Environmental Management

, Volume 36, Issue 4, pp 551–564

Linking Riparian Dynamics and Groundwater: An Ecohydrologic Approach to Modeling Groundwater and Riparian Vegetation

  • Kathryn J. Baird
  • Juliet C. Stromberg
  • Thomas MaddockIII
RESEARCH

Abstract

The growing use of global freshwater supplies is increasing the need for improved modeling of the linkage between groundwater and riparian vegetation. Traditional groundwater models such as MODFLOW have been used to predict changes in regional groundwater levels, and thus riparian vegetation potential attributable to anthropogenic water use. This article describes an approach that improves on these modeling techniques through several innovations. First, evapotranspiration from riparian/wetland systems is modeled in a manner that more realistically reflects plant ecophysiology and vegetation complexity. In the authors’ model programs (RIP-ET and PRE-RIP-ET), the single, monotonically increasing evapotranspiration flux curve in traditional groundwater models is replaced with a set of ecophysiologically based curves, one for each plant functional group present. For each group, the curve simulates transpiration declines that occur both as water levels decline below rooting depths and as waters rise to levels that produce anoxic soil conditions. Accuracy is further improved by more effective spatial handling of vegetation distribution, which allows modeling of surface elevation and depth to water for multiple vegetation types within each large model cell. The use of RIP-ET in groundwater models can improve the accuracy of basin scale estimates of riparian evapotranspiration rates, riparian vegetation water requirements, and water budgets. Two case studies are used to demonstrate that RIP-ET produces significantly different evapotranspiration estimates than the traditional method. When combined with vegetation mapping and a supporting program (RIP-GIS), RIP-ET also enables predictions of riparian vegetation response to water use and development scenarios. The RIP-GIS program links the head distribution from MODFLOW with surface digital elevation models, producing moderate- to high-resolution depth-to-groundwater maps. Together with information on plant rooting depths, these can be used to predict vegetation response to water allocation decisions. The different evapotranspiration outcomes produced by traditional and RIP-ET approaches affect resulting interpretations of hydro-vegetation dynamics, including the effects of groundwater pumping stress on existing habitats, and thus affect subsequent policy decisions.

Keywords

Riparian evapotranspiration Ecohydrologic model Groundwater plant functional group MODFLOW 

