Continental hydrosystem modelling: the concept of nested ... · Continental hydrosystem modelling: the concept of nested stream{aquifer interfaces Nicolas Flipo, Amer Mouhri, Baptiste

Continental hydrosystem modelling the concept of

nested streamndashaquifer interfaces

Nicolas Flipo Amer Mouhri Baptiste Labarthe Sylvain Biancamaria Agnes

Riviere Pierre Weill

To cite this version

Nicolas Flipo Amer Mouhri Baptiste Labarthe Sylvain Biancamaria Agnes Riviere et alContinental hydrosystem modelling the concept of nested streamndashaquifer interfaces Hy-drology and Earth System Sciences European Geosciences Union 2014 18 pp3121 - 3149lt105194hess-18-3121-2014gt lthal-01074870gt

HAL Id hal-01074870

httpshal-mines-paristecharchives-ouvertesfrhal-01074870

Submitted on 15 Oct 2014

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open accessarchive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-entific research documents whether they are pub-lished or not The documents may come fromteaching and research institutions in France orabroad or from public or private research centers

Lrsquoarchive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL estdestinee au depot et a la diffusion de documentsscientifiques de niveau recherche publies ou nonemanant des etablissements drsquoenseignement et derecherche francais ou etrangers des laboratoirespublics ou prives

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 40 International License

Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 18 3121ndash3149 2014wwwhydrol-earth-syst-scinet1831212014doi105194hess-18-3121-2014copy Author(s) 2014 CC Attribution 30 License

Continental hydrosystem modelling the concept of nestedstreamndashaquifer interfaces

N Flipo1 A Mouhri 123 B Labarthe1 S Biancamaria4 A Riviegravere1 and P Weill1

1MINES ParisTech PSL Research University Geosciences Department Paris France2Sorbonne Universiteacutes UPMC Univ Paris 06 UMR7619 ndash METIS Paris France3CNRS UMR7619 ndash METIS Paris France4CNRS LEGOS UMR5566 ndash CNRS-CNES-IRD-Universiteacute Toulouse III Toulouse France

Correspondence to N Flipo (nicolasflipomines-paristechfr)

Received 16 December 2013 ndash Published in Hydrol Earth Syst Sci Discuss 14 January 2014Revised 28 June 2014 ndash Accepted 1 July 2014 ndash Published 21 August 2014

Abstract Coupled hydrological-hydrogeological modelsemphasising the importance of the streamndashaquifer interfaceare more and more used in hydrological sciences for pluri-disciplinary studies aiming at investigating environmental is-sues Based on an extensive literature review streamndashaquiferinterfaces are described at five different scales local [10 cmndashsim 10 m] intermediate [sim 10 mndashsim 1 km] watershed [10 km2ndashsim 1000 km2] regional [10 000 km2ndashsim 1 M km2] and conti-nental scales [gt 10 M km2] This led us to develop the con-cept of nested streamndashaquifer interfaces which extends thewell-known vision of nested groundwater pathways towardsthe surface where the mixing of low frequency processesand high frequency processes coupled with the complexityof geomorphological features and heterogeneities creates hy-drological spiralling This conceptual framework allows theidentification of a hierarchical order of the multi-scale con-trol factors of streamndashaquifer hydrological exchanges fromthe larger scale to the finer scale The hyporheic corridorwhich couples the river to its 3-D hyporheic zone is thenidentified as the key component for scaling hydrological pro-cesses occurring at the interface The identification of the hy-porheic corridor as the support of the hydrological processesscaling is an important step for the development of regionalstudies which is one of the main concerns for water practi-tioners and resources managers

In a second part the modelling of the streamndashaquifer in-terface at various scales is investigated with the help of theconductance model Although the usage of the temperatureas a tracer of the flow is a robust method for the assess-ment of streamndashaquifer exchanges at the local scale there

is a crucial need to develop innovative methodologies for as-sessing streamndashaquifer exchanges at the regional scale Afterformulating the conductance model at the regional and inter-mediate scales we address this challenging issue with the de-velopment of an iterative modelling methodology which en-sures the consistency of streamndashaquifer exchanges betweenthe intermediate and regional scales

Finally practical recommendations are provided for thestudy of the interface using the innovative methodology MIM(MeasurementsndashInterpolationndashModelling) which is graphi-cally developed scaling in space the three pools of methodsneeded to fully understand streamndashaquifer interfaces at vari-ous scales In the MIM space streamndashaquifer interfaces thatcan be studied by a given approach are localised The ef-ficiency of the method is demonstrated with two examplesThe first one proposes an upscaling framework structuredaround river reaches ofsim 10ndash100 m from the local to the wa-tershed scale The second example highlights the usefulnessof space borne data to improve the assessment of streamndashaquifer exchanges at the regional and continental scales Weconclude that further developments in modelling and fieldmeasurements have to be undertaken at the regional scale toenable a proper modelling of streamndashaquifer exchanges fromthe local to the continental scale

Published by Copernicus Publications on behalf of the European Geosciences Union

3122 N Flipo et al Nested streamndashaquifer interfaces

1 Introduction

The emergence of a systemic view of the hydrological cy-cle led to the concept of continental hydrosystem (Dooge1968 Kurtulus et al 2011) which ldquois composed of storagecomponents where water flows slowly (eg aquifers) andconductive components where large quantities of water flowrelatively quickly (eg surface water)rdquo (Flipo et al 2012p 1) This concept merges surface and ground waters intothe same hydrological system through the streamndashaquifer in-terface Recently Fan et al (2013) estimated that 22ndash32 of the land surface is influenced by shallow groundwater Asa key transitional component characterised by a high spatio-temporal variability in terms of physical and biogeochemicalprocesses (Brunke and Gonser 1997 Krause et al 2009b)this interface requires further consideration for characteris-ing the hydrogeological behaviour of basins (Hayashi andRosenberry 2002) and therefore continental hydrosystemfunctioning (Saleh et al 2011)

Water exchange dynamics at the streamndashaquifer inter-face are complex and mainly depend on geomorphologicalhydrogeological and climatological factors (Sophocleous2002 Winter 1998) Recent ecohydrological publicationsdedicated to streamndashaquifer interfaces claim the recognitionof the complexity of the multi-scale processes taking place atthe interface (Ellis et al 2007 Hancock et al 2005 Pooleet al 2008 Stonedahl et al 2012)

A number of published papers address the problem of re-active transport through the streamndashaquifer interface Thesepapers imply sophisticated models which represent the dy-namics of pollutants at the local scale (Bardini et al 2012Chen and MacQuarrie 2004 Doussan et al 1997 Gu et al2008 Marzadri et al 2011 Peyrard et al 2011) fairly welltaking into account the effect of local heterogeneities micro-topography and of sharp redox gradients on the exchangedfluxes These models are used to investigate complex pro-cesses such as the effect of micro-topography on flow pathsand associated geochemical fluxes (Frei et al 2012) or thepotential effect of bank storage on denitrification (Gu et al2012) as well as the effect on the stream curvature to hy-porheic biogeochemical zonation (Boano et al 2010b) Atthe regional scale coupled rainfall-runoff hydrological mod-els and biogeochemical models are able to simulate pollutanttransport and removal such as nitrates (Billen and Garnier2000 Oeurng et al 2010 Seitzinger et al 2002 Thouvenot-Korppoo et al 2009) These models (i) underestimate theabsolute water flux flowing upwards andor downwardsthrough the interface and (ii) poorly simulate pollutants re-moval due to water fluxes through the sharp redox gradient ofthe hyporheic zone This is due to their tautological naturewhich does not integrate the proper physical processes andalso to their discretisation which does not account for sub-cell heterogeneities Few applications considered the poten-tial reversal of flow at the interface and its impact on nitrateremoval at the catchment scale (Conan et al 2003 Galbiati

et al 2006) but until today the exact quantification of the in-tensity of the removal due to various processes occurring atthe streamndashaquifer interface remains uncertain (Flipo et al2007a) Although certain control factors of biogeochemi-cal processes occurring at the streamndashaquifer interface areknown such as water residence time nitrate concentration ororganic matter content (Carleton and Montas 2010 Dahmet al 1998 Hill et al 1998 Kjellin et al 2007 Peyrardet al 2011 Rivett et al 2008 Weng et al 2003) as well aswater level fluctuations (Burt et al 2002 Dahm et al 1998Hefting et al 2004 Turlan et al 2007) numerical modelsremain limited by their ability to simulate water pathwaysin the interface properly (Burt 2005) Consequently large-scale biogeochemical models lack predictive abilities withregard to climate change issues or the assessment of the im-plementation of environmental regulatory frameworks suchas the European Water Framework Directive (WFD) (Parlia-ment Council of the European Union 2000)

Although the number of papers concerning streamndashaquiferinterfaces exponentially increased over the last 15 years(Fleckenstein et al 2010) they mostly focus on local scaleissues following a classic bottom-up scientific approach(Nalbantis et al 2011) The lack of models aiming at quanti-fying streamndashaquifer exchanges at large basinsrsquo scale was al-ready alleged by Fleckenstein et al (2010) and Krause et al(2011) The current review quantitatively confirms that thelarger the scale (scale in the sense of model dimension)the less understood the interfaces This is one of the ma-jor concerns for large-scale river basin managers Indeedthey have difficulties to fulfill the requirements of for in-stance the European WFD especially for providing guide-lines towards a good ecological status of both surface waterbodies and subsurface water bodies State-of-the-art coupledsurfacendashsubsurface models nowadays fail to integrate ecohy-drological concepts based on functionalities of morpholog-ical units (Bertrand et al 2012 Dahl et al 2007) mostlybecause they are not able yet to integrate the multi-scale na-ture of the streamndashaquifer interfaces into a holistic view ofthe system

Consequently innovative methodologies for assessingstreamndashaquifer exchanges at the regional and continentalscales need to be developed which is a challenging issue formodellers (Fleckenstein et al 2010 Graillot et al 2014)The aim of this paper is to pave the way towards a multi-scale modelling of the streamndashaquifer interface with the am-bitious goal of being able to simulate the complexity of theprocesses occurring at the local scale in larger scale mod-els ie at the regional scale for large basin decision makersand also at the continental scale which is the primary scaleof interest for the assessment of the effect of climate changeon hydrosystems In other words this paper aims at ratio-nalising the modelling of streamndashaquifer interfaces within aconsistent framework that fully accounts for the multi-scalenature of the streamndashaquifer exchange processes (Marmonier

Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 18 3121ndash3149 2014 wwwhydrol-earth-syst-scinet1831212014

N Flipo et al Nested streamndashaquifer interfaces 3123

et al 2012) This is a necessary primary step before assess-ing hydrological impacts on geochemical fluxes

Following the attempt of Mouhri et al (2013) who ra-tionalised the design of a streamndashaquifer interface samplingsystem we first define the various scales of interest Basedon a literature review we include the hydrologic spirallingconcept of Poole et al (2008) ndash which denotes the complex-ity of water pathways in heterogeneous alluvial plains ndash intothe nested groundwater pathways vision of Toacuteth (1963) toformulate the concept of nested streamndashaquifer interfacesThis concept then allows us to identify streamndashaquifer in-terfaces as a key transitional component of continental hy-drosystems (Sect 2) We also introduce a hierarchical or-der of the multi-scale controlling factors of streamndashaquiferhydrological exchanges from the larger scale to the finerscale The stream network is finally identified as the keycomponent for scaling hydrological processes occurring atthe interface In Sect 3 the paper focuses on the streamndashaquifer interface modelling at various scales with up-to-datemethodologies After describing the modelling approaches atthe two extreme spatial scales we emphasise which hydro-logical parameters and variables have to be up and down-scaled around the river and also for which models Finallyintegrating the telescopic approach of Kikuchi et al (2012)with the nested streamndashaquifer interface concept we developthe MIM (MeasurementsndashInterpolationndashModelling) method-ological framework for the design of multi-scale studies ofstreamndashaquifer exchanges based on a more holistic view ofthe hydrosystem (Sect4) MIM is a valuable tool to definestrategies for combining field measurements and modellingapproaches more easily Given the usage of the MIM method-ology we show that the scaling of processes from the localto the watershed scale is structured around river reaches ofsim 10ndash100 m We also analyse the question of how to modelstreamndashaquifer exchanges at the continental scale and inves-tigate the usage of remote sensing data which should im-prove global hydrological budgets We conclude that furtherdevelopments in modelling and field measurements have tobe performed at the regional scale to enable the proper mod-elling of streamndashaquifer exchanges from the local to the con-tinental scale

2 The concept of nested streamndashaquifer interfaces

21 Historical developments of the nestedstreamndashaquifer interface concept

Streamndashaquifer interfaces have only been intensively sur-veyed for two decades (Fleckenstein et al 2006 Marmonieret al 2012) Its study by the ecohydrological communityled to a re-conceptualisation of its nature from the river be-ing seen as an impervious drain that collects the effectiverainfall and transfers it to the ocean towards a more subtleview that integrates more spatio-temporal processes in the

hydrosystem functioning Indeed the streamndashaquifer inter-face is now conceptualised as a filter through which waterflows many times over various spatial (from centimetres tokilometres) and temporal scales (from seconds to months)before reaching the sea (Datry et al 2008) One of themain challenges is to understand the role of the streamndashaquifer interfaces in the hydro(geo)logical functioning ofbasins (Hayashi and Rosenberry 2002) The multi-scale na-ture of the problem at hand imposes the definition of thescales of interest

The five commonly recognised scales (in this context scalerefers to the size of the studied objects) are the local thereach the catchment the regional and the continental scales(Bloumlschl and Sivapalan 1995 Dahl et al 2007 Gleeson andPaszkowski 2013) being defined as

ndash Local scale (or the experimental site scale) [10 cmndashsim 10 m] this scale concerns the riverbed or the hy-porheic zone (HZ see Sect 22 for more details)

ndash Intermediate or reach scale [sim 10 mndashsim 1 km] it con-cerns the river reach a pond or a small lake

ndash Catchmentndashwatershed scale [10 km2ndashsim 1000 km2] or[sim 1 kmndashsim 10 km] this scale connects the stream net-work to its surface watershed and more broadly to thehydrosystem This is the scale from which surface-ground water exchanges are linked to the hydrologicalcycle and the hydrogeological processes

ndash Regional scale [10 000 km2ndashsim 1 M km2] or [sim 100 kmndashsim 1000 km] this is the scale of water resources manage-ment and the one for which the least is known aboutstreamndashaquifer exchange dynamics For a conceptualanalysis of the streamndashaquifer interfaces the watershedand the regional scales can be merged into a single cat-egory referred to as the regional scale (Mouhri et al2013) Merging these two scales is consistent with thefact that a regional basin is a collection of smaller wa-tersheds The distinction between the two categories isonly necessary to conceptualise the scaling of processesas discussed in the final section of this paper

ndash Continental scale [gt 10 M km2] or [sim 1000 kmndashsim 10 000 km] this scale is a collection of regional scalebasins The difference with the regional scale is thatthere is a broader range of hydro-climatic conditionswhich imposes accounting for climatic circulations

From a conceptual point of view streamndashaquifer ex-changes are driven by two main factors the hydraulic gradi-ent and the geological structure The hydraulic gradient de-fines the water pathways (Winter 1998) whereas the geolog-ical structure defines the conductive properties of the streamndashaquifer interface (White 1993 Dahm et al 2003) Thesetwo factors are fundamental for hydrogeologists who derive

wwwhydrol-earth-syst-scinet1831212014 Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 18 3121ndash3149 2014


Figure 1 Nested streamndashaquifer interfaces(a) watershedndashbasin scale(b) intermediate-reach scale in an alluvial plain(c) cross section ofthe streamndashaquifer interface(d) meandered reach scale(e) longitudinal riverndashHZ exchanges(f) water columnndashsediment scale Inspired byStonedahl et al (2010)

subsurface flow velocities and transfer times from those fac-tors The timescale to be considered also varies dependingon the studied object (HZ itself or a sedimentary basin func-tioning) (Harvey 2002) Estimating the streamndashaquifer ex-changes at a sedimentary basin scale then requires the combi-nation of various processes with different characteristic timesor periods covering a wide range of temporal orders of mag-nitude (Bloumlschl and Sivapalan 1995 Cardenas 2008b Flipoet al 2012 Massei et al 2010) hourndashday for river pro-cesses yearndashdecade for effective rainfall decadendashcentury forsubsurface transit time

Mouhri et al (2013) proposed a multi-scale frameworkto study streamndashaquifer interfaces Their approach is based

on the observation that the two main hydrosystem compo-nents are the surface and groundwater components whichare connected by nested interfaces (Fig 1) leading to pat-terns in residence time over the scales (Cardenas 2008b)Streamndashaquifer interfaces consist of alluvial plain at the re-gional and watershed scales (Fig 1a and b) while withinthe alluvial plain they consist of riparian zone at the reachscale (Fig 1d) Within the riparian zone they consist of thehyporheic zone at the local scale (Fig 1c) and so on un-til the water columnndashbenthos interface within the river it-self (Fig 1f) The concept of nested streamndashaquifer inter-faces includes the hydrologic spiralling concept of Pooleet al (2008) into the nested groundwater pathways vision



of Toacuteth (1963) recently revisited to account for multi-scaleanisotropy (Zlotnik et al 2011) Before further develop-ing the multi-scale framework the various descriptions ofstreamndashaquifer interfaces are outlined from the local to thecontinental scale A classification by order of importance ofheterogeneity controls on streamndashaquifer water exchanges isproposed in Sect 26

22 The streamndashaquifer interface at the local scale ndash thehyporheic zone

At the local scale (plot river cross section) the streamndashaquifer interface consists of a hyporheic zone (HZ Fig 1c)which corresponds to an ecotone whose extent varies dy-namically in space and time This ecotone is at the interfacebetween two more uniform yet contrasted ecological sys-tems (Brunke and Gonser 1997) the river and the aquiferIn a broad sense the HZ is ldquothe saturated transition zone be-tween surface water and groundwater bodies that derives itsspecific physical (eg water temperature) and biogeochemi-cal (eg steep chemical gradients) characteristics from activemixing of surface and groundwater to provide a habitat andrefugia for obligate and facultative speciesrdquo (Krause et al2009a p 2103) White (1993) also indicates that the HZ islocated beneath the streambed and in the stream banks thatcontain infiltrated stream water Furthermore Malard et al(2002) identified five generic HZ configurations that dependon the structure of the subsurface medium and especially onthe location of the impervious substratum

1 No HZ the stream flows directly on the impervious sub-stratum A perennial lateral HZ can appear in a zone ofsignificant longitudinal curvature of the stream for in-stance in the case of meanders (Sect 231)

2 No aquifer unit a HZ can appear due to the infiltrationof the stream water towards the substratum or throughthe stream banks In the former case the substratum islocated near the streambed sediments

