Methods Note/

A New Method for Estimating Recharge

to Unconned Aquifers Using Differential River
Gauging
by Andrew M. McCallum
1
, Martin S. Andersen
2,3
, and R. Ian Acworth
2,3
Abstract
In semiarid and arid environments, leakage from rivers is a major source of recharge to underlying unconned
aquifers. Differential river gauging is widely used to estimate the recharge. However, the methods commonly
applied are limited in that the temporal resolution is event-scale or longer. In this paper, a novel method is
presented for quantifying both the total recharge volume for an event, and variation in recharge rate during an
event from hydrographs recorded at the upstream and downstream ends of a river reach. The proposed method
is applied to river hydrographs to illustrate the method steps and investigate recharge processes occurring in a
sub-catchment of the Murray Darling Basin (Australia). Interestingly, although it is the large ood events which
are commonly assumed to be the main source of recharge to an aquifer, our analysis revealed that the smaller
ow events were more important in providing recharge.
Introduction
Recharge estimates are critical for the management
of water resources in semiarid and arid environments (de
Vries and Simmers 2002; Scanlon et al. 2006). In such
environments, leakage from rivers (as well as channels
and wadis) is a major source of recharge to the underlying
unconned aquifers (Rushton 1997). Differential river
gauging, where the difference in river ow between suc-
cessive cross sections is calculated, is widely used to esti-
mate the recharge from rivers (Scanlon et al. 2002; Kalbus
et al. 2006). Many studies have made use of this method
with good results (Ruehl et al., 2006; USGS, 2008; Harte
and Kiah, 2009 ), and when compared to other methods
(e.g., hydrometric, seepage meters) it has been found to
give the best estimate of recharge to unconned aquifers
1
Corresponding author: Connected Waters Initiative, Uni-
versity of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia;
[email protected]
2
Connected Waters Initiative, University of New South Wales,
Sydney, NSW, Australia.
3
National Centre for Groundwater Research and Training
(NCGRT), Australia.
Received July 2012, accepted February 2013.
2013, National GroundWater Association.
doi: 10.1111/gwat.12046
from rivers (Cey et al. 1998; Kaleris 1998). As the
only data required are recorded river hydrographs at
two locations, which in most countries worldwide are
readily available, the method is a powerful tool to the
hydro(geo)logist.
As the timing of peak ow at the upstream gauge is
different from that at the downstream gauge, the differen-
tial river gauging method can provide the total recharge
volume for an event but not the variation in recharge rate
during an event. The temporal resolution of the method is
consequently assumed to be event-scale or longer (Scan-
lon et al. 2002). Therefore, while the average recharge
rate can be computed if the event duration is known,
the variation in recharge rate during an event cannot
be determined. From the perspective of catchment-scale
water resource management this is acceptable, however,
when the temporal aspect of recharge processes is of con-
cern, or when comparison with continuous measurements
of recharge is required (e.g., from hydrometric methods),
the limitation that the temporal resolution is event-scale
or longer becomes important.
To our knowledge, only one study has used a differ-
ential river gauging method to estimate the variation in
recharge rate during an event in addition to total recharge
volume. Opsahl et al. (2007) established the relationship
NGWA.org Vol. 52, No. 2GroundwaterMarch-April 2014 (pages 291297) 291
for all ow events between transit time (i.e., the lag
between peak ow at the upstream and downstream
gauges) and peak ow at the upstream gauge. This rela-
tionship was then used to adjust the downstream data to
an equivalent data set which could be directly compared
with the upstream data for each ow event. However,
there was uncertainty in the established relationship,
which would likely increase if the method were applied
to regulated reaches in semi-arid or arid environments
where ow regimes are highly erratic and episodic.
In this paper, a novel method is presented which
allows for estimating the total recharge volume for an
event, as well as the variation in recharge rate during
an event from hydrographs recorded at upstream and
downstream ends of a river reach. The proposed method
is applied to river hydrographs from the Namoi River to
illustrate the method steps and complete a preliminary
investigation of the recharge from the river to the aquifer
in the Maules Creek Catchment, a sub-catchment of the
Murray Darling Basin (Australia).
