skip to main content
US FlagAn official website of the United States government
dot gov icon
Official websites use .gov
A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
https lock icon
Secure .gov websites use HTTPS
A lock ( lock ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Explore Research Products in the PAR
It may take a few hours for recently added research products to appear in PAR search results.


This content will become publicly available on December 14, 2025

Title: Karst Hydrologic Memory Supplements Streamflow During Dry Periods in Snow‐Dominated, Mountainous Watersheds
ABSTRACT Analysis of PRISM and SNOTEL station data paired with USGS streamflow gage data in the western United States shows that, in snow‐dominated mountainous watersheds, streamflow regimes differ between watersheds with karst geology and their non‐karst neighbours. These carbonate aquifers exhibit a spectrum of flow paths encompassing karst conduits, including large fractures or voids that transmit water readily to springs and other surface waters, and matrix flow paths through soils, highly fractured bedrock, or porous media bedrock grains. A well‐connected karst aquifer will discharge a large portion of its accumulated precipitation to surface water via springs and other groundwater flow paths on an annual scale, exhibiting a lagged response to precipitation presenting as a “memory effect” in hydrograph time series. These patterns were observed in the hydrologic records of gaged watersheds with exposed or near‐surface carbonate layers accounting for > 30% of their drainage area. In western snow‐dominated watersheds, where paired streamflow and SNOTEL data are available, analysis of the precipitation and flow time series shows low‐flow volume is strongly related to karst aquifer conditions and winter precipitation when compared to low‐flow volumes present in non‐karst watersheds, which have a complex relationship to multiple driving metrics. Analysis of normalised streamflow and cumulative precipitation in karst watersheds show that low‐flow conditions are highly dependent on the preceding winter precipitation and streamflow in both wet and dry periods. In non‐karst watersheds, increased precipitation primarily impacts high‐flow, spring runoff volumes with no clear relationship to low‐flow periods. When comparing cumulative streamflow and precipitation volumes within each water year and over longer timescales, karst watersheds show the potential filling and draining of large amounts of karst storage, whereas non‐karst watersheds demonstrate a more stable storage regime. Communities in many western US watersheds are dependent on snow‐dominated karst watersheds for their water supply. This analysis, using widely available hydrologic data, can provide insight into the recharge and storage processes within these watersheds, improve our ability to assess current flow regimes, anticipate the impacts of climate change on water availability, and help manage water supplies.  more » « less
Award ID(s):
2043363
PAR ID:
10560094
Author(s) / Creator(s):
 ;  ;  ;  ;  ;  ;  ;  ;  
Publisher / Repository:
Wiley Blackwell (John Wiley & Sons)
Date Published:
Journal Name:
Hydrological Processes
Volume:
38
Issue:
12
ISSN:
0885-6087
Format(s):
Medium: X
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this
  1. ; ; ; ; (, Water Resources Research)
    Abstract Snow dominated mountainous karst watersheds are the primary source of water supply in many areas in the western U.S. and worldwide. These watersheds are typically characterized by complex terrain, spatiotemporally varying snow accumulation and melt processes, and duality of flow and storage dynamics because of the juxtaposition of matrix (micropores and small fissures) and karst conduits. As a result, predicting streamflow from meteorological inputs has been challenging due to the inability of physically based or conceptual hydrologic models to represent these unique characteristics. We present a hybrid modeling approach that integrates a physically based, spatially distributed, snow model with a deep learning karst model. More specifically, the high‐resolution snow model captures spatiotemporal variability in snowmelt, and the deep learning model simulates the corresponding response of streamflow as influenced by complex surface and subsurface properties. The deep learning model is based on the Convolutional Long Short‐Term Memory (ConvLSTM) architecture capable of handling spatiotemporal recharge patterns and watershed storage dynamics. The hybrid modeling approach is tested on a watershed in northern Utah with seasonal snow cover and variably karstified carbonate bedrock. The hybrid models were able to simulate streamflow at the watershed outlet with high accuracy. The spatial and temporal recharge and discharge patterns learned by the ConvLSTM model were then examined and compared with known hydrogeologic information. Results suggest that ConvLSTM simulates streamflow with higher accuracy than reference models for the study area and provides insight into spatially influenced hydrologic responses that are unavailable within lumped modeling approaches. 
    more » « less
  2. ; ; ; (, Hydrological Processes)
    Abstract Streamflow generation in mountain watersheds is strongly influenced by snow accumulation and melt as well as groundwater connectivity. In mountainous regions with limestone and dolomite geology, bedrock formations can host karst aquifers, which play a significant role in snowmelt–discharge dynamics. However, mapping complex karst features and the resulting surface‐groundwater exchanges at large scales remains infeasible. In this study, timeseries analysis of continuous discharge and specific conductance measurements were combined with gridded snowmelt predictions to characterize seasonal streamflow response and evaluate dominant watershed controls across 12 monitoring sites in a karstified 554 km2watershed in northern Utah, USA. Immense surface water hydrologic variability across subcatchments, years and seasons was linked to geologic controls on groundwater dynamics. Unlike many mountain watersheds, the variability between subcatchments could not be well described by typical watershed properties, including elevation or surficial geology. To fill this gap, a conceptual framework was proposed to characterize subsurface controls on snowmelt–discharge dynamics in karst mountain watersheds in terms of conduit flow direction, aquifer storage capacity and connectivity. This framework requires only readily measured surface water and climatic data from nested monitoring sites and was applied to the study watershed to demonstrate its applicability for evaluating dominant controls and climate sensitivity. 
