4.7 Article

Stream Centric Methods for Determining Groundwater Contributions in Karst Mountain Watersheds

期刊

WATER RESOURCES RESEARCH
卷 54, 期 9, 页码 6708-6724

出版社

AMER GEOPHYSICAL UNION
DOI: 10.1029/2018WR022664

关键词

groundwater; karst; groundwater-surface water interactions; differential gaging; groundwater gains; groundwater losses

资金

  1. Utah Water Research Laboratory
  2. NSF EPSCoR grant [IIA 1208732]
  3. NSF [DBI-1337947]
  4. USGS

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Climate change influences on mountain hydrology are uncertain but likely to be mediated by variability in subsurface hydrologic residence times and flow paths. The heterogeneity of karst aquifers adds complexity in assessing the resiliency of these water sources to perturbation, suggesting a clear need to quantify contributions from and losses to these aquifers. Here we develop a stream centric method that combines mass and flow balances to quantify net and gross gains and losses at different spatial scales. We then extend these methods to differentiate between karst conduit and matrix contributions from the aquifer. In the Logan River watershed in Northern Utah we found significant amounts of the river water repeatedly gained and then lost through a 35-km study reach. Further, the direction and amount of water exchanged varied over space, time, and discharge. Streamflow was dominated by discharge of karst conduit groundwater after spring runoff with increasing, yet still small, fractions of matrix water later in the summer. These findings were combined with geologic information, prior subsurface dye tracing, and chemical sampling to provide additional lines of evidence that repeated groundwater exchanges are likely occurring and river flows are highly dependent on karst aquifer recharge and discharge. Given the large population dependent on karst aquifers throughout the world, there is a continued need to develop simple methods, like those presented here, for determining the resiliencyof karst groundwater resources.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据