RIVER RESEARCH AND APPLICATIONS

River Res. Applic. (2012) Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/rra.2579

THE SOLAR-TO-STREAM POWER RATIO: A DIMENSIONLESS NUMBER EXPLAINING DIEL FLUCTUATIONS OF TEMPERATURE IN MESOSCALE RIVERS
O. LINKa*, A. HUERTAa, A. STEHRb, A. MONSALVEa, C. MEIERa and M. AGUAYOb
b a Civil Engineering Department, Universidad de Concepcin, Concepcin, Chile Center of Environmental Sciences EULA-Chile, Universidad de Concepcin, Concepcin, Chile

ABSTRACT The diel variation of temperature in mesoscale river reaches (catchment area > 1000 km2) is analysed using concurrent measurements of water temperature and of those meteorological (incident short-wave radiation, air temperature, relative humidity and wind speed variables) and hydraulic variables (streamow, top width, channel slope and ow depth) controlling the thermal regime. Measurements were taken along two river reaches located in central Chile, on the Itata (11 290 km2, Strahlers order 6, reach length 30 km, Qbankfull = 400 m3 s1) and Vergara (4340 km2, Strahlers order 5, reach length 20 km, Qbankfull = 85 m3 s1) rivers. The measuring frequency was 15 min. The relevant energy uxes at the airwater interface, that is, atmospheric long-wave radiation, net short-wave radiation, radiation emitted by the water body, evaporation (latent heat) and conduction heat are computed and analysed for four scenarios of 12 days duration each, representing typical conditions for the austral winter, spring, summer and autumn. We nd large differences in the diel river temperature range between the two sites and across seasons (and thus, ows and meteorological conditions), as reported in previous studies, but no clear relationship with the controlling variables is overtly observed. Following a dimensional analysis, we obtain a dimensionless parameter corresponding to the ratio of solar-to-stream power, which adequately explains the diel variation of water temperature in mesoscale rivers. A number of our own measurements as well as literature data are used for preliminary testing of the proposed parameter. This easy-to-compute number is shown to predict quite well all of the cases, constituting a simple and useful criterion to estimate a priori the magnitude of temperature diel variations in a river reach, given prevailing meteorological (daily maximum solar radiation) and hydrologichydraulic (streamow, mean top width) conditions. Copyright 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
key words: thermal regime; diel variability; river temperature; dimensional analysis; uvial hydraulics Received 12 October 2011; Revised 3 April 2012; Accepted 21 April 2012

INTRODUCTION The temperature of a river determines fundamental uid properties such as water density and viscosity, as well as the solubility of dissolved gases. It alters the ow turbulent intensities, thus affecting river transport and mixing capacity, and controls the velocity of chemical reactions, with strong effects on important processes such as stream metabolism, productivity and the decomposition of organic matter. Water temperature governs the growth rate of aquatic organisms and inuences their distribution and abundance through their specic tolerance ranges. Because the thermal regime of a river reach is such a fundamental control of water quality and biota in the uvial ecosystem, it must be adequately assessed for any effective environmental management (Caissie, 2006; Webb et al., 2008). River temperature depends on many different, interrelated factors (Johnson, 2003, 2004), which can be classied in four groups, following Caissie (2006), with slight modications: (i) meteorological (atmospheric) conditions (i.e. incident
*Correspondence to: O. Link, Civil Engineering Department, Universidad de Concepcin, Barrio Universitario s/n, casilla 160-C, Concepcin, Chile. E-mail: olink@udec.cl

short-wave radiation, air temperature, relative humidity and wind speed variables), (ii) shading effects, (iii) hydrological and hydraulic variables (i.e. streamow, top width, channel slope and ow depth) and (iv) streambed conditions. Meteorological conditions, reviewed by Edinger et al. (1968), are found to be the most important factor in many different settings (e.g. Brown, 1969; Mosley, 1983; Sinokrot and Stefan, 1994; Webb and Zhang, 1997, 1999; Evans et al., 1998; Gu et al., 1998; Younus et al., 2000; Meier et al., 2003). Specically, net short-wave radiation, net long-wave radiation, air moisture and wind speed are the atmospheric variables that mainly explain the heat uxes at the airwater interface (Mosley, 1983; Evans et al., 1998). Shading effects are due to a combination of the riparian vegetation and surrounding landscape (Beschta, 1997; Chen et al., 1998; Johnson, 2004) but also depend on the streams aspect (orientation with respect to the suns trajectory and the nearby hills; Rutherford et al., 1993). Hydrological (i.e. streamow) and dependent, hydraulic variables such as top width and ow depth all affect thermal inertia the capacity for heat storage along a reach (Edinger et al., 1968; Smith, 1972; Rutherford et al., 1993; Gu et al., 1998; Sinokrot and Gulliver, 2000). According to Gu and Li (2002), river temperatures can

