Journal of Earth Science, Vol. 31, No. 5, p.

1016–1028, October 2020 ISSN 1674-487X

Printed in China
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12583-020-1333-7

Surface Water and Groundwater Interactions in Wetlands

1, 2
Xiancang Wu , Teng Ma *1, 2, Yanxin Wang1, 2
1. State Key Laboratory of Biogeology and Environmental Geology, China University of Geosciences, Wuhan 430074, China
2. School of Environmental Studies, China University of Geosciences, Wuhan 430074, China
Xiancang Wu: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7944-2340; Teng Ma: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2827-9579

ABSTRACT: Wetland ecosystems are critical habitats for various types of wild lives and are important com-
ponents of global ecosystem. However, with climate change and human activities, wetlands are facing with
degradation. Surface water and groundwater (SW-GW) interactions play an essential role in matter and en-
ergy cycling in wetlands, and therefore affect the evolution and health of wetlands. But the role of groundwa-
ter in wetland ecosystems has been neglected or simplified. In this paper, we reviewed how surface water
interacts with groundwater, and made a systematic summarization of the role of SW-GW interactions (such
as maintaining water balance and biological diversity and removing pollution) in wetland ecological functions.
We also reviewed the methods to investigate, simulate and quantify SW-GW interactions and related reac-
tions. Finally, we illustrated how climate change and human activities affect SW-GW interactions and there-
fore affect wetland functions. We highlight the importance of groundwater in wetlands and the urgency to
intensify the research in integrated multidisciplinary monitoring and simulation methods, dominant varia-
bles and thresholds and integrated water resources management of SW-GW interactions, and further aim to
stimulate better protection and restoration of wetlands all over the world.
KEY WORDS: wetland ecosystems, hyporheic zone, ecological functions, climate changes, human activities.

0 INTRODUCTION
Wetlands are one of the most important ecosystems in the
world, and their total area accounts for 6% of the total land area
of Earth (Desta et al., 2012). The type of wetland includes
coastal, river, stream, lake, swamp and constructed wetland.
Wetlands are helpful in reducing floods, recharging groundwater
or augmenting low flow of rivers and influencing regional mi-
croclimates, and therefore are very beneficial for reducing natu-
ral disasters, such as damage from heavy rain and drought (Acre-
man and Holden, 2013; Zedler and Kercher, 2005). They can
also degrade toxins and pollutants, purify water and reduce en-
vironmental pollution (Phillips et al., 2015; Mitsch et al., 2012).
Wetland ecosystems are the interactive zone between aquatic
and terrestrial ecosystems and are home to many rare species of
flora and fauna (Hu et al., 2017). However, in recent decades,
wetlands have faced shrinkage of their area, reductions in biodi-
versity, increasing soil and water pollution and degradation of
their functionality (Wu et al., 2017; Davidson, 2014; Smolders
et al., 2009).
As an essential part of wetland hydrology, groundwater is
important in water and substance balance of wetland ecosystems
through surface water and groundwater (SW-GW) interactions,
thus plays an essential role in supporting the stability of wetland
ecosystems (Havril et al., 2018). SW-GW interactions occur by
*Corresponding author: mateng@cug.edu.cn
© China University of Geosciences (Wuhan) and Springer-Verlag
GmbH Germany, Part of Springer Nature 2020
Manuscript received December 3, 2019.
Manuscript accepted April 15, 2020.
subsurface lateral flow through the unsaturated soil and by infil-
tration into or exfiltration from the saturated zones (Sopho-
cleous, 2002). In wetlands, SW-GW interactions have an impact
on the transformation or removal of substances, such as major
ions (Lagomasino et al., 2015), nutrients (Du et al., 2017b; Zhou
N Q et al., 2014) and heavy metals (Boyer et al., 2018). In arid
and semi-arid areas, groundwater may be the most important,
possibly the only, source of water for wetlands. In these areas,
SW-GW interactions become the dominant factor controlling the
formation, development and even extinction of wetlands
(Crosbie et al., 2009). Groundwater also has a relatively stable
temperature and can regulate the temperature of wetlands and
thus provide a more stable temperature for benthic organisms
(House et al., 2015). This buffering effect on temperature also
influences the hydrogeochemical and biogeochemical reactions
in wetlands (Boulton et al., 2008).
Therefore, the evolution of wetlands can be expected be-
cause of the changes resulting from SW-GW interactions, and it
is necessary to explore the evolution processes and mechanisms
from the perspective of hydrogeology (Orellana et al., 2012).
The importance of groundwater for maintaining the health, struc-
ture and function of wetland ecosystems has received increasing
attention. However, in wetlands, SW-GW interactions are more
complex, heterogeneous and variable because of the fine-grained
and low-permeability sediments and the existence of plants roots
(Su et al., 2016; Jolly et al., 2008), so that previous wetland re-
search often neglected or simplified the description of ground-
water hydrological processes, and thorough research into SW-
GW interactions in wetlands has not been conducted (Wang W
et al., 2018). Moreover, with more and more serious global cli-
mate change and human activities, such as rising temperature,

Wu, X. C., Ma, T., Wang, Y. X., et al., 2020. Surface Water and Groundwater Interactions in Wetlands. Journal of Earth Science, 31(5):
1016–1028. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12583-020-1333-7. http://en.earth-science.net
Surface Water and Groundwater Interactions in Wetlands
pollution, drainage and eutrophication, the hydrological condi-
tions in wetlands ecosystems has been deeply changed resulting
in the alteration of SW-GW interactions and high vulnerability
of wetlands. Hence, it is important to thoroughly learn the SW-
GW interactions in wetlands in order to ensure the sustainable
development of the wetland ecosystems, and to restore the wet-
lands which were damaged. Even though researchers have re-
viewed the SW-GW interactions in wetlands (Fan et al., 2012;
Jolly et al., 2008), they failed to reveal the role of these interac-
tions in wetland ecological functions and the development of the
approach to identify these interactions.
After carrying out a systematic review of recent literatures,
we aimed to examine the characteristics of SW-GW interactions
in wetlands and the way to identify these characteristics. Further,
we discussed the importance of SW-GW interactions in wetland
ecological functions, and showed that climate changes and hu-
man activities has threaten the SW-GW interactions and the wet-
land ecosystems stability. However, there are different degrees
of SW-GW interactions, it is inappropriate to divide the interac-
tion into close or weak relationship. Because there is no clear
definition between the two, and it has rarely been discussed in
previous literatures. So in this paper, we did not highlight the
different degrees of SW-GW interactions. The goal of this re-
view is providing a reference to understand the water and mate-
rial cycling in wetlands and to protect and restore wetlands under
climate change and anthropogenic impacts, and to provoke the
thorough research in SW-GW interactions in wetlands for better
protection regime.
1 CHARACTERISTICS OF SW-GW INTERACTIONS
IN WETLANDS
1.1 Types of the SW-GW Interactions
By summarizing previous research results, wetland SW-
GW interaction modes can be divided into four types (Fig. 1)
(Jolly et al., 2008): (a) connected losing wetlands, where the aq-
uifer is directly connected, and the surface water level is higher
than surrounding groundwater, so the surface water becomes the
recharge source of surrounding groundwater; (b) disconnected
losing wetlands are similar to (a) except that there is a discon-
nected unsaturated interval between the surface water and the
groundwater surface, and surface water vertically recharges the
Figure 1. Conceptual groundwater flow paths from and to wetlands that are (a) connected losing; (b) disconnected losing; (c) flow-through and (d) connected
gaining (modified after Jolly et al. (2008)).
1017
groundwater, which is more common in a seasonal wetland sys-
tem; (c) flow-through wetlands exhibit hydraulic gradients with
a consistent direction of groundwater flow, resulting in surface
water receiving groundwater recharge upstream and draining to
groundwater downstream, and the groundwater flows through
the entire wetland; (d) gaining wetlands, where surrounding
groundwater recharge surface water.
However, it is critical to know that individual wetlands may
temporarily transfer from one type to another, relying on time-
variable dynamics of surface and groundwater within the wet-
lands. The dynamics of SW-GW interactions of wetlands are
strongly controlled by the relative groundwater and surface wa-
ter levels and these can vary significantly over the short term.
Over the long term, changes in GW-SW interactions will occur
when there are changes in the water levels driven by factors such
as climate change (Sophocleous, 2002), modifications to the
management of the uplands and/or riparian zone (i.e., land use
change such as clearing of native vegetation for dryland agricul-
ture, irrigation, forestry, urban development, etc.), and changes
in the flow regimes of the surface water due to regulation, chan-
nelization, upstream water abstractions, etc.. A landscape per-
spective would consider that channel form, alluvial sediments
lateral connectivity and slope, and differential permeability asso-
ciated with paleochannels and floodplain water bodies (such as
ponds, backwater channels and cutoffs) make a very significant
difference (Stubbington et al., 2009). At the reach scale, down
and upwelling of groundwater may be controlled by discontinui-
ties, such as obstacles, changes in flow direction and pool-and-
riffle sequences, which affect the range of vertical hydraulic gra-
dients and hydraulic conductivity (Bertrand et al., 2011).
