Science of the Total Environment 653 (2019) 1557–1570

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Science of the Total Environment

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/scitotenv

Mapping landscape-level hydrological connectivity of headwater

wetlands to downstream waters: A catchment modeling
approach - Part 2
In-Young Yeo a,b,⁎, Sangchul Lee c,d, Megan W. Lang b,1, Omer Yetemen a, Gregory W. McCarty d,
Ali M. Sadeghi d, Grey Evenson e
a
School of Engineering, The University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW 2308, Australia
b
Department of Geographical Sciences, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742, USA
c
Department of Environmental Science and Technology, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742, USA
d
US Department of Agriculture – Agricultural Research Service, Hydrology and Remote Sensing Laboratory, Beltsville, MD 20705, USA
e
Department of Food, Agricultural and Biological Engineering, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210, USA

H I G H L I G H T S G R A P H I C A L A B S T R A C T

• Geographically isolated wetlands (GIWs)

affect hydrologic functioning of water-
sheds;
• SWAT improved to simulate wetlands in
an agricultural watershed;
• GIWs influenced watershed scale water
budgets and stream flow regimes;
• GIWs affected watershed hydrology at
multiple time scales under changing cli-
mate;
• GIWs induced tightly coupled surface-
groundwater systems.

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: In Part 1 of this two-part manuscript series, we presented an effective assessment method for mapping inunda-
Received 28 May 2018 tion of geographically isolated wetlands (GIWs) and quantifying their cumulative landscape-scale hydrological
Received in revised form 30 October 2018 connectivity with downstream waters using time series remotely sensed data (Yeo et al., 2018). This study sug-
Accepted 16 November 2018
gested strong hydrological coupling between GIWs and downstream waters at the seasonal timescale via
Available online 20 November 2018
groundwater. This follow-on paper investigates the hydrological connectivity of GIWs with downstream waters
Keywords:
and cumulative watershed-scale hydrological impacts over multiple time scales. Modifications were made to the
Wetlands representation of wetland processes within the Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT). A version of SWAT with
Hydrological connectivity improved wetland function, SWAT-WET, was applied to Greensboro Watershed, which is located in the Mid-
Watershed modeling Atlantic Region of USA, to simulate hydrological processes over 1985–2015 under two contrasting land use sce-
Wetland hydrologic function narios (i.e., presence and absence of GIWs). Comparative analysis of simulation outputs elucidated how GIWs
Remote sensing could influence partitioning of precipitation between evapotranspiration (ET) and terrestrial water storage,
and affect water transport mechanisms and routing processes that generate streamflow. Model results showed
that GIWs influenced the watershed water budget and stream flow generation processes over the long-term

⁎ Corresponding author at: School of Engineering, The University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW2308, Australia.
E-mail address: In-Young.Yeo@newcastle.edu.au (I.-Y. Yeo).
1
Currently U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Wetlands Inventory, Falls Church, VA 22041, USA

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.11.237
0048-9697/© 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
1558 I.-Y. Yeo et al. / Science of the Total Environment 653 (2019) 1557–1570

