Exploring Tracer Information and Model Framework Trade‐offs to Improve Estimation of Stream Transient Storage Processes

International audienceNovel observation techniques (e.g., smart tracers) for characterizing coupled hydrological and biogeochemical processes are improving understanding of stream network transport and transformation dynamics. In turn, these observations are thought to enable increasingly sophisticated representations within transient storage models (TSMs). However, TSM parameter estimation is prone to issues with insensitivity and equifinality, which grow as parameters are added to model formulations. Currently, it is unclear whether (or not) observations from different tracers may lead to greater process inference and reduced parameter uncertainty in the context of TSM. Herein, we aim to unravel the role of in‐stream processes alongside metabolically active (MATS) and inactive storage zones (MITS) using variable TSM formulations. Models with one (1SZ) and two storage zones (2SZ) and with and without reactivity were applied to simulate conservative and smart tracer observations obtained experimentally for two reaches with differing morphologies. As we show, smart tracers are unsurprisingly superior to conservative tracers when it comes to partitioning MITS and MATS. However, when transient storage is lumped within a 1SZ formulation, little improvement in parameter uncertainty is gained by using a smart tracer, suggesting the addition of observations should scale with model complexity. Importantly, our work identifies several inconsistencies and open questions related to reconciling time scales of tracer observation with conceptual processes (parameters) estimated within TSM. Approaching TSM with multiple models and tracer observations may be key to gaining improved insight into transient storage simulation as well as advancing feedback loops between models and observations within hydrologic science

Exploring Tracer Information and Model Framework Trade‐Offs to Improve Estimation of Stream Transient Storage Processes

Este artículo contiene 21 páginas 9 figuras, 1 tabla.Novel observation techniques (e.g., smart tracers) for characterizing coupled hydrological and biogeochemical processes are improving understanding of stream network transport and transformation dynamics. In turn, these observations are thought to enable increasingly sophisticated representations within transient storage models (TSMs). However, TSM parameter estimation is prone to issues with insensitivity and equifinality, which grow as parameters are added to model formulations. Currently, it is unclear whether (or not) observations from different tracers may lead to greater process inference and reduced parameter uncertainty in the context of TSM. Herein, we aim to unravel the role of in‐stream processes alongside metabolically active (MATS) and inactive storage zones (MITS) using variable TSM formulations. Models with one (1SZ) and two storage zones (2SZ) and with and without reactivity were applied to simulate conservative and smart tracer observations obtained experimentally for two reaches with differing morphologies. As we show, smart tracers are unsurprisingly superior to conservative tracers when it comes to partitioning MITS and MATS. However, when transient storage is lumped within a 1SZ formulation, little improvement in parameter uncertainty is gained by using a smart tracer, suggesting the addition of observations should scale with model complexity. Importantly, our work identifies several inconsistencies and open questions related to reconciling time scales of tracer observation with conceptual processes (parameters) estimated within TSM. Approaching TSM with multiple models and tracer observations may be key to gaining improved insight into transient storage simulation as well as advancing feedback loops between models and observations within hydrologic science.Funding for this research was provided by the Leverhulme Trust (Where rivers, groundwater, and disciplines meet: a hyporheic research network) and the U.K. Natural Environment Research Council (Large woody debris—A river restoration panacea for streambed nitrate attenuation? NERC NE/L003872/1).Peer reviewe

Woody debris is related to reach-scale hotspots of lowland stream ecosystem respiration under baseflow conditions

Stream metabolism is a fundamental, integrative indicator of aquatic ecosystem functioning. However, it is not well understood how heterogeneity in physical channel form, particularly in relation to and caused by in‐stream woody debris, regulates stream metabolism in lowland streams. We combined conservative and reactive stream tracers to investigate relationships between patterns in stream channel morphology and hydrological transport (form) and metabolic processes as characterized by ecosystem respiration (function) in a forested lowland stream at baseflow. Stream reach‐scale ecosystem respiration was related to locations (“hotspots”) with a high abundance of woody debris. In contrast, nearly all other measured hydrological and geomorphic variables previously documented or hypothesized to influence stream metabolism did not significantly explain ecosystem respiration. Our results suggest the existence of key differences in physical controls on ecosystem respiration between lowland stream systems (this study) and smaller upland streams (most previous studies) under baseflow conditions. As such, these findings have implications for reactive transport models that predict biogeochemical transformation rates from hydraulic transport parameters, for upscaling frameworks that represent biological stream processes at larger network scales, and for the effective management and restoration of aquatic ecosystems