Modelling catchment-scale water storage dynamics

reconciling dynamic storage with tracer-inferred passive storage

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

70 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

We investigate the storagedischarge relationships of two nested (3 center dot 6 and 30 center dot 4 km(2)) upland catchments using rainfallrunoff models: (1) a nonlinear discharge sensitivity function and (2) a tracer-constrained process-based conceptual model. Both approaches explicitly acknowledge that water storage is neither time nor space invariant and this provided insight into the respective scaling relationships. Both modelling approaches consistently demonstrated small seasonal storage fluctuations consistent with the wet, cool Scottish climate: the smaller catchment exhibited a greater average dynamic storage (ca 55 mm) compared to the larger scale (ca 40 mm). However, there are differences in simulated storage quantities and ranges inferred from both models, which can largely be explained by model uncertainties and model assumptions. In contrast to the dynamic (active) storage indicated by the rainfall-runoff models, input-output relationships of delta O-18 in both catchments were used to estimate the passive storage available for mixing and tracer damping in streams. This showed that catchment storage is an order of magnitude greater (ranging from 500 to 900 mm) than the dynamic storage estimated by both models, though again, storage estimates were greater for the smaller catchment. The passive storage inferred for mixing indicates that discussion of dynamic storage revealed by water balance considerations masks a much larger catchment storage which may in turn determine sensitivity to environmental change. Copyright (C) 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)3924-3936
Number of pages13
JournalHydrological Processes
Volume25
Issue number25
Early online date13 Jul 2011
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 15 Dec 2011

Keywords

  • dynamic storage
  • passive storage
  • tracers
  • stable isotopes
  • models
  • catchment storage
  • process conceptualization
  • mesoscale catchment
  • surface-water
  • uncertainty
  • calibration
  • prediction

Cite this

@article{c9db5066b8a84a33910c261b7c5b9d50,
title = "Modelling catchment-scale water storage dynamics: reconciling dynamic storage with tracer-inferred passive storage",
abstract = "We investigate the storagedischarge relationships of two nested (3 center dot 6 and 30 center dot 4 km(2)) upland catchments using rainfallrunoff models: (1) a nonlinear discharge sensitivity function and (2) a tracer-constrained process-based conceptual model. Both approaches explicitly acknowledge that water storage is neither time nor space invariant and this provided insight into the respective scaling relationships. Both modelling approaches consistently demonstrated small seasonal storage fluctuations consistent with the wet, cool Scottish climate: the smaller catchment exhibited a greater average dynamic storage (ca 55 mm) compared to the larger scale (ca 40 mm). However, there are differences in simulated storage quantities and ranges inferred from both models, which can largely be explained by model uncertainties and model assumptions. In contrast to the dynamic (active) storage indicated by the rainfall-runoff models, input-output relationships of delta O-18 in both catchments were used to estimate the passive storage available for mixing and tracer damping in streams. This showed that catchment storage is an order of magnitude greater (ranging from 500 to 900 mm) than the dynamic storage estimated by both models, though again, storage estimates were greater for the smaller catchment. The passive storage inferred for mixing indicates that discussion of dynamic storage revealed by water balance considerations masks a much larger catchment storage which may in turn determine sensitivity to environmental change. Copyright (C) 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.",
keywords = "dynamic storage, passive storage, tracers, stable isotopes, models, catchment storage, process conceptualization, mesoscale catchment, surface-water, uncertainty, calibration, prediction",
author = "Christian Birkel and Christopher Soulsby and Doerthe Tetzlaff",
year = "2011",
month = "12",
day = "15",
doi = "10.1002/hyp.8201",
language = "English",
volume = "25",
pages = "3924--3936",
journal = "Hydrological Processes",
issn = "0885-6087",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "25",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Modelling catchment-scale water storage dynamics

T2 - reconciling dynamic storage with tracer-inferred passive storage

AU - Birkel, Christian

AU - Soulsby, Christopher

AU - Tetzlaff, Doerthe

PY - 2011/12/15

Y1 - 2011/12/15

N2 - We investigate the storagedischarge relationships of two nested (3 center dot 6 and 30 center dot 4 km(2)) upland catchments using rainfallrunoff models: (1) a nonlinear discharge sensitivity function and (2) a tracer-constrained process-based conceptual model. Both approaches explicitly acknowledge that water storage is neither time nor space invariant and this provided insight into the respective scaling relationships. Both modelling approaches consistently demonstrated small seasonal storage fluctuations consistent with the wet, cool Scottish climate: the smaller catchment exhibited a greater average dynamic storage (ca 55 mm) compared to the larger scale (ca 40 mm). However, there are differences in simulated storage quantities and ranges inferred from both models, which can largely be explained by model uncertainties and model assumptions. In contrast to the dynamic (active) storage indicated by the rainfall-runoff models, input-output relationships of delta O-18 in both catchments were used to estimate the passive storage available for mixing and tracer damping in streams. This showed that catchment storage is an order of magnitude greater (ranging from 500 to 900 mm) than the dynamic storage estimated by both models, though again, storage estimates were greater for the smaller catchment. The passive storage inferred for mixing indicates that discussion of dynamic storage revealed by water balance considerations masks a much larger catchment storage which may in turn determine sensitivity to environmental change. Copyright (C) 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

AB - We investigate the storagedischarge relationships of two nested (3 center dot 6 and 30 center dot 4 km(2)) upland catchments using rainfallrunoff models: (1) a nonlinear discharge sensitivity function and (2) a tracer-constrained process-based conceptual model. Both approaches explicitly acknowledge that water storage is neither time nor space invariant and this provided insight into the respective scaling relationships. Both modelling approaches consistently demonstrated small seasonal storage fluctuations consistent with the wet, cool Scottish climate: the smaller catchment exhibited a greater average dynamic storage (ca 55 mm) compared to the larger scale (ca 40 mm). However, there are differences in simulated storage quantities and ranges inferred from both models, which can largely be explained by model uncertainties and model assumptions. In contrast to the dynamic (active) storage indicated by the rainfall-runoff models, input-output relationships of delta O-18 in both catchments were used to estimate the passive storage available for mixing and tracer damping in streams. This showed that catchment storage is an order of magnitude greater (ranging from 500 to 900 mm) than the dynamic storage estimated by both models, though again, storage estimates were greater for the smaller catchment. The passive storage inferred for mixing indicates that discussion of dynamic storage revealed by water balance considerations masks a much larger catchment storage which may in turn determine sensitivity to environmental change. Copyright (C) 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

KW - dynamic storage

KW - passive storage

KW - tracers

KW - stable isotopes

KW - models

KW - catchment storage

KW - process conceptualization

KW - mesoscale catchment

KW - surface-water

KW - uncertainty

KW - calibration

KW - prediction

U2 - 10.1002/hyp.8201

DO - 10.1002/hyp.8201

M3 - Article

VL - 25

SP - 3924

EP - 3936

JO - Hydrological Processes

JF - Hydrological Processes

SN - 0885-6087

IS - 25

ER -