2017
DOI: 10.1002/2016wr019553
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Field estimates of groundwater circulation depths in two mountainous watersheds in the western U.S. and the effect of deep circulation on solute concentrations in streamflow

Abstract: Estimates of groundwater circulation depths based on field data are lacking. These data are critical to inform and refine hydrogeologic models of mountainous watersheds, and to quantify depth and time dependencies of weathering processes in watersheds. Here we test two competing hypotheses on the role of geology and geologic setting in deep groundwater circulation and the role of deep groundwater in the geochemical evolution of streams and springs. We test these hypotheses in two mountainous watersheds that ha… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

5
48
1

Year Published

2018
2018
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

1
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 46 publications
(54 citation statements)
references
References 85 publications
5
48
1
Order By: Relevance
“…For models with deep extinction depths ( d e ≥ 33.3 m), the spatial scaling of baseflow mean age and solute concentration is characterized by a positive slope (Figures h–l, o‐s, S5h–S5l, and S5o–S5s). This scaling pattern qualitatively matches the observed spatial scaling of solute concentration from watersheds with significant deep groundwater contribution to streamflow (e.g., Figures 7 and 8 in Frisbee et al, ) and the 3‐D catchment‐mixing streamflow generation conceptual model (see Figure 1 in Frisbee et al, ). For models with shallow extinction depths ( d e ≤ 10 m), the spatial scaling of baseflow mean age and solute concentration shows asymptotic behavior (Figures m and n, t and u, S5m and S5n, and S5t and S5u) and is consistent with observations in watersheds with dominant shallow flow contribution to streamflow (e.g., Figure 2 in Temnerud & Bishop, ) and 2‐D network‐mixing streamflow generation conceptual model (Figure 1 in Frisbee et al, ).…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 82%
See 3 more Smart Citations
“…For models with deep extinction depths ( d e ≥ 33.3 m), the spatial scaling of baseflow mean age and solute concentration is characterized by a positive slope (Figures h–l, o‐s, S5h–S5l, and S5o–S5s). This scaling pattern qualitatively matches the observed spatial scaling of solute concentration from watersheds with significant deep groundwater contribution to streamflow (e.g., Figures 7 and 8 in Frisbee et al, ) and the 3‐D catchment‐mixing streamflow generation conceptual model (see Figure 1 in Frisbee et al, ). For models with shallow extinction depths ( d e ≤ 10 m), the spatial scaling of baseflow mean age and solute concentration shows asymptotic behavior (Figures m and n, t and u, S5m and S5n, and S5t and S5u) and is consistent with observations in watersheds with dominant shallow flow contribution to streamflow (e.g., Figure 2 in Temnerud & Bishop, ) and 2‐D network‐mixing streamflow generation conceptual model (Figure 1 in Frisbee et al, ).…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 82%
“…Although the model used by Vivoni et al () involves surface flow, vadose zone, and shallow groundwater flow processes, their modeling does not attempt to reproduce deep groundwater flow processes and the effect of capturing stream and ridge features on baseflow discharge at different scales. For some watersheds, deep groundwater flow has been found to be important for baseflow generation and stream chemistry evolution and is responsible for producing the simple emergent scaling relationship between groundwater contribution to stream flow and drainage area (discussed in detail in section 3.3; e.g., Frisbee et al, , ; Peralta‐Tapia et al, ). Thus, understanding how watershed topographic complexity affects groundwater contribution to streamflow across scales is important to building parsimonious watershed scale hydrological models (McDonnell et al, ) and improving hydrological predictions in data‐sparse regions (Sivapalan et al, ).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…• Supporting Information S1 Estimating recharge and groundwater discharge to streams is complicated by feedbacks between climate, vegetation, and topography, and by lack of data to characterize subsurface properties (Meixner et al, 2016), flow paths, and circulation depths (Frisbee et al, 2016). Estimating hydrologic partitioning is further hindered by the difficulty in quantifying snow distribution and snowmelt across the watershed (Deems et al, 2006;Harpold et al, 2012).…”
Section: /2019gl082447mentioning
confidence: 99%