Cross‐Validating Hydromechanical Models and Tracer Test Assessments of Hyporheic Exchange Flow in Streams With Different Hydromorphological Characteristics

• Published in: Water resources research Vol. 57; no. 12
• Main Authors: Morén, I., Riml, J., Wörman, A.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: 01.12.2021
• Subjects: hydrology; hydromechanical modeling; Hyporheic exchange flow; topography power spectral analysis; tracer test
• ISSN: 0043-1397; 1944-7973
• DOI: 10.1029/2021WR030248

Hyporheic exchange flow (HEF) can generally be quantified through two different approaches. The first approach, which is deductive, entails physically based models, supported with relevant observations. The second approach includes inductive assessments of stream tracer tests using solute transport models, which provide a useful mathematical framework that allows for upscaling of results, but included parameters often have a vague physical base, which limits the possibilities of generalizing results using independent hydromorphological observations. To better understand how the physical basis of HEF‐quantifying parameters relates to stream hydromorphology at different spatial scales, we cross‐validated the results from (a) tracer test assessments using a 1D solute transport model that accounts for HEF and (b) an independent hydromechanical model that represents HEF driven by multiscale pressure gradients along the streambed interface. To parameterize the models, topographical surveys, tracer tests, and streambed hydraulic conductivity measurements were performed in 10 stream reaches, differing in terms of geomorphology, slope, and discharge. The results show that the models were cross‐validated in terms of the average exchange velocity, providing a plausible physical explanation for this parameter in small alluvial streams with low discharges, shallow depth, and moderate slopes. However, the hydromechanical model generally resulted in wider residence time distributions and occasionally higher average residence times compared to the tracer test assessments. From the cross‐validated multiscale hydromechanical model, we learned that water surface profile variations were the main drivers of HEF in all investigated streams and that spatial scales between 20 cm and 5 m dominated the estimated HEF velocity. Key Points An inductive and a deductive approach for estimating hyporheic exchange velocity were cross‐validated in streams of varying hydromorphology Longitudinal variation in the water surface profile constituted a major control of hyporheic exchange flow (HEF) in the investigated streams Spatial scales smaller than five meters are likely important to consider to satisfactory quantify HEF in small streams