Article
Abstract
The volume and depth of a lake are basic properties that greatly affect a wide array of its physical, chemical, and
biological properties. Nevertheless, volume and depth data are scarce in lake-rich regions of the world. We coupled the
Swedish lake register to GIS-derived geographical and topographical parameters, attempting to predict the volume and
depth of 6943 lakes from map-derived parameters only. Lake area and the maximum slope in a 50 m wide zone outside
of the lake shoreline were the most important predictors of both lake volume and depth, explaining 92% of the variance
in lake volume but 40% of the variance in both maximum and mean depth. Regression parameters of regional
submodels of lake volume were similar across geographically and topographically different regions, indicating that the
model probably is applicable for glacially formed lakes in general. Despite the high degree of explanation for lake
volume, the uncertainty in predicted volume for a single lake is considerable (relative standard deviation, 57%).
However, the mean or cumulative lake volume of catchments containing several lakes (n > 15) is predictable from
map-derived parameters with a greatly reduced uncertainty.
Key words: boreal lakes, GIS, morphometry
Introduction
Volume and depth are central parameters of lakes,
affecting their physical, chemical, and biological
properties. Volume and depth strongly affect the water
retention time, and thereby the degree to which in-lake
processes such as nutrient dynamics, primary production,
organic matter mineralization, or sedimentation can affect
the chemical composition of the water (Hamilton and
Lewis 1990, Algesten et al. 2004, Jeppesen et al. 2005). In
addition, the extent of resuspension of sediments is highly
dependent on the shape of the lake basin (Hkanson 2004)
and may have a significant effect on water chemistry and
primary production (Salomons and Frstner 1984,
Hellstrm 1991). Further, the morphometry of the lake
DOI: 10.5268/IW-1.3.426
178
Methods
Data sources
We used the Swedish lake register (available from the
Swedish Hydrological and Meteorological Institute, www.
smhi.se, retrieved 15 October 2009) to derive statistical
relationships between the depth (both maximum depth,
Dmax, and mean depth, Dmean) and the volume (V) of lakes
and map-derived parameters. The lake register contains
maximum depth data of 7383 lakes and volume data of
6618 lakes; there is large overlap between these two
groups. Mean depth is defined as the ratio between lake
volume and lake area and is therefore available for those
lakes having volume data (n = 6618). The lake register
International Society of Limnology 2011
Results
Data structure
The lakes in the present analysis (total n = 6943) cover a
wide range in area, depth, and volume (Table 1), with
the majority of data originating from small lakes
(2575% interquartile range for area, 0.0760.67 km2;
Dmax, 5.214.2 m; volume, 0.172.1 Mm3). The dataset
encompasses both lowland and highland lakes, lakes
situated in both flat and hilly terrain, and lakes with almost
circular as well as highly irregular shorelines (Table 1).
Most lakes are situated in the mid- and north-Swedish
boreal forest (n = 3596), reflecting the geography of the
country. Most geographically and topographically distinct
parts of Sweden are represented, such as mountains,
plains, and coastal areas (Fig. 1; Table 2); however, the
lake-rich mountain areas are obviously underrepresented
in the dataset.
Volume
Lake volume could be modeled from map-derived data
with high degrees of explanation. A PLS regression
explained 92% of the variability in volume (R2Y = 0.92;
Q2 = 0.91) and shows the correlation structure of the
dataset (Fig. 2A). Variables are positively correlated if
they plot close to each other and are negatively correlated
if they are placed at opposite ends of the plot; variables
situated in the center of the plot are poor predictors of
volume. The horizontal axis explains about 3 times as
much of the variability in volume compared to the vertical
axis. Accordingly, the PLS regression results identified
179
(1)
Table 1. Descriptive statistics of the lakes in the present analysis. Differences between N and the total number of lakes in the analysis (6943)
are due to missing values in the respective parameter.
Parameter
N
Mean sd
Median
2
Area (A; km )
6908
0.72 1.35
0.21
3
Volume (V; Mm )
6263
3.7 12.3
0.57
Mean depth (Dmean; m)
6266
4.0 2.7
3.4
Maximum depth (Dmax; m)
6941
11.0 8.4
9.0
Elevation (elev; m asl)
6909
164 106
143
Slope (smax50; ) *
6801
9.7 5.3
8.8
Shoreline development (-)
6815
1.6 0.5
1.4
* maximum slope in a 50 m wide zone outside of the lake shoreline
DOI: 10.5268/IW-1.3.426
Range
0.00019.76
0.00026226
0.328.8
0.475
01176
042
1.025.8
Interquartile range
0.0760.67
0.172.1
2.25.0
5.214.2
92220
5.912.5
1.241.77
180
Geographical region
Mountain
Mid- and north-Swedish boreal forest
North Swedish coast
Pre-montane plains
Mid-Swedish agricultural plains
West coast
Slopes of the south Swedish highland
South Swedish highland
The Kalmar plain
land and Gotland islands
Scania
N
79
3596
102
38
247
282
1752
751
12
10
51
interpreted with caution. No region had a consistently significantly different slope for the smax50 regression parameter
as compared to other regions (data not shown). We
conclude that the regionalization of the dataset did not
render higher degrees of explanation, and no major
differences in regression parameters. Hence, equation 1
can be regarded representative for Swedish lakes in
general.