(30 year), inter-annual, and monthly time scales. GIWs in the study watershed increased terrestrial water storage
during the wet season, and buffered the dynamics of shallow groundwater during the dry season. The inter-
annual modeling analysis illustrated that densely distributed GIWs can exert strong hydrological influence on
downstream waters by regulating surface water runoff, while maintaining groundwater recharge and ET under
changing (wetter) climate conditions. The study findings highlight the hydrological connectivity of GIWs with
downstream waters and the cumulative hydrological influence of GIWs as hydrologic sources to downstream
ecosystems through different runoff processes over multiple time scales.
© 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Headwaters are essential elements of a drainage catchment. First
or second-order headwaters make up nearly two thirds of the total
length of river networks (Freeman et al., 2007) and contribute up
to about half of the mean water volume and nitrogen fluxes for
fourth- or higher-order rivers and navigable waters in the US
(Alexander et al., 2007). Understanding hydrological processes in
headwaters is an essential step towards their protection; as sources,
flowpaths, and residence time (i.e., lag) of water and other solutes
throughout landscapes are highly dependent on headwater pro-
cesses (McDonnell and Beven, 2014).
In the Coastal Plain of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed (CBW), wet-
lands are crucial components of headwater landscapes (Lane and
D'Amico, 2016; McDonough et al., 2014; Lang et al., 2012). In part be-
cause of their abundance and dense distribution, wetlands in this region
illustrate gradients of hydrological connectivity with downstream wa-
ters, which can vary spatially and temporally from near surface and
groundwater hydrological isolation to strong surface and groundwater
connection with the river network. The spatial distribution, hydrope-
riod, and hydrological coupling of wetlands with surrounding landscape
elements including river networks, are highly variable and difficult to
measure (Ali et al., 2018). However, previous studies demonstrated
that geographically isolated wetlands (GIWs), those entirely surrounded
by uplands without persistent surface water connection with the river
network, can exert strong influence on nearby waters (Brooks, 2006;
Cohen et al., 2016; Lane et al., 2018). They can directly affect headwater
hydrology, channel network development, and ecological integrity of
downstream waters in this region (Alexander et al., 2018; Calhoun
et al., 2018; Lee et al., 2017, 2018b; McDonough et al., 2014). GIWs func-
tion as water sources to downstream ecosystems through different run-
off processes (e.g., overland flow (i.e., fill and spill), near surface or
shallow subsurface water, deep groundwater, preferential flow through
macrospores (developed by wetland vegetation) or shallow perched
groundwater (formed in dual porosity soil profiles), etc.), with varying
time lags (Alexander et al., 2018; Ali et al., 2018; Golden et al., 2017).
The size, density, and relative positioning of GIWs along with other land-
scape and climate factors affect the degrees and types of hydrological
connectivity between wetlands and downstream waters (Lane et al.,
2018). In part because of this landscape-level connectivity, recent stud-
ies highlight the importance of protecting temporary waterways and
geographically isolated wetlands, despite the fact that hydrologic cou-
pling between GIWs and river networks through surface water connec-
tions can be episodic and/or intermittent (Lane et al., 2018; Alexander
et al., 2018; Leibowitz et al., 2018; Evenson et al., 2018; Lee et al.,
2018b; Golden et al., 2017; Cohen et al., 2016).
The hydrological connectivity of wetlands (as measured by fre-
quency, duration, timing, type, and magnitude) to the river network
and other water bodies is site-specific. There is a great need to quantify
hydrological connectivity to better inform conservation and restoration
of these ecosystems and the services that they provide (Ali et al., 2018).
For those watersheds with a dense distribution of GIWs (e.g., coastal
watersheds located in CBW), it is extremely difficult and thus impracti-
cal to measure, model, and represent ‘explicit’ hydrological connectivity
of GIWs (between wetlands or with streams) along the entire flow path
(Golden et al., 2017) at a landscape scale. As discussed in Part 1 of this
two-part manuscript series (Yeo et al., 2018), long-term field-
monitoring data are rarely available, particularly for multiple GIWs,
and interpretation of in-situ measurements from selected sites may
not properly represent the hydrodynamics of most wetlands and conse-
quent wetland-stream surface water connections. Furthermore, there
exist few process-based spatially distributed models which can simu-
late a fully coupled groundwater-surface water-wetland system pro-
cesses with required spatial details within a hydrologic modeling
framework (Lee et al., 2018b; Ameli et al., 2017; Fossey et al., 2016;
Evenson et al., 2015, 2016, 2018; Golden et al., 2014; McLaughlin
et al., 2014).
Hence, we presented an effective assessment method to map
landscape-level hydrological connectivity between wetlands and down-
stream waters using time series inundation products (i.e., subpixel water
fraction (SWF) maps derived from Landsat time series records that show
the proportion of inundated area within a 30-m pixel) and daily stream
flow discharge data in Part 1 of this manuscript series (Yeo et al., 2018).
This approach provides implicit (i.e., spatially lumped) connectivity in-
formation (Golden et al., 2017), indicating watershed-scale hydrological
connectivity between GIWs and downstream waters at the ‘seasonal’
time scale, during annual high groundwater levels (i.e., precipitation
(P) N evapotranspiration (ET)). Due to the dominant wetland character-
istics of the study site (i.e., predominately forested wetlands) and the
limited capacity of optical remote sensing, time series SWF maps were
only available in early spring, rather sporadically over the last 20+
years (1985–2010). Hence, continuing assessment and monitoring of
wetland ecosystems from the seasonal to the intra-annual and multi-
decadal time scales using this methodology was not possible.
In this paper, we present a comprehensive modeling approach
aimed to improve understanding of hydrological functions and connec-
tivity of GIWs with surrounding landscapes and river networks over
multiple time scales. We used a modified version of the Soil and
Water Assessment Tool (SWAT), a semi-distributed physically based
watershed model, to simulate hydrologic processes for an agricultural
watershed with dense distributions of GIWs. SWAT was modified with
improved process representation for wetlands (referred to as SWAT-
WET, SWAT for Wetland, hereafter), so that site-specific onsite charac-
teristics, upstream flow contribution to wetlands, and wetland interac-
tion with stream networks could be better accounted for (Lee et al.,
2017, 2018b; Yang et al., 2016; Evenson et al., 2015; Liu et al., 2008).
We then set up SWAT-WET with more spatialized wetland parameters
using SWF maps and other geospatial data (Lee et al., 2017, 2018b). The
simulation was conducted at a daily time step under two contrasting
land use scenarios (i.e., with the presence and absence of GIWs) over
the period of 1985–2015. These two scenarios were set to elucidate
how GIWs in aggregate could influence the partitioning of precipitation
between evapotranspiration and terrestrial water storage, and conse-
quently affect water transport mechanisms and routing processes that
generate streamflow at the watershed scale. The modeling results
showed the types and frequency of the watershed-scale hydrological
connectivity of GIWs and the cumulative impacts on downstream wa-
ters over multiple time scales.
 I.-Y. Yeo et al. / Science of the Total Environment 653 (2019) 1557–1570 1559

