GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 35, L09401, doi:10.
1029/2008GL033554, 2008
Reduction of the hyporheic zone volume due to the
stream-aquifer interaction
Fulvio Boano,1 Roberto Revelli,1 and Luca Ridolfi1
Received 6 February 2008; revised 19 March 2008; accepted 25 March 2008; published 3 May 2008.
[1] Pore water in stream sediments is continuously
exchanged with the surface water from the overlying
stream. This exchange of water and solutes that occurs
across the stream-sediment interface plays an important role
for fluvial ecology because of the unique biochemical
conditions, rich biodiversity, and high rates of metabolism.
While many studies have observed the extent of the
hyporheic zone to be modified by changes in the level of
the groundwater table, the actual importance of this
interaction is still difficult to quantify. Here, we focus on
the case of bedform induced hyporheic exchange to show
how the the volume of hyporheic sediments that receive
water from the stream is significantly reduced by the
upwelling of subsurface water. A simple scaling relationship
for the assessment of maximum depth of the hyporheic zone
is proposed by relating hyporheic flow to the groundwater
discharge in an aquifer with given hydraulic properties and
head difference between the stream and the aquifer.
Citation: Boano, F., R. Revelli, and L. Ridolfi (2008), Reduction
of the hyporheic zone volume due to the stream-aquifer interaction,
Geophys. Res. Lett., 35, L09401, doi:10.1029/2008GL033554.
1. Introduction
[2] Streams are connected to the adjacent unconfined
aquifers through the river banks and the bed, and the
hyporheic zone consists in the part of the aquifer whose
biochemical properties are different from both the surface
and the subsurface water. The peculiar properties of the
hyporheic environment depend on the exchange of water
between the stream and the aquifer, and the environmental
consequences of this linkage have recently been subject to a
growing interest by many researchers [see, e.g., Jones and
Mulholland, 2000]. A large number of field studies have
confirmed that water and water-borne nutrients and con-
taminants are frequently exchanged between rivers and
aquifers [e.g., Harvey and Bencala, 1993; Wondzell and
Swanson, 1996; Wroblicky et al., 1998; Battin et al., 2003].
This exchange exerts a strong influence on the quality of
both surface and subsurface waters. Solutes carried by the
stream penetrate into the sediments and are retained for
times that are typically much longer than the average in-
stream advective timescale [Boano et al., 2007a]. As a
result, the in-stream concentrations of pollutants are affected
by the exchange with the hyporheic zone, as observed in
many field studies [e.g., Bencala and Walters, 1983; Harvey
and Bencala, 1993; Johansson et al., 2001]. The exchange
1
Department of Hydraulics, Transport, and Civil Infrastructures,
Politecnico di Torino, Turin, Italy.
Copyright 2008 by the American Geophysical Union.
0094-8276/08/2008GL033554
L09401
flux also provides the hyporheic sediments with nutrients
and dissolved oxygen from the stream, which determine
favorable conditions for the development of a rich microbial
community [Brunke and Gonser, 1997; Boulton et al.,
1998].
[3] In order to gain a better understanding of the impor-
tance of the hyporheic zone, a number of analytical and
laboratory studies have analyzed the physical principles that
cause the hyporheic exchange. In these works, the laws of
hydraulics have been applied in order to model the flow
field that results from the interactions between the free-
surface stream and its permeable boundaries. Starting from
the seminal work of Thibodeaux and Boyle [1987], the
majority of these studies have focused on the exchange
induced by the presence of bedforms on the streambed
[Elliott and Brooks, 1997a, 1997b; Packman et al., 2000;
Packman and Brooks, 2001; Marion et al., 2002; Boano et
al., 2007b; Cardenas and Wilson, 2007]. Further studies
have examined the exchange induced by larger-scale
hydrological and morphological factors, like river curvature
[Cardenas et al., 2004; Boano et al., 2006], pool-riffle
sequences [Tonina and Buffington, 2007], and topography-
driven groundwater flow [Wörman et al., 2006, 2007].
