Abstract. The complex interactions of runoff generation processes underlying the hydrological response of streams remain not entirely understood at the catchment scale. Extensive research has demonstrated the utility of tracers for both inferring flow path distributions and constraining model parameterizations. While useful, the common use of linearity assumptions, i.e. time invariance and complete mixing, in these studies provides only partial understanding of actual process dynamics. Here we use long-term (< 20 yr) precipitation, flow and tracer (chloride) data of three contrasting upland catchments in the Scottish Highlands to inform integrated conceptual models investigating different mixing assumptions. Using the models as diagnostic tools in a functional comparison, water and tracer fluxes were then tracked with the objective of exploring the differences between different water age distributions, such as flux and resident water age distributions, and characterizing the contrasting water age pattern of the dominant hydrological processes in the three study catchments to establish an improved understanding of the wetness-dependent temporal dynamics of these distributions.The results highlight the potential importance of partial mixing processes which can be dependent on the hydrological functioning of a catchment. Further, tracking tracer fluxes showed that the various components of a model can be characterized by fundamentally different water age distributions which may be highly sensitive to catchment wetness history, available storage, mixing mechanisms, flow path connectivity and the relative importance of the different hydrological processes involved. Flux tracking also revealed that, although negligible for simulating the runoff response, the omission of processes such as interception evaporation can result in considerably biased water age distributions. Finally, the modeling indicated that water age distributions in the three study catchments do have long, power-law tails, which are generated by the interplay of flow path connectivity, the relative importance of different flow paths as well as by the mixing mechanisms involved. In general this study highlights the potential of customized integrated conceptual models, based on multiple mixing assumptions, to infer system internal transport dynamics and their sensitivity to catchment wetness states.

We examined the storage dynamics and isotopic composition of soil water over 12 months in three hydropedological units in order to understand runoff generation in a montane catchment. The units form classic catena sequences from freely draining podzols on steep upper hillslopes through peaty gleys in shallower lower slopes to deeper peats in the riparian zone. The peaty gleys and peats remained saturated throughout the year, while the podzols showed distinct wetting and drying cycles. In this region, most precipitation events are <10 mm in magnitude, and storm runoff is mainly generated from the peats and peaty gleys, with runoff coefficients (RCs) typically <10%. In larger events the podzolic soils become strongly connected to the saturated areas, and RCs can exceed 40%. Isotopic variations in precipitation are significantly damped in the organic-rich soil surface horizons due to mixing with larger volumes of stored water. This damping is accentuated in the deeper soil profile and groundwater. Consequently, the isotopic composition of stream water is also damped, but the dynamics strongly reflect those of the near-surface waters in the riparian peats. “pre-event” water typically accounts for >80% of flow, even in large events, reflecting the displacement of water from the riparian soils that has been stored in the catchment for >2 years. These riparian areas are the key zone where different source waters mix. Our study is novel in showing that they act as “isostats,” not only regulating the isotopic composition of stream water, but also integrating the transit time distribution for the catchment.Key PointsHillslope connectivity is controlled by small storage changes in soil unitsDifferent catchment source waters mix in large riparian wetland storageIsotopes show riparian wetlands set the catchment transit time distribution

Despite an increasing number of empirical investigations of catchment transit times (TTs), virtually all are based on individual catchments and there are few attempts to synthesize understanding across different geographical regions. Uniquely, this paper examines data from 55 catchments in five geomorphic provinces in northern temperate regions (Scotland, United States of America and Sweden). The objective is to understand how the role of catchment topography as a control on the TTs differs in contrasting geographical settings. Catchment inverse transit time proxies (ITTPs) were inferred by a simple metric of isotopic tracer damping, using the ratio of standard deviation of d 18 O in streamwater to the standard deviation of d 18 O in precipitation. Quantitative landscape analysis was undertaken to characterize the catchments according to hydrologically relevant topographic indices that could be readily determined from a digital terrain model (DTM). The nature of topographic controls on transit times varied markedly in different geomorphic regions. In steeper montane regions, there are stronger gravitational influences on hydraulic gradients and TTs tend to be lower in the steepest catchments. In provinces where terrain is more subdued, direct topographic control weakened; in particular, where flatter areas with less permeable soils give rise to overland flow and lower TTs. The steeper slopes within this flatter terrain appear to have a greater coverage of freely draining soils, which increase sub-surface flow, therefore increasing TTs. Quantitative landscape analysis proved a useful tool for intercatchment comparison. However, the critical influence of sub-surface permeability and connectivity may limit the transferability of predictive tools of hydrological function based on topographic parameters alone.

No abstract

IntroductionThe time water spends travelling subsurface through a catchment to the stream network (i.e. the catchment water transit time) fundamentally describes the storage, flow pathway heterogeneity and sources of water in a catchment. The distribution of transit times reflects how catchments retain and release water and solutes that in turn set biogeochemical conditions and affect contamination release or persistence. Thus, quantifying the transit time distribution provides an important constraint on biogeochemical processes and catchment sensitivity to anthropogenic inputs, contamination and land-use change. Although the assumptions and limitations of past and present transit time modelling approaches have been recently reviewed (McGuire and McDonnell, 2006), there remain many fundamental research challenges for understanding how transit time can be used to quantify catchment flow processes and aid in the development and testing of rainfall-runoff models. In this Commentary study, we summarize what we think are the open research questions in transit time research. These thoughts come from a 3-day workshop in January 2009 at the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna. We attempt to lay out a roadmap for this work for the hydrological community over the next 10 years. We do this by first defining what we mean (qualitatively and quantitatively) by transit time and then organize our vision around needs in transit time theory, needs in field studies of transit time and needs in rainfall-runoff modelling. Our goal in presenting this material is to encourage widespread use of transit time information in process studies to provide new insights to catchment function and to inform the structural development and testing of hydrologic models. What is transit time?The terminology on time concepts associated with water movement through catchments can be confusing and a barrier to its use. Water transit time through the system can be defined as:where t w is the elapsed time from the input of water through a system input boundary at time t in to the output of that water through a system output boundary at time t out . In a catchment, the land surface and the catchment outlet may be considered as the main input and output boundaries for most of the water flow through the catchment (Figure 1). However, the land surface constitutes both a water input boundary and an output boundary for water that experiences evapotranspiration (ET). Considering also the subsurface depth dimension of a catchment, groundwater flow into and out of the catchment system is determined by prevailing groundwater divides and hydraulic gradients, which may vary in time and space and differ from the topographically determined catchment boundaries. For general transient flow conditions, water may thus flow into and out from the catchment system through different boundaries that are not all fixed in time and space. By analogy to the water transit time definition and quantification in Equation (1), one can similarly define and quantify the mean age o...