Advances in Water Resources 112 (2018) 214–223

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Advances in Water Resources

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/advwatres

Stochastic modeling of wetland-groundwater systems T

⁎,a,b a,c d e
Leonardo Enrico Bertassello , P. Suresh C. Rao , Jeryang Park , James W. Jawitz ,
Gianluca Botterb
a
Lyles School of Civil Engineering, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907-2051, USA
b
Department of Civil, Architectural and Environmental Engineering, University of Padua, Padua I-35100, Italy
c
Agronomy Department, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907-2054, USA
d
School of Urban and Civil Engineering, Hongik University, Seoul, 121-791, South Korea
e
Soil and Water Science Department, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611, USA

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Modeling and data analyses were used in this study to examine the temporal hydrological variability in geo-
Crossing time graphically isolated wetlands (GIWs), as influenced by hydrologic connectivity to shallow groundwater, wetland
Probability density function bathymetry, and subject to stochastic hydro-climatic forcing. We examined the general case of GIWs coupled to
Eco-hydrology shallow groundwater through exfiltration or infiltration across wetland bottom. We also examined limiting case
Hydrologic regimes
with the wetland stage as the local expression of the shallow groundwater. We derive analytical expressions for
Hydro-period
the steady-state probability density functions (pdfs) for wetland water storage and stage using few, scaled,
physically-based parameters. In addition, we analyze the hydrologic crossing time properties of wetland stage,
and the dependence of the mean hydroperiod on climatic and wetland morphologic attributes. Our analyses
show that it is crucial to account for shallow groundwater connectivity to fully understand the hydrologic dy-
namics in wetlands. The application of the model to two different case studies in Florida, jointly with a detailed
sensitivity analysis, allowed us to identify the main drivers of hydrologic dynamics in GIWs under different
climate and morphologic conditions.

1. Introduction
Wetlands are key hydrological elements of landscapes and their
spatiotemporal dynamics strongly influence surface water storage,
runoff, groundwater recharge/discharge processes, and evapo-
transpiration (Rains et al., 2016). They also play a key role in de-
termining the temporal variability of catchment biogeochemical pro-
cesses (e.g., nutrient and sediment accretion, transformations, etc.)
(Cheng and Basu, 2017; Marton et al., 2015) and ecological processes
(e.g., aquatic habitat suitability and integrity for unique flora and
fauna) (Euliss et al., 2008).
Of the diverse types of inland freshwater wetlands, our interest here
is to examine geographically isolated wetlands (GIWs), defined as wet-
lands that are completely surrounded by upland. While there may be no
accepted scientific definition of an isolated wetland, it is clear from the
hydrologic and ecological literature (Leibowitz, 2015; Tiner, 2003) that
interactions between such wetlands and other water bodies can indeed
occur. Here, we use the term GIWs to simply represent single depres-
sions with topographically delineated boundaries, which form natural
contributing area, for surface water flow to each wetland. Such GIWs
are embedded into the landscape in various spatial patterns, and not
permanently connected to stream networks. Isolated wetlands can in-
teract through permanent or episodic connections to regional shallow
groundwater, depending on the hydro-geologic setting of the specific
landscape. We do not consider inter-connectivity among wetlands
during flooding events, when ephemeral stream networks are formed.
Our motivation for exploring stochastic modeling approaches to
dynamics of isolated wetlands is based on related research on ground-
water-dependent ecosystems (Laio et al., 2009; Tamea et al., 2009) and
our recent work by Park et al. (2014). Our overall goal is to develop
generalized analytical solutions, defined by few key parameters, for
quantifying long-term dynamics of wetlands representing a range of
likely scenarios for linkage between the GIWs and surrounding uplands
(vadose zone) or shallow groundwater located near the wetland
bottom. When a sufficiently thick low-permeability layer occurs along
the pool bottom, as a result of accretion of fine sediment or organic
material or presence of confining units (e.g., clay), the wetland bottom
regulates water exchange between wetland and groundwater
(Rains et al., 2016) (Section 2.3). As the hydrologic resistivity of the
wetland bottom decreases, the pool water can readily exfiltrate to

