Research papersContrasting patterns of groundwater evapotranspiration in grass and tree dominated riparian zones of a temperate agricultural catchment

- Canadian Prairie riparian vegetation consumed shallow groundwater.
- Higher groundwater evapotranspiration was observed under trees than grass.
- Under drier conditions differences in groundwater evapotranspiration increased.
- Two methods of estimating groundwater evapotranspiration produced similar values.
- Findings have potential implications for water-use and quality in the watershed.

Consumptive use of shallow groundwater by phreatophytic vegetation is a significant part of the water budget in many regions, particularly in riparian areas. The influence of vegetation type on groundwater level fluctuations and evapotranspiration has rarely been quantified for contrasting plant communities concurrently although it has implications for downstream water yield and quality. Hourly groundwater evapotranspiration (ETG) rates were estimated for grass and tree riparian vegetation in southwestern Manitoba, Canada using two modified White methods. Groundwater table depth was monitored in four 21 m transects of five 3 m deep monitoring wells in the riparian zone of a stream reach including tree (Acer negundo; boxelder) and grass (Bromus inermis; smooth brome) dominated segments. The average depths to the groundwater table from the surface were 1.4 m and 1 m for the tree and grass segments, respectively, over the two-year study. During rain free periods of the growing season ETG was estimated for a total of 70 days in 2014 and 79 days in 2015 when diurnal fluctuations were present in groundwater level. Diurnal groundwater level fluctuations were observed during dry periods under both segments, however, ETG was significantly higher (p < 0.001) under trees compared to grass cover in 2014 (a wet year with 72% higher than normal growing season precipitation) and 2015 (a drier year with 15% higher than normal growing season precipitation). The two methods used to estimate ETG produced similar daily and seasonal values for the two segments. In 2014, total ETG was approximately 50% (148 mm) and 100% (282-285 mm) of reference evapotranspiration (ETref, 281 mm) for the grass and tree segments, respectively. In 2015, total ETG was approximately 40% (106-127 mm) and 120% (369-374 mm) of ETref (307 mm) for the grass and tree segments, respectively. Results from the study show the tree dominated portions of the stream reach consumed approximately 2.4 ML ha−1 yr−1 more groundwater than a common forage grass. These findings have land management implications for regional water budgets during wet periods when flood mitigation is desirable and dry years when water scarcity is a concern.