3 Existence of a HZ in a connected streamndashaquifer sys-tem the HZ is created by advective water from both thestream and the aquifer unit The impervious substratumis located beneath the aquifer unit

4 Existence of a HZ in a disconnected streamndashaquifersystem a distinct porous medium lies in between thestreambed and the aquifer unit This porous mediumwould not be saturated if the streambed were impervi-ous In this configuration two subcategories are to befound

a the vertical infiltration of stream water towards thetop of the aquifer unit generates a zone of mixingwaters at the top of the aquifer unit far enough be-low the streambed to be disconnected from it

b a perched HZ is formed below the streambed dueto the infiltration of stream water in this particu-lar case the porous medium below the streambedis either very thick or its conductive properties areso poor that the surface water may not reach theaquifer unit

Hydro-sedimentary processes generate heterogeneoususually layered streambed (Hatch et al 2010 Sawyer andCardenas 2009) In situ measurements revealed that thestreambed permeabilities range over several order of mag-nitude both vertically and horizontally (Leek et al 2009Ryan and Boufadel 2007 Sawyer and Cardenas 2009Sebok et al 2014) These heterogeneities favour horizon-tal flow paths rather than vertical flow paths (Marion et al2008 Ryan and Boufadel 2006) leading to a stratifica-tion of chemical concentration in the streambed (Ryan andBoufadel 2006) Overall the heterogeneities modify boththe penetration depth and the residence time of streamndashaquifer exchanges (Cardenas et al 2004 Salehin et al2004 Sawyer and Cardenas 2009) The common hypoth-esis of an homogeneous bed therefore generates errors onthe assessment of streamndashaquifer exchanges (Cardenas et al2004 Frei et al 2010 Kalbus et al 2009 Irvine et al2012) which are difficult to estimate for real case studiesdue to the fact that small scale heterogeneities are difficult toassess

Coupled to the structural heterogeneities the micro-topography of the streambed modulates the exchanges longi-tudinally (Fig 1f) due to the occurrence of advective pump-ing (Cardenas and Wilson 2007a b Endreny et al 2011Janssen et al 2012 Kaumlser et al 2013 Krause et al 2012bMunz et al 2011 Sawyer and Cardenas 2009 Stonedahlet al 2010)

23 The streamndashaquifer interfaces at the intermediatescale ndash the hyporheic corridor

At the intermediate scale the streamndashaquifer interface con-sists of a complex mosaic of surface and subsurface flowpaths of variable length depth residence time and direc-tion composing the hydrological spiralling concept of Pooleet al (2008) These flow paths are controlled by the geo-metrical shapes and the hydraulic properties of the structuralheterogeneities Confronted with such complexity Brunkeand Gonser (1997) and Stanford and Boulton (1993) de-veloped the concept of ldquohyporheic corridorrdquo which consid-ers not only the river but also its extension as a continuum(Bencala et al 2011 Malard et al 2002) in the form of allu-vial flow paths maintaining biodiversity patterns and ecosys-tem metabolism The hyporheic corridor extends the 2-D hy-porheic zone (previous section) to a dynamical 3-D systemwhich links the actual hydro-sedimentary behaviour of theriver to its mid-term and long-term history by the means of



the sediment heterogeneities within the alluvial plain and theassociated water pathways

231 Morphological shaping related to thehydro-sedimentary river dynamics

At the local scale the hyporheic exchanges are describedby 2-D water pathways across the heterogeneous streambedand river banks However at the reach scale rivers developa complex geometry such as meander belts which trans-forms the vertical 2-D understanding of hydrological pro-cesses (Fig 1c) into a more complicated 3-D system involv-ing lateral water pathways (Fig 1d)

At the reach scale hyporheic exchanges therefore developin various geomorphological structures such as stream cur-vature (Fig 1d) as well as in-stream pool and riffle se-quences and sediment bars (Fig 1e) Each of these structuressignificantly affects streamndashaquifer exchanges (Stonedahlet al 2010) involving a specific transfer time (Cardenas2008b)

As stated by Rubin et al (2006) there is ldquoa hierarchyof different bedform sizes in riversrdquo consisting of ripplesdunes and compound bars These forms are related throughriver morphological characteristics such as width cross sec-tion and slope to hydro-sedimentary processes taking placein the river and forming strata sets (Bridge and Best 1997Paola and Borgman 1991 Rubin et al 2006)

Due to the longitudinal water head decrease along the flowpool and riffle sequences are submitted from upstream todownstream to a head gradient which involves water down-welling upstream riffles and water upwelling at the riffletail (Crispell and Endreny 2009 Frei et al 2010 Gooseffet al 2006 Harvey and Bencala 1993 Gariglio et al 2013Kasahara and Hill 2006 Maier and Howard 2011 Marzadriet al 2011 Saenger et al 2005 Tonina and Buffington2007) Due to the sequence streamndashaquifer exchanges seemto increase with the amplitude of the streambed oscillationsuntil a threshold is reached (Trauth et al 2013) Also com-bined streambed oscillating frequencies may increase the in-tensity of the exchanges in a complex way (Kaumlser et al2013) Bedform-induced hyporheic exchanges can be viewedas longitudinally 2-D vertical processes Similar 2-D hori-zontal processes also occur in single or alternating unit bars(Burkholder et al 2008 Cardenas 2009a Deforet et al2009 Derx et al 2010 Marzadri et al 2010 Shope et al2012) or bedform discontinuities (Hester and Doyle 2008)

The development of a hyporheic zone inside a mean-der belt was recently simulated to estimate the water path-ways involved in such a hyporheic flow (Boano et al 2006Revelli et al 2008 Cardenas 2008a) The numerical resultsof Cardenas (2008a) prove that the shape of the meander isresponsible for the flow path length and the residence timedistribution within the point bar Only few exchanges andlow discharges occur in the core of the meander while theneck is characterised by intense water exchanges between

the river and the sediments (Revelli et al 2008) The ef-fect of successive meanders on water pathways and traveltimes was also simulated in an homogeneous alluvial aquifer(Cardenas 2009a) which can help restoration projects in-volving channel modifications (Gomez et al 2012) The sin-uosity of the stream depends on its functioning and the char-acteristics of its alluvial plain

Although the stream morphological heterogeneities areof primary importance for the quantification of the waterfluxes in the hyporheic corridor (Kasahara and Wondzell2003 Lautz and Siegel 2006 Tonina and Buffington 2011Wondzell et al 2009) the understanding of the streamndashaquifer interactions also relies on a proper characterisationof the physical flow properties of alluvial plains and theirvarious geomorphological units (Anderson et al 1999)

232 Hydrofacies related to the alluvial plainarchitecture

Alluvial plains are the result of the sedimentary infilling ofvalleys cut into the bedrock In Quaternary coastal settingscutting and filling respond strongly to base-level fluctuationsdriven by glacioeustatic sea-level changes (Schumm 1993Dalrymple 2006) For upstream alluvial valleys beyond theinfluence of sea-level fluctuations cutting and filling reflectcomplex interactions between climate tectonics sedimentsupply and river drainage changes (Gibling et al 2011) Sed-iment heterogeneity within the alluvial plains is producedby the transport and depositional processes that have oper-ated in different palaeogeomorphic settings within the flu-vial system This results in a complex stacking of lithofaciesbounded by erosional and depositional surfaces These litho-facies are composed of sediments ranging over a broad scaleof grain size and sorting and can be described in terms of hy-draulic parameters (eg conductivity) defining a hydrofacies(Anderson et al 1999 Hornung and Aigner 1999 Klingbeilet al 1999 Heinz et al 2003 Fleckenstein et al 2006)Sediment heterogeneity can thus produce sharp contrasts inhydraulic conductivity of several orders of magnitude (Miall1996) Different scales of sediment heterogeneity are nestedwithin an alluvial plain (Koltermann and Gorelick 1996)grain segregation in bedload and turbulent fluctuations of theflow produce heterogeneous cross-stratification within bed-forms at the centimetre scale (Allen 1963 1966) Sand andgravel bar internal structures reflect the distribution of thesediment load in the water column the succession of dif-ferent flow stages and the morphodynamic interactions withother bars and cross-bar channels (Bridge 2006) Their sizeshighly variable but proportional to the channel size range be-tween several tens to several hundreds of metres At the kilo-metre scale fine overbank deposits and abandoned channelsfilled with high organic content clays produce sharp litholog-ical contrasts with the coarser channelised facies

The nature of sediment heterogeneity is closely linkedto the functioning of the river channel and its associated



floodplain controlled by hydro-climatic geologic and geo-morphologic conditions at the regional scale (Nanson andCroke 1992) The degree of heterogeneity at the regionalscale between coarse channelised facies and less permeablefloodplain deposits mainly depends on the ratios betweenthe rate of lateral migration of the river channel the rateof vertical accretion by overbank deposits the avulsive be-haviour of the fluvial system and the degree of confine-ment of the floodplain (Bristow and Best 1993 Miall 1996)The substratum on which the channel migrates (containingthe hyporheic zone) is thus composed of sediments repre-sentative either of an alluvial plain contemporaneous withpresent hydroclimatic conditions or of relict floodplain el-ements formed under prior river flow regimes (Brunke andGonser 1997 Nanson and Croke 1992 Woessner 2000)

The streambed heterogeneities coupled with the longitu-dinal variation of the bed impact the dynamics of the streamndashaquifer exchanges by creating complex flow paths (Salehinet al 2004) as flow recirculation (Cardenas et al 2004) Inthe case of a meandering channel sediment deposition onthe inner meander bank results in the formation of a per-meable point-bar the texture and architecture of which re-flects the flow characteristics and the sediment size distribu-tion within the water column On the outer eroded bank thesediment is composed of older deposits the composition ofwhich eventually reflects the past history of construction ofthe alluvial plain This specific configuration creates asym-metrical streamndashaquifer interactions between the two riverbanks (OrsquoDriscoll et al 2010) and depending on the outerbank sediment heterogeneities can generate preferential flowpaths in the alluvial plain (Peterson and Sickbert 2006)

The spatial distribution of porosity and transmissivity as-sociated with sediment heterogeneities impacts the dynam-ics of the streamndashaquifer exchanges by creating flow recir-culations both vertically across the streambed and horizon-tally across the channel banks Along with the sediment het-erogeneities the geomorphological structures of the alluvialplain can also create preferential pathways which can havea significant impact on streamndashaquifer exchanges (Conant2004 Fleckenstein et al 2006 Krause et al 2007 Pooleet al 2002 2008 Storey et al 2003 van Balen et al2008 Weng et al 2003 Woessner 2000) Overall the pref-erential flow paths lead to a spatially and temporally com-plex piezometric head distribution in the alluvial plain es-pecially during transitional event as floods (Bendjoudi et al2002 Heeren et al 2014 Koch et al 2011 Wondzell andSwanson 1999 Wroblicky et al 1998) when bank storageoccurs (Whiting and Pomeranets 1997)

24 The streamndashaquifer interfaces at the regional scalendash buffering effect of alluvial plains

The pioneering work of Toacuteth (1963) showed that topographygeology and climate are major control factors of hierarchi-cally nested groundwater flow systems local intermediate

and regional These nested flow systems are gravity drivenfrom uphill to downhill The piezometric surface of thegroundwater near the alluvial plain usually flattens and be-comes highly correlated to the soil surface topography (Toacuteth1962) It remains to locate the lowest piezometric level in thedownhill alluvial plain where the hyporheic corridor devel-ops The complex piezometric head distribution of the hy-porheic corridor constitutes the boundary conditions for theexchanges between the alluvial plain and the underlying re-gional aquifer system In this configuration the river is notalways representative of the lowest piezometric head in thehyporheic corridor For instance Curie et al (2009) report acase study in which alluvial ground waters and stream wa-ters were converging to a zone parallel to the stream whichacts as a drainage pathway inside the alluvial plain In thisspecific case the drainage pathway is the lowest piezometrichead It thence controls the exchanges between the regionalaquifer and the alluvial one

Moreover longitudinal changes in the width and in thedepth of the alluvial plain along the hyporheic corridor mod-ify the piezometric head gradient of the hyporheic corri-dor at the kilometre scale (Malard et al 2002 Woessner2000) which also influences the exchanges between the al-luvial plain and the regional aquifer spatially In addition tothe complex behaviour of nested flow systems Zlotnik et al(2011) prove that small-scale anisotropy prevents or ampli-fies the flow patterns due to large-scale aquifer anisotropy

These complex interactions between on the one side theriver network and the hyporheic corridor and on the otherside the hyporheic corridor and the regional aquifer systemcontribute to the riparian turnover mentioned by Jencso et al(2010) It characterises the fact that alluvial aquifers behaveas a buffering zone between low frequency processes occur-ring at the regional scale and high frequency processes oc-curring in the river network The flow patterns resulting fromthis complex interaction can be evaluated by water transittime (Haitjema 1995 McGuire and McDonnell 2006) or us-ing tracers (Macpherson and Sophocleous 2004)

25 The streamndashaquifer interface at the continentalscale ndash the closure of the continental hydrologicalcycle

At the continental scale the complex dynamics of streamndashaquifer exchanges might have consequences on the properclosure of the hydrological cycle which partly consists in as-sessing groundwater and surface water pathways and traveltime Currently a large range of satellite data allows theremote observation of the continental hydrological cycletemporarily from the seasonal to the decennial scale andspatially from the sub-kilometre (Brunner et al 2008) tothe continental scale (Garciacutea-Garciacutea et al 2011) Even ifsatellites cannot measure the streamndashaquifer exchanges di-rectly they provide valuable ancillary data especially for ob-taining information on temporal and spatial low frequency



variabilities They might also be a source of information cru-cial for ungauged or poorly gauged large basins as for ex-ample the Congo River (OrsquoLoughlin et al 2013) or otherbig monsoon rivers

For example total water storage (eg surface water andground water) variations can be estimated from the Grav-ity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) missionlaunched in 2002 (Tapley et al 2004) Examples of spaceborne based hydrological studies can be found in Ramillienet al (2008) who provide an extensive review of large-scalehydrological use of the first years of GRACE data Thesedata have coarse spatial (300ndash400 km) and temporal (from10 days to 1 month) resolutions (Ramillien et al 2012)but cover all continental surfaces making their use partic-ularly suitable at continental or large river basin scales Yetas GRACE data correspond to changes in total water storagethey have to be coupled with ancillary information to distin-guish between surface water and ground water variations

For the specific streamndashaquifer exchanges satellite ob-servations of water extents and water elevations might bethe most straightforward data to use Current nadir altime-ter satellites provide estimates of surface elevation (but notwater depth) above a given reference datum of big waterbodies crossed by the satellite ground track (Calmant et al2008) the instrument footprint being around 1 km Thesemeasurements have a repeatability depending on the satel-lite orbit which typically ranges from 10 to 35 days Recentattempts have also demonstrated the possibility to estimatewater storage variations by combining multi-sensor measure-ments Optical or radar images are used to compute waterextent (Cretaux et al 2011) and can be combined with a dig-ital elevation model (DEM) or with water elevation measure-ments from nadir altimeters to derive storage changes andfluxes (Neal et al 2009 Gao et al 2012) Yet satellitesproviding water surface extents and the ones measuring wa-ter elevations do not have the same repeatability and spatialcoverage introducing errors in water storage variation esti-mates and limiting assessment of streamndashaquifer exchangesat the continental scale

To overcome this last issue a new space borne mission theSurface Water and Ocean Topography (SWOT) mission iscurrently being developed by NASA CNES (French SpatialAgency) CSA (Canadian Space Agency) and UKSA (UKSpace Agency) for a planned launch in 2019 SWOT willprovide maps of distributed water elevations water extentsand water slopes on two swaths of 50 km each It will en-able the observation of rivers wider than 100 m and surfaceareas larger than 250 mtimes 250 m (Rodriacuteguez 2014) Accura-cies on water elevation and water slope will be around 10 cmand 1 cm kmminus1 respectively after averaging over 1 km2

water area (Rodriacuteguez 2014) From these requirementsBiancamaria et al (2010) estimated that SWOT should beable to provide useful information to compute discharge forriver reaches with drainage areas above 70 000 km2 This pre-liminary assessment was recently refined by Andreadis et al

(2013) who estimate that rivers with a bank full width of100 m have drainage area ranging from 1050 to 50 000 km2Although the database contains errors (reported errors onriver width range from 8 to 62 ) it provides the order ofmagnitude of minimum drainage area that will be sampledby SWOT Given the two swaths and its 21 day orbit theinstrument will observe almost all continental surfaces in be-tween 78 S and 78 N allowing the sampling of all drainageareas above 50 000 km2

More information on the usage of these satellite data isgiven within the MIM framework in Sect42

26 A multi-scale issue structured around the rivernetwork

As developed in Sect 23 the hyporheic corridor closely re-lated to the river network is identified as being the locationwhere flow paths mix at all scales Consequently it is thelocation of hydrological processes scaling

Near-river groundwater flow paths are mainly controlledby regional flow paths in aquifer systems (Malard et al2002) Indeed the groundwater component of a hydrosystemcontrols the regional flows towards the alluvial plains and therivers Such flow paths define the total amount of water thatflows in the streamndashaquifer interface (Cardenas and Wilson2007b Frei et al 2009 Kalbus et al 2009 Rushton 2007Storey et al 2003) This is not a new concept as the rivernetwork corresponds to drains collecting regional groundwa-ter (Fig 1a) which sustain the network during low flow pe-riod (Ellis et al 2007 Pinder and Jones 1969 Toacuteth 1963)These large-scale structural heterogeneities can also generatelocal conditions that favour local re-infiltration of river watertowards the aquifer system (Boano et al 2010a Cardenas2009a Cardenas 2009b Fleckenstein et al 2006) Thesere-infiltrations (Fig 1b and c) can even constitute the mainrecharge of some peculiar local aquifer systems as for in-stance some alluvial plain (Krause and Bronstert 2007Krause et al 2007)