Copyright 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

O. LINK ET AL.

be as sensitive to streamow as to weather conditions, specically when dealing with maximum instead of mean values. Finally, streambed conditions include heat conduction into the river bed material (Brown, 1969; Hondzo and Stefan, 1994; Webb and Zhang, 1999; Meier et al., 2003; Neilson et al., 2009), as well as the effects of hyporheic exchanges (Mosley, 1983; Johnson and Jones, 2000; Neilson et al., 2009) and groundwater contributions (Webb and Zhang, 1999). In the case of larger, wider streams and rivers (i.e. width 50 m), local shading effects such as those caused by riparian vegetation and surrounding hills tend to become less important (Brown, 1969; Evans et al., 1998); in which case, solar radiation will be the main heating mechanism during clear days (Meier et al., 2003). Such larger rivers will run deeper and have larger streamows so that the inuence of substrate and groundwater contributions will also decrease, in relative terms (Evans et al., 1998), allowing for these terms to be neglected (Gu et al., 1998). Mosley (1983) and Arscott et al. (2001) show that there can be ample spatial variability of water temperature across the different channels, in the case of braided rivers. On the other hand, very large, deep and slow-moving rivers can stratify (Bormans and Webster, 1998), requiring a two-dimensional vertical approach. In this paper, we refer to mesoscale rivers as those cases where the shading and streambed effects on water temperature can be neglected, but where there is adequate vertical and transversal mixing, so that its variability can still be described in a one-dimensional framework. In such cases, the behaviour of river temperature will be controlled by an interaction between atmospheric variables and hydrologichydraulic conditions of the ow. Even though Smith (1981) argued that the diurnal variation of river water temperature is probably the most sensitive index of any thermal modication, the biological effects of diel uctuations in river temperature have been scarcely studied (e.g. see Cox and Rutherford, 2000a, 2000b), and there is little literature on estimating river temperature uctuations at the daily scale. Many authors (e.g. Stefan and PreudHomme, 1993; Caissie et al., 2001; also, see review in Caissie, 2006) have used stochastic models to calculate daily water temperatures, but these need to be calibrated for each river reach under the local boundary conditions. Deterministic solutions, on the other hand, establish energy budgets to estimate river temperatures. Because of the rather complex processes involved, and to account for variability in time and space, most such models are solved numerically (Sinokrot and Stefan, 1993, 1994; Hondzo and Stefan, 1994; Kim and Chapra, 1997; Younus et al., 2000; Tung et al., 2006, 2007). This type of approach does not allow for a priori estimation of the diel uctuations that a river reach would experiment, as the models need calibration, or else, they require hard to measure, not commonly
Copyright 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

available meteorological variables, such as hourly air temperature, relative humidity and wind speed. Only Edinger et al. (1968; Equation 27) and Gu et al. (1998; Equations 8 and 9) have proposed direct equations for estimating diel uctuation of water temperature in rivers on the basis of the concept of equilibrium temperature Te, the water temperature for which the net rate of heat exchange between air and water is zero. As the equilibrium temperature Te continuously adjusts to the changing weather conditions (radiation, air moisture, wind speed, etc.), the water temperature tends towards it but with a lag. In both papers, it is assumed that the amplitude of the diel variation follows a sinusoidal uctuation, which is derived by also imposing a sinusoidal behaviour for Te. This approach requires evaluation of the thermal exchange coefcient K between the air and the water, as the net rate of heat exchange is given by multiplying the difference (Te Tw) by K. In both cases, detailed measurement or estimation of a series of atmospheric variables, such as dew-point temperature or air moisture content, solar radiation, air temperature, wind speed, and so on, is needed. The aim of this paper is to derive a simple equation that allows for a priori estimation of the magnitude of the diel temperature uctuations in water temperature in the case of mesoscale rivers on the basis of commonly available data. Measurements of river temperature and of the variables controlling the heat uxes at the airwater interface, and thus the thermal regime of mesoscale rivers, are presented and analysed. Dimensional analysis is applied to obtain a controlling dimensionless parameter of the temperature diel variation. We use our own measurements as well as literature data for preliminary testing of the proposed equation. The paper is organized as follows. First, the processes, governing equations and parameters involved in the thermal regime of a mesoscale river are briey reviewed. Second, the study sites and measuring techniques are presented. Third, eld measurements of the involved variables and relevant heat uxes for two different rivers are analysed. Finally, a new dimensionless number explaining the diel variation of river temperature is obtained and tested against eld measurements and literature data. The paper concludes with nal remarks on the obtained results.

