Flow variability and hillslope hydrology

Huff, D.D.; O’Neill, Robert V.; Emanuel, William R.; Elwood, Jerry W.; Newbold, J. Denis

doi:10.1002/esp.3290070112

Cited by 48 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In this study, we aimed to identify the dominant watershed properties that influence the timing and magnitude of stream flow and how this scales from the reach to the entire watershed. Common elements that have been shown to influence spatiotemporal variability in streamflow include topographic characteristics such as contributing area [e.g., Anderson and Burt , ; Beven and Kirkby , ; Wood et al ., ; Jencso et al ., ], vegetation [ Rodriguez‐Iturbe and Porporato , ; Nippgen et al ., ], subsurface characteristics such as bedrock structure [e.g., Huff et al ., ; Freer et al ., ; Uchida et al ., ], and differences in valley bottom–stream geomorphology [ Harvey and Bencala , ; Ward et al ., ; Wondzell , ] that can promote bi‐directional exchanges (gains and losses) of water between streams and valley bottom systems. However, we have not yet resolved how channel and valley hydrologic exchange can modulate hillslope contributions to streams or how this leads to differences in watershed scale discharge dynamics.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Spatiotemporal processes that contribute to hydrologic exchange between hillslopes, valley bottoms, and streams

Bergstrom

Jencso

McGlynn

2016

Water Resources Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Quantifying how watershed structure influences the exchanges of water among component parts of a watershed, particularly the connection between uplands, valley bottoms, and in‐stream hydrologic exchange, remains a challenge. However, this understanding is critical for ascertaining the source areas and temporal contributions of water and associated biogeochemical constituents in streams. We used dilution gauging, mass recovery, and recording discharge stations to characterize streamflow dynamics across 52 reaches, from peak snowmelt to base flow, in the Tenderfoot Creek Experimental forest, Montana, USA. We found that watershed‐contributing area was only a significant predictor of net changes in streamflow at high moisture states and larger spatial scales. However, at the scale of individual stream reaches, the lateral contributing area in conjunction with underlying lithology and vegetation densities were significant predictors of gross hydrologic gains to the stream. Reach lateral contributing areas underlain by more permeable sandstone yielded less water across flow states relative to those with granite gneiss. Additionally, increases in the frequency of steps across each stream reach contributed to greater hydrologic gross losses. Together, gross gains and losses of water along individual reaches resulted in net changes of discharge that cumulatively scale to the observed outlet discharge dynamics. Our results provide a framework for understanding how hillslope topography, geology, vegetation, and valley bottom structure contribute to the exchange of water and cumulative increases of stream flow across watersheds of increasing size.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Spatiotemporal processes that contribute to hydrologic exchange between hillslopes, valley bottoms, and streams

Bergstrom

Jencso

McGlynn

2016

Water Resources Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Subsurface water storage areas cannot be easily derived from surficial and geological data (e.g., McClymont et al, ; Muir et al, ) although previous studies found that it is possible to some extent to determine contributions to stream discharge based on topography (e.g., Anderson & Burt, ). Other reasons might be significant inflows from bedrock exfiltration (Holbrook et al, ; Huff, O'Neill, Emanuel, Elwood, & Newbold, ) or because changes in streamflow occur due to a combination of both losses and gains (Covino, McGlynn, & Mallard, ; Mallard, McGlynn, & Covino, ). We did not specifically measure the losses, but discharge decreased between X1 and D4 within measurement error.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Spatio‐temporal variability in contributions to low flows in the high Alpine Poschiavino catchment

Floriancic

Meerveld

Smoorenburg

et al. 2018

Hydrological Processes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In order to predict streamflow accurately during extended dry periods, we need to understand the spatial variability of low flows and the extent to which it is affected by the spatial organization and drainage of catchment subsurface storage areas. This is especially true in Alpine catchments with widely varying topography, lithology, sediment deposits, and soil properties. Field measurements in the Poschiavino catchment in southern Switzerland, during a winter recession period without recharge, provided a unique opportunity to demonstrate the connections between subsurface storage areas, low flows, and their variability. We measured discharge in four nested sub‐catchments during seven field campaigns in the winter of 2013–2014. We analysed stream water electrical conductivity (EC) and water chemistry to identify the areas contributing to low‐flow discharge and estimated their contributions. Sediment cover type and thickness were mapped using a recently developed tool for geomorphology‐based storage classification of mountainous terrain, to determine the physical properties of the subsurface storage areas contributing to low‐flow discharge. Recession analyses combined with water chemistry data allowed the detection of different drainage timescales and the estimation of storage potential of the unconsolidated (Quaternary) deposits. We found substantial spatial variation in storage depletion between the sub‐catchments, ranging from 54 mm to 200 mm for the four‐month monitoring period. Variability in low‐flow contributions from different catchments and different recession behavior could be related to the differences in the estimated storage potential. For some point sources, we could quantify the contributing area and thus quantify low flows at the hillslope scale. Overall, the low‐flow variability is mostly related to the fraction of precipitation that recharges subsurface storage areas and to the properties influencing their drainage. To capture these processes, we suggest low‐flow geomorphological mapping approaches that consider not only morphometric (shape of the landscape) and geologic (properties of the bedrock) controls but also the water storage potential of debris cover and weathered rock.

