Transient Storage in Appalachian and Cascade Mountain Streams as Related to Hydraulic Characteristics

Abstract

Hydraulic characteristics were measured in artificial streams and in 1st-to 5th-order streams in the Appalachian and Cascade mountains. Appalachian Mountain stream sites at Coweeta Hydrologic Laboratory, North Carolina, were on six Ist-order streams and a 1st-through 4th-order gradient of Ball Creek-Coweeta Creek. Cascade Mountain sites were located on constrained and unconstrained reaches of Lookout Creek, a 5th-order stream in H. J. Andrews Experimental Forest, Oregon. At each site, a tracer solution (chloride or rhodamine WT) was released for 30-180 min and then discontinued. At the downstream end of the release site, the resulting rise and fall of the tracer concentration was measured. These data, along with upstream concentration and measured widths and depths, were used in a computer model to estimate several hydraulic parameters including transient storage and lateral inflow. Estimated transient storage zone size (A,) ranged from near zero in artificial streams to 2.0 m 2 in 5th-order streams. A, was largest relative to surface crosssectional area (A) at Ist-drder sites where it averaged 1.2 x A, compared with 0.6 x A and 0.1 x A in unconstrained and constrained 5th-order sites, respectively. Where measured, lateral discharge inputs per metre of stream length ranged from 1.9% of instream discharge in Ist-order streams to 0.05% of instream discharge at 5th-order sites. Our results show that surface water exchange with storage zones is rapid and extensive in steep headwater streams and less extensive but still significant at 3rd-through 5th-order sites. An understanding of relationships between stream morphology, storage zone size, and extent of interactions between surface and subsurface waters will assist comparisons of solute dynamics in physically diverse streams.

Environmental Hydrology

“…[42] Results at transect 3 oppose the conceptual model of compressed hyporheic zones under strong gaining conditions that has been reported in both numerical [e.g., Boano et al, 2008;Cardenas and Wilson, 2007b;D'Angelo et al, 1993] and field studies [e.g., Harvey and Bencala, 1993;Storey et al, 2003;Williams, 1993;Wondzell and Swanson, 1996;Wroblicky et al, 1998]. While increasingly strong hydraulic gradients away from the stream may expand hyporheic zones (or conversely, increasing hydraulic gradients toward the stream compress hyporheic zones), our results do not indicate hyporheic expansion with Figure 9.…”

Quantifying spatial and temporal discharge dynamics of an event in a first order stream, using distributed temperature sensing

“…To overcome this problem, hyporheic exchange has been quantified using in-stream tracer tests. Most studies linking hyporheic exchange with discharge did their tracer tests during different discharge regimes (Legrand-Marcq and Laudelout, 1985;Harvey et al, 1996;Morrice et al, 1997;Wörman and Wachniew, 2007;Zarnetske et al, 2007;Schmid, 2008;Schmid et al, 2010), different morphological states (Hart et al, 1999;Harvey et al, 2003) or between different streams (D'angelo et al, 1993;Morrice et al, 1997;Schmid et al, 2010), but always during steady state flow conditions and not during a complete rainstorm.…”

Scaling down hyporheic exchange flows: from catchments to reaches

“…In the end, agricultural activities also results in large and small scale micro-forms depending on the method and direction of 15 tillage used: from ridges and furrows (Szabó, 2006;Buis and Veldkamp, 2008), ditches, ridges and berms (Li et al, 2009;Vieira and Dabney, 2011) to saucer shaped depressions (Darboux et al, 2002;Pásztor et al, 2006;Li et al, 2009). These local scales morphological changes together with presence/absence of forest, wetlands or impervious surfaces significantly the hydrologic regime of the catchment and the observed HEF (Ryan et al, 2010).…”

“…In 5 general urbanization and agriculture have significantly modified landscapes by altering stream flow and velocity, channel morphology, streambed sediment size and hydraulic conductivity (e.g., soil compaction) (D'angelo et al, 1993;Morrice et al, 1997;Kasahara and Wondzell, 2003;Ryan et al, 2010). This changes impact on HEF by affecting the partitioning of flow, for example, increasing surface runoff (Section 3.4) impacts HEF by competing effects from increasing fine sediment inputs (which decrease streambed hydraulic conductivity) and stream discharge (which increases the advection HEF) (Hancock, 2002;Kasahara 10 and Hill, 2006;Crenshaw et al, 2010;Gooseff et al, 2007, Maalim et al, 2013, but the dominant process appears to be decreasing hydraulic conductivity from sedimentation within the stream channel, thus decreasing the percentage of stream water exchanged in the HZ (Cirmo et al, 1997;Doyle et al, 2005;Simon and Rinaldi, 2006;Karwan et al, 2009).…”