Premium
Groundwater flushing of solutes at wetland and hillslope positions during storm events in a small glaciated catchment in western New York, USA
Author(s) -
Inamdar Shreeram,
Rupp Julia,
Mitchell Myron
Publication year - 2009
Publication title -
hydrological processes
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.222
H-Index - 161
eISSN - 1099-1085
pISSN - 0885-6087
DOI - 10.1002/hyp.7322
Subject(s) - flushing , groundwater , hydrology (agriculture) , wetland , environmental science , biogeochemical cycle , storm , drainage basin , dissolved organic carbon , groundwater flow , subsurface flow , nitrate , geology , environmental chemistry , aquifer , ecology , chemistry , oceanography , geotechnical engineering , cartography , endocrinology , medicine , geography , biology
While the role of groundwater in flushing of solutes has long been recognized, few studies have explicitly studied the within‐event changes in groundwater chemistry. We compared the changes in groundwater chemistry during storm events for a wetland and hillslope position in a small (1·5 ha) glaciated, forested catchment in western New York. Flushing responses for dissolved organic carbon (DOC) and nitrogen (DON), nitrate (NO 3 ) and sulfate (SO 4 ) in wetland and hillslope groundwaters were also compared against the corresponding responses in stream water. Eight storm events with varying intensity, amount, and antecedent moisture conditions were evaluated. Solute flushing patterns for wetland and hillslope groundwaters differed dramatically. While DOC concentrations in wetland groundwater followed a dilution trend, corresponding values for hillslope groundwater showed a slight increase. Concentrations for NO 3 in wetland groundwater were below detection limits, but hillslope groundwaters displayed high NO 3 concentrations with a pronounced increase during storm events. Flushing responses at all positions were also influenced by the size of the event and the time between events. We attributed the differences in flushing to the differences in hydrologic flow paths and biogeochemical conditions. Flushing of the wetland did appear to influence storm‐event stream chemistry but the same could not be said for hillslope groundwaters. This suggests that while a variety of flushing responses may be observed in a catchment, only a subset of these responses affect the discharge chemistry at the catchment outlet. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.