1.2 Scope and Structure of Hyporheic Zone in Wetlands
The zone of mixing between groundwater and surface water
is the hyporheic zone (HZ) (Sophocleous, 2002). There is cur-
rently no single, inclusive definition of a HZ because of the
various perspectives understood by different disciplines. Triska
et al. (1989) used geochemical methods in basing a division of
the saturated zone containing ≥10% and ≤98% of surface water
into a HZ (Fig. 2a), and this is a widely accepted definition by
hydrogeologists and is also applied in this paper. They also re-
ported that there were significant physical-chemical gradients
1018 Xiancang Wu, Teng Ma and Yanxin Wang

in a HZ, including dissolved nutrients, such as nitrates and am-
monia, dissolved organic carbon (DOC) and dissolved gases
(e.g., carbon dioxide, oxygen and methane). The scope of HZ is
broad, with spatial scales ranging from millimeters or centime-
ters, beneath small bed forms, to longer flow paths of tens, hun-
dreds, or even thousands of meters (Boano et al., 2014) and is
dominated by the hydraulic conditions and permeability of sedi-
ments.The structure of the wetland HZ has its own unique char-
acteristics that differ from other types of surface-to-ground water
HZ. Firstly, owing to the low water flow velocity in wetlands, it
is easier for fine particulate matter to be deposited on the wetland
bed, forming a layer of fine-grained sediments (Fig. 2a). The
sediments usually have relatively low permeability resulting in a
decrease in vertical permeability, which further weakens the
SW-GW interaction and limits the scope of the HZ. Su et al.
(2016) studied the HZ of Dakebo Lake in the Ordos Basin, China
and reported that, owing to denser sediment medium and weaker
hydrodynamics in the centre of the lake, the thickness of the HZ
in the centre of the lake was mainly between 0 and 1.2 m, while
that on both sides of the lake was between 2.5 and 4.5 m. The
existence of less permeable sediments also led to a debate on
whether there is a vertical hydraulic connection between surface
water and groundwater. For example, in peatland, previous stud-
ies have shown that there is only transverse flow (Price, 1996),
and, even if obvious vertical hydraulic gradients are observed,
groundwater flow in deep peat is always neglected (Gafni and
Brooks, 1990). However, the evidence for a vertical hydraulic
gradient from chemical characteristics (Wu et al., 2017) and lith-
ium isotopes (Négrel et al., 2010) supports the view that there is
vertical flow in peatland. Therefore, the spatial variability and
heterogeneity of wetland HZs are more complex because of the
influence of the bottom layer, which has low permeability.
Secondly, there is a considerable amount of vegetation, both
supergene and submerged, in the wetlands (Fig. 2a). Vegetation
mainly affects the wetland HZ in four ways: (1) by reducing the
fluidity of surface water, which is more conducive to the deposi-
tion of suspended matter; (2) by plant evapotranspiration, which
changes the hydrodynamic conditions; (3) by respiration and ni-
trogen fixation of the roots, which changes the chemical condi-
tions, and (4) by the existence of plant roots, which changes the
characteristics of the porous media and may result in preferential
flowing path and priority flow. Studies have also shown that wet-
land vegetation has significant effects on the groundwater-soil-
surface water flux and the exchange of carbon, nitrogen, phos-
phorus, dissolved oxygen, microbial populations and energy
(Zhang et al., 2019; Eamus et al., 2015; Wang et al., 2015). The
seasonal water extraction depth and root activity disturb the HZ
structure (Jolly et al., 2008). The existence of wetland vegetation
makes the physical structure and chemical environment of a wet-
land HZ more complex, heterogeneous and variable.

Figure 2. Site and major processes of SW-GW interactions in wetlands. (a) The scope of wetland HZs (solid line and dotted line represent the boundary of HZ
during high water level and low water level, respectively). The fine-grained sediments and vegetation roots disturb the wetland HZ structure; (b) the eco-
biological, hydrogeochemical and physical processes in HZ (modified after Fan et al. (2012) and Krause et al. (2011)).
Surface Water and Groundwater Interactions in Wetlands
1.3 Physical, Chemical and Biological Processes in Wet-
land HZs
There are physical, chemical and biological processes in
wetland HZs because of significant physical-chemical gradients
(Fig. 2b).
The hydrodynamic gradients result in water exchange be-
tween surface water and groundwater which is the dominant fac-
tor in biogeochemical and ecological hydrology. The deposition
of fine particulate matter causes the clogging of porous media,
leading to a decrease in porosity and permeability of the sedi-
ment. The clogging process includes clogging of suspended mat-
ter due to particulate matter filtration-deposition, gas phase clog-
ging caused by bubble filling and compaction clogging caused
by fouling of the leaching layer (Nivala et al., 2012). Physical
clogging will lead to slower water flow velocity and a prolonga-
tion of residence time, which causes chemical clogging, such as
ion exchange/complex, adsorption/desorption and chemical pre-
cipitation/crystallization, and biological clogging (i.e., rapid
propagation of microorganisms leading to the attachment or ac-
cumulation of organisms and metabolites on the surface of the
medium particles) (Vymazal, 2018). The porosity and permea-
bility of the sediment changes over time, resulting in different
structural characteristics (Fan et al., 2012).
The mixing of reducing groundwater and oxidizing surface
water results in a sequence from oxygen reduction to nitrate re-
duction, ferromanganese reduction, sulphate reduction and then
methanogenesis appears at the soil profile (Krause et al., 2011)
(Fig. 2b). Therefore, SW-GW interactions can stimulate the
functionally active chemolithotrophic bacteria (Storey et al.,
1999), which extract energy from the oxidation of inorganic mat-
ter, such as sulphur, iron, nitrite and ammonia, and promote the
oxidation-reduction reactions. When ammonia is absent, bacte-
ria may use Mn2+, Fe2+ or reducing sulphur (elemental sulphur
or sulphide) as an energy source. Denitrification converts nitrate
to nitrogen over several steps, resulting in coupled oxidation of
organic compounds in the absence of oxygen (Zhou N Q et al.,
2014). With the exhaustion of oxygen, nitrate, iron, manganese
and sulphate, and the accumulation of large amounts of CO2 (a
by-product of most catabolic processes), methanogenesis occurs
(Lee et al., 2009). Microbial biofilms play an essential role in
this process. These biofilms are mainly composed of highly di-
verse bacterial and archaeal communities embedded in the same
polysaccharide matrix (Battin et al., 2016).
Seasonal and daily fluctuations between low and high water
levels cause variations in open channel discharge. Increased sur-
face flow promotes more water and dissolved solutes input into
the HZ, causing an increase in dissolved oxygen, while the water
residence time in the HZ decreases. Also, biological effects
should not be neglected. Biodisturbance and solute exchange oc-
cur in bottom sediments because of the activities of large inver-
tebrates and small benthic fauna in areas of preferential flow and
high permeability. The activities of large invertebrates and mei-
ofauna lead to bioirrigation and bioturbation in streambed sedi-
ments, resulting in preferential flow paths and locally increased
permeability. Protozoa grazing on biofilms increase their ab-
sorption surface. Therefore, the diffusion gradient of the dis-
solved solute in the presence of grazers is higher than when they
are absent (Peralta-Maraver et al., 2018).
1019
2 FUNCTIONS OF SW-GW INTERACTIONS IN WET-
LANDS
2.1 Regulation of Water Resources
As an important part of the hydrological cycle, wetlands
have prominent hydrological regulation functions. These not
only slow down and restrain surface runoff, but also play a prom-
inent role in unloading flood waters (Acreman and Holden,
2013). Wetland soils have special hydrophysical properties (e.g.,
grain size, hydraulic conductivity and organic matter content).
These control the SW-GW interactions, the speed of water
movement in the soil and the ability of the soil to absorb water.
The presence of a macroporous preferential path allows water to
move faster into the groundwater through the soil (Acreman and
Holden, 2013). SW-GW interactions reduce flood peaks and
make them discharge more smoothly and slowly, thus prolong
the time that floods remain on land (Zedler and Kercher, 2005).
Flood water can be released from wetlands in days, weeks or
months; some increase local air humidity by evaporation during
the flow process and some infiltrate to replenish groundwater
and increase groundwater reserves. SW-GW interactions give
wetlands the role of distributing and homogenizing river runoff.
Wetland vegetation can also slow down the flood flow, thus
preventing all flood water from reaching downstream at the same
time. In addition, based on root distribution through the soil pro-
file, vegetation absorb water from different depths of the soil for
evapotranspiration. Studies have shown that the utilization rate
of groundwater by different plants is between 0 and 77%
(O’Grady et al., 2006), and the absorption of groundwater by
plants will cause a significant drop in groundwater level (Eamus
et al., 2015), which will increase the surface water recharge to
groundwater. Vegetation varies in its architecture and therefore
in its efficiency as a conduit for water moving to the atmosphere
from the soil.
