JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 112, F03025, doi:10.

1029/2006JF000734, 2007

Predicting downstream hydraulic geometry:

A test of rational regime theory
Brett C. Eaton1 and Michael Church1
Received 5 December 2006; revised 14 April 2007; accepted 7 June 2007; published 21 September 2007.

[1] The classical equations of hydraulic geometry are purely empirical, but the
widespread similarity of the scaling (downstream) form of them suggests that they express
some important underlying regularities in the morphology of stream channels through
the drainage network. A successful physical theory of river regime must be able to
reproduce and explain this regularity. In this paper we test the regime theory of Eaton et al.
(2004) using selected data of hydraulic geometry. We first use data from environments in
which bank strength presumably does not vary greatly, such as in anabranched channel
systems and deltas. Regime models parameterized by assuming uniform relative bank
strength plausibly describe the observed bankfull channel geometries in these systems. We
then test a modified bank strength formulation for vegetated gravel bed rivers against
downstream hydraulic geometry data sets in which relative bank strength is supposed to
vary with channel scale. Assuming a uniform effective cohesion due to riparian
vegetation, the regime model is again able to reproduce details of the channel geometry.
Both analyses show that the classical hydraulic geometry represents only an approximation
of the variation of channel form. If we have confidence in the theory, we may infer
information about bank strength and bed material transport. The pattern of variation in
these quantities, as well as discharge, through the drainage system lends approximate
regularity to stream channel scaling that is summarized in the empirical relations.
Citation: Eaton, B. C., and M. Church (2007), Predicting downstream hydraulic geometry: A test of rational regime theory,
J. Geophys. Res., 112, F03025, doi:10.1029/2006JF000734.

1. Introduction theory’’ [see, e.g., Lacey, 1930; Blench, 1969]). These

investigators recognized that a critical control over river
[2] Downstream hydraulic geometry [after Leopold and
channel form is exercised by the materials that form the bed
Maddock, 1953] has become a standard tool to describe the
and banks of the channel, but they were able to quantify the
variation with flow of stream channel geometry through the
effect only by an index ‘‘silt factor’’ [Lacey, 1930; Blench,
channel network. The equations are empirical, but signifi-
1969] or by stratifying regime relations according to the
cant attempts have been made to develop a theoretical basis
character of bed and bank materials [Lane, 1957; Simons
for them [e.g., Langbein and Leopold, 1966; Kirkby, 1977;
and Albertson, 1963]. This factor has mostly been ignored
Parker, 1978, 1979; Chang, 1980; Yang et al., 1981; White
in considering the hydraulic geometry of rivers, although
et al., 1982; Davies, 1987; Cao, 1996; Huang and Nanson,
thoughtful investigators have introduced the related factor
2000]. By their very construction they are incomplete
of vegetation-mediated bank strength [Andrews, 1984; Hey
statements with no strictly physical interpretation, but they
and Thorne, 1986; Huang and Nanson, 1998], again by
can properly be interpreted as scaling relations between the
index methods, while others have restricted investigations to
‘‘effective channel-forming flow’’ and the accommodation
a particular type of bounding sediment [Bray, 1973; Neill,
of that flow by the covariation of stream width, depth and
1973; Charlton et al., 1978; Andrews, 1984; Hey and
velocity. The usual power law representation of them is, to
Thorne, 1986].
this extent, appropriate.
[4] The purpose of this paper is to explore the hydraulic
[3] The hydraulic geometry arose by analogy with
geometry of selected river systems in terms of a rational
‘‘regime relations’’ established early in the 20th century
regime theory, both as a test of the theory and in order to
for the design of unlined irrigation canals. The earliest
attempt to learn more about the covariation of terrain and
relations were deliberately empirical [Kennedy, 1895; Lindley,
hydrological conditions through a drainage system that
1919], but they were succeeded by attempts to clothe the
leads to the familiar empirical equations for the variation
relations in the semblance of a theory (hence ‘‘regime
of width, depth and velocity.
1
Department of Geography, University of British Columbia, Vancouver,
British Columbia, Canada. 2. Statement of the Regime Approach
[5] A rational regime theory specifies a set of physical
Copyright 2007 by the American Geophysical Union.
0148-0227/07/2006JF000734
relations that apply the relevant governing conditions to

F03025 1 of 18
F03025 EATON AND CHURCH: HYDRAULIC GEOMETRY
Figure 1. Relation between apparent friction angle and the
relative strength of the channel banks compared to the
channel bed.
determine the hydraulic geometry of a self-formed channel.
The complete hydraulic geometry includes, in addition to
width, depth and mean flow velocity, channel gradient and
planform geometry. The principal governing conditions are
the imposed flow and sediment load (which includes both
caliber and quantity of bed material sediment), the valley
gradient down which the flow and sediment must be passed,
and the character of the deposits in which the channel is
formed.
[6] We know that, if the discharge (Q), bed material
sediment transport rate (Qbm) and sediment caliber (D) are
specified, then a channel geometry comprising gradient (S),
hydraulic radius (R) and wetted perimeter (P) can be
calculated. Applying a bank stability criterion does not
isolate a unique solution since a range of channel geome-
tries satisfies the bank stability constraint. In order to isolate
a unique solution one must apply some sort of optimality
criterion, such as minimum variance of hydraulic quantities
[Langbein and Leopold, 1966] (a purely statistical concept),
minimum unit stream power [Yang, 1976], maximum sed-
iment transport efficiency [Kirkby, 1977], minimum power
expenditure [Chang, 1979], maximum sediment transport-
ing capacity [White et al., 1982], least action [Huang and
Nanson, 2000], or minimum energy expenditure [Huang et
al., 2004]. Since these optimality criteria all arrive at nearly
identical solutions (but from different assumptions), the
differences between them lie not in the predictions that they
make so much as in the physical implication of the
assumption.
[7] We have recently proposed what we believe to be a
plausible physically based solution [Eaton et al., 2004]. The
stable state is the one in which resistance to flow is
maximized subject to the condition that the imposed water
and sediment load – that is, the load delivered from
upstream – be passed on the adopted channel gradient.
This condition still permits exchange of sediment between
the load and the bed, hence lateral movement of the
channel, but no net change occurs in the average channel
form. Flow resistance is maximized with respect to the
fluvial system, which refers to the valley gradient, Sv, as the
controlling system gradient (cf. the governing conditions
2 of 18
F03025
enumerated above). It turns out that this condition is
mathematically equivalent to the condition that the imposed
sediment load be passed with the smallest expenditure of
energy (in a particular sense, ‘‘with maximum efficiency’’
[Millar, 2005] or, more obscurely, ‘‘at capacity’’). Accord-
ingly, the preferred gradient– if it be accessible to the river –
is the minimum channel gradient [Eaton et al., 2004]. One
important way in which the maximum resistance solution
differs from other proposals is that it is constrained by the
relative erodibility of the bed and the banks. A reduction in
slope for a constant transport capacity is accomplished by
narrowing the channel, thereby increasing the channel depth
and mean boundary shear stress. If the channel becomes too
narrow and deep, the shear stress acting on the banks will
exceed the critical threshold for erosion and the banks will
fail, therefore bank strength places a limit on the degree to
which a channel can narrow and deepen, and thus places a
limit on the degree to which the channel gradient can be
reduced.
[8] The regime models used in the following analyses are
based on two separate approaches to the bank strength
problem. The first, more general model represents bank
strength as a function of the bed erodibility via an apparent
friction angle, f0 [after Millar and Quick, 1993], which
describes the ratio between bank strength and bed strength
[Millar, 2005], as shown in Figure 1. Because of the simple
nature of this model, it is not necessary to make any
assumptions about the bank stratigraphy or the physical
origin of the bank strength, which is expressed merely as
relative to the bed strength. While this is an intuitive way to
think about bank strength, the parameter f0 is difficult to
estimate.
[9] The model assumes a trapezoidal channel geometry,
which facilitates the use of empirical functions to estimate
the shear stress distribution along the channel boundary on
the basis of the channel shape and the average boundary
shear stress [Millar and Quick, 1993]. The threshold for
bank erosion depends on the specified critical dimensionless
shear stress (or Shields number) for entrainment of the
representative grain size used to characterize the banks
(t c*), the relative strength of the banks (f0) and the side
slope angle of the trapezoid. The critical shear stress for
entrainment of the bank material is selected according to the
character of the bed, and the reference grain size used in the
analysis. For gravel bed rivers in which the surface median
grain size, D50, is used in the bank stability analysis, t c* is
set at 0.03; when the surface D84 is used, t c* is set at 0.02,
and if the D90 is used t c* is set at 0.015. Since the typical
ratio of D90:D50 in gravel bed streams is approximately two,
setting t c*(D90) = 0.015 is tantamount to applying an
entrainment threshold of t c*(D50)  0.03, which is cited
as an appropriate threshold for gravel bed streams [Neill,
1968; Andrews, 1982]. For sand bed rivers, a set of linear
functions that estimate the critical Shields number as a
function of the grain Reynolds number (Re*) is used in
the bank stability analysis [Van Rijn, 1984].
[10] Bed material sediment transport capacity (Qbm) is
estimated in the model using two different equations. For
gravel bed streams, the Parker [1990] equation is used.
When the bed material is primarily sand, we use the Van
Rijn [1984] equation. In both cases, the calculated sediment
transport capacity is interpreted as merely an index of the
F03025 EATON AND CHURCH: HYDRAULIC GEOMETRY
actual transport capacity since bed load transport equations
are not very accurate.
[11] A regime solution is found using as input parameters
values of slope (S), formative discharge (Q), a flow resis-
tance parameter (in this analysis, Manning’s n) and surface
grain size (often D50). Solution geometries are found that
satisfy the constraint that the banks are stable for the range
of possible trapezoid bed widths, and the predicted bed
material sediment transport capacity (Qbm) is plotted against
the bed width. The chosen solution is the one associated
with the highest sediment transport capacity (i.e., the most
efficient channel), since this is equivalent to the minimum
slope for a constant value of Qbm [White et al., 1982] which
in turn is equivalent to the maximum flow resistance for the
fluvial system [Eaton et al., 2004].
[12] In the original presentation of the regime model
[Eaton et al., 2004], flow resistance was indexed using
the Darcy-Weisbach coefficient. Manning’s n is adopted
here since it is related to powers of the hydraulic variables,
which is convenient for scaling arguments. The regime
models have been coded in MATLABTM for numerical
solution.
[13] For gravel bed streams with vegetated floodplains,
we use an alternative bank strength model proposed by
Eaton [2006]. This model parameterizes bank strength for
vegetated banks by recognizing a root-laced, semicohesive
upper bank section of height H overlying a lower bank with
properties similar to those of the streambed, to which a
frictional strength proportional to the true friction angle, f,
is applied. The parameter H is thought to be roughly
equivalent to the rooting depth for the dominant riparian
vegetation, and can be interpreted as an effective cohesion
(C0) due to riparian vegetation. Since two parameters are
required (C0 and f), this model is slightly more complicated
than the f0 model. The primary advantage of it is that it
explicitly incorporates the scale-dependent nature of bank
strength due to riparian vegetation: while the relative bank
strength (f0) for a forested stream declines downstream
(because the channel steadily grows deeper than the riparian
rooting depth), becoming similar to streams with grassy
banks for bankfull flows greater than about 400 m3/s [Eaton
and Millar, 2004], the absolute vegetation-related bank
strength for a forest (C0) remains constant, even though
the importance of the vegetation in determining the channel
shape declines [Eaton, 2006].
[14] This model imposes a composite channel cross
section, comprising vertical upper banks atop a trapezoidal
lower channel. The stability analysis is applied to the sides
of the lower trapezoid, which represents the cohesionless
gravel toe of the channel. Deriving a regime solution, one
proceeds in exactly the same way as above, with one further
complication: once the channel depth predicted by the
model becomes less than H, there is no cohesionless gravel
toe upon which to perform the bank stability analysis. This
affects a very small number of streams in the data sets that
we analyze, since it applies only in situations where the
relative bank strength is very high (i.e., small channels in
forested streams where root systems dominate the channel
banks). In this circumstance, we bypass the bank stability
analysis and simply maximize the sediment transport
capacity [after White et al., 1982]. This procedure selects
the narrowest and deepest possible channel.
3 of 18
F03025
[15] We face a serious problem in attempting to test these
two models against empirical data. We know of no field
data set that presents sufficient information to make a
rigorous test of a complete regime theory, primarily because
there exists no practical measurement procedure to deter-
mine the shear strength of channel banks in the field, and no
field report of such data is known to us. The general
objective of this paper, then, is to obtain an indirect test
of our regime models by applying the appropriate formula-
tion to available data sets of the hydraulic geometry of
alluvial channels. Specifically, we (1) apply the regime
model to data sets in which the relative bank strength (f0)
can plausibly be assumed to be uniform, (2) apply the
regime model to data sets in which the vegetation-related
bank strength (C0) can be assumed to be uniform, and
(3) invert the regime model to fit the observed widths by
varying the relative bank strength (f0) for the data sets
referred to in (2). By applying physically based models, we
are able to investigate the physical processes underlying
downstream hydraulic geometry relations.
3. Systems With Nominally Uniform Relative
Bank Strength
3.1. Methods
[16] We found five cases in which it seems reasonable to
assume that relative bank strength is approximately uni-
form. For each data set, the regime formulation using f0 was
adopted. The value of f0 used in the model was varied to
bring the predicted and the observed bankfull widths and
depths as close to agreement as possible. Each data set
presented values of Q, S, surface grain size and sometimes n
differently and, presumably, with various degrees of accu-
racy. Therefore we were forced to make a range of assump-
tions about the input parameters.
[17] We investigate the model performance by fitting
power laws to the modeled channel dimensions and com-
paring these equations to the empirical power laws. For the
sake of consistency, we have calculated the power law
relations for both the empirical data sets and the modeled
channel dimensions by applying linear regression to the log-
transformed variates: this allows us to directly compare the
scale relations associated with the regime model with the
scale relations associated with the empirical data without
encountering the potentially biasing effects of different
curve-fitting procedures. We also calculate RMS error and
mean bias statistics, both expressed as a percent of the
estimate, for the regime model predictions, and RMS errors
for the empirical equations. These statistics help us to assess
the performance of the regime model and to compare the
relative ability of both approaches to explain the observed
variance in the data set.
3.1.1. Colorado River
[18] The first case is a data set on the single-thread,
meandering Colorado River published by Pitlick and Cress
[2002]. We consider only those reaches that are identified as
alluvial or quasi-alluvial which, the authors suggest, are
generally free to adjust their channel width. All of the
reaches are relatively wide and deep (>2.4 m; relative
roughness, D50/d, <0.025) with minimal cohesive bank
sediment, so we have made the assumption that the relative
bank strength is fairly uniform and that it is relatively low.
F03025 EATON AND CHURCH: HYDRAULIC GEOMETRY F03025

