Although the seepage meter has been widely used in limnology, measurement errors are commonly ignored. These errors result in the need for meter correction factors due to flow field deflection and frictional resistance and head losses within the meter and prefilled bags to avoid short‐term influx of water caused by the pulling action of deformed bags. Tank‐test data indicate a ratio of measured to actual inseepage of 0.77 (at inseepage rates <20 mm h−1), with a ratio of meter to interstitial seepage flux of 0.50. Provided these precautions are observed and the adjustment factor is applied, field test “point estimates” of seepage inflow with replicate seepage meters generally have relative root‐mean‐square error(s) <20%. Data from measurements at single locations in tank tests indicate a constant bias and show that, once installed, the actual instrument error is even less (∼5%). These errors are small compared to spatial and temporal components of sampling error typically encountered in the field.

No abstract

No abstract

Data from a study on East Lake Tohopekaliga, Florida, indicate that the seepage meter measurement method may often overestimate nutrient contributions to lakes. Nutrient loading data from this method and a method employing lakeside piezometer nutrient data and seepage meter flows were not comparable. Seepage nutrient loading from the meter and piezometer methods comprised 39 and 18 percent of the nitrogen budget and 38 and 9 percent of the phosphorus budget, respectively, for East Lake Tohopekaliga. In terms of water, groundwater seepage accounted for only 14 percent of the total input to the lake. It is felt that some of the past studies using the seepage meter method to estimate nutrient loading may be in error due to reasons related to the enclosure of lake sediments by the meter and the accompanying anaerobic conditions which quickly result.

No abstract