[4] It is now clear that the exchange between streams and
hyporheic zones occurs as local flow systems with water
leaving the stream, moving through the subsurface, and
finally returning to the stream. Looking to the water flow on
a broader scale, it is recognized that the local flow systems
are nested inside larger groundwater flow systems, the latter
being controlled by the precipitation inputs at the regional
scale [Tóth, 1963; Sophocleous, 2002; Hayashi and
Rosenberry, 2002; Cardenas, 2007; Wörman et al., 2007].
However, a clear understanding about the influence of the
regional groundwater flow on the local hyporheic exchange
patterns is still missing. The magnitude of stream-hyporheic
exchange in a local flow pattern is mainly controlled by
the stream discharge and morphology, but the temporal
variability of large-scale groundwater flow systems (i.e.,
water table elevation) has also been observed to influence
the exchange [Harvey and Bencala, 1993; Wroblicky et al.,
1998]. High groundwater levels tend to decrease the
exchange flux with the hyporheic zone, even though the
actual importance of this process differs from stream to
stream [Wondzell and Swanson, 1996]. Cardenas and
Wilson [2006] have recently demonstrated that the hypo-
rheic exchange induced by bedforms is reduced by the
groundwater discharge into the stream, but the study did
not provide a way to estimate the groundwater discharge for
a particular hydrological condition.
[5] The present work presents a numerical study of the
role of the groundwater discharge in controlling the extent
of the hyporheic zone. The coupling between the phreatic
1 of 5
L09401 BOANO ET AL.: HYPORHEIC ZONE CONFINEMENT
Figure 1. (a) Sketch of the coupled aquifer-stream
problem in a plane y-z normal to the streamflow direction,
where y and z are the transversal and the vertical coordinate,
respectively. The discharge of groundwater to the stream is
induced by the head difference D, and it is qualitatively
represented by the bold arrows. (b) Bedform-induced
hyporheic exchange on a longitudinal section of the
streambed x-z, where x is the streamwise direction.
aquifer and the stream is considered, and the spatial pattern
of groundwater discharge below the streambed is evaluated.
The pattern of groundwater discharge is then related to the
depth of the hyporheic zone below the streambed dunes.
The paper demonstrates that particular groundwater con-
ditions can significantly reduce the volume of sediments
influenced by the hyporheic exchange, and sometimes
prevent the penetration of the streambed by the stream
water. We also show that the upwelling of groundwater
induces a variation of the depth of the hyporheic zone
across the river section, thus providing spatially-varying
habitat conditions for the hyporheic microfauna. Finally, a
simple scaling relationship for the maximum depth of the
hyporheic zone is proposed.
2. Method
[ 6 ] The Cartesian coordinate system pictured in
Figures 1a and 1b is adopted, where x, y, and z denote the
streamwise, transversal, and vertical directions, respectively.
In the present analysis, the vertical extent of the hyporheic
zone is defined as the maximum depth reached by the
advective flowpaths, and it is determined in two sequential
steps. First, the coupled stream-aquifer system sketched in
Figure 1a is considered – where only one half of the system
is examined because of the symmetry of the problem – and
the groundwater discharge through the streambed is evalu-
ated. Then, the groundwater discharge is superimposed on
2 of 5
L09401
the hyporheic flow field induced by the bedforms, and the
hyporheic exchange represented by the bold arrows in
Figure 1b is obtained.
[7] The geometry of the gaining stream in Figure 1a is
summarized by the river half-width, L, and the depth, d.
Groundwater discharge to the stream is induced by the head
difference, D, between the groundwater table and the stream
surface. This flow is exemplified by the bold arrows in
Figure 1a, that show the upwelling of subsurface water
through the streambed. For the sake of simplicity, the
distance between the river bank and the point of observation
of the groundwater level is chosen to be equal to the river
half-width, L. For a given D, the influence on the results of
the shape of the groundwater table has been verified to be
negligible. Thus, a parabolic shape is assumed for the
groundwater table, and a homogeneous, isotropic value of
the hydraulic conductivity, K, is assigned to the sediments.
