Drainage Runoff Separation of New and Old Water Based on Precipitation, Air, Water, and Soil Temperature Compared to Stable Isotopes 18O and 2H
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Catchment Description and Data Collection
2.2. Analysis of Rainfall–Runoff Events
- Qt = total drainage discharge;
- Qo = discharge of old water;
- Qn = discharge of new water;
- Ct = concentration of the tracer (δ 18O or δ 2H value) in the total runoff;
- Co = concentration of the tracer (δ 18O or δ 2H value) in old water;
- Cn = concentration of the tracer (δ 18O or δ 2H value) in new water.
2.3. Runoff Separation
- Qti = total discharge;
- Qoi = old water according to the isotope separation of event precipitation;
- n = number of observations.
- Tt = drainage water temperature;
- To = old water temperature immediately prior to an increase in discharge during the RRE;
- Tn1 = precipitation temperature or air temperature (indicating new water);
- Tn2 = soil temperature (indicating old water).
- QisoI = calculated value of discharge for time i by isotope separation;
- QtempI = calculated value of discharge for time i by temperature separation;
- Qisoavg. = mean value of calculated discharge by isotopic separation.
- NSE is expressed as a value from − ∞ to 1.
- NSE = 1(perfect match of the model and the measured data);
- NSE = 0 (the efficiency of the model is the same as the mean of the measured data);
- NSE < 0 (the mean of the measured values is a better predictor than the model itself).
3. Results
3.1. Analysis of Events
3.2. Drainage Runoff Parameter to Determine Suitable Separation
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Sklash, M.G.; Farvolden, R.N. The role of groundwater in storm runoff. Dev. Water Sci. 1979, 12, 45–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sklash, M.G. Environmental isotope studies of storm and snowmelt runoff generation. In Process Studies in Hillslope Hydrology; Anderson, M.G., Burt, T.P., Eds.; John Wiley and Sons: Chichester, UK, 1990; pp. 401–435. [Google Scholar]
- Uhlenbrook, S.; Leibundgut, C. Development and validation of a process oriented catchment model based on dominating runoff generation processes. Phys. Chem. Earth Part B 2000, 25, 653–657. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Uhlenbrook, S.; Hoeg, S. Quantifying uncertainties in tracer-based hydrograph a case study for two-, three- and five-component hydrograph separations in a mountainous catchment. Hydrol. Process. 2003, 17, 431–453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Maloszewski, P.; Zuber, A. Lumped Parameter Models for the Interpretation of Environmental Tracer Data; Manual on Mathematical Models in Isotope Hydrology; International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA): Vienna, Austria, 1996; pp. 9–58. [Google Scholar]
- McGuire, K.J.; DeWalle, D.R.; Gburek, W.J. Evaluation of mean residence time in subsurface waters using oxygen-18 fluctuations during drought conditions in the mid-Appalachians. J. Hydrol. 2002, 261, 132–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rodgers, P.J.; Waldron, S.; Tetzlaff, D. Using Stable Isotope Tracers to Assess Hydrological Flow Paths, Residence Times and Landscape Influences in a Nested Mesoscale Catchment. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 2005, 9, 139–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Klaus, J.; McDonnell, J. Hydrograph Separation Using Stable Isotopes: Review and Evaluation. J. Hydrol. 