There are a growing number of large-scale, complex hydrologic models that are capable of simulating integrated surface and subsurface flow. Many are coupled to land-surface energy balance models, biogeochemical and ecological process models, and atmospheric models. Although they are being increasingly applied for hydrologic prediction and environmental understanding, very little formal verification and/or benchmarking of these models has been performed. Here we present the results of an intercomparison study of seven coupled surface-subsurface models based on a series of benchmark problems. All the models simultaneously solve adapted forms of the Richards and shallow water equations, based on fully 3-D or mixed (1-D vadose zone and 2-D groundwater) formulations for subsurface flow and 1-D (rill flow) or 2-D (sheet flow) conceptualizations for surface routing. A range of approaches is used for the solution of the coupled equations, including global implicit, sequential iterative, and asynchronous linking, and various strategies are used to enforce flux and pressure continuity at the surface-subsurface interface. The simulation results show good agreement for the simpler test cases, while the more complicated test cases bring out some of the differences in physical process representations and numerical solution approaches between the models. Benchmarks with more traditional runoff generating mechanisms, such as excess infiltration and saturation, demonstrate more agreement between models, while benchmarks with heterogeneity and complex water table dynamics highlight differences in model formulation. In general, all the models demonstrate the same qualitative behavior, thus building confidence in their use for hydrologic applications.

No abstract

Groundwater flow in karst includes exchange of water between large fractures, conduits, and the surrounding porous matrix, which impacts both water quality and quantity. Electrical resistivity tomography combined with end-member mixing analysis (EMMA) and numerical flow and transport modeling was used to study mixing of karst conduit and matrix waters to understand spatial and temporal patterns of mixing during high flow and base flow conditions. To our knowledge, this is the first time EMMA and synthetic geophysical simulations have been combined. Here we interpret an 8 week time-lapse electrical resistivity data set to assess groundwater-surface mixing. We simulate flow between the karst conduits and the porous matrix to determine fractions of water recharged to conduits that has mixed with groundwater stored in the pore space of the matrix using a flow and transport model in a synthetic time-lapse resistivity inversion. Comparing the field and synthetic inversions, our results enable us to estimate exchange dynamics, spatial mixing, and flow conditions. Results showed that mixing occurred at a volumetric flux of 56 m 3 /d with a dispersivity around 1.69 m during the geophysical experiment. For these conditions, it was determined that conduit water composition ranged from 75% groundwater during base flow conditions to less than 50% groundwater in high flow conditions. Though subject to some uncertainties, the time-lapse inversion process provides a means to predict changing hydrologic conditions, leading to mixing of surface water and ground water and thus changes to water quantity and quality, as well as potential for water-rock reactions, in a semiconfined, sink-rise system.

In the karstic upper Floridan aquifer, surface water flows into conduits of the groundwater system and may exchange with water in the aquifer matrix. This exchange has been hypothesized to occur based on differences in discharge at the Santa Fe River Sink‐Rise system, north central Florida, but has yet to be visualized using any geophysical techniques. Using electrical resistivity tomography, we conducted a time‐lapse study at two locations with mapped conduits connecting the Santa Fe River Sink to the Santa Fe River Rise to study changes of electrical conductivity during times of varying discharge over a six‐week period. Our results show conductivity differences between matrix, conduit changes in resistivity occurring through time at the locations of mapped karst conduits, and changes in electrical conductivity during rainfall infiltration. These observations provide insight into time scales and matrix conduit conductivity differences, illustrating how surface water flow recharged to conduits may flow in a groundwater system in a karst aquifer.