Figure 2. Data from the Colorado River [Pitlick and Cress, 2002] used to estimate slope, Manning’s n
and D50 as functions of Q. The functions shown in the plots were used to specify the regime model (see
Figure 3); the normalized standard errors for the estimates of S, n, and D50 are 8.9%, 1.4%, and 6.5%,
respectively.

The authors estimated the bankfull flows using the cross
sectional areas and estimates of Manning’s n from fitting a
1-D flow model to the reach of interest [Pitlick and Cress,
2000]. We use their (unpublished) estimates for bankfull
flow and Manning’s n in conjunction with the published
channel slopes and surface textures of Pitlick and Cress
[2002]. We developed empirical equations for interpolating
S, n and D50 as functions of Q (Figure 2). We then used
these functions to generate input parameters for the regime
model over the observed range of Q, and compared the
predicted channel geometry with the observed geometry.
Since we have parameterized the model by choosing a value
of Q, then estimating S, n, and D50 as a function of Q, the
regime model produces smooth trends. In order to determine
the effect of using these functions to smooth the model
output, we also ran the model using the raw input data for
each study reach.
[19] One of the reaches (Professor Valley) [Pitlick and
Cress, 2002] was associated with a bankfull discharge about
twice that of the reaches immediately upstream and down-
stream, and was excluded from the analysis on the grounds
that the identified channel geometry most likely represents
the dimensions of a low terrace rather than a bankfull
channel.
3.1.2. Fraser River
[20] A data set from gravel bedded anabranches of the
Fraser River was published by Ellis and Church [2005]. The
bankfull channel dimensions and bankfull discharge were
carefully estimated by interpolation amongst measurements
to higher than bankfull stage for a number of anabranches
and for the main channel of the Fraser River. Since all of the
anabranch channels are relatively deep (>2.5 m; D50/d,
<0.029), and are formed in materials having similar sedi-
mentological properties and riparian vegetation, we can
assume that the relative bank strength is uniform (and
relatively low).
[21] The regime model applied to this system uses the
measured values of Q and D50 for each study reach. The
channel gradient is small enough to be difficult to measure
accurately over the length (250 m) of a single study reach.
Therefore values of the slope for each reach were estimated
from measurements of average velocity and hydraulic radius
reported by Ellis and Church [2005], using the Strickler
equation to estimate the grain Manning’s n for the measured
surface D84. Since total flow resistance is typically under-
estimated by the Strickler equation, the predicted slopes are
lower than they ought to be. The average slope for the
system is tolerably well known, and when the estimates of
the slopes for each study reach are scaled upward by 50%,
the average of the estimates agrees with the known average
slope for the system. We use these scaled slope values to
parameterize the regime model. Since D84 was used to
estimate S, we use D50 for the bank stability analysis. Since
we have already used the measurements of velocity and
depth to estimate S, it would be inappropriate to use them
again to estimate n. Therefore we have held n constant (at a
value of 0.03) to generate predictions of width and depth: n
values back calculated from our adjusted slopes range from
0.024 to 0.036 with a mean value of 0.029.
3.1.3. Columbia River
[22] Tabata and Hickin [2003] reported a data set on sand
bed anabranch channels of the upper Columbia River. The
banks of these channels are almost entirely composed of silt
and clay, which we believe is consistent with a uniformly
high relative bank strength. Data reported by Tabata and
Hickin [2003] were used to estimate average values of S
(0.001 m/m), n (0.028), and D50 (0.5 mm). The formative
discharge was estimated from field measurements in each
anabranch that was surveyed. The regime model applied to
the Columbia held S, n, D50 and f0 constant and varied only
Q, generating predictions of width and depth that vary
smoothly with Q.
3.1.4. Danube Delta
[23] The fourth case is a data set on the sand bed delta
distributary channels of the Danube delta [Mikhailov, 1970].
These channels are sedimentologically similar to the anab-
ranches in the upper Columbia River, and we have assumed
that they are associated with a uniform, high relative bank
strength. We used the estimated formative discharges in
conjunction with the relations reported by Mikhailov that
express S and n as functions of Q to parameterize the model.

4 of 18
F03025 EATON AND CHURCH: HYDRAULIC GEOMETRY F03025

Figure 3. Plots of the Colorado River regime analysis [Pitlick and Cress, 2002]. (left) Bed material
transport concentration (Qbm/Q) estimated by the model plotted against Q. Qbm/Q is a proxy for the bed
material yield (Qbm/area) at each point, since drainage area and formative discharge are strongly
correlated. (middle) Modeled channel shape (as described by the W/d ratio) plotted against the predicted
dimensionless shear stress. (right) Predicted channel widths and depths (W, d) plotted against Q. The
available data from the Colorado River are plotted for comparison.