PROCESSES, GOVERNING EQUATIONS AND PARAMETERS The processes involved in the thermal regime of a river are mainly the advective transport, mixing, and heat and radiation exchanges between the water body and the surrounding environment, that is, the air at the water surface and the streambed. The effects of shade by riparian vegetation and surrounding topography, as well as the upwelling of
River Res. Applic. (2012) DOI: 10.1002/rra

THE SOLAR-TO-STREAM POWER RATIO

cold groundwater and heat exchange with the bed, are neglected in this analysis because the study sites correspond to mesoscale rivers where local shading effects such as those caused by riparian vegetation and surrounding hills tend to become less important (Brown, 1969; Evans et al., 1998), and the inuence of substrate and groundwater contributions will also decrease, in relative terms (Evans et al., 1998), allowing for these terms to be neglected (Gu et al., 1998). Mathematically, the governing equation of the river thermal regime is the advectiondiffusionreaction equation for water temperature:   @ T @ QT @ @T HT W DL A A @t @x @x @x Cw rw

Short-wave net radiation, HSW The short-wave net radiation is computed as HSW HSWin HSWref (4)

where the incident solar radiation HSWin is directly measured with a radiometer whereas the reected solar radiation, HSWref , is given by HSWref RS HSWin (5)

(1)

with RS being the reectivity, that is, the fraction of the solar radiation that is reected at the water surface given by  Rs a 180 a p b (6)

where A (m2) is the transverse ow area, T( C) the sectionaveraged water temperature, t (s) the time, Q (m3 s1) the river discharge, x (m) the longitudinal distance along the channel, DL (m2s1) the longitudinal dispersion coefcient, HT (W m2) the thermal energy ow through the free surface, W (m) the top channel width, Cw (J kg1  C1) the specic heat of water and rw (kg m3) the water density. The longitudinal dispersion coefcient is a mixing parameter that can be computed according to several available equations. Because of its validity range, we preferred that proposed by Vargas and Ayala (2001):  1:86 W Q2 DL 7:39 RH U R3 H

where a is the solar altitude in radians and a and b are coefcients that depend on the cloud cover, Cb. According to Martin and McCutcheon (1999), If If If If Cb0:9 0:5Cb < 0:9 0:1Cb < 0:5 Cb < 0:1 a 0:33 a 0:95 a 2:20 a 1:18 b 0:45 b 0:75 b 0:97 b 0:77

(7)

The cloud cover Cb is determined as (2) Cb 1 Hrs sunactual Hrs suntheo (8)

where RH (m) is the hydraulic radius and U* (m s1) is the shear velocity. However, both study reaches have a very high Pclet number (dened as the ratio of the rate of advection of a physical quantity by the ow to the rate of diffusion of the same quantity driven by an appropriate gradient), indicative of ows that are clearly advection dominated. As a result, diffusion effects on temperature changes in time are negligible, and thus, the choice of a specic formula for estimation of the longitudinal dispersion coefcient is irrelevant. The sources/sinks of heat where calculated from the balance of energy ows following HT HSW HLW HB HE HC (3)

The actual sunny hours, Hrs sunactual, were determined from the measured incident solar radiation, considering that a sunny hour occurs if the solar radiation during that hour exceeds 120 W m2. Cb was determined on a daily basis. Net long-wave incoming radiation, HLW The net long-wave radiation was computed assuming that 3% of the incident long-wave radiation is reected: HLW 0:97sTair 273:164 eair (9)

where s = 5.67 10 8 W m2 K4 is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant and Tair ( C) the air temperature. The air emissivity, eair, was estimated after Swimbank (1963), modied by Wunderlich (1972) as eair a0 1 0:17CbTair 273:162 (10)

where HSW is the short-wave net radiation, HLW the net long-wave incoming radiation, HB the long-wave radiation emitted by the water surface, HE the evaporation heat and HC the conduction heat.
Copyright 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

where a0 is a proportionality constant equal to 0.937 10 5.

River Res. Applic. (2012) DOI: 10.1002/rra

O. LINK ET AL.

Long-wave radiation emitted by the water, HB The long-wave radiation emitted by the water surface follows StefanBoltzmanns law: HB esT 273:164 (11)

variables, namely (i) incident short-wave radiation, (ii) air temperature, (iii) air relative humidity and (iv) wind speed.

STUDY SITE AND FIELD INSTRUMENTATION The study sites correspond to the lower Itata (36 1237 16 and 71 0073 10) (Link et al., 2009) and the Vergara (37 2938 14 and 71 3673 20) (Stehr et al., 2010) rivers, located in Central Chile. These reaches have lengths of 32 and 20 km, average altitudes of 68 and 27 masl, catchment areas equal to 11 290 and 4340 km2 and Strahler orders at the study reach outlet of 6 and 5, respectively. The average altitude, annual rainfall and minimum and maximum annual ambient temperature for the catchments are 582 masl, 1042 mm, 6.8 and 19.9  C for the Itata and 431 masl, 1650 mm, 8.0 and 18.0  C for the Vergara, respectively. Discharges are measured by the Direccin General de Aguas (National Water Agency) at the gauge stations Coelemu, located just at the downstream end of the Itata reach and Tijeral located in the middle of the Vergara reach. Additionally, two meteorological stations were installed for this study at the river reaches, equipped with a data logger (Campbell CR1000), pyranometer (CS300-L Apogee), temperature and relative humidity probe (Vaisala HMP60-L), wind monitor (RM Young 05103-5) and a barometric pressure sensor (Campbell CS106) for recording solar radiation, air temperature, relative humidity, wind speed and direction and atmospheric pressure. For measurements of water temperature, loggers (HOBO Pendant UA-002-64) were used. The measuring frequency for all variables was 15 min. Figure 1 shows the study reaches and the measuring points. Bathymetric surveys were conducted using a differential GPS system (Leica SR530). The average longitudinal slopes for the Itata and Vergara reaches are 0.3% and 0.4%, whereas their bankfull discharges are 400 and 85 m3 s1, respectively. Under bankfull conditions, average river top width, maximum ow depth, transverse section area and section-averaged velocity take values of 412 m, 3.0 m, 600 m2 and 0.7 m s1 at Itata and 50 m, 3.3 m, 108 m2 and 0.8 m s1 at Vergara.