⁎
Corresponding author at: Lyles School of Civil Engineering, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907-2051, USA.
E-mail address: lbertass@purdue.edu (L.E. Bertassello).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advwatres.2017.12.007
Received 27 January 2017; Received in revised form 12 September 2017; Accepted 8 December 2017
Available online 13 December 2017
0309-1708/ © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
L.E. Bertassello et al.
surrounding uplands, and exchange with shallow groundwater in re-
sponse to the hydrologic potential gradients (Section 2.4). Conversely,
as the hydrologic resistivity of the wetland bottom increases, the wet-
land pool dynamics become increasingly independent of the shallow
groundwater, and upland as well (Supplementary Material, Section S-
1).
The approach represents an extension of Park et al. (2014), where a
stochastic model was presented for GIWs connected to uplands, but
connectivity to groundwater was not explicitly considered. In that
work, groundwater was not considered as a source of input into the
wetland, and water losses from the wetland were only driven by eva-
potranspiration and exfiltration as a function of the water storage vo-
lume in the wetland. Here, we extend this approach to explicitly ac-
count for the effect of a dynamic water table (Section 2.3).
We provide analytical solutions for the probability density functions
(pdfs) of the volume and stage of a wetland where shallow groundwater
dynamics influence wetland stage fluctuations. The analytical pdfs we
present here are completely described by five non-dimensional para-
meters defining the hydro-climatic forcing, wetland bathymetry and
hydrologic interactions with the surrounding landscape (upland,
shallow groundwater). These analytical pdfs enable direct comparison
between coupled wetland-groundwater systems with widely varying
characteristics. We also analyze the crossing time properties of wetland
stage (volume) to understand how hydroperiod varies according to
multiple factors (Tamea et al., 2011). Hydrologic thresholds are im-
portant for the ecological and habitat suitability for a variety of adapted
aquatic fauna and flora (Cronk and Fennessy, 2001; Snodgrass et al.,
2000). Therefore, a better understanding of the main processes af-
fecting the patterns of exposure and inundation along wetland transects
may bring important implications for ecological processes (Altermatt
et al., 2009; Laio et al., 2009; Tamea et al., 2009). The coupling of such
considerations can represent an important step toward a new method
for wetland classification, depending on the climatic conditions, the
type of landscape, the geometry of the wetlands, and their interaction
with the hydrological elements of the watershed. Such attributes are
embedded in the dimensionless parameters that determine the shapes of
the analytical expressions of the derived pdf and the mean crossing
times.
2. Coupled stochastic modeling of wetland-groundwater systems
2.1. Modeling framework
We conceptualize a GIW as a depression in the landscape within
which water can accumulate from a well delineated contributing area
and with its bathymetry defined by the landscape topography. The
changes in GIW water storage are completely described by the balance
215
Advances in Water Resources 112 (2018) 214–223
or imbalance between water inputs and water losses. The configuration
of the model is depicted in Fig. 1. Water inputs are precipitation over
the contributing area of the wetland and groundwater infiltration.
Water losses from the wetland are dominated by evapotranspiration
(ET) and exfiltration. This continuous exchange of water between
shallow groundwater and GIW requires evaluation of the coupled dy-
namics of the wetland-groundwater system.
In our analysis, shallow groundwater was modeled as a second
storage, subject to inputs from ET-censored rainfall, and losses modu-
lated through first-order hydrologic recession.
On the basis of the foregoing assumptions, the water balance
equations for GIW coupled with shallow groundwater can be written as:
dW
= ξ (λp , αp Ac ) − ETA (W ) − K1 [h (W ) − z ] S (W )
dt (1)
dWgw
= ξ (λ, αp Agw ) − K2 Wgw
dt (2)
In Eqs. (1) and (2), W is the water volume stored in the wetland and
Wgw the water volume stored in shallow groundwater. The first term on
the right-hand side of Eqs. (1) and (2) represents the stochastic water
inputs due to a sequence of rainfall (effective rainfall) events. In par-
ticular, following Rodriguez-Iturbe et al. and Botter et al. (2007) the
term ξ(λp, αpAc) is modeled as a stationary Poisson process where the
events occur at random times with mean frequency λp [T −1], and
random, exponentially distributed depths, with mean αp [L] over the
wetland contributing area Ac. The term ξ(λ, αpAgw) represents the sto-
chastic water input from the root zone to the groundwater due to a
sequence of censored rainfall events, over the groundwater contributing
area Agw (Porporato et al., 2004). Effective rainfall events take place
with frequency λ < λp and are also represented by a marked Poisson
process (Botter et al., 2007).
The frequency λ of these censored episodic events produced by the
infiltrating precipitation can be expressed in terms of the underlying
rainfall, soil and vegetation properties (Botter et al., 2007; Porporato
et al., 2004). In this study, we follow the model proposed by Porporato
et al. (2004):
DI γ γ / DI exp(−γ )
λ = λp
γ Γ(γ / DI , γ ) (3)
where DI is Budyko dryness index (Budyko, 1974) and represents the
ratio between the mean potential evapotranspiration ⟨ET⟩ and the long-
term mean of rainfall ⟨P⟩, given by the product, αpλp. Moreover, γ
defines the ratio between the soil-water storage capacity nZr (θfc − θw )
and the mean rainfall depth αp, where n is the porosity of the soil, Zr the
root zone depth, and θfc and θw representing respectively, the field
capacity and the wilting point. In Eq. (3), Γ(γ/DI, γ) represents the
lower incomplete gamma function of parameters γ/DI and γ.
Fig. 1. Schematic representation of the wetland-
groundwater coupled model. The water inputs are
represented by the rainfall and water losses are
driven by the ET from wetland surface. The exchange
term can be either an additional input (infiltration
from groundwater to wetland) or an additional loss
(exfiltration from wetland to shallow groundwater.
L.E. Bertassello et al.
The second term on the right-hand side of Eq. (1) stands for the
volumetric water loss through evapotranspiration. In particular ET [L/
T] represents the temporally averaged ET rate, A(W) [L2] the water
surface area which changes over time as a function of water volume. In
Eq. (2), ET losses are accounted for in the censoring of the rain fre-
quency from λp to λ (Eq. (3)).
The second term on the right hand side of Eq. (2) expresses shallow
groundwater losses due to hydrologic recession dynamics. Accordingly,
K2 [1/T] represents the linearized rate for shallow groundwater reces-
sion. The last term on the right hand side of Eq. (1), K1 [h (W ) − z ] S (W ),
describes the rate of water exchange between wetland and shallow
groundwater through a wetted surface area, S(W). This process is
modeled following a generalized Darcy’s law, where the hydraulic
gradient is defined by the difference between the wetland pool level (h)
and groundwater stage (z), and K1 [1/T] is the recession of the wetland
bottom layer, which depends on hydraulic conductivity and the mean
thickness of the bottom layer. This gradient term can be positive or
negative, depending on the wetland and groundwater levels. When the
groundwater depth, z, is below the pool stage in the wetland, h, the
term represents exfiltration from the wetland to upland and ground-
water. When groundwater depth is higher than the pool level, the ex-
change term represents the infiltration from the groundwater into the
wetland. When the sediment layer is completely impermeable (K1=0),
there is no exchange with groundwater. In this case, pool stage dy-
namics are defined only by the rainfall and the ET. Since the goal of the
paper is to investigate the impact of the groundwater on wetland hy-
drology, the solution for this scenario is presented in Supplementary
Material (Section S-1).
The exchange term, K1 [h (W ) − z ] S (W ), should appear also in
Eq. (2); however, since the groundwater volume is much larger com-
pared to that of a single wetland (Wgw ≫ W), the volume of water ex-
changed between the two hydrologic storages can be neglected in
Eq. (2).
The solution of Eq. (1) requires an explicit link between the volume
of groundwater and the water table z, which is identified as:
Wgw
z=
Agw n (z )
In particular, the drainable porosity, n(z), is strongly affected by the soil
properties and soil water content profile, and strongly varies when the
water table is close to the ground surface (Laio et al., 2009). For this
reason, we modeled n as a function of the water level z following the
approach developed by Acharya et al. (2012):
⎧ −⎛ b + 1 ⎞ ⎫
⎜ ⎟
n (z ) = (θs − θr ) 1 − (1 + (η (z − H ))b) ⎝ b ⎠
⎨ ⎬
⎩ ⎭
where θs and θr are respectively the saturated water content and the
residual water content, while η and b are soil-specific parameters of the
modified van Genuchten retention model (van Genuchten, 1980) in-
troduced by Troch et al. (2003). Note that in Eq. (5), the suction at the
soil surface is modeled for a hydrostatic pressure distribution. However,
Eq. (4) is now circular since it defines z in terms of drainable porosity,
which is function of z. Thus, the groundwater level can be evaluated
only by solving numerically, Eq. (4), or by assuming a constant, effec-
tive value for the drainable porosity. The impact of the time variant
drainable porosity on the dynamics of groundwater and wetland stage
is further discussed in the Supplementary Material (Section S-2).
2.2. Wetland bathymetry
It is necessary to define the relationships between the depression
area (A), volume (W) and depth of water (h) for a wetland. We use a
simple power-function model for wetland volume-area-depth
(W − A − h ) relationships, from Hayashi and van der (2000) and
Advances in Water Resources 112 (2018) 214–223
Brooks and Hayashi (2002), and modified by Park et al. (2014) for
normalized variables (W*, A*, and h*) to simplify the derivation of the
pdf:
A* = (h*) β /1 − β (6)
W * = (h*)1/1 − β (7)
where A* = A/ Amax , W * = W / Wmax and h* = h/ h max . Amax , Wmax and
hmax are respectively the maximum value for area, volume and stage. β
is an empirical parameter that determines the shape of wetland slope.
While the theoretical range of β is (0,1), according to field survey data
presented in Hayashi and van der (2000) and Brooks and
Hayashi (2002), it generally ranges from 0.20 to 0.65.
As shown in Eq. (1), the wetland-groundwater exchange is modu-
lated by the wetted area in the pool Sw, which is calculated from the
integration of the circular perimeter of the wetland with radius rw along
its depth h. The wetted area in the pool can be expressed as:
h 4 π Wmax
Sw = ∫0 2πrw dh =
(2 − β ) Amax
(W *)(1 − β /2)
(8)
Eq. (8) shows that the wetted area in the pool Sw is a non-linear function
of normalized water volume W*.
2.3. Steady-state pdf for wetland-groundwater systems
The goal here is to determine a form for the analytical pdfs for the
water volume inside the wetland. Methodologically, the dynamics of
the coupled bivariate non-linear system, Eqs. (1), (2) and (4), can be
solved only numerically. In order to derive analytical expression for the
pdf, we considered the groundwater level as fixed around its long-term
mean level ⟨z⟩, which can be either above or below wetland bottom,
thus exerting hydrologic influence on pool dynamics. Thus, influence,
in the mean, of shallow groundwater on wetland stage dynamics is
considered, but temporal variability of such effects are not considered
in the analytical model. In order to derive an analytical expression for
⟨z⟩, the expectation of the mass balance Eq. (2) is taken, ending up
with:
(4)
λαp Agw
Wgw =
K2 (9)
The robustness of this assumption is analyzed in Section 4.2 with the
aid of numerical simulations.
To calculate ⟨z⟩ from 〈Wgw〉, the dependence of the drainable
porosity on the groundwater level (Eq. (4)) needs to be accounted for.
However, the steady-state pdf for the water volume is derived by con-
sidering that the groundwater is fixed around its mean level (⟨z⟩).
(5) Therefore, the drainable porosity is not subjected to any variation
(Supplementary Material, Section S-2). Under this assumption, from
Eq. (9) we have:
λαp
z =
K2 n ( z ) (10)
which has to be solved numerically, or by assuming an effective value
for n.
The pdf for wetland volume consists of writing the mass balance
Eq. (1) scaled with maximum volume Wmax :
dW *
= −ρ* (W *) + ξ (λp , r2 αp)
dt (11)
where r2 is the ratio between the contributing area of the wetland Ac
and Wmax and W * = W / Wmax is the normalized pool water storage. In
Eq. (11), the function ρ*(W*) includes both the volumetric water loss by
ET and the wetland-groundwater exchange term. Therefore, the func-
tion ρ*(W*) can be expressed as:
ρ* (W *) = ETr1 (W *) β + p1 (W *)2 − 3β /2 + p2 (W *)1 − β /2 (12)
216
L.E. Bertassello et al. Advances in Water Resources 112 (2018) 214–223