Although there are many obvious examples of wetland
flood reduction services, Bullock and Acreman (2003) showed
that limited support for generalized models of wetland flood con-
trol. They demonstrated that about 80% of related researches
showed that floodplain wetlands decreased flooding, but they
also implied that 41% of headwater wetlands studies showed that
these wetlands increased flooding. Acreman and Holden (2013)
further indicated that upland wetlands generally tend to be flood
generating areas while floodplain wetlands have a greater poten-
tial to reduce floods, and they also showed relative influence of
wetlands with different management regimes on floods (Fig. 3).
Figure 3 also showed the existence of permeable soils promoted
the SW-GW interactions and therefore significantly reduce the
flood magnitude.
2.2 Removing Pollution
The presence of saturated soils is one of the most im-
portant ecohydrological characteristics of wetlands. A water
table near the soil surface creates an interaction of groundwater
flow with a biologically active zone where plants and soil mi-
crobes dominate biogeochemical processes under anaerobic
conditions (Xu et al., 2019; Millar et al., 2018), making this
zone a mechanical filter composed of flowing water and porous
medium and a biochemical filter governed by chemical and bi-
ological processes.
1020
Figure 3. Relative influence of wetlands with different management regimes
on floods. Circles on the left show the natural variation in flood magnitude
resulting from differences in soil type with no wetlands. Circles on the right
show the relative magnitude of floods with different wetlands under different
management regimes (modified after Acreman and Holden (2013)).
Vegetation can absorb elements from water or soil, such as
nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, calcium, sulfur, magnesium,
iron, and others. This will indeed directly purify the pollution
within the root system and change the geochemical gradients,
and therefore indirectly result in chemical-biological processes
in HZ (Moore, 2007). At the same time, vegetation plays critical
role in carbon cycle in wetlands, such as sequestration, mineral-
ization, storage, import/export and emissions (Luo M et al.,
2017), which makes wetland serve as a biological pump in the
carbon cycle and act as a bridge for microbial-oil-plant interac-
tions in sediments.
Wetlands therefore play critical players in the flow of en-
ergy and biomass, nutrient cycles and pollution attenuation. Har-
vey et al. (2013) reported that denitrification began when surface
water went underground and mainly happened in the shallow
layer of the HZ. Clinton et al. (2010) concluded that the HZ can
effectively degrade biological phosphorus in water through the
adsorption of media and microorganisms. Methane production
and loss caused by anaerobic metabolism in the HZ may be an
important way to remove carbon from streams.
In recent years, research on micropollutants has received
increasing attention, such as ibuprofen or antibiotics in water.
Some studies have researched the degradation of micropollutants
in wetlands and have shown that under certain conditions mi-
cropollutants can be effectively degraded along the flow path
within the sediments (Fig. 4b) (Lewandowski et al., 2011). In
fact, some of these chemical compounds (i.e., ibuprofen, diclo-
fenac, naproxen and bezafibrate) have higher conversion effi-
ciencies in sediments than by biofilms in wastewater treatment
plants (Radke et al., 2009). This is mainly because of the higher
diversity of microbial communities in the sediments environ-
ment. Moreover, the residence time of water in sediments is
longer than in surface sediments and open channels, resulting in
more efficient biodegradation (Lewandowski et al., 2011).
2.3 Maintenance of Biological Diversity
Wetland ecosystems contain high diversity and abundance
of fauna. SW-GW interactions in wetlands result in a more stable
living environment than groundwater and surface water in HZs.
So a HZ is mainly home to invertebrates (mostly insect larvae
and crustaceans), including stygobites (specialized to hypogean
Xiancang Wu, Teng Ma and Yanxin Wang
groundwater habitats), stygoxenes (occasionally underground)
or stygophiles (epigean animals pre-adapted for underground
life), and it is also a priority environment for spawning fish, such
as salmon that lay their eggs in gravel (Bertrand et al., 2011).
Changes in groundwater level and surface water flow caused by
alternating wet and dry seasons may change the water exchange
in HZs and affect this biome. However, the HZ maintains hu-
midity after surface drying and remains stable during flooding,
so these potential effects can be reduced in the HZ (Robertson
and Wood, 2010). When groundwater and surface water change,
the HZ may serve as a refuge for local biota and, and when the
environment stabilizes, these organisms can return to their orig-
inal habitats (Dole-Olivier, 2011). In summer, the HZ tempera-
ture is lower than the surface environment, so it can serve as a
refuge for some organisms whose biological processes, such as
membrane transport, diffusion and enzymatic reactions, are gov-
erned by the temperature of the local environment (Zhou N Q et
al., 2014). The HZ can therefore enhance the resilience of ben-
thic communities and affect the restoration of wetlands. In addi-
tion, pore size and oxygen concentration reduce with depth be-
cause of HZ processes (Fig. 2). As a result, with increasing depth
the invertebrate assemblage, comprising a relatively small group
of large individuals near the surface, are replaced by numerous
smaller organisms. The density of large macroinvertebrates de-
clines, while that of meiofauna and protists increases (Fig. 5a).
So that the scope and structure of a HZ in wetlands have signif-
icant influence on the geographic distribution and composition
of benthic communities (Krause et al., 2011).
Biogeochemical processes within a HZ are vital to maintain
the cycling of carbon and nutrients, and maintain the stability of
the wetland food chain (Feris et al., 2003). Dissolution and mi-
crobial transformation of particulate nutrients in HZ have an im-
pact on macroinvertebrate and algal assemblages, and may influ-
ence the productivity of riparian vegetation (Clarke, 2002).
Within the HZ, biogeochemical cycles, microbial and animal
ecology should be studied as an integrated unit. A typical flow
of a carbon-based HZ food web composed of the microbial loop
and grazer chain is illustrated in Fig. 5b. As tiny (50–1 000 µm)
interstitial invertebrates, meiofauna act as a carbon conduit from
large invertebrate consumers to microbial biofilms (Hancock et
al., 2005). The connection of this prey-predator between meio-
fauna and bacteria has been detected in a HZ. When large inver-
tebrates directly consume particulate organic matter, they en-
hance bacterial activity by providing nutrients through death or
excretion, increasing the surface area available for attack and
raising the flux of oxygenated water by tunneling (Hancock et
al., 2005).
3 IDENTIFICATION AND CHARACTERIZATION OF
SW-GW INTERACTIONS IN WETLANDS
3.1 Field Survey Methods
The heterogeneity and spatial-temporal variability of SW-
GW interactions make the study of wetlands complicated, and
many methods have been applied to them. Kalbus et al. (2006)
provided a detailed review of these conventional methods. This
paper summarizes their reviews, and focuses on the investigation
methods used in geophysics that have emerged in recent years.
Surface Water and Groundwater Interactions in Wetlands 1021

Figure 4. Hyporheic uptake of metals and micropollutants in wetlands because of discharge of surface water to groundwater. (a) Elimination of metals in a
drainage basin (Pinal Creek, Arizona, USA) with copper mining contamination. Comparison of vertical distribution of dissolved metal concentrations with an
injected solute tracer (bromide) and a non-reactive component (silicon) (modified after Fuller and Harvey (2000)). (b) Depth distributions of clofibric acid,
naproxen, bezafibrate, ibuprofen, indomethacin and ketoprofen at two different locations in the Erpe lowland stream (eastern Berlin, Germany), including the
corresponding surface water concentrations (adapted from Lewandowski et al. (2011)).

Figure 5. Animal and microbial ecology and biogeochemical (organic carbon) cycling in a hyporheic zone. (1) Community distribution scheme associated with
pore size and dissolved oxygen (DO) throughout the depth profile; the arrows represent colonization depth of (a) large invertebrates; (b) permanent and tempo-
rary meiofauna and (c) protozoa, as well as density and body size distribution of different groups in community structure, (2) microbial loop and its importance
in reintroducing dissolved organic carbon into food webs. The dotted line indicates the surface water and hyporheic zone interface (modified after Krause et al.
(2011) and Peralta-Maraver et al. (2018)).
1022
A few techniques allow for mapping SW-GW interactions
(Table 1). The most direct approach is to calculate water ex-
change intensity and mixing ratio, and to divide the scope of HZs
by measuring head pressure and chemical components at differ-
ent sample points and depths. However, this method has a large
workload and is limited to small-scale wetlands (Battin et al.,
2009). Similarly, the tracer-injection method can directly obtain
the depth of the HZ and the residence time by analysing the
breakthrough curve of the tracer. Although this method is more
effective, it takes a long time and is also controlled by the selec-
tion and arrangement of monitoring points (Du et al., 2017a).
There are also different methods of using environmental tracers,
based on the content of non-reactive environmental tracers in
different water bodies (surface water, groundwater, precipita-
tion, etc.) and the concentration gradient of the radiotracer in the
sediment pore water (Luo X et al., 2017). Thermal tracing has
become a popular method because of the ubiquitous changes of
heat (including day and night changes and seasonal changes), the
developments in temperature measurement equipment and the
progress in heat simulation methods. But, at a large scale, the
heat signal is often blurred and the temperature monitoring rarely
exceeds the decimetre scale (House et al., 2015).
