Abstract
We propose a method for distinguishing return flow from streamflow time series in rivers located in urban and industrial watersheds. The trend analysis is conducted using the Mann–Kendall method, while streamflow time series are divided into pre- and post-change sets using the Mann–Whitney change point method. The Two-Parameter Filtering (TPF) is utilized to separate baseflow before determining the return flow. By employing modified Local Minimum Flow (LMF) method, the TPF results are decomposed into groundwater baseflow and return flow. The LMF method was adjusted by modifying the time interval based on low flow during the dry season. To validate the calculated subsurface flow and runoff, the physical method is verified using the Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT). After calibrating the model for the pre-change period, modeling is conducted for the entire streamflow time series. This method is applied to industrial land that has proliferated over the past two decades upstream of the Ergene River Basin in the European part of Türkiye. The proposed method estimates return flows with satisfactory accuracy and reliability, representing more than half of the baseflow. Since 1990, the return flow has increased from 5 to 38 percent of river streamflow. The research demonstrates that conventional filtering methods could not reliably separate the baseflow of human-induced rivers. A reanalysis is necessary to determine the actual groundwater baseflow and return flow based on the results obtained from these methods.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Abbaspour KC, Rouholahnejad E, Vaghefi SR, Srinivasan R, Yang H, Kløve B (2015) A continental-scale hydrology and water quality model for Europe: calibration and uncertainty of a high-resolution large-scale SWAT model. J Hydrol 524:733–752. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2015.03.027
Ardekani AA, Sabzevari T, Haghighi AT, Petroselli A (2021) Separation of surface flow from subsurface flow in catchments using runoff coefficient. Acta Geophys 69(6):2363–2376. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11600-021-00667-6
Arnold JG, Allen PM, Muttiah R, Bernhardt G (1995) Automated base flow separation and recession analysis techniques. Groundwater 33(6):1010–1018. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6584. (1995.tb00046.x)
Boughton W (1988) Partitioning streamflow by computer. Transactions of the Institution of Engineers, Australia. Civil Eng 30(5):285–291
Boussinesq J (1904) Recherches théoriques sur l'écoulement des nappes d'eau infiltrées dans le sol et sur le débit des sources. Journal de Mathématiques Pures et Appliquées 10: 5–78. http://eudml.org/doc/235283
Burn DH, Elnur MAH (2002) Detection of hydrologic trends and variability. J Hydrol 255(1–4):107–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1694(01)00514-5
Chang B, He K, Li R, Wang H, Wen J (2018) Trends abrupt changes, and periodicity of streamflow in Qinghai Province, the Northeastern Tibetan Plateau, China. Polish J Environ Stud. https://doi.org/10.15244/pjoes/76037
Chapman T (1999) A comparison of algorithms for stream flow recession and baseflow separation. Hydrol Process 13(5):701–714. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1085(19990415)13:5<701::AID-HYP774>3.0.CO;2-2
Chen H, Teegavarapu RS (2019) Comparative analysis of four baseflow separation methods in the south Atlantic-Gulf Region of the US. Water 12(1):120. https://doi.org/10.3390/w12010120
Davie T (2019) Fundamentals of hydrology. Routledge, Oxfordshire. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203798942
De Girolamo AM, Porto AL, Pappagallo G, Gallart F (2015) Assessing flow regime alterations in a temporary river–the river Celone case study. J Hydrol Hydromech 63(3):263–272. https://doi.org/10.1515/johh-2015-0027
Duncan HP (2019) Baseflow separation—a practical approach. J Hydrol 575:308–313. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2019.05.040
Eckhardt K (2005) How to construct recursive digital filters for baseflow separation. Hydrol Process 19(2):507–515
Eckhardt K (2008) A comparison of baseflow indices, which were calculated with seven different baseflow separation methods. J Hydrol 352(1–2):168–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2008.01.005
Furey PR, Gupta VK (2001) A physically based filter for separating base flow from streamflow time series. Water Resour Res 37(11):2709–2722. https://doi.org/10.1029/2001WR000243
Gosain AK, Rao S, Srinivasan R, Reddy NG (2005) Return-flow assessment for irrigation command in the Palleru River basin using SWAT model. Hydrol Process Int J 19(3):673–682. https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.5622
Gurjar SK, Shrivastava S, Suryavanshi S, Tare V (2022) Assessment of the natural flow regime and its variability in a tributary of Ganga River: impact of land use and land cover change. Environ Dev 44:100756. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envdev.2022.100756
Hamdhani H, Eppehimer DE, Bogan MT (2020) Release of treated effluent into streams: a global review of ecological impacts with a consideration of its potential use for environmental flows. Freshw Biol 65(9):1657–1670. https://doi.org/10.1111/fwb.13519
Huang XD, Shi ZH, Fang NF, Li X (2016) Influences of land use change on baseflow in mountainous watersheds. Forests 7(1):16. https://doi.org/10.3390/f7010016
Kim TJ (2015) Generation of daily naturalized flow at ungagged control points. J Water Supply Res Technol—AQUA 64(3):354–364. https://doi.org/10.2166/aqua.2015.096
Kissel M, Schmalz B (2020) Comparison of baseflow separation methods in the German low mountain range. Water 12(6):1740. https://doi.org/10.3390/w12061740