−1
where the three terms on the right hand side represent respectively loss 1 1 1⎤
driven by ET (with r1 = Amax / Wmax ), exfiltration from the wetland to C=⎡ ∫0 I (W *) dW * +
⎢ ETr1 λp ⎥
⎣ ⎦ (22)
groundwater, and infiltration from groundwater into the wetland. The
coefficients p1 and p2 which describe these processes can be expressed Then the solution in Eq. (20) is expressed as:
as:
1 ϕ*r
pW (W *) = I (W *) + δ (W *)
4 π ∫
1
I (W *) dW * + ϕ*r ∫
1
I (W *) dW * + ϕ*r
p1 = hmax K1 0 0
(2 − β ) Amax (13)
(23)
4 π Eq. (23) is, in fact, a generalized solution for water storage dynamics in
p2 = (hgw − z ) K1
(2 − β ) Amax (14) a non-linear reservoir subject to shot noise (Park et al., 2014) and
where hgw is the thickness of the aquifer. coupled with the groundwater.
Using this loss/gain function and following the approach developed
by Botter et al. (2009), the steady-state pdf for W* can be expressed as: 2.4. Groundwater-dominated wetlands

C W*
pW (W *) =
ρ* (W *)
exp ⎧ −
⎨
+ λp ∫ ρ* (W 1*) dW * ⎫⎬ + C
δ (W *) As the hydrologic resistivity of the wetland bottom approaches zero
(i.e. K1 ≫ 0), the time-lag between wetland stage and the shallow
⎩ αp r2 ⎭ λp
(15) groundwater table diminishes, such that the wetland is simply surface
expression of the groundwater level. In such cases, wetland stage and
where the first term on the right-hand side expresses the continuous part groundwater depth are deterministically linked at all times, and tem-
of the pdf when 0 < W* ≤ 1, while the second term is the atom of poral variability of the wetland is described entirely by the dynamics of
probability in W * = 0 (i.e., fraction of time when W * = 0 ) and there is the shallow groundwater. The groundwater-wetland coupled model
no open water in the wetland. The term C is a normalization constant (Section 2.3) tends to converge to model governed only by the
1
that ensures ∫0 pw (u) du = 1. groundwater as K1, approaches infinity. However, this convergence
Because of the nature of the inverse of the loss/gain function in cannot be easily shown analytically using Eq. (23) since the loss term
Eq. (15), a closed form expression for pW (W *) can not be obtained. inside the steady state pdf approaches infinity for K1 → ∞. Therefore,
Hence, pW (W *) needs to be calculated numerically. the dynamics of a wetland with low bottom resistance have to be in-
The shape of the pdf is controlled by the wetland shape parameter,
vestigated by reformulating the water balance for a groundwater
β, and the following scaled parameters:
system recharged by effective rainfall.
ETr1 ETAmax Here, we investigate how well this approximation represents ob-
ϕ* = =
αp λp r2 αp λ p A c (16) served stage variations in a case study (Section 4.3). In this model we
no longer need a separate wetland mass balance Eq. (1) and we only
r = αp r2 (17) conceptualize the groundwater as a linear reservoir, whose dynamics
p1 follow the mass balance in Eq. (2) with a constant drainable porosity. If
ɛ1 = this mass balance is expressed in terms of the groundwater stage z, we
ETr1 (18)
obtain:
p2
ɛ2 = dz αp
ETr1 (19) = −K2 z + ξ ⎛λ, ⎞
dt ⎝ n⎠ (24)
These parameters can be physically interpreted as follows; ϕ* is a
normalized aridity index, which quantifies the ratio of ET rate occur- According to Eq. (24), the groundwater dynamics are completely de-
ring from the maximum water surface relative to the mean water input scribed in terms of stage. Assuming that wetland stage is at hydrologic
rate from rainfall events occurring over the contributing area; r is the equilibrium with the shallow groundwater level, the only parameter
average volumetric input per event, scaled to the maximum volume of needed is wetland bottom elevation. Note that given the groundwater
the wetland; ε1 is interpreted as the ratio of exfiltration to evapo- level at any time, it is possible to know when the wetland starts to fill.
transpiration losses when W* = 1; ε2 is interpreted as the ratio of in- This happens when the groundwater is close to and above the wetland
filtration to evapotranspiration losses when W* = 1. The additional bottom. In terms of pdf, this can be quantified considering the ex-
parameter, ε2, compared to Park et al. (2014) model, accounts for the ceedance probability P[z > zb] where zb is the threshold that corre-
possible infiltration contribution from shallow groundwater into the sponds to the wetland bottom evaluated from the reference point of the
wetland. groundwater. Furthermore, when there is a known maximum wetland
The steady state pdf for wetland storage can be expanded using stage above the ground surface (zmax ), such as from surface drainage
these dimensionless parameters as: outlets, it is possible to confine the groundwater stage also to this upper
boundary.
C ⎡ 1 ⎤ exp ⎧ 1 If we shift the datum at the bottom of the wetland, zb, and we scale
pW (W *) =
ETr1 ⎢ β
⎣ (W * ) + ɛ1 (W *)
(2 − 3β /2) + ɛ (W *) (1 − β /2) ⎥
2 ⎦ ⎨
⎩r the mass balance Eq. (24) to the maximum depth of the wetland
(h max = zmax − z b ), we can describe the dynamics of the wetland nor-
ETr1
− ⎡−W * +
⎢ ϕ*
∫ ρ* (W 1*) dW * ⎤⎥ ⎫⎬ + C
λp
δ (W *) malized stages h* = (z − z b)/ h max . When h* approaches zero, the wet-
⎣ ⎦⎭ (20) land is almost completely dry, while a value of h* close to 1, indicates a
By letting, full wetland. Thus, the mass balance given in Eq. (24), is expressed in
terms of h* as:
1 1
I (W *) = exp ⎧ dh* αp ⎞
(W *) β + ɛ1 (W *)(2 − 3β /2) + ɛ2 (W *)(1 − β /2) ⎨
⎩r = −K2 h* + ξ ⎛λ, ⎜ ⎟

dt ⎝ hmax n ⎠ (25)
ETr1
− ⎡−W * +
⎢ ϕ*
∫ ρ* (W 1*) dW * ⎤⎥ ⎫⎬ The steady state solution for the pdf of the wetland normalized
⎣ ⎦⎭ (21)
stages h* is obtained following Porporato et al. (2004) and
we can compute the normalizing constant C by knowing that Botter et al. (2007). The general solution for the mass balance Eq. (25)
1
∫0 pw (W *)) dW * = 1. Thus, can be expressed by a gamma distribution:

