the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Current and future role of meltwater-groundwater dynamics in a proglacial Alpine outwash plain
Matteo Roncoroni
Davide Mancini
Stuart N. Lane
Bettina Schaefli
Abstract. Glaciated alpine catchments are rapidly evolving due to glacier retreat and consequent geomorphological and ecological changes. As more terrain becomes ice free, the interactions between surface and subsurface waters become gradually more significant, leading to potential changes in water storage and release, which in turn may impact ecological, geomorphological and hydrological processes. In this study, we aim to understand the hydrological functioning of outwash plains as glaciers retreat. These constitute a fluvial aquifer which appears as a focal point for water storage and alpine ecology and their dynamics have only rarely been studied. Based on geophysical investigations as well as year-round stream and groundwater observations, we developed a simplified physically-based 3D MODFLOW model and performed an optimized automatic calibration using PEST HP. By comparing the model results to field observations, we highlight the strong interactions between the upstream river and the aquifer, with stream infiltration being the dominant process of recharge. Groundwater exfiltration occurs in the lower half part of the outwash plain, balancing out the amount of river infiltration at a daily time scale. We show that hillslope contributions from rain and snow-melt have little impact on groundwater levels. We also show that outwash plain aquifers can maintain groundwater levels close to the surface even during long dry periods. From a hydrological perspective, we finally explore how new outwash plains may form in the future due to glacier recession and discuss what cascading impact the presence of multiple outwash plains may have in such catchments. We estimate the total dynamic storage of future outwash plains to be about 20 mm and we demonstrate their limited capacity to produce more stream water than what they infiltrate upstream, except for very low river flows (< 150 to 200 L s−1). Below this limit, they can provide limited baseflow on timescales of weeks, thus maintaining some moisture conditions potentially beneficial for proglacial ecosystems. Their role in attenuating floods also appears limited, as less than 0.5 m3 s−1 of river water can be infiltrated. Outwash plains appear therefore to play an important role for alpine ecosystems but have marginal hydrological effects on downstream river discharge.
- Preprint
(26749 KB) -
Supplement
(186295 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Tom Müller et al.
Status: open (until 04 Apr 2023)
-
AC1: 'Pre-print submitted to HESS', Tom Müller, 07 Feb 2023
reply
The authors and co-authors would like to stress that this pre-prent was submitted to Hydrology and Earth System Sciences (HESS)
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-1503-AC1 -
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-1503', Anonymous Referee #1, 06 Mar 2023
reply
general comments:
The paper presents a study that developed a Surface water-Groundwater model in an Alpine outwash plain. The model's calibration and validation relied on a sophisticated data acquisition system and external information from nearby meteorological stations and previous studies that aimed to identify the bedrock. The study also revealed the seasonal impact on groundwater flow through the use of transient modelling.
The authors then applied their results to estimate the potential impact of outwash cascade effects on the formation of future outwash plains in the current glacier position.
The methodology is interesting, and the results are quite promising. Therefore, I think that the paper has the potential to deserve publication. However, a few points, listed below, should be addressed before possible publication.
In line 165, the authors utilized the unconfined aquifer formulation for groundwater modeling. Given the shallow depth of the aquifer body, it's possible that the vadose zone could significantly impact your results. Have you assessed whether neglecting the vadose zone is applicable to your domain? It would be valuable to explore this possibility further to ensure that the assumptions align with the specific conditions of your study area.
Additionally, during the winter period in the upstream portion of the domain, most of layer 1 is unsaturated. It may be worthwhile for the authors to consider solving a Richard-based model for the first layer and using a simpler formulation for the other layers. Given the ample data available for the studied domain, have the authors considered using UFZ MODFLOW package or other models that allow for this type of modeling, such as ParFlow (Maxwell et al., 2005 https://doi.org/10.1175/jhm422.1) or OpenGeoSys (Kolditz et al., 2012 https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-012-1546-x)?
Did the authors investigate whether water evaporation, which may be more significant during summer days when solar irradiation is stronger, was negligible? Additionally, it is not clear to me if the authors evaluated the rain runoff during raining events. It would be valuable to understand how rainfall was accounted for in the study and whether it was incorporated into the groundwater model.
Some detailed comments and questions:
Line 172: could the author report more detail on the coupling method between surface and subsurface model that the authors had employed among the possibilities offered by MODFLOW? This information could be possibly helpful in providing a deeper understanding of the results obtained.
Could the author provide more detail on how the two objective functions described between lines 195 and 201 are used for calibration? In particular, the authors defined a single objective function that utilizes a weighted sum of the multi-objective function. How was the weight of the OBJ function selected? It would be helpful to provide a clear explanation of this process to ensure the reader understands how the calibration was performed.
is it possible to include section number 4 in Figure 2?
In line 381, you mention that exfiltration is also correlated with stream water infiltration, citing Figure 8c. However, it is not clear from this figure how these two variables are related. It seems that exfiltration has a similar hysteresis effect to upstream discharge, as you note. To gain a better understanding of the relationship between these two variables, it would be helpful to include a graph comparing upstream discharge and exfiltration, if possible.
In line 411, could the authors provide more explanation about the selection of the porosity value?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-1503-RC1
Tom Müller et al.
Data sets
Water table elevation and groundwater temperature from the outwash plain of the Otemma glacier forefield (Switzerland) from 2019 to 2021 Tom Müller https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6355474
Stream discharge, stage, electrical conductivity & temperature dataset from Otemma glacier forefield, Switzerland (from July 2019 to October 2021) Tom Müller and Floreana Miesen https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6202732
Electrical Resistivity Tomography (ERT) datasets from the Otemma glacier forefield and outwash plain Tom Müller https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6342767
Weather dataset from Otemma glacier forefield, Switzerland (from 14 July 2019 to 18 November 2021) Tom Müller https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6106778
Tom Müller et al.
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
266 | 79 | 12 | 357 | 23 | 3 | 4 |
- HTML: 266
- PDF: 79
- XML: 12
- Total: 357
- Supplement: 23
- BibTeX: 3
- EndNote: 4
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1