In a second instance the spatial distribution of thestreambed permeabilities controls the dynamics of streamndashaquifer exchanges within the alluvial plain and thereforethe near-river piezometric head distribution (Calver 2001Fleckenstein et al 2006 Frei et al 2009 Genereux et al2008 Hester and Doyle 2008 Kalbus et al 2009 Kaumlseret al 2009 Rosenberry and Pitlick 2009) Finally the lon-gitudinal morphology of the river and the topography of theriverbed consisting of a pluri-metric succession of pools andriffles (Fig 1e) also impact the streamndashaquifer exchanges(Crispell and Endreny 2009 Frei et al 2010 Gooseff et al2006 Harvey and Bencala 1993 Kasahara and Hill 2006Kaumlser et al 2013 Maier and Howard 2011 Tonina andBuffington 2007) until a threshold of streambed amplitudesis reached (Trauth et al 2013) Likewise the depth of thealluvial aquifer (Koch et al 2011 Marzadri et al 2010Whiting and Pomeranets 1997) and the river hydraulic



regime (Cardenas and Wilson 2007a Munz et al 2011Saenger et al 2005) influence streamndashaquifer exchangesUltimately a very fine scale process (sim cmndashdm) due to thein-stream nonhydrostatic flow induced by bedform micro-topography (Fig 1f) increases the absolute value of the totalstreamndashaquifer exchanges (Cardenas and Wilson 2007a bEndreny et al 2011 Janssen et al 2012 Kaumlser et al 2013Krause et al 2012b Sawyer and Cardenas 2009 Stonedahlet al 2010)

It is thus important to study the streamndashaquifer exchangesfrom the dual perspective of regional and local exchangesthe former being controlled by regional recharge and struc-tural heterogeneities the latter by the longitudinal distribu-tion of streambed heterogeneities and the river morphology(Schmidt et al 2006) These two types of control factors mayalso generate water loops within the streamndashaquifer inter-faces the hyporheic corridor being the location where theseprocesses merge (Poole et al 2008)

3 Modelling streamndashaquifer exchanges

A literature review of process-based modelling of streamndashaquifer interfacesrsquo functioning is presented in Table 1 whichsynthesises 51 references The majority of these focus on thelocal scale (25) while only four consider the regional andcontinental scales The remaining mostly focus on the localndashintermediate (11) and intermediate scales (11)

31 Overview of coupled surfacendashsubsurfacehydrological models

Many hydrosystem models have been developed in partic-ular coupled surfacendashsubsurface hydro(geo)logical models(Loague and VanderKwaak 2004) with no special empha-sis on streamndashaquifer interfaces

During the 1970s and 1980s the first sedimentary basindistributed physically-based models (DPBMs) were devel-oped based on the finite differences numerical scheme(Abbott et al 1986 Freeze 1971 Harbaugh et al 2000Ledoux et al 1989 de Marsily et al 1978 McDonald andHarbaugh 1988 Parkin et al 1996 Perkins and Sopho-cleous 1999 Refsgaard and Knudsen 1996) In this typeof approach the hydrosystem is divided into compartmentswhich exchange through interfaces

Since the late 1990s new models based on finite ele-ment numerical schemes have been developed (Bixio et al2002 Goderniaux et al 2009 Kolditz et al 2008 Kolletand Maxwell 2006 Li et al 2008 Panday and Huyakorn2004 Therrien et al 2010 VanderKwaak and Loague 2001Weill et al 2009) These models allow the simulation ofthe pressure head in 3-D instead of the former pseudo 3-Dmodelling of the piezometric head However it is not yetpossible to straightforwardly simulate large hydrosystems(gt 10 000 km2) with a high spatio-temporal resolution for

long periods of time (a few decades) (Flipo et al 2012) Thisis due to the large number of elements required to simulatesuch hydrosystems (Gunduz and Aral 2005) which imposesthe usage of heavily parallelised codes for simulating thesesystems with such a spatio-temporal resolution Recentlya proof of concept has been published by Kollet et al (2010)who have simulated a 1000 km2 basin with a high spatio-temporal resolution

32 Models for simulating streamndashaquifer interface

Surface waterndashgroundwater exchanges mostly through thesoil or the streamndashaquifer interface are simulated with twodifferent models (Ebel et al 2009 Kollet and Maxwell2006 LaBolle et al 2003 Furman 2008)

ndash A conductance model or first-order exchange coefficient(Rushton and Tomlinson 1979) for which the inter-face is described with a water conductivity value Theexchanged water flux is then calculated as the prod-uct of the conductivity by the difference of piezomet-ric heads between the aquifer and the surface waterbody Depending on the model the difference of pres-sures can also be used This model implicitly formu-lates the hypothesis of a vertical water flux betweensurface water and groundwater whatever the meshsize This is the most common model for simulatingstreamndashaquifer exchanges There are diverse conduc-tance formulations especially in the case of discon-nected aquifers and streams (Osman and Bruen 2002)The conductance model usually assumes an equivalenthomogeneous riverbed for the definition of the con-ductance value which can imply estimation errors inthe exchanged water fluxes compared to a more re-alistic heterogeneous riverbed However if the modelis appropriately calibrated with regard to the connec-tiondisconnection status this assumption leads to slightestimation errors (Irvine et al 2012) Another potentialdrawback of the conductance model is that the conduc-tance coefficient depends on the temperature because itimplicitly integrates the fluid viscosity (Doppler et al2007 Engeler et al 2011) Moreover the validity ofthe first-order law is critical in the case of a flood whenwater expends in the flood plain (Doppler et al 2007Engeler et al 2011)

ndash Continuity of pressures and fluxes at the interface Thisboundary condition requires an iterative or a sequentialcomputation although the iterative one is more precise(Sulis et al 2010) Sometimes the iterative process alsoleads to a discontinuity of the tangential component ofthe water velocity at the interface with the streambed(Discacciati et al 2002 Miglio et al 2003 Urquizaet al 2008) This is not a problem as this discontinu-ity can be interpreted as representative of the streambedload It should also be noted that the validity of this



Table 1Physically based modelling of streamndashaquifer exchanges

Ref Exch Spec Resolution Scale CS

1x 1t

Brunner et al (2009a b) K 2-D V LAT [1ndash100] mtimes [le 005] m perm loc-int SBrunner et al (2010) K 2-D V LAT [1ndash10] mtimes [01ndash10] m perm loc-int SCardenas et al (2004) K 3-D 025 mtimes 025 mtimes 004 m perm loc SCardenas and Wilson (2007b c) P 2-D V LON 001 mtimes 001 mlowast perm loc SCardenas (2009a) P 2-D H NS (80 mtimes 45 m) perm loc SChen and Chen (2003) K 3-D [3ndash6] mtimes [3ndash6] mtimes [67ndash76] m min loc-int RDerx et al (2010) K 3-D [5ndash100] mtimes [5ndash100] mtimes [5ndash40] cm 30 min int RDiem et al (2014) K 3-D [1ndash10] mtimes [1ndash10] mtimes [1ndash10] m adapt int RDiscacciati et al (2002) P 3-D [05ndash5] mtimes [05ndash5] mtimes [03ndash15] mlowast perm loc SDoppler et al (2007) K 2-D H [1ndash50] mtimes [1ndash50] m 1 d int REbel et al (2009) K 3-D [1ndash20] mtimes [1ndash20] mtimes [005ndash025] m adapt loc-int REngeler et al (2011) K 3-D [1ndash50] mtimes [1ndash50] mtimes [16ndash40] m 900 s int RFleckenstein et al (2006) K 3-D 200 mtimes 100 mtimes [5ndash40] m 3 h int RFrei et al (2009) P 3-D 20 mtimes 50 mtimes 05 m min int SFrei et al (2010) K 3-D 01 mtimes 01 mtimes 01 m adapt loc SGooseff et al (2006) K 2-D V LON 020 mtimes [03ndash05] m perm loc SHester and Doyle (2008) K 2-D V LON 3 mtimes [01ndash025] m perm loc SIrvine et al (2012) K 3-D 05 mtimes [05ndash26] mtimes [003ndash07] m perm loc SJanssen et al (2012) P 2-D V LON 2 mmtimes 2 mm perm loc LKalbus et al (2009) K 2-D V LON 1 mtimes [005ndash02] m perm loc SKasahara and Wondzell (2003) K 3-D [03ndash05] mtimes [03ndash05] mtimes [015ndash03] m perm loc-int RKasahara and Hill (2006) K 3-D [06ndash35] mtimes [02ndash05] mtimes 015 m perm loc RKaumlser et al (2013) P 2-D V LON 078 cmtimes [078-100] cm perm loc SKoch et al (2011) K 3-D NS (17 kmtimes 200 mtimes 05 m) 1 h int RKrause and Bronstert (2007) K 2-D H [25ndash50] mtimes [25ndash50] m 1 h int RKrause et al (2007) K 2-D H [25ndash250] mtimes [25ndash250] m 1 h int-reg RLautz and Siegel (2006) K 3-D 05 mtimes 05 mtimes [06ndash2] m perm loc-int RMaier and Howard (2011) K 2-D H [1ndash7] mtimes [1ndash5] mtimes [01ndash10] m perm loc-int RMarzadri et al (2010) K 3-D [019ndash188] mtimes [006ndash05] mtimes [01] m perm loc-int SMarzadri et al (2011) K 3-D NS (169 mtimes 26 mtimes 16 m) perm loc SMiglio et al (2003) P 3-D [02ndash05] mtimes [02times 05] mtimes [005ndash015] mlowast 600 s loc SMouhri et al (2013) P 2-D V [001ndash01] mtimes [001times 01] m min loc RMunz et al (2011) K 3-D 05 mtimes 05 mtimes [01ndash248] m 1 hlowast loc ROsman and Bruen (2002) K 2-D V LAT NS (360 mtimes 21 m) perm loc SPeyrard et al (2008) P 2-D H [10ndash40] mtimes [10ndash40] m adapt int RPryet et al (2014) K 2-D H 1 kmtimes 1 km 1d reg RRevelli et al (2008) K 2-D H NS ([022ndash44] kmtimes [019ndash38] km) perm int SRushton (2007) K 2-D V LAT 20 mtimes 02 m perm loc-int SSaenger et al (2005) K V LON 01 mtimes 002 m perm loc RSaleh et al (2011) K 2-D H [1ndash4] kmtimes [1ndash4] kmtimes [ndash] m 1 j reg RSawyer and Cardenas (2009) P 2-D V LON 001 mtimes 0005 mlowast perm loc LStorey et al (2003) K 3-D [1ndash8] mtimes [1ndash8] mtimes [025ndash042] m perm loc RSulis et al (2010) K P 3-D [1ndash80] mtimes [1ndash80] mtimes [00125ndash05] m adapt loc-int STonina and Buffington (2007) P 3-D 003 mtimes 003 mtimes 003 m perm loc LTrauth et al (2013) P 3-D 02 mtimes 02 mtimes 01 m perm loc SUrquiza et al (2008) P 2-D V LON 1 mtimes 1 m perm loc SVergnes et al (2012) K 2-D H 05 times 05 1 d reg RVergnes and Decharme (2012) K 2-D H 05 times 05 1 d con RWondzell et al (2009) K 3-D [0125ndash2] mtimes [0125ndash2] mtimes [016ndash04] m perm loc R

Exch (streamndashaquifer exchangesrsquo model) K conductance model P Pressure continuity V vertical LAT lateral LON longitudinal H horizontalResolution NS not specified (total extension between parenthesis)lowast cell size not specified in the paperSpec (Specificities)1x (spatial)1t (temporal) perm steady state adapt adaptive time stepScale loc local int intermediate reg regional con continentalCS (Case Study) S synthetical L lab experiment R real



approach relies on the knowledge of structural hetero-geneities constitutive of the streamndashaquifer interface

Recent numerical developments allow for solving the cou-pled surface and subsurface equations with a matrical system(Gunduz and Aral 2005 Liang et al 2007 Peyrard et al2008 Qu and Duffy 2007 Spanoudaki et al 2009 Yuanet al 2008) This method can be used whatever the selectedstreamndashaquifer interface model Its main drawback is that itis computationally demanding and usually requires a paral-lelised model in order to simulate a real hydrosystem

From a conceptual point of view the conductance modelallows us to better understand the hydrological processes oc-curring at the streamndashaquifer interface (Delfs et al 2012Ebel et al 2009 Liggett et al 2012 Nemeth and Solo-Gabriele 2003) and is equivalent to the continuity one in thecase of a highly conductive interface Moreover it has theadvantage of simplifying the definition of structural hetero-geneities in models While the conductance model is able tosimulate connected or disconnected systems (Brunner et al2009a) Brunner et al (2010) showed that the conductancemodel remains appropriate for disconnecting streams butonly if an unsaturated flow formulation is chosen Other-wise the model leads to estimation errors for disconnectingsystems

33 Temperature as a tracer of the flow ndash the local scale

The study of heat propagation is a powerful tool for assess-ing streamndashaquifer exchanges (Anderson 2005 Constantz2008 Mouhri et al 2013) based on the temperature usedas a tracer of the flow Coupled with in situ measurementstwo methods based on heat transport governing equationsare used to quantify streamndashaquifer exchanges (Anderson2005)

1 Analytical models (Stallman 1965 Anderson 2005)are widely used to invert temperature measurementssolving the 1-D heat transport equation analyticallyunder simplifying assumptions (sinusoidal or steadyboundary conditions and homogeneity of hydraulic andthermal properties) (Anibas et al 2009 2012 Beckeret al 2004 Hatch et al 2006 Jensen and Engesgaard2011 Keery et al 2007 Lautz et al 2010 Luce et al2013 Rau et al 2010 Schmidt et al 2007 Swansonand Cardenas 2011)

2 Numerical models which couple water flow equationsin porous media with the heat transport equation in2-D or 3-D These models are divided into two cate-gories based on the numerical scheme finite differences(Anderson et al 2011 Anibas et al 2009 Constantzet al 2002 2013 Constantz 2008 Ebrahim et al2013 Lewandowski et al 2011 Mutiti and Levy 2010Ruumlhaak et al 2008 Schornberg et al 2010) or finiteelements (Kalbus et al 2009 Mouhri et al 2013)

These models have the advantage of calculating spatio-temporal streamndashaquifer exchanges with the capabilityof accounting for the heterogeneities under transient hy-drodynamical and thermal conditions

The two approaches provide estimates of the conductancecoefficient that best represents the streamndashaquifer interfaceat the local scale

34 The conductance model at the regional scale

Although the usage of DPBM covers a broad range of spa-tial scales only 18 publications among 182 (Flipo 2013)concern large river basins (gt 10 000 km2) (Abu-El-Sharsquos andRihani 2007 Andersen et al 2001 Arnold et al 1999Bauer et al 2006 Carroll et al 2009 Etchevers et al 2001Golaz-Cavazzi et al 2001 Gomez et al 2003 Habets et al1999 Hanson et al 2010 Henriksen et al 2008 Kolditzet al 2012 Ledoux et al 2007 Lemieux and Sudicky2010 Monteil 2011 Park et al 2009 Saleh et al 2011Scibek et al 2007) In addition to these publications manyregional-scale models were developed with MODFLOW inthe United States and China for integrated water manage-ment purposes (Rossman and Zlotnik 2013 Zhou and Li2011) Except for Monteil (2011) and Pryet et al (2014)none of these explicitly focus on distributed streamndashaquiferexchanged water flux Moreover among DPBMs dedicatedto streamndashaquifer exchanges only Monteil (2011) and Pryetet al (2014) performed distributed estimations of streamndashaquifer exchanges at the regional scale These applicationsexclusively use the conductance model for which the longi-tudinal distribution of the conductance along the stream net-work has to be calibrated (Pryet et al 2014)

The conductance model historically assumes verticalfluxes at the streamndashaquifer interface (Krause et al 2012aRushton and Tomlinson 1979 Sophocleous 2002) The hy-pothesis of vertical fluxes is discussed by Rushton (2007)based on numerical experiments that showed its limit In-deed at the regional scale streamndashaquifer exchanges seemto be more controlled by the horizontal permeability of theaquifer unit than by the equivalent vertical permeabilities ofboth the riverbed and the aquifer unit Recently this for-mulation of the conductance model proved to be suitablefor the calibration of a regional modelling of streamndashaquiferexchanges (Pryet et al 2014) As formulated by Rushton(2007) Pryet et al (2014) calibrated a correction factor(Fcor)

Q = Fcor times Kh times W times(

Hriv minus H lowastA

)

(1)

whereQ [m3 sminus1] is the streamndashaquifer fluxHriv andH lowastA

[m] are the hydraulic heads in the river and the calculatedpiezometric head respectively andW [m] the mesh size TheexpressionFcortimes Kh times W represents the conductance coef-ficientKh [m sminus1] is the aquifer horizontal permeability andFcor [ndash] an adjustable lumped parameter called correctionfactor



This model defines the conductance parameter at the re-gional scale based on regional properties of the aquifer sys-tem Even if it does not allow a proper simulation of waterfluxes for disconnecting systems (Brunner et al 2009a b) itallows the simulation of disconnected systems using a maxi-mum infiltrated flux (Pryet et al 2014 Saleh et al 2011) In-deed streamndashaquifer disconnection does not necessarily oc-cur when the water table is beneath the clogging layer repre-senting the streambed (as expressed in MODFLOW Brunneret al 2010) but when the pressure gradient in the unsatu-rated zone is negligible leading to a minimum pressure atthe streambed interface and a constant stream to aquifer flux(Brunner et al 2009a) To improve the assessment of thewater flux through the unsaturated zone which develops be-low the streambed in the case of a disconnected system themaximal stream to aquifer flux could be defined as a func-tion of both the streambed properties and the underlying re-gional aquifer properties This implies to better understandthe implications of heterogeneity and clogging processes inthe streambed on disconnection (Brunner et al 2011)

To provide accurate estimates the conductance model hasto be constrained by the piezometric head below the riverand the surface water elevation Former applications used afixed water level throughout the simulation period (Arnoldet al 1999 Chung et al 2010 Flipo et al 2007b Gomezet al 2003 Ke 2014 Kim et al 2008 Monteil 2011Perkins and Sophocleous 1999 Ramireddygari et al 2000Thierion et al 2012) Saleh et al (2011) showed that thismethodology not only leads to biased assessments of streamndashaquifer exchanges but also to biased estimates of the near-river piezometric head distributions In addition Diem et al(2014) recently showed that groundwater residence times arealso strongly affected by the estimation of in-stream longi-tudinal water level distributions These results are due to thefact that streamndashaquifer exchange rates adapt very quickly tochanges in surface water levels (Koussis et al 2007 Maierand Howard 2011 Rosenberry et al 2013)

Consequently the simulation of variable surface water lev-els is of primary importance for the estimation of distributedstreamndashaquifer exchanges along the stream network at theregional scale (Pryet et al 2014 Saleh et al 2011) Salehet al (2013) recommend the usage of local 1-D Saint-Venantbased hydraulic models to build rating curves for every cellof a coarser regional model (Saleh et al 2011) that uses sim-pler in-stream water routing models as RAPID (David et al2011) Such models are then coupled with the conductancemodel to simulate streamndashaquifer exchanges at the regionalscale along thousands of kilometres of river networks with a1 km spatial discretisation (see for instance Pryet et al 2014for such an application along 3250 km of the Paris basin rivernetwork)