[8] Water flow in the aquifer is governed by the Laplace
equation, r2h = 0, where h is the hydraulic head in the
subsurface [e.g., Bear and Verruijt, 1992]. The Laplace
equation is applied to the semi-infinite 2D domain ABC-
DEF shown in Figure 1. In order to solve the equation in a
domain of infinite vertical extension, a no-flow boundary,
AB, is introduced that is deep enough to avoid any
influence on the results. No-flow boundary conditions are
also imposed on the right boundary, BC, because of
symmetry, and on the water table, EF. The head on the
river bed and bank, CD and DE, is assumed to be equal to
the free surface level in the stream, and the left boundary,
AF, is assigned a head equal to the water table level. The
Laplace equation is solved using a finite-element method,
and the velocity field in the sediments is obtained from the
Darcy’s law. In particular, the velocities at the stream-
sediment interface, z = 0, represent the profile of the
upwelling velocity through the streambed, vup(y). This
velocity profile is used to assess the impact of the ground-
water discharge on the hyporheic exchange.
[9] The bedform-induced flow pattern in a plane x-z
normal to the stream cross-section is modeled extending
the approach proposed by Elliott and Brooks [1997a]. The
upwelling velocity, vup, is added to include the effect of
groundwater discharge
u ¼ u0 cosðkxÞekz ð1Þ
v ¼ u0 sinðkxÞekz þ vup ð2Þ
where x is the streamwise coordinate, u and v are the Darcy
velocities in the longitudinal and vertical directions,
respectively, u0 = kKh0 is a typical velocity scale for the
hyporheic flow, k = 2p/l is the bedform wavenumber, l is
the bedform wavelength, and h0 is the head perturbation
determined by the presence of the bedform [see Elliott and
Brooks, 1997a]. According to our simulations, the vertical
variations of the upwelling velocity are small compared to
the transversal ones. Thus, the upwelling velocity vup in (2)
is treated as a constant along z.
3. Results
[10] Extensive numerical simulations have been carried
out using the approach described in the previous section.
L09401 BOANO ET AL.: HYPORHEIC ZONE CONFINEMENT
Figure 2. Profile (a) of the groundwater discharge to the
stream per unit bed area, vup and (b) of the hyporheic zone
depth across the stream cross-section, zH. The comparison
shows that the increase D of the groundwater level
increases the upwelling velocities and reduces the depth
of the hyporheic zone, preventing the stream water to enter
the streambed sediments close to the banks. In both
simulations a stream with the half-width L = 15 m, the
depth d = 1 m, and the average stream velocity U = 0.6 m/s is
considered. The streambed has a hydraulic conductivity K =
103 m/s and is covered by bedforms with wavelength l =
1.5 m and wavelength-to-height ratio of 10.
The profiles of the upwelling velocity, vup(y), are displayed
in Figure 2a for two typical cases. Figure 2a shows that the
most of the groundwater is discharged near the river banks,
whereas the central part of the streambed receives a lesser
amount of groundwater. This result has been obtained for
the case of a rectangular river cross-section, but the qual-
itative behavior is supposed to hold even for different
geometries of the stream section.
[11] The penetration of the surface water in the sediments
is hampered by the groundwater upwelling, as suggested by
the comparison of the two terms on the right-hand side of
equation (2). The downward velocity induced by the head
perturbation on the streambed decays exponentially with
depth, and it is eventually equaled by the upwelling velocity,
vup. Since vup(y) is not constant across the stream, the depth of
the hyporheic zone, zH (y), varies over the stream width as well.
[12] For a given lateral position, y, the flow pattern in the
x-z plane is described by equations (1)– (2). The lowest
point that can be reached by the hyporheic flowpaths in this
plane occurs at x = l/4, where equation (2) predicts the
highest downward velocities. The vertical extent in the x-z
plane of the hyporheic zone, zH, can be evaluated putting
vjx=l/4 = 0 in equation (2)
 
l vup ð yÞ
zH ð yÞ ¼ log ð3Þ
2p u0
3 of 5
L09401
where the aforementioned dependence of zH (y) from the
distance from the river bank, y, is explicitly shown.
