the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Reinforce lake water balance components estimations by integrating water isotope compositions with a hydrological model
Abstract. Accurate estimation of water balance components of groundwater-fed lakes, including subsurface inflow, as well as actual evaporation from lakes, poses a complex task for hydrologists employing hydrological models. Hence, an alternative approach was used to capture the dynamic behavior of the hydrological groundwater/surface water system, which can be used for integration with the hydrological model and serves as a validation for the hydrological model estimates of the water balance components. The approach, based on measurements of the stable isotopes (δ18O and δD) enables the quantitative estimation of the individual water flux and evapotranspiration rates. An isotope-mass-balance model was used to quantify lake water balances over a one-year sampling period. The approach is based on the global relationship between the δ18O and δD values of the precipitation and kinetic isotopic fractionation in the lake water during evaporation. Assuming that the lake is hydraulically connected to the groundwater the isotope mass-balance model accounts for the quantification of the evapotranspiration rate considering the groundwater inflow compensating the evaporation loss. The study addresses the model-based quantification of groundwater inflow and evaporation losses of a young glacial groundwater lake (Lake Gross Glienicke (GG), southwest of Berlin in the Havel catchment), over the period from 2015 to 2023 with the integrated hydrological model HydroGeoSphere. Utilizing the isotopic mass balance model, HydroCalculator, under steady-state hydrologic regime conditions, the evaporation-to-inflow (E/I) ratio is determined for the period of one year spanning August 2022 to September 2023. Employing the fully integrated hydrological model, calibrated and validated under monthly normal transient flow conditions from 2008 to 2023 for the lake catchment, subsurface, and groundwater inflows to the lake are calculated and compared to the calculated E/I ratios based on the isotopic measurement of the lake water. Isotopic signatures of surface water, groundwater, and rainwater (δ18O and δD) confirm a flow-through type for the lake. The calculated E/I ratio for GG Lake is around 40 %. The calculated evaporation for the years 2022 and 2023, within the isotopic mass balance model framework (Eiso22 = 601 mm, Eiso23 = 553 mm), aligns well with the actual evaporation from the lakes calculated by the HGS model (EHGS22 = 688 mm, EHGS23 = 659 mm). The change in the ratio of evaporation to inflow (E/I) leads to a significantly improved estimation of evaporation rates after correction for temperature fluctuations and inflow data from previous years (2015–2021). With a correlation coefficient of 0.81, these revised estimates show a high degree of agreement with the evaporation rates predicted by the HydroGeoSphere (HGS) model for the corresponding years. Despite the uncertainties associated with the analysis of the water isotope signature, its integration into the hydrological model serves to validate the hydrological model calculations of the water balance components.
- Preprint
(1703 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on hess-2024-214', Anonymous Referee #1, 31 Oct 2024
The manuscript titled “Reinforce Lake Water Balance Component Estimations by Integrating Water Isotope Compositions with a Hydrological Model” has been thoroughly reviewed. It presents an interesting study with valuable practical applications. However, the reviewer has noted the following concerns for the authors' and editor's consideration:
-
In the abstract (lines 13-14), the authors suggest their approach as an alternative method for capturing the dynamic behaviour of the hydrological groundwater/surface water system, yet the study is based on only one year of sampling. Can this work truly represent the hydrological dynamics of the lake system? Additional clarification or rephrasing may be needed.
-
The authors state that an isotope mass-balance model was used to quantify the evapotranspiration rate by accounting for groundwater inflow to offset evaporation losses, in the context of the lake's water balance. However, how is open water evaporation handled? Does the evapotranspiration calculated in this study include ET from groundwater? Further clarification on this point would be beneficial.
-
The authors mention a hydraulic connection between the lake and groundwater system. Additional details on the assumptions made would be valuable. For instance, is there any seepage from the lakebed to the groundwater?
-
The authors used the HydroGeoSphere (HGS) modeling code (Aquanty Inc., 2023) to simulate hydrological processes in the study area. Could the authors clarify why the HGS model was selected over other 3D models, such as MODFLOW, and discuss any comparative advantages?
-
It would be helpful to provide more information about the HGS model setup, including the number of aquifer layers, initial boundary conditions, and model parameters used in this study.