35 Conceptual requirements at the continental scale

Russell and Miller (1990) achieved the first global distributedrunoff calculation based on a 4 times 5 grid mesh coupled witha land surface model (LSM) and an atmospheric global cir-culation model (AGCM) It appears that even at this scale theriver networks play an important role in the circulation mod-els and water transfer time Since then few models have beendeveloped to simulate the main river basins in the AGCMswith a grid mesh ofsim 1 times 1 which roughly correspondsto a 100 kmtimes 100 km resolution (Oki and Sud 1998) ge-ographical information systems (GISs) were used to derivethe river networks from DEMs (Oki and Sud 1998) JointlyRRMs (river routing models) have been developed with sim-ple transfer approaches assuming either a steady uniformwater velocity at the global scale or a variable water veloc-ity based on simple geomorphological laws and the Manningformula (Arora and Boer 1999)

Decharme and Douville (2007) implemented the approachwith a constant in-river water velocity (assumed to be05 m sminus1) within the LSM today referred to as SURFEX(Masson et al 2013) Step by step the description of streamndashaquifer exchanges was improved by

ndash The introduction of a variable in-river water velocity(Decharme et al 2008)

ndash A transfer time delay due to the streamndashaquifer interface(Decharme et al 2012)

ndash The explicit simulation with a DPBM of the world-wide largest aquifer systems coupled with the ex-plicit simulation of the river networks draining surfacebasins larger than 50 000ndash100 000 km2 (Vergnes andDecharme 2012)

ndash The explicit simulation of streamndashaquifer exchangesbased on the conductance model on a 05 times 05 gridmesh (Vergnes et al 2012 Vergnes and Decharme2012) in agreement with the continental scale transfertime delay of 30 days introduced by Decharme et al(2012)

As expected given the numerical experiments of Maxwelland Miller (2005) accounting for groundwater kinetics im-proves the global hydrological mass balance (Decharmeet al 2010 Alkama et al 2010 Yeh and Eltahir 2005) Al-though the explicit simulation of streamndashaquifer exchangeswith the conductance model slightly improves the mod-elsrsquo performances in terms of spatio-temporal discharge andreal evapotranspiration assessments (Vergnes et al 2012Vergnes and Decharme 2012) the global calibration ofthe conductance parameter has to take into account themulti-scale structure of the streamndashaquifer interfaces Thismeans that a better assessment not only of simple DEM-derived river networks but also of the transfer time in thestreamndashaquifer interfaces is required as well as the sub grid



definition of dendritic river networks Coupled with properscaling procedures (see next section) these approaches seemto be less computationally demanding than the one proposedby Wood et al (2011) and slightly less overparameterisedwhich should make it possible to better solve the estimationof streamndashaquifer exchanges at the continental scale

36 Up- and downscaling streamndashaquifer exchanges

At the regional scale most of the hydrogeological modelsare limited in taking into account local processes such asthe effect of near-river pumping or storage in the hyporheiczone because they require a very fine spatial discretisationwhich can be incompatible with the resolution of the modelor which drastically decreases the efficiency of the modelAlso the use of regional models for solving local issues aswell as the reverse leads to equifinality problems (Beven1989 Beven et al 2011 Ebel and Loague 2006 Klemes1983 Polus et al 2011) boundary condition inconsisten-cies (Noto et al 2008) or computational burdens (Jolly andRassam 2009) The use of local models for solving regionalissues entails the same effects (Aral and Gunduz 2003 2006Wondzell et al 2009) Therefore alternative ways of mod-elling are needed to simulate the behaviour of streamndashaquiferinterfaces at the regional scale properly (Werner et al 2006)especially as for a given reach of river the direction ofstreamndashaquifer exchanges can vary longitudinally (Bencalaet al 2011) The concept of nested streamndashaquifer interfaceled to the identification of the river network and by exten-sion the hyporheic corridor as the location where to scalemodels for the accurate simulation of hydrological processes(Sect 26) On the one hand regional surfacendashsubsurfacemodels allow the simulation of the hyporheic corridor andthe regional aquifer On the other hand intermediate-scalemodels permit the simulation of hydrological spiralling Ittherefore seems relevant to explicitly simulate the alluvialplains in a regional model either with an explicit layer inpseudo 3-D models as MODFLOW or with specific parame-ters for 3-D models based on Richards equations (Sect 31)In this way regional and intermediate models can be config-ured in a nested setup allowing the identification of modelparameters using the regional model for large-scale geologi-cal heterogeneities and the intermediate-scale model for thesmaller alluvial plain heterogeneities This setup is in agree-ment with the nested heterogeneities defined by Refsgaardet al (2012) The coupling between a regional-scale modeland an intermediate-scale model of the alluvial plain requiresensuring the conservation of the mass between the two mod-els An iterative procedure is developed to achieve this ob-jective (Fig 2) At each iterationj the procedure consistsof

1 Run the regional model

2 Define the boundary conditions of the intermediatemodel with the outputs of the regional model

3 Downscale the regional piezometric head distribution

4 Run the intermediate model

5 Upscale the conductance parameter at the regionalscale

The final objective of the procedure is to equalise thestreamndashaquifer exchanges estimated at both the regional andthe intermediate scales A prerequisite for the application ofthis iterative procedure is the definition of the conductanceparameter at the intermediate scale

361 The conductance model at the intermediate scale

To scale the conductance model at the regional scale prop-erly the correction factorFcor in Eq (1) must be defined atthe intermediate scale analytically The conductance modelhistorically assumes vertical fluxes at the streamndashaquifer in-terface (Krause et al 2012a Rushton and Tomlinson 1979Sophocleous 2002) so that it seems to be a proper frame-work for determining up- and downscaling properties ofstreamndashaquifer interfaces (Boano et al 2009 Engdahl et al2010) However this hypothesis becomes less valid for acoarse grid mesh (Mehl and Hill 2010 Rushton 2007) Insuch a case Brunner et al (2010) point out that the calcu-lated piezometric head at the streamndashaquifer interface doesnot represent the piezometric head in the hyporheic zone butthe near-stream aquifer piezometric head (Fig 3) This is dueto the fact that state variables are discrete values associatedwith an area by an averaging over the cell (finite differencesand finite volumes) or over the surface around the node (fi-nite elements) Streamndashaquifer exchanges are then calculatedacross a surface which encompasses the river As a conse-quence the averaging induces uncertainties in the assessmentof head below the river The conductance parameter henceis scale dependent (Vermeulen et al 2006) Morel-Seytoux(2009) proposed to relate the exchange flux to the near-riverpiezometric headhc (Eq 2) for which it can be assumedthat the distanced from the river is long enough to reachthe validity domain of the DupuitndashForchheimer approxima-tion Using the mass conservation between the local flux atthe interface and the regional flux Morel-Seytoux (2009) ex-presses the flux as follows

Q = kiw1

1αRwksb

[

(2αki minus ksb)esb+ ksbeaq]

+ deaq

times (hriv minus hc) (2)

whereki andksb [m sminus1] are the horizontal aquifer perme-ability and vertical streambed permeability respectivelyeaqandesb [m] are the aquifer and streambed thicknessesα [ndash]is the aquifer anisotropy factorRw [m] is the river widthwthe intermediate mesh size

Citing Bouwer (1969) and Haitjema (1987) Morel-Seytoux (2009) indicates thatd ranges between twice the



Figure 2 Iterative modelling framework for coupling regional and intermediate scales r and i indices are related to regional and intermediatescales respectively Capital letters represent regional parameters and variables while lowercase letters refer to intermediate ones is theregional mesh divided inr times r subdomainsr being a regional cell In the same wayω is the intermediate model domain divided ini times ωisubdomainsωi being an intermediate cellfcor is the conductance correcting factor to upscale andk the horizontal permeability on whichKeq is basedSr andVr are the cross section and volume ofr andnabla denotes the head gradient

thickness of the underlying aquifer unit and ten times theriver width This formulation thus refers to the intermediatescale where the cell sizes have to be adapted tod and to theaveraging of the piezometric head to ensure that the cell headvaluehlowast

A corresponds tohcAssuming thathc asymp hlowast

A which can be substituted in Eq(2) the correcting factor becomes dependent on the meshsizew

fcor(w) =1

1αRwksb

[


+f (w)eaq

(3)

wheref denotes the mathematical scaling function of theithcell size which linksd andw Under simplifying assump-tionsf may be a linear function (Bouwer 1969 Haitjema1987) A proper simulation of streamndashaquifer exchangestherefore implies an adaptive mesh to scale the river cellsto the river network from small upstream tributaries to largedownstream rivers The mesh can be derived from a DEM

which is a source of uncertainties for the assessment ofstreamndashaquifer exchanges (Kaumlser et al 2014)

362 Downscaling the piezometric head

The downscaling procedure is adapted from Chen andDurlofsky (2006) and Mehl and Hill (2002) Assuming thatthe regional discharge is homogeneously distributed alongthe regional cells border the intermediate piezometric headcan be linearly interpolated based on the local properties ofthe cell coupled with the regional gradient

hn = h1 +Keq

keqn

xn minus X1

X2 minus X1(H2 minus H1) X1 le xn le X2 (4)

whereX denotes the coordinate of the regional mesh andx the one of the intermediate oneKeq [m sminus1] is the re-gional equivalent permeabilitykeqn the equivalent perme-ability of the n intermediate cells betweenX1 and xn Hn

[m] is the regional piezometric head at pointXn and hn



Figure 3 Scaling effects on averaged near-river piezometric heads

[m] the intermediate piezometric heads at pointxn Assum-ing thath1 = H1 the local piezometric head at pointxn be-comes a function of regional heads However due to the as-sumptions the downscaling procedure becomes less accuratewhen the dimensional difference between regional and inter-mediate mesh grid is high (W ≫ w)

363 Upscaling the conductance at the regional scale

While methodologies for the upscaling of permeability distri-butions already exist (Renard 1997) it remains unclear howto upscale the conductance parameter In order to study thescaling effects onFcor (see Eq 1) an iterative modelling pro-cedure is proposed (Fig 2) At iterationj the consistency offluxes between scales is defined as follows

Qjr =

sum

iisinr

qji (5)

where i denotes the intermediate cellsr a regional cellQ

j+1r the regional streamndashaquifer flow resulting from the up-

scaling of iterationj andqji the intermediate streamndashaquifer

flow at iterationj For |Qj+1r minus Q

jr | lt ǫ the procedure con-

vergesǫ being the convergence criterion Otherwise new re-gional conductance values are calculated using Eq (5)

forallr isin Fj+1corr =

sum

iisinrqi

Kjeqrmiddot W middot

(

Hrivr minus Hlowastjr

) (6)

where is the regional meshr therth regional cellKjeqr

[m3 sminus1] the estimated equivalent permeability of therth cellat iterationj W [m] the mesh sizeHrivr andH

lowastjr [m] the

river and piezometric heads of therth cell at thej th iterationThe equivalent permeability can be updated as follows

forallr isin Kj+1eqr = minus

int

Sr

uji dS

nabla

(

1Vr

int

Vr

hlowastji dV

) (7)

whereSr andVr are the cross section and volume of therthregional cell andnabla denotes the gradient

The study of the evolution of bothFcor and permeabilitiesunder various hydrological conditions should be very infor-mative concerning the feasibility of the conductance param-eter scaling laws

4 The MIM methodology from concepts to practice

The methodology of Mouhri et al (2013) is hereby graphi-cally developed scaling in space the three pools of methods(measurementsndashinterpolationndashmodelling) needed to fully un-derstand streamndashaquifer interfaces at various scales The out-come is the MIM methodological tool which localises inspace the type of streamndashaquifer interface that can be studiedby a given approach (see the five scales of interest in Fig 4local intermediate (or reach) watershed regional and conti-nental scales) From Fig 5 it clearly appears that a betterunderstanding of the functioning of nested streamndashaquiferinterfaces relies on the combination of models in situ net-works space borne data and interpolation techniques MIMhas the ability to clearly display the representativeness of aspecific research within a holistic framework dedicated to thestudy of nested streamndashaquifer interactions at all scales It is



Figure 4 MIM methodological space Axis in logarithmic scale

a valuable tool for the definition of combined field measure-ments and modelling approaches It permits the determina-tion of the dimension of the objects that need to be studiedto scale processes This is illustrated in Sect 41 where thesize of a river reach relevant for testing up- and downscalingstrategies is identified Space borne data coupled with modelscan also be displayed in the MIM space (Sect 42) withoutidentifying methodologies to scale processes from the water-shed to the regional and continental scales (Sect 43)

41 Coupled in situ modelling approaches from local towatershed scale

Figure 5 displays the types of streamndashaquifer interfaces thatcan be studied by the multi-scale sampling system developedby Mouhri et al (2013) based on LOcal MOnitoring Sta-tions (LOMOS) distributed along a 6 km-river network cov-ering a 40 km2 watershed As illustrated in Fig 5 a sin-gle LOMOS allows the monitoring based on water pres-sure and temperature measurements of stream cross sectionsranging from 01ndashsim 10 m LOMOS data are used with cou-pled thermo-hydro models to determine the properties of theaquifer units and the river beds (Mouhri et al 2013) whichcan be used to assess the value of the conductance at the wa-tershed scale (Mehl and Hill 2002 Morel-Seytoux 2009Vermeulen et al 2006 Rushton 2007) Assuming that itis possible to distribute multiple LOMOS data and the as-sociated conductance values along a stream network (for

instance using FO-DTS ndash Fibre Optic Distributed ThermalSensors) local in situ data become the basis of a broadersurfacendashsubsurface modelling at the watershed scale The up-scaling is hence structured around stream cross sections ofsim 1ndash10 m with a representative reach length in the order ofmagnitude of 10ndash100 m (Fig 5) The next experiment aim-ing at determining the upscaling law for the conductance co-efficient at the watershed scale will thus be designed basedon the specificities of a river stretch at this scale (ie the studyof a riffle-pool sequence) In this specific case the spatial ra-tionale behind the new experiment is an outcome of the MIManalysis which defines the size of the objects to be studiedIdentifying the size of the objects of interest also providesguidance for the determination of a relevant mesh size whichin return imposes locations where interpolations need to beperformed

42 Space borne approaches regional and continentalscales

Current and future satellite data are used to observe the conti-nental water cycle and better constrain LSM (Sect 35) Theyare thus located at the continental and regional scales on themeasurement axis of the MIM space (Fig 5) Downscalingmethods are also being developed to refine current coarseoptical imagery into finer resolution products or to averagedata over a spatial object (for instance a river reach) to im-prove their accuracy (Aires et al 2013) These methods are



Figure 5 Localisation of two approaches in the MIM methodological space In yellow upscaling methodology from the local to the water-shed scale based on LOMOS coupled with DPBM In blue regional to continental scales covered by satellite data coupled to assimilationframeworks Axis in logarithmic scale data assim data assimilation

indicated on the interpolation axis in Fig 5 Measurementsand interpolated data can both be used in data assimilationframeworks

Some attempts have been undertaken to force or assimi-late satellite-based observations of different components ofthe water cycle to improve LSM water budget and river rout-ing schemes over the Mississippi Basin (Zaitchik et al2008) the Arkansas River Basin (Pan et al 2008) theAmazon Basin (Getirana et al 2013) the BrahmaputraRiver (Michailovsky et al 2013) and over 10 large riverbasins widely spread in latitude (Sahoo et al 2011) Fur-ther Andreadis et al (2007) Durand et al (2008) andBiancamaria et al (2011) have developed different assimi-lation schemes to correct hydrodynamic model parametersand variables using virtual SWOT observations They haveshown the potential of this new kind of spatially distributeddata set to better constrain hydraulic models

As streamndashaquifer exchanges are very responsive to in-river water level fluctuations (Diem et al 2014 Koussiset al 2007 Maier and Howard 2011 Saleh et al 2011) theassimilation of space borne data and data products in numer-ical models like the ones used by Pryet et al (2014) Salehet al (2011) and Vergnes and Decharme (2012) (Fig 5)should enable a better understanding of streamndashaquifer in-teraction at very large scale

43 Further challenges

Albeit being a breakthrough in terms of surface cover-age SWOT requirements impose restrictions on observablestreamndashaquifer interfaces which can be visualised in theMIM space (Fig 5) As SWOT will provide information forbasins on average larger than 50 000 km2 (Sect 25) it ap-pears in the MIM space that SWOT applications do not com-pletely overlap other methodologies as the one previouslyproposed to scale processes between the local and the wa-tershed scales To overcome this issue a projected airbornecampaign called AirSWOT with a main payload similar tothe one of SWOT but with a higher spatial resolution (met-ric) will (i) help to determine whether regular airborne cam-paigns can provide a valuable tool to connect the watershedscale to the regionalcontinental one with the help of multi-scale modelling tools (see Sect 36) and (ii) make it possibleto design new in situ monitoring stations derived from theLOMOS defined by Mouhri et al (2013) but dedicated to thewatershedregional scale which means for river cross sec-tions larger than a few decametres with a water depth of afew metres



5 Conclusions

Based on a systemic approach of hydrosystems we pro-pose to consider the streamndashaquifer interface as a cascadeof nested objects These nested objects depend on the scaleof interest At the watershed regional and continental scalesthey consist of alluvial plains while within the alluvial plainitself (intermediate-reach scale) they consist of hyporheiccorridors including riparian zones Within the riparian zone(local scale) they consist of HZ and so on until the watercolumnndashbenthos interface within the river itself

Estimating streamndashaquifer exchanges therefore requirescombination of the modelling of various processes with dif-ferent characteristic times Stakeholders need more detailedinformation at the regional scale as it is the water resourcesmanagement scale However depending on the desired re-finement of the modelling at the regional scale (ie numberof processes taken into account) the estimation of streamndashaquifer exchanges may vary significantly It is thus crucialto develop modelling tools which can precisely simulatestreamndashaquifer exchanges at the reach scale within a regionalbasin These innovative modelling tools should be multi-scale modelling platforms which implement the concept ofnested streamndashaquifer interfaces as the core of the couplingbetween regional and intermediate scale models the formersimulating the basin the latter the alluvial plains To achievethis it was shown that process scaling should be performedaround the river network

To fully estimate streamndashaquifer exchanges this multi-scale modelling tool has to be coupled with observation de-vices The MIM methodology provides a powerful frame-work to jointly develop observation infrastructures and mod-elling tools allowing the localisation of the global structurein the scale space Although the scaling of processes wasidentified around the reach scale from the local to the wa-tershed scale airborne campaigns as well as regional in situsystems will have to be rationalised to connect the watershedto the regional and continental scales which can be observedwith a large diversity of satellite instruments

Acknowledgements This research is funded by CNES TOSCASWOT project the ONEMA NAPROM project and structuredwithin the ldquoStreamndashAquifer Interfacesrdquo workpackage of the PIRENSeine research programme We kindly thank Angela Armakolafor revising the English version of the paper as well as the twoanonymous reviewers for their fruitful comments which helpedimprove the paper significantly

