher in
Yanuncay. Average recharge (c3) is calculated on basis of
c1 and c2, c1 is estimated based on Equation 14, and c2 is
calculated using rainfall and discharge data. Higher c2 in
Tarqui means higher evapotranspiration and less water
available for recharge, which is also consistent with the
values estimated in Table III.
The resulting baseow for both Yanuncay and Tarqui
appears to be remarkably high. The ratio between total
discharge and baseow (BFI) is 0.93 and 0.87 for
Yanuncay and Tarqui, respectively. These values point to
an overestimation of c3/c1.
Assumptions for estimating c3/c1 do not take variations
in time into account. Furey and Gupta (2001) also noticed
the need to consider c3/c1 as a time-dependent variable
because of changes in evapotranspiration (c2), soil moisture
and precipitation. c2 estimated for wet and dry months
varies from 0.41 to 0.76 in Yanuncay and from 0.47 to 1 in
Tarqui with lower values during April and higher during
August. c1 shows an important variation, it even reduces to
zero for Tarqui during the month of August.
The ratio c3/c1 can be estimated by an iterative
procedure in which baseow is tted to the total ow
during dry periods. In Yanuncay and Tarqui, we have
estimated c3/c1 and found values of 15.9 and 12.8,
respectively. A major problem constitutes of assessing c3/
c1 during wet periods. Including measurements of soil
moisture could help to estimate c3/c1 in wet periods but is
especially difcult at subcatchment level because of its
spatial and temporal variation.
The comparison between Tarqui and Yanuncay
consistently shows a higher recharge in Yanuncay
compared with Tarqui. This can be explained by the
lower potential evaporation at higher altitude.
Digital lters
WHAT was applied for baseow separation from daily
discharge series for the middle and total gauging stations
in both subcatchments. For the BFLOW lter, we have
used a lter parameter of 0.925, and for the Eckhardt
lter, we have gradually changed the parameter BFImax
from 0.25 to 0.8 in order to infer whether the baseow
response of the subcatchments corresponds to one of the
aquifer types described previously in methods section.
The baseow index shows only very small differences
between Tarqui and Yanuncay considering the same
period and the same lter approach (Table VII). Also, the
BFI values found for BFLOW and Eckhardt lters are
very similar. We consider that the Eckhardt lter with
Copyright 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Table VII. Values of BFI ratio for Tarqui and Yanuncay middle
and total river level stations
Yanuncay Yanuncay Tarqui Tarqui
downstream middle downstream middle
Eckhardt lter, 0.26 0.27 0.28 0.25
BFImax = 0.25
Eckhardt lter, 0.45 0.45 0.47 0.43
BFImax = 0.5
Eckhardt lter, 0.63 0.64 0.65 0.59
BFImax = 0.8
BFLOW lter 0.65 0.66 0.66 0.60
BFImax equal to 0.25 and 0.5 underestimates baseow as
it is consistently below the minimal discharge for Tarqui
and Yanuncay stations.
Whilst BFImax is 0.25 or 0.5, the obtained BFI index
tends to be close to BFImax, but when BFImax is 0.8, BFI
is on average 22% lower than BFImax (Table VII).
Digital lters use high and low-frequency components
to separate baseow, and BFImax constrains the maximum
baseow. It means that BFI reaches BFImax when the
waves have a predominantly low frequency. If BFImax
increases, more high-frequency waves are included from
the discharge hydrograph, and hence BFI becomes smaller
than BFImax, which is shown for the case when BFImax
equals 0.8.
Eckhardt (2008) stated that the true BFI values are
unknown. Therefore, one cannot say which one of the
values is the best approximation, but for the studied
subcatchments, the physical geomorphological character-
istics are known to be different, and the results coming
from digital lters do not reect this as have been shown
in other case studies by Eckhardt (2005).
Baseow comparison
Measuring baseow in the eld is very difcult (Li
et al., 2014). For assessing and comparing baseow in
both subcatchments, we assumed that the total ow of the
subcatchment is equal to baseow during the lowest
discharge periods, which coincide with the periods of
high-potential evapotranspiration and low precipitation.
These periods were most common from July until
November of 2009 and from August until October of
2010 (Figure 8).
During both dry periods, the Tarqui subcatchment
showed the lowest specic runoff. Its average specic
runoff is about 60% lower than Yanuncay average
specic runoff.
Despite the dry weather conditions, low specic
runoff peaks are noticeable in Tarqui as well as in
Yanuncay. The low peaks might be considered ground-
water discharge from close proximity to the river
(Chapman and Maxwell, 1996). They coincide with
Hydrol. Process. (2015)
 BASEFLOW COMPARISON BETWEEN TWO ANDEAN CATCHMENTS, ECUADOR
Figure 8. Comparison of estimated baseow and specic runoff for Tarqui and Yanuncay during lowest discharge periods. Q is specic runoff.
Qb_eckh0.8, Qb_N.L.Rec and Qb_Phys.Fil are baseow estimated by Eckhardt digital lter, nonlinear recession analysis and physical lter, respectively
events when precipitation exceeds potential evapotrans-
piration.
The low peaks in Yanuncay and Tarqui have a different
source or origin. The most marked peaks in Yanuncay
ratify the response of pramos characterized by high
saturation and high hydraulic conductivity, whereas in
Tarqui, mobilization of groundwater from the alluvial