217
L.E. Bertassello et al.
Fig. 2. Site map of Florida with the location of the two studied wetlands. Case Study 1 represents the wetland located within the boundaries of the SFWMD and is located in Lake
Okeechobee watershed. Case Study 2 represents the wetland located within the boundaries of the SWFWMD and is located in Tampa Bay watershed. In this inset, which is taken from
SWFWMD website, it is shown that the wetland is located below the Starkey well boundary.
γH(λ / K2)
ph (h*) = exp(−γH h*)(h*)(λ / K2− 1)
Γ(λ / K2)
where the parameter γH = h max n/ αp represents the mean normalized
stage increment due to incoming rainfall.
From Eq. (26), it is evident that the pdf of the normalized wetland
stage is completely described by three parameters: γH, λ and K2. In
particular, the ratio λ/K2 is the key parameter which defines the shape
of the pdf. When (λ/K2) > 1 the pdf is a bell shape, typical of a wet
regime, while when (λ/K2) < 1, the shape switches to monotonically
decreasing, indicating a dry regime (Botter et al., 2013). Thus,
(λ / K2) = 1 serves as an important threshold for separating dry (erratic)
and humid (persistent) hydrologic regimes for wetlands in equilibrium
with the groundwater. However, since we are considering a domain
bounded at the bottom (h* = 0 ) and at the top of the wetland (h* = 1), it
is necessary to truncate this pdf and account for the atoms of probability
that quantify the probability to observe a completely dry wetland
(h* = 0 ) and the full-pool stage (h* = 1). In order to fully characterizes
these scenarios it is necessary to define two atoms of probability:
p0 (h* = 0) = P [z < z b] δ (z ) = P [h* < 0] δ (h*)
p1 (h* = 1) = P [z > z max ] δ (h* − 1) = P [h* > 1] δ (h* − 1)
Therefore, the full analytical expression for the pdf of the wetland
normalized stages h* can be defined as:
γH(λ / K2)
ph (h*) = exp(−γH h*)(h*)(λ / K2− 1) H [1 − h*] H [h*] + p0 (h* = 0)
Γ(λ / K2)
+ p1 (h* = 1)
where H represents the Heaviside step function. In this case, the shape
of the pdf expressed in Eq. (29) is not only influenced by the ratio λ/K2,
but is also affected by the truncation due to the atoms of probability,
which may transform a hump-shaped pdf into a monotonically de-
creasing. The expression for the steady-state pdf of the normalized stage
h*, given by Eq. (29) is useful since it represents a general approach for
modeling long-term dynamics of GIW with permeable bottom, and in
equilibrium with shallow groundwater.
Advances in Water Resources 112 (2018) 214–223
2.5. Threshold crossing times
(26)
The duration of water stage excursion above and below some
threshold level is of crucial importance for the management of the GIW
as viable aquatic habitats or to perform some critical biogeochemical
functions. One possible way to represent these characteristics is to
analyse the crossing properties at some specific levels of water volume
(or stage) that are important for the system.
In general, for a stochastic variable x that obeys the Langevin
equation:
dx
= −ρ (x ) + ξ
dt (30)
where ξ is a marked Poisson noise and ρ(x) the loss function, the time
interval, τI, elapsed between an upcrossing and a subsequent down-
crossing of a threshold ξ is a new stochastic variable. The mean of this
variable, TI(ξ), represents the average interarrival between an up-
crossing of the threshold from below and the subsequent downcrossing
from above (Tamea et al., 2011):
(27) 1 − PE (x )
TI =
ρ (x ) p (x ) (31)
(28)
where the terms PE(x), p(x) and ρ(x) represent respectively, the cumu-
lative non-exceedance probability, the pdf and the loss function of the
relevant variable. Similarly, the time interval, τE, elapsed between a
downcrossing and a subsequent upcrossing is a stochastic variable,
whose average value is:
PE (x )
TE =
(29) ρ (x ) p (x ) (32)
In our analysis, the variable x could be either the normalized volume of
the wetland W*, as in Eq. (11), or the normalized stage of the wetland
h*, as in Eq. (25).
To compute the observed exposure times, TE, a threshold is selected
for either the normalized volume of the wetland (W*) or the normalized
stage of the wetland (h*). Then, the upcrossing and downcrossing
events are identified, and the interarrivals between a downcrossing and
the following upcrossing are calculated. Finally, the mean value of all
218
L.E. Bertassello et al. Advances in Water Resources 112 (2018) 214–223

Table 1
Parameters of the model for the two case studies.

Model parameter Description Lake Okeechobee Tampa Bay Source

Measured
hmax [m] Max depth 0.5 0.8 Nilsson et al. (2013); Park et al. (2014)
Amax [ha] Max surface area 1.8 3.2 Min et al. (2010); Nilsson et al. (2013)
Ac [ha] Contributing area 3.0 Park et al. (2014)
Wmax [m3] Max volume 4230 Park et al. (2014)
β Wetland profile coefficient 0.53 Park et al. (2014)
ET [mm/d] Evapotranspiration 3.6 2.7 Abtew (2001); Bidlake et al. (2006)
αp [mm] Mean rainfall depth 9.1 12.5
λp [1/d] Mean rainfall frequency 0.41 0.29
Estimated
hgw [m] Aquifer thickness 0.5
n Drainabel porosity 0.09 0.3
Zr [cm] Root Zone 25 25
θfc Field capacity 0.45 0.5
θw Wilting point 0.15 0.15
Derived
λ [1/d] Mean effective frequency 0.27 0.16 Eq. (3)
⟨z⟩ [m] Mean groundwater level 0.65 Eq. (4)
ϕ* Aridity index 0.58 Eq. (16)
r Average volumetric input 0.06 Eq. (17)
ε1 Exfiltration rate 1.85 Eq. (18)
ε2 Infiltration rate -0.76 Eq. (19)
Calibrated
K1 [1/d] Sediment layer recession 1.56
K2 [1/d] Groundwater recession 0.045 0.014

these interarrivals was computed. This procedure is then repeated for the NPE is 14.3 m. Therefore, the difference between these values
different thresholds. (0.8 m) is the estimated maximum depth.