2013, 505, 47–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Šanda, M.; Vitvar, T.; Kulasová, A.; Jankovec, J.; Císlerová, M. Run-off formation in a humid, temperate headwater catchment using a combined hydrological, hydrochemical and isotopic approach (Jizera Mountains, Czech Republic). Hydrol. Process. 2014, 28, 3217–3229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vogel, T.; Šanda, M.; Dušek, J.; Dohnal, M.; Votrubová, J. Using Oxygen-18 to Study the Role of Preferential Flow in the Formation of Hillslope Runoff. Vadose Zone J. 2010, 9, 252–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jenkins, A.; Ferrier, R.C.; Harriman, R.; Ogunkoya, Y.O. A case study in catchment hydrochemistry: Conflicting interpretation from hydrological and chemical observation. Hydrol. Process. 1994, 8, 335–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kendall, C.; McDonnell, J. Isotope Tracers in Catchment Hydrology; Elsevier: New York, NY, USA, 1999; p. 870. ISBN 978-0-444-50155-4. [Google Scholar]
- Šanda, M.; Kulasová, A.; Císlerová, M. Hydrological Processes in the Subsurface Investigated by Water Isotopes and Silica. Soil Water Res. 2009, 4, 83–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Tesař, M.; Šír, M.; Vondrka, A. Hydrodynamics of soil water flow using sodium and potassium ions as tracers. In Studies of Hydrological Processes in Research Basins; Current Challenges and Prospects: Book of Abstracts; ERB: St. Petersburg, Russia, 2012; pp. 186–187. [Google Scholar]
- Iorgulescu, I.; Beven, K.J.; Musy, A. Data-based modelling of runoff and chemical tracer concentrations in the Haute-Mentue research catchment (Switzerland). Hydrol. Process. 2005, 19, 2557–2573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kirchner, J.W.; Tetzlaff, D.; Souslsby, C. Comparing chloride and water isotopes as hydrological tracers in two Scottish catchments. Hydrol. Process. 2010, 24, 1631–1645. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mul, M.L.; Mutiibwa, R.K.; Uhlenbrook, S.; Savenije, H.G. Hydrograph separation using hydrochemical tracers in the Makanya catchment, Tanzania. Phys. Chem. Earth Part A/B/C 2008, 33, 151–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lacas, J.L. Introduction to the Methodology for the Study and Use of Hydrothermal Fields in Karst Aquifers Using the Example of the Lez Source Emergency Site (Hérault, France); C.E.R.H.: Montpellier, France, 1976; p. 68. (In French) [Google Scholar]
- Keys, W.S.; Brown, R.F. The Use of Temperature Logs to Trace the Movement of Injected Water. Ground Water 1978, 16, 32–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martin, J.; Dean, R. Temperature as a natural tracer of short residence times for groundwater in karst aquifers. In Karst Modeling, Special Publication 5; Palmer, A.N., Palmer, V.P., Sasowsky, I.D., Eds.; Karst Waters Institute: Charles Town, VA, USA, 1999; pp. 236–242. [Google Scholar]
- Birkinshaw, S.J.; Webb, B. Flow pathways in the Slapton Wood catchment using temperature as a tracer. J. Hydrol. 2010, 383, 269–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Anderson, M.G.; McDonnell, J.J. Encyclopedia of Hydrological Sciences; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2005; Volume 5, p. 3456. ISBN 978-0-471-49103-3. [Google Scholar]