Methodology
Theoretical Background
The mass balance for a river reach is dened as (based
on Lerner et al. 1990):
Q
u
+Q
i
+Q
f
= Q
d
+Q
o
+E
a
+
S
t
, (1)
where Q
u
is ow at the upstream end of the reach, Q
i
is
ow into the reach (e.g., tributaries), Q
f
is river-aquifer
ux (n.b., a positive value indicates a mass gain to river;
conversely, a negative value indicates a mass loss from
river), Q
d
is ow at the downstream end of the reach, Q
o
is ow out of the reach (e.g., surface water diversions),
E
a
is evapotranspiration from the reach, and
S
t
is the
change in channel storage with time. All components of
the mass balance have dimensions L
3
/T.
If
S
t
is assumed negligible, which is a reasonable
assumption for analysis at the event-scale or longer time-
scales, Equation 1 simplies to:
Q
f
= Q
d
Q
u
+Q
o
Q
i
+E
a
. (2)
Equation 2 is the commonly used equation in the
differential river gauging method for estimating the river-
aquifer ux (i.e., recharge). It has the limitation that the
temporal resolution is event-scale or longer, and so the
recharge rate for shorter time-scales cannot be determined.
An alternative approach is thus required.
Proposed Method
Starting from the same mass balance approach (i.e.,
Equation 1), the recharge rate at shorter time-scales
can be estimated, without making assumptions about
S
t
, from hydrographs recorded at the upstream and
downstream ends of a river reach. The physical basis
behind the proposed method is that although a ow
event spreads out with time as it travels between the
upstream and downstream gauges, the mass remains
the same if no recharge from the river occurs. It is
therefore possible to create equivalent hydrographs by
time-shifting the recorded hydrographs. These can then
be compared to check for mass conservation. This can be
done by shifting the downstream hydrograph backward in
time, the upstream hydrograph forward in time, or some
combination. For the sake of illustrating the method, E
a
,
Q
i
, and Q
o
have been assumed to equal zero.
The proposed method consists of eight steps as
outlined below: These were scripted in Matlab (the
variable names are in parentheses).
1 Select ow event to be analyzed (between start and end
date/time) for upstream and downstream hydrographs
(i.e., Q
u,d
).
2 Create cumulative hydrographs by integrating the
hydrographs (i.e., CumQ
u,d
).
3 Create normalized cumulative hydrographs by dividing
the maximum values in the cumulative hydrographs
(i.e., NorCumQ
u,d
).
Note: if scripting these steps recreate normalized
cumulative hydrographs by discretizing on the y-axis
(i.e., between 0 and 1) rather than on the x-axis (i.e.,
between start and end date/time).
4 For each value of the cumulative normalized ow
curve on the y-axis, calculate the value at a chosen
point between CumQ
u
and CumQ
d
on the x-axis
(e.g., midpoint). This gives a time-shifted normalized
cumulative hydrograph (i.e., NorCumQ
t
).
Note: if scripting these steps recreate the time-shifted
normalized cumulative hydrograph by discretizing on
the x-axis (i.e., between start and end date/time) rather
than on the y-axis (i.e., between 0 and 1).
5 Create time-shifted cumulative hydrographs by multi-
plying by the maximum values in the cumulative hydro-
graphs (i.e., CumQ
t
u,d
).
6 Create time-shifted upstream and downstream
hydrographs by differentiating the cumulative hydro-
graphs

Q
t
u,d

.
7 Create a time series of river-aquifer ux (n.b., a nega-
tive value indicates recharge from river to aquifer) by
subtracting the downstream from upstream hydrograph:
Q
t
f
= Q
t
d
Q
t
u
. (3)
8 Repeat Steps 4 to 7 with different time-shifted nor-
malized cumulative hydrographs between the limits of
shifting the downstream hydrograph backward in time
and shifting the upstream hydrograph forward in time
to give a range of possible time series of river-aquifer
ux.
Field Example
A reach of the Namoi River in New South Wales,
Australia (Figure 1) was investigated using the method.