Equation (3) shows that the increase of the groundwater
discharge results in a shallower hyporheic zone and thus
reduces the volume of sediments that exchange water and
solutes with the stream. It is also interesting to notice that
according to equation (3) the depth of the hyporheic zone
scales with the dune wavelength.
[13] The profiles of the depth of the hyporheic zone,
zH (y), for the two cases have been evaluated using (3), and
are shown in Figure 2b. Figure 2b demonstrates that the
discharge of groundwater constitutes a factor that contrasts
the penetration of water in the sediments, reducing the
volume of pore water that comes into contact with surface
water and with the water-carried solutes.
[14] The comparison between the cases of lower and
higher groundwater discharge – solid and dashed line in
Figures 2a and 2b, respectively – reveals that a strong
upwelling of groundwater can prevent the exchange of
stream water through the parts of the streambed closer to
the banks. Equation (3) eventually predicts the complete
disappearance of the bedform-induced exchange when the
groundwater discharge per unit streambed area, vup, is
everywhere higher than u0. Thus, the supply of oxygen
and nutrients from the stream to the sediments is expected to
vary according to the different surface and subsurface water
levels, determining periodical disturbances of the environ-
mental conditions of the hyporheic ecosystem.
[15] As shown in Figure 2, the maximum depth of the
hyporheic zone, z*H = zH (y = L), occurs at the center of the
stream where the upwelling velocity is lower. The value of
the upwelling velocity at the center of the streambed, v*up =
vup(y = L), is influenced by the hydraulic conductivity of the
sediments, K, and the parameters L, D, and d, defined in
Figure 1. It follows from dimensional considerations that
the dimensionless upwelling velocity v*up/K must depend
only on the average slope of the groundwater table, D/L,
and on the stream aspect ratio, L/d.
[16] A number of simulations have been performed in
order to represent different streams with aspect ratio L/d
ranging between 5 and 30, and for average slopes of the
groundwater table, D/L, up to 101. The upwelling veloc-
ities have been evaluated and the results are plotted against
the groundwater table slope, D/L, in Figure 3. Figure 3
clearly shows that the stream aspect ratio, L/d, has a
negligible influence on the amount of groundwater dis-
charge. Furthermore, the values of the upwelling velocity
in Figure 3 exhibit an almost perfect linear correlation with
D/L. This relationship can be be expressed as
vup
* D
¼ 0:57 ; ð4Þ
K L
which provides a very good fit to the data in Figure 3, with
errors that are less than 2%. This simple relationship links
the upwelling velocity to the hydraulic characteristics of the
stream-aquifer system depicted in Figure 1.
[17] Equation (4) can be used to assess the depth of the
sediments that is affected by the hyporheic exchange. The
combination of (3) and (4) yields
 
l KD
zH* ¼ log 0:57 : ð5Þ
2p u0 L
L09401 BOANO ET AL.: HYPORHEIC ZONE CONFINEMENT
Figure 3. Dimensionless upwelling velocity at the middle
* L18406, doi:10.1029/2006GL027630.
of the streambed, vup /K, as a function of the average slope
of the groundwater table, D/L.
[18] This expression provides a simple and rapid tool to
estimate the maximum depth of sediments that is influenced
by the exchange with the surface water.
4. Conclusions
[19] The present analysis has demonstrated how the
stream-aquifer interaction can significantly alter the ex-
change of water and solutes between the stream and the
hyporheic zone. The head difference between the aquifer
and the stream induces the discharge of groundwater
through the streambed. This discharge contrasts the pene-
tration of stream water into the sediments and limits the
maximum depth that can be reached by the hyporheic
flowpaths. Since the upwelling of groundwater is stronger
near the banks than at the middle of the stream, the depth of
hyporheic zone is not constant across the stream width.