In recent years, as a new investigation, geophysical explo-
ration methods have been applied to the identification of SW-
GW interactions. The most commonly used method is electrical
resistivity imaging (ERI). This method is based on the difference
of salt content of groundwater and surface water which will lead
to different resistivity, and the interaction relationship between
them can be analysed by resistivity map. This method can obtain
2D or 3D resistivity distribution maps at different times (Befus
et al., 2012), and then infer the structural characteristics and
scope of the HZ, including the water exchange characteristics
(Busato et al., 2019; Cardenas and Markowski, 2011). However,
the ERI method often requires a significant difference in resis-
tivity between surface water and groundwater, which makes this
method more suitable for the study of coastal wetlands (Day-
Lewis et al., 2006). However, some studies have researched its
application in surface water-groundwater exchange in non-
coastal areas by repeated measurements at different time and
adding tracers (Nyquist et al., 2008; Singha et al., 2008).
The ERI method can be used to detect different time points
and accuracy requirements, allowing both chemical and physical
mixing processes to be unraveled in ubiquitous environments
whose study has been challenging. It can also be used to evaluate
Table 1 Techniques for studying SW-GW interactions
Methods Different types
Water flux measurement
Direct measurements
Head pressure measurement
Tracer Hydrochemical indicators
Isotope tracers
Tracer test
Thermal tracing Point temperature measurement
Distributed temperature sensing
Thermal infrared remote sensing tem-
perature measurement
Xiancang Wu, Teng Ma and Yanxin Wang
3D and larger scale patterns, making it possible for HZ scope
and structure to be mapped across nested scales (Cardenas and
Markowski, 2011), which gives this method wide potential ap-
plication. The spatial resolution of ERI-derived tomographic im-
ages is affected by survey geometry, regularization, prior infor-
mation, measurement sensitivity and errors and inversion con-
straints (Day-Lewis et al., 2006).
3.2 Simulation Methods
Many researchers have reviewed the methods of mathe-
matical simulation of SW-GW interactions, such as Boano et
al. (2014), Barthel and Banzhaf (2015) and Brunner et al.
(2017). Overall, according to these differences, the existing
models can be classified into two categories. One is a physical
model based on physics, and the other is a model based on phe-
nomenology (Boano et al., 2014). The physical model is based
on the principles of mass and momentum balance to determine
the driving force and volume of surface water and groundwater
exchange. It can be used to describe the control factors and ex-
change dynamics of water flow in the subsurface flow zone.
However, such models often require large amounts of data and
parameters, such as permeability coefficient and surface water-
groundwater dynamics, which limit the ability of the model to
predict water flow. Based on the phenomenological descrip-
tions of SW-GW interactions, a large number of models have
also been constructed, the most famous of which is the transi-
ent storage model (Liao et al., 2013). Developed from the clas-
sical advection-dispersion model, the transient storage model
mainly explains complex physical processes occurring at a
small scale.
More mature and wide applicability models applied to eval-
uate the SW-GW interactions regionally can further classified
into two types (Barthel and Banzhaf, 2015): fully coupled
schemes whose equations governing surface water and ground-
water flows are solved simultaneously within one software pack-
age (e.g., ParFlow, HydroGeoSphere, InHM, and OpenGeoSys)
and loosely coupled schemes which are coupled by two or more
individual models via the exchange of model results, where the
output of one model forms the input of the other (e.g.,
DAFLOW, MD-SWAT-MODFLOW, DYNSYSTEM, and
IGSM). Many of these models can not only calculate the water
exchange between surface water and groundwater, but also to
evaluate the solutes transport and heat exchange (Maxwell and
Condon, 2016; Maxwell et al., 2015).
Principle
Applying bag-type seepage meters to measure the water flow
Based on calculation of gradients and conductivity and Darcy’s Law
The hydrochemical characteristics of different water are obviously different under the
influence of different sources and different migration paths
Similar as the hydrochemical indicators
Injecting conservative compounds or isotopes to identify SW-GW interactions
Using traditional glass thermometers, pressure sensors, thermistors, thermocouple tem-
perature probes, optical and radiation sensors, etc. to get continuous or discrete temper-
ature data at different points
Temperature values at different spatial points are measured according to the distribution
of light at different wavelengths and the time when the reflected signal is received
Using satellite or airborne sensors to collect and record the thermal infrared information
of terrestrial objects, and then to retrieve the surface temperature
Surface Water and Groundwater Interactions in Wetlands
4 IMPACTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE AND HUMAN
ACTIVITIES
4.1 Impacts of Climate Change
4.1.1 Alteration of hydrological regimes
With changes in precipitation patterns, the greatest increase
in runoff occurs during wet seasons, whereas the greatest de-
crease is possible during dry seasons (Zhou S B et al., 2014). In
wet seasons, intensified runoff will carry increased sediments
and pollution, which would increase clogging in HZs. However,
in dry seasons, the combined effects of reduced precipitation and
high evaporation caused by rising temperatures will lead to a
lower water level. The decrease of water resource has caused
shrinkage of wetland area, salinization and wetland succession
in many wetlands globally (Nachshon et al., 2014; Nielsen and
Brock, 2009). The annual distribution of precipitation, freezing
and snow melt, rainy season flooding and strong evapotranspira-
tion in windy seasons lead to significant differences in SW-GW
interaction dynamics in wet and dry seasons (Sophocleous,
2002).
Higher temperatures in winter will reduce ground frost and
make more water penetrate into the ground, thus increasing
groundwater recharge (Kløve et al., 2014). Increased aquifer re-
charge will raise the winter groundwater level, while in spring
and summer, the groundwater level may be lower than average
water tables (Okkonen and Kløve, 2010). A warmer winter
would also cause earlier snow melting, which further shifts flood
peak earlier and reduces summer flow (Okkonen and Kløve,
2011). Higher temperatures will increase convection and evapo-
ration, indirectly resulting in reduced water level in some regions
(Leigh et al., 2013). Ficklin et al. (2013) projected that warmer
temperature could increase average annual evapotranspiration
by nearly 23% by the end of the twenty-first century in the Col-
orado River Basin of the USA. Changes in surface water and
groundwater levels may eventually change SW-GW interactions
and the interaction between natural and social water demand and
supply (Hanson et al., 2012). As the temperature increases, the
spatial expansion of wetlands may decrease as the groundwater
and surface water levels decrease.
4.1.2 Alteration in material cycle
As the amount of precipitation decreases, summer droughts
become more frequent and dense, which reduces the water level
of the wetland. The lower water level can introduce oxygen into
wetland deposits, accelerate decomposition and destroy the pre-
viously stable wetland environment (Moore et al., 2013). Melt-
ing glaciers and more frequent storms wash away the soil, trans-
porting large amounts of particulate and dissolved organic mate-
rial, stimulating microbial metabolism and HZ respiratory activ-
ities (Thangarajan et al., 2013).
Temperature dynamics directly affect organism activity and
heterogeneity in a HZ (Dole-Olivier, 2011), and indirectly
change O2 availability and organic matter supply (Wang R C et
al., 2018; Peyrard et al., 2011). An increase in average tempera-
ture will speed up water exchange and decomposition of organic
carbon in sediments, thereby delivering greater amounts of CO2,
CH4 and/or DOC depending on the edaphic conditions (Mitsch
et al., 2012). Particularly, this effect may be most pronounced in
swamps or peatlands in Arctic regions, as the decomposition of
1023
these zones is usually limited by low temperatures, which are
expected to rise the most in high latitudes of the northern hemi-
sphere. Both long-term observations and experimental research
have suggested that carbon pools in tundra or peatland ecosys-
tems may become new carbon sources to the atmosphere due to
warmer temperatures (Yu, 2012).
4.1.3 Alteration of biological diversity
During dry seasons, lower water exchange will result in in-
terstitial clogging, permeability decrease and substance ex-
change in the sediments. The sediment permeability has a greater
effect on bacterial diversity and composition than temperature
(Zeglin et al., 2011). There is a positive correlation between
hyporheic species survival and dissolved organic material pro-
vided by SW-GW interactions, but the low permeability will
limit the food sources (Buendia et al., 2013). The HZ supplies an
ideal area for fish embryos and protects them from predators, but
clogging of a streambed has been reported to damage reproduc-
tive success and rates of fish recruitment (Scheurer et al., 2009).
So that the loss of susceptible taxa resulting from the prolonga-
tion of the dry season can significantly alter assemblages of
hyporheic invertebrates (Datry, 2012).
During wet seasons, increased runoff from surrounding res-
idential area carries high concentrations of pathogens and con-
taminants into wetland water bodies, favoring the growth and re-
production of pathogens indirectly. In addition, higher tempera-
tures enhance the emergence and persistence of many infectious
microorganisms (Harvell et al., 2009). The reproduction of path-
ogens may affect the structure of the original biofilms in the sed-
iments and the environmental tolerance of individual species. An
explosive bacterial growth combined with reduced biofilm re-
sistance may affect the food supply of the macroinvertebrates
and further the wetland health.