- Westhoff, M.C.; Savenije, H.H.G.; Luxemburg, W.M.J.; Stelling, G.S.; van de Giesen, N.C.; Selker, J.S.; Pfister, L.; Uhlenbrook, S. A distributed stream temperature model using high resolution temperature observations. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 2007, 11, 1469–1480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Constantz, J.; Stonestrom, D. Heat as a tracer of water movement near streams. In Heat as a Tool for Studying the Movement of Ground Water Near Streams; U.S. Geological Survey; The U.S. Geological Survey Circular: Reston, VA, USA, 2003; Volume 1260. [Google Scholar]
- Kogovšek, J.; Petrič, M. Water temperature as a natural tracer—A case study of the Malenščica karst spring (SW Slovenia). Geol. Croat. 2010, 63, 171–177. [Google Scholar]
- Davis, S.; Thomson, G.; Bentley, H.; Stiles, G. Ground-Water Tracers—A Short Review. Ground Water 1980, 18, 14–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shanley, J.B.; Peters, N.E. Preliminary observations of streamflow generation during storms in a forested Piedmont watershed using temperature as a tracer. J. Contam. Hydrol. 1988, 3, 349–365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pelikán, L.; Herber, V. An application of stream thermometry in small drainage basins. Morav. Geogr. Rep. 2011, 19, 29–35. [Google Scholar]
- Zajíček, A.; Kvítek, T.; Kaplická, M.; Doležal, F.; Kulhavý, Z.; Bystřický, V.; Žlábek, P. Drainage water temperature as a basis for verifying drainage runoff composition on slopes. Hydrol. Process. 2011, 25, 3204–3215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zajíček, A.; Pomije, T.; Kvítek, T. Event water detection in tile drainage runoff using stable isotopes and a water temperature in small agricultural catchment in Bohemian-Moravian Highlands, Czech Republic. Environ. Earth Sci. 2016, 75, 838. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kulhavý, Z.; Doležal, F.; Fučík, P.; Kulhavý, F.; Kvítek, T.; Muzikář, R.; Soukup, M.; Švihla, V. Management of agricultural drainage systems in the Czech Republic. Irrig. Drain. 2007, 56, 141–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kulhavý, Z.; Fučík, P. Adaptation Options for Land Drainage Systems Towards Sustainable Agriculture and Environment: A Czech Perspective. Pol. J. Environ. Stud. 2015, 24, 1085–1102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Maalim, F.K.; Melesse, A.M.; Belmont, P.; Gran, K. Modeling the impact of land use changes on runoff and sediment yield in the Le Sueur Watershed, Minnesota using GeoWEPP. Catena 2013, 107, 35–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zajíček, A.; Fučík, P.; Kaplická, M.; Liška, M.; Maxová, J.; Dobiáš, J. Pesticide leaching by agricultural drainage in sloping, mid-textured soil conditions—The role of runoff components. Water Sci. Technol. 2018, 77, 1879–1890. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Doležal, F.; Kvítek, T. The role of recharge zones, discharge zones, springs and tile drainage systems in peneplains of Central European highlands with regard to water quality generation processes. Phys. Chem. Earth Part A/B/C 2004, 29, 775–785. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fučík, P.; Zajíček, A.; Kaplická, M.; Duffková, R.; Peterková, J.; Maxová, J.; Takáčová, Š. Incorporating rainfall-runoff events into nitrate-nitrogen and phosphorus load assessments for small tile-drained catchments. Water 2017, 9, 712. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Maher, K.; Chamberlain, C.P. Hydrologic Regulation of Chemical Weathering and the Geologic Carbon Cycle. Science 2014, 343, 1502–1504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kvítek, T.; Bystřický, V.; Duffková, R.; Moravcová, J.; Pavlíček, T.; Peterková, J.; Pomije, T.; Tachecí, P.; Zajíček, A.; Žlábek, P. Water Runoff and Concentration Nitrate Modelling in Geomorphological Zones with Relation to Land Use; VUMOP: Praha, Czech Republic, 2012; p. 89. (In Czech) [Google Scholar]
