Land cover influence on catchment scale subsurface water storage investigated by multiple methods: Implications for UK Natural Flood Management

Leo M. Peskett; Kate V. Heal; Alan M. Macdonald; Andrew R. Black; Jeffrey J. Mcdonnell

doi:10.1016/j.ejrh.2023.101398

Land cover influence on catchment scale subsurface water storage investigated by multiple methods: Implications for UK Natural Flood Management

Leo M. Peskett, Kate V. Heal, Alan M. Macdonald, Andrew R. Black, Jeffrey J. Mcdonnell

School of Geosciences

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

Abstract / Description of output

Study Focus
‘Natural flood management’ (NFM) schemes manipulating land use and other catchment features to control runoff are increasingly promoted across the UK. Catchment water storage and mixing processes influence runoff, but our understanding of the effects of land cover change on these processes is still limited. This study combined hydrometric, isotopic and geochemical measurements to investigate land cover versus potential topographic, soil and geological controls. It compared storage-discharge dynamics in nine nested catchments within a 67 km2 managed upland catchment in southern Scotland. Storage and mixing dynamics were characterised from hydrometric data using recession analysis and from isotopic data using mean transit time and young water fraction estimates. To give information on water sources, groundwater fraction was estimated from end member mixing analysis based on acid neutralising capacity.

New hydrological insights
The analysis showed low but variable sub-catchment scale dynamic storage (16–200 mm), mean transit times (134–370 days) and groundwater fractions (0.20–0.52 of annual stream runoff). Soil hydraulic conductivity was most significantly positively correlated with storage and mixing measures, whilst percentage forest cover was inversely correlated. Any effects of forest cover on increasing catchment infiltration and storage are masked by soil hydraulic properties even in the most responsive catchments. This highlights the importance of understanding dominant controls on catchment storage when using tree planting as a flood management strategy.

Original language	English
Article number	101398
Journal	Journal of Hydrology: Regional Studies
Volume	47
Early online date	29 Apr 2023
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrh.2023.101398
Publication status	Published - 1 Jun 2023

Access to Document

10.1016/j.ejrh.2023.101398Licence: CC BY-NC-ND

1-s2.0-S221458182300085X-main
© 2023 Published by Elsevier B.V
Final published version, 5.74 MBLicence: CC BY-NC-ND

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221458182300085XLicence: Creative Commons: Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives (CC BY-NC-ND)

NERC DTP: U.K. Natural Environment Research Council (Grant NE/L002558/1) University of Edinburgh's E3 Doctoral Training Partnership
Hajduk, G.
1/10/14 → 31/03/18
Project: Other (Non-Funded/Miscellaneous)

Chemical Analysis Facilities (CHM)
Gavin Sim (Manager)
School of Geosciences
Facility/equipment: Facility
Field Equipment Facility (FEF)
Hayley Coulson (Manager)
School of Geosciences
Facility/equipment: Facility
General Prep Lab (Crew Labs) - (GEN)
Gavin Sim (Manager)
School of Geosciences
Facility/equipment: Facility

Cite this

@article{e0b36b886af145ada3ea9d01e6073f1a,

title = "Land cover influence on catchment scale subsurface water storage investigated by multiple methods: Implications for UK Natural Flood Management",

abstract = "Study Focus{\textquoteleft}Natural flood management{\textquoteright} (NFM) schemes manipulating land use and other catchment features to control runoff are increasingly promoted across the UK. Catchment water storage and mixing processes influence runoff, but our understanding of the effects of land cover change on these processes is still limited. This study combined hydrometric, isotopic and geochemical measurements to investigate land cover versus potential topographic, soil and geological controls. It compared storage-discharge dynamics in nine nested catchments within a 67 km2 managed upland catchment in southern Scotland. Storage and mixing dynamics were characterised from hydrometric data using recession analysis and from isotopic data using mean transit time and young water fraction estimates. To give information on water sources, groundwater fraction was estimated from end member mixing analysis based on acid neutralising capacity.New hydrological insightsThe analysis showed low but variable sub-catchment scale dynamic storage (16–200 mm), mean transit times (134–370 days) and groundwater fractions (0.20–0.52 of annual stream runoff). Soil hydraulic conductivity was most significantly positively correlated with storage and mixing measures, whilst percentage forest cover was inversely correlated. Any effects of forest cover on increasing catchment infiltration and storage are masked by soil hydraulic properties even in the most responsive catchments. This highlights the importance of understanding dominant controls on catchment storage when using tree planting as a flood management strategy.",

author = "Peskett, {Leo M.} and Heal, {Kate V.} and Macdonald, {Alan M.} and Black, {Andrew R.} and Mcdonnell, {Jeffrey J.}",

note = "Funding Information: The Tweed Forum helped in identifying suitable sites within the wider Eddleston Natural Flood Management project and with access to sampling sites. Kirsty Upton ( BGS ), Robert Fairhurst and Adam Francis helped with routine sample collection, and Sarah Collins (BGS) provided useful comments on aspects of the analysis. The work was supported by L. Peskett{\textquoteright}s NERC E3 DTP /BGS BUFI PhD studentship at the University of Edinburgh , UK (grant number NE/L002558/1); a SAGES Postdoctoral & Early Career Researcher Exchange (PECRE) grant supporting collaboration with J. McDonnell; an in-kind contribution from J. McDonnell and K. Janzen (University of Saskatchewan) and Melanie Leng (BGS) for conducting isotopic analyses; and in-kind contributions and loan of equipment from the School of GeoSciences, University of Edinburgh, and BGS Edinburgh. For the purpose of open access, the author has applied a Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) licence to any Author Accepted Manuscript version arising from this submission. Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} 2023",

year = "2023",

month = jun,

day = "1",

doi = "10.1016/j.ejrh.2023.101398",

language = "English",

volume = "47",

journal = "Journal of Hydrology: Regional Studies",

issn = "2214-5818",

publisher = "Elsevier",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Land cover influence on catchment scale subsurface water storage investigated by multiple methods: Implications for UK Natural Flood Management