4.2 Impacts of Human Activity
Major anthropogenic causes of wetland degradation include
waste disposal, agricultural and forestry drainage, flood control
and stream channelization, development of roads or urban settle-
ments, water diversion irrigation, groundwater extraction, ferti-
lizer and sewage runoff and pesticide leakage, exploitation of
minerals, peat or gravel and sea level rise (Moore, 2007). Such
factors may directly or indirectly influence sedimentation and
hydrological regimes, water quality and biological resources.
Urbanization generally increases total flow and peak runoff
by converting wetland soils into impervious surfaces and impair-
ing water quality. Because of an increased water demand in ur-
banized areas, dam construction and water abstraction will also
affect SW-GW interactions in wetlands by modifying the fre-
quency and level of environmental flow. Reduction of hydrolog-
ical flow typically leads to sedimentation instream and declining
depth to the extent that vegetation (especially exotics) invade
shallower parts (Lee et al., 2006). Expansion of multi-lane free-
ways and highways has led to restrictions on river migration, the
dumping of waste and toxic substances into rivers and reduction
of wetland and riparian habitats adjacent to the roadway (Patten,
2006).
Historically, wetlands have been drained for the develop-
ment of farmland globally. Such drainage is still ongoing and
1024
even increasing in scale, especially in areas where wetland drain-
age is often utilized as a way of increasing biomass or crop pro-
duction. The direct use of wetland surface water will lead to re-
ductions in water storage and the shrinkage of wetlands. The for-
mation of a depression cone from groundwater overexploitation
for irrigation will intensify the drainage of wetlands to ground-
water (Johansen et al., 2011). The water channels can directly
supply water for wetlands, playing a crucial role in the process
of wetland restoration, and then promoting the rise of the
groundwater level, water quality and vegetation growth (Rich-
ardson et al., 2011). However, by constructing channels, ditches
and canals, or straightening streams and removing natural barri-
ers, such as vegetation, wetland outflow will also increase (Ras-
mussen et al., 2018), and surface water would recharge more to
groundwater (Wu et al., 2017). Recent research has demon-
strated that in tropical wetlands, the construction of ditches to
reduce water content causes DOC release from paleo-organic
carbon stocks (Moore et al., 2013).
The migration and enrichment of large amounts of nitrogen,
phosphorus, heavy metals and organic matter from anthropo-
genic pollutions leads to deterioration in wetland water quality
(Ma et al., 2016). The biogeochemical behavior of nitrogen,
phosphorus and sulphur derived from wetlands has a negative
impact on the evolution of groundwater chemistry. In the context
of human activities leading to widespread deterioration of the
environment, the impact of polluted groundwater on wetland
systems is also a current research hotspot.
As a way of wetland restoration, constructed wetlands are
well developed all over the world. There are two regimes to de-
velop a constructed wetland: optimizing the existing wetlands or
creating wetlands where there were none previously (Mateos,
2017). These wetlands are often constructed to achieve multi-
functionality rather than focusing on specific ecosystem ser-
vices. These services include biodiversity enhancement, soil de-
salinization and water quality improvement (Moreno-Mateos
and Comín, 2010). Today, most constructed wetlands are de-
signed to eliminate organic compounds, nutrients and heavy
metals from both urban and agricultural wastewater as efficiently
as possible (Moreno et al., 2007). Under highly controlled con-
ditions, constructed wetlands can achieve high long-term re-
moval rates of organic compounds, phosphorus and nitrogen by
manipulating plant species, flow speed, substrates, oxygenation
and microbial communities. Many literatures has demonstrated
that wetlands were constructed to treat contaminated groundwa-
ter, and the results showed that nitrate and organic matters can
be effectively removed from groundwater because of the SW-
GW interactions (Coban et al., 2015; Seeger et al., 2011).
5 PROSPECT FOR THE FUTURE
5.1 Integrated Multidisciplinary Monitoring and Simula-
tion Methods of SW-GW Interaction
Field studies usually suffer from an absence of chemical
and ecological baseline data to describe, evaluate and quantify
SW-GW interactions processes and functions over a range of
scales. It is necessary to develop new, alternative, more efficient
and robust methods and techniques to obtain long-term sequence
data on hydrology, chemistry and biology for future research.
Detailed studies of hyporheic processes are often limited to
Xiancang Wu, Teng Ma and Yanxin Wang
small-scale research, and monitoring and research on larger
scales is greatly simplified. So that it is also necessary to conduct
monitoring at different spatial and time scales, and to raise the
accuracy and resolution of the monitoring. Also, these simula-
tion methods are partially coupled with water exchange, physical
adsorption and deposition, chemical processes and biological
metabolism, but there is no model that fully couples all pro-
cesses. In addition, the existing models are not applicable for the
complex multi-scale characteristics of hyporheic exchange, nor
can they solve the problem of upscaling or downscaling the pre-
diction results.
5.2 Dominant Variables and Thresholds of SW-GW Inter-
actions
The continuum of SW-GW interactions in wetlands is
broad, with spatial scales ranging from millimeters or centime-
ters, beneath small bed forms, to longer flow paths of tens, hun-
dreds, or even thousands of meters and temporal scales ranging
from seconds to tens of years. It is affected by many factors, such
as hydrological conditions, hydrogeological conditions, geomor-
phological conditions, meteorological and climatic conditions,
which involve surface water velocity, discharge, sediment
transport, sediment permeability, saturation rate, surface water
and groundwater head difference, river bed slope, bay shape,
rainfall and evaporation, temperature change and so on. These
variables have strong variability and various influences in differ-
ent spatial and temporal scales, making it difficult to study these
variables (Boano et al., 2014). In addition, to apply the results of
more detailed small-scale studies to large-scale studies, new
techniques and methods need to be developed to determine the
controlling effects of spatial and temporal variables on HZ pro-
cesses. How to assess the influence of these factors on wetland-
groundwater interaction under different conditions, find out the
key variables, and further study the threshold value of these var-
iables and combinations of multiple variables will be an im-
portant topic in future research.
5.3 Integrated Water Resources Management
There is an urgent need to analyze the dynamic changes in
wetland water cycles, distribution of water resources and the
evolution of the water environment based on future climate
change and human activity scenarios, and to identify the re-
sponse mechanism of SW-GW interactions in wetlands under a
changing environment. An integrated water resources manage-
ment scheme based on this needs to be proposed to maintain the
health and stability of WEs (Kløve et al., 2014). The scheme de-
mands coordinated development of land, water and related re-
sources to maximize the resultant social and economic welfare
in an equitable manner, without compromising the sustainability
of vital ecosystems. To be fully effective, groundwater manage-
ment within the general integrated water resources management
framework requires integration of institutional arrangements, an
appropriate regulatory and policy framework, economic instru-
ments and social participation.
6 CONCLUSIONS
As an essential type of ecosystems, various types of wet-
lands depend on groundwater for stability and sustainability.
Surface Water and Groundwater Interactions in Wetlands
Groundwater provides a reliable source of water, solutes, nutri-
ents and energy for these wetlands and has become the focus of
research on wetland ecohydrology. Wetland HZs are one of the
most important transition zone of surface water and groundwa-
ter, and are also the key to studying mechanisms and processes
of SW-GW interactions. The differences of groundwater and
surface water result in significant physical, chemical and biolog-
ical gradient in HZ, and promote material reactions and energy
cycling between the groundwater and surface water. Therefore,
SW-GW interactions are crucial for wetlands to maintain their
ecological functions, such as regulation of water resources, re-
moving pollutions and maintenance of biological diversity.
However, climates changes and human activities have signifi-
cantly altered the SW-GW interactions and degraded the func-
tion of wetlands.
Although the functions of groundwater in wetlands are im-
portant, previous research into groundwater hydrological pro-
cesses in wetlands has been inadequate and there has not been
intensive research into the interaction mechanisms between sur-
face water and groundwater and their ecological effects. Hence,
questions on how wetlands depend on the groundwater system
to maintain their stability, how global climate change and human
activity affect SW-GW interactions in wetlands and how humans
should regulate SW-GW interactions to ensure the sustainable
development of wetland ecosystems remain unanswered.
Therefore, the studies of SW-GW interactions in wetlands
should be intensified. Integrated multidisciplinary monitoring
and simulation methods should be developed to get the chemical
and ecological baseline data and to simulate physical-chemical-
biochemical and ecological processes, and further to study the
dominant variables and thresholds of SW-GW interactions to as-
sess the importance of groundwater in wetlands. Finally, re-
searchers need to conduct integrated water resources manage-
ment program to realize the harmonious development of wetland
ecology and social economy under the influence of climate
change and human activity.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This project was supported by the National Natural Science
Foundation of China (Nos. 41630318, 41521001), the Project of
China Geological Survey (Nos. 121201001000150121,
DD20190263, 2019040022), the Research Program for Geolog-
ical Processes, Resources and Environment in the Yangtze River
Basin (No. CUGCJ1702). We thank Kara Bogus, PhD, from Li-
wen Bianji, Edanz Editing China (www.liwenbianji.cn/ac), for
editing the English text of a draft of this manuscript. The final
publication is available at Springer via
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12583-020-1333-7.
