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 Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Google Scholar Articles by Essaid, H. I. Articles by Wilson, J. T. PubMed Articles by Essaid, H. I. Articles by Wilson, J. T. Agricola Articles by Essaid, H. I. Articles by Wilson, J. T. Related Collections Field-Scale Studies Heat Transport Heat Movement Models

Using Heat to Characterize Streambed Water Flux Variability in Four Stream Reaches

^a USGS, 345 Middlefield Rd., Menlo Park, CA 94025
^b USGS, 6000 J Street, Sacramento, CA 95819
^c USGS, 10615 Cherry Blossom Drive, Portland, OR 97216
^d USGS, 5231 S. 19th Street, Lincoln, NE 68512
^e USGS, 5957 Lakeside Boulevard, Indianapolis, IN 46278

View larger version (56K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 1. Streambed temperature profiles for (A) a neutral stream, (B) a gaining stream, and (C) a losing stream. The top of each profile is the stream water/streambed interface.

View larger version (13K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 2. Stream transects showing streambed topographic profile, temperature and head monitoring locations, and observed lithology (where available).

View larger version (30K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 3. Framework for one-dimensional vertical modeling of water and heat flow through a streambed (x is the horizontal discretization, and z is the vertical discretization). The top of the simulated profile is the stream water/streambed interface.

View larger version (32K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 4. Plots of observed (A) stream stage, (B) left piezometer nest temperatures and head gradient, (C) right piezometer nest temperature and head gradient, and (D) estimated streambed flux (positive for upward flow) in Leary Weber Ditch, IN.

View larger version (14K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 5. Observed (obs) and simulated (sim) temperatures at Leary Weber Ditch, IN for (A) the left piezometer 0.1-m depth, (B) the left piezometer 0.7-m depth, (C) the right piezometer 0.1-m depth, and (D) the right piezometer 0.9-m depth.

View larger version (14K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 6. Maps showing Leary Weber Ditch, IN study transects (temperature data are from T1), discharge measurements, and ground-water level contours for three synoptic measurement times: (A) 25 June 2004; (B) 30 June 2004; and (C) 26 Oct. 2004.

View larger version (69K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 7. A three-dimensional representation of observed temperatures along 29 transects in the streambed of Maple Creek, NE, for December 2003. Each black dot is a temperature probe measurement location. The white lines are the stream banks (the left bank was not within the area surveyed below the 100-m reach distance).

View larger version (27K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 8. Plots of (A) observed stream discharge (stage measurements were not available because of instrument damage during the May high-flow event), (B) temperature and head gradient, and (C) estimated streambed fluxes (positive for upward flow) in Maple Creek, NE.

View larger version (9K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 9. Observed (obs) and simulated (sim) temperatures in the Maple Creek, NE streambed at a depth of 0.7 m.

View larger version (25K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 10. Plots of observed (A) stream stage, (B) upstream transect temperature and head gradient, (C) downstream transect temperature and head gradient, and (D) estimated streambed flux in DR2 Drain, WA.

View larger version (12K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 11. Observed (obs) and simulated (sim) temperatures in the DR2 Drain, WA streambed for (A) a depth of 0.7 m at the upstream site and (B) a depth of 0.5 m at the downstream site.

View larger version (27K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 12. Plots of observed (A) stream stage, (B) temperature and head gradient, and (C) estimated streambed flux (positive for upward flow) in Merced River, CA.

View larger version (14K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 13. Observed (obs) and simulated (sim) temperatures in the Merced River, CA, streambed for (A) a single hydraulic conductivity (K) value of 1.2 x 10–5 m s–1 and (B) a K value of 1.2 x 10–5 m s–1 for the first part of the simulation and an increased K value of 1.210–4 m s–1 after the October 2004 high-flow event.

View larger version (16K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 14. Graph showing model-estimated (A) mean streambed velocity (vertical gray bar represents velocity range) and (B) mean residence time of water per unit streambed thickness for the four stream reaches.

View larger version (20K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 15. Monthly flow through the streambeds of (A) Leary Weber Ditch, IN, (B) Maple Creek, NE, (C) DR2 Drain, WA, and (D) Merced River, CA. Positive values represent upward flow through the streambed. Negative values represent downward flow through the streambed (all values are expressed as cubic meters of water per unit streambed surface area). Net monthly flow is the sum of positive and negative monthly flow.