292 A.M. McCallum et al. Groundwater 52, no. 2: 291297 NGWA.org
Figure 1. Location of the Namoi Catchment (main gure) within the Murray Darling Basin and Australia (inset gures). Also
shown are Maules Creek Catchment and the upstream (Boggabri) and downstream (Turrawan) gauging stations. The arrows
adjacent to the rivers show the ow directions. Also shown is the location of the geological cross section A to A

shown in
Figure 2.
The Namoi River is the main river in the Namoi Valley,
and is a tributary to the environmentally and politically
sensitive Murray Darling Basin. The alluvial aquifers
along the river have one of the highest groundwater
abstraction levels in Australia.
The selected reach of the Namoi River runs from
south to north for 34 km through the semiarid Maules
Creek Catchment. Beneath and to the east of the river is a
palaeochannel up to 120 m deep, lled with alluvial clays
and permeable sands and gravels (Figure 2). The gently
sloping plains of the catchment, which consist mostly of
Holocene clay and silt rich vertosols, are 200 to 250 m
above sea level (Figure 3a). The Namoi River is incised
into this ood plain up to a depth of about 8 m (Figure 3b).
Further geological details can be found in McCallum
et al. (2013).
Owing to groundwater abstraction for ood irrigation
within the catchment, the groundwater levels have been
lowered such that the reach is now predominately losing
during both low- and high-ow conditions (McCallum
et al. 2013). Recharge from the river is now a major
source of water for the ongoing groundwater abstraction
(Giambastiani et al. 2012). Understanding and quantifying
the recharge to the unconned aquifer is thus an important
step in the management of the water resource.
Government-operated gauging stations at the
upstream (Boggabri) and downstream (Turrawan) end
of the reach record river stage which is post-processed
to give river ow (DNR 2011) (see Figure 1). For this
paper, hourly data from the stations were used. The river
is regulated at Keepit Dam, approximately 50 km south-
east of the upstream gauging station. Between the two
stations, there is a major tributary, Maules Creek. While
this creek has perennial pools about 10 km upstream from
its conuence with the Namoi River (Rau et al. 2010),
the creek is ephemeral and rarely ows between the
pools and the conuence (Andersen and Acworth 2009).
For this reach of the Namoi River, evapotranspiration
can be assumed negligible compared to the magnitude of
the other components (McCallum et al. 2013).
The proposed method was applied to the gauging
station data in two stages. First, a ow event from
Figure 2. Schematic geological cross section for Maules Creek Catchment (A to A

in Figure 1). The red dashed vertical lines

show where lithological borehole information is available. Elevation is shown in meters above the Australian Height Datum
(m AHD).
NGWA.org A.M. McCallum et al. Groundwater 52, no. 2: 291297 293
(a) (b)
Nam
oi River
Figure 3. Photograph of (a) ood plain and Namoi River facing north and (b) Namoi River and river banks at low-ow
conditions facing south.
13 December to 26 December 2008 (i.e., 14 d) was
selected to illustrate the method step-by-step. Second,
high-ow events (i.e., greater than 1.5 GL/d) between the
water years 2000 and 2010 were analyzed (n.b., GL is
Gigalitre, e.g., 1.5 GL/d =1.5 10
6
m
3
/d; the water year
runs from October to September). In this way statistics
of ow in the Namoi River and recharge in the Maules
Creek Catchment were created for each ow event (i.e.,
cumulative ow volume at the upstream gauge, event
duration, total recharge volume, and variation in recharge
rate during event). The start and end date/time was
dened as the date/time corresponding to the lowest ow
at the upstream gauge in the 7 d prior to/following a
recorded ow of 1.5 GL/d. As the data set was large (i.e.,
a decade of hourly data at two gauges), the analysis was
automated using a Matlab script.
Results and Discussion
Steps
The eight steps outlined in the methodology are
illustrated in Figure 4 and discussed below:
1. Hydrographs for the upstream and downstream
gauges for the selected ow event show that the down-
stream hydrograph (gray line) has a smaller and lagged
peak ow as compared to the upstream hydrograph (black
line). The upstream hydrograph peaked at 26.4 GL/d while
the downstream hydrograph peaked at 22.5 GL/d. There
was a lag of 18 h between the peaks.
