the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Changes in flowing drainage network and stream chemistry during rainfall events for two pre-Alpine catchments
Abstract. Many headwater catchments embed non-perennial streams that flow only during wet conditions or in response to rainfall events. The onset and cessation of flow results in a dynamic stream network that periodically expands and contracts. The onset of flow can flush sediment and nutrients from previously dry streambeds and enhance carbon processing rates. The expansion of the flowing drainage network also increases hydrologic connectivity between hillslopes and streams because it decreases travel distances to the stream. However, datasets on flowing drainage network dynamics during rainfall events and short-term changes in stream chemistry are rare. This limits our interpretation of hydrological processes and changes in stream chemistry during events.
Here, we present joint hourly measurements of solute concentrations and stable isotopes from precipitation and streamflow at the outlets of two 5-ha catchments in the Swiss pre-Alps during seven rainfall-runoff events in the snow-free season of 2021. Relevant samples were also collected from soil- and groundwater across the catchments before and after rainfall events. In addition, 10-min frequency information was collected on the flowing drainage network length. We used these synoptic measurements to infer the dominant runoff-generating mechanisms for the two experimental catchments.
Despite their proximity and similar size, soil and bedrock features, the flowing drainage network dynamics proved very different for the two catchments. In the flatter catchment (average slope: 15°), the stream network was more dynamic and expanded rapidly, up to 10-fold, while in the steeper catchment (average slope: 24°), it remained relatively stable (only a 2-fold change). The event water contributions were also higher for the flatter catchment. The dilution of calcium at the time of the rapid expansion of the network and increase in discharge suggested that the contribution of rainfall falling directly on the stream channels is important, especially for the smaller events during dry conditions. In wet conditions, unchanneled areas must have contributed event water as well. In the flatter catchment endowed with the more dynamic stream network, a “first flush” of nitrate was detectable, possibly attributed to the transport of material from previously dry stream segments. In the catchment characterized by a more stable flowing drainage network, such flush was not observed and nitrate concentrations decreased, suggesting enhanced contributions from riparian groundwater with reducing conditions during rainfall events. Our experimental study not only highlights the large differences observable in stream network dynamics and stream chemical responses for neighboring, nearly equal-size catchments but also shows the value of fine-scale observations on both the channel network dynamics and stream chemistry to fully understand runoff generation mechanisms.
- Preprint
(2191 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(2844 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
RC1: 'Comment on hess-2024-67', Anonymous Referee #1, 03 May 2024
General comments
This manuscript presents a very interesting study, linking dynamics of expansion and contraction of intermittent stream networks in a pre-alpine setting to resulting streamflow chemistry and streamflow generation mechanisms during several rainfall events. The hydrochemistry and hydrometric datasets are impressive in their extent and temporal resolution.
Datasets like this are rare, and they allow addressing the relevance of hydrologic connectivity (either between landscape elements and streams or along the stream) for the patterns and dynamics of the export of solutes. This is a very important question where we still have a lack of understanding.
In general, I think, this study is a valuable contribution to this field of research. It is well written and describes clearly the research objectives, the study sites and experiments, and the results. I only have a few specific comments. What I think is problematic is that results and discussion are presented together and not separately. There is this constant mixing of description of results and explanations and interpretations, and the text keeps jumping between the different aspects of the study. In my opinion, the focus on the answers to the (important!) research questions posed at the end of the introduction gets lost by this setup. I would strongly recommend splitting results and discussion. After describing the results in a concise way with the very informative figures the authors used, they can come back to the research questions in the discussion and answer them. At the moment, the reader has to look for the answers to the research questions in the various parts of the results and discussion sections. I think that the authors could elaborate more on their second research question, i.e., the comparison between the two topographically different catchments. Is the main impact of topography the influence on the flow network and the “state of connectedness”? Also, the link of the research findings particularly to intermittent streams is missing in the interpretation. At the end of the discussion, the conceptual model of the flowing drainage network and solute export could be presented as a summary of the new understanding that was gained, instead of mentioning it in the conclusions only. By presenting results and discussion separately, the main findings of this very interesting study and the interpretations and implications could be presented in a more focused and clearer way.