3. Case studies, hydrological data and calibration 3.2. Hydrological data

3.1. Case studies
Two karst plain depressional GIWs in different parts of Florida
(USA) are considered as representative cases studies in this paper: one
in the Lake Okeechobee watershed and one in the Tampa Bay wa-
tershed (Fig. 2).
Min et al. (2010) monitored water levels in four GIWs in the Lake
Okeechobee basin, and we used their data for the wetland labeled BW1
(27°24′34.00′′ N, 80°56′48.76′′ W) because the stage dynamics of this
wetland were least affected by artificial drainage. This wetland is
characterized by a maximum surface area of about 1.8 ha, and the only
ditch present in the wetland is located at a height of 0.5 m from the
bottom, which imposes the maximum stage of the wetland. Note that
for the major part of the depressional wetlands present in the region the
depth is never larger than one meter and they typically exhibit a bowl
or elongated bowl-shape. Bhadha and Jawitz (2010) studied a similar
wetland in the area and found that the soil immediately below wetlands
(0 − 2m ) is characterized by a higher organic matter content with an
order of magnitude lower hydraulic conductivity compared to upland
soils. Thus, the wetland bottom restricts rate of upland-wetland water
exchange. Below this 2 m, a clay-rich soil layer is present.
The second wetland selected for this study is located south of the
Starkey well-field boundary (Nilsson et al., 2013) and classified as a
cypress wetland. Wetland planar area (A=3.2 ha) was calculated from
the Geographic Information System (GIS) Land Use 1999 (SWFWMD
2007) and it corresponds to the wetland surface extent. Additionally,
wetland dry bed elevation (DBE) and normal pool elevation (NPE) have
been previously identified by South West Florida Water Management
District (SWFWMD) staff. The wetland DBE was evaluated as the dry
reading mark in the staff gauge and assumed to be the lowest point in
the wetland (Nilsson et al., 2013). The wetland NPE corresponds to
physical and vegetative markers, i.e., inflection points on the buttresses
of cypress trees (Carr et al., 2006). In this wetland, the DBE based on
the National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 (NGVD) is 13.5 m, and
Florida wetland BW1 was already analyzed by Park et al. (2014),
therefore, for this wetland, data are available in terms of both stages
and volume storages of the wetland. In order to normalize these data,
the elevation of the ditch bottom has been used to set hmax , while the
maximum water volume recorded during the entire period of observa-
tion, was used as Wmax . In addition, the time series of the upland
groundwater is also available (Min et al., 2010). In this study, we ex-
amined wetland and groundwater dynamics during the wet season from
August to October 2003. Wetland dynamics during the dry season,
when the groundwater stage us far below the wetland bottom, have
been examined by Park et al. (2014). Rainfall data for the wet period
under consideration were downloaded from the South Florida Water
Management District (SFWMD) hydrologic database. These daily pre-
cipitation data were measured at the Basset station (27°24′41.10′′ N,
80°55′16.2′′ W), 2.3 km from to the studied wetland.
In the second case study, wetland stage level was monitored daily by
South West Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD) over a
period of twelve years, from 2003 to 2015. Rainfall data were down-
loaded from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) website for the station located in the Tampa International
Airport for the same period. Groundwater monitoring data from a well
near the Tampa Bay site were also obtained from the SWFWMD hy-
drologic database. However, these are at lower temporal resolution
(monthly) compared to daily data for stage measured in a well located
in the middle of the wetland.
3.3. Estimation of model parameters
The wetland-groundwater model developed in Section 2.2 was ca-
librated based on the observation data from the study wetland during
August 2003-October 2003 from the Lake Okeechobee wetland. The
mean rainfall depth, αp, was calculated as the observed mean daily
depth during wet days, mean rainfall frequency, λp, was calculated as
the relative proportion of wet days, while monthly average ET rate is