where e = 0.97 is the emissivity of water and T ( C) the water temperature. Evaporation heat, HE The latent heat ux to vapourize water from the liquid to the gas phase is given by HE rw Lw E (12)

where rw (kg m3) is the water density, Lw the latent heat of vapourization of water equal to 1000(2499 2.36 T) (J kg1) and E (m s1) is the evaporation rate, computed as follows: E FwS es ea (13)

where FwS is a linear function of the wind speed, wS (m s1); FwS a1 b1 ws (14)

where a1 (mb1 ms1) and b1 (mb1) are site-specic coefcients. Following MagnusTetens equation, the saturated vapour pressure at the water temperature, es (mb), was calculated as es eT 237:30:7858 ln10
7:5T

(15)

The vapour pressure at the air temperature, ea (mb), was computed as ea es HR 100 (16)

where HR is the relative humidity. Conduction heat, HC The conduction heat is computed as HC rw Lw CBowen FwS Pa T Tair P (17)

DIMENSIONAL ANALYSIS To explore the dimensional relation between the diel variability in water temperature and the variables controlling the thermal regime of a river, we rst need a dimensionless parametrization for the daily temperature range. Herein, we use Tdiel variation, dened as the difference between the maximum and minimum daily temperature divided by a reference temperature, for example, the annual average ambient temperature in the basin.
River Res. Applic. (2012) DOI: 10.1002/rra

where CBowen = 0.61 mb  C1 is the Bowen coefcient, Pa (mb) is the atmospheric pressure and P (mb) is a reference pressure at sea level. In this study, we assume P = Pa because both of our study reaches are at low elevations above sea level. Note that all of the previously described heat ows can be computed by measuring only four hydrometeorologic
Copyright 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

THE SOLAR-TO-STREAM POWER RATIO

Figure 1. Study reaches and measuring points

Tdiel

variation

Tdaily max Tdaily Tbasin average

min

(18)

HSWmax HW HSWmax W gQHS0 gQS0

(22)

The functional relation is then expressed as Tdiel

variation

f1 Q; W ; S0 ; g; n; cw ; HSW max ; Tair ; HR; ws (19)

where Q is the daily mean discharge in the river (m3 s1), W (m) the mean wet channel width corresponding to Q, S0 () the average longitudinal slope of the river reach, HR (%) the daily average relative air humidity, g the specic weight of the water equal to 9810 kg m2 s2, n the water viscosity equal to 1 106 m2 s1 at 20  C, Cw the specic heat of water equal to 4186 J kg1  C1, Tair ( C) the mean daily air temperature, HSWmax (W m2) the daily maximum solar radiation and ws (m s1) the maximum daily wind speed. Applying the p-Buckingham theorem, the following dimensionless parameters can be formulated: Tdiel
variation

where H is the section-averaged ow depth. As a rst approximation, we assume that the longitudinal slope presents a small range of variation across mesoscale rivers; as it is dimensionless, it can be dropped without violation of the p-Buckingham theorem, obtaining
 HR; 

p1 ; p2 ; p3 ; p4 ; p5

gv HSWmax

g4 Q2 cw Tair g2 Qws HSWmax W ; 2 ; 4 gQ HSWmax HSWmax

(23)

f2 p1 ; p2 ; p3 ; p4 ; p5 ; p6

(20)

where p5 and p6 can be combined by multiplication into one single dimensionless parameter:
 p1 ; p2 ; p3 ; p4 ; p5 HR; gv HSWmax ; g4 Q2 cw Tair g2 Qws HSWmax W ; 2 ; 4 gQS0 HSWmax HSWmax 

(21) Note that p5 represents the solar-to-stream power ratio:

Copyright 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

At both study reaches, water temperature measurements were collected during 48 h with thermistor chains, both at the cross-section centre and at a distance of 2 m from each border. Preliminary results showed that the water temperatures did not present signicant differences (<0.5  C) across the sections so that the reaches could be considered well mixed. Consequently, it seemed reasonable to apply a onedimensional approach at both study sites. Next, we compare the measured, controlling hydrometeorological variables and the resulting heat uxes for the winter and summer scenarios at the Itata and Vergara rivers. We apply dimensional analysis to derive a parameter explaining diel temperature variations, which we then test with data corresponding to typical scenarios for austral (i.e. Southern Hemisphere) winter, spring, summer and autumn.
River Res. Applic. (2012) DOI: 10.1002/rra

