H23Q-07:
The advantages, and challenges, in using multiple techniques in the estimation of surface water-groundwater fluxes.
Tuesday, 16 December 2014: 3:10 PM
Margaret Shanafield, Flinders University, Bedford Park, SA, Australia; National Centre for Groundwater Research and Training, Adelaide, Australia and Peter G Cook, CSIRO Land & Water, Glen Osmond, Australia
Abstract:
When estimating surface water-groundwater fluxes, the use of complimentary techniques helps to fill in uncertainties in any individual method, and to potentially gain a better understanding of spatial and temporal variability in a system. It can also be a way of preventing the loss of data during infrequent and unpredictable flow events. For example, much of arid Australia relies on groundwater, which is recharged by streamflow through ephemeral streams during flood events. Three recent surface water/groundwater investigations from arid Australian systems provide good examples of how using multiple field and analysis techniques can help to more fully characterize surface water-groundwater fluxes, but can also result in conflicting values over varying spatial and temporal scales. In the Pilbara region of Western Australia, combining streambed radon measurements, vertical heat transport modeling, and a tracer test helped constrain very low streambed residence times, which are on the order of minutes. Spatial and temporal variability between the methods yielded hyporheic exchange estimates between 10-4 m2 s-1 and 4.2 x 10-2 m2 s-1. In South Australia, three-dimensional heat transport modeling captured heterogeneity within 20 square meters of streambed, identifying areas of sandy soil (flux rates of up to 3 m d-1) and clay (flux rates too slow to be accurately characterized). Streamflow front modeling showed similar flux rates, but averaged over 100 m long stream segments for a 1.6 km reach. Finally, in central Australia, several methods are used to decipher whether any of the flow down a highly ephemeral river contributes to regional groundwater recharge, showing that evaporation and evapotranspiration likely accounts for all of the infiltration into the perched aquifer. Lessons learned from these examples demonstrate the influences of the spatial and temporal variability between techniques on estimated fluxes.