valley is the dominant process.
Baseow assessed by different methods showed minor
differences, whilst the dynamics varied from method to
method.
Digital and nonlinear recession lters are not capable to
simulate low peaks. For digital lters, this is caused by
the constrictions imposed by BFImax and the ltering of
low frequencies as baseow. Nonlinear recession lters
fail to capture peaks because their lter process does not
allow reaching a maximum value in a peak, rather, it is
limited to a recession curve pattern. Physical lters better
simulate these peaks.
Higher values of the c3/c1 ratio in physical lters allow
approaching baseow estimates close to the low dis-
charges, however, it results in an overestimation of
baseow in other periods as discussed previously. In our
comparison between Tarqui and Yanuncay for low
discharge periods, the assessed ratio c3/c1 for Yanuncay
is around 24% higher than for Tarqui. This conrms the
hypothesis of the high inuence of pramo in the slow
response of the catchment and the capacity of pramo to
sustain river baseow during low precipitation periods.
CONCLUSIONS
Baseow characteristics of two middle sized Andean
catchments have been investigated and compared using
different baseow separation approaches.
Recession characteristics of baseow are clearly
differentiated from the comparative analysis. Storage
Copyright 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
capacity analyzed through the parameter a and the ratio a/
Area shows differences between the Yanuncay
subcatchment and the more heterogeneous Tarqui
subcatchment. This parameter can be explained by the
water balance and physical characteristics as indicated by
the perceptual models.
The Yanuncay subcatchment, which is largely repre-
sented by perceptual model A (pramo), shows a storage
capacity approximately 50% higher than Tarqui. This is
linked to the amount of pramo (three times larger or
270 km2 more than Tarqui). Hence, pramo ecosystems
play a key role in the hydrological response. Because the
pramo area in Tarqui is one third of that in Yanuncay,
we would expect lower storage if this came exclusively
from pramo. However, considerable storage capacity
other than in the pramo has been found in Tarqui in the
form of the presence of an alluvial aquifer.
Baseow presented in the Tarqui subcatchment shows
the combined effect of an area of pramo with the alluvial
aquifer in the lower valley (perceptual models A and
C). The contribution of perceptual model B to
baseow is considered negligible because of the domi-
nance of higher slopes and shallow soils.
The parameters proposed by physical based lters also
explain characteristics involved in baseow response such
as recharge (c3, c3/c1) and recession constant (1
).
The ratio c3/c1 is estimated using precipitation and
streamow data, thus accurate and good representation
of temporal and spatial distribution of precipitation seems
crucial. Moreover, the current method assumes a constant
ratio. Further research should investigate the time-
dependence of c3/c1 in function of catchment wetness
and/or soil moisture data.
Although recharge in Yanuncay is larger than Tarqui
because of differences in potential evaporation, the
parameter c2 for Tarqui for August demonstrates the
importance of the alluvial aquifer for sustaining baseow,
whilst there is neither recharge nor overland ow. In
Hydrol. Process. (2015)
 P. GUZMN ET AL.
contrast to Buytaert et al. (2006c), we found evidence that
baseow in the Paute catchment has additional sources and
is not completely supplied by the pramo ecosystem.
The importance of the pramo ecosystem for sustaining
baseow is a signicant contribution and reason for
conserving them. However, the alluvial aquifer contribu-
tion to storage capacity and baseow in Tarqui is also
important and demands further attention for study and
management.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We thank Electric Corporation of Ecuador-Hidropaute
(CELEC EP Hidropaute) for their nancial support of this
research as well as the VLIR IUC programme between
the Flemish universities and Universidad de Cuenca,
Ecuador.
REFERENCES
Allen R, Pereira L, Raes D, Smith M. 1998. Crop evapotranspiration-
guidelines for computing crop water requirements-FAO irrigation and
drainage paper 56; 2640.
Arnold J, Allen P. 1999. Automated methods for estimating baseow and
ground water recharge from streamow records 1. JAWRA Journal of
the American Water Resources Association 35: 411424. DOI:
10.1111/j.1752-1688.1999.tb03599.x
Bako M, Hunt D. 1988. Derivation of baseow recession constant using
computer and numerical analysis. Hydrological Sciences Journal 33:
357367. DOI: 10.1080/02626668809491259
Bako M, Owoade A. 1988. Field application of a numerical method for the
derivation of baseow recession constant. Hydrological Processes 2:
331336. DOI: 10.1002/hyp.3360020404
Beven K. 2012. Rainfall-Runoff Modelling: The Primer. John Wiley &
Sons: Chichester; 488.
Buytaert W, Beven K. 2011. Models as multiple working hypotheses:
Hydrological simulation of tropical alpine wetlands. Hydrological
Processes 25: 17841799. DOI: 10.1002/hyp.7936
Buytaert W, De Bivre B, Wyseure G, Deckers J. 2004. The use of the
linear reservoir concept to quantify the impact of changes in land use on
the hydrology of catchments in the Andes. Hydrology and Earth System
Sciences 8: 108114. DOI: 10.5194/hess-8-108-2004
Buytaert W, Wyseure G, De Bivre B, Deckers J. 2005. The effect of land-