show abstract

“…The limitations of applying to describe subsurface flow in complex hillslopes stem from the fact that it does not account for the three‐dimensional soil mantle in which the flow process takes place. Studies reporting observations of the spatial variability of subsurface flow [e.g., Anderson and Burt , 1978; Huff et al , 1982; McDonnell , 1990; Woods et al , 1997] identified topography as a significant control. The geometry of the hillslope therefore needs to be taken into account to fully capture the dynamics of subsurface flow along complex hillslopes.…”

Section: Hillslope‐storage Boussinesq Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

Hillslope‐storage Boussinesq model for subsurface flow and variable source areas along complex hillslopes: 1. Formulation and characteristic response

Troch

Paniconi

Loon

2003

Water Resources Research

265

355

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

[1] Hillslope response to rainfall remains one of the central problems of catchment hydrology. Flow processes in a one-dimensional sloping aquifer can be described by Boussinesq's hydraulic groundwater theory. Most hillslopes, however, have complex three-dimensional shapes that are characterized by their plan shape, profile curvature of surface and bedrock, and the soil depth. Field studies and numerical simulation have shown that these attributes are the most significant topographic controls on subsurface flow and saturation along hillslopes. In this paper the Boussinesq equation is reformulated in terms of soil water storage rather than water table height. The continuity and Darcy equations formulated in terms of storage along the hillslope lead to the hillslope-storage Boussinesq (HSB) equation for subsurface flow. Solutions of the HSB equation account explicitly for plan shape of the hillslope by introducing the hillslope width function and for profile curvature through the bedrock slope angle and the hillslope soil depth function. We investigate the behavior of the HSB model for different hillslope types (uniform, convergent, and divergent) and different slope angles under free drainage conditions after partial initial saturation (drainage scenario) and under constant rainfall recharge conditions (recharge scenario). The HSB equation is solved by means of numerical integration of the partial differential equation. We find that convergent hillslopes drain much more slowly compared to divergent hillslopes. The accumulation of moisture storage near the outlet of convergent hillslopes results in bell-shaped hydrographs. In contrast, the fast draining divergent hillslopes produce highly peaked hydrographs. In order to investigate the relative importance of the different terms in the HSB equation, several simplified nonlinear and linearized versions are derived, for instance, by recognizing that the width function of a hillslope generally shows smooth transition along the flow direction or by introducing a fitting parameter to account for average storage along the hillslope. The dynamic response of these reduced versions of the HSB equation under free drainage conditions depend strongly on hillslope shape and bedrock slope angle. For flat slopes (of the order of 5%), only the simplified nonlinear HSB equation is able to capture the dynamics of subsurface flow along complex hillslopes. In contrast, for steep slopes (of the order of 30%), we see that all the reduced versions show very similar results compared to the full version. It can be concluded that the complex derivative terms of width with respect to flow distance play a less dominant role with increasing slope angle. Comparison with the hillslope-storage kinematic wave model of Troch et al. [2002] shows that the diffusive drainage terms of the HSB model become less important for the fast draining divergent hillslopes. These results VOL. 39, NO. 11, 1316, doi:10.1029/2002WR001728, 2003 have important implications for the use of simplified versions of the H...

show abstract

Flow variability and hillslope hydrology

Cited by 48 publications

References 6 publications

Spatiotemporal processes that contribute to hydrologic exchange between hillslopes, valley bottoms, and streams

Spatiotemporal processes that contribute to hydrologic exchange between hillslopes, valley bottoms, and streams

Spatio‐temporal variability in contributions to low flows in the high Alpine Poschiavino catchment

Hillslope‐storage Boussinesq model for subsurface flow and variable source areas along complex hillslopes: 1. Formulation and characteristic response

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About