A watershed-scale model for depressional wetland-rich landscapes

Evenson, Grey R.; Jones, C. Nathan; McLaughlin, Daniel L.; Golden, Heather E.; Lane, Charles R.; DeVries, Ben; Alexander, Laurie C.; Lang, Megan W.; McCarty, Gregory W.; Sharifi, Amir

doi:10.1016/j.hydroa.2018.10.002

Cited by 40 publications

(41 citation statements)

References 53 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Empirical methods that accurately quantify hydrologic exchange and connectivity are thus critically important (Spence, ; Phillips et al, ; Bracken et al, ), particularly in low‐relief, depressional landscapes with complex mosaics of water storage and conveyance. In these wetlandscapes, the primary mode of connectivity may be surface (e.g., Prairie Pothole region, west coast vernal pools; Leibowitz & Vining, ; Rains et al, ), subsurface (e.g., Nebraska sandhills; Winter, ), or a time‐varying combination of both (e.g., Delmarva peninsula; Evenson, Jones, et al, ). However, tools for quantifying these hydrologic exchange dynamics are frustratingly limited, but nonetheless crucial for understanding how wetlands impact hydrologic, biogeochemical, and biological functions (Cohen et al, ; Leibowitz, ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The importance of wetland hydrologic exchange to landscape functions and relevant policy considerations has motivated field‐based and modeling methods to quantify fluxes and watershed‐scale outcomes (see Golden et al, ). Recent advances in distributed hydrologic modeling offer an exciting frontier for assessing the aggregate role of depressional wetlands in cumulative watershed processes (e.g., Ameli & Creed, ; Evenson, Golden, et al, ; Evenson, Jones, et al, ). Despite their promising trajectory, these models still require empirical observations for validation, to inform process representation and, more importantly, to develop and refine mechanistic understanding of processes and dynamics.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Wetland Connectivity Thresholds and Flow Dynamics From Stage Measurements

McLaughlin

Diamond

Quintero

et al. 2019

Water Resources Research

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Depressional wetlands are dominant features in many low‐gradient landscapes, where they provide water storage and exchange. Typical basin morphology enables water storage during drier periods, when surface flow paths are disconnected and exchange is limited to slower groundwater flow paths. Under wetter conditions, wetland stage can exceed surface connection thresholds, activating surface flow paths to downstream waters. Empirical methods are needed to quantify these dynamics and thus to assess their role in landscape hydrology and associated functions. We developed a new water budget‐based approach to enumerate connectivity thresholds and flows from stage measurements. We propose that this approach, termed Connectivity and Flow from Stage (CFS), has broad applicability across wetlandscapes. We applied the CFS method in the Big Cypress National Preserve, where we hypothesized that surface connectivity episodes control water and solute flux, with consequences for exported carbonate weathering products and thus for karst landform evolution. Across five study wetlands, this analysis detected surface connectivity thresholds and assessed temporal flow dynamics. Imputed connectivity thresholds were clear from stage‐dependent net flow dynamics and aligned well with LiDAR‐derived thresholds. Water export occurred overwhelmingly when stage exceeded these thresholds, indicating that water and solute export from these wetlands is dominated by periods of enhanced landscape connectivity. Notably, the presented CFS method can quantify wetland connectivity thresholds from stage data, even without supporting geomorphic information. This approach is useful for understanding hydrologic controls on biogeomorphic evolution in this particular karst landscape, and more broadly for inferring wetland connectivity patterns and magnitudes in other wetlandscape settings.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Wetland Connectivity Thresholds and Flow Dynamics From Stage Measurements

McLaughlin

Diamond

Quintero

et al. 2019

Water Resources Research

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For example, many hydrologic models often represent multiple wetlands as a single control volume, omitting potentially important factors such as cumulative wetland shore line length (but see Cheng and Basu ), horizontal fluxes between wetlands and adjacent upland (but see McLaughlin and Cohen ; Evenson et al. ), and spill–fill hydrology (but see Evenson et al. ; Hayashi et al.…”

Section: Representing Wetland Connectivity In Process‐based Modelingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…), but can fail to accurately represent wetland water storages and fluxes and thus the role of NFWs in watershed hydrology (e.g., inundation patterns) and downstream flows (Evenson et al. ). We suggest keeping abreast of the continually improving validation and calibration literature, and becoming part of it: be creative, and share your results!…”

Section: Best Practices For Modeling Wetland Connectivitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Examples of nontraditional, but potentially useful sources of calibration/validation data for wetland connectivity simulations include distributed hydrometric data (e.g., Ameli and Creed ) and remotely sensed inundation data (e.g., Evenson et al. ). Others that could be used in wetland connectivity simulations include daily evapotranspiration estimates (e.g., Herman et al.…”

Section: Best Practices For Modeling Wetland Connectivitymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Modeling Connectivity of Non‐floodplain Wetlands: Insights, Approaches, and Recommendations

Jones

Ameli

Neff

et al. 2019

J American Water Resour Assoc

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Representing hydrologic connectivity of non‐floodplain wetlands (NFWs) to downstream waters in process‐based models is an emerging challenge relevant to many research, regulatory, and management activities. We review four case studies that utilize process‐based models developed to simulate NFW hydrology. Models range from a simple, lumped parameter model to a highly complex, fully distributed model. Across case studies, we highlight appropriate application of each model, emphasizing spatial scale, computational demands, process representation, and model limitations. We end with a synthesis of recommended “best modeling practices” to guide model application. These recommendations include: (1) clearly articulate modeling objectives, and revisit and adjust those objectives regularly; (2) develop a conceptualization of NFW connectivity using qualitative observations, empirical data, and process‐based modeling; (3) select a model to represent NFW connectivity by balancing both modeling objectives and available resources; (4) use innovative techniques and data sources to validate and calibrate NFW connectivity simulations; and (5) clearly articulate the limits of the resulting NFW connectivity representation. Our review and synthesis of these case studies highlights modeling approaches that incorporate NFW connectivity, demonstrates tradeoffs in model selection, and ultimately provides actionable guidance for future model application and development.

show abstract