When the groundwater discharge increases, the hyporheic
exchange is limited to the central part of the stream cross-
section and to the shallower sediments. Very high discharge
of groundwater (vup > u0) completely prevent the flow from
the stream to the hyporheic zone.
[20] The limitation of the surface-subsurface interactions
has many important implications for the fluvial environ-
ment. First, it influences the supply of oxygen to the
sediments, which constitutes the main limiting factor for
aerobic microorganisms in the hyporheic zone. Second,
since rivers commonly receive wastewater from sewage
systems and industrial facilities, information about the
extent of the hyporheic zone would also be valuable for
the study of contamination of river sediments.
[21] The role of groundwater discharge is particularly
relevant because of its variability in both space and time,
that implies spatial and temporal variability of the depth and
flow conditions of the hyporheic zone as well. The presence
of spatial gradients of pore velocities and nutrient concen-
trations determines the diversification of the physical and
chemical conditions of the subsurface environment that can
enhance the hyporheic biodiversity. Variations in time that
follow the dynamic behavior of the coupled stream-aquifer
4 of 5
L09401
system are also likely to exert a major influence on the
hyporheic ecosystem. These considerations underline the
need for a deeper integration between the work of hydrol-
ogists, biologists, and ecologists in order to improve our
understanding of the fluvial environments.
[22] Acknowledgments. The financial support for this research has
been provided by Regione Piemonte and Fondazione CRT.
References
Battin, T. J., L. A. Kaplan, J. D. Newbold, and S. P. Hendricks (2003), A
mixing model analysis of stream solute dynamics and the contribution
of a hyporheic zone to ecosystem function, Freshwater Biol., 48(6),
995 – 1014.
Bear, J., and A. Verruijt (1992), Modeling Groundwater Flow and Pollu-
tion, D. Reidel, Dordrecht, Netherlands.
Bencala, K. E., and R. A. Walters (1983), Simulation of solute transport
in a mountain pool-and-riffle stream: A transient storage model, Water
Resour. Res., 19(3), 718 – 724.
Boano, F., C. Camporeale, R. Revelli, and L. Ridolfi (2006), Sinuosity-
driven hyporheic exchange in meandering rivers, Geophys. Res. Lett., 33,
Boano, F., A. I. Packman, A. Cortis, R. Revelli, and L. Ridolfi (2007a), A
continuous time random walk approach to the stream transport of solutes,
Water Resour. Res., 43, W10425, doi:10.1029/2007WR006062.
Boano, F., R. Revelli, and L. Ridolfi (2007b), Bedform-induced hyporheic
exchange with unsteady flows, Adv. Water Resour., 30(1), 148 – 156.
Boulton, A., S. Findlay, P. Marmonier, E. Stanley, and H. Valett (1998), The
functional significance of the hyporeic zone in streams and rivers, Annu.
Rev. Ecol. Syst., 29, 59 – 81.
Brunke, M., and T. Gonser (1997), The ecological significance of exchange
processes between rivers and groundwater, Freshwater Biol., 37, 1 – 33,
doi:10.1046/j.1365-2427.1997.00143.x.
Cardenas, M. B. (2007a), Potential contribution of topography-driven
regional groundwater flow to fractal stream chemistry: Residence time
distribution analysis of Tóth flow, Geophys. Res. Lett., 34, L05403,
doi:10.1029/2006GL029126.
Cardenas, M. B., and J. L. Wilson (2006), The influence of ambient ground-
water discharge on exchange zones induced by current-bedform interac-
tions, J. Hydrol., 331(1 – 2), 103 – 109.
Cardenas, M. B., and J. L. Wilson (2007b), Dunes, turbulent eddies, and
interfacial exchange with permeable sediments, Water Resour. Res.,
43(8), W08412, doi:10.1029/2006WR005787.
Cardenas, M. B., J. L. Wilson, and V. A. Zlotnik (2004), Impact of heteroge-
neity, bed forms, and stream curvature on subchannel hyporheic exchange,
Water Resour. Res., 40, W08307, doi:10.1029/2004WR003008.