The data reported support the selection of only an average,
representative bed grain size (0.15 mm).
3.1.5. Laitaure Delta
[24] The last case comprises data from the sand bed
channels of the Laitaure delta in northern Sweden, reported
by Andrén [1994]. The energy gradient for these channels
was held constant (0.0002 m/m, consistent with values
provided by Andrén [1994, p. 84]), as was Manning’s n
(0.025). On the basis of the empirical data reported by
Andrén, grain size was varied as a function of discharge:
D ¼ 0:14Q0:18 R2 ¼ 0:54
[25] The regime model was parameterized using the
reported formative discharge values, the constant values of
S and n, and the function relating the characteristic grain
size to Q.
3.2. Results
3.2.1. Colorado River
[26] Pitlick and Cress [2002] express their empirically
based hydraulic geometry equations using the dimension-
less parameters of Andrews [1984], W* = W/D50, d* = d/
Q form as equations (2) and (3). The equations are
D50, and Q* = pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi , where s is the specific gravity
ðs1ÞgD50 D250
of the sediment grains. The equations based on their data are
W * ¼ 32:4Q*0:34 ; R2 ¼ 0:99; Std: Err: ðbÞ ¼ 0:0075
0:55 2
d* ¼ 0:055Q* ; R ¼ 0:99; Std: Err: ð f Þ ¼ 0:0119
These equations differ from the results typically reported
from studies of downstream hydraulic geometry (see
Knighton [1998, p. 173] for a summary), in which width
/ Q0.5, and depth / Q0.4, approximately, such that the
width/depth ratio typically increases downstream. Pitlick
and Cress’s [2002] data set has the peculiar property that the
width/depth ratio decreases downstream. The authors
speculate that the origin of this feature of the hydraulic
geometry is the variation of grain size and slope down-
stream, possibly driven by a declining supply of bed
material along the system.
[27] The regime model fits the data from the Colorado
River when the relative bank strength is set to about 1.25
(f0 = 36°). Figure 3 plots both the regime model predictions
and the observed channel geometry against the estimated Q.
While the relation between predicted W and Q is fairly well
described by a power law, the relation predicted by the
regime model between d and Q is not well described by a
power function. The empirical data are at least as consistent
ð1Þ with the regime-based depth relation, insofar as they suggest
no clear preference for a power law fit. The RMS error for
estimating width and depth using the regime model is
almost identical to the error associated with the empirical
power fits (Table 1). Table 1 also presents the RMSE
estimates for a regime model based on the raw field data
(not shown in Figure 3) rather than the fitted functions of
Figure 2: the values are nearly identical to the results
discussed above.
[28] While the regime model results are not entirely
consistent with power law fits, they can be used to estimate
dimensionless hydraulic geometry relations of the same
W * ¼ 34:3Q*0:34 ; R2 ¼ 0:99; Std: Err: ðbÞ ¼ 0:0067 ð4Þ
ð2Þ
d* ¼ 0:051Q*0:55 ; R2 ¼ 0:99; Std: Err: ð f Þ ¼ 0:0089 ð5Þ
ð3Þ
While these equations are not identical to equations (2) and
(3) they are sufficiently similar that we can conclude that the
regime model has reasonably reproduced the hydraulic
geometry equations for this reach.
[29] In order to assess the downstream changes in the
transport capacity, the Parker [1990] equation was used to
calculate the bed material sediment transport concentration,
Qbm/Q. Bed material concentration declines systematically
downstream at a rate that is faster than if Qbm were constant
(Figure 3). This implies that the absolute yield of bed

5 of 18
F03025 EATON AND CHURCH: HYDRAULIC GEOMETRY F03025

Table 1. RMSE Values for Width and Depths Estimated Using Regime Models
Width Depth Empirical Power Law
RMSE RMSE
Data Set Bank Strength RMSE, % BIAS, % RMSE, % BIAS, % Width, % Depth, %
Colorado River f0 = 36° 15.9 (16.2)a 8.8 (9.0) 8.1 (5.5) 0.5 (0.9) 15.2 8.8
Fraser River anabranches f0 = 30° 19.3 (14.6)b 6.3 (1.2) 31.3 (19.9) 29.1 (17.2) 28.8 16.5
Columbia River anabranches f0 = 78° 20.3 20.7)c 5.9 (5.8) 35.5 (18.4) 30.1 (9.7) 19.7 19.6
Danube Delta distributaries f0 = 83° 36.0 (33.5)c 1.0 (18.3) 56.7 (26.9) 49.0 (15.4) 31.8 23.4
Laitaure Delta f0 = 83° 36.2 33.0)c 0.7 (17.7) 37.9 (18.9) 21.3 (4.8) 36.9 24.9
Salmon River Area
group 1 C0 = 1.9 kPa 22.3 0.9 23.4 8.0 15.8 17.3
group 2 C0 = 3.0 kPa 12.9 1. 11.2 0.8 13.8 8.7
Mtn Str. Coloradod
Thin vegetation C0 = 1.7 kPa 15.7 6.3 10.8 0.3 12.5 11.5
Thick vegetation C0 = 1.9 kPa 14.8 6.4 11.4 0.0 8.2 11.4
a
Values in brackets for the Colorado River are based on using the raw field data for S, n, and D50.
b
Values in parentheses for the Fraser River are based on a data set excluding the two smallest channels.
c
Values in parentheses are based on data sets excluding the smallest channels (for Columbia and Laitaure, Q < 20 m3/s; for Danube, Q < 200 m3/s).
d
Reported statistics are based on the 5-year floods.

material sediment declines downstream, which is consistent
with the speculation by Pitlick and Cress [2002]. Since the
transport capacity predicted by the model depends on the
channel width, depth and surface texture, which the regime
model faithfully reproduces, the spatial variation in bed
material transport capacity does not depend on the model
assumptions at all, but only on the quality of the initial data
and the performance of the Parker formula as an index of
bed material transport rates.
3.2.2. Fraser River Anabranches
[30] The empirical hydraulic geometry equations for these
anabranches are not typical either, with an increase in
bankfull discharge being accommodated by a dispropor-
tionately large increase in width. The equations reported by
Ellis and Church [2005] are
W ¼ 2:60Q0:60 ; R2 ¼ 0:81; Std: Err: ðbÞ ¼ 0:106
d ¼ 0:76Q0:25 ; R2 ¼ 0:76; Std: Err: ð f Þ ¼ 0:058
The regime model reproduces the observed width scaling
fairly well (Figure 4) when the relative bank strength is set
equal to unity (f0 = 30°), but does a poorer job of predicting
the channel depths, particularly for the smaller anabranches
in the system. The model predictions are adequately
described by power functions. The power laws fitted to
the regime predictions are
W ¼ 2:60Q0:57 ; R2 ¼ 0:93; Std: Err: ðbÞ ¼ 0:0054 ð8Þ
d ¼ 1:45Q0:18 ; R2 ¼ 0:66; Std: Err: ð f Þ ¼ 0:0044 ð9Þ
which are reasonably close to the empirical relations of Ellis
and Church [2005]. The RMS error for width and depth
ð6Þ based on the regime model are similar to those associated
with the empirical fits (Table 1): the regime model appears
to do a better job of predicting the channel widths, while the
ð7Þ empirical equations are superior for predicting the observed
depths.

Figure 4. Plots of the regime analysis of Ellis and Church [2005]. (left) Bed material sediment
concentration plotted against discharge. (middle) Widths and depths predicted by the model plotted
against the widths and depths measured in the field. (right) Predicted (circles) and observed (pluses)
channel widths and depths plotted against Q. Since D50 and S covary and are not strongly related to Q, it
is necessary to use the raw field data, which precludes the definition of smoothly varying regime
predictions.

6 of 18
F03025 EATON AND CHURCH: HYDRAULIC GEOMETRY F03025

Figure 5. Plots of the regime analysis of Tabata and Hickin [2003]. (left) Bed material sediment
concentration plotted against discharge. (right) Observed channel widths and depths (circles), as well as
the widths and depths predicted by the regime model (solid lines), plotted against Q. The shaded areas
represent alternate states associated with weaker banks, the dashed line indicating the limit value f0 = 68°.

