TY - JOUR
T1 - Springflow Hydrographs: Eogenetic vs. Telogenetic Karst
AU - J., Florea Lee
AU - Vacher, H. Len
PY - 2006/1/1
Y1 - 2006/1/1
N2 - Matrix permeability in the range of 10 −11 to 10 −14 m 2 characterizes eogenetic karst, where limestones have not been deeply buried. In contrast, limestones of postburial, telogenetic karst have matrix permeabilities on the order of 10 −15 to 10 −20 m 2 . Is this difference in matrix permeability paralleled by a difference in the behavior of springs draining eogenetic and telogenetic karst? Log Q/Q min flow duration curves from 11 eogenetic-karst springs in Florida and 12 telogenetic-karst springs in Missouri, Kentucky, and Switzerland, plot in different fields because of the disparate slopes of the curves. The substantially lower flow variability in eogenetic-karst springs, which results in the steeper slopes of their flow duration curves, also makes for a strong contrast in patterns (e.g., “flashiness”) between the eogenetic-karst and telogenetic-karst spring hydrographs. With respect to both spring hydrographs and the flow duration curves derived from them, the eogenetic-karst springs of Florida are more like basalt springs of Idaho than the telogenetic-karst springs of the study. From time-series analyses on discharge records for 31 springs and published time-series results for 28 additional sites spanning 11 countries, we conclude that (1) the ratio of maximum to mean ( Q max /Q mean ) discharge is less in springs of eogenetic karst than springs of telogenetic karst; (2) aquifer inertia (system memory) is larger in eogenetic karst; (3) eogenetic-karst aquifers take longer to respond to input signals; and (4) high-frequency events affect discharge less in eogenetic karst. All four of these results are consistent with the hypothesis that accessible storage is larger in eogenetic-karst aquifers than in telogenetic-karst aquifers.
AB - Matrix permeability in the range of 10 −11 to 10 −14 m 2 characterizes eogenetic karst, where limestones have not been deeply buried. In contrast, limestones of postburial, telogenetic karst have matrix permeabilities on the order of 10 −15 to 10 −20 m 2 . Is this difference in matrix permeability paralleled by a difference in the behavior of springs draining eogenetic and telogenetic karst? Log Q/Q min flow duration curves from 11 eogenetic-karst springs in Florida and 12 telogenetic-karst springs in Missouri, Kentucky, and Switzerland, plot in different fields because of the disparate slopes of the curves. The substantially lower flow variability in eogenetic-karst springs, which results in the steeper slopes of their flow duration curves, also makes for a strong contrast in patterns (e.g., “flashiness”) between the eogenetic-karst and telogenetic-karst spring hydrographs. With respect to both spring hydrographs and the flow duration curves derived from them, the eogenetic-karst springs of Florida are more like basalt springs of Idaho than the telogenetic-karst springs of the study. From time-series analyses on discharge records for 31 springs and published time-series results for 28 additional sites spanning 11 countries, we conclude that (1) the ratio of maximum to mean ( Q max /Q mean ) discharge is less in springs of eogenetic karst than springs of telogenetic karst; (2) aquifer inertia (system memory) is larger in eogenetic karst; (3) eogenetic-karst aquifers take longer to respond to input signals; and (4) high-frequency events affect discharge less in eogenetic karst. All four of these results are consistent with the hypothesis that accessible storage is larger in eogenetic-karst aquifers than in telogenetic-karst aquifers.
UR - https://digitalcommons.usf.edu/gly_facpub/36
UR - https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6584.2005.00158.x
U2 - 10.1111/j.1745-6584.2005.00158.x
DO - 10.1111/j.1745-6584.2005.00158.x
M3 - Article
C2 - 16681516
VL - 44
JO - Groundwater
JF - Groundwater
ER -