Hydraulic and thermal effects of in‐stream structure‐induced hyporheic exchange across a range of hydraulic conductivities

Menichino, Garrett T.; Hester, Erich T.

doi:10.1002/2013wr014758

Cited by 34 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 74 publications

(139 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…At smaller spatial scales (e.g., millimeters to centimeters) and shorter time scales (e.g., milliseconds to seconds), turbulence, coherent flows, and non‐Darcy flow (Figure 1c) contribute to mixing in coarse sediments within a few grain diameters of the sediment‐water interface [ Nagaoka and Ohgaki , ; Packman et al ., ; Higashino and Stefan , ; Cardenas and Jiang , ; Menichino and Hester , ; Chandler et al ., ]. These processes, particularly ejection and sweep events near the bed, are enhanced by bed roughness elements of various sizes even in the absence of larger bed forms [ Boano et al ., ; Scalo et al ., ; Blois et al ., ].…”

Section: Processes That Contribute To Mixing In the Hyporheic Zone Amentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Riverbed features such as dunes, channel bars, and in‐stream structures create spatially concentrated areas of higher head gradient within the adjacent hyporheic zone ranging in spatial scale from centimeters to many meters [ Elliott and Brooks , ; Lautz et al ., ; Hester and Doyle , ; Crispell and Endreny , ; Endreny et al ., ] that do not occur in deeper groundwater. The greater spatial variability in head gradients in turn leads to greater curvature of hyporheic flow paths and therefore greater spatial variability in pore water velocities and residence times [ Elliott and Brooks , ; Cardenas , ; Cardenas et al ., ; Menichino and Hester , ]. These processes that increase the prevalence of water from two different sources (e.g., surface water and groundwater) in close proximity provides an additional mechanism for creation of steep concentration gradients of solutes in the hyporheic zone relative to deeper groundwater.…”

Section: Processes That Contribute To Mixing In the Hyporheic Zone Amentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The importance and challenge of hyporheic mixing

Hester

Cardenas

Haggerty

et al. 2017

Water Resources Research

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The hyporheic zone is the interface beneath and adjacent to streams and rivers where surface water and groundwater interact. The hyporheic zone presents unique conditions for reaction of solutes from both surface water and groundwater, including reactions which depend upon mixing of source waters. Some models assume that hyporheic zones are well‐mixed and conceptualize the hyporheic zone as a surface water‐groundwater mixing zone. But what are the controls on and effects of hyporheic mixing? What specific mechanisms cause the relatively large (>∼1 m) mixing zones suggested by subsurface solute measurements? In this commentary, we explore the various processes that might enhance mixing in the hyporheic zone relative to deeper groundwater, and pose the question whether the substantial mixing suggested by field studies may be due to the combination of fluctuating boundary conditions and multiscale physical and chemical spatial heterogeneity. We encourage investigation of hyporheic mixing using numerical modeling and laboratory experiments to ultimately inform field investigations.

show abstract

Section: Processes That Contribute To Mixing In the Hyporheic Zone Amentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Processes That Contribute To Mixing In the Hyporheic Zone Amentioning

confidence: 99%

The importance and challenge of hyporheic mixing

Hester

Cardenas

Haggerty

et al. 2017

Water Resources Research

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The only difference with Azinheira et al (2014) was that for summer baseflow we varied hydraulic conductivity up to K = 10 −3 m/s (rather than K = 10 −4 m/s) which is a relatively high but feasible streambed conductivity value (Calver, 2001;Menichino and Hester, 2014). This was to investigate hyporheic denitrification when there is relatively high hydraulic connection between the main channel and the hyporheic zone.…”

Section: Hydraulic Parameters and Boundary Conditionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of inset floodplains and hyporheic exchange induced by in-stream structures on nitrate removal in a headwater stream