Lee J, Kim J, Jang WS, Lim KJ, Engel BA (2018) Assessment of baseflow estimates considering recession characteristics in SWAT. Water 10(4):371. https://doi.org/10.3390/w10040371
McMahon TA, Nathan RJ (2021) Baseflow and transmission loss: a review. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Water 8(4):1527. https://doi.org/10.1002/wat2.1527
Nathan RJ, McMahon TA (1990) Evaluation of automated techniques for base flow and recession analyses. Water Resour Res 26(7):1465–1473. https://doi.org/10.1029/WR026i007p01465
Neitsch SL, Jeffrey GA, Jim RK, Jimmy RW (2011) Soil and water assessment tool theoretical documentation version 2009. Texas Water Resources Institute
Partington D, Brunner P, Simmons CT, Werner AD, Therrien R, Maier HR, Dandy GC (2012) Evaluation of outputs from automated baseflow separation methods against simulated baseflow from a physically based, surface water-groundwater flow model. J Hydrol 458:28–39
Pettitt AN (1979) A non-parametric approach to the change-point problem. J R Stat Soc Ser C (appl Stat) 28(2):126–135. https://doi.org/10.2307/2346729
Pfannerstill M, Bieger K, Guse B, Bosch DD, Fohrer N, Arnold JG (2017) How to constrain multi-objective calibrations of the SWAT model using water balance components. JAWRA J Am Water Resour Assoc 53(3):532–546. https://doi.org/10.1111/1752-1688.12524
Price K (2011) Effects of watershed topography, soils, land use, and climate on baseflow hydrology in humid regions: a review. Prog Phys Geogr 35(4):465–492. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309133311402714
Rolls RJ, Bond NR (2017) Environmental and ecological effects of flow alteration in surface water ecosystems. Water for the Environment. Academic Press, Cambridge, pp 65–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-803907-6.00004-8
Schuol J, Abbaspour KC, Srinivasan R, Yang H (2008) Estimation of freshwater availability in the West African sub-continent using the SWAT hydrologic model. J Hydrol 352(1–2):30–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2007.12.025
Sen PK (1968) Estimates of the regression coefficient based on Kendall’s tau. J Am Stat Assoc 63(324):1379–1389
Sheng Hu, Yang Dongdong Wu, Jiang GY, Haijun Q, Mingming C, Honglin W (2017) Research on the patio-temporal variation characteristics of base flow in the Bahe River Basin based on digital filtering method and SWAT model. Geograph Sci 37(3):455–463
Singh L, Saravanan S (2020) Simulation of monthly streamflow using the SWAT model of the Ib River watershed, India. HydroResearch 3:95–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hydres.2020.09.001
Sloto RA, Crouse MY (1996) HYSEP: a computer program for streamflow hydrograph separation and analysis. Water-Resour Investig Rep 96:4040
Smakhtin VU (2001) Low flow hydrology: a review. J Hydrol 240(3–4):147–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1694(00)00340-1
Stewardson MJ, Acreman M, Costelloe JF, Fletcher TD, Fowler KJ, Horne AC, Peel MC (2017) Understanding hydrological alteration. Water for the environment. Academic Press, Cambridge, pp 37–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-803907-6.00003-6
Tallaksen LM (1995) A review of baseflow recession analysis. J Hydrol 165(1–4):349–370. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1694(94)02540-R
Teegavarapu RS (2019) Changes and trends in precipitation extremes and characteristics: links to climate variability and change. Trends and changes in hydroclimatic variables. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 91–148
Terrier M, Perrin C, De Lavenne A, Andréassian V, Lerat J, Vaze J (2021) Streamflow naturalization methods: a review. Hydrol Sci J 66(1):12–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/02626667.2020.1839080
World Meteorological Organization (2008) Manual on low-flow estimation and prediction. World meteorological organization
Wurbs RA (2006) Methods for developing naturalized monthly flows at gaged and ungagged sites. J Hydrol Eng 11(1):55–64. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1084-0699(2006)11:1(55)
Xie J, Liu X, Wang K, Yang T, Liang K, Liu C (2020) Evaluation of typical methods for baseflow separation in the contiguous United States. J Hydrol 583:124628. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2020.124628
Zhang YK, Schilling KE (2006) Increasing streamflow and baseflow in Mississippi River since the 1940 s: effect of land use change. J Hydrol 324(1–4):412–422. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2005.09.033
Zhang J, Zhang Y, Song J, Cheng L (2017) Evaluating relative merits of four baseflow separation methods in Eastern Australia. J Hydrol 549:252–263. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2017.04.004
Acknowledgements
This work acknowledges the support from the Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey (TÜBİTAK), Project No: 115Y008 and Yildiz Technical University through the research project number 2015_05_01-KAP04.
Funding
This work was funded by Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey (TÜBİTAK) (Grant No. 2015_05_01-KAP04).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
Mohsen Mahmoody Vanolya wrote the main manuscript text and prepared the figures and Tables. Hayrullah Ağaçcıoğlu reviewed the manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest regarding the publication of this research.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Mahmoody Vanolya, M., Ağaçcıoğlu, H. Assessing the return flow in human-induced rivers using data-driven and hydrologic models case study: Ergene River Basin. Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess 37, 4679–4693 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00477-023-02525-x
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00477-023-02525-x