219
L.E. Bertassello et al.
Fig. 3. (A) Comparison between temporal patterns of rainfall and normalized water vo-
lume in the Lake Okeechobee wetland (BW1). The blue line represents the model pattern,
while red circles represent the observations collected by Min et al. (2010). (B) Compar-
ison between the observed pdfs generated from data of Min et al. (2010) (bar histograms)
with the steady state pW (W *) (Eq. (23)). (C) Comparison between the observed mean
exposure time generated from the data (red circles) and the analytical model presented in
Eq. (32) for the same period (blue solid line). Fifty-years Monte Carlo simulation are also
reported for both the pdf and exposure times (blue circles). (For interpretation of the
references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this
article.)
provided by Carr et al. (2006) and is reported in Table 1. Based on the
hmax value, we evaluated the contributing area of the site using the
relation Ac = Amax /0.6 following the stage-area relationship presented
in Min et al. (2010). The wetland profile coefficient β (Table 1) was
estimated from survey data reported in the same paper.
The groundwater table parameters were estimated using the ob-
served data. The mean frequency for the effective rainfall events re-
charging groundwater, λ, was obtained from precipitation and ET data
by means of Eq. (3), using the n, Zr, s1 and sw values in Table 1. Then,
220
Advances in Water Resources 112 (2018) 214–223
the recession constant of the groundwater, K2, was calibrated on the
basis of its lowest mean square error (MSE) between the numerical si-
mulations and the observed time series. The calibration was performed
using both a time varying drainable porosity, n(z), following
Acharya et al. (2012), and also using a constant value for this variable.
Table 1 reports only the parameters obtained from the latter method.
The alternative calibration procedures are reported in the Supplemen-
tary Material, and they provide similar results.
Calibration to estimate wetland recession constant (K1) was based
on the match between the observed wetland stage time series and the
model simulations (see Table 1). In particular, the time series simulated
by the model through Eq. (1) is an expression of the coupled ground-
water-wetland dynamics.
For the Tampa Bay wetland, αp and λp were calculated from the data
available during the period 2003–2015. The two key parameters of the
groundwater-dominated model are λ and K2. In this case the variation
of the drainable porosity can be neglected since we are considering only
the time periods during which the groundwater level is above the
wetland bottom. Therefore, the porosity is constant and its value is
reported in Table 1. The estimation of the recession constant K2 is
performed following the method developed in Basso et al. (2015). From
the water stage record we considered only those recessions that happen
above the dry bed. Then, every recession was estimated through a
linear regression between the temporal derivatives of z (dz/dt) and the
corresponding observed z. We selected the median value as the reces-
sion constant from all estimated values.
4. Results
4.1. Sensitivity analysis
The dependence of the pdf shapes for normalized water volume, p
(W*), (Eq. (23) and mean exposure times, TE, (Eq. (32) on morphologic
and hydro-climatic attributes, was explored by varying the five scaled
parameters ϕ*, ε1, ε2, r and β. The detailed results of the sensitivity
analysis are reported and commented in Supplementary Material
(Section S-3).
This analysis showed that four scaled parameters (ϕ*, r, ε1, ε2) have
largest impact on the shape of p(W*) and TE: two are related to the
hydroclimatic forcing (ϕ*) and wetland bathymetry (r), and the other
two define hydrologic recession of wetland bottom (ε1) and shallow
groundwater (ε2).
Scaled aridity index, ϕ*, which represents the ratio of potential ET
rate to the water input due to rainfall, has a large impact on the shape of
p(W*) and TE. As ϕ* increases from low to high values, the pdf shifts
from a monotonically increasing distribution, with its mode con-
centrated near the maximum volume, towards a monotonically de-
creasing pdf with high probability of low levels of the volume of water
inside the wetland (Figure S2 A-B). The shapes for p(W*) and TE are also
influenced by the parameter ε1 (Figure S2 C-D), which is a function of
the wetland bottom recession constant, K1, and ε2 (Figure S2 E-F),
which is controlled by the groundwater recession constant K2 and the
drainable porosity n. Larger values of ε1 and positive values of ε2 shift
the mean of p(W*) towards lower normalized volume because the ex-
filtration process dominates. The pattern of the mean exposure times
reflects this behavior. Under these conditions the water losses are re-
levant and so the time spent by the system at lower volumes is large. On
the other hand, when ε2 is negative, the infiltration from the ground-
water drives the mean of pdf of the normalized volume towards larger
volumes. The shape of p(W*) and TE is also sensitive to the parameter r
(Figure S2 G-H) that is related to the maximum volume of the wetland.
When this parameter is large, the wetland tends to be smaller and
therefore more sensitive to the fluctuations of the volume; the variance
of p(W*) is large and the mean exposure times are small. When r de-
creases the variance of p(W*) decreases and converges to a Gaussian
distribution, while the exposure times are longer. Instead, the shapes
L.E. Bertassello et al.
for p(W*) and TE are quite insensitive to variations of β (Figure S2 I-J).
4.2. Lake Okeechobee wetland
Time series of the W* from the data collected by Min et al. (2010)
for the Lake Okeechobee wetland (BW1) are compared with the cali-
brated numerical simulation in Fig. 3A. These results were calculated
by solving Eq. (11) where water inputs to the systems were the actual
rainfall data measured at Basset station, while the groundwater level z
was obtained from Eqs. (2) and (4) with a constant value of n. The
results obtained using a drainable porosity dependent on z are discussed
in the Supplementary Material (Section S-2). The numerical model re-
produces the coupled dynamics of the two systems (Fig. 3A). These
results emphasize that the recession of the bottom layer, K1, which is
embedded in the definition of ε1, is the key parameter governing cou-
pled dynamics between wetland and groundwater.
Comparison between the analytical (blue solid line) and observed
pdf (red circles) of the W*, shows that the analytical pdf captures the
observed frequency distribution of W* (Fig. 3B). The observed period is
characterized by a high probability associated with larger volumes,
typical of a “wet” regime.
Q-Q plots were used to estimate the error between analytical and
observed pdfs. The procedure consists on building the Q-Q plot by using
9 quantiles ranging from 0.1 to 0.9 and then calculating the MSE be-
tween the simulated quantiles and those achieved from the real data.
The result confirms the good agreement between the observed and the
analytical pdfs, despite the assumption of having considered the
groundwater as fixed around its mean level. Observed pdf is strongly
affected by the initial condition, since the available data are restricted
to only one season of the year. This may be why the analytical pdf
underestimates the lower normalized volumes in the initial days of the
season (Fig. 3A). Another reason that could lead to this underestimation
is related to the assumption of considering a simple bathymetry for the
wetland (constant value of the shape parameter β), while the actual
landscape topography is perhaps more complex.
Fig. 3C compares the analytical mean exposure time obtained by
solving Eq. (32) and the observed values derived from field data. The
general trend (one season), of mean exposure times given by Eq. (32), is
similar to the observed pattern. However, the data from
Min et al. (2010) are for short term, and do not allow a robust analysis
of mean crossing times for a wide range of thresholds. In particular, the
wetland time series of Fig. 3A shows that the wetland tends to remain at
higher level for much of the time (W * = 1 means a full wetland),
without significant excursion in the lower part of the state space, that
are essential to better represent the observed dynamics crossing times.
Analyses based on multi-year data were performed with data from the
Tampa Bay wetland, as discussed next.
4.3. Tampa Bay wetland
For the Tampa Bay wetland, we present the results of the applica-
tion of the groundwater-dominated wetland model (Section 2.4), in-
stead of the groundwater-wetland coupled model (Section 2.3) which
was applied to Lake Okeechobee wetland. The results achieved using
the latter model show that the analytical pdf is not able to correctly
reproduce the wetland dynamics, primarily because the assumption of
fixed (at steady state level) groundwater is not valid. This statement is
supported by the stage pdf obtained by solving Eqs. (1) and (2), where
the groundwater is free to fluctuate. In this case, the numerical pdf of
normalized stage for the coupled model is more similar to the observed
pattern. Further details are reported in the Supplementary Material
(Section S-4).
Fig. 4 presents the results of the application of the groundwater
dominated models to the Tampa Bay wetland. The analytical pdf solu-
tion expressed by Eq. (29), reproduces the empirical pdf based on h*
observed in the wetland. Zero value on the x-axis represents a
221
Advances in Water Resources 112 (2018) 214–223
completely empty wetland, while the value of h* = 1 represents a full