Elliott, A. H., and N. H. Brooks (1997a), Transfer of nonsorbing solutes to a
streambed with bed forms: Theory, Water Resour. Res., 33(1), 123 – 136.
Elliott, A. H., and N. H. Brooks (1997b), Transfer of nonsorbing solutes to
a streambed with bed forms: Laboratory experiments, Water Resour. Res.,
33(1), 137 – 151.
Harvey, J. W., and K. E. Bencala (1993), The effect of streambed topogra-
phy on surface-subsurface water exchange in mountain catchments,
Water Resour. Res., 29(1), 89 – 98.
Hayashi, M., and D. O. Rosenberry (2002), Effects of ground water
exchange on the hydrology and ecology of surface water, Ground Water,
40(3), 309 – 316.
Johansson, H., K. Jonsson, K. J. Forsman, and J. Wörman (2001), Retention
of conservative and sorptive solutes in streams-Simultaneous tracer
experiment, Sci. Total Environ., 266(1 – 3), 229 – 238.
Jones, J. B., and P. J. Mulholland (Eds.) (2000), Streams and Ground
Waters, Academic, San Diego, Calif.
Marion, A., M. Bellinello, I. Guymer, and A. Packman (2002), Effect
of bed form geometry on the penetration of nonreactive solutes into
a streambed, Water Resour. Res., 38(10), 1209,doi:10.1029/
2001WR000264.
Packman, A. I., and N. H. Brooks (2001), Hyporheic exchange of solutes
and colloids with moving bed forms, Water Resour. Res., 37(10), 2591 –
2605.
Packman, A. I., N. H. Brooks, and J. J. Morgan (2000), A physicochemical
model for colloid exchange between a stream and a sand streambed with
bed forms, Water Resour. Res., 36(8), 2351 – 2361.
Sophocleous, M. (2002), Interactions between groundwater and surface
water: The state of the science, Hydrogeol. J., 10(1), 52 – 67.
Thibodeaux, L. J., and J. D. Boyle (1987), Bedform-generated convective
transport in bottom sediment, Nature, 325(6102), 341 – 343.
Tonina, D., and J. M. Buffington (2007), Hyporheic exchange in gravel
bed rivers with pool-riffle morphology: Laboratory experiments and three-
L09401 BOANO ET AL.: HYPORHEIC ZONE CONFINEMENT L09401

dimensional modeling, Water Resour. Res., 43, W01421, doi:10.1029/
2005WR004328.
Tóth, J. (1963), A theoretical analysis of groundwater flow in small drai-
nage basins, J. Geophys. Res., 67, 4812 – 4975.
Wondzell, S. M., and F. J. Swanson (1996), Seasonal and storm dynamics
of the hyporheic zone of a 4th-order mountain stream: I. Hydrologic
processes, J.N. Am. Benthol. Soc., 15, 3 – 19.
Wörman, A., A. I. Packman, L. Marklund, J. W. Harvey, and S. H. Stone
(2006), Exact three-dimensional spectral solution to surface-groundwater
interactions with arbitrary surface topography, Geophys. Res. Lett., 33,
L07402, doi:10.1029/2006GL025747.
Wörman, A., A. I. Packman, L. Marklund, J. W. Harvey, and S. H. Stone
(2007), Fractal topography and subsurface water flows from fluvial
bedforms to the continental shield, Geophys. Res. Lett., 34, L07402,
doi:10.1029/2007GL029426.
Wroblicky, G. J., M. E. Campana, H. M. Valett, and C. N. Dahm (1998),
Seasonal variations in surface-subsurface water exchange and lateral
hyporheic area of two stream-aquifer systems, Water Resour. Res.,
34(3), 317 – 328.

F. Boano, R. Revelli, and L. Ridolfi, Department of Hydraulics,
Transport, and Civil Infrastructures, Politecnico di Torino, Corso Duca
degli Abruzzi 24, I-10129 Turin, Italy. (fulvio.boano@polito.it)

5 of 5