EGU2020-13426
https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu2020-13426
EGU General Assembly 2020
© Author(s) 2020. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

A Comparison of Field Techniques for the Analysis of Groundwater-Surface-Water Interactions: Porewater Sampling and Hyporheic Temperature and EC Time Series

Nicolai Brekenfeld1, Uwe Schneidewind2, Sophie Comer-Warner2, Hanna Schulz3, Nick Kettridge2, Theresa Blume4, Hjalmar Laudon5, Kevin Bishop6, David Hannah2, and Stefan Krause2
Nicolai Brekenfeld et al.
  • 1University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (nxb634@bham.ac.uk)
  • 2University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
  • 3Leibniz-Institute of Freshwater Ecology and Inland Fisheries (IGB), Berlin, Germany
  • 4German Research Center for Geosciences (GFZ), Potsdam, Germany
  • 5Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU), Umea, Sweden
  • 6Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU), Uppsala, Sweden

The interactions between streamwater and hyporheic or riparian porewater are tightly linked to the biogeochemical and ecological processes within fluvial ecosystems. The analyses of hyporheic biogeochemical cycles or hyporheic exchange fluxes often involves manual sampling of porewater or measurement of temperature time series in the streambed. Here, we compare these two techniques with electrical conductivity time series from a cluster of small, hyporheic EC sensors and discuss their implications on the interpretation of groundwater – surface-water interactions in a first-order boreal stream.

Based on repeated measurements and the co-located small, hyporheic EC sensors, we found that even small sampling-rates of sediment porewater alter the hyporheic flow at some locations significantly. However, since porewater samples are necessary for the analysis of hyporheic biogeochemical cycles and water source partitioning, we recommend for future experiments to either co-locate small, continuous sensors with the sampling ports or to conduct experiments quantifying the induced flux.

Calculated 1D fluxes based on profiles of temperature time series are often integrated over many centimetres to a few decimetres, if the sensors spacing is not very small. This might be the reason, why fluxes based on our temperature and EC measurements do not always have the same direction, especially if the fast hyporheic exchange fluxes are very shallow.

We conclude, that using several, co-located techniques together can compensate for the limitations of each technique and reduce the risk of misleading conclusions.

How to cite: Brekenfeld, N., Schneidewind, U., Comer-Warner, S., Schulz, H., Kettridge, N., Blume, T., Laudon, H., Bishop, K., Hannah, D., and Krause, S.: A Comparison of Field Techniques for the Analysis of Groundwater-Surface-Water Interactions: Porewater Sampling and Hyporheic Temperature and EC Time Series, EGU General Assembly 2020, Online, 4–8 May 2020, EGU2020-13426, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu2020-13426, 2020

Displays

Display file