2016
DOI: 10.1007/s13157-016-0830-z
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Intermittent Surface Water Connectivity: Fill and Spill Vs. Fill and Merge Dynamics

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

0
120
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

1
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 84 publications
(121 citation statements)
references
References 65 publications
0
120
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Wetland area within a watershed has been shown to be significantly related to flood control (Mitsch & Gosselink, ) and reduced nitrate concentrations in groundwater and surface water (Phillips, Denver, Shedlock, & Hamilton, ). The type, magnitude, and scale of these functions depend considerably on the degree and mechanism of hydrologic connectivity between wetlands and other landscape elements (Cohen et al, ; Leibowitz, Mushet, & Newton, ; Marton et al, ).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Wetland area within a watershed has been shown to be significantly related to flood control (Mitsch & Gosselink, ) and reduced nitrate concentrations in groundwater and surface water (Phillips, Denver, Shedlock, & Hamilton, ). The type, magnitude, and scale of these functions depend considerably on the degree and mechanism of hydrologic connectivity between wetlands and other landscape elements (Cohen et al, ; Leibowitz, Mushet, & Newton, ; Marton et al, ).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Leibowitz and Vining () characterized the fill and spill dynamics in the PPR as pulsed surface‐water connections limited to periods following spring snow melt (Figure a). Figure b demonstrates what researchers (Barton, Herczeg, Dahlhaus, & Cox, ; Huang, Dahal, Young, Chander, & Liu, ; Leibowitz et al, ) refer to as “fill and merge” dynamics; a nearly continuous surface‐water connection. Figure c conceptualizes surface depression connectivity for a rectangular bottom depression for a PRMS HRU.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 79%
“…Waterbody connectivity: (a) “fill and spill” and (b) “fill and merge” (from Leibowitz, Mushet, & Newton, ) versus (c) “merge, fill, and spill”; the Precipitation‐Run‐off Modelling System conceptualization for rectangular bottom surface‐water depression. Relevant Precipitation‐Run‐off Modelling System parameters are as follows: dprst_et_coef (fraction of unsatisfied potential evapotranspiration); dprst_seep_rate_open (used in linear seepage flow equation); dprst_flow_coef (used in linear flow routing equation); op_flow_thres (fraction of depression storage above which surface run‐off occurs; any water above maximum open storage capacity spills as surface run‐off); and dprst_depth_avg (average depth of storage depressions at maximum storage capacity)…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Vanderhoof and Alexander (2016) explore how lake expansion has influenced wetlands across the landscape of the PPR, in some cases increasing connectivity among aquatic systems, while in others, contributing to the loss of wetland functions when wetlands are entirely subsumed by an expanded lake. At a more localized scale, Leibowitz et al (2016) identify differences between fill-andspill versus fill-and-merge hydrologic processes and differing effects of each on the water chemistry and biotic communities of prairie-pothole wetlands.…”
Section: Overview Of the Supplemental Issuementioning
confidence: 99%