wetland. The pdf of wetland stage is characterized by a bell shape, ty-
pical of a wet regime. In fact, this is confirmed by ratio (λ/K2) ≃ 15.
Good agreement was observed (Fig. 4A) between analytical and the
observed p(h*), although the analytical solution tends to slightly
overestimate the probability of high stages. This discrepancy could be
explained by a small error in the proposed normal pool elevation. The
observed pdf shows that the wetland never exceeded h* = 0.95, corre-
sponding to a height of 14.25 m. However, the value of the normal pool
elevation provided by the SWFWMD was 14.3 m. The analytical solu-
tion tends also to underestimate the probability of low normalized
stages, h*. As for the Lake Okeechobee wetland, one of the possible
reasons is related to the assumption of a simple bathymetry, instead of a
more complex shape. In addition, the simplified model expressed in
Eq. (25) assuming groundwater fluctuations to be the dominant factor
controlling stage dynamics, underestimates the role of second-order
effects by neglecting the coupled dynamics. This is evident in p(h*)
based on long-term time series generated by numerical simulations
presented in the Supplementary Material (Figure S4 A). Here, the nu-
merical pdf better reproduce the lower normalized stages.
The analytical mean exposure times trend (solid line) is compared
(Fig. 4B) with the observed mean exposure times (circles) obtained
from the analysis of the stage record. As the threshold increases the
mean exposure time increases as well, indicating the tendency that the
lower points of the wetland tend to be flooded for a longer period. The
analytical solution tends to overestimate the exposure time spent at
higher stages.
5. Discussion
The stochastic models we presented in this work and in our earlier
paper (Park et al., 2014), present multiple analytical pdf solutions for
the study of geographically isolated wetland hydrologic dynamics. The
proposed models are summarized in Table 2 along with the key para-
meters that define the shapes of the probability density function and
crossing times.
Comparison of short-term observed time series for Lake Okeechobee
wetland with the simulations obtained from Eqs. (1) and (2) showed
good agreement. Despite the limited time period (one season) for which
data are available, and simplification of considering the groundwater
depth as being fixed around its long-term mean level (thus avoiding
solving the joint pdf for groundwater stage and wetland volume), the
analytical pdf of W* captures well the observed values. Because a closed
form for the analytical p(W*), which accounts for the coupled dynamics
between wetland and groundwater could not be derived, in Fig. 3 we
reported also the results in terms of pdf and exposure times TE from a
50-years Monte Carlo numerical simulation, using the numerical model
with time-variable groundwater depths. These simulations were ob-
tained by solving the system of Eqs. (1) and (2), thus accounting for the
coupled dynamics between wetland and groundwater. The numerical
simulations were obtained forcing the systems with 50 years of syn-
thetic rainfall evaluated fixing αp and λp. In addition, the non-dimen-
sional parameters that describe the pdf of W* were kept constant from
the results of the calibration procedure.
Fig. 3 shows that numerical Monte Carlo simulation tends to better
reproduce the observed pattern of p(W*), since in this model the
groundwater fluctuates and strongly interacts with the wetland pool. In
addition, especially for larger volume, the analytical model (Eq. 23),
tends to overestimate p(W*) and, therefore, underestimate TE. Exposure
times estimated using the long-term simulations (Monte Carlo) with the
numerical model (Eq. (1) and (2)) more closely follow the trends pre-
dicted by the analytical model for the and mean exposure times
(Eq. (32)). Despite this, the analytical pdf and analytical TE derived by
assuming a constant value for the groundwater are not significantly
different from the results of the numerical simulation.
Arguably, the assumption of steady groundwater depth is
L.E. Bertassello et al.
particularly effective for Lake Okeechobee wetland because the shallow
groundwater did not frequently cross the wetland stage. Shallow
groundwater rises above wetland pool only 25 days out of 92. In sup-
port to these considerations, the values of the infiltration parameter is
ε2 is -0.76, indicating a weak tendency for groundwater to infiltrate into
the wetland. This analysis suggests that the assumption made by
Park et al. (2014) in an earlier study, where the wetland was re-
presented as affected only by an effective exfiltration process, is justi-
fied.
For the Tampa Bay wetland, stage is just an expression of the
groundwater dynamics, because the wetland is flooded only when the
water-table rises above wetland bottom. Differently from the Lake
Okeechobee wetland, in the Tampa Bay wetland scenario the seasonal
effects of short-term data are not relevant. In fact, here we have a long
record (12 years at daily scale) and, therefore we can perform a long-
term analysis, thus comparison of empirical and analytical pdf of stages
provides a robust assessment.
The main assumption underlying the groundwater-dominated
model is that equilibrium is instantaneously reached between shallow
groundwater and the wetland level once groundwater crosses the
wetland bottom. Resistivity of the wetland bottom is assumed to be low
enough that it does not control lag in the hydrologic response of the
wetland. This scenario in which the wetland is just a surface-water
expression of the shallow groundwater is useful for the hydrological
modeling of multiple wetlands in a region that is forced by the same
rainfall and shallow regional groundwater. Once the relative position of
the wetlands bottom with respect to water-table is known, its stage
dynamics can be evaluated based only on groundwater fluctuations.
For both types of wetlands in Florida, we also derived analytical
expressions for mean crossing times for exceedance of any specified
threshold wetland stage (or volume), and compared them with values
estimated from the time series data from site monitoring. In concert
with other factors, hydrologic threshold-crossing-times have important
implications for determining the suitability of wetlands as aquatic ha-
bitats, and adaptive strategies specific flora and fauna need to adopt for
coping with variable conditions in the wetlands. Thus, the application
of the crossing times theory to wetlands can be very useful from an eco-
hydrological perspective to determine habitat suitability. For example,
particular “specialist” plant species could only survive under conditions
with a small range of hydro-periods, while other “generalist” plants
Table 2
Summary of the models considered in investigating wetland hydrology.
Model Description
Impervious GIW Resistivity of wetland bottom approaches infinity (K1 → 0)
GIW connected to upland Connection to upland is driven by exfiltration
GIW connected to upland and groundwater Exchange between wetland and steady groundwater
Groundwater Dominated GIW Resistivity of wetland bottom approaches zero (K1 → ∞)
222
Advances in Water Resources 112 (2018) 214–223
Fig. 4. (A) Comparison between the ob-
served pdf generated from data (bar histo-
grams) with the steady state pdf presented
in Eq. (29) (red solid lines) in Tampa Bay
wetland. (B) Comparison between the ob-
served mean exposure time generated from
the data (blue circles) and the analytical
model presented in Eq. (32) (red solid lines)
for the same period. (For interpretation of
the references to colour in this figure le-
gend, the reader is referred to the web
version of this article.)
could readily adapt to a wide range of hydrologic conditions.
6. Conclusions
The models described in this paper aim to quantify the effect of
temporal hydrologic variability of storage and stage in GIWs, as influ-
enced by stochastic hydro-climatic forcings (rainfall and evapo-
transpiration) with connectivity to surrounding upland or shallow
groundwater. Starting from the system of Eqs. (1) and (2) and in-
troducing some simplifying assumptions we derived pdf solutions for a
range of scenarios. The first model (Supplementary Material, Section
S1) can be used for a GIW wetland an impervious bottom (K1 ap-
proaches zero), and the wetland is truly isolated from the surrounding
upland and shallow groundwater. The second model (Park et al., 2014),
the wetland bottom has a finite permeability, but the shallow ground-
water level is below the groundwater level such that evaporation plus
exfiltration from GIW to upland are the only loss pathways (ε). In the
third model, the groundwater is located fixed at an elevation close to
the wetland bottom, either below or above the wetland stage, with both
exfiltration (ε1) and infiltration (ε2) as the contributing processes
(Section 2.3). This approximation may underestimate the volume and
stage in the wetland when the groundwater is highly variable and the
wetland sediment layer allows the water exchange between the two
systems. For the fourth case, the wetland bottom is highly permeable
(K1 approaches infinity), enough to offer little hydrologic resistance,
and the shallow groundwater dynamics dominate wetland stage dy-
namics (Section 2.4).
We also present comparisons of the analytical pdfs to empirical pdfs
based on Monte Carlo simulations using a numerical model to examine
adequacy of the simplifying assumptions. Given the limitations on
availability of or access to long-term monitoring data for GIW hy-
drology, we present here comparison to a limited data set from two