Hester

Hammond

Scott

2016

Ecological Engineering

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

a b s t r a c tStream restoration efforts in the United States are increasingly aimed towards water quality improvement, yet little process-based guidance exists to compare pollutant removals from different restoration techniques for variable site conditions. Excess nitrate (NO 3 − ) is a frequent pollutant of concern due to eutrophication in downstream waterbodies such as the Chesapeake Bay. We used MIKE SHE to simulate hydraulics and NO 3 − removal in a 90 m restored reach of Stroubles Creek, a second-order stream in Blacksburg, Virginia. Site specific geomorphic, hydrologic, and hydraulic data were used to calibrate the model. We evaluated in-stream structures that induce hyporheic zone denitrification during baseflow and inset floodplains that remove NO 3 − during storm flows. We varied hydraulic conditions (winter baseflow, summer baseflow, storm flow), biogeochemical parameters (literature hyporheic zone denitrification rates and newly available inset floodplain removal rates) and boundary conditions (upstream NO 3 − concentration), sediment conditions (hydraulic conductivity), and stream restoration design parameters (inset floodplain length). Our results indicate that NO 3 − removal rates within the 90 m reach were minimal. Structure-induced hyporheic zone denitrification did not exceed 3.1% of mass flowing in from the upstream channel, was achieved only during favorable background groundwater hydraulic conditions (i.e. summer baseflow), and was transport-limited such that non-trivial removal rates were achieved only when the streambed hydraulic conductivity (K) was at least 10 −4 m/s. Inset floodplain nitrogen removal was limited by floodplain residence time and NO 3 − removal rate, and did not exceed 1% of inflowing mass. Summing these removals for both restoration practices over the course of the year based on the frequency of storm and summer baseflow conditions yielded ∼2.1% annual removal. Achieving 30% NO 3 − removal required increasing the length of stream reach restored to 0.9 km-819 km (depending on hydraulic conductivity) and 3.8-46 km (depending on inset floodplain length and nitrogen removal rate) for in-stream structures during baseflow and inset floodplains during storm flow, respectively. In one of the first comparisons of process-based modeling to the Chesapeake Bay Program stream restoration guidance, we found that the guidance overestimated hyporheic NO 3 − removal for our modeled reach, but correctly estimated inset floodplain removal. Overall, our results indicate that in-stream structures and inset floodplains can improve water quality, but overall required level of effort may be high to achieve desired results.

show abstract

“…With the exception of Bhaskar (2012), models of hydrodynamic exchange have commonly coupled surface water flow with groundwater flow in two-and three-dimensional systems (Cardenas and Wilson, 2007;Hester et al, 2009;Janssen et al, 2012;Menichino and Hester, 2014;Sawyer and Cardenas, 2009). This difference in approach is caused to some extent by different goals, particularly questions about how hydrodynamic exchange influences thermal regimes that affect ecosystem functions, rather than questions about the depth of the zone of hydrodynamic exchange (e.g.…”

Section: Hydrologymentioning

confidence: 99%

Using heat as a tracer to estimate the depth of rapid porewater advection below the sediment–water interface

Wilson

Woodward

Savidge

2016

Journal of Hydrology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Keywords:Hyporheic flow Benthic exchange Heat Inverse model Submarine groundwater discharge s u m m a r y Rapid exchange of surface waters and porewaters in shallow sediments has important biogeochemical implications for streams and marine systems alike, but mapping these important reaction zones has been difficult. As a means of bridging the gap between the stream and submarine groundwater discharge communities we suggest that the rapid, transient mixing in this zone be called ''hydrodynamic exchange". We then present a new model, MATTSI, which was developed to estimate the timing, depth and magnitude of hydrodynamic exchange below the sediment-water interface by inverting thermal time-series observations. The model uses an effective thermal dispersion term to emulate 3-D hydrodynamic exchange in a 1-D model. The effective dispersion is assumed to decline exponentially below the sediment water interface. Application of the model to a synthetic dataset and two field datasets from 50 km offshore in the South Atlantic Bight shows that exchange events can be clearly identified from thermal data. The model is relatively insensitive to realistic errors in sensor depth and thermal conductivity. Although the datasets tested here were too shallow to fully span the depth of flushing, we were able to estimate the depth of hydrodynamic exchange via sensitivity studies.

show abstract

Hydraulic and thermal effects of in‐stream structure‐induced hyporheic exchange across a range of hydraulic conductivities

Cited by 34 publications

References 74 publications

The importance and challenge of hyporheic mixing

The importance and challenge of hyporheic mixing

Effects of inset floodplains and hyporheic exchange induced by in-stream structures on nitrate removal in a headwater stream

Using heat as a tracer to estimate the depth of rapid porewater advection below the sediment–water interface

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About