O. LINK ET AL.

RESULTS Hydrometeorological variables Figure 2 shows the diel variation of the six hydrometeorological variables that were measured, namely water temperature at the reach end, discharge, solar radiation, air temperature, relative air humidity and wind speed, for the winter (left) and summer scenario (right) at the Itata reach. The averaged water temperature remained nearly constant around 9.6 and 24.0  C, during the winter and summer scenarios, respectively. The daily range for T was negligible during winter, at 0.7  C, but signicant during summer, at about 810  C. Peak water temperatures were observed around 16:00 h, whereas minimum daily water temperatures occurred at about 04:00 h. The discharge was constant and very low (about 8 m3 s1) for the summer scenario and unsteady during the winter scenario, with a ood peak discharge equal to 900 m3 s1. Note that a high temperature diel variation is detected during the summer (with constant discharge), whereas during the

winter, we do not observe any diel uctuation nor a direct or inverse correlation with the varying discharge. Solar radiation during sunny days reached peaks of up to 450 and 950 W m2 in winter and summer, respectively, whereas it was about half these values during overcast days. Air temperature varied from 4 to 18  C and from 15 to 35  C during winter and summer, respectively. In both seasons, the daily behaviour of air temperature closely follows that of solar radiation, with the temperature peak lagging by a few hours. On the other hand, the air and water temperature curves behave similarly during summer, but such similitude is lost during the winter scenario, when the diel variability of water temperature goes close to zero. Relative humidity during winter varies from 90% to 3550% during the warmer days. Minima are observed around midday. During summer days, relative humidity varies from 80% to 4050% and even down to 1525% during dry days. A marked diel variation of the relative humidity is observed during the summer scenario only.

Figure 2. Water temperature at the reach end, discharge, solar radiation, air temperature, relative air humidity and wind speed, for the winter

(left) and summer scenarios (right) at the Itata reach

Copyright 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. River Res. Applic. (2012) DOI: 10.1002/rra

THE SOLAR-TO-STREAM POWER RATIO

Wind speed goes to a base level during winter of ~0.5 m s1 with peak events of up to 6.5 m s1. During the summer scenario, wind speed is generally higher, with marked diel variations from ~1 m s1 at night to peaks of 47 m s1, occurring during the afternoon. Figure 3 shows the diel variation of the six measured hydrometeorological variables for the winter (left) and summer scenario (right) at the Vergara reach. The daily average water temperature remained nearly constant during the winter and summer scenarios, at 9.6 and 24.0  C, respectively. As in the Itata, peak temperatures during the day were observed around 16:00 h, whereas minima occurred at about 04:00 h. In the Vergara, however, the daily range in water temperatures was negligible both for summer and winter, with mean diel uctuations of about 1.0 and 0.5  C, respectively. The discharge was constant and very low during the summer scenario (1215 m3 s1) and variable during the winter scenario going from a baseow of 55 m3 s1 to a ood peak discharge of 235 m3 s1. Note that during the summer

(with a nearly steady streamow), we detected a high diel variation in river temperature, whereas no temperature diel variation nor a direct or inverse correlation with discharge magnitude was observed in winter. Solar radiation during sunny days reached peaks of up to 500 and 1000 W m2 in winter and summer, respectively. Note that this is slightly higher than at the Itata site. Air temperature varied from 1 to 15  C and from 6 to 35  C during winter and summer, respectively. Air and water temperature curves follow similar trends during summer but not in winter. Relative humidity in winter varies from 100 down to 60% during some warmer days. Minima are observed at noon. During the summer, relative humidity varies from 90 to ~20%. In winter, wind speed goes to a base level of about 0.3 m s1 at nights, with peak events of up to 8.0 m s1. For the summer scenario, average wind speed is higher than in winter, with minima around 12 m s1 during the early morning and maxima of up to 7 m s1 in the afternoon. Note that there is a major difference in behaviour between both rivers for the summer scenario. Even though incident

Figure 3. Water temperature at the reach end, discharge, solar radiation, air temperature, relative air humidity and wind speed, for the winter

(left) and summer scenarios (right) at the Vergara reach

Copyright 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. River Res. Applic. (2012) DOI: 10.1002/rra

O. LINK ET AL.

short-wave radiation, discharge and other variables were similar at both rivers, the Itata exhibits a high temperature diel variation, whereas the Vergara does not. Heat uxes Figure 4 shows the relevant heat uxes for the Itata reach, namely net short-wave radiation, net long-wave incoming radiation, radiation emitted by the water body, latent evaporation heat, sensible conduction heat and the general balance for the winter (left) and summer (right) scenarios, respectively. The marks at the horizontal axis indicate the beginning of the day, that is, midnight. Diel variability of the net short-wave radiation is pronounced during both measured periods, with maxima of about 200400 W m2 during winter and 600900 W m2 during the summer, depending on cloud cover. Net long-wave incoming radiation is very similar during winter and summer, equal to ~300 W m2, exhibiting a small diel variation in the order of 50100 W m2. Radiation emitted by the water surface shows a nearly constant value during