Specific comments
- L 147: I believe you mean the METER Group company
- L 176: “trickling” instead of ”tricking”
- L 228: Start new sentence after E2
- Section 2.5.2: If I understand correctly, the method of creating maps of flowing drainage networks and the indices does not allow a statement on connectedness or connectivity. If 50% of the stream reaches were classified as flowing, this could still mean a quite fragmented state (e.g. if every second stream reach was flowing). Maybe the authors could comment on this.
- Caption Fig. 4: I think there was a mix-up of how the panels a-f were described in the caption. Please check. E.g. “time-series of hydrologic variables…” are panels b and e and not b and c.
- L 473: redundant “from areas”
- L 689: Fig. 6! Not Fig. 8.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2024-67-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Izabela Bujak-Ozga, 23 Jul 2024
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your thoughtful and comprehensive feedback on our manuscript. We are pleased that you found our study valuable and well-written, and appreciate your recognition of the importance and uniqueness of the datasets we presented. We also acknowledge the need to improve the structure and clarity of our manuscript, particularly regarding the presentation of results and discussion. Below, we address your general and specific comments in detail.
General Comments
- Separation of Results and Discussion: We understand your concern about the mixing of results and explanations and interpretations. While we appreciate the suggestion to separate results and discussion (and would in general also choose this structure), we believe that integrating them allows for a more cohesive narrative, where results can be immediately interpreted and contextualized. Because very different results are presented in this manuscript, we consider this beneficial for this case. For example, we think that it is necessary to discuss the hydrochemical characteristics of the water sources and describe how these results are similar to those of previous studies in the area, before we continue to use these data for other (e.g., mixing) analyses. To address your concern, we will reorganize the current structure of the paper to more clearly distinguish the presentation of data from their interpretation within each section. This will help maintain a clear focus on the research questions without separating the sections entirely.
- Focus on Research Questions: We will revise the manuscript to ensure that the discussion consistently revisits and directly answers the research questions posed at the end of the introduction. We will highlight the answers to these questions more clearly to ensure they are easily identifiable to the reader.
- Comparison Between Catchments: We will elaborate more on our second research question concerning the comparison between the two topographically different catchments. Specifically, we will discuss how topography influences the stream network and the state of connectedness in more detail. Moreover, a clearer presentation of the conceptual model of the flowing drainage network and solute export (see point 5 below) will enable us to better illustrate the similarities and differences between these catchments, thereby addressing our research questions more effectively.
- Link to Intermittent Streams: We will strengthen the link of our research findings to intermittent streams in the interpretation sections. This will highlight the significance of our study in the context of intermittent stream networks and their unique characteristics.
- Conceptual Model: We will present the conceptual model of the flowing drainage network and solute export as a summary at the end of the discussion. This will provide a clear and concise synthesis of the new understanding gained from our study before the conclusions section. We will try to use this section to highlight the answers to the research questions again as well.
Specific Comments
- L 147: We will correct this to "METER Group."
- L 176: We will change “tricking” to “trickling.”
- L 228: We will start a new sentence after “E2.”
- Section 2.5.2: When we stated that we create maps of flowing drainage networks, we aimed to convey that we record the flowing or non-flowing state of each reach at every time step and maintain spatial information about their locations and connections (derived from mapping surveys and stored in our database). Using these data, we visually assessed the connectivity of the stream network on the surface. Specifically, we generated time-lapse maps showing flowing and non-flowing reaches in different colors.
An alternative approach would be to calculate an index expressing network connectivity (e.g., length of connected network), but we chose the first method to identify which parts of the catchment re-wet and dry up first. This method was also faster to program based on our data storage format.
This section focuses solely on surface connectivity. We discuss the potential use of our hydrochemical data to understand subsurface connectivity in other sections. We will clarify these points in the relevant section. - Caption Fig. 4: We will revise the caption of Figure 4 to accurately describe the panels. We appreciate you pointing out this mix-up and will ensure that the correct descriptions are provided in the revisions.
