Abstract
Quantification of groundwater (GW) and surface water (SW) interactions is crucial for effective water resource allocation and management. Immense progress has been made in the past few decades to address the different aspects of GW–SW exchanges. These have resulted in a large volume of literature. This work reviews in detail the mechanism of interaction and the applications of different field and modelling techniques. The review of flux quantification methods identifies the streambed and the aquifer beneath as two major components affecting the interactions. It is observed that the streambed is highly idealised in modelling studies, and the significance of aquifer properties in the flux quantification is found to be less emphasised. Therefore, attempts are made to highlight the potential significance of both streambed and the aquifer properties through a 2D numerical experiment. Using a superimposed GW–SW system and appropriately grouping the system parameters (as hydraulic and geometric), the experiment shows that the aquifer properties can dominate exchanging flux under certain conditions, e.g., at higher streambed conductance. The work provides suggestions to modify the widely used Darcy’s approach to include aquifer properties.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Availability of data and material
Not applicable.
References
Anibas C, Fleckenstein JH, Volze N et al (2009) Transient or steady-state? Using vertical temperature profiles to quantify groundwater–surface water exchange. Hydrol Process 23:2165–2177. https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.7289
Anibas C, Buis K, Verhoeven R et al (2011) A simple thermal mapping method for seasonal spatial patterns of groundwater-surface water interaction. J Hydrol 397:93–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2010.11.036
Banks EW, Brunner P, Simmons CT (2011) Vegetation controls on variably saturated processes between surface water and groundwater and their impact on the state of connection. Water Resour Res. https://doi.org/10.1029/2011WR010544
Barthel R, Banzhaf S (2016) Groundwater and surface water interaction at the regional-scale – a review with focus on regional integrated models. Water Resour Manag 30:1–32
Batlle-Aguilar J, Cook PG (2012) Transient infiltration from ephemeral streams: A field experiment at the reach scale. Water Resour Res. https://doi.org/10.1029/2012WR012009
Batlle-Aguilar J, Xie Y, Cook PG (2015) Importance of stream infiltration data for modelling surface water-groundwater interactions. J Hydrol 528:683–693. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2015.07.012
Baxter C, Hauer FR (2003) Measuring groundwater-stream water exchange: new techniques for installing minipiezometers and estimating hydraulic conductivity. Trans Am Fish Soc 132493–502:493–502
Becker MW, Georgian T, Ambrose H et al (2004) Estimating flow and flux of ground water discharge using water temperature and velocity. J Hydrol 296:221–233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2004.03.025
Boano F, Harvey JW, Marion A et al (2014) Hyporheic flow and transport processes: Mechanisms, models, and biogeochemical implications. Rev Geophys 52:603–679. https://doi.org/10.1002/2012RG000417
Boulton AJ, Datry T, Kasahara T et al (2010) Ecology and management of the hyporheic zone: stream–groundwater interactions of running waters and their floodplains. J North Am Benthol Soc 29:26–40. https://doi.org/10.1899/08-017.1
Brodie RS, Baskaran S, Ransley T, Spring J (2009) Seepage meter: Progressing a simple method of directly measuring water flow between surface water and groundwater systems. Australian J Earth Sci 56:3–11
Brunner P, Simmons CT (2012) HydroGeoSphere: a fully integrated, physically based hydrological model. Ground Water 50:170–176. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6584.2011.00882.x
Brunner P, Cook PG, Simmons CT (2009) Hydrogeologic controls on disconnection between surface water and groundwater. Water Resour Res. https://doi.org/10.1029/2008WR006953
Brunner P, Simmons CT, Cook PG, Therrien R (2010) Modeling surface water-groundwater interaction with MODFLOW: Some considerations. Ground Water 48:174–180. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6584.2009.00644.x
Brunner P, Therrien R, Renard P et al (2017) Advances in understanding river-groundwater interactions. Rev Geophys 55:818–854. https://doi.org/10.1002/2017RG000556
