, Volume 32, Issue 5, pp 963–974

Annual Water Budgets for a Seasonally Inundated Sinkhole Wetland


DOI: 10.1007/s13157-012-0331-7

Cite this article as:
Hill, A.J. & Neary, V.S. Wetlands (2012) 32: 963. doi:10.1007/s13157-012-0331-7


Annual water budgets spanning 2 years, 2004 and 2005, are constructed for a sinkhole wetland in the Tennessee Highland Rim following conversion of 13 % of the watershed area to impervious surfaces. Surface runoff was the dominant input, with a contribution of 56.4 % of the total. An average of 18.9 % of gross precipitation was intercepted by the canopy and evaporated. Deep recharge varied from 55.5 % (2004) to 52.2 % (2005) of total outflow. Evapotranspiration accounted for 46.2 % of the total losses, with an average of 50.3 % lost from soil profile storage. The annual water budgets indicate that deep recharge is a significant hydrologic function performed by isolated sinkhole wetlands, or karst pans, on the Tennessee Highland Rim. Continued hydrologic monitoring of sinkhole wetlands are needed to evaluate hydrologic function and response to anthropogenic impacts. The regression technique developed to estimate surface runoff entering the wetland is shown to provide reasonable annual runoff estimates, but further testing is needed.


Wetland hydrology Evapotranspiration Water budget 

Supplementary material

13157_2012_331_MOESM1_ESM.doc (66 kb)
ESM 1Top elevation, installation depth, ground elevation, and screened aquifer for 11 monitoring wells shown in Fig. 2. Note: Lowest elevation in wetland = 29.212 m. (DOC 66 kb)
13157_2012_331_MOESM2_ESM.doc (113 kb)
ESM 2Measured monthly gross precipitation, throughfall, and canopy interception from May 2004-December 2005: (a) Interception as a % of gross precipitation; error bars indicate one standard error and (b) Gross precipitation and throughfall totals. (DOC 113 kb)
13157_2012_331_MOESM3_ESM.doc (138 kb)
ESM 3Measured minimum and maximum temperatures and solar radiation and reference evapotranspiration (ETo) calculated with the FAO Penman-Monteith equation from 2004 to 2005. (DOC 137 kb)
13157_2012_331_MOESM4_ESM.doc (266 kb)
ESM 4Assumed temporal distribution of crop coefficient (kc) used to calculate potential ET from reference evapotranspiration estimates (ETo). Independent estimates of kc calculated from data reported by Hill and Neary (2007) are shown for comparison. (DOC 266 kb)
13157_2012_331_MOESM5_ESM.doc (270 kb)
ESM 5Comparison of ET estimates calculated with the Penman-Monteith equation to independent estimates reported by Hill and Neary (2007). (DOC 270 kb)
13157_2012_331_MOESM6_ESM.doc (116 kb)
ESM 6Comparison of surface water (SW, solid line) elevations to water level elevations in monitoring wells during the reemergence of ponded conditions in September of 2004. (DOC 115 kb)
13157_2012_331_MOESM7_ESM.doc (170 kb)
ESM 7Comparison of surface waer (SW, solid line) elevations to water level elevations in monitoring wells for 7 months in 2005. (DOC 169 kb)
13157_2012_331_MOESM8_ESM.doc (68 kb)
ESM 8Relationship between wetland stage and hydraulic gradient for 5 wells. Refer to Fig. 2 for well locations. Stage values are measured at well WCW. Negative values of stage indicate the water table is below the ground surface. Negative values for hydraulic gradient indicate discharge conditions. (DOC 68 kb)

Copyright information

© Society of Wetland Scientists 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EngineeringUniversity of Southern IndianaEvansvilleUSA
  2. 2.Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Energy-Water-Ecosystems EngineeringEnvironmental Sciences DivisionOak RidgeUSA

Personalised recommendations