Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
Dracos (1984)
Reaction of groundwater bodies to infiltrationEos Trans. AGU, 65
M. P. Mosley (1979)
Streamflow generation in a forested watershed, New ZealandJ. Hydrol., 15
A. J. Pearce, A. I. McKerchar (1979)
Physical Hydrology‐New Zealand ExperienceJ. Hydrol. (N.Z.)
M. Mosley (1982)
Subsurface flow velocities through selected forest soils, South Island, New ZealandJournal of Hydrology, 55
A. Pearce, M. Stewart, M. Sklash (1986)
Storm runoff generation in humid headwater catchments 1
A. Abdul, R. Gillham (1984)
Laboratory Studies of the Effects of the Capillary Fringe on Streamflow GenerationWater Resources Research, 20
R. Nakamura (1971)
Runoff analyses by electrical conductance of waterWater Resour. Res., 514
M. Mosley (1979)
Streamflow generation in a forested watershed, New ZealandWater Resources Research, 15
J. Hewlett, A. Hibbert (1967)
Factors affecting the response of small watersheds to precipitation in humid areas
R. Gillham (1984)
The capillary fringe and its effect on water-table responseJournal of Hydrology, 67
J. D. Hewlett, A. R. Hibbert (1967)
International Symposium on Forest HydrologyEos Trans. AGU
V. C. Kennedy (1977)
Hypothesis to explain the rapid release of solutes from soil during storm runoffWater Resour. Res., 58
M. Sklash, R. Farvolden (1979)
The Role Of Groundwater In Storm RunoffJournal of Hydrology, 43
D. Pilgrim, D. Huff, T. Steele (1979)
Use of specific conductance and contact time relations for separating flow components in storm runoffWater Resources Research, 15
Previous hydrometric and dye tracer studies in Maimai 8, a highly responsive catchment in the Tawhai State Forest, Westland, New Zealand, suggest that storm runoff generation is by rapid transmission of “new” (current storm rain) water to the stream via macropores. We used hydrometric and natural tracer (oxygen 18, deuterium, electrical conductivity, chloride) observations in two first‐ and one second‐order stream and in six throughflow pits, to evaluate the roles of “old” (stored) and new water during three storm events (return periods from 4 weeks to 3 months) in September 1983. New water contributions were small (<25% of the hydrograph volume) and could be accounted for by saturation overland flow. Hillslope response varied areally but all sites issued old water‐dominated throughflow. Ridge top sites had larger new water contributions (∼ 30–40%) than valley sites (< 10%). Macropore flow of new water therefore cannot explain streamflow or throughflow response in the Maimai catchments.
Water Resources Research – Wiley
Published: Aug 1, 1986
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.