Checking for non-preferred file/folder path names (may take a long time depending on the number of files/folders) ...
This resource contains some files/folders that have non-preferred characters in their name. Show non-conforming files/folders.
This resource contains content types with files that need to be updated to match with metadata changes. Show content type files that need updating.
| Authors: |
|
|
|---|---|---|
| Owners: |
|
This resource does not have an owner who is an active HydroShare user. Contact CUAHSI (help@cuahsi.org) for information on this resource. |
| Type: | Resource | |
| Storage: | The size of this resource is 3.0 GB | |
| Created: | Nov 01, 2023 at 3:29 p.m. (UTC) | |
| Last updated: | Jul 24, 2024 at 12:37 p.m. (UTC) (Metadata update) | |
| Published date: | Jul 24, 2024 at 12:37 p.m. (UTC) | |
| DOI: | 10.4211/hs.336edc1205314d33a05e935d4a2cd7c2 | |
| Citation: | See how to cite this resource |
| Sharing Status: | Published |
|---|---|
| Views: | 1615 |
| Downloads: | 146 |
| +1 Votes: | Be the first one to this. |
| Comments: | No comments (yet) |
Abstract
PUBLISHED IN WATER RESOURCES RESEARCH 2024
Groundwater return flow to streams is important for maintaining aquatic habitat and providing water to downstream users, particularly in irrigated watersheds experiencing water scarcity. However, in many agricultural regions, increased irrigation efficiency has reduced return flows and their subsequent in-stream benefits. Agricultural managed aquifer recharge (Ag-MAR)—where artificial recharge is conducted via irrigation canals and agricultural fields—may be a tool to recover these return flows, but implementation is challenged by water supply and water management. Using climate-driven streamflow simulations, an integrated operations-hydrology model, and a regional groundwater model, we investigated the potential for Ag-MAR to recover return flows in the Henrys Fork Snake River, Idaho (USA). We simulated potential Ag-MAR operations for water years 2023–2052, accounting for both future water supply conditions and local water management rules. We determined that Ag-MAR operations reduced springtime peak flow at the watershed outlet by 10–14% after accounting for return flows. Recharge contribution to streamflow peaked in July and November, increasing July–August streamflow by 6–14% and November–March streamflow by 9–14%. Furthermore, sites where Ag-MAR was conducted incidental to flood irrigation had more water available for recharge, compared to sites requiring recharge rights, which are junior in priority to agricultural rights. Mean annual recharge volume for the incidental recharge sites averaged 12% of annual natural streamflow, ranged from 269–335 Mm3, and was largely available in April and October. We demonstrate Ag-MAR can effectively recover groundwater return flows when applied as flood irrigation on agricultural land with senior-priority water rights.
Subject Keywords
Coverage
Spatial
Content
Credits
Funding Agencies
This resource was created using funding from the following sources:
| Agency Name | Award Title | Award Number |
|---|---|---|
| U.S. Bureau of Reclamation | WaterSMART Applied Science Grant | R21AP10036 |
| Henry's Fork Foundation | Individual Donations | None |
| National Science Foundation | None | 1633756 |
| U.S. Department of Agriculture | National Institute of Food and Agriculture | 2021-69012-35916 |
Contributors
People or Organizations that contributed technically, materially, financially, or provided general support for the creation of the resource's content but are not considered authors.
| Name | Organization | Address | Phone | Author Identifiers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sarah Null | Utah State University;iUTAH | Utah, US | ||
| Robert W. Van Kirk | Henry's Fork Foundation |
How to Cite
This resource is shared under the Creative Commons Attribution-NoCommercial-ShareAlike CC BY-NC-SA.
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
Comments
There are currently no comments
New Comment