Bofedal wetland and glacial melt contributions to dry season streamflow in a high‐Andean headwater watershed
Abstract In the context of expected future melt reductions in the high‐Andes, the buffering capacity of non‐glacial stores, and especially of high‐altitude bofedal wetlands, is of increasing importance. Isotope signatures potentially indicative of water undergoing evaporation on transit through bofedales have been found in the tropics, but end‐member uncertainty has so far prevented streamflow separation using this signal. We undertook a stable isotope sampling campaign over the 2022 wet‐dry season transition in a 53.6 km 2 , 16% glacierized catchment in southern Peru with a bofedal coverage of 11%. Diurnal proglacial hydrographs and remote sensing were used to interpret seasonal snowmelt dynamics and identify the dry periods when glacial melt and bofedal contributions are assessed to be the two principal components of streamflow. Following the final wet season precipitation event, a rapid ~3 week transition occurs in the main river from a stable isotope signature consistent with dynamic rainfall/snowmelt contributions to one of ice‐melt. In both wet and dry seasons, the main river and tributary streams show evaporative enrichment suggesting ongoing supply from water transiting bofedales. A two‐component mixing model using lc‐excess during the dry season shows the bofedal source contribution varies from 9% to 20% [±9–10%], indicating that streamflow is greatly augmented by the presence of glaciers at these headwater scales. However, applying these proportions to river discharge shows a sustained bofedal contribution of around 0.09 m 3 /s during the dry season study window whereas the flux of glacial water halves from 0.73 to 0.36 m 3 /s over this timeframe. The results highlight the important role of bofedales and the connected groundwater system in buffering seasonal declines in streamflow months into the dry season, and suggests the hydrological functioning of bofedales as part of this wider system should be considered when exploring the effectiveness of potential options to sustain baseflows in a post‐glacial future.
Authors
- Alan MacDonald (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6636-1499)
- David M. Hannah (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1714-1240)
- Jan R. Baiker (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2634-0690)
- L. Baker Perry (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0598-6393)
- Nilton Montoya (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4147-2579)
- Jonathan Mackay (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4373-5747)
- Maxwell Rado (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7848-7926)
- Sandro Arias (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8747-4895)
- Anton Seimon (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7326-0442)
- Wouter Buytaert (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6994-4454)
- Thomas Gribbin (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0009-0001-6905-5822)
- Miguel Vargas
Institutions
- British Geological Survey (GB)
- National University of Saint Anthony the Abbot in Cuzco (PE)
- Asociación para la Conservación de la Cuenca Amazónica (PE)
- Servicio Nacional de Meteorología e Hidrología del Perú (PE)
- Appalachian State University (US)
- Imperial College London (GB)
- University of Birmingham (GB)
Publication Details
- Journal
- Hydrological Processes
- Published
- 2024-08-01
- DOI
- https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.15237
- Citations
- 5
- Primary Topic
- Hydrology and Watershed Management Studies
- Type
- article
- Field-Weighted Citation Impact
- 1.01
Funders
- Sight Research UK
- Natural Environment Research Council