[31] The relation between bed material transport concen-
tration and Q for the Fraser River anabranches is the reverse
of the pattern evident in the Colorado River (Figure 4).
Since the anabranch channels do not reflect downstream
trends, the increase in bed material concentration with
increasing discharge implies that the smaller channels are
less efficient at transporting bed material than are the larger
ones.
3.2.3. Columbia River Anabranches
[32] The anabranches of the upper Columbia River ex-
hibit an empirical hydraulic geometry rather similar to that
of the gravel bed anabranches in the Fraser River. The
empirical equations are
W ¼ 3:24Q0:64 ; R2 ¼ 0:84; Std: Err: ðbÞ ¼ 0:075 ð10Þ
d ¼ 1:04Q0:19 ; R2 ¼ 0:30; Std: Err: ð f Þ ¼ 0:077 ð11Þ
They are fairly well described by our regime model when
the banks are nearly 10 times stronger than the bed (f0 =
78°, see Figure 5). The observed widths and depths are
predicted about as well as for the Fraser River (see Table 1):
again, the empirical equations for depth outperform the
regime model. The smallest anabranches seem to be
consistently wider and shallower than predicted, just as
they were in the Fraser River system.
[33] The relation between bed material transport concen-
tration (Qbm/Q) and Q is also similar to that of the Fraser
River (Figure 5), with progressive division of the channel
into smaller and smaller threads being associated with a
reduction of bed material transport concentration, albeit less
rapidly than for the Fraser River. Since both locations are
aggradational settings, the positive correlation between
transport efficiency and channel size suggests that the
processes producing the channel divisions are closely linked
to the occurrence of bed material deposition in these
environments.
[34] Power law relations fit the modeled widths quite
well, but not the modeled depths (see Figure 5). The
equations are
W ¼ 2:13Q0:74 ; R2 ¼ 0:99; Std: Err: ðbÞ ¼ 0:0071 ð12Þ
d ¼ 1:89Q0:076 ; R2 ¼ 0:85; Std: Err: ð f Þ ¼ 0:015 ð13Þ
These power fits are systematically different from the
empirical fits presented in equations (10) and (11). The
differences are primarily attributable to the poor model
performance for the smaller channels.
3.2.4. Danube Delta
[35] The empirical hydraulic geometry equations for the
delta channels investigated by Mikhailov [1970] are similar
to the equations typically observed for downstream hydrau-
lic geometry:
W ¼ 5:96Q0:48 ; R2 ¼ 0:89; Std: Err: ðbÞ ¼ 0:029 ð14Þ
d ¼ 0:56Q0:35 ; R2 ¼ 0:86; Std: Err: ð f Þ ¼ 0:024 ð15Þ
The modeling results are shown on Figure 6. The regime
model assumes relatively strong banks (f0 = 83°), and
produces results similar to the analysis of the Columbia
River anabranches. The bed material transport concentration
declines as channels are progressively subdivided, and most
(but not all) of the smallest channels are, again, wider and
shallower than predicted by the regime model. While the
regime model predicts widths about as well as the empirical
power fits, it predicts depths less well than the empirical
equations (Table 1). The RMS errors associated with the
empirical fits are also rather high compared to the previous
examples.

7 of 18
F03025 EATON AND CHURCH: HYDRAULIC GEOMETRY F03025

Figure 6. Plots of the regime analyses of Mikhailov [1970] and Andrén [1994] using the same
conventions as in Figure 5. The limit alternate states indicated by the dashed lines are associated with f0 = 63°.

[36] The hydraulic geometry equations fit to the channel
dimensions predicted by the regime model for the Danube
Delta are
W ¼ 1:64Q0:65 ; R2 ¼ 0:99; Std: Err: ðbÞ ¼ 0:0031
[38] The data for the Laitaure Delta were modeled using
the same bank strength value as was used for the Danube
delta channels. The power law equations based on the
modeled widths and depths are
ð16Þ
W ¼ 3:26Q0:66 ; R2 ¼ 0:99; Std: Err: ðbÞ ¼ 0:0034 ð20Þ

d ¼ 2:23Q0:19 ; R2 ¼ 0:98; Std: Err: ð f Þ ¼ 0:0041 ð17Þ

Like the Columbia River results, the equations associated
with the regime model are quite different from those based
on the empirical fit to the data, primarily because of poor
model performance for at least some of the smaller
distributary channels.
3.2.5. Laitaure Delta
[37] The empirical equations for the Laitaure Delta, based
on Andrén’s [1994] data are
W ¼ 10:0Q0:39 ; R2 ¼ 0:53; Std: Err: ðbÞ ¼ 0:13
d ¼ 0:36Q0:385 ; R2 ¼ 0:69; Std: Err: ð f Þ ¼ 0:090
While these equations are different from the expected
empirical hydraulic geometry, they are also quite poorly
known, having the largest uncertainties for the value of the
exponents, and the largest RMS errors (Table 1).
d ¼ 0:91Q0:16 ; R2 ¼ 0:99; Std: Err: ð f Þ ¼ 0:0068 ð21Þ
Once again, the regime equations based on the predicted
geometry are not similar to the empirical equations based on
the reported data, primarily because of deviations from the
model at the lower discharges, resulting in large RMS errors
for the modeled depths (Table 1).
4. Systems With Spatially Varying Relative Bank
Strength
ð18Þ
4.1. Methods
[39] The above analyses targeted environments in which
ð19Þ
relative bank strength appears to be at least approximately
constant. In most drainage basins, this is clearly not the
case. However, by applying the second formulation of the
regime model, in which bank strength is divided into a
component due to the influence of vegetation (C0) and one
due to the true frictional strength (f), we can make some

8 of 18
F03025 EATON AND CHURCH: HYDRAULIC GEOMETRY
Figure 7. Empirical hydraulic geometry for Salmon River
data [Emmett, 1975] and for two subsets of the data, defined
on the basis of boundary conditions and lithology of the
contributing area.
progress. This approach is limited to gravel bed streams
where it is reasonable to assume that the banks comprise a
lower, cohesionless gravel toe overlain by a vegetation-
reinforced vertical upper bank, characterized by the effec-
tive cohesion due to vegetation, C0. We have analyzed in
some detail two data sets on mountain streams in Idaho and
in Colorado that exhibit fairly typical hydraulic geometry
relations.
4.1.1. Salmon River
[40] The first data set, from the Salmon River area of
Idaho (Figure 7), was published by Emmett [1975]. Even
though the Salmon River is located in a semiarid environ-
ment, an inspection of satellite imagery (Google Earth,
Figure 8. Trends in S, n, D50, and D84 with the reported formative discharge for the two groups of
streams from the Salmon River area data set [Emmett, 1975]. The equations of the lines are provided in
Table 2. These fitted lines were used to parameterize the regime model (see Figure 10).
9 of 18
F03025
http://earth.google.com/) reveals that the floodplains have
a nearly continuous cover of grass, shrubs, and occasional
deciduous trees. The nature and extent of the riparian
vegetative cover combined with the range of channel sizes
suggest that, in the Salmon River area, the effects of stream
bank vegetation dominate bank strength in the upper rea-
ches, but have a much reduced effect along the larger stream
channels.
[41] Emmett’s [1975] data were used to investigate the
variation in relative bank strength in the downstream
direction that is required to produce the observed empirical
hydraulic geometry using a rational regime model. Since
bank strength is one of the key variables affecting the
channel dimensions predicted by our regime model, we
selected only those stream channels that, according to the
map of geology and surficial deposits provided by Emmett
[1975], formed in modern alluvium or unconsolidated
glaciofluvial deposits. Another important factor affecting
the regime model predictions is the coarse sediment sup-
plied to the stream channel. No data exist to allow us to
predict which areas have a high bed material sediment yield
and which have low sediment yield, so the selected data
were further classified on the basis of the dominant litho-
logies in their drainage basins. The result is to divide
Emmett’s data set into two groups (Figure 7). The first
group contains 13 stations along the main stem of Salmon
River, which is dominated by granitic rock from the Idaho
Batholith, as well as rock units mapped as undifferentiated
Paleozoic rock [Emmett, 1975]. The second group contains
7 stations in the drainage basin of the East Fork Salmon
River, which is dominated by rocks from the Challis
Volcanics.
[42] In order to apply the regime model to the two data
sets, we used the reported values of Q, S, D50 and D84 for
each group to generate functions relating S, n, D50 and D84 to
Q, as described above for Colorado River (see Figure 8 and
Table 2). These functions were then used in the regime
F03025 EATON AND CHURCH: HYDRAULIC GEOMETRY F03025

Table 2. Data-Based Trends and Correlation Coefficients Used to reported by Andrews were adjusted upward to reflect the
Reconstruct the Hydraulic Geometry for Two Groups of Streams, fact that we are invoking larger formative discharges (see
Salmon River Areaa Appendix A for details). Since neither the geometry nor,
Variable Group 1 Group 2 consequently, the mean velocity for the 5-year or 20-year
Slope, m/m 0.054 Q0.66, R2 = 0.69 0.071 Q0.55, R2 = 0.83 events are accurately known, we have applied a constant
Manning’s n 0.04 (assumed constant) 0.12 Q0.37, 0.79 Manning’s n of 0.03 to all of the channels.
D50, mm 19 Q0.19, 0.19 16 Q0.31, 0.67 4.1.3. Inversion of the Relative Bank Strength Model
D84, mm 56 Q0.081, 0.09 43 Q0.25, 0.88
a
[48] For both of the foregoing data sets, we have esti-
Data are from Emmett [1975]. mated the relative bank strength, f0, associated with the
observed channel geometry by inverting the regime model.
To do this, we applied the regime model using the reported
model to estimate S, n, D50 and D84 for various specified data for each study reach. In the computer program, we
values of Q. varied the parameter f0 for each study reach until the
[43] The estimates of the surface D50 were used in the predicted channel width matched the observed width. The
Parker [1990] equation to calculate the bed material sedi- purpose of this analysis is to link the patterns in sediment
ment transport capacity, Qbm, and the estimates of the transport concentration evident in the C0 regime model to
surface D84 were used in the bank stability analysis on the the more easily interpretable changes in relative bank
grounds that bank stability is most likely to be controlled by strength, f0.
the larger grains found in the bed and therefore in the lower
4.2. Results
part of the channel bank.
[44] According to the analysis presented by Eaton [2006] 4.2.1. Salmon River
the riparian vegetation type in the Salmon River area is [49] Salmon River exhibits fairly typical empirical hydrau-
consistent with C0 between 1.5 and 3.8 kPa, which corre- lic geometry (Figure 7). Power law fits for group 1 and
sponds to Hey and Thorne’s [1986] type II and III channels. group 2, respectively, are
We adjusted C0 for each group to produce the best agree-
ment between the modeled channel geometry and the W ¼ 3:30Q0:53 ; R2 ¼ 0:87; Std: Err: ðbÞ ¼ 0:0612 ð22Þ
observed channel dimensions.
4.1.2. Mountain Streams in Colorado
[45] The second data set (Figure 9), on gravel bed rivers d ¼ 0:20Q0:42 ; R2 ¼ 0:78; Std: Err: ð f Þ ¼ 0:066 ð23Þ
in Colorado, was published by Andrews [1984]. He classi-
fied channels into ones with ‘‘thin’’ and ones with ‘‘thick’’
riparian vegetation, which should roughly correlate with the W ¼ 4:36Q0:32 ; R2 ¼ 0:77; Std: Err: ðbÞ ¼ 0:077 ð24Þ
relative erodibility of the stream banks. In this case, the data
come from streams in different environments with different
bank vegetation, so we cannot generate reasonable empir- d ¼ 0:25Q0:36 ; R2 ¼ 0:92; Std: Err: ð f Þ ¼ 0:048 ð25Þ
ical relations between discharge and the other required input
data (S, n and grain size). We therefore applied the regime The exponents of the width equations in the two groups of
model to each study reach and evaluated model perfor- data (equation (22) and (24)) are significantly different at
mance using 1:1 plots of the expected and observed channel
dimensions. We used the D90 reported by Andrews for the
bank stability analysis and the reported values of D50 to
calculate an index of the sediment transport capacity via the
Parker [1990] equation.
[46] The initial analysis using the reported bankfull flows
suggested that, for many of Andrews’s stream channels, the
bed was actually more resistant to erosion than the banks,
which is at odds with previous findings [Eaton and Millar,
2004; Eaton, 2006]. A comparison of the Andrews hydrau-
lic geometry equations against empirical data collected from
similarly vegetated gravel bed channels suggests that the
formative discharge is probably higher than the reported
bankfull flows (see Appendix A). This conclusion is sup-
ported by the fact that, for the majority of the streams in
the data set, the reported bankfull discharge is less than the
mean annual instantaneous peak flow reported by the
USGS, on average about 25% less. Some researchers have
claimed that, in semiarid regions like Colorado, the forma-
tive discharge may occur less frequently than in humid
environments; in truly arid regions, possibly as rarely as Figure 9. Hydraulic geometry data from Andrews [1984].
once in 200 years [Baker, 1977; Friedman et al., 1996]. The data are stratified by riparian vegetation classification.
[47] In our analysis, we use the 5-year and 20-year floods Emmett’s [1975] data from Salmon River are shown for
to parameterize the regime model: the bankfull depths comparison.