Literature Cited

  1. Baird, K. J., C. A. Dragoo, and T. Maddock III. 2004. PRE-RIP-ET: A preprocessor for RIP-ET. Department of Hydrology and Water Resources, University of Arizona, Tucson, ArizonaGoogle Scholar
  2. Banta, E. R. 2000. MODFLOW-2000: The U.S. Geological Survey modular groundwater model: Documentation of packages for simulating evapotranspiration with a segmented function (ETS1) and drains with return flow (DRT1). U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 00-466 USGS, Reston, VirginiaGoogle Scholar
  3. Batelaan O., F. De Smedt, L. Triest. 2003. Regional groundwater discharge: Phreatophyte mapping, groundwater modeling, and impact analysis of land use change. Journal of Hydrology 275:86–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Busch D. E., N. L. Ingraham, S. D. Smith. 1992. Water uptake in woody riparian phreatophytes of the southwestern United States: A stable isotope study. Ecological Applications 2:450–459Google Scholar
  5. Cooper D. J., D. R. D’Amico, M. L. Scott. 2003. Physiological and morphological response patterns of Populus deltoides to alluvial groundwater pumping. Environmental Management 31:215–226CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Dragoo, C. A., T. Maddock III, and K. J. Baird. 2004. RIPGIS user’s manual: An ArcView GIS pre- and post-processor for the MODFLOW Riparian Evapotranspiration Package. Department of Hydrology and Water Resources, University of Arizona, Tucson, ArizonaGoogle Scholar
  7. Dyer A. R., D. E. Goldberg, R. Turkington, C. Sayre. 2001. Effects of growing conditions and source habitat on plant traits and functional group definition. Functional Ecology 15:85–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Elmore A. J., J. F. Mustard, S. J. Manning. 2003. Regional patterns of plant community responses to changes in water: Owens Valley, California. Ecological Applications 13:443–460Google Scholar
  9. Glennon R. J., T. Maddock III. 1994. In search of subflow: Arizona’s futile effort to separate groundwater from surface water. Arizona Law Review 36(3):567–610Google Scholar
  10. Goodrich D. C., R. Scott, J. Qi, B. Goff, C. L. Unkrich, M. S. Moran, D. G. Williams, S. M. Schaeffer, K. A. Snyder, R. D. MacNish, T. Maddock, D. Pool, A. Chehbouni, D. I. Cooper, W. E. Eicinger, W. J. Shuttleworth, Y. Kerr, R. Marsett, W. Ni. 2000. Seasonal estimates of riparian evapotranspiration using remote and in situ measurements. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 105:281–309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Grimm N. B., A. Chacon, C. N. Dahm, S. W. Hostetler, O. W. Lind, P. L. Starkweather, W. W. Wurtsbaugh. 1997. Sensitivity of aquatic ecosystems to climatic and anthropogenic changes: The basin and range, American Southwest and Mexico. Hydrological Processes 11:1023–1041CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hancock P. J. 2002. Human impacts on the stream-groundwater exchange zone. Environmental Managment 29:763–781CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Henry C. P., C. Amoros, N. Roset. 2002. Restoration ecology of riverine wetlands: A 5-year postoperation survey on the Rhône River, France. Ecological Engineering 18:543–554CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hipps, L. E., D. I. Cooper, W. Eichinger, D. G. Williams, S. M. Schaeffer, K. A. Snyder, R. Scott, A. Chehbouni, C. Watts, O. Hartogensis, J. -P. Lhomme, B. Monteny, J. -P. Brunel, G. Boulet, J. Schieldge, H. A. R. DeBruin, W. J. Shuttleworth, and Y. Kerr. 1998. A summary of processes which are connected to evaporation of riparian and heterogeneous upland vegetation in arid regions. Pages 43–48 in E. F. Wood, A. G. Chehbouni, D. C. Goodrich, D. J. Seo, J. R. Zimmerman (eds.). Proceedings from the Special Symposium on Hydrology American Meteorological Society, 11–16 January 1998. Phoenix, ArizonaGoogle Scholar
  15. Horton J. L., T. E. Kolb, S. C. Hart. 2001. Physiological response to groundwater depth varies among species and with river flow regulation. Ecological Applications 11:1046–1059Google Scholar
  16. Hughes R. M. R. 1997. Floodplain biogeomorphology. Progress in Physical Geography 21:501–529Google Scholar
  17. Jarvis P. G., K. G. McNaughton. 1986. Stomatal control of transpiration: Scaling up from leaf to region. Advances in Ecological Research 15:1–49Google Scholar
  18. Kingsford R. T. 2000. Protecting rivers in arid regions or pumping them dry? Hydrobiologia 427:1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kolka R. K., J. H. Singer, C. R. Coppock, W. P. Casey, C. C. Trettin. 2000. Influence of restoration and succession on bottomland hardwood hydrology. Ecological Engineering 15:S131–S140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lavorel S., S. McIntyre, J. J. Landsberg, T. D. A. Forbes. 1997. Plant functional classifications: from general groups to specific groups based on response to disturbance. Tree 12:474–478Google Scholar
  21. Maddock III, T., and K. J. Baird. 2003. A riparian evapotranspiration package for MODFLOW-96 and MODFLOW-2000. HWR No. 02-03. Department of Hydrology and Water Resources, University of Arizona Research Laboratory for Riparian Studies, University of Arizona, Tucson, ArizonaGoogle Scholar
  22. Maddock III T., L. B. Vionnet. 1998. Groundwater capture processes under a seasonal variation in natural recharge and discharge. Hydrogeology Journal 6:24–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mahoney J. M., S. B. Rood. 1998. Streamflow requirements for cottonwood seedling recruitment: An integrative model. Wetlands 18:634–645Google Scholar
  24. McDonald, M. G., and A. W. Harbaugh, 1988. A modular three-dimensional finite-difference groundwater flow model. U.S. Geological Survey TWI 6-A1, 1988 USGS, Reston, VirginiaGoogle Scholar
  25. McDonald, M. G., and A. W. Harbaugh. 1996. Programmer’s documentation for MODFLOW-96, an update to the U.S. Geological Survey Modular Finite-Difference Ground-Water Flow Model . U.S. Geological Survey, Open-File Report 96-486 USGS, Reston, VirginiaGoogle Scholar