use changes on the hydrological behaviour of Histic Andosols in south
Ecuador. Hydrological Processes 19: 39853997. DOI: 10.1002/
hyp.5867
Buytaert W, Iiguez V, Clleri R, De Bivre B, Wyseure G, Deckers J.
2006a. Analysis of the water balance of small pramo catchments in
south Ecuador. Environmental role of wetlands in headwaters 63:
271281. DOI: 10.1007/1-4020-4228-0_24
Buytaert W, Deckers J, Wyseure G. 2006b. Description and classication
of nonallophanic Andosols in south Ecuadorian alpine grasslands
(pramo). Geomorphology 73: 207221. DOI: 10.1016/j.
geomorph.2005.06.012
Buytaert W, Clleri R, De Bivre B, Cisneros F, Wyseure G, Deckers J,
Hofstede R. 2006c. Human impact on the hydrology of the Andean
pramos. Earth-Science Reviews 79: 5372. DOI: 10.1016/j.
earscirev.2006.06.002
Clleri R, Feyen J. 2009. The hydrology of tropical Andean ecosystems:
Importance, knowledge status, and perspectives. Mountain Research
and Development 29: 350355. DOI: 10.1659/mrd.00007
Clleri R, Willems P, Buytaert W, Feyen J. 2007. Spacetime rainfall
variability in the Paute basin, Ecuadorian Andes. Hydrological
Processes 21: 33163327. DOI: 10.1002/hyp.6575
Copyright 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Chapman T, Maxwell A. 1996. Baseow separation-comparison of
rd
numerical methods with tracer experiments. 23 Hydrology and Water
Resources Symposium, Australia; 539545.
Chapman T. 1999. A comparison of algorithms for stream ow recession
and baseow separation. Hydrological Processes 13: 701714. DOI:
10.1002/(SICI)1099-1085(19990415)13:5<701::AID-HYP774>3.0.
CO;2-2
Chow V, Maidment D, Mays L. 1988. Applied Hydrology. McGraw-Hill
Series in Water Resources and Environmental Engineering. McGraw-
Hill: New York; 552.
Coutagne A. 1948. Les variations de dbit en priode non inuence
par les prcipitations-le dbit dinltration (corrlations uviales
internes) 2me partie. La Houille Blanche 416436. DOI: 10.1051/
lhb/1948053
Crespo P, Feyen J, Buytaert W, Bcker A, Breuer L, Frede H, Ramrez M.
2011. Identifying controls of the rainfallrunoff response of small
catchments in the tropical Andes (Ecuador). Journal of Hydrology 407:
164174. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2011.07.021
Dewandel B, Lachassagne P, Bakalowicz M, Weng P, Al-Malki A. 2003.
Evaluation of aquifer thickness by analysing recession hydrographs.
Application to the Oman ophiolite hard-rock aquifer. Journal of
Hydrology 274: 248269. DOI: 10.1016/S0022-1694(02)00418-3
Dunne T. 1983. Relation of eld studies and modeling in the prediction of
storm runoff. Journal of Hydrology 65: 2548. DOI: 10.1016/0022-
1694(83)90209-3
Eckhardt K. 2005. How to construct recursive digital lters for baseow
separation. Hydrological Processes 19: 507515. DOI: 10.1002/hyp.5675
Eckhardt K. 2008. A comparison of baseow indices, which were
calculated with seven different baseow separation methods. Journal of
Hydrology 352: 168173. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2008.01.005
Frhlich K, Frhlich W, Wittenberg H. 1994. Determination of
groundwater recharge by baseow separation: regional analysis in
northeast China. IAHS Publications-Series of Proceedings and Reports-
Intern Assoc Hydrological Sciences 221: 6976.
Furey P, Gupta V. 2000. Space-time variability of low streamows in river
networks. Water Resources Research 36: 26792690. DOI: 10.1029/
2000WR900136
Furey P, Gupta V. 2001. A physically based lter for separating base ow
from streamow time series. Water Resources Research 37:
27092722. DOI: 10.1029/2001WR000243
Hall F. 1968. Base-ow recessions a Review. Water Resources Research
4: 973983. DOI: 10.1029/WR004i005p00973
Huyck A, Pauwels V, Verhoest N. 2005. A base ow separation algorithm
based on the linearized Boussinesq equation for complex hillslopes.
Water Resources Research 41. DOI: 10.1029/2004WR003789
Lamb R, Beven K. 1997. Using interactive recession curve analysis to
specify a general catchment storage model. Hydrology and Earth
System Sciences 1: 101113.
Li L, Maier H, Partington D, Lambert M, Simmons C. 2014. Performance
assessment and improvement of recursive digital baseow lters for
catchments with different physical characteristics and hydrological
inputs. Environmental Modelling & Software 54: 3952. DOI: 10.1016/
j.envsoft.2013.12.011
Lim K, Engel B, Tang Z, Choi J, Kim K, Muthukrishnan S, Tripathy D.
2005. Automated Web Gis Based Hydrograph Analysis Tool, WHAT.
JAWRA Journal of the American Water Resources Association 41:
14071416. DOI: 10.1111/j.1752-1688.2005.tb03808.x
Lyne V, Hollick M. 1979. Stochastic time-variable rainfall-runoff
modelling. Hydrology and Water Resources Symposium. Institut of
Engineers Australia. Perth.
Maillet E. 1905. Essais dhydraulique souterraine & uviale. Hermann.
Nathan RJ, McMahon TA. 1990. Evaluation of automated techniques for
base ow and recession analyses. Water Resources Research 26:
14651473. DOI: 10.1029/WR026i007p01465
Prasad R. 1967. A nonlinear hydrologic system response model. ASCE
Journal of Hydraulics Division 93: 201202.
Roa-Garca M, Brown S, Schreier H, Lavkulich L. 2011. The role of land
use and soils in regulating water ow in small headwater catchments of
the Andes. Water Resources Research 47: W05510. DOI: 10.1029/
2010WR009582
Smakhtin V. 2001. Low ow hydrology: a review. Journal of Hydrology
240: 147186. DOI: 10.1016/S0022-1694(00)00340-1
Hydrol. Process. (2015)
 BASEFLOW COMPARISON BETWEEN TWO ANDEAN CATCHMENTS, ECUADOR

