4.7 Article

Hillslope-scale experiment demonstrates the role of convergence during two-step saturation

期刊

HYDROLOGY AND EARTH SYSTEM SCIENCES
卷 18, 期 9, 页码 3681-3692

出版社

COPERNICUS GESELLSCHAFT MBH
DOI: 10.5194/hess-18-3681-2014

关键词

-

资金

  1. Philecology Foundation (Forth Worth, TX, USA)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Subsurface flow and storage dynamics at hillslope scale are difficult to ascertain, often in part due to a lack of sufficient high-resolution measurements and an incomplete understanding of boundary conditions, soil properties, and other environmental aspects. A continuous and extreme rainfall experiment on an artificial hillslope at Biosphere 2's Landscape Evolution Observatory (LEO) resulted in saturation excess overland flow and gully erosion in the convergent hillslope area. An array of 496 soil moisture sensors revealed a two-step saturation process. First, the downward movement of the wetting front brought soils to a relatively constant but still unsaturated moisture content. Second, soils were brought to saturated conditions from below in response to rising water tables. Convergent areas responded faster than upslope areas, due to contributions from lateral subsurface flow driven by the topography of the bottom boundary, which is comparable to impermeable bedrock in natural environments. This led to the formation of a groundwater ridge in the convergent area, triggering saturation excess runoff generation. This unique experiment demonstrates, at very high spatial and temporal resolution, the role of convergence on subsurface storage and flow dynamics. The results bring into question the representation of saturation excess overland flow in conceptual rainfall-runoff models and land-surface models, since flow is gravity-driven in many of these models and upper layers cannot become saturated from below. The results also provide a baseline to study the role of the coevolution of ecological and hydrological processes in determining landscape water dynamics during future experiments in LEO.

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