Gaining and Losing Stream Reaches Have Opposite Hydraulic Open Access Solid Earth Conductivity Distribution Patterns Solid Earth Discussions X
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
EGU Journal Logos (RGB) Open Access Open Access Open Access Advances in Annales Nonlinear Processes Geosciences Geophysicae in Geophysics Open Access Open Access Natural Hazards Natural Hazards and Earth System and Earth System Sciences Sciences Discussions Open Access Open Access Atmospheric Atmospheric Chemistry Chemistry and Physics and Physics Discussions Open Access Open Access Atmospheric Atmospheric Measurement Measurement Techniques Techniques Discussions Open Access Open Access Biogeosciences Biogeosciences Discussions Open Access Open Access Climate Climate of the Past of the Past Discussions Open Access Open Access Earth System Earth System Dynamics Dynamics Discussions Open Access Geoscientific Geoscientific Open Access Instrumentation Instrumentation Methods and Methods and Data Systems Data Systems Discussions Open Access Open Access Geoscientific Geoscientific Model Development Model Development Discussions Open Access Open Access Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 17, 2569–2579, 2013 Hydrology and Hydrology and www.hydrol-earth-syst-sci.net/17/2569/2013/ doi:10.5194/hess-17-2569-2013 Earth System Earth System © Author(s) 2013. CC Attribution 3.0 License. Sciences Sciences Discussions Open Access Open Access Ocean Science Ocean Science Discussions Open Access Gaining and losing stream reaches have opposite hydraulic Open Access Solid Earth conductivity distribution patterns Solid Earth Discussions X. Chen1, W. Dong1,2, G. Ou1, Z. Wang1, and C. Liu1 1 School of Natural Resources, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, NE 68583-0996, USA Open Access Open Access 2Key Laboratory of Groundwater Resources and Environment of China Ministry of Education, Jilin University, Changchun, 130021, China The Cryosphere The Cryosphere Discussions Correspondence to: X. Chen ([email protected]) Received: 16 November 2012 – Published in Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. Discuss.: 4 February 2013 Revised: 24 May 2013 – Accepted: 31 May 2013 – Published: 9 July 2013 Abstract. In gaining streams, groundwater seeps out into the reaches were significantly different from the K values from streams. In losing streams, stream water moves into ground- the sites of gaining reaches. water systems. The flow moving through the streambed sedi- ments under these two types of hydrologic conditions is gen- erally in opposite directions (upward vs. downward). The two opposite flow mechanisms affect the pore size and fine parti- 1 Introduction cle content of streambeds. Thus it is very likely that the oppo- site flow conditions affect the streambed hydraulic conduc- Stream networks drain land surface runoff and can receive tivity. However, comparisons of the hydraulic conductivity groundwater baseflow. In stream–aquifer interactions, wa- (K) of streambeds for losing and gaining streams are not well ter or solute passes through streambeds that control the hy- documented. In this study, we examined the K distribution drologic connectivity between stream water and groundwa- patterns of sediments below the channel surface or stream ter. Streambed hydraulic conductivity is a key parameter in banks for the Platte River and its tributaries in Nebraska, the analysis of stream–aquifer interactions. In areas where USA. Two contrasting vertical distribution patterns were ob- streamflow depletion induced by groundwater use is a wa- served from the test sites. In gaining reaches, hydraulic con- ter management issue, knowledge of streambed hydraulic ductivity of the streambed decreased with the depth of the conductivity is needed in the development of integrated wa- sediment cores. In losing reaches, hydraulic conductivity in- ter use plans of stream water and groundwater. When rivers creased with the depth of the sediment cores. These con- are polluted, migration of pollutants from rivers to the ad- trasting patterns in the two types of streams were mostly at- jacent aquifer systems poses a big threat to the quality of tributed to flow directions during stream water and ground- the groundwater supply systems and thus to human health. water exchanges. In losing reaches, downward movement of Streambed hydraulic properties control the seepage velocity water brought fine particle into the otherwise coarse sediment and thus the movement of contaminants between rivers and matrix, partially silting the pores. For gaining reaches, up- groundwater. ward flow winnowed fine particles, increasing the pore spac- Bank filtration processes are associated with downward ing in the top parts of streambeds, leading to higher hydraulic flow in streambeds and can concentrate fine particulate mat- conductivity in shallower parts of streambeds. These flux di- ter that clogs streambeds (Schubert, 2002). Upwelling flow rections can impact K values to depths of greater than 5 m. At in streambeds on the other hand enlarges sediment pore size each study site, in situ permeameter tests were conducted to and enhances streambed hydraulic conductivity (Song et al., measure the K values of the shallow streambed layer. Statis- 2007). Laboratory experiments indicated that seepage direc- tical analyses indicated that K values from the sites of losing tion at the water–sediment interface of a hyporheic setting af- fects the magnitude of sediment hydraulic conductivity (K) Published by Copernicus Publications on behalf of the European Geosciences Union. 