- L 473: We will remove the redundant “from areas.”
- L 689: We will correct the reference to Fig. 6 instead of Fig. 8.
We are confident that these revisions will significantly improve the manuscript, making our findings clearer and more accessible to readers. Thank you again for your valuable feedback.
Kind regards,
Izabela Bujak-Ozga
on behalf of all co-authorsCitation: https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2024-67-AC1
-
RC2: 'Comment on hess-2024-67', Anonymous Referee #2, 15 Jun 2024
In this manuscript the authors explore the relation between stream network extent and outlet stream chemistry during precipitation events. I really enjoyed reading the introduction, it serves as a nice overview of existing work and the importance of understanding how intermittency impacts chemistry, and highlights that it is relatively understudied. The posed research questions are important, and well stated. There has been extensive work on event water chemistry, but limited study of chemistry in intermittent streams, which makes this dataset unique.
I have one major comment regarding research questions in the results and discussion section. I appreciate that the sections are merged as there is lots of quantitative geochemistry in this paper and it is helpful to have discussion immediately following results to provide context for conclusions. However, the answers to the research questions are lost in the latter portion of the manuscript. Some reorganization of the results/discussion to clearly highlight the answers to the research questions would improve the manuscript, specifically in sections 3.2 and 3.3. One suggestion is to group analysis by solute type (i.e. weathering derived, nutrient, metal), since they seem to behave similarly, rather than jumping from one solute type to the next in each section. Another suggestion is to increase discussion of the conceptual figure, as detailed below.
The conceptual figure is an effective summary of the paper, but 1) I am confused by some of the flowpaths and colors, and 2) suggest including more text interpretation of the figure to tie it back to the research questions. Specifically, do the letters in the block diagrams correspond to color at all? The purple color is labeled groundwater flow, so I am not quite sure what the dashed purple ellipses are around the stream. Do the red stream lines represent a dry channel? Why then is panel a, spot A called streamflow if it is red, but spot E around a red stream in panel c is no flow? What does the light blue color in the subsurface of panel D represent? Similarly, why are some lines dashed and others soild? A detailed legend figure would help interpretation of this figure. It would also strengthen the paper to add a summary section discussing this conceptual figure in the context of the research questions. Much of the important conclusions are found at the end of paragraphs, and so discussion of them together would help.
Minor Comments:
60-61 – Please provide citation for this statement.
66 – Correct to “Warix et al. (2023) used CFC-12 & 3H”
209 – Are you reporting solute totals? Please specify.
309-323 – I suggest adding some mineral saturation indices to support the conclusions in this paragraph. The hypothesis that baseflow is saturated with respect to secondary calcium products seems reasonable but speculative and could be made more concrete by calculating the saturation index of calcite for groundwater samples.
314 – Do you have pH observations to support Lan being more acidic than Cha?
473 – “from areas” is repeated
469- 477 - I had to read these lines several times to understand the proposed flow mechanisms. Can some of these sentences be merged or shortened for conciseness?
510 – This idea could use some clarification. Where is the decrease in concentrations happening? If GW solute concentrations are higher, and the groundwater table elevation rises how does that lead to a decrease in concentration? I assume mixing with dilute soil waters, but this should be made explicit.
Figure 3 – The y-limits should be adjusted to the max observed data. Some plots (e.g. Fe) have lots of white space.Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2024-67-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Izabela Bujak-Ozga, 23 Jul 2024
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your thorough and insightful review of our manuscript. We were pleased to hear that you enjoyed the introduction and found our research questions both important and well-stated. Your recognition of the uniqueness of our dataset in the context of intermittent stream chemistry is highly appreciated as well. We have carefully considered your comments and suggestions to improve our manuscript. Below, we provide detailed responses to each of your points.
