The pulse of a montane ecosystem: coupling between daily cycles in solar flux, snowmelt, transpiration, groundwater, and streamflow at Sagehen Creek and Independence Creek, Sierra Nevada, USA

Kirchner, James W.; Godsey, Sarah E.; Solomon, Madeline; Osterhuber, Randall; McConnell, Joseph R.; Penna, Daniele

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-24-5095-2020

Articles | Volume 24, issue 11

https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-24-5095-2020

© Author(s) 2020. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-24-5095-2020

© Author(s) 2020. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Articles | Volume 24, issue 11

Research article

| Highlight paper

|

05 Nov 2020

Research article | Highlight paper |

| 05 Nov 2020

The pulse of a montane ecosystem: coupling between daily cycles in solar flux, snowmelt, transpiration, groundwater, and streamflow at Sagehen Creek and Independence Creek, Sierra Nevada, USA

James W. Kirchner, Sarah E. Godsey, Madeline Solomon, Randall Osterhuber, Joseph R. McConnell, and Daniele Penna

Download

Final revised paper (published on 05 Nov 2020)
Supplement to the final revised paper
Preprint (discussion started on 17 Feb 2020)
Supplement to the preprint

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

AC: Author comment | RC: Referee comment | SC: Short comment | EC: Editor comment

- Printer-friendly version

- Supplement

RC1: 'HESS 2020-77 Review', Anonymous Referee #1, 15 Mar 2020
- AC1: 'reply to anonymous referee #1', James Kirchner, 23 Mar 2020
RC2: 'Review of "The pulse of a montane ecosystem"', Anonymous Referee #2, 28 Mar 2020
- AC2: 'reply to anonymous referee #2', James Kirchner, 29 Mar 2020
RC3: 'Review of Diurnal Cycles Paper', Jessica Lundquist, 16 May 2020
- AC3: 'reply to Jessica Lundquist', James Kirchner, 03 Jun 2020

Peer-review completion

AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision

ED: Publish subject to revisions (further review by editor and referees) (19 Jun 2020) by Matjaz Mikos

AR by James Kirchner on behalf of the Authors (30 Jun 2020) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (07 Jul 2020) by Matjaz Mikos

RR by Jessica Lundquist (11 Aug 2020)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

Overall comments:
I appreciate the authors taking the time to carefully consider all of my comments and to improve the paper. Following a couple very minor changes (see below), I recommend the paper for publication, and I don’t need to see it again. Jessica Lundquist, jdlund@uw.edu

The literature review is much more respectful than the prior version and more clearly illustrates how this work differs from what has been presented before. Thank you. I really like your addition of the Figure 5 conceptual figure – I think it helps a lot. Personally, I wish that the trees looked a bit more like the evergreen trees actually found in your basin, but that’s a stylistic issue that you can decide on. I also like that you’ve added clearer comparisons of Independence Creek and Sagehen Creek. This adds greatly to the paper.

I really like the new version of Figure 9 – this is much clearer. For discussion, this (your Fig. 9) is actually great insight that ties to together the patterns shown in Lundquist and Dettinger (2003) [which I attached to my prior review]. Figure 3 of that paper shows that the phase of the diurnal signal shifts towards later in the day between the period of peak snowmelt and the end of the summer season, and that delay decreases more gradually in wetter years. These empirical results (which I struggled to find an explanation for in 2003), fit well with your statements (~line 562) that tau changes, becoming larger (line 805) as the catchment dries out. If you agree, I think around line 810 and/or after line 900, you could add a line or two to highlight that these earlier empirical findings actually fit well with your concepts and explanations here, and thus, there may be an interesting avenue for future research on how changes in the diurnal cycle characteristics may let us better understand changing aquifer storage and response times.

Minor comments:
Line 23, add comma after “aquifer),”
Line 36, add comma after weakens
Lines 475+, Note that I did not have time to check all of the equations. However, given the propensity for typos to sneak into these types of equations, I request that the authors double check them all before final publication.
Line 874: add comma after “individual location”

Hide

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by editor) (24 Aug 2020) by Matjaz Mikos

AR by James Kirchner on behalf of the Authors (24 Aug 2020) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Publish subject to technical corrections (19 Sep 2020) by Matjaz Mikos

AR by James Kirchner on behalf of the Authors (19 Sep 2020) Manuscript

Short summary

Streams and groundwaters often show daily cycles in response to snowmelt and evapotranspiration. These typically have a roughly 6 h time lag, which is often interpreted as a travel-time lag. Here we show that it is instead primarily a phase lag that arises because aquifers integrate their inputs over time. We further show how these cycles shift seasonally, mirroring the springtime retreat of snow cover to higher elevations and the seasonal advance and retreat of photosynthetic activity.