2. The cumulative ow for the upstream gauge
was 85.7 GL while for the downstream gauge this was
74.8 GL, that is, during the analyzed ow event, 85.7 GL
entered the catchment and 74.8 GL left the catchment. The
difference between these curves at the nal time step (i.e.,
10.9 GL) is equal to the total recharge volume for the
event.
3 and 4. When the cumulative hydrographs are
normalized, they still follow the s-shape but become
dimensionless, varying between 0 and 1 (solid lines). The
time-shifted normalized cumulative hydrograph also fol-
lows the s-shape, is dimensionless, and varies between 0
and 1 (dotted line). The dotted line is midway between the
solid lines (i.e., shifting both the downstream hydrograph
backward in time and the upstream hydrograph forward
in time).
5. The time-shifted cumulative hydrographs for
upstream (black line) and downstream (gray line) gauges
have the same nal values as the originals (i.e., 85.7 and
74.8 GL) but are shifted in time.
6. The difference between the curves at the nal time
step is equal to the total recharge volume for the event
(i.e., 10.9 GL). The time-shifted downstream hydrograph
(gray line) has a smaller peak ow as compared to
the time-shifted upstream hydrograph (black line). The
peak ows are no longer lagged. By time-shifting the
recorded hydrographs, the hygrographs are therefore now
comparable.
7 and 8. From the time-shifted hydrographs, a time-
line of the recharge can be estimated (dotted line). Since
different time-shifted normalized cumulative hydrographs
are possible (i.e., Steps 4 and 8 above), the timing of
recharge cannot be determined exactly (cf. dotted line
and solid lines). However, the variation in recharge rate
can be bounded by the upstream and downstream limits
(solid lines).
Recharge in Maules Creek Catchment
The results of applying the method to eld data are
shown in Figure 5. Each mark on the gure represents
a recharge event that occurred sometime during the
water years 2000 to 2010. As would be expected, the
total recharge volume over an event increases with
increasing cumulative ow volume at the upstream gauge
(Figure 5a). The total recharge volume ranges from 0.3
to 34.7 GL, while the cumulative ows range from 3.5 to
188.9 GL. The correlation between total recharge volume
and cumulative ow is high (i.e., r =0.97). The slope
of the line of best t (0.2) is the total recharge
volume expressed as a ratio of cumulative ow. The
scatter about the line indicates that the total recharge
volume is dependent on other variables (e.g., antecedent
groundwater level), in addition to the cumulative volume
of the ow event.
The cumulative ow is dependent on two variables:
the duration of the ow event and the variation in recharge
294 A.M. McCallum et al. Groundwater 52, no. 2: 291297 NGWA.org
Q
NormCumQ
CumQ
CumQ
Q
t
Q
t
NormCumQ
NormCumQ
Q
u
Q
t
f
Q
t
f
Q
t
f
d
CumQ
CumQ
Figure 4. (1) Flow event hydrographs for upstream (black
line) and downstream (gray line) gauges. (2) Cumulative
hydrographs for upstream (black line) and downstream
(gray line) gauges. (3, 4) Normalized cumulative hydrographs
for upstream (black line) and downstream (gray line) gauges.
Also shown is the time-shifted normalized cumulative hydro-
graph (dotted line). (5) Time-shifted cumulative hydrographs
for upstream (black line) and downstream (gray line) gauges.
(6) Time-shifted ow event hydrographs for upstream (black
line) and downstream (gray line) gauges. (7, 8) Recharge
using time-shifted normalized cumulative hydrograph (dot-
ted line). Also shown are the upper and lower bounds of the
recharge (black and gray lines).
rate during the event. There is a clear relationship between
the total recharge volume for the event and the event
duration (Figure 5b). The duration of ow events range
from 4 to 71 d. While the correlation is high (i.e., r =0.97)
between the total recharge volume and event duration, the
amount of scatter for events with durations less than 20 d
Figure 5. (a) Total recharge volume vs. cumulative ow.
(b) Total recharge volume vs. duration of event. (c) Total
recharge volume vs. maximum rate of recharge. Large
natural ow events are shown as circles, and small natural
ow events and dam-release events are shown as crosses. The
illustrative ow event in Figure 3 is plotted in as a single data
point, with a total recharge of 10.9 GL, cumulative ow of
85.7 GL, duration of 14.5 d, and maximum rate of recharge
of 3.3 GL/d.
is signicant, indicating that other important factors are
at play.