GIWs in Florida. Compiling observational data from GIWs in diverse
landscape settings with a range of hydro-climatic forcing (Budyko
Aridity Index) is indeed the focus of our ongoing efforts. Our sensitivity
analyses suggest that long-term GIW stage fluctuations are moderated
by few scaled parameters as reflected in the shifts of the pdf shapes. The
two recession constants, K1 for wetland bottom and K2 for shallow
groundwater, control the relative importance of coupling of wetland
with upland and groundwater, while the hydro-climatic forcing (ϕ*)
Equation Dimensionless parameters
Eq. (S2) ϕ*, r, β
Park et al. (2014) ϕ*, ε, r, β
Eq. (23) ϕ*, ε1, ε2, r, β
Eq. (29) γH, λ/K2
L.E. Bertassello et al.
defines the balance between precipitation inputs and evaporation
losses. We also investigated wetland stage fluctuations based on mean
crossing time above (below) a specified threshold, to characterize the
persistence of certain hydrologic regimes.
For both wetlands, comparisons of stage (volume) pdfs with model
simulations suggest that long-term temporal variability of wetland hy-
drology can be reproduced using few scaled parameters that are ex-
pressions of site-specific hydro-climatic conditions, wetland pool
bathymetry and the size, the influence of shallow groundwater.
Model analyses presented here suggest that different shapes of the
volume and stage pdfs and patterns of mean exposure time can arise
under different climatic and geomorphic conditions. These analyses
may help in the development of a general approach to classify wetland
hydrologic regimes, and in the prediction of the likely ecological re-
sponse of wetland ecosystems to unsteady external forcing. For in-
stance, the proposed framework could allow for a theoretical analysis of
the expected shift in vegetation species in response to climate change
scenarios, or how amphibian population dispersal and survival patterns
are influenced by current hydro-climatic patterns.
Acknowledgements
Financial support for this research was provided in part by NSF
Project 1354900, “Plant Adaptation in Variable Environments”.
Additional funding was provided by the Lee A. Rieth Endowment in the
Lyles School of Civil Engineering, Purdue University.
Supplementary material
Supplementary material associated with this article can be found, in
the online version, at 10.1016/j.advwatres.2017.12.007.
References
Abtew, W., 2001. Evaporation estimation for lake Okeechobee in South Florida. Irrig.
Drain. Eng. 127. 140-7. https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.7887.
Acharya, S., Jawitz, J.W., Mylavarapu, R.S.W., 2012. Analytical expressions for drainable
and fillable porosity of phreatic aquifers under vertical fluxes from evapotranspira-
tion and recharge. Water Resour. Res. 48, W11526. https://doi.org/10.1029/
2012WR012043.
Altermatt, F., Pajunen, V.I., Ebert, D., 2009. Desiccation of rock pool habitats and its
influence on population persistence in a Daphnia metacommunity. PLoS ONE 4 (3),
e4703. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0004703.
Basso, S., Frascati, A., Marani, M., Schirmer, M., Botter, G., 2015. Climatic and landscape
controls on effective discharge. Geophys. Res. Lett 42, 8441–8447. https://doi.org/
10.1002/2015GL066014.
Bhadha, J.H., Jawitz, J.W., 2010. Characterizing deep soils from an impacted subtropical
isolated wetland: implications for phosphorus storage. J. Soils Sediments 10,
514–525. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11368-009-0151-4.
Bidlake, W.R., Woodham, W.M., Lopez, M.A., 2006. Evapotranspiration from areas of
native vegetation in west-central Florida. U.S. Geological Survey water-supply paper.
pp. 2430. http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/ofr93415ER.
Botter, G., Basso, S., Rodriguez-Iturbe, I., Rinaldo, A., 2013. Resilience of river flow re-
gimes. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 110. 12925-30. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.
1311920110.
Botter, G., Porporato, A., Daly, E., Rodriguez-Iturbe, I., Rinaldo, A., 2007. Probabilistic
characterization of base flows in river basins: roles of soil, vegetation, and geomor-
phology. Water Resour. Res. 43, W06404. https://doi.org/10.1029/2006WR005397.
Botter, G., Porporato, A., Rodriguez-Iturbe, I., Rinaldo, A., 2009. Nonlinear storage-dis-
charge relations and catchment streamflow regimes. Water Resour. Res. 45, W10427.
https://doi.org/10.1029/2008wr007658.
Brooks, R.T., Hayashi, M., 2002. Depth-area-volume and hydroperiod relationships of
223
Advances in Water Resources 112 (2018) 214–223
ephemeral (vernal) forest pools in southern New England. Wetlands 22.
247–55.https://dx.doi.org/10.1672/0277-5212(2002)022%5B0247:DAVAHR%5D2.
0.CO;2.
Budyko, M.I., 1974. Climate and life. San Diego, California: Academic, pp. p.508.
Carr, D.W., Leeper, D.A., Rochow, T.F., 2006. Comparison of six biologic indicators of
hydrology and the landward extent of hydric soils in west-central Florida, USA cy-
press domes. Wetlands 26, 1012.
Cheng, F.Y., Basu, N.B., 2017. Biogeochemical hotspots: role of small water bodies in
landscape nutrient processing. Water Resour. Res. 53, 5038–5056. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1002/2016WR020102.
Cronk, J.K., Fennessy, M.S., 2001. Wetland Plants: Biology and Ecology. CRC Press.
Euliss, N.H., Smith, L.M., Wilcox, D.A., Browne, B.A., 2008. Linking ecosystem processes
with wetland management goals: charting a course for a sustainable future. Wetlands
8, 553–562. https://doi.org/10.1672/07-154.1.
van Genuchten, M.T., 1980. A closed-form equation for predicting the hydraulic con-
ductivity of unsaturated soils. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 44 (5), 892–898.
Hayashi, M., van der, K.G., 2000. Simple equations to represent the volume-area-depth
relations of shallow wetlands in small topographic depressions. J. Hydrol. 237,
74–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1694(00)00300-0.
Laio, F., Tamea, S., Ridolfi, L., D’Odorico, P., Rodriguez-Iturbe, I., 2009. Ecohydrology of
groundwater-dependent ecosystems: 1. stochastic water table dynamics. Water
Resour. Res. 45, W05419. https://doi.org/10.1029/2008wr007292.
Leibowitz, S.G., 2015. Geographically isolated wetlands: why we should keep the term.
Wetlands 35 (5), 997–1003. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13157-015-0691-x.
Marton, J.M., Creed, I.F., Lewis, D.B., Lane, C.R., Basu, N.B., Cohen, M.J., Craft, C.B.,
2015. Geographically isolated wetlands are important biogeochemical reactors on the
landscape. BioScience 65, 408–418. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biv009.
Min, J.H., Perkins, D., Jawitz, J., 2010. Wetland-groundwater interactions in subtropical
depressional wetlands. Wetlands 30, 997–1006. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13157-
010-0043-9.
Nilsson, K., Rains, M., Lewis, D., Trout, K., 2013. Hydrologic characterization of 56
geographically isolated wetlands in west-central Florida using a probabilistic method.
Wetlands Ecol. Manage. 21, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11273-012-9275-1.
Park, J., Botter, G., Jawitz, J.W., Rao, P.S.C., 2014. Stochastic modeling of hydrologic
variability of geographically isolated wetlands: effects of hydroclimati forcing and
wetland bathymetry. Adv. Water Resour. 69, 38–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
advwatres.2014.03.007.
Porporato, A., Daly, E., Rodriguez-Iturbe, I., 2004. Soil water balance and ecosystem
response to climate change. Am. Nat. 164 (5). 625–32. https://doi.org/10.1086/
424970.
Rains, M.C., Leibowitz, S.G., Cohen, M.J., Creed, I.F., Golden, H.E., Jawitz, J.W., Kalla, P.,
Lane, C.R., Lang, M.W., McLaughlin, D.L., 2016. Geographically isolated wetlands are
part of hydrological landscape. Hydrol. Process. 30, 153–160. https://doi.org/10.
1002/hyp.10610.
Rodriguez-Iturbe, I., Porporato, A., Ridolfi, L., Isham, V., Cox, D.,. Probabilistic modelling
of water balance at a point: the role of climate soil and vegetation. Proc. R. Soc.
London, Ser. A 455, 3789–3805. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspa.1999.0477.
Snodgrass, J.W., Komoroski, M.J., Bryan Jr, A.L., Burger, J., 2000. Relationships among
isolated wetland size, hydroperiod, and amphibian species richness: implications for
wetland regulations. Conserv. Biol. 14, 414–419. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-
1739.2000.99161.x.
Tamea, S., Laio, F., Ridolfi, L., Rodriguez-Iturbe, I., 2011. Crossing properties for geo-
physical systems forced by poisson noise. Geophys. Res. Lett. 38, L18404. https://doi.
org/10.1029/2011GL049074.
Tamea, S., Laio, F., Ridolfi, L., D’Odorico, P., Rodriguez-Iturbe, I., 2009. Ecohydrology of
groundwater-dependent ecosystems: 2. Stochastic soil moisture dynamics. Water
Resour. Res. 45, W05420. https://doi.org/10.1029/2008wr007293.
Tiner, R., 2003. Geographically isolated wetlands of the united states. Wetlands 23,
494–516. https://doi.org/10.1672/0277-5212(2003)023%5B0494:GIWOTU%5D2.
0.CO;2.
Troch, P.A., Paniconi, C., van Loon, E., 2003. The hillslope-storage boussinesq model for
subsurface flow and variable source areas along complex hillslopes: 1. formulation
and characteristic response. Water Resour. Res. 39, 1316. https://doi.org/10.1029/
2002WR001728.
Further reading
Milly, P.C.D., 1993. An analytic solution of the stochastic storage problem applicable to
soil water. Water Resour. Res. 29. 3755-8. https://doi.org/10.1029/93WR01934.
Milly, P.C.D., 2001. A minimalist probabilistic description of root zone soil water. Water
Resour. Res. 37. 457-63. https://doi.org/10.1029/2000WR900337.