REFERENCES CITED
Acreman, M., Holden, J., 2013. How Wetlands Affect Floods. Wetlands,
33(5): 773–786. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13157-013-0473-2
Barthel, R., Banzhaf, S., 2015. Groundwater and Surface Water Interaction at
the Regional-Scale––A Review with Focus on Regional Integrated Mod-
els. Water Resources Management, 30(1): 1–32.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-015-1163-z
Battin, T. J., Besemer, K., Bengtsson, M. M., et al., 2016. The Ecology and
Biogeochemistry of Stream Biofilms. Nature Reviews Microbiology,
1025
14(4): 251–263. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrmicro.2016.15
Battin, T. J., Kaplan, L. A., Findlay, S., et al., 2009. Erratum: Biophysical
Controls on Organic Carbon Fluxes in Fluvial Networks. Nature Geo-
science, 2(8): 595–595. https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo101
Befus, K. M., Cardenas, M. B., Ong, J. B., et al., 2012. Classification and
Delineation of Groundwater-Lake Interactions in the Nebraska Sand
Hills (USA) Using Electrical Resistivity Patterns. Hydrogeology Jour-
nal, 20(8): 1483–1495. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10040-012-0891-x
Bertrand, G., Goldscheider, N., Gobat, J. M., et al., 2011. Review: From
Multi-Scale Conceptualization to a Classification System for Inland
Groundwater-Dependent Ecosystems. Hydrogeology Journal, 20(1): 5–
25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10040-011-0791-5
Boano, F., Harvey, J. W., Marion, A., et al., 2014. Hyporheic Flow and
Transport Processes: Mechanisms, Models, and Biogeochemical Impli-
cations. Reviews of Geophysics, 52(4): 603–679.
https://doi.org/10.1002/2012rg000417
Boulton, A. J., Fenwick, G. D., Hancock, P. J., et al., 2008. Biodiversity, Func-
tional Roles and Ecosystem Services of Groundwater Invertebrates. Inver-
tebrate Systematics, 22(2): 103–116. https://doi.org/10.1071/is07024
Boyer, A., Hatat-Fraile, M., Passeport, E., et al., 2018. Biogeochemical Con-
trols on Strontium Fate at the Sediment-Water Interface of Two
Groundwater-Fed Wetlands with Contrasting Hydrologic Regimes. En-
vironmental Science & Technology, 52(15): 8365–8372.
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.8b01876
Brunner, P., Therrien, R., Renard, P., et al., 2017. Advances in Understanding
River-Groundwater Interactions. Reviews of Geophysics, 55(3): 818–
854. https://doi.org/10.1002/2017rg000556
Buendia, C., Gibbins, C. N., Vericat, D., et al., 2013. Detecting the Structural and
Functional Impacts of Fine Sediment on Stream Invertebrates. Ecological
Indicators, 25: 184–196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2012.09.027
Bullock, A., Acreman, M., 2003. The Role of Wetlands in the Hydrological
Cycle. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 7(3): 358–389.
https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-7-358-2003
Busato, L., Boaga, J., Perri, M. T., et al., 2019. Hydrogeophysical Character-
ization and Monitoring of the Hyporheic and Riparian Zones: The Ver-
migliana Creek Case Study. Science of the Total Environment, 648:
1105–1120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.08.179
Cardenas, M. B., Markowski, M. S., 2011. Geoelectrical Imaging of
Hyporheic Exchange and Mixing of River Water and Groundwater in a
Large Regulated River. Environmental Science & Technology, 45(4):
1407–1411. https://doi.org/10.1021/es103438a
Clarke, S. J., 2002. Vegetation Growth in Rivers: Influences upon Sediment
and Nutrient Dynamics. Progress in Physical Geography, 26(2): 159–
172. https://doi.org/10.1191/0309133302pp324ra
Clinton, S. M., Edwards, R. T., Findlay, S. E. G., 2010. Exoenzyme Activities
as Indicators of Dissolved Organic Matter Composition in the Hyporheic
Zone of a Floodplain River. Freshwater Biology, 55(8): 1603–1615.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2427.2009.02383.x
Coban, O., Kuschk, P., Wells, N. S., et al., 2015. Microbial Nitrogen Trans-
formation in Constructed Wetlands Treating Contaminated Groundwa-
ter. Environmental Science Pollution Research, 22(17): 12829–12839.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-014-3575-3
Crosbie, R. S., McEwan, K. L., Jolly, I. D., et al., 2009. Salinization Risk in
Semi-Arid Floodplain Wetlands Subjected to Engineered Wetting and
Drying Cycles. Hydrological Processes, 23(24): 3440–3452.
https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.7445
Datry, T., 2012. Benthic and Hyporheic Invertebrate Assemblages along a
Flow Intermittence Gradient: Effects of Duration of Dry Events.
1026
Freshwater Biology, 57(3): 563–574. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-
2427.2011.02725.x
Davidson, N. C., 2014. How Much Wetland Has the World Lost? Long-Term
and Recent Trends in Global Wetland Area. Marine and Freshwater Re-
search, 65(10): 934–941. https://doi.org/10.1071/MF14173
Day-Lewis, F. D., White, E. A., Johnson, C. D., et al., 2006. Continuous Re-
sistivity Profiling to Delineate Submarine Groundwater Discharge—Ex-
amples and Limitations. The Leading Edge, 25(6): 724–728.
https://doi.org/10.1190/1.2210056
Desta, H., Lemma, B., Fetene, A., 2012. Aspects of Climate Change and Its
Associated Impacts on Wetland Ecosystem Functions––A Review. Jour-
nal of American Science, 8(10): 582–596
Dole-Olivier, M. J., 2011. The Hyporheic Refuge Hypothesis Reconsidered:
A Review of Hydrological Aspects. Marine and Freshwater Research,
62(11): 1281–1302. https://doi.org/10.1071/mf11084
Du, Y., Ma, T., Deng, Y., et al., 2017a. Hydro-Biogeochemistry of Hyporheic
Zone: Principles, Methods and Ecological Significance. Earth Science,
42(5): 661–673 (in Chinese with English Abstract)
https://doi.org/10.3799/dqkx.2017.054
Du, Y., Ma, T., Deng, Y., et al., 2017b. Sources and Fate of High Levels of
Ammonium in Surface Water and Shallow Groundwater of the Jianghan
Plain, Central China. Environmental Science: Processes & Impacts,
19(2): 161–172. https://doi.org/10.1039/c6em00531d
Eamus, D., Zolfaghar, S., Villalobos-Vega, R., et al., 2015. Groundwater-De-
pendent Ecosystems: Recent Insights from Satellite and Field-Based
Studies. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 19(10): 4229–4256.
https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-19-4229-2015
Fan, W., Zhang, G., Li, R., 2012. Review of Groundwater-Surface Water In-
teractions in Wetland. Advances in Earth Science, 27(4): 413–423 (in
Chinese with English Abstract)
Feris, K. P., Ramsey, P. W., Frazar, C., et al., 2003. Structure and Seasonal
Dynamics of Hyporheic Zone Microbial Communities in Free-Stone
Rivers of the Estern United States. Microbial Ecology, 46(2): 200–215.
https://doi.org/10.1007/bf03036883
Ficklin, D. L., Stewart, I. T., Maurer, E. P., 2013. Climate Change Impacts on
Streamflow and Subbasin-Scale Hydrology in the Upper Colorado River
Basin. PLoS ONE, 8(8): e71297. https://doi.org/10.1371/jour-
nal.pone.0071297
Fuller, C. C., Harvey, J. W., 2000. Reactive Uptake of Trace Metals in the
Hyporheic Zone of a Mining-Contaminated Stream, Pinal Creek, Ari-
zona. Environmental Science & Technology, 34(7): 1150–1155.
https://doi.org/10.1021/es990714d
Gafni, A., Brooks, K. N., 1990. Hydraulic Characteristics of Four Peatlands
in MinnesoTA. Canadian Journal of Soil Science, 70(2): 239–253.
https://doi.org/10.4141/cjss90-025
Hancock, P. J., Boulton, A. J., Humphreys, W. F., 2005. Aquifers and Hyporheic
Zones: Towards an Ecological Understanding of Groundwater. Hydrogeol-
ogy Journal, 13(1): 98–111. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10040-004-0421-6
Hanson, R. T., Flint, L. E., Flint, A. L., et al., 2012. A Method for Physically
Based Model Analysis of Conjunctive Use in Response to Potential Cli-
mate Changes. Water Resources Research, 48(6): W00L08.