Carslaw HS, Jaeger JC (1959) Conduction of heat in solids, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, New York
Conant B (2004) Delineating and quantifying ground water discharge zones using streambed temperatures. Ground Water 42:243–257. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6584.2004.tb02671.x
Cremeans MM, Devlin JF (2017) Validation of a new device to quantify groundwater-surface water exchange. J Contam Hydrol 206:75–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jconhyd.2017.08.005
Cremeans MM, Devlin JF, Osorno TC et al (2020) A Comparison of tools and methods for estimating groundwater-surface water exchange. Groundw Monit Remediat 40:24–34. https://doi.org/10.1111/gwmr.12362
Crosbie RS, Taylor AR, Davis AC et al (2014) Evaluation of infiltration from losing-disconnected rivers using a geophysical characterisation of the riverbed and a simplified infiltration model. J Hydrol 508:102–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2013.07.045
Ellis PA, Mackay R, Rivett MO (2007) Quantifying urban river–aquifer fluid exchange processes: A multi-scale problem. J Contam Hydrol 91:58–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCONHYD.2006.08.014
Engeler I, Hendricks Franssen HJ, Müller R, Stauffer F (2011) The importance of coupled modelling of variably saturated groundwater flow-heat transport for assessing river-aquifer interactions. J Hydrol 397:295–305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2010.12.007
Fenske J, Banta ER, Piper S, Gennadii D (2009) Coupling HEC-RAS and MODFLOW using OpenMI. In: Advances in Hydrologic Engineering. http://www.hec.usace.army.mil/newsletters/HEC_Newsletter_Spring2013.pdf
Fischer H, Kloep F, Wilzcek S, Pusch MT (2005) A river’s liver - Microbial processes within the hyporheic zone of a large lowland river. Biogeochemistry. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10533-005-6896-y
Fleckenstein JH, Niswonger RG, Fogg GE (2006) River-aquifer interactions, geologic heterogeneity, and low-flow management. Ground Water 44:837–852. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6584.2006.00190.x
Flipo N, Mouhri A, Labarthe B et al (2014) Continental hydrosystem modelling: The concept of nested stream–aquifer interfaces. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 18:3121–3149. https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-18-3121-2014
Frei S, Fleckenstein JH, Kollet SJ, Maxwell RM (2009) Patterns and dynamics of river-aquifer exchange with variably-saturated flow using a fully-coupled model. J Hydrol 375:383–393. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2009.06.038
Ghysels G, Mutua S, Veliz GB, Huysmans M (2019) A modified approach for modelling river–aquifer interaction of gaining rivers in MODFLOW, including riverbed heterogeneity and river bank seepage. Hydrogeol J. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10040-019-01941-0
Glose TJ, Lowry CS, Hausner MB (2019) Vertically integrated hydraulic conductivity: a new parameter for groundwater-surface water analysis. Groundwater 57:727–736. https://doi.org/10.1111/gwat.12864
Gordon ND, McMahon TA, Finlayson BL (1992) Stream hydrology: an introduction for ecologists. Stream Hydrol an Introd Ecol. https://doi.org/10.1016/0925-8574(93)90041-d
Gordon RP, Lautz LK, Briggs MA, McKenzie JM (2012) Automated calculation of vertical pore-water flux from field temperature time series using the VFLUX method and computer program. J Hydrol 420–421:142–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2011.11.053
Harvey JW, Bencala KE (1993) The Effect of streambed topography on surface-subsurface water exchange in mountain catchments. Water Resour Res 29:89–98. https://doi.org/10.1029/92WR01960
Harvey JW, Böhlke JK, Voytek MA et al (2013) Hyporheic zone denitrification: Controls on effective reaction depth and contribution to whole-stream mass balance. Water Resour Res 49:6298–6316. https://doi.org/10.1002/wrcr.20492
Hatch CE, Fisher AT, Revenaugh JS et al (2006) Quantifying surface water-groundwater interactions using time series analysis of streambed thermal records: Method development. Water Resour Res. https://doi.org/10.1029/2005WR004787
Irvine DJ, Brunner P, Franssen HJH, Simmons CT (2012) Heterogeneous or homogeneous? Implications of simplifying heterogeneous streambeds in models of losing streams. J Hydrol 424–425:16–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2011.11.051
