Search for: All records

Stream metabolism, encompassing gross primary production and ecosystem respiration, reflects the fundamental energetic dynamics of freshwater ecosystems. These processes regulate the concentrations of dissolved gases like oxygen and carbon dioxide, which in turn shape aquatic food webs and ecosystem responses to stressors such as floods, drought, and nutrient loading. Historically difficult to quantify, stream metabolism is now measurable at high temporal resolution thanks to advances in sensor technology and modeling. The StreamPULSE dataset includes high-frequency sensor data, metadata, and modeled estimates of ecosystem metabolism. This living dataset contributes to a growing body of open-access data characterizing the metabolic pulse of stream ecosystems worldwide. To contribute to StreamPULSE, visit data.streampulse.org. All data contributed to StreamPULSE become public after an optional embargo period. Use this publication to access annual data releases, or use data.streampulse.org to download new data as they become available. 

Abstract Groundwater discharge to streams is a nonpoint source of nitrogen (N) that confounds N mitigation efforts and represents a significant portion of the annual N loading to watersheds. However, we lack an understanding of where and how much groundwater N enters streams and watersheds. Nitrogen concentrations at the end of groundwater flowpaths are the culmination of biogeochemical and physical processes from the contributing land area where groundwater recharges, within the aquifer system, and in the near-stream riparian area where groundwater discharges to streams. Our research objectives were to quantify the spatial distribution of N concentrations at groundwater discharges throughout a mixed land-use watershed and to evaluate how relationships among contributing and riparian land cover, modeled aquifer characteristics, and groundwater discharge biogeochemistry explain the spatial variation in groundwater discharge N concentrations. We accomplished this by integrating high-resolution thermal infrared surveys to locate groundwater discharge, biogeochemical sampling of groundwater, and a particle tracking model that links groundwater discharge locations to their contributing area land cover. Groundwater N loading from groundwater discharges within the watershed varied substantially between and within streambank groundwater discharge features. Groundwater nitrate concentrations were spatially heterogeneous ranging from below 0.03–11.45 mg-N/L, varying up to 20-fold within meters. When combined with the particle tracking model results and land cover metrics, we found that groundwater discharge nitrate concentrations were best predicted by a linear mixed-effect model that explained over 60% of the variation in nitrate concentrations, including aquifer chemistry (dissolved oxygen, Cl⁻, SO₄²⁻), riparian area forested land cover, and modeled physical aquifer characteristics (discharge, Euclidean distance). Our work highlights the significant spatial variability in groundwater discharge nitrate concentrations within mixed land-use watersheds and the need to understand groundwater N processing across the many spatiotemporal scales within groundwater cycling. 

Abstract Riverbank groundwater discharge faces are spatially extensive areas of preferential seepage that are exposed to air at low river flow. Some conceptual hydrologic models indicate discharge faces represent the spatial convergence of highly variable age and length groundwater flowpaths, while others indicate greater consistency in source groundwater characteristics. Our detailed field investigation of preferential discharge points nested across mainstem riverbank discharge faces was accomplished by: (1) leveraging new temperature‐based recursive estimation (extended Kalman Filter) modelling methodology to evaluate seasonal, diurnal, and event‐driven groundwater flux patterns, (2) developing a multi‐parameter toolkit based on readily measured attributes to classify the general source groundwater flowpath depth and flowpath length scale, and, (3) assessing whether preferential flow points across discharge faces tend to represent common or convergent groundwater sources. Five major groundwater discharge faces were mapped along the Farmington River, CT, United States using thermal infrared imagery. We then installed vertical temperature profilers directly into 39 preferential discharge points for 4.5 months to track vertical discharge flux patterns. Monthly water chemistry was also collected at the discharge points along with one spatial synoptic of stable isotopes of water and dissolved radon gas. We found pervasive evidence of shallow groundwater sources at the upstream discharge faces along a wide valley section with deep bedrock, as primarily evidenced by pronounced diurnal discharge flux patterns. Discharge flux seasonal trends and bank storage transitions during large river flow events provided further indication of shallow, local sources. In contrast, downstream discharge faces associated with near surface cross cutting bedrock exhibited deep and regional source flowpath characteristics such as more stable discharge patterns and temperatures. However, many neighbouring points across discharge faces had similar discharge flux patterns that differed in chloride and radon concentrations, indicating the additional effects of localized flowpath heterogeneity overprinting on larger scale flowpath characteristics. 

