Standard Article

You have free access to this content

112 Subsurface Stormflow

Part 10. Rainfall-Runoff Processes

  1. Markus Weiler1,
  2. Jeffrey J McDonnell2,
  3. Ilja Tromp-van Meerveld3,
  4. Taro Uchida4

Published Online: 15 APR 2006

DOI: 10.1002/0470848944.hsa119

Encyclopedia of Hydrological Sciences

Encyclopedia of Hydrological Sciences

How to Cite

Weiler, M., McDonnell, J. J., Tromp-van Meerveld, I. and Uchida, T. 2006. Subsurface Stormflow. Encyclopedia of Hydrological Sciences. 10:112.

Author Information

  1. 1

    University of British Columbia, Departments of Forest Resources Management and Geography, Vancouver, BC, Canada

  2. 2

    Oregon State University, Department of Forest Engineering, Corvallis, OR, US

  3. 3

    Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, School of Architecture, Civil & Environmental Engineering, Lausanne, Switzerland

  4. 4

    Research Center for Disaster Risk Management, National Institute for Land & Infrastructure Management, Asahi, Tsukuba, Japan

Publication History

  1. Published Online: 15 APR 2006
thumbnail image

Figure 1. The original perceptual model of subsurface stormflow by Engler 1919. The hatched areas represent the uniform infiltration of water in the humus (Dammerde) and the soil (Rohboden). Deeper in the profile, water is flowing in “veins” laterally. Nagelfluh is the bedrock type for a specific geological setting in Switzerland

thumbnail image

Figure 2. The evolving perceptual model of subsurface stormflow at the Maimai catchment in New Zealand (Reprinted from McGlynn et al., 2002. © 2002, with permission from Elsevier)

thumbnail image

Figure 3. Dye patterns from two different sites: Rietholzbach experimental watershed, Switzerland, (a) and Heitersberg near Zurich, Switzerland (b). Note the spatial heterogeneity of dyed water and preferred nature of water flow vertically within the soil profile

thumbnail image

Figure 4. Measured and fitted drainable porosity with depths of three different soils (No. of sites see Table 1)

thumbnail image

Figure 5. Simulated and measured subsurface flow response for the experimental hillslope at Panola (USA) – (a) and Maimai (NZ) – (b) assuming a constant soil depth and the measured variable soil depth

thumbnail image

Figure 6. Relationship between total stormflow and total pipe flow of each storm at (a) Panola, Georgia, USA, (b) Toinotani, Kyoto, Japan, (c) Jozankei, Hokkaido, Japan and (d) Hakyuchi, Tokyo, Japan. Data for Jozankei and Hakyuchi compiled from Kitahara et al. 1994 and Ohta et al. 1981, respectively

thumbnail image

Figure 7. Schematic representation of the thresholdlike relationship between total storm precipitation and storm total flow under wet antecedent conditions. The lines represent the best fit lines through maximum storm total subsurface stormflow data points

thumbnail image

Figure 8. The location of areas of shallow soil depth (<0.75 m) (in black) and the areas with high (>4) bedrock topographic index (grey) (a) and the observed spatial distribution of subsurface saturation at the soil-bedrock interface across the Panola hillslope with increasing precipitation (b[BOND]h). The shaded area represents the area where transient subsurface saturation was observed; the unshaded area indicates the area where no subsurface saturation was observed. The diamonds represent the locations of the piezometers. Linear triangulation was used to interpolate between the measurement points