the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Streamflow generation in a nested system of intermittent and perennial tropical streams under changing land use
Abstract. Despite the increased interest in the hydrology of intermittent hydrological systems in recent years, little attention has been given to tropical forest environments. We present a unique set of hydrological, stable isotopic, geochemical, and landscape mapping information to obtain a mechanistic understanding of streamflow generation in an intermittent system of 20 nested catchments (<1–159 km2) draining intermittent and perennial streams and rivers in the Chocó-Darien ecoregion, a tropical biodiversity hotspot, located in the Pacific lowlands of northern Ecuador that has been strongly degraded by deforestation and cultivation during the last half-century. Intermittent streams mainly located in conserved forested headwaters present a faster streamflow response to rainfall and shorter recession times than degraded perennial streams in the catchment's middle and lower parts. Isotopic information shows that rainfall during the wet period (January to May) contributes to streamflow generation in intermittent streams possessing shallow soils and a low bedrock permeability, in contrast to perennial streams in which rainfall during the wet season recharges their high bedrock permeability. Lower concentrations of major ions and electrical conductivity were observed in intermittent streams compared to higher concentrations in perennial streams. We found a strong correlation between the catchments’ geology and their geochemical signals and a weak correlation with their topography, land cover, and soil type. These findings indicate that shallow subsurface flow paths through the organic horizon of the soil dominate streamflow generation in intermittent streams due to the limited water storage capacity of their bedrock with very low permeability. On the contrary, high bedrock permeability increases the water storage capacity of perennial catchments replenished during the wet period, helping sustain streamflow generation throughout the year. These findings highlight the key role geology plays in driving hydrological intermittency, even in highly degraded tropical environments, and provide key process-based information useful for water management and hydrological modelling of intermittent hydrological systems.
- Preprint
(1473 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(259 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 04 Apr 2025)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-71', Anonymous Referee #1, 18 Mar 2025
reply
This paper describes a unique dataset of water levels, chemistry, and isotopic composition of streamwater across a tropical catchment. The sampling design was such that it included intermittent and perennial streams. The results highlight the important role of geology and thereby subsurface storage capacity in determining which streams are intermittent and perennial. The differences in flow pathways in turn affect the stream chemistry.
The dataset is unique and the paper provides clear evidence for the role of geology in determining the variation in runoff responses and chemistry across the catchment, improving not only our knowledge of intermittent streams but of catchment functioning in general. The figures are all very clear and the paper is logically structured. At some places the writing can be a bit clearer or shorter (suggestions are given in the annotated pdf) but overall the text is very clear.
In my opinion the paper puts a bit too much emphasis (in its writing) on understanding intermittent streams as only some of the streams are intermittent and there is knowledge gained for the whole catchment. In other words, it is not wrong to focus so much on the intermittent streams but the paper actually provides more information than just for intermittent streams. This can however easily be solved with some rewording. Having said that, I would prefer to see an extra table regarding the statistical differences in the chemistry for the intermittent and perennial streams for the different sampling dates. Now only the correlations with land cover and geology are given.
Specific comments:
- L98: I think that it would be useful to add a specific hypothesis here (or some research questions). If land use has the largest effect on streamflow generation and land degradation leads to more overland flow, one would expect that flow paths are shallower, leading to less recharge and faster responses and recessions and less perennial flow for the lower parts of the catchment. If geology is the dominant factor, then soil depth and storage would determine which streams respond first and have faster recessions – which is indeed what the results show. The intro could highlight the effects of land degradation and soil depth/storage capacity on the runoff response a bit more by contrasting them and referring to some studies that have specifically looked at these factors.
- Section 2: Some important information about the catchment is missing, such as the annual precipitation, temperature (and potential ET). Also, it would be good to already mention here the differences in soil depth and permeability across the catchment
- Section 3.4: The analysis method for COD needs to be described here as well.
- L277: This sounds like the perennial streams also went dry. Is that correct? Then they are not perennial. This is a bit confusing.
- L283: Provide some information on the size and intensity of the selected events. Are they similar for the wet and dry period example?
- Section 4.1: I would make it much clearer that the results from WETSPRO are based on graphical hydrograph analyses. That way it clearly distinguishes them from the isotope or tracer based inferences of flow pathways.
- L319-321: Is this difference statistically significant?
- L379: I fully understand the need to focus on a few solutes but it is not clear to me why you used P as an indicator of agriculture. Are there high additions of P in these agricultural systems? Provide a bit more background information on this. Why not base the selection of the solutes on the test for which solutes the differences between catchments with different land uses are statistically significant or the correlation between % agriculture and concentrations (i.e., Table 3)?
- Figure 6: Perhaps it is useful to use two different colors to indicate which sites are intermittent and perennial. Overall, I would like to see a bit more information on the (statistical) differences in chemistry between the intermittent and perennial streams as this is a unique part of the dataset. Perhaps add information on the significance of the differences in concentrations for intermittent and perennial streams in Table 3 or add another table where you show this for each sampling date.
- Figure 7: I don't think that you need the 3D surface plot, you can just color-code the points in b and c according to Viche formation and elevation, respectively. If you want to keep the 3D surface plot, then at least show the points as well. Also, why not use a multiple linear model to look at the combined effect of the geology and elevation (as they are somewhat correlated). And why not show the same results/graphs for the other two chosen solutes a well?
- Section 4.4. The effects of land use and soil depth on the concentrations are not so well described and discussed. Also, it would be very useful to mention the correlation between geology and mean catchment elevation.
- L434-443: This is a bit of a selective comparison. I don’t think that it was the ET itself that was the cause for the differences. This study (figure 2) and the study by Zimmer and McGlynn both show that antecedent conditions are important. In the study by Zimmer and McGlynn the differences in antecedent conditions are due to seasonal changes in ET, whereas in your catchments they are likely mainly due to seasonal differences in precipitation. Also, the fact that there is no evaporative fractionation for the water in the stream does not mean that there is no effect of ET on the antecedent conditions and the relative importance of different runoff processes. Therefore, this section requires some rewording. Also, L441-453 are interesting but this is certainly not the main and most important outcome of the study. I am not sure that you need this text and think that it distracts from the main results (especially when it is the first thing in the discussion).
- L465-470: You may want to highlight that in addition to contact time, there could also be a difference in the reactivity of the material of the two formations.
- L533: Mention this already in section 5.3.
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
125 | 39 | 4 | 168 | 14 | 4 | 6 |
- HTML: 125
- PDF: 39
- XML: 4
- Total: 168
- Supplement: 14
- BibTeX: 4
- EndNote: 6
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|---|---|---|
United States of America | 1 | 66 | 38 |
China | 2 | 17 | 9 |
Peru | 3 | 10 | 5 |
Germany | 4 | 8 | 4 |
France | 5 | 7 | 4 |
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1
- 66