Subsurface storm flow formation at different hillslopes and implications for the ‘old water paradox’

Kienzler, Peter; Naef, Félix

doi:10.1002/hyp.6687

Cited by 75 publications

(90 citation statements)

References 39 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…To determine event and pre-event water fractions in the different runoff components the sprinkling water was traced with the fluorescent dye naphtionate. The natural tracer Radon-222 allowed assessing pre-event water percentages in SSF during natural rainfall events (Kienzler and Naef, 2008). Figure 1 depicts the experimental setup.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…At Lutertal, soil moisture content was monitored more closely with 30 additional TDR probes (Retter et al, 2006). Details on the experimental setup and uncertainties of the methods can be found in Kienzler and Naef (2008). …”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Hence, considerable research has been directed to the conceptual understanding of SSF formation (e.g. McDonnell, 1990;Sidle et al, 2000;Kienzler and Naef, 2008) as well as to the question where subsurface flow occurs (Jones et al, 1997;Scherrer and Naef, 2003) and how to detect the spatial variability of subsurface flow paths (Woods and Rowe, 1996). However, few studies have concentrated on how the formation of SSF varies in time and is influenced by antecedent precipitation and precipitation intensity in individual rainfall events.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Temporal variability of subsurface stormflow formation

Kienzler

Naef

2008

Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Subsurface stormflow (SSF) can play a key role for the runoff generation at hillslopes. Quantifications of SSF suffer from the limited ability to predict how SSF is formed at a particular hillslope and how it varies in time and space. This study concentrates on the temporal variability of SSF formation. Controlled sprinkling experiments at three experimental slopes were replicated with varying precipitation intensity and varying antecedent precipitation. SSF characteristics were observed with hydrometric measurements and tracer experiments. SSF response was affected in different ways and to varying degree by changes of precipitation intensity and antecedent precipitation. The study showed that the influence of antecedent precipitation on SSF response depends on how SSF is formed at a particular hillslope. As formation of SSF was hardly influenced by the increase of precipitation intensity subsurface flow rates were not increased by higher intensity. However, timing and relevance of subsurface flow response changed substantially at different precipitation intensities, because saturation and flow formation occurred above the soil-bedrock interface, but also within the topsoil depending on precipitation intensity.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Temporal variability of subsurface stormflow formation

Kienzler

Naef

2008

Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The experimental set-up combines various measurements (Buttle and McDonald, 2002;Joerin et al, 2005;Trompvan Meerveld et al, 2007;Kientzler and Naef, 2008;Burke and Kasahara, 2011): soil moisture probes, piezometers, trench for sub-surface flow collecting, sprinklers or upslope trench for water input and natural or chemical tracers (see Fig. 6).…”

Section: Characterization Of Sub-surface Flow and Bedrock Rolementioning

confidence: 99%

Multi-scale hydrometeorological observation and modelling for flash flood understanding

Braud¹,

Ayral

Bouvier

et al. 2014

Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. This paper presents a coupled observation and modelling strategy aiming at improving the understanding of processes triggering flash floods. This strategy is illustrated for the Mediterranean area using two French catchments (Gard and Ardèche) larger than 2000 km 2 . The approach is based on the monitoring of nested spatial scales: (1) the hillslope scale, where processes influencing the runoff generation and its concentration can be tackled; (2) the small to medium catchment scale (1-100 km 2 ), where the impact of the network structure and of the spatial variability of rainfall, landscape and initial soil moisture can be quantified; (3) the larger scale (100-1000 km 2 ), where the river routing and flooding processes become important. These observations are part of the HyMeX (HYdrological cycle in the Mediterranean EXperiment) enhanced observation period (EOP), which will last 4 years (2012)(2013)(2014)(2015). In terms of hydrological modelling, the objective is to set up regional-scale models, while addressing small and generally ungauged catchments, which represent the scale of interest for flood risk assessment. Topdown and bottom-up approaches are combined and the models are used as "hypothesis testing" tools by coupling model development with data analyses in order to incrementally evaluate the validity of model hypotheses. The paper first presents the rationale behind the experimental set-up and the instrumentation itself. Second, we discuss the associated modelling strategy. Results illustrate the potential of the approach in advancing our understanding of flash flood processes on various scales.

show abstract

“…Outcome (iii) reinforces the idea of water exchanges at macropore-matrix boundaries. Indeed, macropore flow was shown to be composed of old water by many researchers (DeWalle et al, 1988;McDonnell, 1990;Kienzler and Naef, 2008) and new water by others (Steenhuis et al, 1994;Stone and Wilson, 2006;Jarvis, 2007;Vidon et al, 2012). The current study rather suggests a mixture of old and new water, with or without organic amendments (Fig.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Preferential Flow in Vertisolic Soils with and without Organic Amendments

Ali

Macrae

Walker

et al. 2018

Agricultural & Env Letters

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Core Ideas Matrix flow and macropore flow interact in Vertisols via lateral infiltration. Maximum water infiltration depths are greater in Vertisols with hog manure. Manure does not affect the mobilization of old soil water via macropore flow. Preferential flow has different agronomic and environmental effects in various soils. The objectives of this study were (i) to quantify matrix and preferential flow and (ii) to assess the effect of organic amendments on flow dynamics in agricultural Vertisols. Dye tracing and isotopic analysis were used to infer soil water infiltration and mixing on two plots: one treatment (with liquid hog manure) and one control. Results showed infiltration depths reaching 64 cm for the treatment plot and 45 cm for the control. For both plots, matrix flow was only observed in the top 10 cm, whereas preferential flow extended beyond the tillage depth. Dye traces provided evidence of lateral infiltration across macropore–matrix boundaries, while post‐experiment soil water averaged δ2H = −15.1‰ and δ18O = −118.9‰, hinting at old water mobilization via macropore flow. The potential impacts of these results on chemical transport should be validated across different soils and environmental conditions.

show abstract

Subsurface storm flow formation at different hillslopes and implications for the ‘old water paradox’

Cited by 75 publications

References 39 publications

Temporal variability of subsurface stormflow formation

Temporal variability of subsurface stormflow formation

Multi-scale hydrometeorological observation and modelling for flash flood understanding

Preferential Flow in Vertisolic Soils with and without Organic Amendments

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About