- Šanda, M.; Císlerová, M. Transforming Hydrographs in the Hillslope Subsurface. J. Hydrol. Hydromech. 2009, 57, 264–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Constantz, J. Interaction between stream temperature, streamflow, and groundwater exchanges in alpine streams. Water Resour. Res. 1998, 34, 1609–1615. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nash, J.E.; Sutcliffe, J.V. River flow forecasting through conceptual models part I—A discussion of principles. J. Hydrol. 1970, 10, 282–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mioduszewski, W.; Querner, E.P.; Bielecka, J. Modelling of Groundwater Fluctuations in the Area between the Narew and Suprasl Rivers. In Modelling of Hydrological Processes in the Narew Catchment; Światek, D., Okruszko, T., Eds.; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2011; ISBN 9783642190599. [Google Scholar]
- Krásný, J. Groundwater flow: Influence of natural and anthropogenic factors. In Groundwater of Czech Republic; Krásný, J., Ed.; Czech Geological Survey: Prague, Czech Republic, 2012; pp. 718–726, (In Czech). ISBN 978-80-7075-797-0. [Google Scholar]
- Císlerová, M. Infiltration and preferential flow in the unsaturated zone. In Groundwater of Czech Republic; Krásný, J., Ed.; Czech Geological Survey: Prague, Czech Republic, 2012; pp. 85–89, (In Czech). ISBN 978-80-7075-797-0. [Google Scholar]
- Vondrka, A. Hydrograph Separation Using Ionic Concentration Measurement. Dissertation Thesis, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Prague, Czech Republic, 2012. (In Czech). [Google Scholar]
- Wilson, G.V.; Jardine, P.M.; Luxmoore, R.J.; Jones, J.R. Hydrology of a forested hillslope during storm events. Geoderma 1990, 46, 119–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Šanda, M.; Císlerová, M. Observation of subsurface hillslope flow processes in the Jizera Mountains region, Czech Republic. In Catchment Hydrological and Biochemical Processes in the Changing Environment; IHP-VI, Technical Documents in Hydrology; Elias, V., Littlewood, I.G., Eds.; UNESCO: Paris, France, 2000; Volume 37, pp. 219–226. [Google Scholar]
- Tesař, M.; Šír, M.; Pražák, J.; Lichner, L. Instability driven flow and runoff formation in a small catchment. Geol. Acta 2004, 2, 147–156. [Google Scholar]
- Zumr, D.; Dostál, T.; Deváty, J. Identification of prevailing storm runoff generation mechanisms in an intensively cultivated catchment. J. Hydrol. Hydrom. 2015, 63, 246–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Simunek, J.; Jarvis, N.J.; Van Genutchten, M.T.; Gardenas, A. Review and comparison of models for describing non-equilibrium and preferential flow and transport in the vadose zone. J. Hydrol. 2003, 272, 14–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Doležal, F.; Zumr, D.; Vacek, J.; Zavadil, J.; Battilani, A.; Plauborg, F.L.; Hansen, S.; Abrahamsen, P.; Bizik, J.; Takac, J.; et al. Dual permeability soil water dynamics and water uptake by roots in irrigated potato fields. Biologia 2007, 62, 552–556. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Šír, M.; Tesař, M. Pedological and hydropedological characteristics of soils. In Retention and Quality of Water in the Catchment of Švihov Water Supply Reservoir on the Želivka River (The Importance of Water Retention on Agricultural Land for Water Quality and, at the Same Time, the Crystalline Complex Water Regime Guide), 2nd ed.; Kvítek, T., Ed.; Povodí Vltavy, State Enterprise: Prague, Czech Republic, 2018; p. 488, (In Czech). ISBN 978-80-270-5244-8. [Google Scholar]