winter, equal to 340 W m2 and a small diel variability around 450 W m2 during the summer, practically cancelling the long-wave radiation balance. Evaporation heat is always negative. It is very small, less than 50 W m2 during winter, when low ambient temperatures and high relative humidity are observed. During the summer, sensible heat becomes important in the overall balance, reaching peaks of up to 700 W m2 at noon. Conduction heat is very small compared with the other uxes, uctuating around 0 W m2 year round. Nevertheless, during the summer, higher conduction heat uxes can be observed, with maximums of ~100 W m2. The general heat balance exhibits a diel variation in the range of 100 to 450 W m2 in winter and between 350 and 700 W m2 during summer. During nights, especially in summer, the energy balance is negative because of evaporation heat. Figure 5 shows the relevant heat uxes at the Vergara river for the winter (left) and summer (right) scenarios, respectively. Diel variability of the net short-wave radiation is pronounced during both measured periods, with maxima

Figure 4. Net short-wave radiation, net long-wave incoming radiation, radiation emitted by the water body, latent evaporation heat, sensible

conduction heat and the general heat balance for the winter (left) and summer (right) scenarios at the Itata reach
Copyright 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. River Res. Applic. (2012) DOI: 10.1002/rra

THE SOLAR-TO-STREAM POWER RATIO

Figure 5. Net short-wave radiation, net long-wave incoming radiation, radiation emitted by the water body, latent evaporation heat, sensible

conduction heat and the general heat balance for the winter (left) and summer (right) scenarios at the Vergara reach

of about 400 W m2 during winter and ~900 W m2 during the summer, depending on cloud cover. Net long-wave incoming radiation is instead very similar during winter and summer with values around 300 W m2, exhibiting a small diel variation in the order of 50100 W m2. The radiation emitted by the water shows a nearly constant value of 320 W m2 during winter and about 400 W m2 in summer. Evaporation heat was negligible during the whole winter scenario. During the summer, sensible heat peaked at values of up to 120 W m2 at noon. Conduction heat is again very small compared with the other uxes, uctuating close to 0 W m2 during winter and summer. The general heat balance exhibits a diel variation between 150 and 420 W m2 during winter and between 180 and 870 W m2 in summer. Again, the heat balance is negative at nights, which, especially in summer, is accentuated by the evaporation. Overall, diel variability of the heat uxes is smaller in winter than summer. Considerably higher short-wave radiation during summer does not necessarily cause a higher diel
Copyright 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

variability in the water temperature as shown, for example, in the summer scenario for the Vergara river. Evaporation heat can reach sizeable values during summer nights, resulting in lower minimum water temperatures (see the summer scenario for the Itata river). The diel variability of the different heat uxes and in the general energy balance is not able to explain the diel variability of the water temperature on its own. On clear days, the behaviour of the general energy balance is driven by that of the incident short-wave radiation, during the sunny hours and also, on a lesser scale, by evaporation. At nights, it depends basically on the evaporation heat ux. Figure 6 shows Tdiel variation as a function of the dimensionless numbers p1, p2, p3, p4 and p5 for all of the days of the previously presented scenarios on the Itata and Vergara study reaches. Out of the ve parameters in (23) and in Figure 6, the solar-to-stream power ratio, p5, clearly is the only dimensionless number consistently explaining diel temperature variation over the range of scenarios, at both locations. Note that all variables in p5 are daily averages, except the
River Res. Applic. (2012) DOI: 10.1002/rra

O. LINK ET AL.

Figure 6. Diel temperature variation over parameters for Itata and Vergara study reaches

maximum solar radiation HSWmax. At this stage, the preliminary data suggest the following relationship between the two variables:   HSWmax W 0:6 1:0 gQ

DISCUSSION When tested against a number of actual measurements, as well as literature data, the ratio of solar-to-stream power was shown to adequately explain the diel variation of water temperature in mesoscale rivers. This index basically weighs in the two most important factors explaining water temperature in cases where both shading and bed effects can be neglected: on one hand, solar radiation is the main variable affecting available energy, whereas on the other, streamow determines thermal inertia. The physics behind the solar-to-stream power ratio is quite simple: On clear days (as well as overcast conditions if cloud cover can be assumed constant), the maximum incident solar radiation, HSW max, occurs at astronomical noon and is proportional to the daily total energy coming as short-wave radiation. In the case of mesoscale rivers, as
River Res. Applic. (2012) DOI: 10.1002/rra

Tdiel

variation

(24)

with an R2 = 0.98. To verify the predictive value of the solar-to-stream power ratio, Figure 7 shows Tdiel variation over p5 for data corresponding to the Bere and Piddle rivers published by Webb and Zhang (1999) and to GaoShan creek by Tung et al. (2006, 2007). Again, p5 correlates quite well with the observed diel uctuations, as indexed by the dimensionless parameter Tdiel variation, with the data suggesting a linear relationship.
Copyright 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

THE SOLAR-TO-STREAM POWER RATIO

Figure 7. Diel temperature variation over 5 for Bere and Piddle rivers published by Webb and Zhang (1999) and for GaoShan creek by Tung et al. (2006, 2007)