Edited by Y Fan

References

Abbott M Bathurst J Cunge J OrsquoConnell P and RasmussenJ An introduction to the European Hydrological System 1 His-tory and philosophy of a physically based distributed modellingsystem J Hydrol 87 45ndash59 1986

Abu-El-Sharsquos W and Rihani J Application of the high per-formance computing techniques of parflow simulator to modelgroundwater flow at Azraq basin Water Resour Manage 21409ndash425 doi101007s11269-006-9023-5 2007

Aires F Prigent C Papa F and Cretaux J-F Downscalingof the inundation extent over the Niger delta using a combina-tion of multi-wavelength and Modis retrievals J Hydrometeo-rol doi101175JHM-D-13-0321 2013

Alkama R Decharme B Douville H Becker M Cazenave ASheffield J Voldoire A Tyteca S and Moigne P L GlobalEvaluation of the ISBA-TRIP Continental Hydrological SystemPart I Comparison to GRACE Terrestrial Water Storage Esti-mates and In Situ River Discharges J Hydometeorol 11 583ndash600 2010

Allen J The classification of cross-stratified units with noteson their origin Sedimentology 2 93ndash114 doi101111j1365-30911963tb01204x 1963

Allen J On bed forms and palaeocurrents Sedimentology 6 153ndash190 doi101111j1365-30911966tb01576x 1966

Andersen J Refsgaard J and Jensen K Distributed hydrologicalmodelling of the Senegal River Basin ndash model construction andvalidation J Hydrol 247 200ndash214 2001

Anderson M P Heat as a Ground Water Tracer Ground Water 43951ndash968 doi101111j1745-6584200500052x 2005

Anderson M P Aiken J S Webb E K and Mickelson DM Sedimentology and hydrogeology of two braided streamdeposits Sediment Geol 129 187ndash199 doi101016S0037-0738(99)00015-9 1999

Anderson W P Storniolo R E and Rice J S Bank thermal stor-age as a sink of temperature surges in urbanized streams J Hy-drol 409 525ndash537 doi101016jjhydrol201108059 2011

Andreadis K Clark E Lettermaier D and Alsdorf D Prospectsfor river discharge and depth estimation through assimilation ofswath-altimetry into a raster-based hydrodynamics model Geo-phys Res Lett 34 L10403 doi1010292007GL029721 2007

Andreadis K Schumann G and Pavelsky T A simple globalriver bankfull width and depth database Water Resour Res 497164ndash7168 doi101002wrcr20440 2013

Anibas C Fleckenstein J Volze N Buis K VerhoevenR Meire P and Batelaan O Transient or steady-stateUsing vertical temperature profiles to quantify groundwater-surface water exchange Hydrol Process 23 2165ndash2177doi101002hyp7289 2009

Anibas C Verbeiren B Buis K Chormanrsquoski J De DonckerL Okruszko T Meire P and Batelaan O A hierarchicalapproach on groundwater-surface water interaction in wetlandsalong the upper Biebrza River Poland Hydrol Earth Syst Sci16 2329ndash2346 doi105194hess-16-2329-2012 2012

Aral M and Gunduz O Scale effects in large scale watershedmodeling in International Conference on Water and Environ-ment edited by Singh V and Yadava R Allied Publishers In-dia 37ndash51 2003



Aral M and Gunduz O Watershed Models in chap Large-ScaleHybrid Watershed Modeling Taylor amp Francis Kentucky USA75ndash95 2006

Arnold J Srinivasan R Muttiah R and Allen P Continentalscale simulation of the hydrologic balance J Am Water ResourAssoc 35 1037ndash1051 1999

Arora V and Boer G A variable velocity flow routing algorithmfor GCMs J Geophys Res 104 30965ndash30979 1999

Bardini L Boano F Cardenas M Revelli R and Ridolfi LNutrient cycling in bedform induced hyporheic zones GeochimCosmochim Acta 84 47ndash61 doi101016jgca2012010252012

Bauer P Gumbricht T and Kinzelbach W A regionalcoupled surface watergroundwater model of the Oka-vango Delta Botswana Water Resour Res 42 W04403doi1010292005WR004234 2006

Becker M Georgian T Ambrose H Siniscalchi J and FredrickK Estimating flow and flux of ground water discharge us-ing water temperature and velocity J Hydrol 296 221ndash233doi101016jjhydrol200403025 2004

Bencala K Gooseff M and Kimball B Rethinking hyporheicflow and transient storage to advance understanding of stream-catchment connections Water Resour Res 47 W00H03doi1010292010WR010066 2011

Bendjoudi H Weng P Gueacuterin R and Pastre J Riparian wet-lands of the middle reach of the Seine river (France) historicaldevelopment investigation and present hydrologic functioningA case study J Hydrol 263 131ndash155 2002

Bertrand G Goldscheider N Gobat J-M and Hunkeler D Re-view From multi-scale conceptualization to a classification sys-tem for inland groundwater-dependent ecosystems HydrogeolJ 20 5ndash25 doi101007s10040-011-0791-5 2012

Beven K Changing ideas in hydrology The case of physically-based model J Hydrol 105 157ndash172 1989

Beven K Smith P J and Wood A On the colour and spinof epistemic error (and what we might do about it) Hy-drol Earth Syst Sci 15 3123ndash3133 doi105194hess-15-3123-2011 2011

Biancamaria S Andreadis K Durand M Clark E RodriguezE Mognard N Alsdorf D Lettenmaier D and Oudin YPreliminary characterization of SWOT hydrology error budgetand global capabilities IEEE J Sel Top Appl Earth ObservRem S 3 6ndash19 doi101109JSTARS20092034614 2010

Biancamaria S Durand M Andreadis K Bates P Boone AMognard N Rodriacuteguez E Alsdorf D Lettenmaier D andClark E Assimilation of virtual wide swath altimetry to im-prove Arctic river modeling Remote Sens Environ 115 373ndash381 2011

Billen G and Garnier J Nitrogen transfers through the Seinedrainage network a budget based on the application of thersquoRiverstrahlerrsquomodel Hydrobiologia 410 139ndash150 2000

Bixio A Gambolati G Paniconi C Putti M Shestopalov VBublias V Bohuslavsky A Kasteltseva N and RudenkoY Modeling groundwater-surface water interactions includingeffects of morphogenetic depressions in the Chernobyl exclu-sion zone Environ Geol 42 162ndash177 doi101007s00254-001-0486-7 2002

Bloumlschl G and Sivapalan M Scale issues in hydrological mod-elling A review Hydrol Process 9 251ndash290 1995

Boano F Camporeale C Revelli R and Ridolfi L Sinuosity-driven hyporheic exchange in meandering rivers Geophys ResLett 33 L18406 doi1010292006GL027630 2006

Boano F Revelli R and Ridolfi L Quantifying the impact ofgroundwater discharge on the surface-subsurface exchange Hy-drol Process 23 2108ndash2116 doi101002hyp7278 2009

Boano F Camporeale C and Revelli R A linear model for cou-pled surface-subsurface flow in meandering stream Water Re-sour Res 46 W07535 doi1010292009WR008317 2010a

Boano F Demaria A Revelli R and Ridolfi L Biogeochemi-cal zonation due to intrameander hyporheic flow Water ResourRes 46 W02511 doi1010292008WR007583 2010b

Bouwer H Theory of seepage from open channels in vol 5 ofAdvances in Hydroscience Academic Press New York 1969

Bridge J and Best J Preservation of planar laminae due to migra-tion of low-relief bed waves over aggrading upper-stage planebeds comparison of experimental data with theory Sedimentol-ogy 44 253ndash262 1997

Bridge J S Fluvial facies models Recent developments inchap Facies models revisited Special Publication 84 SEPM85ndash170 2006

Bristow C S and Best J L Braided rivers perspectives andproblems Special Publications Geological Society London 751ndash11 doi101144GSLSP19930750101 1993

Brunke M and Gonser T The ecological significance of exchangeprocesses between rivers and groundwater Freshwater Biol 371ndash33 doi101046j1365-2427199700143x 1997

Brunner P Li H Kinzelbach W Li W and Dong XExtracting phreatic evaporation from remotely sensed mapsof evapotranspiration Water Resour Res 44 W08428doi1010292007WR006063 2008

Brunner P Cook P and Simmons C Hydrogeologic controlson disconnection between surface water and groundwater WaterResour Res 45 W01422 doi1010292008WR006953 2009a

Brunner P Simmons C and Cook P Spatial and temporal as-pects of the transition from connection to disconnection be-tween rivers lakes and groundwater J Hydrol 376 159ndash169doi101016jjhydrol200907023 2009b

Brunner P Simmons C Cook P and Therrien R Mod-eling Surface Water-Groundwater Interaction with MOD-FLOW Some Considerations Ground Water 48 174ndash180doi101111j1745-6584200900644x 2010

Brunner P Cook P and Simmons C Disconnected Surface Wa-ter and Groundwater From Theory to Practice Ground Water49 460ndash467 doi101111j1745-6584201000752x 2011

Burkholder B K Grant G E Haggerty R Khangaonkar Tand Wampler P J Influence of hyporheic flow and geomor-phology on temperature of a large gravel-bed river Clacka-mas River Oregon USA Hydrol Process 22 941ndash953doi101002hyp6984 2008

Burt T A third paradox in catchment hydrology and biogeo-chemistry decoupling in the riparian zone Hydrol Process 192087ndash2089 doi101002hyp5904 2005

Burt T Pinay G Matheson F Haycock N Butturini AClement J Danielescu S Dowrick D Hefting M Hillbricht-Ilkowska A and Maitre V Water table fluctuations in the ripar-ian zone comparative results from a pan-European experimentJ Hydrol 265 129ndash148 2002



Calmant S Seyler F and Cretaux J-F Monitoring ContinentalSurface Waters by Satellite Altimetry Surv Geophys 29 247ndash269 2008

Calver A Riverbed Permeabilities Information from PooledData Ground Water 39 546ndash553 doi101111j1745-65842001tb02343x 2001

Cardenas M The effect of river bend morphology onflow and timescales of surface water ndash groundwaterexchange across pointbars J Hydrol 362 134ndash141doi101016jjhydrol200808018 2008a

Cardenas M Surface water-groundwater interface geomorphol-ogy leads to scaling f residence times Geophys Res Lett 35doi1010292008GL033753 2008b

Cardenas M Streamndashaquifer interactions and hyporheic exchangein gaining and losing sinuous streams Water Resour Res 45W06469 doi1010292008WR007651 2009a

Cardenas M A model for lateral hyporheic flow based on valleyslope and channel sinuosity Water Resour Res 45 W01501doi1010292008WR007442 2009b

Cardenas M and Wilson J Hydrodynamics of coupledflow above and below a sediment-water interface withtriangular bedforms Adv Water Resour 30 301ndash313doi101016jadvwatres200606009 2007a

Cardenas M and Wilson J Dunes turbulent eddies and interfa-cial exchange with permeable sediments Water Resour Res 43W08412 doi1010292006WR005787 2007b

Cardenas M and Wilson J Exchange across a sediment-water in-terface with ambient groundwater discharge J Hydrol 346 69ndash80 doi101016jjhydrol200708019 2007c

Cardenas M Wilson J and Zlotnik V Impact of het-erogeneity bed forms and stream curvature on subchan-nel hyporheic exchange Water Resour Res 40 W08307doi1010292004WR003008 2004

Carleton J and Montas H An analysis of performance mod-els for free water surface wetlands Water Res 44 3595ndash3606doi101016jwatres201004008 2010

Carroll R Pohll G and Hershey R An unconfined groundwatermodel of the Death Valley Regional Flow System and a com-parison to its confined predecessor J Hydrol 373 316ndash328doi101016jjhydrol200905006 2009

Chen D and MacQuarrie K Numerical simulation of organic car-bon nitrate and nitrogen isotope behavior during denitrificationin a riparian zone J Hydrol 293 235ndash254 2004

Chen X and Chen X Sensitivity analysis and determination ofstreambed leakance and aquifer hydraulic properties J Hydrol284 270ndash284 2003

Chen Y and Durlofsky L Adaptive local-global upscaling forgeneral Flow scenarios in Heterogeneous formations TransPorous Media 62 157ndash185 2006

Chung I-M Kim N-W Lee J and Sophocleous MAssessing distributed groundwater recharge rate using inte-grated surface water-groundwater modelling application to Mi-hocheon watershed South Korea Hydrogeol J 18 1253ndash1264doi101007s10040-010-0593-1 2010

Conan C Bouraoui F Turpin N de Marsily G and BidoglioG Modeling Flow and Nitrate Fate at Catchment Scale in Brit-tany (France) J Environ Qual 32 2026ndash2032 2003

Conant B Delineating and Quantifying Ground Water DischargeZones Using Streambed Temperatures Ground Water 42 243ndash257 doi101111j1745-65842004tb02671x 2004

Constantz J Heat as a tracer to determine streambedwater exchanges Water Resour Res 44 1ndash20doi1010292008WR006996 2008

Constantz J Stewart A Niswonger R and Sarma L Anal-ysis of temperature profiles for investigating stream losses be-neath ephemeral channels Water Resour Res 38-12 1316doi1010292001WR001221 2002

Constantz J Eddy-Miller C Wheeler J and EssaidH Streambed exchanges along tributary streams in hu-mid watersheds Water Resour Res 49 2197ndash2204doi101002wrcr20194 2013

Cretaux J-F Berge-Nguyen M Leblanc M Rio R A D Del-claux F Mognard N Lion C Pandey R-K Tweed S Cal-mant S and Maisongrande P Flood mapping inferred fromremote sensing data Int Water Technol J 1 48ndash62 2011

Crispell J and Endreny T Hyporheic exchange flow around con-structed in-channel structures and implications for restoration de-sign Hydrol Process 23 1158ndash1168 doi101002hyp72302009

Curie F Ducharne A Sebilo M and Bendjoudi H Denitrifi-cation in a hyporheic riparian zone controlled by river regulationin the Seine river basin (France) Hydrol Process 23 655ndash664doi101002hyp7161 2009

Dahl M Nilsson B Langhoff J and Refsgaard J Re-view of classification systems and new multi-scale typology ofgroundwater-surface water interaction J Hydrol 344 1ndash162007

Dahm C Grimm N Marmonier P Valett H and VervierP Nutrient dynamics at the interface between surfacewaters and groundwaters Freshwater Biol 40 427ndash451doi101046j1365-2427199800367x 1998

Dahm C Baker M Moore D and Thibault J Coupled bio-geochemical and hydrological responses of streams and rivers todrought Freshwater Biol 48 1219ndash1231 doi101046j1365-2427200301082x 2003

Dalrymple R W Incised valleys in time and space an in-troduction to the volume and an examination of the con-trols on valley formation and filling chap Incised valleysin time and space pp Special Publication 85 SEPM 5ndash12doi102110pec06850005 2006

Datry T Dole-Olivier M Marmonier P Claret C Perrin JLafont M and Breil P La zone hyporheacuteique une composanteagrave ne pas neacutegliger dans lrsquoeacutetat des lieux et la restauration des coursdrsquoeau Ingeacutenieries ndash E A T 54 3ndash18 2008

David C Habets F Maidment D and Yang Z-L RAPID ap-plied to the SIM-France model Hydrol Process 25 3412ndash3425doi101002hyp8070 2011

Decharme B Douville H Prigent C Papa F and Aires FA new river flooding scheme for global climate applicationsOff-line evaluation over South America J Geophys Res 113D11110 doi1010292007JD009376 2008

Decharme B Alkama R Douville H Becker M and CazenaveA Global Evaluation of the ISBA-TRIP Continental Hydrolog-ical System Part II Uncertainties in River Routing SimulationRelated to Flow Velocity and Groundwater Storage J Hydome-teorol 11 601ndash617 doi1011752010JHM12121 2010



Decharme B Alkama R Papa F Faroux S Douville H andPrigent C Global off-line evaluation of the ISBA-TRIP floodmodel Clim Dynam 38 1389ndash1412 doi101007s00382-011-1054-9 2012

Decharme R and Douville H Global validation of the ISBA sub-grid Hydrology Clim Dynam 29 21ndash37 doi101007s00382-006-0216-7 2007

Deforet T Marmonier P Rieffel D Crini N Giraudoux Pand Gilbert D Do parafluvial zones have an impact in regulat-ing river pollution Spatial and temporal dynamics of nutrientscarbon and bacteria in a large gravel bar of the Doubs River(France) Hydrobiologia 623 235ndash250 doi101007s10750-008-9661-0 2009

Delfs J-O Blumensaat F Wang W Krebs P and Kolditz OCoupling hydrogeological with surface runoff model in a Poltvacase study in Western Ukraine Environ Earth Sci 65 1439ndash1457 doi101007s12665-011-1285-4 2012

de Marsily G Ledoux E Levassor A Poitrinal D and SalemA Modelling of large multilayered aquifer systems Theory andapplications J Hydrol 36 1ndash34 1978

Derx J Blaschke A and Bloumlschl G Three-dimensionalflow patterns at the river-aquifer interface ndash a case studyat the Danube Adv Water Resour 33 1375ndash1387doi101016jadvwatres201004013 2010

Diem S Renard P and Schirmer M Assessing the effectof different river water level interpolation schemes on mod-eled groundwater residence times J Hydrol 510 393ndash402doi101016jjhydrol201312049 2014

Discacciati M Miglio E and Quarteroni A Mathematical andnumerical models for coupling surface and groundwater flowsAppl Numer Math 43 57ndash74 2002

Dooge J The hydrologic cycle as a closed system Int Assoc Sci-ent Hydro Bull 13 58ndash68 doi101080026266668094935681968

Doppler T Franssen H-J H Kaiser H-P Kuhlman U andStauffer F Field evidence of a dynamic leakage coefficient formodelling river-aquifer interactions J Hydrol 347 177ndash187doi101016jjhydrol200709017 2007

Doussan C Poitevin G Ledoux E and Detay M River bankfiltration modelling of the changes in water chemistry with em-phasis on nitrogen species Jf Contam Hydrol 25 129ndash1561997

Durand M Andreadis K Alsdorf D Lettenmaier DMoller D and Wilson M Estimation of bathymetric depthand slope from data assimilation of swath altimetry intoa hydrodynamic model Geophys Res Lett 35 L20401doi1010292008GL034150 2008

Ebel B and Loague K Physics-based hydrologic-response simu-lation Seeing through the fog of equifinality Hydrol Process20 2887ndash2900 2006

Ebel B Mirus B B Heppner C S VanderKwaak J E andLoague K First-order exchange coefficient coupling for sim-ulating surface water-groundwater interactions parameter sen-sitivity and consistency with a physics-based approach HydrolProcess 23 1949ndash1959 doi101002hyp7279 2009