10 of 18
F03025 EATON AND CHURCH: HYDRAULIC GEOMETRY F03025

Figure 10. Results of regime modeling for groups 1 and 2, Salmon River, using the effective cohesion
bank stability analysis described by Eaton [2006]: (left) bed material concentration plotted against
discharge and (right) observed widths and depths (plotted as circles), overlain by the widths and depths
predicted by the regime model (dashed lines).

a = 0.002 (i.e., the 99.8% confidence level), and the
coefficients are significantly different at a = 0.17. The
exponents in the depth equations (equations (23) and (25))
are significantly different at a = 0.14, while the coefficients
are different at a = 0.20. While the confidence levels for
these differences are generally modest at best, there appear
to be systematic differences between the two groups. These
differences may be due to differences in the yield of bed
material sediment from the drainage basin, to differences in
the typical bed material grain shape and surface arrange-
ment or, possibly to systematic differences in the bank
conditions.
[50] The results of the regime modeling are shown in
Figure 10. The effective cohesion value that produced the
best fit to the data for group 1 was 1.9 kPa, and for group 2
it was 3.0 kPa. Both values are consistent with the range
exhibited in the Hey and Thorne [1986] data set when
analyzed by Eaton [2006]. As in the Colorado River data set
analyzed above, the bed material transport concentration
declines downstream in the Salmon River. The predicted
channel dimensions are not related to the formative dis-
charge by a simple power function. The analysis produced
trends that are clearly not power laws, but the modeled
trends are about as consistent with the data as are empirical
power fits, particularly for group 2 (Table 1).
4.2.2. Mountain Streams in Colorado
[51] For Andrews’ [1984] streams with thin riparian
vegetation, we obtained the following empirical equations
for width and depth as functions of the originally reported
bankfull flows:
W ¼ 4:17Q0:50 ; R2 ¼ 0:95; Std: Err: ðbÞ ¼ 0:032 ð26Þ
d ¼ 0:26Q0:36 ; R2 ¼ 0:89; Std: Err: ð f Þ ¼ 0:037 ð27Þ
For thick vegetation, the empirical equations are
W ¼ 3:38Q0:54 ; R2 ¼ 0:96; Std: Err: ðbÞ ¼ 0:041 ð28Þ
d ¼ 0:25Q0:33 ; R2 ¼ 0:85; Std: Err: ð f Þ ¼ 0:050 ð29Þ
The results of the regime model analysis assuming a
formative discharge with a return period of between 5 years
and 20 years are shown in Figure 11. The downstream
variations in width and depth are successfully reproduced
by the model assuming, for the 5-year flood, that C0 equals
1.7 kPa and 1.9 kPa for the ‘‘thin vegetation’’ and ‘‘thick
vegetation’’ channels, respectively. Substantially similar

11 of 18
F03025 EATON AND CHURCH: HYDRAULIC GEOMETRY F03025

Figure 11. Results of regime modeling for Andrews [1984] channels with ‘‘thin’’ and ‘‘thick’’ bank
vegetation using the effective cohesion bank stability analysis described by Eaton [2006]: (top) results
using the 5-year flood data and (bottom) results using the 20-year flood. (left) Bed material sediment
concentration plotted against discharge (with a dashed line indicating constant Qbm) and (middle and
right) one-to-one plots of the predicted versus observed widths and depths, respectively.

results were obtained for the 20-year flood by assuming C0
values of 2.2 kPa and 2.6 kPa for the thin and thick data
sets. The pattern of declining bed material concentration is
also evident in both of these analyses. The RMS errors for
the fitted regime models using the 5-year flood are similar
to (albeit slightly greater than) the RMS errors for the
empirical equations using the originally reported bankfull
flows (Table 1).
4.3. Inversion of the Relative Bank Strength Model
[52] Figure 12 displays the results of the analysis of
Emmett’s [1975] data set using the regime model with
relative bank strength (f0). The observed channel widths
at each observation point were fit by varying f0. The
estimated relative bank strength declines systematically
downstream for both groups. The uppermost reaches have
relatively erosion-resistant banks that are about 5 to 7 times
stronger than the channel bed, while the largest streams
have banks that are between 1.5 and 2 times stronger than
the bed (see Figure 1).
[53] Figure 13 presents the same analysis applied to the
Andrews [1984] data set: the choice of formative discharge
has little effect on the general trends predicted by the model.
The bed material transport concentration again declines as
formative discharge increases, as does the relative bank
strength. The range of relative bank strengths is slightly
lower than in Figure 12, with the thick vegetation channels
being associated with higher relative bank strengths than the
thin vegetation channels.
[54] It is worth noting that the regime model selects the
narrowest possible stream channel that would be stable
given the governing conditions of Q, S, and D84 so that,
while it is possible that the banks are stronger than indicated
by the apparent friction angle shown in Figure 1, they
cannot be weaker since this would imply that they would
be unstable at the identified bankfull discharge.
5. Discussion
[55] Physically based regime models reasonably fit down-
stream hydraulic geometry data in a range of environments,
reproducing the typical relations in which widths vary
approximately with Q0.5 and depths vary with Q0.4 [Emmett,
1975; Andrews, 1984] as well as relations in which there is
an unusually rapid increase in width [Tabata and Hickin,
2003; Ellis and Church, 2005] or depth [Pitlick and Cress,
2002] with discharge. The goodness of fit of the predictions
is measured using the root mean squared error (RMSE) for
the calculated widths and depths, as well as a mean bias (for
the regime model only). Table 1 summarizes the model
performance for all of the data sets examined. Generally, the
RMSE for width estimates using the regime model are about
the same as (and sometimes smaller than) the RMSE for the
empirical equations, and the bias in the width estimates is
low (i.e., <10%). The same is true for the RMSE for
modeled depths, except in the anabranch and delta channels.
For those data sets, the empirical equations perform sub-
stantially better and the modeled depths exhibit a significant
mean bias that is about the same magnitude as the RMSE:
this is attributable to poor model performance for the
smallest anabranch channels (see Figures 4, 5, and 6).
When the regime model is tested against only the larger
channels, the RMS errors for the modeled depths are similar
to those for the empirical equations, and the mean bias
values are significantly reduced (Table 1).
[56] Overall, the regime models summarized in Table 1
perform about as well as empirical equations (particularly
for the single-thread gravel bed channels), since the models
generally explain about as much variance as do the empir-

12 of 18
F03025 EATON AND CHURCH: HYDRAULIC GEOMETRY F03025

Figure 12. Results of regime modeling for groups 1 and 2, Salmon River [Emmett, 1975]. The circles
on all of the plots represent the regime model fit to reproduce the observed channel width at each study
reach. (left) Bed material transport concentration (Qbm/Q); dashed lines represent a line of constant Qbm.
(right) Relative bank strength (f0) required in the regime model to match the observed bankfull width for
each station; the line at which bed and bank erodibility becomes equal is indicated by dashed lines.

