Search for: All records

To manage water resources and forecast river flows, hydrologists seek to understand how water moves from precipitation, through watersheds, into river channels. However, we lack fundamental information on the spatial distribution and physical controls on global hydrologic processes. This information is needed to provide theoretical support for large-domain model simulations. Here, to address this issue, we present a global, searchable database of 400 research watersheds with published descriptions of dominant hydrologic flow pathways. This knowledge synthesis approach leverages decades of grant funding, fieldwork effort and local expertise. We use the database to test longstanding hypotheses about the roles of climate, biomes and landforms in controlling hydrologic processes. We show that aridity predicts the depth of water flow pathways and that terrain and biomes predict the prevalence of lateral flow pathways. These new data and search capabilities support efficient hypothesis testing to investigate emergent patterns that relate landscape organization to hydrologic function. 

ABSTRACT The importance of subsurface water dynamics, such as water storage and flow partitioning, is well recognised. Yet, our understanding of their drivers and links to streamflow generation has remained elusive, especially in small headwater streams that are often data‐limited but crucial for downstream water quantity and quality. Large‐scale analyses have focused on streamflow characteristics across rivers with varying drainage areas, often overlooking the subsurface water dynamics that shape streamflow behaviour. Here we ask the question:What are the climate and landscape characteristics that regulate subsurface dynamic storage, flow path partitioning, and dynamics of streamflow generation in headwater streams?To answer this question, we used streamflow data and a widely‐used hydrological model (HBV) for 15 headwater catchments across the contiguous United States. Results show that climate characteristics such as aridity and precipitation phase (snow or rain) and land attributes such as topography and soil texture are key drivers of streamflow generation dynamics. In particular, steeper slopes generally promoted more streamflow, regardless of aridity. Streams in flat, rainy sites (< 30% precipitation as snow) with finer soils exhibited flashier regimes than those in snowy sites (> 30% precipitation as snow) or sites with coarse soils and deeper flow paths. In snowy sites, less weathered, thinner soils promoted shallower flow paths such that discharge was more sensitive to changes in storage, but snow dampened streamflow flashiness overall. Results here indicate that land characteristics such as steepness and soil texture modify subsurface water storage and shallow and deep flow partitioning, ultimately regulating streamflow response to climate forcing. As climate change increases uncertainty in water availability, understanding the interacting climate and landscape features that regulate streamflow will be essential to predict hydrological shifts in headwater catchments and improve water resources management. 

Hydrologic signatures are quantitative metrics that describe streamflow statistics and dynamics. Signatures have many applications, including assessing habitat suitability and hydrologic alteration, calibrating and evaluating hydrologic models, defining similarity between watersheds and investigating watershed processes. Increasingly, signatures are being used in large sample studies to guide flow management and modelling at continental scales. Using signatures in studies involving 1000s of watersheds brings new challenges as it becomes impractical to examine signature parameters and behaviour in each watershed. For example, we might wish to check that signatures describing flood event characteristics have correctly identified event periods, that signature values have not been biassed by data errors, or that human and natural influences on signature values have been correctly interpreted. In this commentary, we draw from our collective experience to present case studies where naïve application of signatures fails to correctly identify streamflow dynamics. These include unusual precipitation or flow regimes, data quality issues, and signature use in human-influenced watersheds. We conclude by providing guidance and recommendations on applying signatures in large sample studies. 

Abstract Reactive Transport Models (RTMs) are essential tools for understanding and predicting intertwined ecohydrological and biogeochemical processes on land and in rivers. While traditional RTMs have focused primarily on subsurface processes, recent watershed‐scale RTMs have integrated ecohydrological and biogeochemical interactions between surface and subsurface. These emergent, watershed‐scale RTMs are often spatially explicit and require extensive data, computational power, and computational expertise. There is however a pressing need to create parsimonious models that require minimal data and are accessible to scientists with limited computational background. To that end, we have developed BioRT‐HBV 1.0, a watershed‐scale, hydro‐biogeochemical RTM that builds upon the widely used, bucket‐type HBV model known for its simplicity and minimal data requirements. BioRT‐HBV uses the conceptual structure and hydrology output of HBV to simulate processes including advective solute transport and biogeochemical reactions that depend on reaction thermodynamics and kinetics. These reactions include, for example, chemical weathering, soil respiration, and nutrient transformation. The model uses time series of weather (air temperature, precipitation, and potential evapotranspiration) and initial biogeochemical conditions of subsurface water, soils, and rocks as input, and output times series of reaction rates and solute concentrations in subsurface waters and rivers. This paper presents the model structure and governing equations and demonstrates its utility with examples simulating carbon and nitrogen processes in a headwater catchment. As shown in the examples, BioRT‐HBV can be used to illuminate the dynamics of biogeochemical reactions in the invisible, arduous‐to‐measure subsurface, and their influence on the observed stream or river chemistry and solute export. With its parsimonious structure and easy‐to‐use graphical user interface, BioRT‐HBV can be a useful research tool for users without in‐depth computational training. It can additionally serve as an educational tool that promotes pollination of ideas across disciplines and foster a diverse, equal, and inclusive user community. 

Abstract Headwater catchments are the fundamental units that connect the land to the ocean. Hydrological flow and biogeochemical processes are intricately coupled, yet their respective sciences have progressed without much integration. Reaction kinetic theories that prescribe rate dependence on environmental variables (e.g., temperature and water content) have advanced substantially, mostly in well‐mixed reactors, columns, and warming experiments without considering the characteristics of hydrological flow at the catchment scale. These theories have shown significant divergence from observations in natural systems. On the other hand, hydrological theories, including transit time theory, have progressed substantially yet have not been incorporated into understanding reactions at the catchment scale. Here we advocate for the development of integrated hydro‐biogeochemical theories across gradients of climate, vegetation, and geology conditions. The lack of such theories presents barriers for understanding mechanisms and forecasting the future of the Critical Zone under human‐ and climate‐induced perturbations. Although integration has started and co‐located measurements are well under way, tremendous challenges remain. In particular, even in this era of “big data,” we are still limited by data and will need to (1) intensify measurements beyond river channels and characterize the vertical connectivity and broadly the shallow and deep subsurface; (2) expand to older water dating beyond the time scales reflected in stable water isotopes; (3) combine the use of reactive solutes, nonreactive tracers, and isotopes; and (4) augment measurements in environments that are undergoing rapid changes. To develop integrated theories, it is essential to (1) engage models at all stages to develop model‐informed data collection strategies and to maximize data usage; (2) adopt a “simple but not simplistic,” or fit‐for‐purpose approach to include essential processes in process‐based models; (3) blend the use of process‐based and data‐driven models in the framework of “theory‐guided data science.” Within the framework of hypothesis testing, model‐data fusion can advance integrated theories that mechanistically link catchments' internal structures and external drivers to their functioning. It can not only advance the field of hydro‐biogeochemistry, but also enable hind‐ and fore‐casting and serve the society at large. Broadly, future education will need to cultivate thinkers at the intersections of traditional disciplines with hollistic approaches for understanding interacting processes in complex earth systems. This article is categorized under:Engineering Water > Methods