Time-lapse electrical resistivity tomography ͑ERT͒ has many practical applications to the study of subsurface properties and processes. When inverting time-lapse ERT data, it is useful to proceed beyond straightforward inversion of data differences and take advantage of the time-lapse nature of the data. We assess various approaches for inverting and interpreting time-lapse ERT data and determine that two approaches work well. The first approach is model subtraction after separate inversion of the data from two time periods, and the second approach is to use the inverted model from a base data set as the reference model or prior information for subsequent time periods. We prefer this second approach. Data inversion methodology should be considered when designing data acquisition; i.e., to utilize the second approach, it is important to collect one or more data sets for which the bulk of the subsurface is in a background or relatively unperturbed state. A third and commonly used approach to time-lapse inversion, inverting the difference between two data sets, localizes the regions of the model in which change has occurred; however, varying noise levels between the two data sets can be problematic. To further assess the various time-lapse inversion approaches, we acquired field data from a catchment within the Dry Creek Experimental Watershed near Boise, Idaho, U.S.A. We combined the complimentary information from individual static ERT inversions, time-lapse ERT images, and available hydrologic data in a robust interpretation scheme to aid in quantifying seasonal variations in subsurface moisture content.
[1] Transient storage of solutes in hyporheic zones or other slow-moving stream waters plays an important role in the biogeochemical processes of streams. While numerous studies have reported a wide range of parameter values from simulations of transient storage, little field work has been done to investigate the correlations between these parameters and shifts in surface and subsurface flow conditions. In this investigation we use the stream properties of the Arctic (namely, highly varied discharges, channel morphologies, and subchannel permafrost conditions) to isolate the effects of discharge, channel morphology, and potential size of the hyporheic zone on transient storage. We repeated stream tracer experiments in five morphologically diverse tundra streams in Arctic Alaska during the thaw season (May-August) of 2004 to assess transient storage and hydrologic characteristics. We compared transient storage model parameters to discharge (Q), the Darcy-Weisbach friction factor ( f ), and unit stream power (w). Across all studied streams, permafrost active layer depths (i.e., the potential extent of the hyporheic zone) increased throughout the thaw season, and discharges and velocities varied dramatically with minimum ranges of eight-fold and four-fold, respectively. In all reaches the mean storage residence time (t stor ) decreased exponentially with increasing Q, but did not clearly relate to permafrost active layer depths. Furthermore, we found that modeled transient storage metrics (i.e., t stor , storage zone exchange rate (a OTIS ), and hydraulic retention (R h )) correlated better with channel hydraulic descriptors such as f and w than they did with Q or channel slope. Our results indicate that Q is the first-order control on transient storage dynamics of these streams, and that f and w are two relatively simple measures of channel hydraulics that may be important metrics for predicting the response of transient storage to perturbations in discharge and morphology in a given stream.Citation: Zarnetske, J. P., M. N. Gooseff, T. R. Brosten, J. H. Bradford, J. P. McNamara, and W. B. Bowden (2007), Transient storage as a function of geomorphology, discharge, and permafrost active layer conditions in Arctic tundra streams, Water Resour. Res., 43, W07410,
Thaw depths beneath arctic streams may have significant impact on the seasonal development of hyporheic zone hydraulics. To investigate thaw progression over the 2004 summer season we acquired a series of ground-penetrating radar (GPR) profiles at five sites from May-September, using 100, 200 and 400 MHz antennas. We selected sites with the objective of including stream reaches that span a range of geomorphologic conditions on Alaska's North Slope. Thaw depths interpreted from GPR data were constrained by both recorded subsurface temperature profiles and by pressing a metal probe through the active layer to the point of refusal. We found that low-energy stream environments react much more slowly to seasonal solar input and maintain thaw thicknesses longer throughout the late season whereas thaw depths increase rapidly within high-energy streams at the beginning of the season and decrease over the late season period.
[1] We investigated surface-subsurface (hyporheic) exchange in two morphologically distinct arctic headwater streams experiencing warming (thawing) sub-channel conditions. Empirically parameterized and calibrated groundwater flow models were used to assess the influence of sub-channel thaw on hyporheic exchange. Average thaw depths were at least two-fold greater under the higher-energy, alluvial stream than under the lowenergy, peat-lined stream. Alluvial hyporheic exchange had shorter residence times and longer flowpaths that occurred across greater portions of the thawed sediments. For both reaches, the morphologic (longitudinal bed topography) and hydraulic conditions (surface and groundwater flow properties) set the potential for hyporheic flow. Simulations of deeper thaw, as predicted under a warming arctic climate, only influence hyporheic exchange until a threshold depth. This depth is primarily determined by the hydraulic head gradients imposed by the stream morphology. Therefore, arctic hyporheic exchange extent is likely to be independent of greater sub-stream thaw depths.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.