ical equations. However, since it might be expected that the
empirical equations would outperform the physically based
theory, because they are based on finding a relation that
minimizes the RMSE of the observations while regime
models yield predictive relations based on the physical
processes supposed to underlie the observed patterns, the
regime model performance is judged to be quite good. Since
the regime models are physically based, they are transfer-
able from one basin to another, whereas the empirical fits
are not. Furthermore, the invocation of a physically based
model leads to further insights about the structure and
function of stream channel networks, and is a suitable tool
for predicting their response to environmental change.
[57] The indicated decline in bed material sediment
concentration with formative discharge in the single-thread
channel systems examined herein (all of our cases of true
downstream hydraulic geometry) suggests a common scale
effect. Headwaters, in which Qbm/Q predicted by our model
is high, appear to transport a relatively large proportion of
the total sediment supplied to the channel as bed load (we
draw a rough parallel between bed material and bed load
transport for the purposes of this discussion). As sediment is
transported farther from its original source, it weathers and
wears into smaller and smaller sizes. In addition to direct
abrasion during transport [Pizzuto, 1995; Sklar et al., 2006]
floodplains, where sediment is stored in a wet environment,
may be particularly effective at weathering bed material
sediment into finer materials [Jones and Humphrey, 1997].
If the grain size is reduced sufficiently, the material is
transported in suspension, moving longer distances and in
a wider range of flows and bypassing storage as bed
material. Continuity of mass in a nonaggrading system
implies that a downstream decline in bed material concen-
tration must be accompanied by a downstream increase in
either the suspended sediment concentration or the dis-
solved material concentration. Sklar et al. [2006] suggest
that, beyond some critical length scale set by the relative
resistance of the basin lithology, bed load transport rates
cease to scale with drainage area and become effectively
constant, a behavior that is reproduced by our model. In
contrast, this sort of downstream change in Qbm/Q is not
evident in our data sets from anabranching and delta
systems, which are not, in fact, instances of downstream
hydraulic geometry at all.
[58] Anabranch and delta systems exhibit scale relations
in the true sense: they represent systematic variation in
channel geometry with changing channel size, while gradi-
ent and channel boundary materials remain relatively sim-
ilar within each data set. The regime model consistently
predicts that bed material concentration increases with
discharge: the relation between Qbm/Q and Q is interpreted
to be evidence that, when single thread channels divide into
multiple threads, they become less efficient and can trans-
port less sediment. This observation is consistent with a
well-known principle of hydraulic engineering that, to
remain stable, small distributary channels must exclude
bed material transport; that is, they must carry a much
reduced sediment load. Amongst the four data sets, there is
a remarkable inverse correlation between the exponents for
the equations of width and depth (R2 = 0.93) which reveals

13 of 18
F03025 EATON AND CHURCH: HYDRAULIC GEOMETRY F03025

Figure 13. Plots of the regime analysis of the Andrews [1984] data: (top) analysis using the 5-year flood
events and (bottom) 20-year analysis. (left) Bed material transport concentration (Qbm/Q). Dashed lines
represent constant Qbm. (right) Relative bank strength (f0) required in the regime model to match the
observed bankfull width for each station; the line at which bed and bank erodibility becomes equal is
indicated using dashed lines.

that, together, width and depth accounts for a about 82% of
the variation in channel capacity in every case. The covari-
ation is presumably introduced by the degree to which
channels flowing in similar materials must adjust their
sediment transporting capacity to remain in equilibrium.
[59] This result is contrary to the speculation made by
other researchers that channel division increases the bed
material sediment concentration and that division in ana-
branch systems occurs in order to accommodate an increase
the sediment supply [Nanson and Knighton, 1996; Jansen
and Nanson, 2004]. Obviously, our choice of bed material
transport law has influenced the model predictions so that
the validity of the underlying transport laws, and the way in
which we have used them in the model, must be considered
when commenting on larger geomorphic issues such as
channel pattern and sediment transport efficiency.
[60] The regime model performs poorly for the smallest
anabranch and distributary channels across all four data sets.
It overpredicts the depths of the smallest channels, and
therefore overpredicts the transport concentration, indicat-
ing that the effect of channel division on the transport
capacity in the smallest anabranches is in fact greater than
predicted by the model. That this result is common to all
four data sets suggests that either the assumptions about the
parameters used to specify the model are systematically
wrong, or that the fundamental premise of the model (i.e.,
that the channels are in regime) is inaccurate.
[61] A reasonable explanation for poor model perfor-
mance is suggested by a sedimentological reconstruction
of the Columbia River anabranch dynamics published by
Makaske et al. [2002]. They reported that channels on the
Columbia River floodplain initially form on top of crevasse
splay deposits (stage 1) and are bounded primarily by sand.
As a result, they tend to be fairly wide and shallow, and they
would be poorly described by a regime model that assumes
the existence of strong, cohesive channel banks. As the
channels abstract more water and mature, they deepen by
eroding the crevasse splay sands and by depositing cohesive
sediments along their banks. Once they attain depths on the
order of 2 m, they typically become capable of eroding
laterally and maintaining a dynamic equilibrium (stage 2):
these channels are likely in regime, and may be well
described over a range of formative discharges by a regime
model assuming a constant, high relative bank strength. At
some point, often because of the development of log jams,
the flow into the anabranch is reduced (stage 3), and the
channels undergo either rapid vertical aggradation, produc-
ing wide, shallow channels similar to stage 1, or a more
gradual combination of vertical and lateral aggradation,
producing narrow, deeper channels that may or may not
be in regime with the fluid and sediment fluxes supplied to
them.
[62] Therefore it appears that the larger channels (in the
Columbia system at least) may be in regime with respect to
the fully developed cohesive banks (represented by f0 =
78°), while the smaller channels may be in regime with
respect to a range of lower relative bank strengths. These
channels are covered in Figure 5 by a shaded region
bounded by an upper (f0 = 78°) and lower (f0 = 68°) bank
strength value. It is possible that a similar sequence of

14 of 18
F03025 EATON AND CHURCH: HYDRAULIC GEOMETRY
channel initiation and development is responsible for the
range of channel shapes characteristic of the smallest
distributary channels on both the Danube and Laitaure
deltas as well (see Figure 6). Other small channels may
be rapidly shrinking as they aggrade, ultimately forming
part of the floodplain: these channels are not likely to be at
equilibrium with respect to the supply of sediment, and
therefore should not be well described by a regime model.
Nonequilibrium behavior is likely at least part of the
explanation of the poor model performance, and seems
to be the most likely explanation for the Fraser River
anabranches.
[63] While the first five cases analyzed in the paper
represent carefully chosen situations for which we could
make the assumption that the relative banks strength is
approximately uniform, one cannot apply such assumptions
to most downstream hydraulic geometry sets. In order to
fully explain the variations in channel geometry expressed
in the data sets presented by Emmett [1975] and Andrews
[1984], we would require data that are seldom collected.
However, we can reasonably speculate on the physical
processes that underlie these variations.
[64] The ability of the modified regime model described
by Eaton [2006] to replicate the general downstream
hydraulic geometry of both the Emmett [1975] data set
(see Figure 10) and the Andrews [1984] data set (see
Figure 11) by adopting reasonable values of vegetation-
related bank strength, C0, suggests that the declines in
relative bank strength and bed material concentration with
increasing Q are driven primarily by vegetation-related bank
strength. The effect of vegetation is limited to the zone
influenced by the tensile strength of the root systems. For
small streams, the rooting depth may be similar to the
average channel depth, and the banks may be many times
more erosion-resistant than the bed. However, as the chan-
nel depth increases (holding the rooting depth constant), the
relative importance of the vegetation declines and the
relative erodibility of the banks approaches that of the bed
[see Eaton and Millar, 2004]. This scale effect is likely to
be ubiquitous in channels where vegetation dominates the
bank stability, and the results of our analyses are consistent
with these plausible conjectures (see Figures 12 and 13).
Variations in vegetation type and riparian land use along
stream systems, as appears to be the case for the streams in
Colorado [Andrews, 1984], are likely to further modify the
scale effect.
[65] The analysis of the Andrews [1984] data set also
indicates that the channels with the highest potential bed
material transport concentration tend to be those with thick
riparian vegetation. These channels, probably laterally sta-
ble, are deeper than channels with less dense riparian
vegetation. The channels with less dense vegetation and
weaker channel banks are more likely to be laterally
unstable, but they are less efficient in conveying bed
material downstream.
[66] Our regime model also provides insight into the
downstream variations in the Shields number (t*) along
the reach of the Colorado River studied by Pitlick and Cress
[2002]. The authors explain the unusual hydraulic geometry
along this reach as the result of a decrease in Qbm which,
they point out, may have produced a downstream increase
in the armor ratio, since the armor ratio is related to
15 of 18
F03025
sediment supply [Dietrich et al., 1989]. However, they also
claim that t* remains essentially constant, which would
seem to be at odds with declining transport capacity. The
regime model supports the conjecture that bed material
transport rates are declining, since Qbm/Q declines by
almost two orders of magnitude as one moves down the
system, and also suggests that, as the ratio W/d decreases
downstream, t* also decreases. The decrease is relatively
small (from just 0.046 to 0.039), and remains close to the t*
value of 0.049 reported by Pitlick and Cress [2002]. It
should be noted that the scatter in estimates of t* of Pitlick
and Cress is much greater than the range of variation in the
model, implying that physically reasonable relations
between the parameters W/d and t* may be obscured by
limited measurement resolution.
6. Conclusions
[67] We draw the following conclusions from our analy-
ses of downstream hydraulic geometry using rational (phys-
ically based) regime models.
[68] 1. Fully elaborated regime models of alluvial channel
form are not simple scaling relations, as has been widely
supposed, because of the variable influence of several
governing factors. However, power law scaling relations
furnish very good approximations of the underlying rela-
tions in many cases when one or more of the governing
relations remains essentially constant.
[69] 2. Systematic variations in relative bank strength and
in bed material transport capacity are subsumed within the
typically observed empirical hydraulic geometry. By fitting
a physically based model to the data of hydraulic geometry,
we approach the underlying physical structure of the stream
network organization (with respect to grain size variation,
transport capacity, boundary resistance and channel gradi-
ent), as well as the scaling of channel dimensions with
formative discharge. That is, we obtain a glimpse of how
stream networks function.
[70] 3. In stream networks where riparian vegetation
influences bank strength, relative bank strength declines
downstream with increasing discharge. This scale effect is
consistent with the notion that the contribution of riparian
vegetation to bank strength declines as the channel depth
becomes large relative to the rooting depth of the riparian
species. The hydraulic geometry of stream networks can be
modeled by assuming an appropriate (and constant) value
for the absolute bank strength, represented as an effective
cohesion, C0.
[71] 4. The bed material sediment concentration in stream
networks generally appears to decline with discharge in
conjunction with relative bank strength which, in nonaggrad-
ing systems, is presumably counterbalanced by an increase in
the suspended sediment (and/or dissolved material) concen-
tration in order to maintain continuity of mass.
[72] 5. For large stream channels, like the Fraser River
and the Colorado River, the channel geometry can be
reasonably modeled by assuming a uniform relative bank
strength, f0. The atypical hydraulic geometry relations
reported by Pitlick and Cress [2002] and Ellis and Church
[2005] are reproduced using such models.
[73] 6. The scaling relations for anabranched channels
and delta distributary channels, where true friction and
F03025 EATON AND CHURCH: HYDRAULIC GEOMETRY F03025