2570 X. Chen et al.: Gaining and losing stream reaches have opposite hydraulic distribution patterns (Rosenberry and Pitlick, 2009a). When streambed mobility of sediment particles, micro-organisms and colloids, and is low, upward flow enhances the hydraulic conductivity and the precipitation of iron and manganese oxy-hydroxides and downward flow reduces hydraulic conductivity. The ratio of calcium carbonates within the streambed reduce streambed K determined during upward flow to K determined during hydraulic conductivity (Hiscock and Grischek, 2002). The downward flow is greater than 1 and can be as high as 2.4 physical, biological and chemical processes are the driving (Rosenberry and Pitlick, 2009a). Downward seepage pulls mechanisms that clog stream sediments and reduce the sed- fine-grained particles onto or into the bed until they clog iment pores under losing conditions (Hancock, 2002). The pore spaces and reduce K in the sediment volume at or just physical process mainly involves settling of fine particulate below the sediment–water interface (Rosenberry and Pitlick, matter on the water–sediment interface; some fine particles 2009a). Upward seepage velocity at the points of preferential can be transported into the pores of the upper streambed discharge often is sufficient to suspend particles, even with layer depending on the hydrologic condition and sediment no surface water current. The upward force thus expands the structures (Bouwer, 2002; Cui et al., 2008; Stuyfzand et al., pore space, leading to higher hydraulic conductivity. 2006; Wett et al., 2002). For example, the accumulation of Some lab flume studies (Packman et al., 2000a,b) demon- fine solids at a Rhine River riverbank filtration site is lim- strated that the forming of clogging layers is a common sed- ited to the water–sediment interface, and chemical precipita- imentation process in streams. Clogging is a very effective tion occurs about 10 cm below the interface (Schubert, 2002). process that reduces streambed hydraulic conductivity. The Gunkel and Hoffmann (2006) confirmed that in a bank fil- simulations using flumes often neglect the groundwater com- tration system of Lake Tegel (Germany) algae (mainly di- ponent and do not relate seepage direction to K changes. atoms) adapts to the sediment pore system and has a very A recent study by Karwan and Saiers (2012) suggested that high concentration in the upper 5 cm of sediment which sig- clay-sized particles and colloids can travel within the pore nificantly influences the composition of the upper sediment space of sediments by stream water filtration in the hyporheic layer. The concentration of algae rapidly decreases below zone. Steady dynamic pressure variations over bedforms in- 10 cm. It seems that the effect of the physical, biological and duce streamflow to enter the streambed and then exit (Elliot chemical clogging is most significant only at a small depth. and Brooks, 1997). While they did not discuss the possible However, the clogging can reduce the streambed hydraulic effect of this filtration on K, it is apparent that when reten- conductivity by 10–100 times and thus reduces the hydrolog- tion of clay takes place in the streambed, the fine materials ical connections between streams and the adjacent aquifers. will likely reduce the hydraulic conductivity. This numer- The filtration efficiency of the streambed depends on several ical simulation of particle transport in sediments (Karwan physical, biological and chemical factors, including the size and Saiers, 2012) focuses on the filtration of clay particles of suspended particles and streambed sediment composition, in small-scale sediments (< 0.5 m in depth) below the water– pore water velocity, pore water pH and ionic strength, and sediment interface. Laboratory studies are conditioned to a the surface chemical composition of the suspended particles small sand column or sand box. Thus, these small-scale stud- (Ren and Packman, 2002; Karwan and Saiers, 2012). Differ- ies under controlled hydrodynamic conditions do not fully ences in grain size (and therefore pore size) of the framework reflect how the streambed hydraulic conductivity has been exercises a strong controlling influence on the infiltration of changed by upward