General comment: The manuscript is engaging, though minor grammatical and punctuation errors are present. Addressing these would improve clarity and readability.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2024-214-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Nariman Mahmoodi, 10 Nov 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://hess.copernicus.org/preprints/hess-2024-214/hess-2024-214-AC1-supplement.pdf
-
-
RC2: 'Comment on hess-2024-214', J. Renée Brooks, 01 Feb 2025
The authors combine a hydrological modeling approach and an isotopic modeling approach to understanding lake water balance issues within a lake in Germany that has been declining in lake water levels. While I think the approach is interesting and has potential, I have serious concerns about the isotopic modeling as presented. While the isotopic theory they present is mostly correct, and they are using the Hydrocalculator developed by Skrzypek et al 2015, the parameters they present in Table 2 as input to the Hydrocalculator are so far out of line, I’m surprised they actually got any numbers out that make any sense at all. I fear they may have calculated some critical values using ‰ values, when they should have been using absolute values (not multiplied by 1000). The literature can be confusing on this point, but using the wrong value would lead to the negative and completely out of bounds values they give for kinetic fractionation and other values. I give detailed comments on the pdf directly, but these errors on input for the hydrocalculator might explain why the authors had to “adjust” their isotopic estimates of evaporation before coming to something that might be reasonable. I am also unclear on many steps that they take in their methods. Until they revisit these data, I can’t really evaluate the rest of the manuscript. The isotope data themselves look OK, and I am hoping they can redo the analysis without too much problem, once they find the error that led to those values in table 2.
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Nariman Mahmoodi, 12 Feb 2025
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://hess.copernicus.org/preprints/hess-2024-214/hess-2024-214-AC2-supplement.pdf
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Nariman Mahmoodi, 12 Feb 2025
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on hess-2024-214', Anonymous Referee #1, 31 Oct 2024
The manuscript titled “Reinforce Lake Water Balance Component Estimations by Integrating Water Isotope Compositions with a Hydrological Model” has been thoroughly reviewed. It presents an interesting study with valuable practical applications. However, the reviewer has noted the following concerns for the authors' and editor's consideration:
-
In the abstract (lines 13-14), the authors suggest their approach as an alternative method for capturing the dynamic behaviour of the hydrological groundwater/surface water system, yet the study is based on only one year of sampling. Can this work truly represent the hydrological dynamics of the lake system? Additional clarification or rephrasing may be needed.
-
The authors state that an isotope mass-balance model was used to quantify the evapotranspiration rate by accounting for groundwater inflow to offset evaporation losses, in the context of the lake's water balance. However, how is open water evaporation handled? Does the evapotranspiration calculated in this study include ET from groundwater? Further clarification on this point would be beneficial.
-
The authors mention a hydraulic connection between the lake and groundwater system. Additional details on the assumptions made would be valuable. For instance, is there any seepage from the lakebed to the groundwater?
-
The authors used the HydroGeoSphere (HGS) modeling code (Aquanty Inc., 2023) to simulate hydrological processes in the study area. Could the authors clarify why the HGS model was selected over other 3D models, such as MODFLOW, and discuss any comparative advantages?
-
It would be helpful to provide more information about the HGS model setup, including the number of aquifer layers, initial boundary conditions, and model parameters used in this study.
General comment: The manuscript is engaging, though minor grammatical and punctuation errors are present. Addressing these would improve clarity and readability.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2024-214-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Nariman Mahmoodi, 10 Nov 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://hess.copernicus.org/preprints/hess-2024-214/hess-2024-214-AC1-supplement.pdf
-
-
RC2: 'Comment on hess-2024-214', J. Renée Brooks, 01 Feb 2025
The authors combine a hydrological modeling approach and an isotopic modeling approach to understanding lake water balance issues within a lake in Germany that has been declining in lake water levels. While I think the approach is interesting and has potential, I have serious concerns about the isotopic modeling as presented. While the isotopic theory they present is mostly correct, and they are using the Hydrocalculator developed by Skrzypek et al 2015, the parameters they present in Table 2 as input to the Hydrocalculator are so far out of line, I’m surprised they actually got any numbers out that make any sense at all. I fear they may have calculated some critical values using ‰ values, when they should have been using absolute values (not multiplied by 1000). The literature can be confusing on this point, but using the wrong value would lead to the negative and completely out of bounds values they give for kinetic fractionation and other values. I give detailed comments on the pdf directly, but these errors on input for the hydrocalculator might explain why the authors had to “adjust” their isotopic estimates of evaporation before coming to something that might be reasonable. I am also unclear on many steps that they take in their methods. Until they revisit these data, I can’t really evaluate the rest of the manuscript. The isotope data themselves look OK, and I am hoping they can redo the analysis without too much problem, once they find the error that led to those values in table 2.
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Nariman Mahmoodi, 12 Feb 2025
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://hess.copernicus.org/preprints/hess-2024-214/hess-2024-214-AC2-supplement.pdf
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Nariman Mahmoodi, 12 Feb 2025
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
364 | 108 | 78 | 550 | 29 | 25 |
- HTML: 364
- PDF: 108
- XML: 78
- Total: 550
- BibTeX: 29
- EndNote: 25
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1