Kalbus E, Reinstorf F, Schirmer M (2006) Measuring methods for groundwater - Surface water interactions: a review. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 10:873–887
Käser DH, Binley A, Krause S, Heathwaite AL (2014) Prospective modelling of 3D hyporheic exchange based on high-resolution topography and stream elevation. Hydrol Process 28:2579–2594. https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.9758
Keery J, Binley A, Crook N, Smith JWN (2007) Temporal and spatial variability of groundwater–surface water fluxes: development and application of an analytical method using temperature time series. J Hydrol 336:1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2006.12.003
Kelly SE, Murdoch LC (2003) Measuring the hydraulic conductivity of shallow submerged sediments. Ground Water 41:431–439. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6584.2003.tb02377.x
Kennedy CD, Genereux DP, Corbett DR, Mitasova H (2007) Design of a light-oil piezomanometer for measurement of hydraulic head differences and collection of groundwater samples. Water Resour Res. https://doi.org/10.1029/2007WR005904
Kennedy CD, Murdoch LC, Genereux DP et al (2010) Comparison of Darcian flux calculations and seepage meter measurements in a sandy streambed in North Carolina, United States. Water Resour Res. https://doi.org/10.1029/2009WR008342
Kolditz O, Bauer S, Bilke L et al (2012) OpenGeoSys: An open-source initiative for numerical simulation of thermo-hydro-mechanical/chemical (THM/C) processes in porous media. Environ Earth Sci 67:589–599. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-012-1546-x
Krause S, Blume T, Cassidy NJ (2012) Investigating patterns and controls of groundwater up-welling in a lowland river by combining fibre-optic distributed temperature sensing with observations of vertical hydraulic gradients. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 16:1775–1792. https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-16-1775-2012
Kurtz W, Hendricks Franssen H-J, Brunner P, Vereecken H (2013) Is high-resolution inverse characterization of heterogeneous river bed hydraulic conductivities needed and possible? Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 17:3795–3813. https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-17-3795-2013
Lackey G, Neupauer RM, Pitlick J et al (2015) Effects of streambed conductance on stream depletion. Water (switzerland) 7:271–287. https://doi.org/10.3390/w7010271
Lamontagne S, Taylor AR, Cook PG et al (2014) Field assessment of surface water-groundwater connectivity in a semi-arid river basin (Murray-Darling, Australia). Hydrol Process 28:1561–1572. https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.9691
Landon MK, Rus DL, Edwin Harvey F (2001) Comparison of instream methods for measuring hydraulic conductivity in sandy streambeds. Ground Water 39:870–885. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6584.2001.tb02475.x
Lautz LK (2010) Impacts of nonideal field conditions on vertical water velocity estimates from streambed temperature time series. Water Resour Res. https://doi.org/10.1029/2009wr007917
Lautz LK, Siegel DI (2006) Modeling surface and ground water mixing in the hyporheic zone using MODFLOW and MT3D. Adv Water Resour 29:1618–1633. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advwatres.2005.12.003
Lautz LK, Kranes NT, Siegel DI (2010) Heat tracing of heterogeneous hyporheic exchange adjacent to in-stream geomorphic features. Hydrol Process 24:3074–3086. https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.7723
Lee DR, Cherry JA (1979) A field exercise on groundwater flow using seepage meters and mini-piezometers. J Geol Educ 27:6–10. https://doi.org/10.5408/0022-1368-27.1.6
Li M, Liang X, Xiao C, Cao Y (2020) Quantitative evaluation of groundwater-surface water interactions: Application of cumulative exchange fluxes method. Water (switzerland) 12:259. https://doi.org/10.3390/w12010259
Lowry CS, Walker JF, Hunt RJ, Anderson MP (2007) Identifying spatial variability of groundwater discharge in a wetland stream using a distributed temperature sensor. Water Resour Res. https://doi.org/10.1029/2007WR006145
Malard F, Tockner K, Dole-Olivier M-J, Ward JV (2002) A landscape perspective of surface-subsurface hydrological exchanges in river corridors. Freshw Biol 47:621–640. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2427.2002.00906.x