When total recharge volume is plotted against maxi-
mum rate of recharge during the event the data group into
two distinct populations (Figure 5c). On the one hand,
there are data which lead to total recharge volumes of
approximately 10 GL or less but have varying and large
recharge rates of more than 3 GL/d (shown as circles). On
the other, there are data which lead to total recharge vol-
umes of upwards of 30 GL but have recharge rates of less
than 1 GL/d (shown as crosses).
Recharge from the Namoi River in the Maules
Creek Catchment during high-ow conditions is therefore
due to two distinct processes. Comparing the two data
populations with the raw hydrographs reveals that the
circles correspond to large natural ow events while
the crosses correspond to small natural ow events and
dam-release events. The threshold between these two
populations is approximately 4 GL/d. The large natural
ow events with large rates of recharge do not necessarily
lead to large total recharge volumes for individual events.
On the other hand, the small natural ow events and dam-
release events, while having relatively small ow rates and
relatively small rates of recharge, have potential to lead
to large volumes of recharge.
NGWA.org A.M. McCallum et al. Groundwater 52, no. 2: 291297 295
Over the analyzed decade, twice as much recharge
occurred due to small natural ow events and dam-
release events than the large natural ow events (193 vs.
82 GL). This interesting fact has implications for water
resource management. There is a widespread perception
that because of the natural occurring cycles of drought
and ood within semi-arid environments, large ow
events are predominately responsible for replenishment
of groundwater resources via recharge from rivers to
unconned aquifers. For the studied decade in the studied
catchment, this was not the case. The analysis presented
here suggests that the smaller ows are more signicant.
This could have signicance on the design of dam release
events so as to optimize recharge to the groundwater.
This is presently an under-researched area of water
management (cf. Zammouri and Feki 2005).
McCallum et al. (2013) present data which show
the annual groundwater abstraction for Maules Creek
Catchment between 1985 and 2005 varied from 5.4
to 17.9 GL/year with an average annual abstraction of
10.9 GL/year. The recharge of 10.9 GL recorded by the
differential river gauging in the illustrative example
therefore represents approximately the volume abstracted
during the average irrigation year. In the case of this
event, recharge from the river from a single ow event
was sufcient to meet the average irrigation demand.
However, as a consequence, the downstream river ow
would be reduced by the recharged volume, thereby
impacting the downstream users of surface water as well
as the environment. Furthermore, for the analyzed decade,
only six ow events had estimated total recharge volumes
equal to or greater than 10.9 GL (see Figure 5a), while the
remaining 46 events had an average total recharge volume
of only 2.8 GL, indicating that the irrigation demand
would on average exceed the recharge from the river.
Method Limitations
There are a number of limitations associated with
the proposed method. First, gauging data can have
inherent uncertainties in accuracy. Oftentimes, due to
the difculty of creating accurate rating curves, the
data quality can be poor for very low- and very high-
ows. How this uncertainty is propagated into the results
should be assessed on a site-by-site basis. Understanding
the uncertainties involved is imperative to properly
interpreting the results (Schmadel et al. 2010).
Second, following on from the previous limitation,
the range of recharge volumes and rates that can be cal-
culated directly depends on the uncertainty and recording
frequency in the gauging data (Scanlon et al. 2002). This
creates a constraint on the spatial and temporal resolu-
tion of the method. As the recharge volume must be
signicantly higher than the uncertainties associated with
the gauging station measurements, the distance between
the gauging stations must be sufciently large to overcome
this issue (Kaleris 1998). The lag between hydrograph
peaks that can be resolved depends on the frequency of the
collected data. In the illustrative example, the lag of 18 h
was able to be resolved as hourly data were available. This
may pose a limitation for different catchments. Again,
these issues should be considered on a site-by-site basis.
Third, the differential river gauging method therefore
gives an estimation of uxes over a selected reach length
and is thus not sensitive to small-scale heterogeneities in
the recharge (Kalbus et al. 2006). This, however, is often
not a signicant limitation as large-scale measurements
often provide a better estimation of the recharge than
point-scale measurements (Cey et al. 1998). This could
thus be considered an advantage rather than a limitation.