    more » « less
  3. ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; (, Water Resources Research)
    Abstract Summer streamflow predictions are critical for managing water resources; however, warming‐induced shifts from snow to rain regimes impact low‐flow predictive models. Additionally, reductions in snowpack drive earlier peak flows and lower summer flows across the western United States increasing reliance on groundwater for maintaining summer streamflow. However, it remains poorly understood how groundwater contributions vary interannually. We quantify recession limb groundwater (RLGW), defined as the proportional groundwater contribution to the stream during the period between peak stream flow and low flow, to predict summer low flows across three diverse western US watersheds. We ask (a) how do snow and rain dynamics influence interannual variations of RLGW contributions and summer low flows?; (b) which watershed attributes impact the effectiveness of RLGW as a predictor of summer low flows? Linear models reveal that RLGW is a strong predictor of low flows across all sites and drastically improves low‐flow prediction compared to snow metrics at a rain‐dominated site. Results suggest that strength of RLGW control on summer low flows may be mediated by subsurface storage. Subsurface storage can be divided into dynamic (i.e., variability saturated) and deep (i.e., permanently saturated) components, and we hypothesize that interannual variability in dynamic storage contribution to streamflow drives RLGW variability. In systems with a higher proportion of dynamic storage, RLGW is a better predictor of summer low flow because the stream is more responsive to dynamic storage contributions compared to deep‐storage‐dominated systems. Overall, including RLGW improved low‐flow prediction across diverse watersheds. 
    more » « less
  4. ; ; (, Water Resources Research)
    Abstract Recent observations with varied schedules and types (moving average, snapshot, or regularly spaced) can help to improve streamflow forecasts, but it is challenging to integrate them effectively. Based on a long short‐term memory (LSTM) streamflow model, we tested multiple versions of a flexible procedure we call data integration (DI) to leverage recent discharge measurements to improve forecasts. DI accepts lagged inputs either directly or through a convolutional neural network unit. DI ubiquitously elevated streamflow forecast performance to unseen levels, reaching a record continental‐scale median Nash‐Sutcliffe Efficiency coefficient value of 0.86. Integrating moving‐average discharge, discharge from the last few days, or even average discharge from the previous calendar month could all improve daily forecasts. Directly using lagged observations as inputs was comparable in performance to using the convolutional neural network unit. Importantly, we obtained valuable insights regarding hydrologic processes impacting LSTM and DI performance. Before applying DI, the base LSTM model worked well in mountainous or snow‐dominated regions, but less well in regions with low discharge volumes (due to either low precipitation or high precipitation‐energy synchronicity) and large interannual storage variability. DI was most beneficial in regions with high flow autocorrelation: it greatly reduced baseflow bias in groundwater‐dominated western basins and also improved peak prediction for basins with dynamical surface water storage, such as the Prairie Potholes or Great Lakes regions. However, even DI cannot elevate performance in high‐aridity basins with 1‐day flash peaks. Despite this limitation, there is much promise for a deep‐learning‐based forecast paradigm due to its performance, automation, efficiency, and flexibility. 
    more » « less
  5. ; ; (, Hydrological Processes)
    Abstract Water temperatures in mountain streams are likely to rise under future climate change, with negative impacts on ecosystems and water quality. However, it is difficult to predict which streams are most vulnerable due to sparse historical records of mountain stream temperatures as well as complex interactions between snowpack, groundwater, streamflow and water temperature. Minimum flow volumes are a potentially useful proxy for stream temperature, since daily streamflow records are much more common. We confirmed that there is a strong inverse relationship between annual low flows and peak water temperature using observed data from unimpaired streams throughout the montane regions of the United States' west coast. We then used linear models to explore the relationships between snowpack, potential evapotranspiration and other climate‐related variables with annual low flow volumes and peak water temperatures. We also incorporated previous years' flow volumes into these models to account for groundwater carryover from year to year. We found that annual peak snowpack water storage is a strong predictor of summer low flows in the more arid watersheds studied. This relationship is mediated by atmospheric water demand and carryover subsurface water storage from previous years, such that multi‐year droughts with high evapotranspiration lead to especially low flow volumes. We conclude that watershed management to help retain snow and increase baseflows may help counteract some of the streamflow temperature rises expected from a warming climate, especially in arid watersheds. 
    more » « less
  • Citation Formats
  • MLA
  • APA
  • Chicago
  • BibTeX
  • Save / Share this Record
  • Send to Email