, Volume 137, Issue 1–2, pp 105–126 | Cite as

Exploring dissolved organic carbon cycling at the stream–groundwater interface across a third-order, lowland stream network

  • Sydney S. Ruhala
  • Jay P. Zarnetske
  • David T. Long
  • Joseph A. Lee-Cullin
  • Stephen Plont
  • Evan R. Wiewiora


The stream–groundwater interface (SGI) is thought to be an important location within stream networks for dissolved organic carbon (DOC) processing (e.g., degradation, removal), since it is considered a hotspot for microbial activity and biogeochemical reactions. This research is one of the first attempts to collect and assess DOC conditions at the SGI across a stream network—an entire third-order, lowland watershed in Michigan, USA. We present an initial exploration of this unique data set and highlight some of the challenges when working at these scales. Overall, our results show that SGI DOC conditions are complex at the network scale and do not conform to predictions based upon previous point- and small-scale studies. We found no strong pattern of DOC removal within the SGI at the network scale even after using chloride and temperature as natural tracers to differentiate between hydrological processes and biogeochemical reactions influencing DOC cycling. Instead, trends in DOC quantity and molecular qualities suggest that potential biotic reactions, including aerobic microbial respiration, had an influence on DOC concentrations at only some of the sites, while physical mixing of ground and stream surface waters appears to explain the majority of the observed changes in DOC concentrations at other sites. In addition, results show that neither SGI sites indicating DOC removal nor DOC molecular quality shifts measured correlated with stream order. It did reveal that DOC variability across surface water, groundwater, and the SGI locations was consistently greatest in the shallow sediments of the SGI, demonstrating that the SGI is a systematically distinct location for DOC conditions in the watershed. Our empirical stream network-scale SGI data are some of the first that are compatible with recently developed process-based, network-scale, SGI models. Our results indicate that these process-based models may not accurately represent SGI exchange of lowland, groundwater discharge-dominated streams like the one in this study. Lastly, this study shows that new methods are needed to achieve the goal of making and linking SGI observations to network-scale biogeochemical processes and theory. To help develop these methods we provide a discussion of the approach we used (i.e., “lessons-learned”) that might become the basis for systematic data analysis of SGI porewaters in future, network-wide biogeochemical studies of the SGI.


DOC Stream–groundwater interactions Network scale Streams Stream carbon cycling 



The authors would like to thank Stephen K. Hamilton, Dustin Kincaid, Tudor Big, and Tyler Hampton for their valuable contributions, discussions, and field assistance. Support for this research was partially provided by a Geological Society of America Graduate Student Research Grant as well as by the NSF Grant (EAR 1446328) and the Long-term Ecological Research Program (DEB 1027253) at the Kellogg Biological Station and by Michigan State University AgBioResearch.

Supplementary material

10533_2017_404_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (2.1 mb)
Supplementary material 1 Provided as supplemental materials are the vertical porewater profiles for DOC concentration (observed and predicted), DOC quality indices, dissolved oxygen, temperature, and various ions for all 39 individual sites sampled during the 2016 synoptic sampling campaign. Also included are the land use/cover types present across the watershed and the integration method for the metabolism plot in Fig. 8b, c. (PDF 2154 kb)