Anthropogenic changes altering controlling factors of the thermal regime are expected to change the behaviour of river temperature. As an example, Gu et al. (1998), Sinokrot and Gulliver (2000), Meier et al. (2003) and Val et al. (2006) show the effect of diversion dams on water temperature. It could be argued that both streamow and wet width change along the longitudinal dimension of a river, which could invalidate our approach. Nevertheless, well-known concepts of downstream hydraulic geometry (e.g. Dingman, 2009) indicate that such changes are very progressive and predictable in the case of alluvial rivers. If the solarto-stream power ratio were applied to a mesoscale river with non-alluvial reaches immediately above the site of interest, one should expect some deviations from the predicted diel uctuations.

dened in the Introduction section, diel uctuations in water temperature will be mostly driven by the variability in solar radiation. For a given reach length, the product of daily maximum solar radiation times river wet width will be roughly proportional to the total energy available for heating water. Dividing this by g, Q, the weight ow of water, yields a measure of the energy available to heat a unit weight of water, which should be proportional to the temperature uctuation. Even though the proposed parameter performed well for the available data, important deviations from the assumed conditions in the controlling factors, that is, in (i) meteorological (atmospheric) conditions, (ii) shading effects, (iii) hydrological and hydraulic variables or (iv) streambed conditions, could generate a signicantly different behaviour of the diel variation of river temperature. For example, if a clear window was to occur around astronomic noon in an otherwise overcast day, the maximum solar radiation would strongly overestimate the total short-wave radiation energy available, and the computed diel uctuation would be larger than the actual value. In the case of smaller rivers, shading effects could decrease incident short-wave radiation, or groundwater contributions could become relevant, resulting in smaller than expected diel variability. Thus, the proposed dimensionless number needs more testing across differing situations to restrict or generalize its applicability. In the case of reaches located close to a source of warm (springs in wintertime) or cold (glaciers, hypolimnetic releases from a dam, springs in summertime) water, the behaviour of temperature diel variability might differ from that of the proposed criteria. Both the Itata and the Vergara rivers are sand-bed channels, where hyporheic ows are usually restricted; mesoscale gravel-bed rivers could have important ground surface water exchanges, affecting the applicability of the proposed parameter.
Copyright 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

CONCLUSION The diel variation of temperature in mesoscale river reaches was analysed using concurrent measurements of water temperature and of those meteorological and hydraulic variables controlling the thermal regime. Large differences in the behaviour of diel temperature variation were found between the two study sites and across seasons. By using dimensional analysis, we derived a dimensionless parameter corresponding to the ratio of solar-to-stream power, which adequately explains the diel uctuations of water temperature in mesoscale rivers. A number of our own measurements as well as literature data were used for preliminary testing of the proposed parameter. The ratio of the solar-to-stream power is an easy-tocompute number, constituting a simple and useful criterion to estimate a priori the magnitude of temperature diel variations in a river reach, given prevailing meteorological (daily maximum solar radiation) and hydrologichydraulic (streamow, mean top width) conditions.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The nancial support provided by Grant 1090428 of the Chilean Research Council CONICYT is greatly acknowledged. The chilean Direccin General de Aguas (National Water Agency) provided discharges measured at gauge stations Coelemu and Tijeral. Professor Peter Goodwin from the University of Idaho facilitated the GPS for bathymetric survey. Special thanks are given to our students Christian Barahona and Miguel Barahona and to our technicians Hector Alonso and Ren Iribarren for their engangement and collaboration during the eld work. Professor Ching-PinTung and
River Res. Applic. (2012) DOI: 10.1002/rra

O. LINK ET AL.

Dr. Tsung-Yu Lee from the National Taiwan University gently provided the data for GaoShan and ChiChiaWan creeks to validate the proposed parameter.

