Investigating Mountain Watershed Headwater‐To‐Groundwater Connections, Water Sources, and Storage Selection Behavior With Dynamic‐Flux Particle Tracking

Abstract Climate change will impact mountain watershed streamflow both directly—with changing precipitation amounts and variability—and indirectly—through temperature shifts altering snowpack, melt, and evapotranspiration. To understand how these complex processes will affect ecosystem functioning and water resources, we need tools to distinguish connections between water sources (rain/snowmelt), groundwater storage, and exit fluxes (streamflow/evapotranspiration), and to determine how these connections change seasonally and as climate shifts. Here, we develop novel watershed‐scale approaches to understand water source, storage, and exit flux connections using a dynamic‐flux particle tracking model (EcoSLIM) applied in California's Cosumnes Watershed, which connects the Sierra Nevada and Central Valley. This work develops new visualizations and applications to provide mechanistic understanding that underpins the interpretation of isotopic field data at watershed scales to distinguish sources, flow paths, residence times, and storage selection. In our simulations, streamflow comes primarily from snow‐derived water while evapotranspiration generally comes from rain. Most streamflow starts above 1,000 m while evapotranspiration is sourced relatively evenly across the watershed and is generally younger than streamflow. Modeled streamflow consists primarily of water sourced from precipitation in the previous 5 years but before the current water year, while ET consists primarily of water from precipitation in the current water year. ET, and to a lesser extent streamflow, are both younger than water in groundwater storage. However, snowmelt‐derived streamflow preferentially discharges older water from snow‐derived storage. Dynamic‐flux particle tracking and new approaches presented here enable novel model‐tracer comparisons in large‐scale watersheds to better understand watershed behavior in a changing climate.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems
Published
2024-08-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1029/2023ms003976
Citations
7
Primary Topic
Hydrology and Watershed Management Studies
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
1.41

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Investigating Mountain Watershed Headwater‐To‐Groundwater Connections, Water Sources, and Storage Selection Behavior With Dynamic‐Flux Particle Tracking

Ate Visser, Fadji Zaouna Maina, Erica R. Siirila‐Woodburn, P. James Dennedy‐Frank
7 citations
Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems
Hydrology and Watershed Management Studies
1.41
article

Investigating Mountain Watershed Headwater‐To‐Groundwater Connections, Water Sources, and Storage Selection Behavior With Dynamic‐Flux Particle Tracking

Ate Visser, Fadji Zaouna Maina, Erica R. Siirila‐Woodburn, P. James Dennedy‐Frank
article en
7 citations

Abstract

Abstract Climate change will impact mountain watershed streamflow both directly—with changing precipitation amounts and variability—and indirectly—through temperature shifts altering snowpack, melt, and evapotranspiration. To understand how these complex processes will affect ecosystem functioning and water resources, we need tools to distinguish connections between water sources (rain/snowmelt), groundwater storage, and exit fluxes (streamflow/evapotranspiration), and to determine how these connections change seasonally and as climate shifts. Here, we develop novel watershed‐scale approaches to understand water source, storage, and exit flux connections using a dynamic‐flux particle tracking model (EcoSLIM) applied in California's Cosumnes Watershed, which connects the Sierra Nevada and Central Valley. This work develops new visualizations and applications to provide mechanistic understanding that underpins the interpretation of isotopic field data at watershed scales to distinguish sources, flow paths, residence times, and storage selection. In our simulations, streamflow comes primarily from snow‐derived water while evapotranspiration generally comes from rain. Most streamflow starts above 1,000 m while evapotranspiration is sourced relatively evenly across the watershed and is generally younger than streamflow. Modeled streamflow consists primarily of water sourced from precipitation in the previous 5 years but before the current water year, while ET consists primarily of water from precipitation in the current water year. ET, and to a lesser extent streamflow, are both younger than water in groundwater storage. However, snowmelt‐derived streamflow preferentially discharges older water from snow‐derived storage. Dynamic‐flux particle tracking and new approaches presented here enable novel model‐tracer comparisons in large‐scale watersheds to better understand watershed behavior in a changing climate.

Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth SystemsVol. 16(8)
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (US), Northeastern University (US), Goddard Space Flight Center (US), Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (US)
U.S. Department of Energy, National Energy Research Scientific Computing Center, Office of Science, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
Clean water and sanitation
Openalex Percentile: Top 20%
Hydrology and Watershed Management Studies
1.41
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.