Advertisement

Quantifying spatiotemporal variation in headwater stream length using flow intermittency sensors

  • Carrie K. JensenEmail author
  • Kevin J. McGuire
  • Daniel L. McLaughlin
  • Durelle T. Scott
Article

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Flow intermittency Hysteresis Stream length Temporary streams 

Notes

Acknowledgements

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

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.

Supplementary material

10661_2019_7373_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (160 kb)
ESM 1 (PDF 160 kb)

References

  1. Acuña, V., Datry, T., Marshall, J., Barceló, D., Dahm, C. N., Ginebreda, A., et al. (2014). Why should we care about temporary waterways? Science, 343(6175), 1080–1081.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adams, H. S., & Stephenson, S. L. (1983). A description of the vegetation on the south slopes of Peters Mountain, southwestern Virginia. Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club, 110(1), 18–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arismendi, I., Dunham, J. B., Heck, M. P., Schultz, L. D., & Hockman-Wert, D. (2017). A statistical method to predict flow permanence in dryland streams from time series of stream temperature. Water, 9(12), 946.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Arnborg, L., Walker, H. J., & Peippo, J. (1967). Suspended load in the Colville river, Alaska, 1962. Geografiska Annaler: Series A, Physical Geography, 49(2–4), 131–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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.
  6. Beven, K. J., & Kirkby, M. J. (1979). A physically based, variable contributing area model of basin hydrology. Hydrological Sciences Journal, 24(1), 43–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bhamjee, R., & Lindsay, J. B. (2011). Ephemeral stream sensor design using state loggers. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 15(3), 1009–1021.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bishop, K., Buffam, I., Erlandsson, M., Fölster, J., Laudon, H., Seibert, J., & Temnerud, J. (2008). Aqua Incognita: the unknown headwaters. Hydrological Processes, 22(8), 1239–1242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Blasch, K. W., Ferré, T., Christensen, A. H., & Hoffmann, J. P. (2002). New field method to determine streamflow timing using electrical resistance sensors. Vadose Zone Journal, 1(2), 289–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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.
  11. Blyth, K., & Rodda, J. C. (1973). A stream length study. Water Resources Research, 9(5), 1454–1461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Boulton, A. J., Findlay, S., Marmonier, P., Stanley, E. H., & Valett, H. M. (1998). The functional significance of the hyporheic zone in streams and rivers. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 29(1), 59–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Buttle, J. M., Boon, S., Peters, D. L., Spence, C., van Meerveld, H. J., & Whitfield, P. H. (2012). An overview of temporary stream hydrology in Canada. Canadian Water Resources Journal, 37(4), 279–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Calkins, D., & Dunne, T. (1970). A salt tracing method for measuring channel velocities in small mountain streams. Journal of Hydrology, 11(4), 379–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Camporese, M., Penna, D., Borga, M., & Paniconi, C. (2014). A field and modeling study of nonlinear storage-discharge dynamics for an Alpine headwater catchment. Water Resources Research, 50(2), 806–822.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Chapin, T. P., Todd, A. S., & Zeigler, M. P. (2014). Robust, low-cost data loggers for stream temperature, flow intermittency, and relative conductivity monitoring. Water Resources Research, 50(8), 6542–6548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Constantz, J., Stonestorm, D., Stewart, A. E., Niswonger, R., & Smith, T. R. (2001). Analysis of streambed temperatures in ephemeral channels to determine streamflow frequency and duration. Water Resources Research, 37(2), 317–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Creed, I. F., Lane, C. R., Serran, J. N., Alexander, L. C., Basu, N. B., Calhoun, A. J., et al. (2017). Enhancing protection for vulnerable waters. Nature Geoscience, 10(11), 809–815.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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
  20. Datry, T., Larned, S. T., & Tockner, K. (2014). Intermittent rivers: a challenge for freshwater ecology. BioScience, 64(3), 229–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Day, D. G. (1978). Drainage density changes during rainfall. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms, 3(3), 319–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Day, D. G. (1980). Lithologic controls of drainage density: a study of six small rural catchments in New England, NSW. Catena, 7(4), 339–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Downing, J. A., Cole, J. J., Duarte, C. M., Middelburg, J. J., Melack, J. M., Prairie, Y. T., et al. (2012). Global abundance and size distribution of streams and rivers. Inland Waters, 2(4), 229–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Elmore, A. J., Julian, J. P., Guinn, S. M., & Fitzpatrick, M. C. (2013). Potential stream density in mid-Atlantic US watersheds. PLoS One, 8(8), e74819.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Evans, C., & Davies, T. D. (1998). Causes of concentration/discharge hysteresis and its potential as a tool for analysis of episode hydrochemistry. Water Resources Research, 34(1), 129–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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