- Šír, M.; Tesař, M. Water retention and runoff formation in the Krkonoše Mts. Opera Corcon. 2013, 50, 97–106. [Google Scholar]
- Vondrka, A.; Tesař, M.; Šír, M. Leaching of sodium and potassium ions from the small mountainous watershed in the Šumava Mts. Vodn. Hospodářství 2013, 7, 21–25. (In Czech) [Google Scholar]
Watershed/Drainage Profile | |||
---|---|---|---|
Kopaninský Stream (P6) | Dehtáře (KP) | Dehtáře (KL) | |
Geographic coordinates | 49°28′34″ N 15°18′32″ E | 49°28′ N 15°12′ E | 49°28′ N 15°12′ E |
Area (ha) | 15.73 | 28.30 | 29.60 |
Altitude (m a.s.l.) | 532–489 | 550–497 | 550–497 |
Slope (%) | 6.57 | 5.52 | 5.52 |
Primary land use (ha) | Cultivated 15.08 | Cultivated 24.20 | Cultivated 20.20 |
Grassland 0.38 | Grassland 0.80 | Grassland 9.00 | |
Tile-drained area (ha) | 9.68 | 6.30 | 9.10 |
Bedrock | Paragneiss | Paragneiss | Paragneiss |
Main soil types (WRB 2014) | Haplic Cambisol | Haplic Cambisol | Haplic Cambisol |
Stagnic Cambisol | Stagnic Cambisol | Stagnic Cambisol | |
Haplic Stagnosol | Haplic Stagnosol | ||
Mean annual precipitation (mm) | 666 | 666 | 666 |
Mean annual temperature (°C) | 7.9 | 7.9 | 7.9 |
Average discharge (l s−1) | 0.87 | 1.52 | 0.37 |
Monitored period | 2011–2012 | 2011–2014 | 2011–2014 |
RRE ID | Precipitation Total Until Peak Discharge (mm) | Precipitation Duration (min) | Precipitation Intensity (mm/h) | Increase in Runoff [l/s] During RRE | Time to peak Discharge (min) | Increase in Drainage Runoff Temperature (°C) during RRE | Weighted Avg. of Causal Precipitation Temperature (°C) | Avg. Soil Temperature at 40–70 cm Depth before RRE (°C) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1-P6 8 June 2011 | 10.1 | 60 | 10.10 | 4.11 | 40 | 0.8 | 14.21 | 16.35 |
1-KL 8 June 2011 | 18.6 | 190 | 5.87 | 0.63 | 180 | 0.9 | 12.34 | 16.39 |
1-KP 8 June 2011 | 18.6 | 190 | 5.87 | 1.35 | 170 | 3.9 | 12.34 | 16.39 |
2-P6 22 June 2011 | 28.4 | 70 | 24.34 | 66.33 | 40 | 2.1 | 16.95 | 15.26 |
2-KL 22 June 2011 | 23.9 | 80 | 17.93 | 1.30 | 40 | 0.8 | 16.84 | 15.23 |
3-P6 13 July 2011 | 16 | 90 | 10.67 | 9.92 | 80 | 1.3 | 17.47 | 17.79 |
3-KL 13 July 2011 | 21.1 | 90 | 14.07 | 0.77 | 70 | 0.8 | 17.53 | 17.67 |
2-KP 13 July 2011 | 21.1 | 90 | 14.07 | 1.56 | 50 | 4.3 | 17.53 | 17.67 |
4-P6 20 July 2011 | 28.2 | 780 | 2.17 | 2.16 | 760 | 1.8 | 13.23 | 16.19 |
4-KL 20 July 2011 | 24.7 | 920 | 1.61 | 0.87 | 620 | 0.5 | 13.44 | 16.17 |
3-KP 20 July 2011 | 24.7 | 882 | 1.68 | 0.95 | 710 | 0.6 | 13.44 | 16.17 |
5-P6 30 July 2011 | 20.6 | 1545 | 0.80 | 2.09 | 870 | 1.3 | 12.29 | 15.03 |
6-P6 4 August 2011 | 26.7 | 110 | 14.56 | 244.08 | 100 | 2.2 | 16.30 | 16.83 |
7-P6 15 August 2011 | 14.3 | 380 | 2.26 | 0.89 | 370 | 0.7 | 15.44 | 20.47 |
5-KL 15 August 2011 | 14.4 | 270 | 3.20 | 0.88 | 200 | 0.5 | 15.39 | 15.79 |
4-KP 15 August 2011 | 14.4 | 250 | 3.46 | 2.14 | 220 | 2.5 | 15.39 | 15.79 |
8-P6 5 September 2011 | 34.3 | 360 | 5.72 | 2.40 | 340 | 1.6 | 16.05 | 16.72 |
6-KL 5 September 2011 | 19.5 | 170 | 6.88 | 0.36 | 140 | 0.3 | 16.02 | 16.91 |
5-KP 5 September 2011 | 19.5 | 170 | 6.88 | 2.18 | 270 | 2.5 | 16.02 | 16.91 |