Ebrahim G Hamonts K van Griensven A Jonoski A De-jonghe W and Mynett A Effect of temporal resolutionof water level and temperature inputson numerical simula-tion of groundwater-surface water flux exchange in a heav-ily modified urban river Hydrol Process 27 1634ndash1645doi101002hyp9310 2013

Ellis P Mackay R and Rivett M Quantifying urban river-aquifer fluid exchange processes A multi-scale problem J Con-tam Hydrol 91 58ndash80 2007

Endreny T Lautz L and Siegel D Hyporheic flow pathresponse to hydraulic jumps at river steps Flume andhydrodynamic models Water Resour Res 47 W02517doi1010292009WR008631 2011

Engdahl N Volger E and Weissmann G Evaluation ofaquifer heterogeneity effects on river flow loss using a transi-tion probability framework Water Resour Res 46 W01506doi1010292009WR007903 2010

Engeler I Hendricks Franssen H Muumlller R and Stauffer F Theimportance of coupled modelling of variably saturated ground-water flow-heat transport for assessing river-aquifer interactionsJ Hydrol 397 295ndash305 doi101016jjhydrol2010120072011

Etchevers P Golaz C and Habets F Simulation of the waterbudget and the river flows of the Rhone basin from 1981 to 1994J Hydrol 244 60ndash85 2001

Fan Y Li H and Miguez-Macho G Global Patternsof Groundwater Table Depth Science 339 940ndash943doi101126science1229881 2013

Fleckenstein J Niswonger R and Fogg G River-AquiferInteractions Geologic Heterogeneity and Low-Flow Man-agement Ground Water 44 837ndash852 doi101111j1745-6584200600190x 2006

Fleckenstein J Krause S Hannah D and Boano FGroundwater-surface water interactions New meth-ods and models to improve understanding of processesand dynamics Adv Water Resour 33 1291ndash1295doi101016jadvwatres201009011 2010

Flipo N Modeacutelisation des Hydrosystegravemes Continentaux pour uneGestion Durable de la Ressource en Eau PhD thesis httptelarchives-ouvertesfrdocs00879449PDFflipo2013_hdrpdfHabilitation thesis Universiteacute Pierre et Marie Curie Paris VI2013

Flipo N Even S Poulin M Theacutery S and Ledoux EModelling nitrate fluxes at the catchment scale using theintegrated tool CAWAQS Sci Total Environ 375 69ndash79doi101016jscitotenv200612016 2007a

Flipo N Jeanneacutee N Poulin M Even S and LedouxE Assessment of nitrate pollution in the Grand Morinaquifers (France) combined use of geostatistics andphysically-based modeling Environ Pollut 146 241ndash256doi101016jenvpol200603056 2007b

Flipo N Monteil C Poulin M de Fouquet C and KrimissaM Hybrid fitting of a hydrosystem model long term insight intothe Beauce aquifer functioning (France) Water Resour Res 48W05509 doi1010292011WR011092 2012

Freeze R Three-Dimensional Transient Saturated-UnsaturatedFlow in a Groundwater Basin Water Resour Res 7 347ndash3661971



Frei S Fleckenstein J Kollet S and Maxwell R Patternsand dynamics of river-aquifer exchange with variably-saturatedflow using a fully-coupled model J Hydrol 375 383ndash393doi101016jjhydrol200906038 2009

Frei S Lischeid G and Fleckenstein J Effects of micro-topography on surface-subsurface exchange and runoff genera-tion in a virtual riparian wetland ndash A modeling study Adv WaterResour 33 1388ndash1401 doi101016jadvwatres2010070062010

Frei S Knorr K Peiffer S and Fleckenstein J Surface micro-topography causes hot spots of biogeochemical activity in wet-land systems A virtual modeling experiment J Geophys Res117 G00N12 doi1010292012JG002012 2012

Furman A Modeling Coupled Surface-Subsurface FlowProcesses A Review Vadose Zone J 7 741ndash756doi102136vzj20070065 2008

Galbiati L Bouraoui F Elorza F and Bidoglio GModeling diffuse pollution loading into a Mediterraneanlagoon Development and application of an integratedsurface-subsurface model tool Ecol Model 193 4ndash18doi101016jecolmodel200507036 2006

Gao H Birkett C and Lettenmaier D Global monitoring oflarge reservoir storage from satellite remote sensing Water Re-sour Res 48 W09504 doi1010292012WR012063 2012

Garciacutea-Garciacutea D Ummenhofer C and Zlotnicki V Australianwater mass variations from GRACE data linked to Indo-Pacificclimate variability Remote Sens Environ 115 2175ndash2183doi101016jrse201104007 2011

Gariglio F P Tonina D and Luce C H Spatiotemporal variabil-ity of hyporheic exchange through a pool-riffle-pool sequenceWater Resour Res 49 7185ndash7204 doi101002wrcr204192013

Genereux D P Leahy S Mitasova H Kennedy C D and Cor-bett D R Spatial and temporal variability of streambed hy-draulic conductivity in West Bear Creek North Carolina USAJ Hydrol 358 332ndash353 doi101016jjhydrol2008060172008

Getirana A Boone A Yamazaki D and Mognard N Auto-matic parametrization of a flow routing scheme driven by radaraltimetry data evaluation in the Amazon basin Water ResourRes 49 614ndash629 doi101002wrcr20077 2013

Gibling M R Fielding C R and Sinha R Alluvial valleysand alluvial sequences towards a geomorphic assessment inchap From river to rock record The preservation of fluvial sed-iments and their subsequent interpretation SEPM Special Publi-cation No 97 SEPM 423ndash447 2011

Gleeson T and Paszkowski D Perceptions of scale in hydrologywhat do you mean by regional scale Hydrolog Sci J 59 1ndash9doi101080026266672013797581 2013

Goderniaux P Brouyegravere S Fowler H Blenkinsop S TherrienR Orban P and Dassargues A Large scale surface-subsurfacehydrological model to assess climate change impacts on ground-water reserves J Hydrol 373 122ndash138 2009

Golaz-Cavazzi C Etchevers P Habets F Ledoux E and Noil-han J Comparison of two hydrological simulations of theRhocircne basin Phys Chem Earth 26 461ndash466 2001

Gomez E Ledoux E Viennot P Mignolet C Benoˆt MBornerand C Schott C Mary B Billen G Ducharne Aand Brunstein D Un outil de modeacutelisation inteacutegreacutee du transfertdes nitrates sur un systegraveme hydrologique Application au bassinde la Seine La Houille Blanche 3-2003 38ndash45 2003

Gomez J Wilson J and Cardenas M Residence timedistributions in sinuosity-driven hyporheic zones and theirbiogeochemical effects Water Resour Res 48 W09533doi1010292012WR012180 2012

Gooseff M Anderson J Wondzell S LaNier J and HaggertyR A modelling study of hyporheic exchange pattern and thesequence size and spacing of stream bedforms in mountainstream networks Oregon USA Hydrol Process 20 2443ndash2457 doi101002hyp6349 2006

Graillot D Paran F Bornette G Marmonier P Piscart C andCadilhac L Coupling groundwater modeling and biological in-dicators for identifying riveraquifer exchanges SpringerPlus 368 doi1011862193-1801-3-68 2014

Gu C Hornberger G Herman J and Mills A Influence ofstream-groundwater interactions in the streambed sediments onNOminus

3 flux to a low-relief coastal stream Water Resour Res 44W11432 doi1010292007WR006739 2008

Gu C Anderson W and Maggi F Riparian biogeochemical hotmoments induced by stream fluctuations Water Resour Res 48W09546 doi1010292011WR011720 2012

Gunduz O and Aral M River networks and groundwater flow asimultaneous solution of a coupled system J Hydrol 301 216ndash234 doi101016jjhydrol200406034 2005

Habets F Noilhan J Golaz C Goutorbe J Lacarregravere PLeblois E Ledoux E Martin E Ottleacute C and Vidal-MadjarD The ISBA surface scheme in a macroscale hydrologicalmodel applied to the Hapex-Mobilhy area Part I Model anddatabase J Hydrol 217 75ndash96 1999

Haitjema H Comparing a three-dimensionnal and a DupuitndashForchheimer solution for a circula recharge area in a confinedaquifer J Hydrol 91 83ndash101 1987

Haitjema H On the residence time distribution in idealizedgroundwatersheds J Hydrol 172 127ndash146 1995

Hancock P Boulton A and Humphreys W Aquifers and hy-porheic zones Towards an ecological understanding of ground-water Hydrogeol J 13 98ndash111 doi101007s10040-004-0421-6 2005

Hanson R Schmid W Faunt C and Lockwood B Simu-lation and Analysis of Conjunctive Use with MODFLOWrsquosFarm Process Ground Water 48 674ndash689 doi101111j1745-6584201000730x 2010

Harbaugh A Banta E Hill M and McDonald M MODFLOW-2000 the US Geological Survey modular ground-water modelUser guide to modularization concepts and the ground-waterflow process Tech Rep 00-92 USGS Denver Colorado USA2000

Harvey A Effective timescales of coupling within fluvial systemsGeomorphology 44 175ndash201 2002

Harvey J and Bencala K The effect of streambed topography onsurface-subsurface water exchange in mountain catchments Wa-ter Resour Res 29 89ndash98 1993



Hatch C Fisher A Revenaugh J Constantz J and RuehlC Quantifying surface waterndashgroundwater interactions us-ing time series analysis of streambed thermal recordsMethod development Water Resour Res 42 W10410doi1010292005WR004787 2006

Hatch C Fisher A Ruehl C and Stemler G Spatial and tempo-ral variations in streambed hydraulic conductivity quantified withtime-series thermal methods J Hydrol 389 276ndash288 2010

Hayashi M and Rosenberry D Effects of Ground Water Exchangeon the Hydrology and Ecology of Surface Water Ground Water40 309ndash316 2002

Heeren D M Fox G A Fox A K Storm D E MillerR B and Mittelstet A R Divergence and flow direction asindicators of subsurface heterogeneity and stage-dependent stor-age in alluvial floodplains Hydrol Process 28 1307ndash1317doi101002hyp9674 2014

Hefting M Cleacutement J Dowrick D Cosandey A Bernal SCimpian C Tatur A Burt T and Pinay G Water table el-evation controls on soil nitrogen cycling in riparian wetlandsalong a European climatic gradient Biogeochemistry 67 113ndash134 2004

Heinz J Kleineidam S Teutsch G and Aigner T Hetero-geneity patterns of Quaternary glaciofluvial gravel bodies (SW-Germany) application to hydrogeology Sediment Geol 1581ndash23 doi101016S0037-0738(02)00239-7 2003

Henriksen H Troldborg L Hojberg A and Refsgaard JAssessment of exploitable groundwater resources of Den-mark by use of ensemble resource indicators and a numeri-cal groundwater-surface water model J Hydrol 348 224ndash2402008

Hester E and Doyle M In-stream geomorphic structures asdrivers of hyporheic exchange Water Resour Res 44 W03417doi1010292006WR005810 2008

Hill M Cooley R and Pollock D A Controlled Experiment inGround Water Flow Model Calibration Ground Water 36 520ndash535 1998

Hornung J and Aigner T Reservoir and aquifer characteriza-tion of fluvial architectural elements Stubensandstein UpperTriassic southwest Germany Sediment Geol 129 215ndash280doi101016S0037-0738(99)00103-7 1999

Irvine D Brunner P Hendricks Franssen H-J and SimmonsG Heterogeneous or homogeneous Implications of simplifyingheterogeneous streambeds in models of losing streams J Hy-drol 424ndash425 16ndash23 doi101016jjhydrol201111051 2012

Janssen F Cardenas M Sawyer A Dammrich T KrietschJ and de Beer D A comparative experimental and multi-physics computational fluid dynamics study of coupled surface-subsurface flow in bed forms Water Resour Res 48 W08514doi1010292012WR011982 2012

Jencso K McGlynn B Gooseff M Bencala K and WondzellS Hillslope hydrologic connectivity controls riparian ground-water turnover Implications of catchment structure for ripar-ian buffering and stream water sources Water Resour Res 46W10524 doi1010292009WR008818 2010

Jensen J and Engesgaard P Nonuniform Groundwater Dischargeacross a Streambed Heat as a Tracer Vadose Zone J 10 98ndash109 doi102136vzj20100005 2011

Jolly I and Rassam D A review of modelling of groundwater-surface water interactions in aridsemi-arid floodplains in18th World IMACSMODSIM Congress Cairns Australia2009

Kalbus E Schmidt C Molson J W Reinstorf F and SchirmerM Influence of aquifer and streambed heterogeneity on the dis-tribution of groundwater discharge Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 1369ndash77 doi105194hess-13-69-2009 2009

Kasahara T and Hill A Hyporheic exchange flows in-duced by constructed riffles and steps in lowland streams insouthern Ontario Canada Hydrol Process 20 4287ndash4305doi101002hyp6174 2006

Kasahara T and Wondzell S Geomorphic controls on hyporheicexchange flow in mountain streams Water Resour Res 391005 doi1010292002WR001386 2003

Kaumlser D Binley A Heathwaite A and Krause S Spatio-temporal variations of hyporheic flow in a riffle-step-pool se-quence Hydrol Process 23 2138ndash2149 doi101002hyp73172009

Kaumlser D Binley A and Heathwaite A On the impor-tance of considering channel microforms in groundwater mod-els of hyporheic exchange River Res Appl 29 528ndash535doi101002rra1618 2013

Kaumlser D Graf T Cochand F McLaren R Therrien R andBrunner P Channel Representation in Physically Based ModelsCoupling Groundwater and Surface Water Pitfalls and How toAvoid Them Ground Water doi101111gwat12143 in press2014

Ke K-Y Application of an integrated surface water-groundwatermodel to multi-aquifers modeling in Choushui River al-luvial fan Taiwan Hydrol Process 28 1409ndash1421doi101002hyp9678 2014

Keery J Binley A Crook N and Smith J Temporal and spatialvariability of groundwater-surface water fluxes Developmentand application of an analytical method using temperature timeseries J Hydrol 336 1ndash16 doi101016jjhydrol2006120032007

Kikuchi C Ferreacute T and Welker J Spatially telescop-ing measurements for improved characterization of groundwater-surface water interactions J Hydrol 446ndash447 1ndash12doi101016jjhydrol201204002 2012

Kim N Chung I Won Y and Arnold J Development and ap-plication of the integrated SWATndashMODFLOW model J Hydrol356 1ndash16 doi101016jjhydrol200802024 2008

Kjellin J Hallin S and Woumlrman A Spatial variations in den-itrification activity in wetland sediments explained by hydrol-ogy and denitrifying community structure Water Res 41 4710ndash4720 doi101016jwatres200706053 2007

Klemes V Conceptualization and scale in hydrology J Hydrol65 1ndash23 1983

Klingbeil R Kleineidam S Asprion U Aigner T and TeutschG Relating lithofacies to hydrofacies outcrop-based hydrge-ological characterisation of Quaternary gravel deposits Sedi-ment Geol 129 299ndash310 doi101016S0037-0738(99)00067-6 1999



Koch J McKnight D and Neupauer R Simulating un-steady flow anabranching and hyporheic dynamics in a glacialmeltwater stream using a coupled surface water routing andgroundwater flow model Water Resour Res 47 W05530doi1010292010WR009508 2011

Kolditz O Delfs J Buumlrger C Beinhorn M and Parkee C Nu-merical analysis of coupled hydrosystems based on an object-oriented compartment approach J Hydroinform 10 227ndash2442008

Kolditz O Bauer S Beyer C Boumlttcher N Dietrich P GoumlrkeU-J Kalbacher T Park C-H Sauer U Schuumltze C ShaoH Singh A Taron J Wang W and Watanabe N A sys-tematic benchmarking approach for geologic CO2 injection andstorage Environ Earth Sci 67 613ndash632 doi101007s12665-012-1656-5 2012

Kollet S J and Maxwell R M Integrated surfacendashgroundwaterflow modeling A free-surface overland flow boundary conditionin a parallel groundwater flow model Adv Water Resour 29945ndash958 2006

Kollet S J Maxwell R M Woodward C Smith S Vander-borght J Vereecken H and Simmer C Proof of concept ofregional scale hydrologic simulations at hydrologic resolutionutilizing massively parallel computer Water Resour Res 46W04201 doi1010292009WR008730 2010

Koltermann C E and Gorelick S M Heterogeneity in sedimen-tary deposits A review of structure-imitating process-imitatingand descriptive approaches Water Resour Res 32 2617ndash2658doi10102996WR00025 1996

Koussis A Akylas E and Mazi K Response of sloping uncon-fined aquifer to stage changes in adjacent stream II ApplicationsJ Hydrol 338 73ndash84 doi101016jjhydrol200702030 2007

Krause S and Bronstert A The impact of groundwaterndashsurfacewater interactions on the water balance of a mesoscale lowlandriver catchment in northeastern Germany Hydrol Process 21169ndash184 doi101002hyp6182 2007

Krause S Bronstert A and Zehe E Groundwater-surface wa-ter interactions in a North German lowland floodplain ndash Implica-tions for the river discharge dynamics and riparian water balanceJ Hydrol 347 404ndash417 doi101016jjhydrol2007090282007

Krause S Hannah D and Fleckenstein J Hyporheic hydrologyinteractions at the groundwater-surface water interface HydrolProcess 23 2103ndash2107 doi101002hyp7366 2009a

Krause S Heathwaite L Binley A and Keenan P Nitrate con-centration changes at the groundwaterndashsurface water interfaceof a small Cumbrian River Hydrol Process 23 2195ndash2211doi101002hyp7213 2009b

Krause S Hannah D M Fleckenstein J H Heppell C MKaeser D Pickup R Pinay G Robertson A L and WoodP J Inter-disciplinary perspectives on processes in the hy-porheic zone Ecohydrology 4 481ndash499 doi101002eco1762011

Krause S Blume T and Cassidy N J Investigating patterns andcontrols of groundwater up-welling in a lowland river by com-bining Fibre-optic Distributed Temperature Sensing with obser-vations of vertical hydraulic gradients Hydrol Earth Syst Sci16 1775ndash1792 doi105194hess-16-1775-2012 2012a

Krause S Munz M Tecklenburg C and Binley A The effect ofgroundwater forcing on hyporheic exchange Reply to commenton ldquoMunz M Krause S Tecklenburg C Binley A Reduc-ing monitoring gaps at the aquifer-river interface by modellinggroundwater-surfacewater exchange flow patterns HydrologicalProcesses doi101002hyp8080rdquo Hydrol Process 26 1589ndash1592 doi101002hyp9271 2012b