Major Comment:
- Reorganization of Results/Discussion:
We agree that reorganizing sections 3.2 and 3.3 to better highlight the answers to our research questions will enhance the manuscript. While we do not agree that it is useful to entirely rewrite these sections to group solutes by type, we will reorganize the content wherever possible to improve clarity and flow and, as suggested, add references to the conceptual model. Moreover, as also described in our response to the other reviewer, we will revise the Results and discussion section to ensure that the discussion consistently revisits and directly answers the research questions posed at the end of the introduction. These changes should increase clarity and help readers more easily follow the answers to the research questions. - Conceptual Figure Clarification:
As also requested by the other reviewer, we will present the conceptual model of the flowing drainage network and solute export as a summary at the end of the discussion. This will provide a clear and concise synthesis of the new understanding gained from our study before the conclusions section. Moreover, we will revise the conceptual figure to enhance clarity and add a detailed legend explaining the colors, flowpaths, and line types. Specific changes include:
- Clarifying that the letters in the block diagrams correspond to specific processes and do not directly relate to the colors. Correcting a typo on the panel a of the figure (letter A should be E).
- Providing detailed explanations for the dashed versus solid lines and the significance of each color in the figure.
- Adding more text to tie the figure back to our research questions and including a summary section discussing the conceptual figure in the context of our findings.
Minor Comments:
- Citation for Statement (lines 60-61): We will add the appropriate citation to support the statement in lines 60-61, e.g., Brinkerhoff et al. (Science, 2024), Alexander et al. (JAWRA, 2007). We will also simplify the sentence: “The dynamic variations in flow conditions along drainage networks can influence the quantity and quality of streamwater in downstream reaches.”
- Correction (line 66): We will correct the reference to “Warix et al. (2023) used CFC-12 & 3H”.
- Specification of Solute Totals (line 209): We will clarify that we are reporting solute totals in this section.
- Addition of Mineral Saturation Indices (lines 309-323): We agree that calculating the saturation index of calcite for groundwater samples would strengthen our hypothesis. Unfortunately, we cannot calculate this index because we did not measure the pH of the groundwater. Nonetheless, as noted in the review comment, the hypothesis that differences in measured calcium concentrations between baseflow and groundwater in Lan are due to varying conditions and the saturation of secondary calcium products seems reasonable. This hypothesis is supported by values reported in other studies conducted near the Lan area and Alptal sub-catchments. Hagedorn et al. (Geoderma, 2001) reported acidic values (pH 5.1-5.9) for deeper soils (depths >30 cm) in the Lan area, while Fischer et al. (Hydrological Processes, 2015) reported basic pH values (median >8.0) in the baseflow of the Alptal sub-catchments.
- pH Observations (line 314): We did not measure pH, however, it is common that forest soils are more acidic. We will provide references to more studies, e.g., Huang et al. (Forest Ecology and Management, 2022) and Berthrong et al. (Ecological applications, 2009) to support this claim.
- Repetition Removal (line 473): We will remove the repeated phrase "from areas".
- Clarification of Flow Mechanisms (lines 469-477): We will revise these lines for conciseness and clarity, to improve readability and understanding of the proposed flow mechanisms.
- Clarification of Decrease in Concentrations (line 510): We intended to describe a decrease in concentrations at the catchment outlet as a result of stratification in groundwater concentrations and the rising groundwater table (process described in e.g., Knapp et al. (Hydrol. Process., 2022)). We recognize that the original wording may be confusing and will revise the paragraph for clarity.
- Adjustment of Y-limits in Figure 3: We will adjust the y-limits in Figure 3 to reduce white space, particularly in plots such as Fe.
We believe these revisions will enhance the clarity and impact of our manuscript. Thank you again for your valuable feedback.
Kind regards,
Izabela Bujak-Ozga
on behalf of all co-authorsCitation: https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2024-67-AC2 - Reorganization of Results/Discussion:
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Izabela Bujak-Ozga, 23 Jul 2024
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
355 | 106 | 27 | 488 | 46 | 32 | 34 |
- HTML: 355
- PDF: 106
- XML: 27
- Total: 488
- Supplement: 46
- BibTeX: 32
- EndNote: 34
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1