Differential gauging and tracer tests resolve seepage fluxes in a strongly-losing stream

Ruehl, C. R.; Fisher, A. T.; Hatch, Christine E.; Huertos, Marc Los; Stemler, G.; Shennan, Carol

doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2006.03.025

Cited by 74 publications

(78 citation statements)

References 49 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In addition, tracer tests can be used to assess gross inflow (Bencala et al 2011;Bergstrom et al 2016). It is recommended to perform these measurements during baseflow (Cey et al 1998;Ruehl et al 2006;Kalbus et al 2006;Kikuchi et al 2012) to minimize the effect of surface runoff or interflow feeding the stream. In addition, shortterm temporal variability should be negligible as discharge measurements are usually taken consecutively.…”

Section: Differential Stream Gaugingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, there is no uniform nomenclature. The approach has been termed ''longitudinal variation in discharge'' (Zellweger et al 1998), ''measurements of stream discharge along the reach'' (Cey et al 1998), ''seepage runs'' (Ruehl et al 2006), ''incremental stream flow'' (Kalbus et al 2006), ''differential flow gauging '' (McCallum et al 2012) or ''differential discharge measurements'' (Kikuchi et al 2012). Here the term ''differential stream gauging'' will be used.…”

Section: Differential Stream Gaugingmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Forensic hydrology: what function tells about structure in complex settings

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Facing the challenges of the European Water Framework Directive and competing demands requires a sound knowledge of the hydrological system. This is a major challenge in regions like Northeast Germany. The landscape has been massively reshaped during repeated advances and retreats of glaciation during the Pleistocene. This resulted in a complex setting of unconsolidated sediments with high textural heterogeneity and with layered aquifer systems, partly confined, but usually of unknown number and extent of single aquifers. The Institute of Landscape Hydrology aims both at a better understanding of hydrological processes and at providing a basis for sustainable water resources management in this region. That would require sound information about the respective regions of interest that are rarely available at sufficient degree of detail. Thus, there is urgent need for alternative approaches. For example, time series of groundwater head, lake water level and stream runoff do not only depend on (unknown) geological structures, but in turn can reveal information about major geological features. To that end, different approaches have been developed and successfully applied at different scales, based both on advanced time series analysis and dimension reduction approaches and on well-known and rather simple methods. This approach has been coined ''forensic hydrology'': Like in a crime story, numerous pieces of evidence are combined in a systematic way to end up with a consistent conceptual model about the prevailing cause-effect relationships. An example is given for the Quillow catchment in Northeast Germany in a rather complex geological setting.

show abstract

Section: Differential Stream Gaugingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Differential Stream Gaugingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Forensic hydrology: what function tells about structure in complex settings

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Differential flow gauging uses the difference in river discharge at two points along a reach in order to calculate net gains or losses along that stretch (Cey et al, 1998;Harte and Kiah, 2009;McCallum et al, 2012;Ruehl et al, 2006). Discharge is usually measured under baseflow conditions where runoff is negligible, allowing the net groundwater discharge or recharge to be calculated once evaporative losses are accounted for.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Investigating the spatio-temporal variability in groundwater and surface water interactions: a multi-technique approach