Kurtulus B Flipo N Goblet P Vilain G Tournebize J andTallec G Hydraulic head interpolation in an aquifer unit usingANFIS and Ordinary Kriging in Studies in computational intel-ligence Springer 343 265ndash273 doi101007978-3-642-20206-3_18 2011

LaBolle E Ahmed A and Fogg G Review of the IntegratedGroundwater and Surface-Water Model (IGSM) Ground Water41 238ndash246 2003

Lautz L and Siegel D Modeling surface and ground water mixingin the using MODFLOW and MT3D Adv Water Resour 291618ndash1633 doi101016jadvwatres200512003 2006

Lautz L Kranes N and Siegel D Heat tracing of heterogeneoushyporheic exchange adjacent to in-stream geomorphic featuresHydrol Process 24 3074ndash3086 doi101002hyp7723 2010

Ledoux E Girard G de Marsily G Villeneuve J and De-schenes J Unsaturated flow in hydrologic modeling ndash theoryand practice in chap Spatially distributed modeling concep-tual approach coupling surface water and groundwater NATOASI Ser CNorwell Springer Kluwer Academicy Massachus-setts 435ndash454 1989

Ledoux E Gomez E Monget J Viavattene C Viennot PDucharne A Benoit M Mignolet C Schott C and Mary BAgriculture and groundwater nitrate contamination in the Seinebasin The STICS-MODCOU modelling chain Sci Total Envi-ron 375 33ndash47 2007

Leek R Wu J Wang L Hanrahan T Barber M and Qiu HHeterogeneous characteristics of streambed saturated hydraulicconductivity of the Touchet River south eastern WashingtonUSA Hydrol Process 23 1236ndash1246 doi101002hyp72582009

Lemieux J and Sudicky E Simulation of groundwater age evolu-tion during the Wisconsinian glaciation over the Canadian land-scape Environ Fluid Mech 10 91ndash102 2010

Lewandowski J Angermann L Nuumltzmann G and Fleck-enstein J A heat pulse technique for the determinationof small-scale flow directions and flow velocities in thestreambed of sand-bed streams Hydrol Process 25 3244ndash3255 doi101002hyp8062 2011

Li Q Unger A Sudicky E Kassenaar D Wexler E andShikaze S Simulating the multi-seasonal response of a large-scale watershed with a 3D physically-based hydrologic model JHydrol 357 317ndash336 2008

Liang D Falconer R and Lin B Coupling surface and subsur-face flows in a depth averaged flood wave model J Hydrol 337147ndash158 doi101016jjhydrol200701045 2007

Liggett J Werner A and Simmons C Influence of thefirst-order exchange coefficient on simulation of coupledsurface-subsurface flow J Hydrol 414-415 503ndash515doi101016jjhydrol201111028 2012

Loague K and VanderKwaak J Physics-based hydrologic re-sponse platinium bridge 1958 Edsel or useful tool Hydrol Pro-cess 18 2949ndash2956 2004



Luce C Tonina D Gariglio F and Applebee R Solu-tions for the diurnally forced advection-diffusion equationto estimate bulk fluid velocity and diffusivity in streambedsfrom temperature time series Water Resour Res 49 1ndash19doi1010292012WR012380 2013

Macpherson G and Sophocleous M Fast ground-water mixingand basal recharge in an unconfined alluvial aquifer KonzaLTER Site Northeastern Kansas J Hydrol 286 271ndash299 2004

Maier H and Howard K Influence of Oscillating Flow onHyporheic Zone Development Ground Water 49 830ndash844doi101111j1745-6584201000794x 2011

Malard F Tockner K Dole-Olivier M-J and Ward J VA landscape perspective of surface-subsurface hydrological ex-changes in river corridors Freshwater Biol 47 621ndash640 2002

Marion A Packman A Zaramella M and Bottacin-BusolinA Hyporheic flows in stratified beds Water Resour Res 44W09433 doi1010292007WR006079 2008

Marmonier P Archambaud G Belaidi N Bougon N BreilP Chauvet E Claret C Cornut J Datry T Dole-OlivierM Dumont B Flipo N Foulquier A Geacuterino M GuilpartA Julien F Maazouzi C Martin D Mermillod-Blondin FMontuelle B Namour P Navel S Ombredane D Pelte TPiscart C Pusch M Stroffek S Robertson A Sanchez-Peacuterez J Sauvage S Taleb A Wantzen M and VervierP The role of organisms in hyporheic processes gaps in cur-rent knowledge needs for future research and applications AnnLimnol ndash Int J Limnol 48 253ndash266 2012

Marzadri A Tonina D Bellin A Vignoli G and TubinoM Semianalytical analysis of hyporheic flow inducedby alternate bars Water Resour Res 46 W07531doi1010292009WR008285 2010

Marzadri A Tonina D and Bellin A A semianalytical three-dimensional process-based model for hyporheic nitrogen dy-namics in gravel bed rivers Water Resour Res 47 W11518doi1010292011WR010583 2011

Massei N Laignel B Deloffre J Mesquita J Motelay ALafite R and Durand A Long-term hydrological changes ofthe Seine River flow (France) and their relation to the North At-lantic Oscillation over the period 1950ndash2008 Int J Climatol30 2146ndash2154 doi101002joc2022 2010

Masson V Le Moigne P Martin E Faroux S Alias AAlkama R Belamari S Barbu A Boone A Bouyssel FBrousseau P Brun E Calvet J-C Carrer D Decharme BDelire C Donier S Essaouini K Gibelin A-L Giordani HHabets F Jidane M Kerdraon G Kourzeneva E LafaysseM Lafont S Lebeaupin Brossier C Lemonsu A MahfoufJ-F Marguinaud P Mokhtari M Morin S Pigeon G Sal-gado R Seity Y Taillefer F Tanguy G Tulet P VincendonB Vionnet V and Voldoire A The SURFEXv72 land andocean surface platform for coupled or offline simulation of earthsurface variables and fluxes Geosci Model Dev 6 929ndash960doi105194gmd-6-929-2013 2013

Maxwell R and Miller N Development of a Coupled Land Sur-face and Groundwater Model J Hydrometeorol 6 233ndash2472005

McDonald M and Harbaugh A MODFLOW a modular three-dimensional finite-difference ground-water flow model inBook 6 chap A1 p Technique of Water Ressources Investiga-tions of the US Geological Survey USGS Federal Center Den-ver Colorado p 586 1988

McGuire K and McDonnell J A review and evaluation ofcatchment transit time modeling J Hydrol 330 543ndash563doi101016jjhydrol200604020 2006

Mehl S and Hill M Developement and evaluation of a local gridrefinement method forblock-centred finite-difference groundwa-ter models using shared nodes Adv Water Resour 25 497ndash5112002

Mehl S and Hill M Grid-size dependence of Cauchy boundaryconditon used to simulate streamndashaquifer interactions Adv Wa-ter Resour 33 430ndash442 2010

Miall A D The geology of fluvial deposits Springer VerlagBerlin Heidelberg 1996

Michailovsky C Milzow C and Bauer-Gottwein P Assimilationof radar altimetry to a routing model of the Brahmaputra riverWater Resour Res 49 4807ndash4816 doi101002wrcr203452013

Miglio E Quarteroni A and Saleri F Coupling of free surfaceand groundwater flows Comput Fluids 32 73ndash83 2003

Monteil C Estimation de la contribution des principaux aquifegraveresdu bassin-versant de la Loire au fonctionnement hydrologique dufleuve agrave lrsquoeacutetiage PhD thesis MINES-ParisTech Paris 2011

Morel-Seytoux J The turning factor in the Estimation of streamaquifer seepage Ground Water 42 205ndash212 2009

Mouhri A Flipo N Rejiba F de Fouquet C Bodet L Gob-let P Kurtulus B Ansart P Tallec G Durand V and JostA Designing a multi-scale sampling system of streamndashaquiferinterfaces in a sedimentary basin J Hydrol 504 194ndash206doi101016jjhydrol201309036 2013

Munz M Krause S Tecklenburg C and Binley A Reduc-ing monitoring gaps at the aquiferndashriver interface by modellinggroundwater-surface water exchange flow patterns Hydrol Pro-cess 25 3547ndash3562 doi101002hyp8080 2011

Mutiti S and Levy J Using temperature modeling to investigatethe temporal variability of riverbed hydraulic conductivity duringstorm events J Hydrol 388 321ndash334 2010

Nalbantis I Efstratiadis A Rozos E Kopsiafti M and Kout-soyiannis D Holistic versus monomeric strategies for hydrolog-ical modelling of human-modified hydrosystems Hydrol EarthSyst Sci 15 743ndash758 doi105194hess-15-743-2011 2011

Nanson G C and Croke J A genetic classification offloodplains Geomorphology 4 459ndash486 doi1010160169-555X(92)90039-Q 1992

Neal J Schumann G Bates P Buytaert W Matgen Pand Pappenberger F A data assimilation approach to dis-charge estimation from space Hydrol Process 23 3641ndash3649doi101002hyp7518 2009

Nemeth M and Solo-Gabriele H Evaluation of the use of reachtransmissivity to quantify exchange between groundwater andsurface water J Hydrol 274 145ndash159 doi101016S0022-1694(02)00419-5 2003

Noto L Ivanov V Bras R and Vivoni E Effects of initializa-tion on response of a fully-distributed hydrologic model J Hy-drol 352 107ndash125 doi101016jjhydrol200712031 2008



OrsquoDriscoll M Johnson P and Mallinson D Geological controlsand effects of floodplain asymmetry on riverndashgroundwater inter-actions in the southeastern Coastal Plain USA Hydrogeol J18 1265ndash1279 doi101007s10040-010-0595-z 2010

Oeurng C Sauvage S and Saacutenchez-Peacuterez J-M Tempo-ral variability of nitrate transport through hydrological re-sponse during flood events within a large agricultural catch-ment in south-west France Sci Total Environ 409 140ndash149doi101016jscitotenv201009006 2010

Oki T and Sud Y Design of total runoff integrating pathways(TRIP) A global river channel network Earth Interact 2 1ndash361998

OrsquoLoughlin F Trigg M Schumann G and Bates P Hydrauliccharacterization of the middle reach of the Congo River WaterResour Res 49 5059ndash5070 2013

Osman Y and Bruen M Modelling streamndashaquifer seepage in analluvial aquifer an improved loosing-stream package for MOD-FLO J Hydrol 264 69ndash86 2002

Pan M Wood E Woacutejcik R and McCabe M Estimation ofregional terrestrial water cycle using multi-sensor remote sensingobservations and data assimilation Remote Sens Environ 1121282ndash1294 doi101016jrse200702039 2008

Panday S and Huyakorn P S A fully coupled physically-based spatially-distributed model for evaluating sur-facesubsurface flow Adv Water Resour 27 361ndash382doi101016jadvwatres200402016 2004

Paola C and Borgman L Reconstructing random topographyfrom preserved stratification Sedimentology 38 553ndash565 1991

Park Y-J Sudicky E Panday S and Matanga G Implicit Sub-time Stepping for Solving Nonlinear Flow Equations in an inte-grated Surface-Subsurface System Vadose Zone J 8 825ndash836doi102136vzj20090013 2009

Parkin G OrsquoDonnell G Ewen J Bathurst J OrsquoConnell P andLavabre J Validation of catchment models for predicting land-use and climate change impacts 2 Case study for a Mediter-ranean catchment J Hydrol 175 595ndash613 1996

Parliament Council of the European Union Dir 200060ECestablishing a framework for community action in thefield of water policy httpeceuropaeuenvironmentwaterwater-framework (last access 10 August 2014) 2000

Perkins S and Sophocleous M Development of a ComprehensiveWatershed Model Applied to Study Stream Yield under DroughtConditions Ground Water 37 418ndash426 1999

Peterson E and Sickbert T Stream water bypass through a mean-der neck laterally extending the hyporheic zone Hydrogeol J14 1443ndash1451 2006

Peyrard D Sauvage S Vervier P Sanchez-Perez J and Quin-tard M A coupled vertically integrated model to describe lat-eral exchanges between surface and subsurface in large alluvialfloodplains with a fully penetrating river Hydrol Process 224257ndash4273 doi101002hyp7035 2008

Peyrard D Delmotte S Sauvage S Namour P Gerino MVervier P and Sanchez-Perez J Longitudinal transformationof nitrogen and carbon in the hyporheic zone of an N-rich streamA combined modelling and field study Phys Chem Earth 36599ndash611 doi101016jpce201105003 2011

Pinder G and Jones J Determination of the groundwater compo-nent of peak discharge from the chemistry of total run-off WaterResour Res 5 438ndash445 1969

Polus E Flipo N de Fouquet C and Poulin M Geostatisticsfor assessing the efficiency of distributed physically-based waterquality model Application to nitrates in the Seine River HydrolProcess 25 217ndash233 doi101002hyp7838 2011

Poole G C OrsquoDaniel S J Jones K L Woessner W W Bern-hardt E S Helton A M Stanford J A Boer B R andBeechie T J Hydrologic spiralling The role of multiple in-teractive flow paths in stream ecosystems River Res Appl 241018ndash1031 doi101002rra1099 2008

Poole G C Stanford J A Frissell C A and Running S WThree-dimensional mapping of geomorphic controls on flood-plain hydrology and connectivity from aerial photos Geo-morphology 48 329ndash347 doi101016S0169-555X(02)00078-8 2002

Pryet A Labarthe B Saleh F Akopian M and Flipo N Quan-tification of streamndashaquifer flow distribution at the regional scalewith a distributed process-based model Water Resour Manageaccepted 2014

Qu Y and Duffy C A semidiscrete finite volume formulationfor multiprocess watershed simulation Water Resour Res 43W08419 doi1010292006WR005752 2007

Ramillien G Famiglietti J and Wahr J Detection of continentalhydrology and glaciology signals from GRACE A review SurvGeophys 29 361ndash374 doi101007s10712-008-9048-9 2008

Ramillien G Seoane L Frappart F Biancale R Gratton SVasseur X and Bourgogne S Constrained Regional Recoveryof Continental Water Mass Time-variations from GRACE-basedGeopotential Anomalies over South America Surv Geophys33 887ndash905 doi101007s10712-012-9177-z 2012

Ramireddygari S Sophocleous M Koelliker J Perkins S andGovindaraju R Development and application of a comprehen-sive simulation model to evaluate impacts of watershed structuresand irrigation water use on streamflow and groundwater the caseof Wet Walnut Creek Watershed Kansas USA J Hydrol 236223ndash246 2000

Rau G Andersen M McCallum A and Acworth R Analyti-cal methods that use natural heat as a tracer to quantify surfacewater-groundwater exchange evaluated using field temperaturerecords Hydrogeol J 18 1093ndash1110 2010

Refsgaard J and Knudsen J Operational validation and intercom-parison of different types of hydrological models Water ResourRes 32 2189ndash2202 1996

Refsgaard J C Christensen S Sonnenborg T O SeifertD Hoslashjberg A L and Troldborg L Review of strate-gies for handling geological uncertainty in groundwater flowand transport modeling Adv Water Resour 36 36ndash50doi101016jadvwatres201104006 2012

Renard P Calculating equivalent permeability A review Adv Wa-ter Resour 20 253ndash278 1997

Revelli R Boano F Camporeale C and Ridolfi L Intra-meander hyporheic flow in alluvial rivers Water Resour Res44 W12428 doi1010292008WR007081 2008

Rivett M Buss S Morgan P Smith J and BemmentC Nitrate attenuation in groundwater A review of biogeo-chemical controlling processes Water Res 42 4215ndash4232doi101016jwatres200807020 2008



Rodriacuteguez E Surface Water and Ocean Topography Mis-sion (SWOT) Project ndash Science Requirements DocumentJPL httpsswotjplnasagovfilesswotSWOT_Science_Requirements_Documentpdf last access 10 August 2014

Rosenberry D and Pitlick J Local-scale variability of seepageand hydraulic conductivity in a shallow gravel-bed river HydrolProcess 23 3306ndash3318 doi101002hyp7433 2009

Rosenberry D Sheibley R Cox S Simonds F and NaftzD Temporal variability of exchange between groundwater andsurface water based on high-frequency direct measurements ofseepage at the sediment-water interface Water Resour Res 492975ndash2986 doi101002wrcr20198 2013

Rossman N and Zlotnik V Review Regional groundwaterflow modeling in heavily irrigated basins of selected statesin the western United States Hydrogeol J 21 1173ndash1192doi101007s10040-013-1010-3 2013

Rubin Y Lunt I and Bridge J Spatial variability in river sed-iments and its link with river channel geometry Water ResourRes 42 W06D16 doi1010292005WR004853 2006

Ruumlhaak W Rath V Wolf A and Clauser C 3D finite volumegroundwater and heat transport modeling with non-orthogonalgrids using a coordinate transformation method Adv Water Re-sour 31 513ndash524 2008

Rushton K Representation in regional models of saturated river-aquifer interaction for gaininglosing rivers J Hydrol 334 262ndash281 doi101016jjhydrol200610008 2007

Rushton K and Tomlinson L Possible mechanisms for leakagebetween aquifers and rivers J Hydrol 40 49ndash65 1979

Russell G and Miller J Global River Runoff Calculated from aGlobal Atmospheric General Circulation Model J Hydrol 117241ndash254 1990

Ryan R and Boufadel M Influence of streambed hydraulic con-ductivity on solute exchange with the hyporheic zone EnvironGeol 51 203ndash210 doi101007s00254-006-0319-9 2006

Ryan R and Boufadel M Evaluation of streambed hydraulicconductivity heterogeneity in an urban watershed Stoch Envi-ron Res Ris A 21 309ndash316 doi101007s00477-006-0066-12007

Saenger N Kitanidis P and Street R A numerical study ofsurface-subsurface exchange processes at a riffle-pool pair inthe Lahn River Germany Water Resour Res 41 W12424doi1010292004WR003875 2005

Sahoo A Pan M Troy T Vinukollu R Sheffield J and WoodE Reconciling the global terrestrial water budget using satel-lite remote sensing Remote Sens Environ 115 1850ndash1865doi101016jrse201103009 2011

Saleh F Flipo N Habets F Ducharne A Oudin L ViennotP and Ledoux E Modeling the impact of in-stream water levelfluctuations on streamndashaquifer interactions at the regional scaleJ Hydrol 400 490ndash500 doi101016jjhydrol2011020012011

Saleh F Ducharne A Flipo N Oudin L and Ledoux E Im-pact of river bed morphology on discharge and water levels sim-ulated by a 1D Saint-Venant hydraulic model at regional scaleJ Hydrol 476 169ndash177 doi101016jjhydrol2011020012013

Salehin M Packman A I and Paradis M Hyporheic ex-change with heterogeneous streambeds Laboratory exper-iments and modeling Water Resour Res 40 W11504doi1010292003WR002567 2004

