Contrasts between chemical and physical estimates of baseflow help discern multiple sources of water contributing to rivers

This study compares geochemical and physical methods of estimating baseflow in the upper reaches of the Barwon River, southeast Australia. Estimates of baseflow from physical techniques such as local minima and recursive digital filters are higher than those based on chemical mass balance using continuous electrical conductivity (EC). Between 2001 and 2011 the baseflow flux calculated using chemical mass balance is between 1.8 × 103 and 1.5 × 104 ML yr−1 (15 to 25% of the total discharge in any one year) whereas recursive digital filters yield baseflow fluxes of 3.6 × 103 to 3.8 × 104 ML yr−1 (19 to 52% of discharge) and the local minimum method yields baseflow fluxes of 3.2 × 103 to 2.5 × 104 ML yr−1 (13 to 44% of discharge). These differences most probably reflect how the different techniques characterise baseflow. Physical methods probably aggregate much of the water from delayed sources as baseflow. However, as many delayed transient water stores (such as bank return flow or floodplain storage) are likely to be geochemically similar to surface runoff, chemical mass balance calculations aggregate them with the surface runoff component. The mismatch between geochemical and physical estimates is greatest following periods of high discharge in winter, implying that these transient stores of water feed the river for several weeks to months. Consistent with these interpretations, modelling of bank storage indicates that bank return flows provide water to the river for several weeks after flood events. EC vs. discharge variations during individual flow events also imply that an inflow of low EC water stored within the banks or on the floodplain occurs as discharge falls. The joint use of physical and geochemical techniques allows a better understanding of the different components of water that contribute to river flow, which is important for the management and protection of water resources.