Linking Riparian Dynamics and Groundwater: An Ecohydrologic Approach to Modeling Groundwater and Riparian Vegetation

The growing use of global freshwater supplies is increasing the need for improved modeling of the linkage between groundwater and riparian vegetation. Traditional groundwater models such as MODFLOW have been used to predict changes in regional groundwater levels, and thus riparian vegetation potential attributable to anthropogenic water use. This article describes an approach that improves on these modeling techniques through several innovations. First, evapotranspiration from riparian/wetland systems is modeled in a manner that more realistically reflects plant ecophysiology and vegetation complexity. In the authors’ model programs (RIP-ET and PRE-RIP-ET), the single, monotonically increasing evapotranspiration flux curve in traditional groundwater models is replaced with a set of ecophysiologically based curves, one for each plant functional group present. For each group, the curve simulates transpiration declines that occur both as water levels decline below rooting depths and as waters rise to levels that produce anoxic soil conditions. Accuracy is further improved by more effective spatial handling of vegetation distribution, which allows modeling of surface elevation and depth to water for multiple vegetation types within each large model cell. The use of RIP-ET in groundwater models can improve the accuracy of basin scale estimates of riparian evapotranspiration rates, riparian vegetation water requirements, and water budgets. Two case studies are used to demonstrate that RIP-ET produces significantly different evapotranspiration estimates than the traditional method. When combined with vegetation mapping and a supporting program (RIP-GIS), RIP-ET also enables predictions of riparian vegetation response to water use and development scenarios. The RIP-GIS program links the head distribution from MODFLOW with surface digital elevation models, producing moderate- to high-resolution depth-to-groundwater maps. Together with information on plant rooting depths, these can be used to predict vegetation response to water allocation decisions. The different evapotranspiration outcomes produced by traditional and RIP-ET approaches affect resulting interpretations of hydro-vegetation dynamics, including the effects of groundwater pumping stress on existing habitats, and thus affect subsequent policy decisions.

[1]  Leticia Beatriz Vionnet,et al.  Groundwater capture processes under a seasonal variation in natural recharge and discharge , 1998 .

[2]  C. Trettin,et al.  Influence of restoration and succession on bottomland hardwood hydrology , 2000 .

[3]  J. Mount,et al.  SIMULATED CHANGES IN SHALLOW GROUNDWATER AND VEGETATION DISTRIBUTIONS UNDER DIFFERENT RESERVOIR OPERATIONS SCENARIOS , 2004 .

[4]  Brian D. Richter,et al.  Prescribing Flood Regimes to Sustain Riparian Ecosystems along Meandering Rivers , 2000 .

[5]  C. Nilsson,et al.  Basic Principles and Ecological Consequences of Changing Water Regimes: Riparian Plant Communities , 2002, Environmental management.

[6]  A. Symstad,et al.  An experimental test of the effect of plant functional group diversity on arthropod diversity , 2000 .

[7]  David G. Williams,et al.  Water sources used by riparian trees varies among stream types on the San Pedro River, Arizona. , 2000 .

[8]  R. Sparks,et al.  THE NATURAL FLOW REGIME. A PARADIGM FOR RIVER CONSERVATION AND RESTORATION , 1997 .

[9]  David P. Braun,et al.  How much water does a river need , 1997 .

[10]  P. Shafroth,et al.  Control of Tamarix in the Western United States: Implications for Water Salvage, Wildlife Use, and Riparian Restoration , 2005, Environmental management.

[11]  Carl Steinitz,et al.  Alternative Futures for Changing Landscapes: The Upper San Pedro River Basin In Arizona And Sonora , 2003 .

[12]  S. Lavorel,et al.  Plant functional classifications: from general groups to specific groups based on response to disturbance. , 1997, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[13]  Roy Turkington,et al.  Effects of growing conditions and source habitat on plant traits and functional group definition , 2001 .

[14]  R. Kingsford.  Protecting rivers in arid regions or pumping them dry? , 2000, Hydrobiologia.

[15]  G. Goldstein,et al.  Control of transpiration from the upper canopy of a tropical forest: the role of stomatal, boundary layer and hydraulic architecture components , 1997 .

