PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
February 28, 2026Journal of Hydrology0 citationsOpen Access

Young water fractions in spring discharge

View Full Paper
SSSimon SeeligFTFelix ThalheimMSMagdalena Seelig

Key Points

  • This research aims to quantify the young water fraction in spring discharges and assess its variability across different aquifer types.
  • Analyzed discharge data from 469 springs in Austria
  • Measured young water fractions using hydrologic metrics
  • Compared young water fractions with a dataset of 565 rivers
  • Found a generally low mean young water fraction of approximately 0.06
  • Karst springs exhibited the highest young water fractions and variability
  • Springs consistently showed lower young water fractions compared to rivers

Abstract

Transit time distributions are fundamental to hydrologic research and practice, providing insights into how catchments store, release, and transport water and solutes. Mean transit time estimates, however, often suffer from significant aggregation errors in heterogeneous and nonstationary catchments. The young water fraction ( F yw ) provides a robust alternative that directly reflects the proportion of recent precipitation in discharge and enables consistent comparison between catchments. While numerous studies have focused on estimating F yw in rivers, little is known about its magnitude and variability in springs. To address this knowledge gap, this study quantifies F yw in spring discharge from a diverse set of 469 springs in Austria. Across the dataset, F yw is generally low and approximately log-normally distributed (mean 0.06), with variability among springs largely controlled by aquifer structure: karst springs display the highest fractions and greatest variability, talus springs intermediate values, and fracture and alluvial springs low fractions with limited variability. Evaluating the sensitivity of F yw to discharge reveals distinct responses to hydrologic forcing: karst springs are most sensitive, reflecting temporary shifts in relative flow path contributions, whereas fracture springs are least sensitive, reflecting conservative flow dynamics. Drawing on a dataset of 565 rivers compiled for comparison, springs exhibit substantially lower F yw , likely reflecting their predominantly slow subsurface flow paths. By analyzing F yw across a large number of springs, this study delivers the first systematic insight into young water contributions to spring discharge, informing conceptual models, water resource management strategies, and contamination risk assessments. • Large-scale study of 469 springs shows low young water fractions ( ). • Aquifer structure and hydrologic forcing control variability among springs. • Springs consistently contain less young water than rivers. • Young water fraction offers a simple, robust metric for alpine water management.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Seelig et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/69a287460a974eb0d3c02db1https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2026.135221
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1Evaluation of the importance of clay confining units on groundwater flow in alluvial basins using solute and isotope tracers: the case of Middle San Pedro Basin in southeastern Arizona (USA)2014 · 21 citations
  2. 2The importance of hydraulic groundwater theory in catchment hydrology: The legacy of Wilfried Brutsaert and Jean-Yves Parlange2013 · 160 citations
  3. 3Characterizing flow and transport in fractured geological media: A review2002 · 1,569 citations
  4. 4Rainfall threshold for hillslope outflow: an emergent property of flow pathway connectivity2007 · 174 citations
  5. 5Isotope-derived young water fractions in streamflow across the tropical Andes mountains and Amazon floodplain2023 · 18 citations