Transit time distributions of a conceptual model: their characteristics and sensitivities

The internal behaviour of a conceptual hydrological and tracer transport model, STREAM, has been examined through generation of transit time distributions for the model. The model has been applied to a small sub-catchment of the Lunan Water in the east of Scotland where daily precipitation and stream water samples have been analysed for isotope content. Transit time distributions are generated by numerically tracking pulse inputs of tracer to the model and evaluating the simulated stream outputs. A set of baseline simulations was first established through calibration to time series of stream flow. A series of model experiments was then undertaken to assess the sensitivity of the simulated transit time distributions to different model parameterizations, flow paths and mixing assumptions. The results of the analysis show that the model transit time distributions do not conform to any simple statistical function and that their characteristics can be significantly altered depending on how the model is set up. The analysis provided valuable insight into the functioning of the model and could be usefully applied to other model codes. Comparison of the transit time distributions generated by conceptual models with data-based empirical evidence of distributions gives the potential to close the gap in understanding the physical explanation for why catchment systems behave as they do. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

[1]  J. McDonnell,et al.  A review and evaluation of catchment transit time modeling , 2006 .

[2]  Andreas Herrmann,et al.  Isotope hydrological study of mean transit times in an alpine basin (Wimbachtal, Germany) , 1992 .

[3]  J. Welker,et al.  The role of topography on catchment‐scale water residence time , 2005 .

[4]  Doerthe Tetzlaff,et al.  How does landscape structure influence catchment transit time across different geomorphic provinces? , 2009 .

[5]  Doerthe Tetzlaff,et al.  Interpretation of homogeneity in δ18O signatures of stream water in a nested sub‐catchment system in north‐east Scotland , 2008 .

[6]  L. N. Plummer,et al.  Flow of river water into a karstic limestone aquifer—2. Dating the young fraction in groundwater mixtures in the Upper Floridan aquifer near Valdosta, Georgia , 1998 .

[7]  Doerthe Tetzlaff,et al.  Scaling up and out in runoff process understanding: insights from nested experimental catchment studies , 2006 .

[8]  Nobuhito Ohte,et al.  Residence times and flow paths of water in steep unchannelled catchments , 2002 .

[9]  J. Kirchner,et al.  Fractal stream chemistry and its implications for contaminant transport in catchments , 2000, Nature.

[10]  Georgia Destouni,et al.  Solute transport through the integrated groundwater‐stream system of a catchment , 2004 .

[11]  J. McDonnell,et al.  Factors influencing the residence time of catchment waters: A virtual experiment approach , 2007 .

[12]  J. Buttle,et al.  Recharge processes during snowmelt: an isotopic and hydrometric investigation. , 1990 .

[13]  Sarah M. Dunn.  Imposing constraints on parameter values of a conceptual hydrological model using baseflow response , 1999 .

[14]  A. Pearce,et al.  Storm runoff generation in humid headwater catchments 1 , 1986 .

[15]  Alan Jenkins,et al.  Isotope hydrology of the Allt a' Mharcaidh catchment, Cairngorms, Scotland : implications for hydrological pathways and residence times , 2000 .

[16]  Keith Beven,et al.  Modelling the chloride signal at Plynlimon, Wales, using a modified dynamic TOPMODEL incorporating conservative chemical mixing (with uncertainty) , 2007 .

[17]  S. Dunn,et al.  Assessing the added value of high-resolution isotope tracer data in rainfall-runoff modelling , 2009 .

[18]  Doerthe Tetzlaff,et al.  Towards a simple dynamic process conceptualization in rainfall–runoff models using multi-criteria calibration and tracers in temperate, upland catchments , 2009 .

[19]  S. Dunn,et al.  Assessing the value of Cl− and δ18O data in modelling the hydrological behaviour of a small upland catchment in northeast Scotland , 2008 .

[20]  Jeffrey J. McDonnell,et al.  Integrating tracer experiments with modeling to assess runoff processes and water transit times , 2007 .

[21]  P. Maloszewski,et al.  Application of flow models in an alpine catchment area using tritium and deuterium data , 1983 .

[22]  Pamela J. Edwards,et al.  SEASONAL ISOTOPE HYDROLOGY OF THREE APPALACHIAN FOREST CATCHMENTS , 1997 .

[23]  M. Stewart,et al.  Hydrometric and natural tracer (oxygen‐18, silica, tritium and sulphur hexafluoride) evidence for a dominant groundwater contribution to Pukemanga Stream, New Zealand , 2007 .

[24]  A. Lilly,et al.  Nitrogen Risk Assessment Model for Scotland: II. Hydrological transport and model testing , 2004 .

[25]  S. Uhlenbrook,et al.  Future trends in transport and fate of diffuse contaminants in catchments, with special emphasis on stable isotope applications , 2006 .

[26]  Peter S. Murdoch,et al.  Effect of groundwater springs on NO3− concentrations during summer in Catskill Mountain streams , 1998 .

[27]  Keith Beven,et al.  Isotope studies of pipeflow at Plynlimon, Wales, UK. , 1996 .

[28]  D. Wolock,et al.  Effects of basin size on low‐flow stream chemistry and subsurface contact time in the Neversink River watershed, New York , 1997 .

[29]  S. Dunn,et al.  Using long-term data sets to understand transit times in contrasting headwater catchments , 2009 .