HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Abstract Full Text Free Full Text (PDF) Free Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in ISI Web of Science Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (3) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Holden, J. Articles by Horton, M. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Holden, J. Articles by Horton, M. Agricola Articles by Holden, J. Articles by Horton, M. Related Collections Watershed and Landscape Processes Wetlands and Aquatic Processes Preferential Flow Hillslope Analysis

Impact of Land Drainage on Peatland Hydrology

^a School of Geography, University of Leeds, Leeds, LS2 9JT, UK
^b Upland Environments Research Unit, The School of Environment and Development, University of Manchester, Mansfield Cooper Building, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK
^c Department of Geography, Durham University, Science Laboratories, South Road, Durham, DH1 3LE, UK

View larger version (30K): [in a new window]   Fig. 1. The study catchments on the Moor House Biosphere Reserve, northern England.

View larger version (23K): [in a new window]   Fig. 2. Monthly precipitation and proportion of rainfall produced as stream discharge in each of the study catchments for the 2004 water year. L and G are the control catchments.

View larger version (16K): [in a new window]   Fig. 3. Rainfall and streamflow hydrographs for a 3-mo period during 2004 for each gauging site: (a) precipitation; (b) Catchment Nd, (c) Catchment Ne, (d) Catchment S, (e) Catchment L and (f) Catchment G. L and G are the control catchments. Precipitation and streamflow data are presented in mm at 5-min intervals for comparison.

View larger version (27K): [in a new window]   Fig. 4. Hydrographs from each gauging site during a 4-d period in November 2003. Rainfall and runoff is shown in mm per 5-min interval for each gauge for comparison.

View larger version (20K): [in a new window]   Fig. 5. Runoff from automated plots during a storm event 28 Feb. 2003 to 1 Mar. 2004, rainfall and runoff data collected in 5-min intervals: (a) intact Catchment L, (b) drained Catchment S. Runoff volumes at the intact catchment plot were greater than at the drained plot because the upslope contributing area was larger in the intact catchment since it was not intercepted by drains. Therefore, different y-axes scales are used for (a) and (b).

View larger version (43K): [in a new window]   Fig. 6. Mean water table depth for bi-weekly monitored plots October 2002 to October 2004 on (a) Catchment L, (b) Catchment G, (c) Catchment S, (d) Catchment Nd, and (e) Catchment Ne.

View larger version (43K): [in a new window]   Fig. 7. Mean range in water table depth for bi-weekly monitored plots October 2002 to 2004 on (a) Catchment L, (b) Catchment G, (c) Catchment S, (d) Catchment Nd, and (e) Catchment Ne.

View larger version (47K): [in a new window]   Fig. 8. Percentage occurrence of overland flow for bi-weekly monitored plots October 2002 to 2004, as a proportion of all visits on (a) Catchment L, (b) Catchment G, (c) Catchment S, (d) Catchment Nd, and (e) Catchment Ne.