  1. Aiken GR (2014) Dissolved organic matter in aquatic systems. Comp Water Qual Purif 1:205–220. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Angermann L, Krause S, Lewandowski J (2012) Application of heat pulse injections for investigating shallow hyporheic flow in a lowland river. Water Resour Res. Google Scholar
  3. Baker MA, Dahm CN, Valett HM (1999) Acetate retention and metabolism in the hyporheic zone of a mountain stream. Limnol Oceanogr 44:1530–1539. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Battin TJ (1999) Hydrologic flow paths control dissolved organic carbon fluxes and metabolism in an alpine stream hyporheic zone. Water Resour Res 35:3159–3169. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Battin TJ, Kaplan LA, Findlay S, Hopkinson CS, Marti E, Packman AI, Newbold JD, Sabater F (2008) Biophysical controls on organic carbon fluxes in fluvial networks. Nat Geosci 1:95–100. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Battin TJ, Luyssaert S, Kaplan LA, Aufdenkampe AK, Richter A, Tranvik LJ (2009) The boundless carbon cycle. Nat Geosci 2:598–600. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bernhardt ES, Blaszczak JR, Ficken CD, Fork ML, Kaiser KE, Seybold EC (2017) Control points in ecosystems: moving beyond the hot spot hot moment concept. Ecosystems 20(4):665–682. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Boano F, Revelli R, Ridolfi L (2009) Quantifying the impact of groundwater discharge on the surface-subsurface exchange. Hydrol Process 23:2108–2116. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Boano F, Harvey JW, Marion A, Packman AI, Revelli R, Ridolfi L, Wörman A (2014) Hyporheic flow and transport processes: mechanisms, models, and biogeochemical implications. Rev Geophys 52:603–679. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Boulton AJ, Findlay S, Marmonier P, Stanley EH, Valett HM (1998) The functional significance of the hyporheic zone in streams and rivers. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 29:59–81. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cardenas MB, Wilson JL (2007) Dunes, turbulent eddies, and interfacial exchange with permeable sediments. Water Resour Res 43:W08412. Google Scholar
  12. Cory RM, Boyer EW, McKnight DM (2011) Spectral methods to advance understanding of dissolved organic carbon dynamics in forested catchments. For Hydrol Biogeochem. Google Scholar
  13. Creed et al (2015) The river as a chemostat: fresh perspectives on dissolved organic matter flowing down the river continuum. J Fish Aquat Sci 72:1272–1285. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Duff JH, Murphy F, Fuller CC, Triska FJ, Harvey JW, Jackman AP (1998) A mini drivepoint sampler for measuring pore-water solute concentrations in the hyporheic zone of sand-bottom streams. Limnol Oceanogr 43:1378–1383. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dunbar CO (1962) Historical geology, 2nd edn. Wiley, New York, p 500Google Scholar
  16. Fellman JB, Hood E, Spencer RGM (2010) Fluorescence spectroscopy opens new windows into dissolved organic matter dynamics in freshwater ecosystems: a review. Limnol Oceanogr 55:2452–2462. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Findlay S, Sobczak WV (1996) Variability in removal of dissolved organic carbon in hyporheic sediments. J North Am Benthol Soc 15:35–41. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Findlay S, Strayer D, Goumbala C, Gould K (1993) Metabolism of streamwater dissolved organic carbon in the shallow hyporheic zone. Limnol Oceanogr 38:1493–1499. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fischer H, Kloep F, Wilzcek F, Pusch MT (2005) A river’s liver—microbial processes within the hyporheic zone of a large lowland river. Biogeochemistry 76:349–371. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. FTWRC, Four Townships Water Resources Council (2011) Gull and Augusta Creeks Watershed Management Plan: the Four Township Watershed Area. Accessed from
  21. Gomez-Velez JD, Harvey JW (2014) A hydrogeomorphic river network model predicts where and why hyporheic exchange is important in large basins. Geophys Res Lett 41:6403–6412. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hamilton SK (2015) Augusta Creek DOC concentrations from 1997-2015. Personal CommunicationGoogle Scholar
  23. Harvey JW, Fuller CC (1998) Effect of enhanced manganese oxidation in the hyporheic zone on basin-scale geochemical mass balance. Water Resour Res 34:623–636. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Harvey JW, Böhlke JK, Voytek MA, Scott D, Tobias CR (2013) Hyporheic zone denitrification: controls on effective reaction depth and contribution to whole-stream mass balance. Water Resour Res 49:6298–6316. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Helms JR, Stubbins A, Ritchie JD, Minor EC (2008) Absorption spectral slopes and slope ratios as indicators of molecular weight, source, and photobleaching of chromophoric dissolved organic matter. Limnol Oceanogr 53:955–969. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Helton AM, Wright MS, Bernhardt ES, Poole GC, Cory RM, Stanford JA (2015a) Dissolved organic carbon lability increases with water residence time in the alluvial aquifer of a river-floodplain ecosystem. J Geophys Res Biogeosci 120:693–706. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Helton AM, Ardón M, Bernhardt ES (2015b) Thermodynamic constraints on the utility of ecological stoichiometry for explaining global biogeochemical patterns. Ecol Lett 18:1049–1056. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. KBS-LTER, Dataset KBS002 (2017) Annual Temperature and Precipitation, Data Table KBS002-008.61. Accessed on 7 Mar 2017. Permission to use data granted from lead investigator, Phil RobertsonGoogle Scholar
  29. Kiel BA, Cardenas MB (2014) Lateral hyporheic exchange throughout the Mississippi River network. Nat Geosci 7:413–417. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. King RH (1978) Natural history and ecology of the stictochironomous annulicrus (townes) (diptera:chrionomidae), Augusta Creek, Kalamazoo County, Michigan. Dissertation, Michigan State UniversityGoogle Scholar