Figure A1. Application of the Andrews [1984] hydraulic geometry equations to the data set of Hey and
Thorne [1986]. (left) Results using the surface grain size and bankfull discharge reported by Hey and
Thorne, applying the equation for thin vegetation to Hey and Thorne’s type I and type II channels and the
equations for thick vegetation to types III and IV. (right) Results when the discharge values are all scaled
back, as indicated.

cohesion dominate bank strength, are reasonably repro-
duced using regime models that assume a uniform relative
bank strength, f0. For these channels, bed material concen-
tration increases with formative discharge, indicating that
division of a channel into multiple threads is associated
with reduced sediment transport efficiency and likely with
aggradation, as well.
[74] 7. The smallest channels examined in the sand bed
anabranch and distributary channels in this study conform to
a regime model that assumes a lower bank strength. In the
case of the Columbia River, there is a sedimentological
basis for believing that this variation is due to real changes
in the bank strength. The same argument may apply to the
Laitaure and Danube deltas, though there are no published
reports to support this assertion. Some of the small channels
are probably shrinking as they aggrade: they would not
therefore be in equilibrium with their governing conditions
and should not be expected to agree with the model
predictions.
[75] Physically based models relating channel geometry
to the governing conditions of discharge, sediment supply,
grain size and slope can be constructed in a wide variety of
environments using appropriately configured regime models,
but only if the relative erodibility of the channel boundary is
adequately represented. A key consideration is the choice of
bank stability analysis method and the choice of bank
stability parameter values. Direct knowledge of the bed
material discharge would seem to be of secondary impor-
tance, since the reach-averaged slope and characteristic
grain size are set in response to the long-term average bed
material discharge, and since channels have the capacity to
respond to small year-to-year variations in sediment dis-
charge without modifying the gross channel morphology
simply by varying the bed surface texture and structure.
[76] While application of a regime model requires knowl-
edge of more than just the formative discharge, the addi-
tional parameters are unarguably important in determining
the channel morphology, so the increased information
requirements appear to be reasonable and necessary for
the construction of a physically based theory to explain
the observed hydraulic geometry of rivers. In addition to
providing insight into hydraulic geometry relations, we
believe that regime models can usefully be incorporated
into numerical models of drainage network dynamics and
even landscape development. They represent a computa-
tionally effective method for relating channel morphology
to governing conditions and, insofar as they escape unqual-
ified empiricism, they are superior to the empirical hydrau-
lic geometry equations commonly used in drainage network
models.
Appendix A
[77] The initial analysis of the Andrews [1984] data set
using a relative bank strength formulation indicated that
many of the channels identified as having thin riparian
vegetation and one channel with thick vegetation have
banks that are more erodible than the bed. This is surprising,
since previous analyses using the regime model [Eaton and
Millar, 2004; Eaton, 2006] indicate that channel banks with
riparian vegetation similar to that of the Colorado streams
still remain about 50% stronger than the channel bed and,
on average, exhibit apparent friction angles of 40°. Only a
handful of the smaller channels with thick vegetation and a
single channel with thin vegetation exhibit widths consistent
with even the modest bank strength index of 40°. This
unexpected result led us to question whether or not the
reported bankfull discharges actually correspond to the
formative flow responsible for the observed widths and
depths. (A previous analysis of these data by Millar [2005]
did not consider this possibility.)
[78] Andrews estimated bankfull flows by projecting
surveyed indicators of the bankfull elevation along the
stream channel parallel to the water surface slope to a
nearby gauge section, where the recorded stage-discharge
relation was used to estimate the bankfull Q. Since bankfull

16 of 18
F03025 EATON AND CHURCH: HYDRAULIC GEOMETRY F03025

Table A1. Discharge Data for 5-Year and 20-Year Floods in the likely formed by flows less frequent than those identified as
Andrews [1984] Gravel Bed Channels bankfull flows in the original data set.
Discharge Data, m3/s Channel Geometry, m [81] On the basis of the existing data for each USGS
USGS Mean gauging station, we estimated the peak flows with return
Station Qbf Annual 5 Year 20 Year W d(Qbf) d(Q5) d(Q20) periods of 5 and 20 years (Table A1) and used these values
6620000 85.2 86.8 119 166 47.2 0.97 1.22 1.63 in the regime model. Streams for which the period of record
7083000 7.08 7.85 9.8 15.5 9.1 0.52 0.55 0.75 was not sufficient to accurately estimate the 20-year peak
7091000 9.8 18.7 26.4 37.6 11.5 0.46 0.75 0.87 flow have been excluded from the analysis. The 5-year
9022000 2.69 3.89 5.04 7.83 7.0 0.29 0.38 0.58
9035900 8.36 8.49 10.8 13.4 9.2 0.43 0.47 0.49
flood frequency best corresponds to the empirical result
9036000 22.6 26.2 33.8 42.0 17.5 0.73 0.93 0.95 from the test using the Hey and Thorne [1986] data set:
9074800 4.45 10.2 12.6 15.9 8.4 0.49 0.64 0.74 these data were used in regime models. Since there is a large
9078100 3.17 6.59 8.51 11.7 6.3 0.39 0.73 0.77 degree of uncertainty in this post hoc analysis, we have also
9078200 2.52 4.12 5.52 8.03 5.6 0.41 0.53 0.62
9081600 49.0 64.3 81.8 103 34.1 0.84 1.02 1.30
run the regime analysis using the 20-year floods. In order to
9112500 37.5 67.1 85.9 119 26.0 0.91 1.62 1.65 estimate the water depth associated with the 5-year and
9115500 7.08 11.1 16.0 22.1 11.6 0.52 0.80 0.96 20-year floods, we used recorded water stages reported by
9124500 42.0 47.8 62.6 70.2 24.9 0.88 1.08 1.15 the USGS for the historic peak flows at each gauging
9242500 101 115 139 155 36.6 1.45 1.65 1.72 station. We compared the 5-year and 20-year water stage
9244410 167 224 282 326 53.3 1.63 2.22 2.52
9251000 255 293 362 413 83.8 1.85 2.38 2.71 values to the water stage for a flow close to the reported
9253000 72.2 63.7 82.7 91.5 30.5 1.13 1.22 1.54 bankfull stage. In order to avoid the effects of net aggrada-
9257000 114 135 173 203 36.6 1.65 2.03 2.28 tion or degradation at the gauge section, water stage values
Ratio to Qbf /Qi 0.77 0.59 0.50 were chosen as close together in time as possible. The
estimated difference in the stage between the 5-year and
20-year flood and the flood magnitude reported by Andrews
depth is difficult to measure in the field, and since the stage [1984] was added to the bankfull depths that Andrews
relations at gauge cross sections are not necessarily the originally reported. The result was an average increase in
same as the stage relations elsewhere in a river reach, it is at water depth of about 33% for the 5-year event and 55% for
least possible that formative discharges were systematically the 20-year event (Table A1).
underestimated.
[79] It is also possible that the observed channel widths [82] Acknowledgments. Rudy Slingerland generously made the data
are associated with flows that are larger than the bankfull of H. Andrén available to us, and John Pitlick kindly provided unpublished
flows. Since, in semiarid regions, the rate at which vegeta- data on the Colorado River. We also extend our thanks to Alex Densmore,
Rob Ferguson, Tom Lisle, and an anonymous reviewer for their extensive
tion can colonize an eroded surface is substantially slower and very helpful comments on the paper; all of their comments have
than it is in a humid environment, it is likely that stream resulted in a much improved paper.
channels in arid environments are influenced to a greater
degree by less frequent flood events [Baker, 1977; Friedman References
et al., 1996]. Andrén, H. (1994), Development of the Laitaure Delta, Swedish Lappland,
188 pp., Inst. of Earth Sci., Ph.D. dissertation, Phys. Geogr., Uppsala
[80] In order to assess the possibility that the widths Univ., Uppsala, Sweden.
reported by Andrews [1984] were formed during flows Andrews, E. (1982), Bank stability and channel width adjustment, East
higher than the reported bankfull value, we first used Fork River, Wyoming, Water Resour. Res., 18, 1184 – 1192.
Andrews, E. D. (1984), Bed material entrainment and the hydraulic geo-
Andrews’s dimensionless hydraulic geometry equations to metry of gravel-bed rivers in Colorado, Geol. Soc. Am. Bull., 95, 371 –
predict the widths of stable gravel bed streams with similar 378.
bank vegetation information [Hey and Thorne, 1986]. Hey Baker, V. R. (1977), Stream-channel response to floods, with examples
and Thorne [1986] classified bank vegetation into four from central Texas, Geol. Soc. Am. Bull., 88, 1057 – 1071.
Blench, T. (1969), Mobile-Bed Fluviology, 168 pp., Univ. of Alberta Press,
classes. We have assumed that the dimensionless equations Edmonton, Canada.
for thin vegetation reported by Andrews [1984] should Bray, D. I. (1973), Regime relations for Alberta gravel-bed rivers, in Fluvial
describe Hey and Thorne’s types I and II channels, which Processes and Sedimentation: Proceedings of Hydrology Symposium No.
9, pp. 440 – 452, Natl. Res. Counc. of Can., Ottawa.
are the least densely vegetated, and that Andrews’s equa- Cao, S. (1996), Fluvial Hydraulic Geometry, 148 pp., Chengdu Univ. of
tions for thick vegetation should correspond to Hey and Sci. and Technol. Press, Chengdu, China.
Thorne’s types III and IV channels. When Hey and Thorne’s Chang, H. H. (1979), Minimum stream power and river channel patterns,
J. Hydrol., 41, 303 – 327.
discharges are entered into the Andrews equations, they Chang, H. H. (1980), Geometry of gravel streams, J. Hydraul. Div. Am.
consistently overpredict the observed channel widths in Hey Soc. Civ. Eng., 106, 1443 – 1456.
and Thorne’s data set. We reduced the discharge used in the Charlton, F. G., P. M. Brown, and R. W. Benson (1978), The hydraulic
equations until the observed and predicted widths agreed, geometry of some gravel rivers in Britain, Hydraul. Res. Station,
Wallingford, U. K.
on average (Figure A1). The Andrews equations predict Davies, T. R. H. (1987), Channel boundary shape—Evolution and equili-
widths that are, on average, consistent with the channel brium, in Rivers—Environment, Process and Form, IBG Spec. Publ. 18,
widths observed by Hey and Thorne when their Q estimates edited by K. Richards, pp. 228 – 248, Inst. of Br. Geogr., London.
Dietrich, W. E., J. W. Kirchner, H. Ikeda, and F. Iseya (1989), Sediment
are reduced to approximately 66% of their original values. supply and the development of the coarse surface layer in gravel-bedded
This, combined with the initial results using the regime rivers, Nature, 340, 215 – 217.
model, suggests that the widths observed by Andrews Eaton, B. C. (2006), Bank stability analysis for regime models of vegetated
[1984] were probably formed by flows consistently greater gravel bed rivers, Earth Surf. Processes Landforms, 31, 1438 – 1444,
doi:10.1002/esp.1364.
than the reported bankfull flows. We therefore surmise that Eaton, B. C., and R. G. Millar (2004), Optimal alluvial channel width under
the bankfull widths observed in the field by Andrews were a bank stability constraint, Geomorphology, 62, 35 – 45.