Unland

Cartwright

Andersen

et al. 2013

Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. The interaction between groundwater and surface water along the Tambo and Nicholson rivers, southeast Australia, was investigated using 222 Rn, Cl, differential flow gauging, head gradients, electrical conductivity (EC) and temperature profiles. Head gradients, temperature profiles, Cl concentrations and 222 Rn activities all indicate higher groundwater fluxes to the Tambo River in areas of increased topographic variation where the potential to form large groundwater-surface water gradients is greater. Groundwater discharge to the Tambo River calculated by Cl mass balance was significantly lower (1.48 × 10 4 to 1.41 × 10 3 m 3 day −1 ) than discharge estimated by 222 Rn mass balance (5.35 × 10 5 to 9.56 × 10 3 m 3 day −1 ) and differential flow gauging (5.41 × 10 5 to 6.30 × 10 3 m 3 day −1 ) due to bank return waters. While groundwater sampling from the bank of the Tambo River was intended to account for changes in groundwater chemistry associated with bank infiltration, variations in bank infiltration between sample sites remain unaccounted for, limiting the use of Cl as an effective tracer. Groundwater discharge to both the Tambo and Nicholson rivers was the highest under high-flow conditions in the days to weeks following significant rainfall, indicating that the rivers are well connected to a groundwater system that is responsive to rainfall. Groundwater constituted the lowest proportion of river discharge during times of increased rainfall that followed dry periods, while groundwater constituted the highest proportion of river discharge under baseflow conditions (21.4 % of the Tambo in April 2010 and 18.9 % of the Nicholson in September 2010).

show abstract

“…From studies that tested multiple stream reaches for SGE, almost every stream reach had both gains and losses regardless of the method and of the reach length (Anderson et al, 2005;Ruehl et al, 2006;Payn et al, 2009;Covino et al, 2011;Szeftel et al, 2011). Additionally, studies that have tried to identify the spatial distribution of groundwater inflows and outflows to and from the stream have found a wide variety of diffuse flow locations throughout the stream and were not limited to one or two flow locations every several hundred meters (Malard et al, 2002;Wondzell, 2005;Schmidt et al, 2006;Lowry et al, 2007;Slater et al, 2010).…”

Section: Theoretical Basis Of the Sge Tracer Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…(Reproduced after Harvey and Wagner, 2000. ) Survey) (Runkel, 1998). While able to estimate fluxes in steady-state conditions, these types of models are primarily designed for non-steady-state conditions and provide many output parameters in addition to the inflow and outflow fluxes and, as a consequence, require more input data than in steady-state conditions for estimating only SGE (e.g., stream cross-sectional area, flow advection, flow dispersion, etc.).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

An evaluation of analytical stream to groundwater exchange models: a comparison of gross exchanges based on different spatial flow distribution assumptions

Exner-Kittridge

Salinas

Zessner

2014

Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. In this paper, a new method for estimating gross gains and losses between streams and groundwater is developed and evaluated against two existing approaches. These three stream to groundwater exchange (SGE) estimation methods are distinct in their assumptions on the spatial distribution of the inflowing and outflowing fluxes along the stream. The two existing methods assume that the fluxes are independent and in a specific sequence, while the third and newly derived method assumes that both fluxes occur simultaneously and uniformly throughout the stream. The analytic expressions in connection to the underlying assumptions are investigated through numerical stream simulations to evaluate the individual and mutual dynamics of the SGE estimation methods and to understand the causes for the differences in performance. The results show that the three methods produce significantly different results and that the mean absolute normalized error can have up to an order of magnitude difference between the methods. These differences between the SGE methods are entirely due to the assumptions of the SGE spatial dynamics of the methods, and the performance for a particular approach strongly decreases if its assumptions are not fulfilled. The assessment of the three methods through numerical simulations, representing a variety of SGE dynamics, shows that the method introduced, considering simultaneous stream gains and losses, presents overall the highest performance according to the simulations. As the existing methods provide the minimum and maximum realistic values of SGE within a stream reach, all three methods could be used in conjunction for a full range of estimates. These SGE methods can also be used in conjunction with other endmember mixing models to acquire even more hydrologic information as both require the same type of input data.

show abstract

Differential gauging and tracer tests resolve seepage fluxes in a strongly-losing stream

Cited by 74 publications

References 49 publications

Forensic hydrology: what function tells about structure in complex settings

Forensic hydrology: what function tells about structure in complex settings

Investigating the spatio-temporal variability in groundwater and surface water interactions: a multi-technique approach

An evaluation of analytical stream to groundwater exchange models: a comparison of gross exchanges based on different spatial flow distribution assumptions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About