Springflow Hydrographs: Eogenetic vs. Telogenetic Karst

Abstract

Matrix permeability in the range of 10(-11) to 10(-14) m(2) characterizes eogenetic karst, where limestones have not been deeply buried. In contrast, limestones of postburial, telogenetic karst have matrix permeabilities on the order of 10(-15) to 10(-20) m(2). Is this difference in matrix permeability paralleled by a difference in the behavior of springs draining eogenetic and telogenetic karst? Log Q/Q(min) flow duration curves from 11 eogenetic-karst springs in Florida and 12 telogenetic-karst springs in Missouri, Kentucky, and Switzerland, plot in different fields because of the disparate slopes of the curves. The substantially lower flow variability in eogenetic-karst springs, which results in the steeper slopes of their flow duration curves, also makes for a strong contrast in patterns (e.g., "flashiness") between the eogenetic-karst and telogenetic-karst spring hydrographs. With respect to both spring hydrographs and the flow duration curves derived from them, the eogenetic-karst springs of Florida are more like basalt springs of Idaho than the telogenetic-karst springs of the study. From time-series analyses on discharge records for 31 springs and published time-series results for 28 additional sites spanning 11 countries, we conclude that (1) the ratio of maximum to mean (Q(max)/Q(mean)) discharge is less in springs of eogenetic karst than springs of telogenetic karst; (2) aquifer inertia (system memory) is larger in eogenetic karst; (3) eogenetic-karst aquifers take longer to respond to input signals; and (4) high-frequency events affect discharge less in eogenetic karst. All four of these results are consistent with the hypothesis that accessible storage is larger in eogenetic-karst aquifers than in telogenetic-karst aquifers.