Quantifying spatiotemporal variation in headwater stream length using flow intermittency sensors
Scientists and policymakers increasingly recognize that headwater regions contain numerous temporary streams that expand and contract in length, but accurately mapping and modeling dynamic stream networks remain a challenge. Flow intermittency sensors offer a relatively new approach to characterize wet stream length dynamics at high spatial and temporal resolutions. We installed 51 flow intermittency sensors at an average spacing of 40 m along the stream network of a high-relief, headwater catchment (33 ha) in the Valley and Ridge of southwest Virginia. The sensors recorded the presence or absence of water every 15 min for 10 months. Calculations of the wet network proportion from sensor data aligned with those from field measurements, confirming the efficacy of flow intermittency sensors. The fine temporal scale of the sensor data showed hysteresis in wet stream length: the wet network proportion was up to 50% greater on the rising limb of storm events than on the falling limb for dry antecedent conditions, at times with a delay of several hours between the maximum wet proportion and peak runoff at the catchment outlet. Less stream length hysteresis was evident for larger storms with higher event and antecedent precipitation that resulted in peak runoff > 15 mm/day. To assess spatial controls on stream wetting and drying, we performed a correlation analysis between flow duration at the sensor locations and common topographic metrics used in stream network modeling. Topography did not fully explain spatial variation in flow duration along the stream network. However, entrenched valleys had longer periods of flow on the rising limbs of events than unconfined reaches. In addition, large upslope contributing areas corresponded to higher flow duration on falling limbs. Future applications that explore the magnitude and drivers of stream length variability may provide further insights into solute and runoff generation processes in headwater regions.
KeywordsFlow intermittency Hysteresis Stream length Temporary streams
We thank Thomas Chapin for graciously explaining the sensor modification process; Tal Roberts for assistance with sensor modification; Gracie Erwin, Philip Prince, and Eryn Turney for help with field work; and one anonymous reviewer for helpful comments.
Funding for this study came from the Virginia Water Resources Research Center (VWRRC) 2015 Competitive Grant, Graduate Student Association Graduate Research Development Fund Award, and Cunningham Graduate Fellowship at Virginia Tech. Andy Dolloff was a co-author with Carrie Jensen for the VWRRC grant. We are grateful to the George Washington and Jefferson National Forest for their cooperation and participation in the project.
- Batlle-Aguilar, J., & Cook, P. G. (2012). Transient infiltration from ephemeral streams: a field experiment at the reach scale. Water Resources Research, 48(11), W11518. https://doi.org/10.1029/2012WR012009.
- Blasch, K. W., Ferré, T., Hoffmann, J. P., & Fleming, J. B. (2006). Relative contributions of transient and steady state infiltration during ephemeral streamflow. Water Resources Research, 42(8), W08405. https://doi.org/10.1029/2005WR004049.
- Creggar, W. H., Hudson, H. C., & Porter, H. C. (1985). Soil survey of Montgomery County, Virginia. U.S. Washington D.C: Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service 158 pp.Google Scholar
- Fritz, K. M., Hagenbuch, E., D’Amico, E., Reif, M., Wigington, P. J., Leibowitz, S. G., et al. (2013). Comparing the extent and permanence of headwater streams from two field surveys to values from hydrographic databases and maps. Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 49(4), 867–882.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Goulsbra, C. S., Lindsay, J. B., & Evans, M. G. (2009). A new approach to the application of electrical resistance sensors to measuring the onset of ephemeral streamflow in wetland environments. Water Resources Research, 45(9), W09501. https://doi.org/10.1029/2009WR007789
- Gregory, K. J., & Walling, D. E. (1968). The variation of drainage density within a catchment. Hydrological Sciences Journal, 13(2), 61–68.Google Scholar
- Gungle, B. (2006). Timing and duration of flow in ephemeral streams of the Sierra Vista subwatershed of the Upper San Pedro Basin, Cochise County, Southeastern Arizona. U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2005-5190. U.S. Department of the Interior.Google Scholar
- Jaeger, K. L., Sando, R., McShane, R. R., Dunham, J., Hockman-Wert, D., Kaiser, K. E., et al. (2018). Probability of Streamflow Permanence Model (PROSPER): A spatially continuous model of annual streamflow permanence throughout the Pacific northwest. Journal of Hydrology X, 100005. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hydroa.2018.100005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Jencso, K. G., McGlynn, B. L., Gooseff, M. N., Wondzell, S. M., Bencala, K. E., & Marshall, L. A. (2009). Hydrologic connectivity between landscapes and streams: transferring reach- and plot- scale understanding to the catchment scale. Water Resources Research, 45(4), W04428. https://doi.org/10.1029/2008WR007225.
- McGlynn, B. L., McDonnell, J. J., Seibert, J., & Kendall, C. (2004). Scale effects on headwater catchment runoff timing, flow sources, and groundwater-streamflow relations. Water Resources Research, 40(7), W07504. https://doi.org/10.1029/2003WR002494.
- Niswonger, R. G., Prudic, D. E., Fogg, G. E., Stonestrom, D. A., & Buckland, E. M. (2008). Method for estimating spatially variable seepage loss and hydraulic conductivity in intermittent and ephemeral streams. Water Resources Research, 44(5), W05418. https://doi.org/10.1029/2007WR006626.
- Prowse, C. W. (1984). Some thoughts on lag and hysteresis. Area, 16(1), 17–23.Google Scholar
- Roberts, M. C., & Klingeman, P. C. (1972). The relationship of drainage net fluctuation and discharge. Proceedings of the 22nd International Geographical Congress, Canada, 181–91.Google Scholar
- Schneider, A., Jost, A., Coulon, C., Silvestre, M., Théry, S., & Ducharne, A. (2017). Global-scale river network extraction based on high-resolution topography and constrained by lithology, climate, slope, and observed drainage density. Geophysical Research Letters, 44(6), 2773–2781.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Seibert, J., & McGlynn, B. L. (2007). A new triangular multiple flow direction algorithm for computing upslope areas from gridded digital elevation models. Water Resources Research, 43(4), W04501. https://doi.org/10.1029/2006WR005128.
- The Southeast Regional Climate Center (SERCC). (2012). Historical Climate Summaries for Virginia. http://www.sercc.com/climateinfo/historical/historical_va.html.
- Travis M. R., Elsner G. H., & Iverson W. D. (1975). VIEWIT: computation of seen areas, slope and aspect for land-use planning. U.S. Forest Service General Technical Report PSW-11. U.S. Department of Agriculture.Google Scholar
- Virginia Division of Mineral Resources. (1993). Geologic Map of Virginia, Scale 1:500,000. Virginia Division of Mineral Resources.Google Scholar
- von Schiller, D., Bernal, S., Dahm, C. N., & Martí, E. (2017). Nutrient and organic matter dynamics in intermittent rivers and ephemeral streams. In T. Datry, N. Bonada, & A. Boulton (Eds.), Intermittent Rivers and Ephemeral Streams (pp. 135–160). Elsevier Inc..Google Scholar
- Rashaad Bhamjee, John B. Lindsay, Jaclyn Cockburn, (2016). Monitoring ephemeral headwater streams: a paired-sensor approach. Hydrological Processes 30(6), 888-898.Google Scholar