Spongberg M. 2000. Spectral analysis of base ow separation with digital
lters. Water Resources Research 36: 745752. DOI: 10.1029/
1999WR900303
Sugiyama H. 1996. Analysis and extraction of low ow recession
characteristics. JAWRA Journal of the American Water Resources
Association 32: 491497. DOI: 10.1111/j.1752-1688.1996.tb04047.x
Sujono J, Shikasho S, Hiramatsu K. 2004. A comparison of techniques for
hydrograph recession analysis. Hydrological Processes 18: 403413.
DOI: 10.1002/hyp.1247
Tallaksen L. 1995. A review of baseow recession analysis. Journal of
Hydrology 165: 349370. DOI: 10.1016/0022-1694(94)02540-R
Van Dijk A. 2010. Climate and terrain factors explaining streamow
response and recession in Australian catchments. Hydrology and Earth
System Sciences 14: 159169. DOI: 10.5194/hess-14-159-2010
Vauchel P. 2005. HYDRACCESS: Software for management and
processing of hydro-meteorological data. www.ore-hybam.org/index.
php/Software/Hydraccess
Vogel R, Kroll C. 1996. Estimation of baseow recession constants. Water
Resources Management 10: 303320. DOI: 10.1007/BF00508898
Wang D, Cai X. 2009. Detecting human interferences to low ows
through base ow recession analysis. Water Resources Research 45:
W07426. DOI: 10.1029/2009WR007819
Wang D, Cai X. 2010. Comparative study of climate and human
impacts on seasonal baseow in urban and agricultural watersheds.
Geophysical Research Letters 37: L06406. DOI: 10.1029/
2009GL041879
Wittenberg H. 1994. Nonlinear analysis of ow recession curves. IAHS
Publications-Series of Proceedings and Reports-Intern Assoc Hydro-
logical Sciences 221: 6168.
Wittenberg H. 1999. Baseow recession and recharge as nonlinear storage
processes. Hydrological Processes 13: 715726. DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)
1099-1085(19990415)13:5<715::AID-HYP775>3.0.CO;2-N
Wittenberg H. 2003. Effects of season and man-made changes on
baseow and ow recession: case studies. Hydrological Processes 17:
21132123. DOI: 10.1002/hyp.1324
Wittenberg H, Sivapalan M. 1999. Watershed groundwater balance
estimation using streamow recession analysis and baseow separation.
Journal of Hydrology 219: 2033. DOI: 10.1016/S0022-1694(99)
00040-2
Zecharias Y, Brutsaert W. 1988. Recession characteristics of groundwater
outow and base ow from mountainous watersheds. Water Resources
Research 24: 16511658.