The relationship between at-point measurements and
channel-reach measurements needs further investigation
in any case (de Vries and Simmers 2002).
Fourth, as the differential river gauging method
gives the net exchange of water between the river and
aquifer between gauging stations, it is conceivable that
small-scale inows and outows can occur simultane-
ously, leading to no net exchange of water between river
and aquifer (McCallum et al. 2012). Where needed, the
inows, outows, and net exchange can be distinguished
by combining the differential river gauging method with
tracer tests (e.g., Ruehl et al. 2006).
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, while Step
7 refers to the river-aquifer ux, this needs to be
interpreted with an understanding of the specic river
hydrology. Conceptualizing the interaction as simply
being between two reservoirs (i.e., river and aquifer)
may be too simplistic. River-aquifer interactions occur at
different spatial and temporal scales, which superimpose
on one another, causing dynamic and complex patterns of
interaction (Angermann et al. 2012). Furthermore, there
are often various intermediate stores and ows which can
impact on the results as they operate on time-scales of
weeks to months after the peak event ow (e.g., return
ow from bank storage, interow within the unsaturated
zone, ow from draining pools on the oodplain, and so
on). These need careful consideration on a site-by-site
basis. For example, the computed total recharge volume
may not represent actual recharge but potential recharge
only due to the presence of perched aquifers (Lerner
et al. 1990) or bank storage (Lambs 2004).
These ve limitations are in common with differential
river gauging methods generally. Further work is required
in applying the proposed method to a variety of hydro-
geological settings, as well as comparing the estimations
of total recharge volume and variation in recharge rate
with other techniques of estimating recharge from rivers
to unconned aquifers (e.g., seepage meters, heat as a
natural tracer).
Conclusions
By applying this method to hydrographs recorded at
the upstream and downstream ends of a river reach, one
can estimate the total recharge volume for a ow event,
as well as the variation in recharge during the event. The
proposed method overcomes the signicant limitation in
previously used differential river gauging methods that
296 A.M. McCallum et al. Groundwater 52, no. 2: 291297 NGWA.org
assume the temporal resolution must be event-scale or
longer.
Applying the method to eld data allowed for
statistics of ow in the Namoi River and recharge in
the Maules Creek Catchment to be generated for each
ow event (i.e., cumulative ow volume, event duration,
total recharge volume, variation in recharge rate). The
statistical data were useful in revealing that two recharge
processes are occurring during high-ows: (1) large
natural ow events with larger rates of recharge and (2)
small natural ow events and dam-release events with
smaller rates of recharge but with the potential for larger
total recharge volumes.
The method can be readily transferred to other
catchments worldwide where river ows are being
monitored.
Acknowledgments
Funding for the research was provided by the Cot-
ton Catchment Communities CRC (Projects 2.02.03 and
2.02.21). In-kind funding was provided by the National
Centre for Groundwater Research and Training, an Aus-
tralian Government initiative, supported by the Australian
Research Council and the National Water Commission.
Gabriel Rau helped with the drafting of Figures 1 through
5. Ian Cartwright, Peter Engesgaard, and four anonymous
reviewers provided thoughtful comments on a draft of the
paper. Erin McCallum reviewed the paper for readability.
References
Andersen, M.S., and R.I. Acworth 2009. Stream-aquifer interac-
tions in the Maules Creek catchment, Namoi Valley, New
South Wales, Australia. Hydrogeology Journal 17, no. 8:
20052021.
Angermann, L., J. Lewandowski, J.H. Fleckenstein, and G.
N utzmann. 2012. A 3D analysis algorithm to improve inter-
pretation of heat pulse sensor results for the determina-
tion of small-scale ow directions and velocities in the
hyporheic zone. Journal of Hydrology 475: 111.
Cey, E.E., D.L. Rudolph, G.W. Parkin, and R. Aravena. 1998.
Quantifying groundwater discharge to a small perennial
stream in southern Ontario, Canada. Journal of Hydrology
210, no. 14: 2137.
de Vries, J.J., and I. Simmers. 2002. Groundwater recharge:
An overview of processes and challenges. Hydrogeology
Journal 10, no. 1: 517.