17 of 18
F03025 EATON AND CHURCH: HYDRAULIC GEOMETRY
Eaton, B. C., M. Church, and R. G. Millar (2004), Rational regime model of
alluvial channel morphology and response, Earth Surf. Processes Land-
forms, 29, 511 – 529.
Ellis, E. R., and M. Church (2005), Hydraulic geometry of secondary
channels of lower Fraser River, British Columbia, from acoustic Doppler
profiling, Water Resour. Res., 41, W08421, doi:10.1029/2004WR003777.
Emmett, W. W. (1975), The channels and waters of the Upper Salmon River
Area, Idaho, U.S. Geol. Surv. Prof. Pap., 870-A.
Friedman, J. M., W. R. Osterkamp, and W. M. J. Lewis (1996), Channel
narrowing and vegetation development following a Great Plains flood,
Ecology, 77, 2167 – 2181.
Hey, R. D., and C. R. Thorne (1986), Stable channels with mobile gravel
beds, J. Hydraul. Div. Am. Soc. Civ. Eng., 112, 671 – 689.
Huang, H. Q., and G. C. Nanson (1998), The influence of bank strength on
channel geometry: An integrated analysis of some observations, Earth
Surf. Processes Landforms, 23, 865 – 876.
Huang, H. Q., and G. C. Nanson (2000), Hydraulic geometry and maximum
flow efficiency as products of the principle of least action, Earth Surf.
Processes Landforms, 25, 1 – 16.
Huang, H. Q., H. H. Chang, and G. C. Nanson (2004), Minimum energy as
the general form of critical flow and maximum flow efficiency and for
explaining variations in river channel pattern, Water Resour. Res., 40,
W04502, doi:10.1029/2003WR002539.
Jansen, J. D., and G. C. Nanson (2004), Anabranching and maximum flow
efficiency in Magela Creek, northern Australia, Water Resour. Res., 40,
W04503, doi:10.1029/2003WR002408.
Jones, L. S., and N. F. Humphrey (1997), Weathering-controlled abrasion in
a coarse-grained meandering reach of the Rio Grande: Implications for
the rock record, Geol. Soc. Am. Bull., 109, 1080 – 1088.
Kennedy, R. G. (1895), The prevention of silting in irrigation canals, Proc.
Inst. Civ. Eng., 119, 281 – 290.
Kirkby, M. J. (1977), Maximum sediment efficiency as a criterion for
alluvial channels, in River Channel Changes, edited by K. J. Gregory,
pp. 429 – 442, John Wiley, Chichester, U. K.
Knighton, D. (1998), Fluvial Forms and Processes, 383 pp., John Wiley,
New York.
Lacey, G. (1930), Stable channels in alluvium, Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng., 229,
259 – 384.
Lane, E. W. (1957), A study of the shape of channels formed by natural
streams flowing in erodible material, 106 pp., U. S. Army Eng. Div., Mo.
River, Omaha, Nebr.
Langbein, W. B., and L. B. Leopold (1966), River meanders—Theory of
minimum variance, U. S. Geol. Surv. Prof. Pap., 422-H.
Leopold, L. B., and T. Maddock (1953), The hydraulic geometry of stream
channels and some physiographic implications, U.S. Geol. Surv. Prof.
Pap., 252.
Lindley, E. S. (1919), Regime canals, paper presented at Punjab Engineer-
ing Congress, Inst. of Br. Geogr., Lahore, Pakistan.
Makaske, B., D. G. Smith, and H. J. A. Berendsen (2002), Avulsions,
channel evolution and floodplain sedimentation rates of the anastomosing
upper Columbia River, British Columbia, Canada, Sedimentology, 49,
1049 – 1071.
18 of 18
F03025
Mikhailov, V. N. (1970), Hydrologic-morphometric characteristics of delta
branches, in Hydrology of Deltas: Proceedings of the Bucharest Sympo-
sium, 6 – 14 May, 1969, Stud. Rep. Hydrol., vol. 9, pp. 146 – 157, Int.
Assoc. of Sci. Hydrol., Louvain, Belgium.
Millar, R. G. (2005), Theoretical regime equations for mobile gravel-bed
rivers with stable banks, Geomorphology, 64, 207 – 220.
Millar, R. G., and M. C. Quick (1993), Effect of bank stability on geometry
of gravel rivers, J. Hydraul. Div., Am. Soc. Civ. Eng., 119, 1343 – 1363.
Nanson, G. C., and A. D. Knighton (1996), Anabranching rivers: Their
cause, character and classification, Earth Surf. Processes Landforms,
21, 217 – 239.
Neill, C. R. (1968), Note on initial movement of coarse uniform bed-material,
J. Hydraul. Res., 6, 173 – 176.
Neill, C. R. (1973), Hydraulic geometry of sand rivers in Alberta, in Fluvial
Processes and Sedimentation: Proceedings of Hydrology Symposium No.
9, pp. 453 – 461, Natl. Res. Counc. of Can., Ottawa.
Parker, G. (1978), Self-formed rivers with equilibrium banks and mobile
bed: Part 2. The gravel river, J. Fluid Mech., 89, 127 – 156.
Parker, G. (1979), Hydraulic geometry of active gravel rivers, J. Hydraul.
Div. Am. Soc. Civ. Eng., 105, 1185 – 1201.
Parker, G. (1990), Surface-based bedload transport relation for gravel riv-
ers, J. Hydraul. Res., 28, 417 – 436.
Pitlick, J., and R. Cress (2000), Longitudinal trends in channel character-
istics of the Colorado River and implications for food-web dynamics,
52 pp., U. S. Fish and Wildlife Serv., Grand Junction, Colo.
Pitlick, J., and R. Cress (2002), Downstream changes in the channel geo-
metry of a large gravel bed river, Water Resour. Res., 38(10), 1216,
doi:10.1029/2001WR000898.
Pizzuto, J. E. (1995), Downstream lining in a network of gravel-bedded
rivers, Water Resour. Res., 31, 753 – 759.
Simons, D. B., and M. L. Albertson (1963), Uniform water conveyance
channels in alluvial material, Am. Soc. Civ. Eng. Trans., 128, 65 – 107.
Sklar, L. S., W. E. Dietrich, E. Foufoula-Georgiou, B. Lashermes, and
D. Bellugi (2006), Do gravel bed river size distributions record channel
network structure?, Water Resour. Res., 42, W06D18, doi:10.1029/
2006WR005035.
Tabata, K. K., and E. J. Hickin (2003), Interchannel hydraulic geometry and
hydraulic efficiency of the anastomosing Columbia River, southeastern
British Columbia, Canada, Earth Surf. Processes Landforms, 28, 837 –
852.
Van Rijn, L. C. (1984), Sediment transport, part I: Bed load transport,
J. Hydraul. Eng., 110, 1431 – 1456.
White, W. R., R. Bettess, and E. Paris (1982), Analytical approach to river
regime, J. Hydraul. Div. Am. Soc. Civ. Eng., 108, 1179 – 1193.
Yang, C. T. (1976), Minimum unit stream power and fluvial hydraulics,
J. Hydraul. Div., Am. Soc. Civ. Eng., 102, 769 – 784.
Yang, C. T., C. C. S. Song, and M. J. Woldenberg (1981), Hydraulic
geometry and minimum rate of energy dissipation, Water Resour. Res.,
17, 1014 – 1018.

M. Church and B. C. Eaton, Department of Geography, University of
British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada V6T 1Z2. (brett.eaton@ubc.ca)