AU - Peskett, Leo M.

AU - Heal, Kate V.

AU - Macdonald, Alan M.

AU - Black, Andrew R.

AU - Mcdonnell, Jeffrey J.

N1 - Funding Information: The Tweed Forum helped in identifying suitable sites within the wider Eddleston Natural Flood Management project and with access to sampling sites. Kirsty Upton ( BGS ), Robert Fairhurst and Adam Francis helped with routine sample collection, and Sarah Collins (BGS) provided useful comments on aspects of the analysis. The work was supported by L. Peskett’s NERC E3 DTP /BGS BUFI PhD studentship at the University of Edinburgh , UK (grant number NE/L002558/1); a SAGES Postdoctoral & Early Career Researcher Exchange (PECRE) grant supporting collaboration with J. McDonnell; an in-kind contribution from J. McDonnell and K. Janzen (University of Saskatchewan) and Melanie Leng (BGS) for conducting isotopic analyses; and in-kind contributions and loan of equipment from the School of GeoSciences, University of Edinburgh, and BGS Edinburgh. For the purpose of open access, the author has applied a Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) licence to any Author Accepted Manuscript version arising from this submission. Publisher Copyright: © 2023

PY - 2023/6/1

Y1 - 2023/6/1

N2 - Study Focus‘Natural flood management’ (NFM) schemes manipulating land use and other catchment features to control runoff are increasingly promoted across the UK. Catchment water storage and mixing processes influence runoff, but our understanding of the effects of land cover change on these processes is still limited. This study combined hydrometric, isotopic and geochemical measurements to investigate land cover versus potential topographic, soil and geological controls. It compared storage-discharge dynamics in nine nested catchments within a 67 km2 managed upland catchment in southern Scotland. Storage and mixing dynamics were characterised from hydrometric data using recession analysis and from isotopic data using mean transit time and young water fraction estimates. To give information on water sources, groundwater fraction was estimated from end member mixing analysis based on acid neutralising capacity.New hydrological insightsThe analysis showed low but variable sub-catchment scale dynamic storage (16–200 mm), mean transit times (134–370 days) and groundwater fractions (0.20–0.52 of annual stream runoff). Soil hydraulic conductivity was most significantly positively correlated with storage and mixing measures, whilst percentage forest cover was inversely correlated. Any effects of forest cover on increasing catchment infiltration and storage are masked by soil hydraulic properties even in the most responsive catchments. This highlights the importance of understanding dominant controls on catchment storage when using tree planting as a flood management strategy.

AB - Study Focus‘Natural flood management’ (NFM) schemes manipulating land use and other catchment features to control runoff are increasingly promoted across the UK. Catchment water storage and mixing processes influence runoff, but our understanding of the effects of land cover change on these processes is still limited. This study combined hydrometric, isotopic and geochemical measurements to investigate land cover versus potential topographic, soil and geological controls. It compared storage-discharge dynamics in nine nested catchments within a 67 km2 managed upland catchment in southern Scotland. Storage and mixing dynamics were characterised from hydrometric data using recession analysis and from isotopic data using mean transit time and young water fraction estimates. To give information on water sources, groundwater fraction was estimated from end member mixing analysis based on acid neutralising capacity.New hydrological insightsThe analysis showed low but variable sub-catchment scale dynamic storage (16–200 mm), mean transit times (134–370 days) and groundwater fractions (0.20–0.52 of annual stream runoff). Soil hydraulic conductivity was most significantly positively correlated with storage and mixing measures, whilst percentage forest cover was inversely correlated. Any effects of forest cover on increasing catchment infiltration and storage are masked by soil hydraulic properties even in the most responsive catchments. This highlights the importance of understanding dominant controls on catchment storage when using tree planting as a flood management strategy.

U2 - 10.1016/j.ejrh.2023.101398

DO - 10.1016/j.ejrh.2023.101398

M3 - Article

SN - 2214-5818

VL - 47

JO - Journal of Hydrology: Regional Studies

JF - Journal of Hydrology: Regional Studies

M1 - 101398

ER -

Land cover influence on catchment scale subsurface water storage investigated by multiple methods: Implications for UK Natural Flood Management

Abstract / Description of output

Access to Document

Fingerprint

Projects

NERC DTP: U.K. Natural Environment Research Council (Grant NE/L002558/1) University of Edinburgh's E3 Doctoral Training Partnership

Equipment

Chemical Analysis Facilities (CHM)

Field Equipment Facility (FEF)

General Prep Lab (Crew Labs) - (GEN)

Cite this