DNR. 2011. Surface Water Hydrograph Database. New South
Wales: Department of Natural Resources.
Giambastiani, B.M.S., A.M. McCallum, M.S. Andersen, B.F.J.
Kelly, and R.I. Acworth. 2012. Understanding groundwater
processes by representing aquifer heterogeneity in the
Maules Creek Catchment, Namoi Valley (New South Wales,
Australia). Hydrogeology Journal 20, no. 6: 10271044.
Harte, P.T., and R.G. Kiah. 2009. Measured river leakages using
conventional streamow techniques: the case of Souhegan
River, New Hampshire, USA. Hydrogeology Journal 17,
no. 2: 409424.
Kalbus, E., F. Reinstorf, and M. Schirmer. 2006. Measuring
methods for groundwatersurface water interactions: A
review. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences 10, no. 6:
873887.
Kaleris, V. 1998. Quantifying the exchange rate between
groundwater and small streams. Journal of Hydraulic
Research 36: 913932.
Lerner, D.N., A.S. Issar, and I. Simmers. 1990. Groundwater
recharge, a guide to understanding and estimating natural
recharge. International Association of Hydrogeologists,
Kenilworth, Report 8.
Lambs, L. 2004. Interactions between groundwater and surface
water at river banks and the conuence of rivers. Journal
of Hydrology 288, no. 34: 312326.
McCallum, A.M., M.S. Andersen, B.M.S. Giambastiani,
B.F.J. Kelly, and R.I. Acworth. 2013. River-aquifer inter-
actions in a semi-arid environment stressed by groundwater
abstraction. Hydrological Processes 27: 10721085. DOI:
10.1002/hyp.9229
McCallum, J.L., P.G. Cook, D. Berhane, C. Rumpf, and G.A.
McMahon. 2012. Quantifying groundwater ows to streams
using differential ow gaugings and water chemistry.
Journal of Hydrology 416: 118132.
Opsahl, S.P., S.E. Chapal, D.W. Hicks, and C.K. Wheeler. 2007.
Evaluation of ground-water and surface-water exchanges
using streamow difference analyses. Journal of the Amer-
ican Water Resources Association 43, no. 5: 11321141.
Rau, G.C., M.S. Andersen, A.M. McCallum, and R.I. Acworth.
2010. Analytical methods that use natural heat as a tracer
to quantify surface water-groundwater exchange, evaluated
using eld temperature records. Hydrogeology Journal 18,
no. 5: 10931110.
Ruehl, C., A.T. Fisher, C. Hatch, M. Los Huertos, G. Stemler,
and C. Shennan. 2006. Differential gauging and tracer tests
resolve seepage uxes in a strongly-losing stream. Journal
of Hydrology 330, no. 12: 235248.
Rushton, K. 1997. Recharge from permanent water bodies. In
Recharge of Phreatic Aquifers in (Semi)Arid Areas, ed. I.
Simmers, 215255. Rotterdam: AA Balkema.
Scanlon, B.R., K.E. Keese, A.L. Flint, L.E. Flint, C.B. Gaye,
W.M. Edmunds, and I. Simmers. 2006. Global synthesis
of groundwater recharge in semiarid and arid regions.
Hydrological Processes 20, no. 15: 33353370.
Scanlon, B.R., R.W. Healy, and P.G. Cook. 2002. Choos-
ing appropriate techniques for quantifying groundwater
recharge. Hydrogeology Journal 10, no. 1: 1839.
Schmadel, N.M., B.T. Neilson, and D.K. Stevens. 2010.
Approaches to estimate uncertainty in longitudinal channel
water balances. Journal of Hydrology 394, no. 34:
357369.
USGS. 2008. Field Techniques for Estimating Water Fluxes
Between Surface Water and Ground Water, eds. D.O.
Rosenberry and J.W. LaBaugh. Reston, Virginia: US
Geological Survey.
Zammouri, M., and H. Feki. 2005. Managing releases from
small upland reservoirs for downstream recharge in semi-
arid basins (Northeast of Tunisia). Journal of Hydrology
314, no. 14: 125138.
NGWA.org A.M. McCallum et al. Groundwater 52, no. 2: 291297 297