  27. Godsey, S. E., & Kirchner, J. W. (2014). Dynamic, discontinuous stream networks: hydrologically driven variations in active drainage density, flowing channels and stream order. Hydrological Processes, 28(23), 5791–5803.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. González-Ferreras, A. M., & Barquín, J. (2017). Mapping the temporary and perennial character of whole river networks. Water Resources Research, 53(8), 6709–6724.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 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
  30. Goulsbra, C., Evans, M., & Lindsay, J. (2014). Temporary streams in a peatland catchment: pattern, timing, and controls on stream network expansion and contraction. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms, 39(6), 790–803.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Gregory, K. J., & Walling, D. E. (1968). The variation of drainage density within a catchment. Hydrological Sciences Journal, 13(2), 61–68.Google Scholar
  32. Guisan, A., Weiss, S. B., & Weiss, A. D. (1999). GLM versus CCA spatial modeling of plant species distribution. Plant Ecology, 143(1), 107–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 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
  34. Haines, W. B. (1930). Studies in the physical properties of soil: V. The hysteresis effect in capillary properties, and the modes of moisture associated therewith. The Journal of Agricultural Science, 20(1), 97–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Haught, D. R. W., & Meerveld, H. J. (2011). Spatial variation in transient water table responses: differences between an upper and lower hillslope zone. Hydrological Processes, 25(25), 3866–3877.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hooshyar, M., Kim, S., Wang, D., & Medeiros, S. C. (2015). Wet channel network extraction by integrating LiDAR intensity and elevation data. Water Resources Research, 51(12), 10029–10046.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Jaeger, K. L., & Olden, J. D. (2012). Electrical resistance sensor arrays as a means to quantify longitudinal connectivity of rivers. River Research and Applications, 28(10), 1843–1852.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Jaeger, K. L., Montgomery, D. R., & Bolton, S. M. (2007). Channel and perennial flow initiation in headwater streams: management implications of variability in source-area size. Environmental Management, 40(5), 775.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Jaeger, K. L., Olden, J. D., & Pelland, N. A. (2014). Climate change poised to threaten hydrologic connectivity and endemic fishes in dryland streams. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(38), 13894–13899.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 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
  41. 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.
  42. Jensen, C. K., McGuire, K. J., & Prince, P. S. (2017). Headwater stream length dynamics across four physiographic provinces of the Appalachian Highlands. Hydrological Processes, 31(19), 3350–3363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Jensen, C. K., McGuire, K. J., Shao, Y., & Dolloff, C. A. (2018). Modeling headwater stream networks across multiple flow conditions in the Appalachian Highlands. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms, 43(13), 2762–2778.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Larned, S. T., Datry, T., Arscott, D. B., & Tockner, K. (2010). Emerging concepts in temporary- river ecology. Freshwater Biology, 55(4), 717–738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Lawler, D. M., Petts, G. E., Foster, I. D., & Harper, S. (2006). Turbidity dynamics during spring storm events in an urban headwater river system: the Upper Tame, West Midlands, UK. Science of the Total Environment, 360(1–3), 109–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 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.
  47. Morgan, R. P. C. (1972). Observations on factors affecting the behaviour of a first-order stream. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 56, 171–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Mosley, M. P. (1982). Subsurface flow velocities through selected forest soils, South Island, New Zealand. Journal of Hydrology, 55(1–4), 65–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Myrabø, S. (1997). Temporal and spatial scale of response area and groundwater variation in till. Hydrological Processes, 11(14), 1861–1880.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Nadeau, T. L., & Rains, M. C. (2007). Hydrological connectivity between headwater streams and downstream waters: how science can inform policy. Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 43(1), 118–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Nilsen, E. T. (1986). Quantitative phenology and leaf survivorship of Rhododendron maximum in contrasting irradiance environments of the southern Appalachian mountains. American Journal of Botany, 73(6), 822–831.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 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.
  53. Peirce, S. E., & Lindsay, J. B. (2015). Characterizing ephemeral streams in a southern Ontario watershed using electrical resistance sensors. Hydrological Processes, 29(1), 103–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Penna, D., Tromp-van Meerveld, H. J., Gobbi, A., Borga, M., & Dalla Fontana, G. (2011). The influence of soil moisture on threshold runoff generation processes in an alpine headwater catchment. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 15(3), 689–702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Płaczkowska, E., Górnik, M., Mocior, E., Peek, B., Potoniec, P., Rzonca, B., & Siwek, J. (2015). Spatial distribution of channel heads in the Polish Flysch Carpathians. Catena, 127, 240–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Prowse, C. W. (1984). Some thoughts on lag and hysteresis. Area, 16(1), 17–23.Google Scholar