As the climate warms and dry periods become more extreme, shallow groundwater discharge is generally becoming a less reliable source of streamflow while deep groundwater discharge remains a more resilient source. The implications of shifts in the relative balance of shallow and deep groundwater discharge sources are profound in gaining streams. These different sources exert critical controls on stream temperature and water quality as influenced by legacy groundwater contaminant transport. Groundwater discharge flux rates over time were used for the inference of source groundwater characteristics to prominent riverbank groundwater discharge faces along the mainstem Farmington River, CT USA. To estimate groundwater discharge rates, we deployed sediment temperature loggers (iButton #DS1922L, Maxim Integrated, Inc., San Jose, CA, USA) in vertical profilers installed directly into mapped preferential groundwater discharge points across extensive riverbank discharge face features.Temperature data contained in this release were collected from June 24 to November 5, 2020, at 40 distinct discharge point riverbank locations, similar to those described by Barclay et al. (2022) and Briggs et al. (2022). Saturated sediment thermal conductivity and heat capacity were measured in-situ with a TEMPOS Thermal Property Analyzer (TEMPOS, Meter Group, Inc., Pullman, WA, USA) at multiple points across each riverbank discharge face to aid in estimating groundwater discharge flux rates. Barclay, J. R., Briggs, M. A., Moore, E. M., Starn, J. J., Hanson, A. E. H., & Helton, A. M. (2022). Where groundwater seeps: Evaluating modeled groundwater discharge patterns with thermal infrared surveys at the river-network scale. Advances in Water Resources, 160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advwatres.2021.104108 Briggs, M. A., Jackson, K. E., Liu, F., Moore, E. M., Bisson, A., & Helton, A. M. (2022). Exploring Local Riverbank Sediment Controls on the Occurrence of Preferential Groundwater Discharge Points. Water, 14(1). https://doi.org/10.3390/w14010011 

We used spatial data from previously mapped preferential groundwater discharges throughout the Farmington River watershed in Connecticut and Massachusetts (https://doi.org/10.5066/P915E8JY) to guide water sample collection at known locations of groundwater discharging to surface water. In 2017 and 2019 - 2021, samples were collected during general river baseflow conditions (July ? November, less than 30.9 cms mean daily discharge (USGS gage 01189995, statistics 2010-2022) when the riverbank discharge points were exposed. We collected a suite of dissolved constituents and stable isotopes of water directly in the shallow saturated sediments of active points of discharge, and coincident stream chemical samples were also collected adjacent to locations of groundwater discharge. Data collected includes nutrients (NO3, NH4, Cl, SO4, PO4, dissolved organic carbon (DOC), and total nitrogen (TN)), greenhouse gases (CO2, CH4, and N2O), dissolved gases (N2, dissolved oxygen (DO)), conductivity, sediment characteristics, temperature, and spatial information. This dataset includes 2 main files: 1) Farmington_Chemistry_2017_2021.csv contains attribute information for each biogeochemical constituent collected at preferential groundwater discharges along the Farmington River network. 2)Farmington_Temporal_Cl_Rn_Iso_2020.csv contain attribute information for source characteristic data (Chloride, Radon, Isotope) collected at locations of repeat sampling at 5 groundwater seep faces along the Farmington River (Alsop and Rainbow Island). 

Groundwater discharge to rivers takes many forms, including preferential groundwater discharge points (PDPs) along riverbanks that are exposed at low flows, with multi-scale impacts on aquatic habitat and water quality. The physical controls on the spatial distribution of PDPs along riverbanks are not well-defined, rendering their prediction and representation in models challenging. To investigate the local riverbank sediment controls on PDP occurrence, we tested drone-based and handheld thermal infrared to efficiently map PDP locations along two mainstem rivers. Early in the study, we found drone imaging was better suited to locating tributary and stormwater inflows, which created relatively large water surface thermal anomalies in winter, compared to PDPs that often occurred at the sub-meter scale and beneath riparian tree canopy. Therefore, we primarily used handheld thermal infrared imaging from watercraft to map PDPs and larger seepage faces along 12-km of the fifth-order Housatonic River in Massachusetts, USA and 26-km of the Farmington River in Connecticut, USA. Overall, we mapped 31 riverbank PDPs along the Housatonic reach that meanders through lower permeability soils, and 104 PDPs along the Farmington reach that cuts through sandier sediments. Riverbank soil parameters extracted at PDP locations from the Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) database did not differ substantially from average bank soils along either reach, although the Farmington riverbank soils were on average 5× more permeable than Housatonic riverbank soils, likely contributing to the higher observed prevalence of PDPs. Dissolved oxygen measured in discharge water at these same PDPs varied widely, but showed no relation to measured sand, clay, or organic matter content in surficial soils indicating a lack of substantial near-surface aerobic reaction. The PDP locations were investigated for the presence of secondary bank structures, and commonly co-occurred with riparian tree root masses indicating the importance of localized physical controls on the spatial distribution of riverbank PDPs.