REFERENCES Arscott D, Tockner K, Ward J. 2001. Thermal heterogeneity along a braided oodplain river (Tagliamento River, Northeastern Italy). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 58: 23592373. Beschta RL. 1997. Riparian shade and stream temperature: an alternative perspective. Rangelands 19: 2528. Bormans M, Webster I. 1998. Dynamics of temperature stratication in lowland rivers. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering 124(10): 10591063. Brown GW. 1969. Predicting temperatures of small streams. Water Resources Research 5(1): 6875. Caissie D. 2006. The thermal rgime of rivers: a review. Freshwater Biology 51: 13891406. Caissie D, El-Jabi N, Satish MG. 2001. Modelling of maximum daily water temperatures in a small stream using air temperatures. Journal of Hydrology 251: 1428. Chen, YD, McCutcheon SC, Norton DJ, Nutter WL. 1998. Stream temperature simulation of forested riparian areas: II. Model application. Journal of Environmental Engineering 124(4): 316328. Cox TJ, Rutherford JC. 2000a. Thermal tolerances of two stream invertebrates exposed to diurnally varying temperature. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 34: 203208. Cox TJ, Rutherford JC. 2000b. Predicting the effects of time-varying temperatures on stream invertebrates mortality. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 34: 209215. Dingman SL. 2009. Fluvial Hydraulics. Oxford University Press. Edinger JE, Duttweiler DW, Geyer JC. 1968. The response of water temperatures to meteorological conditions. Water Resources Research 4(5): 11371143. Evans EC, McGregor GR, Petts G. 1998. River energy budgets with special reference to river bed processes. Hydrological Processes 12:575595. Gu R, Li Y. 2002. River temperature sensitivity to hydraulic and meteorological parameters. Journal of Environmental Management 66(1): 4356. Gu R, Montgomery S, Austin T. 1998. Quantifying the effects of stream discharge on summer river temperature. Hydrological Sciences Journal 43(6): 885904. Hondzo M, Stefan H. 1994. Riverbed heat conduction prediction. Water Resources Research 30(5): 15031513. Johnson SL. 2003. Stream temperature: scaling of observations and issues for modelling. Hydrological Processes 17: 497499. Johnson SL. 2004. Factors inuencing stream temperatures in small streams: substrate effects and a shading experiment. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 61: 913923. Johnson SL, Jones JA. 2000. Stream temperature responses to forest harvest and debris ows in western Cascades, Oregon. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 57: 3039. Kim K, Chapra S. 1997. Temperature model for highly transient shallow streams. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering 123(1): 3040. Link O, Monsalve A, Stehr A, Garca A, Urrutia R. 2009. Thermal regime of the Itata River, (Ch. 3, pp.: 4457). In The Itata Catchment, Parra, Castilla, Romero, Quiones, Camao (eds). Universidad de Concepcin; 389 (in spanish).

Martin JL, McCutcheon S. 1999. Hydrodynamics and Transport for Water Quality Modeling. Lewis Publishers. Meier W, Bonjour C, West A, Reichert P. 2003. Modeling the effect of water diversion on the temperature of mountain streams. Journal of Environmental Engineering 129(8): 755764. Mosley MP. 1983. Variability of water temperatures in the braided Ashley and Rakaia rivers. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 17: 331342. Neilson BT, Stevens DK, Chapra SC, Bandaragoda C. 2009. Data collection methodology for dynamic temperature model testing and corroboration. Hydrological Processes 23: 29022914. Rutherford JC, Macaskill J, Williams J. 1993. Natural water temperature variations in the lower Waikato River, New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 27: 7185. Sinokrot B, Stefan H. 1993. Stream temperature dynamics: measurements and modeling. Water Resources Research 29(7): 22992312. Sinokrot B, Stefan H. 1994. Stream water-temperature sensitivity to weather and bed parameters. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering 120(6): 722736. Sinokrot B, Gulliver J. 2000. In-stream ow impact on river water temperatures. Journal of Hydraulic Research 38(5): 339350. Smith K. 1972. River water temperatures: an environmental review. Scottish Geographical Magazine 88: 211220. Smith K. 1981. The prediction of river water temperatures. Hydrological Sciences Bulletin 26(1): 1932. Stefan HG, Preudhomme EB. 1993. Stream temperature estimation from air temperature. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 29(1): 2745. Stehr A, Aguayo M, Link O, Parra O, Romero F, Alcayaga H. 2010. Modelling the hydrologic response of a mesoscale Andean watershed to changes in land use patterns for environmental planning. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences 14: 19631977. Swimbank W. 1963. Long-wave radiation from clear skies. Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society 89: 339348. Tung C, Lee T, Yang Y. 2006. Modelling climate-change impacts on stream temperature of Formosan Landlocked Salmon habitat. Hydrological Processes 20: 16291649. Tung C, Yang Y, Lee T, Li M. 2007. Modication of a stream temperature model with Beers law and application to GaoShan Creek in Taiwan. Ecological Modelling 200: 217224. Val R, Nierola D, Pomares J, Dolz J, Armengol J. 2006. Temperature alteration due to diversion dams. Revista Ingeniera Hidrulica en Mxico 21(1): 5972 (in spanish). Vargas J, Ayala L. 2001. A model for estimation of the longitudinal dispersion coefcient in lowland rivers. Application to the Biobo River, Chile. Revista Ingeniera Hidrulica en Mxico 16(1): 513 (in spanish). Webb B, Zhang Y. 1997. Spatial and seasonal variability in the components of the river heat budget. Hydrological Processes 11: 79101. Webb B, Zhang Y. 1999. Water temperatures and heat budgets in Dorset chalk water courses. Hydrological Processes 13: 309321. Webb B, Hannah D, Moore RD, Brown LE, Nobilis F. 2008. Recent advances in stream and river temperature research. Hydrological Processes 22: 902918. Wunderlich TE. 1972. Heat and mass transfer between a water surface and the atmosphere. Water Resources Research Laboratory, Tennessee Valley Authority. Report No. 14: Norris Tennessee. Younus M, Hondzo M, Engel B. 2000. Stream temperature dynamics in upland agricultural watersheds. Journal of Environmental Engineering 126(6): 518526.

Copyright 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

River Res. Applic. (2012) DOI: 10.1002/rra