  57. Roberts, M. C., & Archibold, O. W. (1978). Variation of drainage density in a small British Columbia watershed. Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 14(2), 470–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 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
  59. Roelens, J., Rosier, I., Dondeyne, S., Van Orshoven, J., & Diels, J. (2018). Extracting drainage networks and their connectivity using Lidar data. Hydrological Processes, 32, 1026–1037.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Roth, D. L., Finnegan, N. J., Brodsky, E. E., Cook, K. L., Stark, C. P., & Wang, H. W. (2014). Migration of a coarse fluvial sediment pulse detected by hysteresis in bedload generated seismic waves. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 404, 144–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Russell, P. P., Gale, S. M., Muñoz, B., Dorney, J. R., & Rubino, M. J. (2015). A spatially explicit model for mapping headwater streams. Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 51, 226–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 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
  63. 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.
  64. Shaw, S. B. (2016). Investigating the linkage between streamflow recession rates and channel network contraction in a mesoscale catchment in New York state. Hydrological Processes, 30(3), 479–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Siwek, J., Siwek, J. P., & Żelazny, M. (2013). Environmental and land use factors affecting phosphate hysteresis patterns of stream water during flood events (Carpathian Foothills, Poland). Hydrological Processes, 27(25), 3674–3684.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Skoulikidis, N. T., Sabater, S., Datry, T., Morais, M. M., Buffagni, A., Dörflinger, G., et al. (2017). Non-perennial Mediterranean rivers in Europe: status, pressures, and challenges for research and management. Science of the Total Environment, 577, 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Spence, C., & Mengistu, S. (2016). Deployment of an unmanned aerial system to assist in mapping an intermittent stream. Hydrological Processes, 30(3), 493–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Stanley, E. H., Fisher, S. G., & Grimm, N. B. (1997). Ecosystem expansion and contraction in streams. BioScience, 47(7), 427–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Steward, A. L., von Schiller, D., Tockner, K., Marshall, J. C., & Bunn, S. E. (2012). When the river runs dry: human and ecological values of dry riverbeds. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 10(4), 202–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Stubbington, R., England, J., Wood, P. J., & Sefton, C. E. (2017). Temporary streams in temperate zones: Recognizing, monitoring and restoring transitional aquatic-terrestrial ecosystems. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews Water, 4(4), e1223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. The Southeast Regional Climate Center (SERCC). (2012). Historical Climate Summaries for Virginia. http://www.sercc.com/climateinfo/historical/historical_va.html.
  72. 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
  73. Virginia Division of Mineral Resources. (1993). Geologic Map of Virginia, Scale 1:500,000. Virginia Division of Mineral Resources.Google Scholar
  74. 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
  75. Wang, L., & Liu, H. (2006). An efficient method for identifying and filling surface depressions in digital elevation models for hydrologic analysis and modelling. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 20, 193–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Ward, A. S., Schmadel, N. M., & Wondzell, S. M. (2018). Simulation of dynamic expansion, contraction, and connectivity in a mountain stream network. Advances in Water Resources, 114, 64–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Weill, S., Altissimo, M., Cassiani, G., Deiana, R., Marani, M., & Putti, M. (2013). Saturated area dynamics and streamflow generation from coupled surface–subsurface simulations and field observations. Advances in Water Resources, 59, 196–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Welter, J. R., & Fisher, S. G. (2016). The influence of storm characteristics on hydrological connectivity in intermittent channel networks: implications for nitrogen transport and denitrification. Freshwater Biology, 61(8), 1214–1227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Whiting, J. A., & Godsey, S. E. (2016). Discontinuous headwater stream networks with stable flowheads, Salmon River basin, Idaho. Hydrological Processes, 30(13), 2305–2316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Wigington, P. J., Moser, T. J., & Lindeman, D. R. (2005). Stream network expansion: a riparian water quality factor. Hydrological Processes, 19(8), 1715–1721.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Williams, C. E., & Johnson, W. C. (1990). Age structure and the maintenance of Pinus pungens in pine-oak forests of southwestern Virginia. American Midland Naturalist, 124(1), 130–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Wohl, E. (2017). The significance of small streams. Frontiers of Earth Science, 11(3), 447–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Zimmer, M. A., & McGlynn, B. L. (2017). Ephemeral and intermittent runoff generation processes in a low relief, highly weathered catchment. Water Resources Research, 53(8), 7055–7077.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Rashaad Bhamjee, John B. Lindsay, Jaclyn Cockburn, (2016). Monitoring ephemeral headwater streams: a paired-sensor approach. Hydrological Processes 30(6), 888-898.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Forest Resources and Environmental Conservation (MC 0324)Cheatham HallBlacksburgUSA
  2. 2.Virginia Water Resources Research Center (MC 0444)Cheatham Hall, STE 210, Virginia TechBlacksburgUSA
  3. 3.Department of Biological Systems Engineering (MC 0303)Seitz Hall, RM 202A, Virginia TechBlacksburgUSA

Personalised recommendations