[16]  P. Nienhuis,et al.  River restoration and flood protection: controversy or synergism? , 2001, Hydrobiologia.

[17]  Arlen W. Harbaugh,et al.  Guidelines for Evaluating Ground-Water Flow Models , 2004 .

[18]  D. Cooper,et al.  Stream/aquifer interactions at Great Sand Dunes National Monument, Colorado: influences on interdunal wetland disappearance , 2003 .

[19]  R. Naiman,et al.  Legitimizing Fluvial Ecosystems as Users of Water: An Overview , 2002, Environmental management.

[20]  P. Nagler,et al.  Comparison of transpiration rates among saltcedar, cottonwood and willow trees by sap flow and canopy temperature methods , 2003 .

[21]  N. Grimm,et al.  SENSITIVITY OF AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMS TO CLIMATIC AND ANTHROPOGENIC CHANGES: THE BASIN AND RANGE, AMERICAN SOUTHWEST AND MEXICO , 1997 .

[22]  P. Hancock,et al.  Human Impacts on the Stream–Groundwater Exchange Zone , 2002, Environmental management.

[23]  T. C. Winter,et al.  Ground Water and Surface Water: A Single Resource , 1999 .

[24]  William J. Mitsch,et al.  Improving the Success of Wetland Creation and Restoration with Know‐How, Time, and Self‐Design , 1996 .

[25]  Lawrence B. Flanagan,et al.  Seasonal and interannual variation in evapotranspiration, energy balance and surface conductance in a northern temperate grassland , 2002 .

[26]  David C. Goodrich,et al.  Transpiration of cottonwood/willow forest estimated from sap flux , 2000 .

[27]  Yann Kerr,et al.  Seasonal estimates of riparian evapotranspiration using remote and in situ measurements. , 2000 .

[28]  J. Stromberg,et al.  Restoration of riparian vegetation in the south-western United States: importance of flow regimes and fluvial dynamism , 2001 .

[29]  D. E. Busch,et al.  Water Uptake in Woody Riparian Phreatophytes of the Southwestern United States: A Stable Isotope Study. , 1992, Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America.

[30]  Patrick B. Shafroth,et al.  Coupling groundwater and riparian vegetation models to assess effects of reservoir releases , 1999 .

[31]  Thomas Maddock,et al.  MODFLOW: A Finite-Difference Groundwater Flow Model or an Integrated Finite- Difference Groundwater Flow Model? , 2003 .

[32]  Claude Amoros,et al.  Restoration ecology of riverine wetlands: A 5-year post-operation survey on the Rhône River, France , 2002 .

[33]  Edward R. Banta,et al.  MODFLOW-2000, the U.S. Geological Survey Modular Ground-Water Model; documentation of packages for simulating evapotranspiration with a segmented function (ETS1) and drains with return flow (DRT1) , 2000 .

[34]  P. Hamilton,et al.  Groundwater and surface water: A single resource , 2005 .

[35]  O. Batelaan,et al.  Regional groundwater discharge: phreatophyte mapping, groundwater modelling and impact analysis of land-use change , 2003 .

[36]  Arlen W. Harbaugh,et al.  User's documentation for MODFLOW-96, an update to the U.S. Geological Survey modular finite-difference ground-water flow model , 1996 .

[37]  Thomas E. Kolb,et al.  Physiological response to groundwater depth varies among species and with river flow regulation , 2001 .

[38]  D. Patten,et al.  Woody riparian vegetation response to different alluvial water table regimes. , 2000 .

[39]  John F. Mustard,et al.  REGIONAL PATTERNS OF PLANT COMMUNITY RESPONSE TO CHANGES IN WATER: OWENS VALLEY, CALIFORNIA , 2003 .

[40]  K. G. McNaughton,et al.  Stomatal Control of Transpiration: Scaling Up from Leaf to Region , 1986 .

[41]  D. Cooper,et al.  Physiological and Morphological Response Patterns of Populus deltoides to Alluvial Groundwater Pumping , 2003, Environmental management.