Open AccessModeling the Effects of Lakes and Wetlands on the Water Balance of Arctic Environments
Author(s) -
L. C. Bowling,
Dennis P. Lettenmaier
Publication year - 2010
Publication title -
journal of hydrometeorology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.733
H-Index - 123
eISSN - 1525-755X
pISSN - 1525-7541
DOI - 10.1175/2009jhm1084.1
Subject(s) - environmental science , snowmelt , hydrology (agriculture) , surface runoff , streamflow , water storage , wetland , arctic , water balance , meltwater , snow , precipitation , drainage basin , geology , ecology , oceanography , inlet , geography , meteorology , geotechnical engineering , cartography , biology
Lakes, ponds, and wetlands are common features in many low-gradient arctic watersheds. Storage of snowmelt runoff in lakes and wetlands exerts a strong influence on both the interannual and interseasonal variability of northern rivers. This influence is often not well represented in hydrology models and the land surface schemes used in climate models. In this paper, an algorithm to represent the evaporation and storage effects of lakes and wetlands within the Variable Infiltration Capacity (VIC) macroscale hydrology model is described. The model is evaluated with respect to its ability to represent water temperatures, net radiation, ice freeze–thaw, and runoff production for a variety of high-latitude locations. It is then used to investigate the influence of surface storage on the spatial and temporal distribution of water and energy fluxes for the Kuparuk and Putuligayuk Rivers, on the Alaskan arctic coastal plain. Inclusion of the lake and wetland algorithm results in a substantial improvement of the simulated streamflow hydrographs, as measured using the monthly Nash–Sutcliffe efficiency. Simulations of runoff from the Putuligayuk watershed indicate that up to 80% of snow meltwater goes into storage each year and does not contribute to streamflow. Approximately 46% of the variance in the volume of snowmelt entering storage can be explained by the year-to-year variation in maximum snow water equivalent and the lake storage deficit from the previous summer. The simulated summer lake storage deficit is much lower than the cumulative precipitation minus lake evaporation (−47 mm, on average) as a result of simulated recharge from the surrounding uplands.