Journal cover Journal topic
Hydrology and Earth System Sciences An interactive open-access journal of the European Geosciences Union
Journal topic

Journal metrics

Journal metrics

  • IF value: 4.936 IF 4.936
  • IF 5-year value: 5.615 IF 5-year
    5.615
  • CiteScore value: 4.94 CiteScore
    4.94
  • SNIP value: 1.612 SNIP 1.612
  • IPP value: 4.70 IPP 4.70
  • SJR value: 2.134 SJR 2.134
  • Scimago H <br class='hide-on-tablet hide-on-mobile'>index value: 107 Scimago H
    index 107
  • h5-index value: 63 h5-index 63
Volume 18, issue 7 | Copyright
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 18, 2715-2734, 2014
https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-18-2715-2014
© Author(s) 2014. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

Research article 29 Jul 2014

Research article | 29 Jul 2014

An evaluation of analytical stream to groundwater exchange models: a comparison of gross exchanges based on different spatial flow distribution assumptions

M. Exner-Kittridge1, J. L. Salinas2, and M. Zessner3 M. Exner-Kittridge et al.
  • 1Centre for Water Resource Systems, Vienna University of Technology, Vienna, Austria
  • 2Institute of Hydraulic Engineering and Water Resources Management, Vienna University of Technology, Vienna, Austria
  • 3Institute of Water Quality, Resources and Waste Management, Vienna University of Technology, Vienna, Austria

Abstract. In this paper, a new method for estimating gross gains and losses between streams and groundwater is developed and evaluated against two existing approaches. These three stream to groundwater exchange (SGE) estimation methods are distinct in their assumptions on the spatial distribution of the inflowing and outflowing fluxes along the stream. The two existing methods assume that the fluxes are independent and in a specific sequence, while the third and newly derived method assumes that both fluxes occur simultaneously and uniformly throughout the stream. The analytic expressions in connection to the underlying assumptions are investigated through numerical stream simulations to evaluate the individual and mutual dynamics of the SGE estimation methods and to understand the causes for the differences in performance. The results show that the three methods produce significantly different results and that the mean absolute normalized error can have up to an order of magnitude difference between the methods. These differences between the SGE methods are entirely due to the assumptions of the SGE spatial dynamics of the methods, and the performance for a particular approach strongly decreases if its assumptions are not fulfilled. The assessment of the three methods through numerical simulations, representing a variety of SGE dynamics, shows that the method introduced, considering simultaneous stream gains and losses, presents overall the highest performance according to the simulations. As the existing methods provide the minimum and maximum realistic values of SGE within a stream reach, all three methods could be used in conjunction for a full range of estimates. These SGE methods can also be used in conjunction with other end-member mixing models to acquire even more hydrologic information as both require the same type of input data.

Publications Copernicus
Download
Citation
Share