https://doi.org/10.1029/2011wr010774
Harvell, D., Altizer, S., Cattadori, I. M., et al., 2009. Climate Change and
Wildlife Diseases: When Does the Host Matter the Most?. Ecology,
90(4): 912–920. https://doi.org/10.1890/08-0616.1
Harvey, J. W., Böhlke, J. K., Voytek, M. A., et al., 2013. Hyporheic Zone
Denitrification: Controls on Effective Reaction Depth and Contribution
to Whole-Stream Mass Balance. Water Resources Research, 49(10):
Xiancang Wu, Teng Ma and Yanxin Wang
6298–6316. https://doi.org/10.1002/wrcr.20492
Havril, T., Tóth, Á., Molson, J. W., et al., 2018. Impacts of Predicted Climate
Change on Groundwater Flow Systems: Can Wetlands Disappear Due
to Recharge Reduction?. Journal of Hydrology, 563: 1169–1180.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2017.09.020
House, A. R., Sorensen, J. P. R., Gooddy, D. C., et al., 2015. Discrete Wetland
Groundwater Discharges Revealed with a Three-Dimensional Tempera-
ture Model and Botanical Indicators (Boxford, UK). Hydrogeology
Journal, 23(4): 775–787. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10040-015-1242-5
Hu, S. J., Niu, Z. G., Chen, Y. F., et al., 2017. Global Wetlands: Potential
Distribution, Wetland Loss, and Status. Science of the Total Environ-
ment, 586: 319–327. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.02.001
Johansen, O. M., Pedersen, M. L., Jensen, J. B., 2011. Effect of Groundwater
Abstraction on Fen Ecosystems. Journal of Hydrology, 402(3/4): 357–
366. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2011.03.031
Jolly, I. D., McEwan, K. L., Holland, K. L., 2008. A Review of Groundwater-
Surface Water Interactions in Arid/Semi-Arid Wetlands and the Conse-
quences of Salinity for Wetland Ecology. Ecohydrology, 1(1): 43–58.
https://doi.org/10.1002/eco.6
Kalbus, E., Reinstorf, F., Schirmer, M., 2006. Measuring Methods for
Groundwater––Surface Water Interactions: A Review. Hydrology and
Earth System Sciences, 10(6): 873–887. https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-10-
873-2006
Kløve, B., Ala-Aho, P., Bertrand, G., et al., 2014. Climate Change Impacts
on Groundwater and Dependent Ecosystems. Journal of Hydrology, 518:
250–266. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2013.06.037
Krause, S., Hannah, D. M., Fleckenstein, J. H., et al., 2011. Inter-Disciplinary
Perspectives on Processes in the Hyporheic Zone. Ecohydrology, 4(4):
481–499. https://doi.org/10.1002/eco.176
Lagomasino, D., Price, R. M., Herrera-Silveira, J., et al., 2015. Connecting
Groundwater and Surface Water Sources in Groundwater Dependent
Coastal Wetlands and Estuaries: Sian Ka’an Biosphere Reserve, Quin-
tana Roo, Mexico. Estuaries and Coasts, 38(5): 1744–1763
Lee, C. G., Fletcher, T. D., Sun, G., 2009. Nitrogen Removal in Constructed
Wetland Systems. Engineering in Life Sciences, 9(1): 11–22.
https://doi.org/10.1002/elsc.200800049
Lee, S. Y., Dunn, R. J. K., Young, R. A., et al., 2006. Impact of Urbanization
on Coastal Wetland Structure and Function. Austral Ecology, 31(2):
149–163. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1442-9993.2006.01581.x
Leigh, C., Stubbington, R., Sheldon, F., et al., 2013. Hyporheic Invertebrates
as Bioindicators of Ecological Health in Temporary Rivers: A Meta-
Analysis. Ecological Indicators, 32: 62–73.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.03.006
Lewandowski, J., Putschew, A., Schwesig, D., et al., 2011. Fate of Organic
Micropollutants in the Hyporheic Zone of a Eutrophic Lowland Stream:
Results of a Preliminary Field Study. Science of the Total Environment,
409(10): 1824–1835. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2011.01.028
Liao, Z. J., Lemke, D., Osenbrück, K., et al., 2013. Modeling and Inverting
Reactive Stream Tracers Undergoing Two-Site Sorption and Decay in
the Hyporheic Zone. Water Resources Research, 49(6): 3406–3422.
https://doi.org/10.1002/wrcr.20276
Luo, M., Huang, J. F., Zhu, W. F., et al., 2017. Impacts of Increasing Salinity
and Inundation on Rates and Pathways of Organic Carbon Mineraliza-
tion in Tidal Wetlands: A Review. Hydrobiologia, 827(1): 31–49.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-017-3416-8
Luo, X., Jiao, J. J., Wang, X. S., et al., 2017. Groundwater Discharge and
Hydrologic Partition of the Lakes in Desert Environment: Insights from
18
Stable O/2H and Radium Isotopes. Journal of Hydrology, 546: 189–
Surface Water and Groundwater Interactions in Wetlands 1027

203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2017.01.017 Okkonen, J., Kløve, B., 2010. A Conceptual and Statistical Approach for the
Ma, J., Liu, Y., Yu, G. B., et al., 2016. Temporal Dynamics of Urbanization- Analysis of Climate Impact on Ground Water Table Fluctuation Patterns
Driven Environmental Changes Explored by Metal Contamination in in Cold Conditions. Journal of Hydrology, 388(1/2): 1–12.
Surface Sediments in a Restoring Urban Wetland Park. Journal of Haz- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2010.02.015
ardous Materials, 309: 228–235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhaz- Okkonen, J., Kløve, B., 2011. A Sequential Modelling Approach to Assess
mat.2016.02.017 Groundwater-Surface Water Resources in a Snow Dominated Region of
Mateos, D. M., 2017. Wetland Restoration and Creation: An Overview. In: Finland. Journal of Hydrology, 411(1/2): 91–107.
Mateos, D. M., ed., Wetlands, Infobase Publishing, New York https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2011.09.038
Maxwell, R. M., Condon, L. E., 2016. Connections between Groundwater Orellana, F., Verma, P., Loheide, S. P. II, et al., 2012. Monitoring and Mod-
Flow and Transpiration Partitioning. Science, 353(6297): 377–380. eling Water-Vegetation Interactions in Groundwater-Dependent Ecosys-
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaf7891 tems. Reviews of Geophysics, 50(3): RG3003.
Maxwell, R. M., Condon, L. E., Kollet, S. J., 2015. A High-Resolution Sim- https://doi.org/10.1029/2011rg000383
ulation of Groundwater and Surface Water over Most of the Continental Patten, D. T., 2009. Restoration of Wetland and Riparian Systems: The Role
US with the Integrated Hydrologic Model ParFlow V3. Geoscientific of Science, Adaptive Management, History, and Values. Journal of Con-
Model Development, 8(3): 923–937. https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-8- temporary Water Research & Education, 134(1): 9–18.
923-2015 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1936-704x.2006.mp134001003.x
Millar, D. J., Cooper, D. J., Ronayne, M. J., 2018. Groundwater Dynamics in Peralta-Maraver, I., Reiss, J., Robertson, A. L., 2018. Interplay of Hydrology,
Mountain Peatlands with Contrasting Climate, Vegetation, and Hydro- Community Ecology and Pollutant Attenuation in the Hyporheic Zone.
geological Setting. Journal of Hydrology, 561: 908–917. Science of the Total Environment, 610-611: 267–275.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2018.04.050 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.08.036
Mitsch, W. J., Bernal, B., Nahlik, A. M., et al., 2012. Wetlands, Carbon, and Peyrard, D., Delmotte, S., Sauvage, S., et al., 2011. Longitudinal Transfor-
Climate Change. Landscape Ecology, 28(4): 583–597. mation of Nitrogen and Carbon in the Hyporheic Zone of an N-Rich
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-012-9758-8 Stream: A Combined Modelling and Field Study. Physics and Chemistry
Moore, P. D., 2007. Wetlands, In: Kentula, M. E., ed., United States Geolog- of the Earth, Parts A/B/C, 36(12): 599–611.
ical Survey Water Supply Paper 2425, Infobase Publishing, Corvallis https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pce.2011.05.003
Moore, S., Evans, C. D., Page, S. E., et al., 2013. Deep Instability of Defor- Phillips, D. P., Human, L. R. D., Adams, J. B., 2015. Wetland Plants as Indi-
ested Tropical Peatlands Revealed by Fluvial Organic Carbon Fluxes. cators of Heavy Metal Contamination. Marine Pollution Bulletin,
Nature, 493(7434): 660–663. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature11818 92(1/2): 227–232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2014.12.038
Moreno, D., Pedrocchi, C., Comín, F. A., et al., 2007. Creating Wetlands for Price, J. S., 1996. Hydrology and Microclimate of a Partly Restored Cutover
the Improvement of Water Quality and Landscape Restoration in Semi- Bog, Québec. Hydrological Processes, 10(10): 1263–1272.