  31. Krause S, Tecklenburg C, Munz M, Naden E (2013) Streambed nitrogen cycling beyond the hyporheic zone: flow controls on horizontal patterns and depth distribution of nitrate and dissolved oxygen in the upwelling groundwater of a lowland river. J Geophys Res Biogeosci 118:54–67. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Krause S et al (2017) Ecohydrological interfaces as hot spots of ecosystem processes. Water Resour Res 53:6359–6376. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lewandowski J, Angermann L, Nützmann G, Fleckenstein JH (2011) A heat pulse technique for the determination of small-scale flow directions and flow velocities in the streambed of sand-bed streams. Hydrol Process 25:3244–3255. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mahan DC, Cummins KW (1974) A profile of Augusta Creek in Kalamazoo and Barry Counties, Michigan. Tech Rep No. 3. W.K. Kellogg Biological Station, Michigan State UniversityGoogle Scholar
  35. Mann PJ, Davydova A, Zimov N, Spencer RGM, Davydov S, Bulygina E, Zimov S, Holmes RM (2012) Controls on the composition and lability of dissolved organic matter in Siberia’s Kolyma River basin. J Geophys Res Biogeosci 117:1–15. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Manny BA, Wetzel RG (1973) Diurnal changes in dissolved organic and inorganic carbon and nitrogen in a hardwater stream. Freshw Biol 3:31–43. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. McClain ME, Boyer EW, Dent CL, Gergel SE, Grimm NB, Groffman PM, Hart SC, Harvey JW, Johnston CA, Mayorga E, McDowell WH, Pinay G (2003) Biogeochemical hot spots and hot moments at the interface of terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. Ecosystems 6(4):301–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. McKnight DM, Boyer EW, Westerhoff PK, Doran PT, Kulbe T, Andersen DT (2001) Spectrofluorometric characterization of dissolved organic matter for indication of precursor organic material and aromaticity. Limnol Oceanogr 46:38–48. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. NCDC, National Climate Data Center (2013) Summary of monthly normal 1981–2010. Gull Lake Biology Station, Michigan, USA. Accessed January 17, 2013 at
  40. Peters NE, Ratcliffe EB (1998) Tracing hydrologic pathways using chloride at the Panola Mountain Research Watershed, Georgia, USA. Water Air Soil Pollut 105:263–275. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Pinder GF, Jones JF (1969) Determination of the ground-water component of peak discharge from the chemistry of total runoff. Water Resour Res 5:438–445. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Poff NL, Allan JD, Bain MB, Karr JR, Prestegaard KL, Richter BD, Sparks RE, Stromberg JC (1997) The natural flow regime: a paradigm for river conservation and restoration. Bioscience 47:69–784. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Potter B, Wimsatt J (2003) US EPA Method 415.3—determination of TOC and SUVA at 254 nm in Source Water and Drinking Water. National Exposure Research Laboratory, Office of Research and Development, US EPA, Cincinnati, OhioGoogle Scholar
  44. Raymond PA, Saiers JE, Sobczak WV (2016) Hydrological and biogeochemical controls on watershed dissolved organic matter transport: pulse-shunt concept. Ecology 97:5–16. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Ruhala SS (2016) Understanding the role of the stream–groundwater interface in dissolved organic carbon cycling in a third-order, lowland river network (Thesis), Michigan State UniversityGoogle Scholar
  46. Ruhala SS, Zarnetske JP (2017) Using in situ optical sensors to study dissolved organic carbon dynamics of streams and watersheds: a review. Science of the Total Environment 575(Supplement C):713–723CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Schindler JE, Krabbenhoft DP (1998) The hyporheic zone as a source of dissolved organic carbon and carbon gases to a temperate forested stream. Biogeochemistry 43:157–174. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Sobczak WV, Findlay S (2002) Variation in bioavailability of dissolved organic carbon among stream hyporheic flowpaths. Ecology 83:3194–3209. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Stelzer RS, Scott JT, Bartsch LA (2015) Buried particulate organic carbon stimulates denitrification and nitrate retention in stream sediments at the groundwater-surface water interface. Freshw Sci 34:161–171. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Storey RG, Fulthorpe RR, Williams DD (1999) Perspectives and predictions on the microbial ecology of the hyporheic zone. Freshw Biol 41:119–130. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Strahler AN (1957) Quantitative analysis of watershed geomorphology. Trans Am Geophys Union 38:913–920CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. USGS, United States Geological Survey (2017) National Water Information System data available on the World Wide Web (USGS Water Data for the Nation). Accessed March 7, 2017 at
  53. Url S, Hart DD (2012) International association for ecology community organization in streams: the importance of species interactions. Oecologia 91:220–228. Google Scholar
  54. Vannote RL, Minshall WG, Cummins KW, Sedell JR, Cushing CE (1980) The river continuum concept. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 37:130–137. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Ward AS, Payn RA, Gooseff MN, McGlynn BL, Bencala KE, Kelleher CA, Wondzell SM, Wagener T (2013) Variations in surface water-groundwater interactions along a headwater mountain stream: comparisons between transient storage and water balance analyses. Water Resour Res 49:3359–3374. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Weishaar JL, Aiken GR, Bergamaschi BA, Fram MS, Fujii R, Mopper K (2003) Evaluation of specific ultra-violet absorbance as an indicator of the chemical composition and reactivity of dissolved organic carbon. Environ Sci Technol 37:4702–4708. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Zarnetske JP, Haggerty R, Wondzell SM, Baker MA (2011a) Dynamics of nitrate production and removal as a function of residence time in the hyporheic zone. J Geophys Res 116:G01025. Google Scholar
  58. Zarnetske JP, Haggerty R, Wondzell SM, Baker MA (2011b) Labile dissolved organic carbon supply limits hyporheic denitrification. J Geophys Res Biogeosci. Google Scholar
  59. Zarnetske JP, Haggerty R, Wondzell SM, Bokil V, González-Pinzón R (2012) Coupled transport and reaction kinetics control the nitrate source-sink function of hyporheic zones. Water Resour Res 48:W11508. Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sydney S. Ruhala
    • 1
  • Jay P. Zarnetske
    • 1
  • David T. Long
    • 1
  • Joseph A. Lee-Cullin
    • 1
  • Stephen Plont
    • 1
  • Evan R. Wiewiora
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Earth and Environmental SciencesMichigan State UniversityEast LansingUSA

Personalised recommendations