the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Technical Note: Testing pore-water sampling, dissolved oxygen profiling and temperature monitoring for resolving dynamics in hyporheic zone geochemistry
Tamara Michaelis
Anja Wunderlich
Thomas Baumann
Jürgen Geist
Florian Einsiedl
Abstract. The hyporheic zone (HZ) is of major importance for carbon and nutrient cycling as well as for the ecological health of stream ecosystems. However, biogeochemical observations in this ecotone are complicated by a very high spatial heterogeneity and temporal dynamics. Especially the latter are difficult to observe without disturbing the system. In this field study, we tested and combined three less common methods for time-resolved measurements with high vertical resolution. We installed Rhizon samplers for repeated pore-water extraction, an optical sensor unit for in-situ measurements of dissolved oxygen, and a depth-resolved temperature monitoring system in the HZ of a small stream. While Rhizon samplers were found to be highly suitable for pore-water sampling of dissolved solutes, measured gas concentrations, here CH4, showed a strong dependency of the pump rate during sample extraction, and an isotopic shift in gas samples became evident. This was presumably caused by a different behaviour of water and gas phase in the pore-space. The manufactured oxygen-sensor could locate the oxic-anoxic interface with very high precision. This is ecologically important and allows to distinguish aerobic and anaerobic processes. Temperature data could not only be used to estimate vertical hyporheic exchange, but also depicted sedimentation and erosion processes. Overall, the combined approach was found to be a promising tool to acquire data for the quantification of biogeochemical processes in the HZ with high spatial and temporal resolution.
Tamara Michaelis et al.
Status: open (until 10 Jul 2023)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-564', Anonymous Referee #1, 23 May 2023
reply
General Comments
The paper tests and compares various methods for monitoring the hyporheic zone. I am not an expert on field equipment. So, I cannot assess all technical details of the equipment and have focused more on the interpretation. It is well written and I recommend publication. I have just a few comments.
Specific CommentsYou use a thermal dispersivity of 0.001 m from the literature (table 1), which probably is a very rough estimation. Usually thermal dispersion is low in comparison to thermal conductivity, but this can be different in case with high water flux, such as yours. So, the question is whether thermal dispersion is relevant and, if so, it can affect the calculation of water fluxes. Can this issue be addressed? It may also be related to the next comment.
Appendix D presents the water fluxes calculated from the temperatures with various methods. Differences between results of the methods are quite high (4-18 times). How accurate are the results of figure 4? Can we compare these fluxes with some other measurement?
A porosity of 81.5% (Table 1 and appendix A) is quite high. Is there some reason for this high value?
Why do you put profiles of Ca, Mg and Cl concentrations in appendix C and those of NO3 and SO4 in the body of the paper? I suggest, for coherence, to move the profiles of Ca, Mg and Cl to the body. The box plots can remain in the appendix.
Technical CorrectionsLine 218. I think you should not only refer to figure C3, but to figure 2c as well.
Figure A1. In the vertical axis "0" should be "60".
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-564-RC1
Tamara Michaelis et al.
Tamara Michaelis et al.
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
113 | 41 | 8 | 162 | 2 | 2 |
- HTML: 113
- PDF: 41
- XML: 8
- Total: 162
- BibTeX: 2
- EndNote: 2
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1