McDonald MG, Harbaugh AW (1988) A modular three-dimensional finite-difference ground-water flow model, Chap A1. In: U.S. geological survey techniques of water-resources investigations, vol 6, 586p
Mucha I, Banský L, Hlavatý Z, Rodák D (2006) Impact of Riverbed Clogging — Colmatation — on Ground Water. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 43–72
Naranjo RC, Turcotte R (2015) A new temperature profiling probe for investigating groundwater-surface water interaction. Water Resour Res 51:7790–7797. https://doi.org/10.1002/2015WR017574
Niswonger RG, Prudic DE (2005) Documentation of the streamflow-routing (SFR2) package to include unsaturated flow beneath streams – a modification to SFR1, Chap A13. In: U.S. geological survey techniques and methods, vol 6
Noorduijn SL, Harrington GA, Cook PG (2014) The representative stream length for estimating surface water-groundwater exchange using Darcy’s Law. J Hydrol 513:353–361. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2014.03.062
Osman YZ, Bruen MP (2002) Modelling stream - Aquifer seepage in an alluvial aquifer: an improved loosing-stream package for MODFLOW. J Hydrol 264:69–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1694(02)00067-7
Paulsen RJ, Smith CF, O’Rourke D, Wong TF (2001) Development and evaluation of an ultrasonic ground water seepage meter. Ground Water 39:904–911. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6584.2001.tb02478.x
Phogat V, Potter NJ, Cox JW, Šimůnek J (2017) Long-term quantification of stream-aquifer exchange in a variably-saturated heterogeneous environment. Water Resour Manag 31:4353–4366. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-017-1752-0
Post VEA, von Asmuth JR (2013) Review: Hydraulic head measurements—new technologies, classic pitfallsRevue: Mesure du niveau piézométrique—nouvelles technologies, pièges classiquesRevisión: Medidas de carga hidráulica—nuevas tecnologías, trampas clásicasRevisão: Medição da carga hidrá. Hydrogeol J 21:737–750. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10040-013-0969-0
Purdic DE, Konikow LF, Banta ER (2004) A new streamflow-routing (SFR1) package to simulate stream-aquifer interaction with MODFLOW-2000. U.S. geological survey open-file report 2004-1042
Prudic DE (1989) Documentation of a computer program to simulate stream-aquifer relations using a modular, finite-difference ground-water flow model. US Geol Surv Open-File Rep 88–729:113
Rau GC, Halloran LJS, Cuthbert MO et al (2017) Characterising the dynamics of surface water-groundwater interactions in intermittent and ephemeral streams using streambed thermal signatures. Adv Water Resour 107:354–369. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advwatres.2017.07.005
Rosenberry DO, LaBaugh JW, Hunt RJ (2008) Use of monitoring wells, portable piezometers, and seepage meters to quantify flow between surface water and ground water. In: Rosenberry DO, LaBaugh JW (eds) Field techniques for estimating water fluxes between surface water and ground water. U.S. Geological Survey Techniques and Methods 4-D2, Denver, pp 39–70
Rosenberry DO, Duque C, Lee DR (2020) History and evolution of seepage meters for quantifying flow between groundwater and surface water: Part 1 – Freshwater settings. Earth Sci Rev. 204:103167
Schmidt C, Bayer-Raich M, Schirmer M (2006) Characterization of spatial heterogeneity of groundwater-stream water interactions using multiple depth streambed temperature measurements at the reach scale. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 10:849–859. https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-10-849-2006
Schmidt C, Conant B, Bayer-Raich M, Schirmer M (2007) Evaluation and field-scale application of an analytical method to quantify groundwater discharge using mapped streambed temperatures. J Hydrol 347:292–307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2007.08.022
Schornberg C, Schmidt C, Kalbus E, Fleckenstein JH (2010) Simulating the effects of geologic heterogeneity and transient boundary conditions on streambed temperatures - Implications for temperature-based water flux calculations. Adv Water Resour 33:1309–1319. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advwatres.2010.04.007