Sawyer A and Cardenas M Hyporheic flow and residence timedistributions in heterogeneous cross-bedded sediment Water Re-sour Res 45 W08406 doi1010292008WR007632 2009

Schmidt C Bayer-Raich M and Schirmer M Characteriza-tion of spatial heterogeneity of groundwater-stream water in-teractions using multiple depth streambed temperature measure-ments at the reach scale Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 10 849ndash859doi105194hess-10-849-2006 2006

Schmidt C Conant B Bayer-Raich M and SchirmerM Evaluation and field-scale application of an ana-lytical method to quantify groundwater discharge usingmapped streambed temperatures J Hydrol 347 292ndash307doi101016jjhydrol200708022 2007

Schornberg C Schmidt C Kalbus E and Fleckenstein J Sim-ulating the effects of geologic heterogeneity and transient bound-ary conditions on streambed temperatures ndash Implications fortemperature-based water flux calculations Adv Water Resour33 1309ndash1319 doi101016jadvwatres201004007 2010

Schumm S A River response to baselevel change Impli-cations for sequence stratigraphy J Geol 101 279ndash294doi101086648221 1993

Scibek J Allen D Cannon A and Whitfield P Groundwater-surface water interaction under scenarios of climate change usinga high-resolution transient groundwater model J Hydrol 333165ndash181 doi101016jjhydrol200608005 2007

Sebok E Duque C Engesgaard P and Boegh E Spatial vari-ability in streambed hydraulic conductivity of contrasting streammorphologies channel bend and straight channel Hydrol Pro-cess doi101002hyp10170 in press 2014

Seitzinger S Styles R Boyer E Alexander R Billen GHowarth R Mayer B and Breemen N V Nitrogen retentionin rivers model development and application to watersheds inthe northeastern usa Biogeochemistry 5758 199ndash237 2002

Shope C Constantz J Cooper C Reeves D Pohll G andMcKay W Influence of a large fluvial island streambedand stream bank on surface water-groundwater fluxes andwater table dynamics Water Resour Res 48 W06512doi1010292011WR011564 2012

Sophocleous M Interactions between groundwater and surfacewater the state of the science Hydrogeol J 10 52ndash67doi101007s10040-002-0204-x 2002

Spanoudaki K Stamou A and Nanou-Giannarou ADevelopment and verification of a 3-D integrated sur-face water-groundwater model J Hydrol 375 410ndash427doi101016jjhydrol200906041 2009

Stallman R Steady one-dimensional fluid flow in a semi-infiniteporous medium with sinusoidal surface temperature J GeophysRes 70 2821ndash2827 doi101029JZ070i012p02821 1965

Stanford J and Boulton A Hydrology and the distribution of hy-porheos perspectives from a mesic river and a desert stream JN Am Benthol Soc 12 79ndash83 1993

Stonedahl S Harvey J Woumlrman A Salehin M and Pack-man A A multiscale model for integrating hyporheic exchangefrom ripples to meanders Water Resour Res 46 W12539doi1010292009WR008865 2010



Stonedahl S Harvey J Detty J Aubeneau A and PackmanA Physical controls and predictability of stream hyporheicflow evaluated with a multiscale model Water Resour Res 48W10513 doi1010292011WR011582 2012

Storey R G Howard K and Williams D Factors con-trolling riffle-scale hyporheic exchange flows and their sea-sonal changes in a gaining stream A three-dimensionalgroundwater flow model Water Resour Res 39-2 1034doi1010292002WR001367 2003

Sulis M Meyerhoff S Paniconi C Maxwell R Putti M andKollet S A comparison of two physics-based numerical modelsfor simulating surface water-groundwater interactions Adv Wa-ter Resour 33 456ndash467 doi101016jadvwatres2010010102010

Swanson T and Cardenas M Ex-Stream A MATLAB programfor calculating fluid flux through sediment-water interfaces basedon steady and transient temperature profiles Comput Geosci37 1664ndash1669 doi101016jcageo201012001 2011

Tapley B Bettadpur S Ries J Thompson P and Watkins MGRACE measurements of mass variability in the Earth systemScience 305 503ndash505 2004

Therrien R McLaren R Sudicky E and Panday S Hydro-GeoSphere A Three-Dimensionnal Numerical Model Describ-ing Fully-integrated Subsurface and Surface Flow and SoluteTransport Tech rep Universiteacute Laval and University of Water-loo 2010

Thierion C Longuevergne L Habets F Ledoux E Ackerer PMajdalani S Leblois E Lecluse S Martin E QueguinerS and Viennot P Assessing the water balance of the Up-per Rhine Graben hydrosystem J Hydrol 424-425 68ndash83doi101016jjhydrol201112028 2012

Thouvenot-Korppoo M Billen G and Garnier J Modelling ben-thic denitrification processes over a whole drainage networkJ Hydrol 379 239ndash250 doi101016jjhydrol2009100052009

Tonina D and Buffington J M Hyporheic exchange in gravel bedrivers with pool-riffe morphology laboratory experiments andthree-dimensional modelling Water Resour Res 43 W01421doi1010292005WR004328 2007

Tonina D and Buffington J M Effects of stream dis-charge alluvial depth and bar amplitude on hyporheic flowin pool-riffle channels Water Resour Res 47 W08508doi1010292010WR009140 2011

Toacuteth J A Theory of Groundwater Motion in Small DrainageBasins in Central Alberta Canada J Geophys Res 67 4375ndash4387 1962

Toacuteth J A Theoretical Analysis of Groundwater Flow in SmallDrainage Basins J Geophys Res 68 4795ndash4812 1963

Trauth N Schmidt C Maier U Vieweg M and Flecken-stein J Coupled 3-D stream flow and hyporheic flow modelunder varying stream and ambient groundwater flow condi-tions in a pool-riffle system Water Resour Res 49 1ndash17doi101002wrcr20442 2013

Turlan T Birgand F and Marmonier P Comparative use offield and laboratory mesocosms for in-stream nitrate uptakemeasurement Ann Limnol ndash Int J Limmol 43 41ndash51doi101051limn2007026 2007

Urquiza J NrsquoDri D Garon A and Delfour M CouplingStokes and Darcy equations Appl Numer Math 58 525ndash538doi101016japnum200612006 2008

van Balen R Kasse C and Moor J D Impact of ground-water flow on meandering example from the Geul RiverThe Netherlands Earth Surf Proc Land 33 2010ndash2028doi101002esp1651 2008

VanderKwaak J E and Loague K Hydrologic-response simula-tions for the R-5 catchment with a comprehensive physics-basedmodel Water Resour Res 37 999ndash1013 2001

Vergnes J-P and Decharme B A simple groundwater schemein the TRIP river routing model global off-line evaluationagainst GRACE terrestrial water storage estimates and ob-served river discharges Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 16 3889ndash3908doi105194hess-16-3889-2012 2012

Vergnes J-P Decharme B Alkama R Martin E HabetsF and Douville H A Simple Groundwater Scheme for Hy-drological and Climate Applications Description and OfflineEvaluation over France J Hydometeorol 13 1149ndash1171doi101175JHM-D-11-01491 2012

Vermeulen P te Stroet C and Heemink A Limitations toupscaling of groundwater Flow models dominated by sur-face water interaction Water Resour Res 42 W10406doi1010292005WR004620 2006

Weill S Mouche E and Patin J A generalized Richards equa-tion for surfacesubsurface flow modelling J Hydrol 366 9ndash202009

Weng P Saacutenchez-Peacuterez J Sauvage S Vervier P and GiraudF Assessment of the quantitative and qualitative buffer functionof an alluvial wetland hydrological modelling of a large flood-plain (Garonne River France) Hydrol Process 17 2375ndash2392doi101002hyp1248 2003

Werner A Gallagher M and Weeks S Regional-scalefully coupled modelling of streamndashaquifer interac-tion in a tropical catchment J Hydrol 328 497ndash510doi101016jjhydrol200512034 2006

White D S Perspectives on Defining and Delineating HyporheicZones J N Am Benthol Soc 12 61ndash69 1993

Whiting P and Pomeranets M A numerical study of bank stor-age and its contribution to streamflow J Hydrol 202 121ndash1361997

Winter T Relation of streams lakes and wetlands to groundwaterflow systems Hydrogeol J 7 28ndash45 1998

Woessner W W Stream and Fluvial Plain Ground Water Inter-actions Rescaling Hydrogeologic Thought Ground Water 38423ndash429 doi101111j1745-65842000tb00228x 2000

Wondzell S M and Swanson F J Floods channel change andthe hyporheic zone Water Resour Res 35 555ndash567 1999

Wondzell S LaNier J and Haggerty R Evaluation of alter-native groundwater flow models for simulating hyporheic ex-change in a small mountain stream J Hydrol 364 142ndash151doi101016jjhydrol200810011 2009

Wood E Roundy J Troy T van Beek L Bierkens M BlythE de Roo A Doumlll P Ek M Famiglietti J Gochis Dvan de Giesen N Houser P Jaffeacute P Kollet S LehnerB Lettenmaier D Peters-Lidard C Sivapalan M SheffieldJ Wade A and Whitehead P Hyperresolution global landsurface modeling Meeting a grand challenge for monitoring



Earthrsquos terrestrial water Water Resour Res 47 W05301doi1010292010WR010090 2011

Wroblicky G Campana M Valett H and Dahm C Seasonalvariation in surface-subsurface water exchange and lateral hy-porheic area of two streamndashaquifer systems Water Resour Res34-3 317ndash328 doi10102997WR03285 1998

Yeh P and Eltahir E Representation of Water Table Dynamics ina Land Surface Scheme Part II Subgrid Variability J Climate18 1881ndash1901 2005

Yuan D Lin B and Falconer R Simulating moving boundaryusing a linked groundwater and surface water flow model J Hy-drol 349 524ndash535 doi101016jjhydrol200711028 2008

Zaitchik B Rodell M and Reichle R Assimilation of GRACEterrestrial water storage data into a land surface model resultsfor the Mississippi River Basin J Hydrometeorol 9 535ndash548doi1011752007JHM9511 2008

Zhou Y and Li W A review of regional groundwater flow model-ing Geosci Front 2 205ndash214 doi101016jgsf2011030032011

Zlotnik V Cardenas M and Toundykov D Effects of MultiscaleAnisotropy on Basin and Hyporheic Groundwater Flow GroundWater 49 576ndash583 doi101111j1745-6584201000775x2011


Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 40 International License













1 Introduction





































































































1x 1t



















)

(1)





























Q = kiw1

1αRwksb

[


+ deaq










fcor(w) =1

1αRwksb

[


+f (w)eaq

(3)





hn = h1 +Keq

keqn

xn minus X1










Qjr =

sum

iisinr

qji (5)








sum

iisinrqi


(


) (6)



lowastjr [m] the



int

Sr

uji dS

nabla

(

1Vr

int

Vr

hlowastji dV

) (7)
























5 Conclusions





Edited by Y Fan

References


































































































































































































































































































































































1 Introduction





































































































1x 1t



















)

(1)





























Q = kiw1

1αRwksb

[


+ deaq










fcor(w) =1

1αRwksb

[


+f (w)eaq

(3)





hn = h1 +Keq

keqn

xn minus X1










Qjr =

sum

iisinr

qji (5)








sum

iisinrqi


(


) (6)



lowastjr [m] the



int

Sr

uji dS

nabla

(

1Vr

int

Vr

hlowastji dV

) (7)
























5 Conclusions





Edited by Y Fan

References























































































































































































































































































































































1 Introduction





































































































1x 1t



















)

(1)





























Q = kiw1

1αRwksb

[


+ deaq










fcor(w) =1

1αRwksb

[


+f (w)eaq

(3)





hn = h1 +Keq

keqn

xn minus X1










Qjr =

sum

iisinr

qji (5)








sum

iisinrqi


(


) (6)



lowastjr [m] the



int

Sr

uji dS

nabla

(

1Vr

int

Vr

hlowastji dV

) (7)
























5 Conclusions





Edited by Y Fan

References



















































































































































































































































































































































































































































1x 1t



















)

(1)





























Q = kiw1

1αRwksb

[


+ deaq










fcor(w) =1

1αRwksb

[


+f (w)eaq

(3)





hn = h1 +Keq

keqn

xn minus X1










Qjr =

sum

iisinr

qji (5)








sum

iisinrqi


(


) (6)



lowastjr [m] the



int

Sr

uji dS

nabla

(

1Vr

int

Vr

hlowastji dV

) (7)
























5 Conclusions





Edited by Y Fan

References




































































































































































































































































































































































































































1x 1t



















)

(1)





























Q = kiw1

1αRwksb

[


+ deaq










fcor(w) =1

1αRwksb

[


+f (w)eaq

(3)





hn = h1 +Keq

keqn

xn minus X1










Qjr =

sum

iisinr

qji (5)








sum

iisinrqi


(


) (6)



lowastjr [m] the



int

Sr

uji dS

nabla

(

1Vr

int

Vr

hlowastji dV

) (7)
























5 Conclusions





Edited by Y Fan

References






























































































































































































































































































































































































































1x 1t



















)

(1)





























Q = kiw1

1αRwksb

[


+ deaq










fcor(w) =1

1αRwksb

[


+f (w)eaq

(3)





hn = h1 +Keq

keqn

xn minus X1










Qjr =

sum

iisinr

qji (5)








sum

iisinrqi


(


) (6)



lowastjr [m] the



int

Sr

uji dS

nabla

(

1Vr

int

Vr

hlowastji dV

) (7)
























5 Conclusions





Edited by Y Fan

References















































































































































































































































































































































































































1x 1t



















)

(1)





























Q = kiw1

1αRwksb

[


+ deaq










fcor(w) =1

1αRwksb

[


+f (w)eaq

(3)





hn = h1 +Keq

keqn

xn minus X1










Qjr =

sum

iisinr

qji (5)








sum

iisinrqi


(


) (6)



lowastjr [m] the



int

Sr

uji dS

nabla

(

1Vr

int

Vr

hlowastji dV

) (7)
























5 Conclusions





Edited by Y Fan

References

































































































































































































































































































































































































1x 1t



















)

(1)





























Q = kiw1

1αRwksb

[


+ deaq










fcor(w) =1

1αRwksb

[


+f (w)eaq

(3)





hn = h1 +Keq

keqn

xn minus X1










Qjr =

sum

iisinr

qji (5)








sum

iisinrqi


(


) (6)



lowastjr [m] the



int

Sr

uji dS

nabla

(

1Vr

int

Vr

hlowastji dV

) (7)
























5 Conclusions





Edited by Y Fan

References





















































































































































































































































































































































































1x 1t



















)

(1)





























Q = kiw1

1αRwksb

[


+ deaq










fcor(w) =1

1αRwksb

[


+f (w)eaq

(3)





hn = h1 +Keq

keqn

xn minus X1










Qjr =

sum

iisinr

qji (5)








sum

iisinrqi


(


) (6)



lowastjr [m] the



int

Sr

uji dS

nabla

(

1Vr

int

Vr

hlowastji dV

) (7)
























5 Conclusions





Edited by Y Fan

References








































































































































































































































































































































































1x 1t



















)

(1)





























Q = kiw1

1αRwksb

[


+ deaq










fcor(w) =1

1αRwksb

[


+f (w)eaq

(3)





hn = h1 +Keq

keqn

xn minus X1










Qjr =

sum

iisinr

qji (5)








sum

iisinrqi


(


) (6)



lowastjr [m] the



int

Sr

uji dS

nabla

(

1Vr

int

Vr

hlowastji dV

) (7)
























5 Conclusions





Edited by Y Fan

References

























































































































































































































































































































































1x 1t



















)

(1)





























Q = kiw1

1αRwksb

[


+ deaq










fcor(w) =1

1αRwksb

[


+f (w)eaq

(3)





hn = h1 +Keq

keqn

xn minus X1










Qjr =

sum

iisinr

qji (5)








sum

iisinrqi


(


) (6)



lowastjr [m] the



int

Sr

uji dS

nabla

(

1Vr

int

Vr

hlowastji dV

) (7)
























5 Conclusions





Edited by Y Fan

References





































































































































































































































































































































































)

(1)





























Q = kiw1

1αRwksb

[


+ deaq










fcor(w) =1

1αRwksb

[


+f (w)eaq

(3)





hn = h1 +Keq

keqn

xn minus X1










Qjr =

sum

iisinr

qji (5)








sum

iisinrqi


(


) (6)



lowastjr [m] the



int

Sr

uji dS

nabla

(

1Vr

int

Vr

hlowastji dV

) (7)
























5 Conclusions





Edited by Y Fan

References















































































































































































































































































































































































Q = kiw1

1αRwksb

[


+ deaq










fcor(w) =1

1αRwksb

[


+f (w)eaq

(3)





hn = h1 +Keq

keqn

xn minus X1










Qjr =

sum

iisinr

qji (5)








sum

iisinrqi


(


) (6)



lowastjr [m] the



int

Sr

uji dS

nabla

(

1Vr

int

Vr

hlowastji dV

) (7)
























5 Conclusions





Edited by Y Fan

References


































































































































































































































































































































































Q = kiw1

1αRwksb

[


+ deaq










fcor(w) =1

1αRwksb

[


+f (w)eaq

(3)





hn = h1 +Keq

keqn

xn minus X1










Qjr =

sum

iisinr

qji (5)








sum

iisinrqi


(


) (6)



lowastjr [m] the



int

Sr

uji dS

nabla

(

1Vr

int

Vr

hlowastji dV

) (7)
























5 Conclusions





Edited by Y Fan

References



























































































































































































































































































































































fcor(w) =1

1αRwksb

[


+f (w)eaq

(3)





hn = h1 +Keq

keqn

xn minus X1










Qjr =

sum

iisinr

qji (5)








sum

iisinrqi


(


) (6)



lowastjr [m] the



int

Sr

uji dS

nabla

(

1Vr

int

Vr

hlowastji dV

) (7)
























5 Conclusions





Edited by Y Fan

References



























































































































































































































































































































































Qjr =

sum

iisinr

qji (5)








sum

iisinrqi


(


) (6)



lowastjr [m] the



int

Sr

uji dS

nabla

(

1Vr

int

Vr

hlowastji dV

) (7)
























5 Conclusions





Edited by Y Fan

References








































































































































































































































































































































































5 Conclusions





Edited by Y Fan

References































































































































































































































































































































































5 Conclusions





Edited by Y Fan

References























































































































































































































































































































































5 Conclusions





Edited by Y Fan

References
















































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































Documents

Continental hydrosystem modelling: the concept of nested ... · Continental hydrosystem modelling: the concept of nested stream{aquifer interfaces Nicolas Flipo, Amer Mouhri, Baptiste