What is it about?

The choice of end-member and tracer has tremendous effects on the results of isotope-based hydrograph separation (IHS). We have shown that some end-member choices could lead to physically unrealistic (negative IHS results or IHS results greater than 1) IHS results. We have also shown that there are generally higher uncertainties associated with IHS results when 2-H is used as a tracer as opposed to O-18. However, in wind-sheltered or flat watersheds, results from the use of the two tracers are identical. This work has also shown that in wetland or human-dominated landscapes, the assumption of negligible contributions from depression storage may not hold.

Featured Image

Why is it important?

This paper outlines some guidelines to help characterize the best tracer and end-member in an isotope-based hydrograph separation taking into consideration the season and the type and characteristics of the watershed.

Perspectives

It is my hope that this paper helps guide watershed scientists when it comes to making the difficult decision of choosing appropriate tracers and end-members in the hydrograph separation process.

Samuel Bansah
University of Manitoba

Read the Original

This page is a summary of: Evaluating the Effects of Tracer Choice and End-Member Definitions on Hydrograph Separation Results Across Nested, Seasonally Cold Watersheds, Water Resources Research, November 2017, Wiley,
DOI: 10.1002/2016wr020252.
You can read the full text:

Read

Contributors

The following have contributed to this page