9-P6 3 May 2012 | 70.2 | 80 | 52.65 | 71.76 | 80 | 3.4 | 0.75 | 8.86 |
7-KL 1 July 2012 | 21.4 | 50 | 25.68 | 1.99 | 40 | 1.1 | 18.04 | 17.67 |
8-KL 6 August 2012 | 7.5 | 30 | 15.00 | 1.73 | 40 | 0.6 | 16.38 | 17.69 |
6-KP 6 August 2012 | 17.6 | 60 | 17.60 | 1.86 | 60 | 3.7 | 16.38 | 17.69 |
10-KL 24 June 2013 | 56.6 | 1220 | 2.78 | 3.22 | 1610 | 1.7 | 10.59 | 16.58 |
8-KP 24 June 2013 | 56.6 | 1220 | 2.78 | 3.18 | 490 | 2.0 | 10.59 | 16.58 |
11-KL 29 July 2013 | 8.5 | 100 | 5.10 | 2.62 | 100 | 1.7 | 19.75 | 16.60 |
12-KL 18 May 2014 | 9.6 | 520 | 1.11 | 0.30 | 310 | 0.4 | 8.19 | 10.24 |
9-KP 18 May 2014 | 9.6 | 520 | 1.11 | 0.56 | 570 | 0.3 | 8.19 | 10.24 |
13-KL 23 May 2014 | 7.8 | 80 | 5.85 | 0.90 | 100 | 0.7 | 15.53 | 11.19 |
10-KP 23 May 2014 | 7.8 | 80 | 5.85 | 0.72 | 100 | 5.1 | 15.53 | 11.19 |
14-KL 29 May 2014 | 10.7 | 680 | 0.94 | 1.26 | 610 | 0.8 | 9.20 | 13.49 |
11-KP 29 May 2014 | 10.7 | 970 | 0.94 | 1.67 | 680 | 1.3 | 9.20 | 13.49 |
15-KL 27 July 2014 | 15.5 | 40 | 8.45 | 0.47 | 30 | 0.5 | 19.06 | 16.70 |
16-KL 31 July 2014 | 18.2 | 520 | 4.96 | 0.46 | 60 | 0.5 | 16.84 | 17.15 |
12-KP 27 August 2014 | 18.7 | 80 | 3.87 | 1.05 | 200 | 0.4 | 11.30 | 15.73 |
17-KL 12 September 2014 | 32.2 | 680 | 1.99 | 0.58 | 470 | 0.8 | 12.65 | 15.76 |
13-KP 12 September 2014 | 32.2 | 970 | 1.99 | 9.78 | 640 | 0.6 | 12.65 | 15.76 |
18-KL 15 September 2014 | 11.3 | 40 | 16.95 | 0.40 | 130 | 0.8 | 20.75 | 15.48 |
14-KP 15 September 2014 | 11.3 | 40 | 16.95 | 9.97 | 110 | 1.7 | 20.75 | 15.48 |
NSE Coefficient | Evaluation of Model Match |
---|---|
NSE > 0.75 | High Agreement (HA) |
NSE = 0.5–0.75 | Medium Agreement (MA) |
NSE < 0.5 | Discrepancy (D) |
RRE ID | ME1 2H | ME1 18O | ME1 Evaluation | NSE 2H of CP vs. TP | NSE 18O of CP vs. TP | NSE CP vs. TP Evaluation | NSE 2H PP vs. TS | NSE 18O PP vs. TS | NSE PP vs. TS Evaluation |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1-P6 8 June 2011 | 0.0887 | 0.0993 | H | 0.8933 | 0.9045 | HA | NO | NO | NO |
2-KL 22 June 2011 | 0.1044 | 0.1020 | H | 0.5187 | 0.5334 | MA | NO | NO | NO |
2-P6 22 June 2011 | 0.9703 | 1.0998 | H | 0.9482 | 0.8841 | HA | NO | NO | NO |
2-KP 13 July 2011 | 0.1810 | 0.1952 | H | 0.7690 | 0.7281 | MA | NO | NO | NO |
3-KL 13 July 2011 | 0.0987 | 0.1072 | H | 0.8443 | 0.7641 | HA | NO | NO | NO |
3-P6 13 July 2011 | 0.6227 | 0.6522 | H | 0.9902 | 0.9856 | HA | NO | NO | NO |
4-P6 20 July 2011 | 0.8214 | 0.9553 | H | −428.2268 | −931.5555 | D | 0.8425 | 0.8427 | HA |
3-KP 20 July 2011 | 0.2628 | 0.2595 | H | −371.1274 | −449.9511 | D | 0.9619 | 0.9735 | HA |
4-KL 20 July 2011 | 0.2434 | 0.2096 | H | −45.1230 | −22.7756 | D | 0.9376 | 0.9626 | HA |
5-P6 30 July 2011 | 0.4926 | 0.6105 | H | −1191.3665 | −3594.7472 | D | 0.8826 | 0.6373 | HA |
6-P6 4 August 2011 | 5.2765 | 4.4635 | H | 0.9801 | 0.9301 | HA | NO | NO | NO |
9-P6 3 May 2012 | 2.2548 | 2.5979 | H | 0.9035 | 0.8457 | HA | NO | NO | NO |
7-KL 1 July 2012 | 0.1560 | 0.1662 | H | 0.8666 | 0.6532 | HA | NO | NO | NO |
6-KP 6 August 2012 | 0.2020 | 0.2201 | H | 0.8463 | 0.7779 | HA | NO | NO | NO |
8-KL 6 August 2012 | 0.1148 | 0.1180 | H | 0.8441 | 0.8583 | HA | NO | NO | NO |
10-KL 24 June 2013 | 0.6418 | 0.6938 | H | −46.8710 | −51.4948 | D | 0.8637 | 0.8464 | HA |
8-KP 24 June 2013 | 0.8087 | 1.0459 | H | −118.5586 | −153.4816 | D | 0.6800 | 0.7401 | MA |
11-KL 29 July 2013 | 0.0734 | 0.0588 | H | 0.9241 | 0.9154 | HA | NO | NO | NO |