Fig. 2. Partial least squares (PLS) regression loadings plots, illustrating the importance of different X variables in explaining the
Y variable: A, volume; B, maximum depth (Dmax). The volume
model extracted 5 significant components, and the Dmax model
extracted 4 significant components; because the first 2 components
explain most of the variability in the dataset, additional components
(i.e., axes) are omitted from the plots for clarity. Abbreviations: peri
= perimeter; shore_dev = shoreline development (i.e., deviation
from circular shape); s = slope statistics (min, max, mean, sd) in a
buffer zone of 50, 100, 200, 500, and 1000 m outside of the lake
shoreline; elev = elevation (subscripts as for slope). Labels of
variables with a low explanatory power (variable importance in
projection <1) were omitted from the plot for reasons of clarity,
including elevation of the lake and its surroundings, as well as the
geographical region. The cluster shown in (A) consists of minimum
slope (smin) for all 5 buffer zones. The cluster shown in (B) consists
of the mean and the standard deviation of the slope (smean and ssd),
and of the standard deviation of the elevation of the surroundings
(elevsd) from several buffer zones.
DOI: 10.5268/IW-1.3.426
181
Depth
Only a moderate proportion of the variability in Dmax could
be explained from map-derived data. A PLS regression
explained 43% of the variance in Dmax (R2Y = 0.43,
Q2=0.43), the most important predicting variables being
lake area, perimeter, shoreline development, and smax50
(Fig.2B). Again, geographical region was not an
important factor, and neither was elevation. In a multiple
linear regression model, 36% of the variability in Dmax
could be explained from area and smax50, with no significant
additional explanatory power being added by shoreline
development (Fig. 4):
Dmax = 7.09 + 1.69 ln A + 0.660 smax50;
R2 = 0.36; F2,6770 = 1940; p < 0.0001.
(2)
(3)
Discussion
The present analysis shows that lake volume can be
modeled from map-derived parameters with a very high
degree of explanation. Lake area and the maximum slope
in a 50 m wide zone outside of the lake shoreline (smax50)
explained 92% of the variability in lake volume (equation
1; Fig. 3A). Although lake area was by far the most
important predictor of lake volume (t = 230, p < 0.0001),
smax50 explained significant additional variability in lake
volume (t = 40.5; p < 0.001). In fact, including smax50
reduced the variance of the regression residuals by 21%,
illustrating that the relatively laborious GIS analyses
result in a significant increase of the predictive power of
the multiple linear regression model. These results are
similar to earlier findings by Hkanson and Peters (1995),
who modeled volume from area and the maximum
elevation difference in the lakes catchment. Apart from
our analysis building on 6130 lakes instead of on 95 lakes
in Hkanson and Peters (1995), it also has the advantage
that the descriptor of topography (smax50) does not require
knowledge of the catchment area. Moreover, the
regression parameters of the regional submodels were
very similar, possibly with the exception of mountain
lakes, indicating that the dependence of volume on area
and smax50 is similar across geographically and topographically different regions. Hence, equation 1 is probably
applicable to large populations of northern temperate and
boreal lakes that, similar to the vast majority of the
Swedish lakes, were glacially formed.
Fig. 3. A: Ln-transformed volume predicted from area and smax50 according to equation 1 against observed ln volume. B: Lake volume, predicted
from equation 1 and corrected for back-transformation bias according to equation 4, against observed lake volume.
DOI: 10.5268/IW-1.3.426
182
(4)
183
Table 3. Total lake volume and mean water retention time upstream of long-term monitoring sites of river water quality in Sweden. Numbers
give the mean standard deviation. Water retention time was calculated using the mean standard deviation of at least 20 years of annually
averaged runoff data.
River
Domnen
Klingavlsn
Storbcken
Svedn
Abiskojokk
Mudduslven
Sangislven
lbergan
Lansn
Korpn
Molven
Kaitumlven
Ammern
Vsterdallven
Vindellven
Station name
Utlopp Vttern
Vomb
Ostvik
Sved
Rda Bron
Hngbron
Kukkasjrvi
Kila
vre Lansjrv
Mesjn
Vstersel
Killingi
Skyttmon
Mockfjrd
Maltbrnnan
N lakes
5
12
13
19
21
31
52
58
100
160
275
598
744
1596
3982
N known V
1
5
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
16
0
0
26
23
184
Acknowledgements
We want to thank Martyn Futter, Birgit Khler, and Kevin
Bishop for fruitful discussions, and the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency for financial support.
References
Algesten G, Sobek S, Bergstrm A-K, gren A, Tranvik LJ, Jansson
M. 2004. Role of lakes for organic carbon cycling in the boreal zone.
Glob Change Biol. 10:141-147.
Downing JA, Prairie YT, Cole JJ, Duarte CM, Tranvik LJ, Striegl RG,
McDowell WH, Kortelainen P, Caraco NF, Melack JM, Middelburg
JJ. 2006. The global abundance and size distribution of lakes, ponds,
and impoundments. Limnol Oceanogr. 51(5):2388-2397.
Engberg A. 2002. Produktspecification Svenska CORINE Marktckedata. SCMD-0001, Lantmteriet (The Swedish mapping, cadastral
and land registration authority).
Ferguson RI. 1986. River loads underestimated by rating curves. Water
Resour Res. 22(1):74-76.
Finney DJ. 1941. On the distribution of a variate whose logarithm is
normally distributed. Suppl J Royal Statist Soc. 7(2):155-161.
Hkanson L. 1981. A manual of lake morphometry. Berlin (Germany):
Springer-Verlag.
Hkanson L. 2004. Lakes: Form and function. Caldwell (NJ): The
Blackburn Press.
Hkanson L, Peters RH. 1995. Predictive limnology. Amsterdam
(Netherlands): SPB Academic Publishing.
Hamilton SK, Lewis WM. 1990. Basin morphology in relation to
chemical and ecological characteristics of lakes on the Orinoco river
floodplain, Venezuela. Arch Hydrobiol. 119(4):393-425.
DOI: 10.5268/IW-1.3.426