4.6 Article

Isotopic exchange between snow and atmospheric water vapor: Estimation of the snowmelt component of groundwater recharge in the southwestern United States

期刊

出版社

AMER GEOPHYSICAL UNION
DOI: 10.1029/2005JD006470

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

[1] The contribution of snowmelt to groundwater recharge at four sites in the southwestern United States was evaluated using stable isotopes of O and H. Paired precipitation collectors were installed at the study sites; data show that ( 1) there is often a significant difference between the stable isotope composition of fresh snow and the bulk meltwater derived from it ( this suggests that using the isotope composition of high-elevation springs as a proxy for precipitation may not be sound if snow is a recharge source) and ( 2) collector design can significantly influence the stable isotope composition of collected snow. Because the isotope composition of snow from a given location becomes heavier (i.e., more rain-like) with increased exposure, using bulk snowmelt compositions to calculate input to groundwater recharge results in significantly increased estimates of snowmelt contributions to recharge ( compared to estimates derived from fresh snow signatures). Snowmelt provides at least 40 - 70% of groundwater recharge at the study sites, although only 25 - 50% of average annual precipitation falls as snow. On the basis of these results and presently accepted scenarios for alterations in precipitation in the western United States over the next 50 years ( significantly decreased snowpack due to increased atmospheric CO2), investigations of how climate change may affect groundwater resources are needed. We also investigated the potential for snow/ atmospheric water vapor isotope exchange to influence the isotope signature of snow ( which has been a subject of debate); the results of a laboratory experiment suggest that it can drive significant shifts in the isotope signature of snow, even at temperatures below 0 degrees C.

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

4.6
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