12-KL 18 May 2014 | 0.0770 | 0.1467 | H | −3.7417 | −44.6586 | D | 0.8491 | 0.9560 | HA |
9-KP 18 May 2014 | 0.1096 | 0.1620 | H | −9.1755 | −20.7343 | D | 0.9567 | 0.9358 | HA |
10-KP 23 May 2014 | 0.0505 | 0.0462 | H | 0.8231 | 0.8555 | HA | NO | NO | NO |
13-KL 23 May 2014 | 0.0615 | 0.0321 | H | 0.9419 | 0.9747 | HA | NO | NO | NO |
11-KP 29 May 2014 | 0.0935 | 0.0822 | H | −1.2311 | −1.2044 | D | 0.7817 | 0.7540 | HA |
14-KL 29 May 2014 | 0.1251 | 0.1273 | H | −2.3197 | −2.3787 | D | 0.8210 | 0.7960 | HA |
15-KL 27 July 2014 | 0.0061 | 0.0075 | H | 0.9843 | 0.9834 | HA | NO | NO | NO |
16-KL 31 July 2014 | 0.0407 | 0.0375 | H | 0.8915 | 0.9525 | HA | NO | NO | NO |
14-KP 15 September 2014 | 0.7646 | 0.2242 | H | 0.8715 | 0.9408 | HA | NO | NO | NO |
18-KL 15 September 2014 | 0.0348 | 0.0257 | H | 0.9754 | 0.9643 | HA | NO | NO | NO |
1-KL 8 June 2011 | -0.0383 | -0.0481 | D | NO | NO | NO | 0.9595 | 0.9736 | HA |
1-KP 8 June 2011 | -0.0632 | -0.0744 | D | NO | NO | NO | 0.5234 | 0.5271 | MA |
7-P6 15 August 2011 | -0.1186 | -0.1424 | D | NO | NO | NO | 0.9492 | 0.9444 | HA |
5-KL 15 August 2011 | -0.2375 | -0.3432 | D | NO | NO | NO | 0.9331 | 0.9269 | HA |
4-KP 15 August 2011 | -0.9948 | -1.5619 | D | NO | NO | NO | 0.5542 | 0.5723 | MA |
8-P6 5 September 2011 | -1.5087 | -1.5030 | D | NO | NO | NO | 0.5839 | 0.7550 | MA |
6-KL 5 September 2011 | -0.0551 | -0.0424 | D | NO | NO | NO | 0.9574 | 0.9565 | HA |
5-KP 5 September 2011 | -0.8332 | -0.8302 | D | NO | NO | NO | 0.9301 | 0.9121 | HA |
12-KP 27 August 2014 | -0.0748 | -0.0970 | D | 0.1759 | −0.0018 | D | E | E | E |
17-KL 12 September 2014 | -0.1771 | -0.1331 | D | NO | NO | NO | 0.6348 | 0.6518 | MA |
13-KP 12 September 2014 | -0.8527 | -0.6214 | D | NO | NO | NO | 0.9061 | 0.9034 | HA |
Separation Method/Origin of Water | Precipitation Temperature/Causal Precipitation | Soil Temperature/Pre-Precipitation Water | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Parameter | Time to peak discharge (min) | Number of events | Time to peak discharge (min) | Number of events | |
Drainage profile | KL | 30–130 | 9 | 140–1610 | 8 |
KP | 50–110 | 4 | 170–710 | 8 | |
P6 | 40–100 | 5 | 340–870 | 4 |
Parameters of RREs | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Separation Method | No. of Events | Time to Peak Discharge (min) | Precipitation Intensity (mm/hour) | ||||
Min | Max | Median | Min | Max | Median | ||
SST-NSE | 10 | 310 | 1610 | 650 | 0.8 | 2.8 | 1.4 |
SST-ME1 | 10 | 140 | 640 | 245 | 2.0 | 6.9 | 4.6 |
SPT | 18 | 30 | 130 | 65 | 5.0 | 52.7 | 14.3 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Pomije, T.; Zajíček, A.; Bystřický, V.; Kaplická, M.; Tachecí, P.; Kvítek, T. Drainage Runoff Separation of New and Old Water Based on Precipitation, Air, Water, and Soil Temperature Compared to Stable Isotopes 18O and 2H. Water 2022, 14, 2349. https://doi.org/10.3390/w14152349
Pomije T, Zajíček A, Bystřický V, Kaplická M, Tachecí P, Kvítek T. Drainage Runoff Separation of New and Old Water Based on Precipitation, Air, Water, and Soil Temperature Compared to Stable Isotopes 18O and 2H. Water. 2022; 14(15):2349. https://doi.org/10.3390/w14152349
Chicago/Turabian StylePomije, Tomáš, Antonín Zajíček, Václav Bystřický, Markéta Kaplická, Pavel Tachecí, and Tomáš Kvítek. 2022. "Drainage Runoff Separation of New and Old Water Based on Precipitation, Air, Water, and Soil Temperature Compared to Stable Isotopes 18O and 2H" Water 14, no. 15: 2349. https://doi.org/10.3390/w14152349