Abstract

Groundwater discharge though streambeds is often focused toward discrete zones, indicating that preliminary reconnaissance may be useful for capturing the full spectrum of groundwater discharge rates using point-scale quantitative methods. However, many direct-contact reconnaissance techniques can be time-consuming, and remote sensing (e.g., thermal infrared) typically does not penetrate the water column to locate submerged seepages. In this study, we tested whether dozens of groundwater discharge measurements made at “uninformed” (i.e., selected without knowledge on high-resolution temperature variations at the streambed) point locations along a reach would yield significantly different Darcy-based groundwater discharge rates when compared with “informed” measurements, focused at streambed thermal anomalies that were identified a priori using fiber-optic distributed temperature sensing (FO-DTS). A non-parametric U-test showed a significant difference between median discharge rates for uninformed (0.05 m·day−1; n = 30) and informed (0.17 m·day−1; n = 20) measurement locations. Mean values followed a similar pattern (0.12 versus 0.27 m·day−1), and frequency distributions for uninformed and informed measurements were also significantly different based on a Kolmogorov–Smirnov test. Results suggest that even using a quick “snapshot-in-time” field analysis of FO-DTS data can be useful in streambeds with groundwater discharge rates <0.2 m·day−1, a lower threshold than proposed in a previous study. Collectively, study results highlight that FO-DTS is a powerful technique for identifying higher-discharge zones in streambeds, but the pros and cons of informed and uninformed sampling depend in part on groundwater/surface water exchange study goals. For example, studies focused on measuring representative groundwater and solute fluxes may be biased if high-discharge locations are preferentially sampled. However, identification of high-discharge locations may complement more randomized sampling plans and lead to improvements in interpolating streambed fluxes and upscaling point measurements to the stream reach scale.

Highlights

  • Groundwater–surface water exchange can be highly variable in rate and direction across streambeds due to spatial heterogeneity in hydraulic gradient and sediment permeability [1,2,3,4]

  • The primary purpose of this study is (1) to determine whether informed measurements result in significantly higher estimates of groundwater discharge compared to uninformed measurements, (2) to determine whether informed measurements give a fundamentally different picture of variability in groundwater discharge within a stream reach when compared to uninformed measurement, and (3) to test previous estimates of the lower groundwater discharge threshold at which fiber-optic distributed temperature sensing (FO-DTS) is still effective for distinguishing between areas of diffuse and focused discharge in streambeds

  • Groundwater discharge measurements at the temperature anomaly sites were compared to measurements made at three-point lateral transects to determine if and how the FO-DTS approach might influence the overall characterization of groundwater discharge into the reach

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Groundwater–surface water exchange can be highly variable in rate and direction across streambeds due to spatial heterogeneity in hydraulic gradient and sediment permeability [1,2,3,4]. A variety of methods have been employed to measure groundwater discharge at different spatial scales [5]. Other studies used point-scale measurements of streambed temperature (i.e., vertical profiles of streambed temperature) to estimate groundwater discharge [10,11,12,13,14,15,16]. Point-scale and scaled measurements led to a greater understanding of spatial variability in groundwater discharge through streambeds [2,19,20], including stream reaches where reach mass balance and other larger-scale measurements are not possible. The necessary flux measurement density required for spatial interpolation and integration of results at the reach scale requires tradeoffs between feasible stream or river reach size (due to the time and/or equipment costs) and certainty in reach-scale estimates of groundwater discharge [19,21]

Objectives
Methods
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call