  26. Meinzer F. C., J. L. Andrade, G. Goldstein, N. M. Holbrook, J. Cavelier, P. Jackson. 1997. Control of transpiration from the upper canopy of a tropical forest: The role of stomatal layer and hydraulic architecture components. Plant, Cell and Environment 20:1242–1252Google Scholar
  27. Mitsch W. J., R. F. Wilson. 1996. Improving the success of wetland creation and restoration with know-how, time, and self-design. Ecological Applications 6:77–83Google Scholar
  28. Nagler P. L., E. P. Glen, G. L. Thompson. 2003. Comparison of transpiration rates among saltcedar, cottonwood, and willow trees by sap flow and canopy temperature methods. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 116:73–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Naiman R. J., S. E. Bunn, C. Nilsson, G. E. Petts, G. Pinay, L. C. Thompson. 2002. Legitimizing fluvial ecosystems as user of water: an overview. Environmental Managment 30:455–467CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Nienhuis P. H., R. S. E. W. Leuven. 2001. River restoration and flood protection: Controversy or synergism? Hydrobiologia 444:85–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Nilsson C., M. Svedmark. 2002. Basic principles and ecological consequences of changing water regimes: Riparian plant communities. Environmental Managment 30:468–480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Poff N. L., J. D. Allan, M. B. Bain, J. R. Karr, K. L. Prestegaard, B. D. Richter, R. E. Sparks, J. C. Stromberg. 1997. The natural flow regime: A paradigm for river conservation and restoration. Bioscience 47:769–784Google Scholar
  33. Rains M. C., J. F. Mount, E. W. Larsen. 2004. Simulated changes in shallow groundwater and vegetation distributions under different reservoir operations scenarios. Ecological Applications. 14(1):192–207Google Scholar
  34. Reilly, T. E., and A. W. Harbaugh. 2004. Guidelines for evaluating groundwater flow models: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2004–5038 USGS, Reston, VirginiaGoogle Scholar
  35. Richter B. D., J. V. Baumgartner, R. Wigington, D. P. Braun. 1997. How much water does a river need? Freshwater Biology 37: 231–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Richter B. D., H. E. Richter. 2000. Prescribing flood regimes to sustain riparian ecosystems along meandering rivers. Conservation Biology 14:1467–1478CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Romero D. M., and T. Maddock III. 2003. MODFLOW: A finite-difference groundwater flow model or an integrated finite-difference groundwater flow model? in E. Poeter, C. Zheng, M. Hill (eds.). MODFLOW and More 2003: Understanding through modeling. International Ground Water Modeling Center, 16–19 September 2003. Colorado School of Mines, Golden, Colorado.pp 116–120Google Scholar
  38. Schaeffer S. M., D. G. Williams, D. C. Goodrich. 2000. Transpiration of cottonwood/willow forest estimated from sap flux. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 105:257–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Shafroth, P. B., J. R. Cleverly, T. L. Dudley, J. P. Taylor, C. van Riper III, E. P. Weeks, and J. N. Stuart. 2005. Control of Tamarix spp. in the western U.S.: Implications for water salvage, wildlife use, and riparian restoration. Environmental Management. 35:231–246CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Shafroth P. B., J. C. Stromberg, D. T. Patten. 2000. Woody riparian vegetation response to different alluvial water table regimes. Western North American Naturalist 60:66–76Google Scholar
  41. Snyder K. A., D. G. Williams. 2000. Water sources used by riparian trees varies among stream types on the San Pedro River, Arizona. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 105:227–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Springer A. E., J. M. Wright, P. B. Shafroth, J. C. Stromberg, D. T. Patten. 1999. Coupling groundwater and riparian vegetation models to simulate riparian vegetation changes due to a reservoir release. Water Resources Research 35(12):3621–3630CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Steinitz C., H. Arias, S. Bassett, M. Flaxman, T. Goode, T. Maddock, D. Mouat, R. Peiser, A. Shearer. 2003. Alternative futures for changing landscapes, the Upper San Pedro Basin in Arizona and Sonora. Island Press, Washington, D.CGoogle Scholar
  44. Stromberg J. C. 1993. Fremont cottonwood-Goodding willow riparian forests: A review of their ecology, threats, and recovery potential. Journal of the Arizona-Nevada Academy of Science 26(3): 97–110Google Scholar
  45. Stromberg J. C. 2001. Restoration of riparian vegetation in the south-western United States: importance of flow regimes and fluvial dynamism. Journal of Arid Environments 49:17–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Symstad A. J., E. Siemann, J. Haarstad. 2000. An experimental test of the effect of plant functional group diversity on arthropod diversity. OIKOS 89:243-253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Wever L. A., L. B. Flanagan, P. J. Carlson. 2002. Seasonal and interannual variation in evapotranspiration, energy balance and surface conductance in a northern temperate grassland. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 112:31–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Winter T. C., J. W. Harvey O. L. Franke and W. M. Alley. 1998. Groundwater and surface water: A single resource. U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1139, Denver, ColoradoGoogle Scholar
  49. Wurster F. C., D. J. Cooper, W. E. Sanford. 2003. Stream/aquifer interactions at Great Sand Dunes National Monument, Colorado: Influences on interdunal wetland disappearance. Journal of Hydrology 271:77–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kathryn J. Baird
    • 1
  • Juliet C. Stromberg
    • 2
  • Thomas MaddockIII
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Hydrology and Water ResourcesUniversity of ArizonaTucson
  2. 2.School of Life SciencesArizona State UniversityTempeArizona
  3. 3.Department of Hydrology and Water ResourcesUniversity of ArizonaTucson

Personalised recommendations