首页> 外文期刊>Journal of Hydrology >Comparison of in-channel mobile-immobile zone exchange during instantaneous and constant rate stream tracer additions: Implications for design and interpretation of non-conservative tracer experiments
【24h】

Comparison of in-channel mobile-immobile zone exchange during instantaneous and constant rate stream tracer additions: Implications for design and interpretation of non-conservative tracer experiments

机译:瞬时和恒定速率流示踪剂添加期间通道内移动固定区交换的比较:对非保守示踪剂实验的设计和解释的含义

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

The stream tracer experiment, including field tracer application and subsequent analysis of solute transport and storage, is an important too[ in stream hydrology and ecology. However, there have been few comparisons of tracer dynamics between the commonly applied methods of instantaneous (IA) and constant rate (CRA) tracer additions. To determine whether there are fundamental differences between the two addition techniques due to surface storage zone loading and flushing during experiments, we compare longitudinal distributions of tracer dynamics of stream in-channel dead zones during IA and CRA experiments. Back-to-back IA and CRA additions were carried out in two morphologically distinct tundra stream reaches in Alaska. Dead zone tracer time series are determined by an aggregate of upstream transport and individual dead zone residence time distributions (RTDs). The dead zone breakthrough curves for both tracer addition techniques were not consistent, neither were aggregate RTDs observed in each dead zone. Flushing patterns of tracer from dead zones reveal that stream flushing after IA additions was slower than after CRA additions. However, whole-stream RTDs were similar between IA and CRA techniques in each reach. The implications of these findings are important to design and interpretation of IA and CRA stream tracer experiments, particularly those with reactive solutes whose transformations may depend on solute concentration. Thus, IA and CRA experiments may yield differing conclusions about non-conservative transport in streams because of the inherent differences in loading of transient storage zones between these two addition techniques, and potential differences in biogeochemical, processing that may occur as a consequence. (C) 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
机译:河流示踪剂实验,包括现场示踪剂的应用以及溶质运移和储存的后续分析,在河流水文生态学中也很重要。但是,在常用的瞬时(IA)和恒定速率(CRA)示踪剂添加方法之间,示踪剂动力学的比较很少。为了确定在实验过程中由于表面存储区的加载和冲洗,两种添加技术之间是否存在根本差异,我们比较了IA和CRA实验过程中流道内死区示踪剂动力学的纵向分布。在阿拉斯加的两个形态不同的冻原河段进行背靠背IA和CRA添加。死区追踪器时间序列由上游运输和各个死区停留时间分布(RTD)的总和决定。两种示踪剂添加技术的死区穿透曲线均不一致,在每个死区中均未观察到聚合RTD。示踪剂从死区的冲洗模式表明,添加IA后的水流冲洗比添加CRA后的冲洗慢。但是,IA和CRA技术在每个范围内的全流RTD相似。这些发现的含义对于IA和CRA流示踪剂实验的设计和解释非常重要,尤其是那些反应性溶质的转化可能取决于溶质浓度的实验。因此,IA和CRA实验可能会得出关于流中非保守运输的不同结论,这是因为这两种添加技术之间的瞬态存储区装载量存在固有差异,以及生物地球化学的潜在差异,因此可能会发生处理。 (C)2008 Elsevier B.V.保留所有权利。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号