APPENDIX 1. MONTHLY METEOROLOGICAL DATA FOR PENMAN-MONTEITH CALCULATION

Upper Tarqui weather station (Davis type).

Location: Quimsacocha, Ecuador; UTMx (m) = 698423; UTMy (m) = 9663781; altitude (m a.s.l.) = 3762
Starting from 9 Aug 2005 until 24 Oct 2012
Administrator: Universidad de Cuenca, Programa para el manejo y conservacin del agua y del suelo (PROMAS).

Data:

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Tmax (C) 11.2 11.4 11.3 10.6 10.4 9.6 8.7 9.2 10.0 11.6 11.7 11.6
Tmin (C) 4.0 4.2 4.3 4.1 3.8 3.7 2.8 2.3 2.8 3.2 2.8 3.4
Tdew (C) 5.3 5.5 5.6 5.5 4.8 4.8 3.8 3.4 3.8 4.3 3.5 4.7
Ws (m/s) 3.7 3.4 3.5 3.4 4.0 4.5 5.7 5.5 5.1 3.5 3.3 3.3
Srad (W/m2) 163.2 158.4 151.3 147.2 139.9 137.4 124.3 135.4 133.4 175.5 174.2 157.3

Tmax, maximum temperature; Tmin, minimum temperature; Tdew, dew temperature (dew point); Ws, wind speed;
Srad, solar radiation

Lower Tarqui weather station

Location: Tarqui, Ecuador; UTMx (m) = 716920; UTMy (m) = 9665220; altitude (m a.s.l.) = 2630
Starting from 26 June 2000 until 30 June 2001
Administrator: Universidad de Cuenca, Programa para el manejo y conservacin del agua y del suelo (PROMAS).

Copyright 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Hydrol. Process. (2015)
 P. GUZMN ET AL.

Data:
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Tmax (C) 18.2 18.3 18.3 17.7 18.2 17.7 18.0 17.5 18.0 18.7 19.5 19.3
Tmin (C) 7.6 8.4 7.9 8.4 7.8 7.2 6.1 5.9 6.1 4.7 1.6 7.2
Tdew (C) 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.1 8.0 6.9 6.3 6.4 7.5 6.7 4.2 8.0
Ws (m/s) 0.6 0.8 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.8 0.7
Srad (W/m2) 175.6 188.6 172.8 144.0 143.0 139.3 156.7 151.4 163.4 186.8 237.4 176.8

Tmax, maximum temperature; Tmin, minimum temperature; Tdew, dew temperature (dew point); Ws, wind speed;
Srad, solar radiation

Copyright 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Hydrol. Process. (2015)