Siergieiev D, Ehlert L, Reimann T et al (2015) Modelling hyporheic processes for regulated rivers under transient hydrological and hydrogeological conditions. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 19:329–340. https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-19-329-2015
Smits FJC, Hemker CJ (2004) Modelling the interaction of surface-water and groundwater flow by linking Duflow to MicroFem. In: Bruthans K-H (ed) FEM_MODFLOW. Karlovy Vary, Czech Republic, pp 433–437
Storey RG, Howard KWFF, Williams DD (2003) Factors controlling riffle-scale hyporheic exchange flows and their seasonal changes in a gaining stream: a three-dimensional groundwater flow model. Water Resour Res. https://doi.org/10.1029/2002WR001367
Tang Q, Kurtz W, Schilling OS et al (2017) The influence of riverbed heterogeneity patterns on river-aquifer exchange fluxes under different connection regimes. J Hydrol 554:383–396. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2017.09.031
Taniguchi M, Fukuo Y (1993) Continuous measurements of ground-water seepage using an automatic seepage meter. Groundwater 31:675–679. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6584.1993.tb00601.x
Therrien R, McLaren RG, Sudicky EA, Panday SM (2010) HydroGeoSphere: a three-dimensional numerical model describing fully-integrated subsurface and surface flow and solute transport. Groundwater Simulation Group, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON
Trauth N, Schmidt C, Maier U et al (2013) Coupled 3-D stream flow and hyporheic flow model under varying stream and ambient groundwater flow conditions in a pool-riffle system. Water Resour Res 49:5834–5850. https://doi.org/10.1002/wrcr.20442
Triska FJ, Duff JH, Avanzino RJ (1993) The role of water exchange between a stream channel and its hyporheic zone in nitrogen cycling at the terrestrial aquatic interface. Hydrobiologia 251:167–184. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00007177
Vogt T, Schneider P, Hahn-Woernle L, Cirpka OA (2010) Estimation of seepage rates in a losing stream by means of fiber-optic high-resolution vertical temperature profiling. J Hydrol 380:154–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2009.10.033
Ward AS, Gooseff MN, Singha K (2010) Characterizing hyporheic transport processes - Interpretation of electrical geophysical data in coupled stream-hyporheic zone systems during solute tracer studies. Adv Water Resour 33:1320–1330. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advwatres.2010.05.008
Woessner WW (2000) Stream and fluvial plain ground water interactions: Rescaling hydrogeologic thought. Ground Water 38:423–429. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6584.2000.tb00228.x
Xian Y, Jin M, Liu Y, Si A (2017) Impact of lateral flow on the transition from connected to disconnected stream–aquifer systems. J Hydrol 548:353–367. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2017.03.011
Xie Y, Cook PG, Simmons CT, Zheng C (2015) On the limits of heat as a tracer to estimate reach-scale river-aquifer exchange flux. Water Resour Res 51:7401–7416. https://doi.org/10.1002/2014WR016741
Yuan LR, Xin P, Kong J et al (2011) A coupled model for simulating surface water and groundwater interactions in coastal wetlands. Hydrol Process 25:3533–3546. https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.8079
Zhang Q, Werner AD (2009) Integrated surface-subsurface modeling of Fuxianhu Lake catchment, Southwest China. Water Resour Manag 23:2189–2204. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-008-9377-y
Funding
MHRD, India, (Ph.D. Fellowship) and Bi-Nationally Supervised Doctoral Degree Funding, DAAD, Germany.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflicts of interest
None.
Code availability
Not applicable.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
This article is part of a Topical Collection in Environmental Earth Sciences on ‘‘NovCare - Novel Methods for Subsurface Characterization and Monitoring: From Theory to Practice", guest edited by Uta Sauer and Peter Dietrich.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Tripathi, M., Yadav, P.K., Chahar, B.R. et al. A review on groundwater–surface water interaction highlighting the significance of streambed and aquifer properties on the exchanging flux. Environ Earth Sci 80, 604 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-021-09897-9
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-021-09897-9