Arid Zones Degraded by Intensive Agricultural Use. Ecological Engi- https://doi.org/10.1002/(sici)1099-1085(199610)10:10<1263::aid-
neering, 30(2): 103–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2006.07.001 hyp458>3.0.co;2-1
Moreno-Mateos, D., Comin, F. A., 2010. Integrating Objectives and Scales Radke, M., Lauwigi, C., Heinkele, G., et al., 2009. Fate of the Antibiotic Sul-
for Planning and Implementing Wetland Restoration and Creation in Ag- famethoxazole and Its Two Major Human Metabolites in a Water Sedi-
ricultural Landscapes. Journal of Environmental Management, 91(11): ment Test. Environmental Science & Technology, 43(9): 3135–3141.
2087–2095. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2010.06.002 https://doi.org/10.1021/es900300u
Nachshon, U., Ireson, A., van der Kamp, G., et al., 2014. Impacts of Climate Rasmussen, T. C., Deemy, J. B., Long, S. L., 2087. Wetland Hydrology. The
Variability on Wetland Salinization in the North American Prairies. Hy- Wetland Book, Volume I: Structure and Function, Management and
drology and Earth System Sciences, 18(4): 1251–1263. Methods. In: Finlayson, C. M., Everard, M., Irvine, K., eds., The Wet-
https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-18-1251-2014 land Book, Springer, Berlin
Négrel, P., Millot, R., Brenot, A., et al., 2010. Lithium Isotopes as Tracers of Richardson, C. J., Flanagan, N. E., Ho, M., et al., 2011. Integrated Stream and
Groundwater Circulation in a Peat Land. Chemical Geology, 276(1/2): Wetland Restoration: A Watershed Approach to Improved Water Qual-
119–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemgeo.2010.06.008 ity on the Landscape. Ecological Engineering, 37(1): 25–39.
Nielsen, D. L., Brock, M. A., 2009. Modified Water Regime and Salinity as https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2010.09.005
a Consequence of Climate Change: Prospects for Wetlands of Southern Robertson, A. L., Wood, P. J., 2010. Ecology of the Hyporheic Zone: Origins,
Australia. Climatic Change, 95(3/4): 523–533. Current Knowledge and Future Directions. Fundamental and Applied
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-009-9564-8 Limnology, 176(4): 279–289. https://doi.org/10.1127/1863-
Nivala, J., Knowles, P., Dotro, G., et al., 2012. Clogging in Subsurface-Flow 9135/2010/0176-0279
Treatment Wetlands: Measurement, Modeling and Management. Water Scheurer, K., Alewell, C., Bänninger, D., et al., 2009. Climate and Land-Use
Research, 46(6): 1625–1640. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wa- Changes Affecting River Sediment and Brown Trout in Alpine Coun-
tres.2011.12.051 tries—A Review. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 16(2):
Nyquist, J. E., Freyer, P. A., Toran, L., 2008. Stream Bottom Resistivity To- 232–242. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-008-0075-3
mography to Map Ground Water Discharge. Ground Water, 46(4): 561– Seeger, E. M., Kuschk, P., Fazekas, H., et al., 2011. Bioremediation of Ben-
569. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6584.2008.00432.x zene-, MTBE- and Ammonia-Contaminated Groundwater with Pilot-
O’Grady, A. P., Eamus, D., Cook, P. G., et al., 2006. Groundwater Use by Scale Constructed Wetlands. Environmental Pollution, 159(12): 3769–
Riparian Vegetation in the Wet-Dry Tropics of Northern Australia. Aus- 3776. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2011.07.019
tralian Journal of Botany, 54(2): 145–154. Singha, K., Pidlisecky, A., Day-Lewis, F. D., et al., 2008. Electrical Charac-
https://doi.org/10.1071/bt04164 terization of Non-Fickian Transport in Groundwater and Hyporheic
1028
Systems. Water Resources Research, 44(4): W00D07.
https://doi.org/10.1029/2008wr007048
Smolders, A. J. P., Lucassen, E. C. H. E. T., Bobbink, R., et al., 2009. How
Nitrate Leaching from Agricultural Lands Provokes Phosphate Eutroph-
ication in Groundwater Fed Wetlands: The Sulphur Bridge. Biogeo-
chemistry, 98(1/2/3): 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10533-009-9387-8
Sophocleous, M., 2002. Interactions between Groundwater and Surface Wa-
ter: The State of the Science. Hydrogeology Journal, 10(1): 52–67.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10040-001-0170-8
Storey, R. G., Fulthorpe, R. R., Williams, D. D., 1999. Perspectives and Predic-
tions on the Microbial Ecology of the Hyporheic Zone. Freshwater Biol-
ogy, 41(1): 119–130. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2427.1999.00377.x
Stubbington, R., Wood, P. J., Boulton, A. J., 2009. Low Flow Controls on
Benthic and Hyporheic Macroinvertebrate Assemblages during Supra-
Seasonal Drought. Hydrological Processes, 23(15): 2252–2263.
https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.7290
Su, X. S., Cui, G., Du, S. H., et al., 2016. Using Multiple Environmental
Methods to Estimate Groundwater Discharge into an Arid Lake (Dakebo
Lake, Inner Mongolia, China). Hydrogeology Journal, 24(7): 1707–
1722. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10040-016-1439-2
Thangarajan, R., Bolan, N. S., Tian, G. L., et al., 2013. Role of Organic
Amendment Application on Greenhouse Gas Emission from Soil. Sci-
ence of the Total Environment, 465: 72–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sci-
totenv.2013.01.031
Triska, F. J., Kennedy, V. C., Avanzino, R. J., et al., 1989. Retention and
Transport of Nutrients in a Third-Order Stream in Northwestern Califor-
nia: Hyporheic Processes. Ecology, 70(6): 1893–1905.
https://doi.org/10.2307/1938120
Vymazal, J., 2018. Does Clogging Affect Long-Term Removal of Organics
and Suspended Solids in Gravel-Based Horizontal Subsurface Flow
Constructed Wetlands?. Chemical Engineering Journal, 331: 663–674.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2017.09.048
Wang, C. Y., Sample, D. J., Day, S. D., et al., 2015. Floating Treatment Wet-
land Nutrient Removal through Vegetation Harvest and Observations
from a Field Study. Ecological Engineering, 78: 15–26.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2014.05.018
Wang, R. C., Wang, H. M., Xiang, X., et al., 2018. Temporal and Spatial
Xiancang Wu, Teng Ma and Yanxin Wang
Variations of Microbial Carbon Utilization in Water Bodies from the
Dajiuhu Peatland, Central China. Journal of Earth Science, 29(4): 969–
976. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12583-017-0818-5
Wang, W., Gong, C., Zhang, Z., et al., 2018. Research Status and Prospect of
the Subsurface Hydrology and Ecological Effect in Arid Regions. Ad-
vances in Earth Science, 33(7): 702–718 (in Chinese with English Ab-
stract)
Wu, X. C., Dong, W. H., Lin, X. Y., et al., 2017. Evolution of Wetland in
Honghe National Nature Reserve from the View of Hydrogeology. Sci-
ence of the Total Environment, 609: 1370–1380.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.07.260
Xu, Y., Wang, H. M., Xiang, X., et al., 2019. Vertical Variation of Nitrogen
Fixers and Ammonia Oxidizers along a Sediment Profile in the Dajiuhu
Peatland, Central China. Journal of Earth Science, 30(2): 397–406.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12583-018-0982-2
Yu, Z. C., 2012. Northern Peatland Carbon Stocks and Dynamics: A Review.
Biogeosciences, 9(10): 4071–4085. https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-9-4071-
2012
Zedler, J. B., Kercher, S., 2005. Wetland Resources: Status, Trends, Ecosystem
Services, and Restorability. Annual Review of Environment and Resources,
30(1): 39–74. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.energy.30.050504.144248
Zeglin, L. H., Dahm, C. N., Barrett, J. E., et al., 2011. Bacterial Community
Structure along Moisture Gradients in the Parafluvial Sediments of Two
Ephemeral Desert Streams. Microbial Ecology, 61(3): 543–556.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00248-010-9782-7
Zhang, J., Su, L., Wang, L. P., et al., 2019. The Effect of Vegetation Cover on
Ecological Stoichiometric Ratios of Soil Carbon, Nitrogen and Phospho-
rus: A Case Study of the Dunhuang Yangguan Wetland. Acta Ecologica
Sinica, 39(2): 580–589. https://doi.org/10.5846/stxb201712132239
Zhou, N. Q., Zhao, S., Shen, X. P., 2014. Nitrogen Cycle in the Hyporheic
Zone of Natural Wetlands. Chinese Science Bulletin, 59(24): 2945–
2956. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11434-014-0224-7
Zhou, S. B., Yuan, X. Z., Peng, S. C., et al., 2014. Groundwater-Surface Wa-
ter Interactions in the Hyporheic Zone under Climate Change Scenarios.
Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 21(24): 13943–13955.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-014-3255-3