2. Data and methods
2.1. Description on the study area
This study was conducted on the same site as Part 1 (Yeo et al.,
2018), the Greensboro Watershed (GBW) (Fig. 1a). The 292 km2 study
watershed includes a high portion of forest land cover (~48.3%), and
cropland (36.1%) (Fig. 1b). The study area is characterized by relatively
flat topography (0–26 m above sea level; Fig. 1c). A large portion of soils
in the study watershed are hydric (i.e., poorly to very poorly drained).
According to the Soil Survey Geographical database (SSURGO; https://
www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/site/soils/home/), these soils be-
long to Hydrologic Soil Group (HSG) ‘C’ and ‘D’ types, with low infiltra-
tion capacity (b4 mm/h or 0.15 in/h) through the soil profile (Fig. 1d).
However, SSURGO data show that the uppermost soil horizons below
GIWs are in fact rather silty (~23%) or sandy (~41%) with less clay con-
tent (~6%). The top soil layers where wetlands are located (i.e., wetland
bottom), have rather coarse soil texture (e.g., coarse-loamy to fine-
loamy, sandy, or fine-silty); hence, a large portion (N70%) of these
soils have very high hydraulic conductivity (K; e.g., K = 2160 mm/h)

Fig. 1. The study watershed showing: (a) the geographical location of Greensboro watershed (located in the state of Maryland and Delaware, USA); (b) the land use distribution;
(c) elevation; (d) soil characteristics as shown by USDA-NRCS Hydrologic Soil Group; (e) saturated hydraulic conductivity of wetland bottoms by SSURGO; and (f) the spatial
distribution of geographically isolated (GIW) and surface water connected (SCW) wetlands and the delineated subwatersheds.
1560 I.-Y. Yeo et al. / Science of the Total Environment 653 (2019) 1557–1570
(Fig. 1e). However, the hydraulic conductivity below these top wetland
soil layers is much lower (b400 mm/h). This contrasting wetland soil
characteristic is mostly noticeable for poorly drained soils (D type). As
discussed in Part 1 (Yeo et al., 2018), forested wetlands are often classi-
fied as forested land cover by the National Land Cover Database (NLCD;
https://www.mrlc.gov/), but the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National
Wetlands Inventory (NWI) geospatial dataset shows ~ 25% of forests
within the watershed are forested wetlands and most are GIWs (Yeo
et al., 2018; Lang et al., 2012) (Fig. 1f).
Climate in the study region is highly variable, with a strong seasonal
cycle, year to year variations, and a wide range of extreme climate
events (e.g., floods, droughts, heat waves, hurricanes, and ice storms).
However, this Northeastern region of the US experienced clearly
increasing temperature and precipitation trends over 1895–2011
(Kunkel et al., 2013). For example, regional precipitation showed statis-
tically significant (at a 95% confidence level) positive anomalies during
fall (6.1 mm/ decade) and for the annual total (10 mm/decade), when
assessed using the climate record over 1901–1960 as the reference pe-
riod (Kunkel et al., 2013). While annual precipitation varied over time, it
showed a clear shift towards greater variability with higher totals since
1970. The historical record (over 1895–2011) showed that the study re-
gion experienced its three driest years prior to the 1970s (i.e., 1930,
1941, and 1965), but very wet summers since 2000 (e.g., wettest sum-
mers in 2006 and 2009).
Local climate data over the period of 1985–2015 showed that the
study area received mean annual precipitation (MAP) of ~1130 mm
Two Land Use Scenarios (with presence or absence of GIWs)
(a) SWAT-WET
DEM, soil, land use & management,
climate input
SWAT-WET Model
Subwatershed
GIW drainage zone
SCW drainage zone
Direct drainage zone
Routing to the subwatershed outlet
Routing to the watershed outlet
Multi-temporal statistical analyses of terrestrial water storage (S; dS/dt=P-ET-Qs) and streamflow
(Qs) generation process at the watershed scale
Fig. 2. Overview of the study approach with improved process representation for wetlands within SWAT-WET [adapted from Lee et al., 2018b; Yang et al., 2016; Evenson et al., 2015; and
Neitsch et al., 2011].
with a clear upward trend similar to the regional trend. Precipitation
was rather evenly distributed throughout the seasons. Estimated
mean annual potential evapotranspiration (PET; ~1180 mm) was close
to MAP, while monthly PET over the growing season (May to Septem-
ber) exceeded precipitation by ~230 mm (see details in Section 3.4).
PET was estimated using the Penman-Montheith method. The Palmer
Drought Severity indices provided by the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) National Centers for Environmen-
tal Informatics (NOAA NCDC, 2015) showed that the study region expe-
rienced highly variable climate conditions during the simulation period
(from very wet to drought conditions), as discussed in Part 1 (Yeo et al.,
2018).
2.2. Wetland-watershed modeling approach
A schematic overview of the study approach is presented in Fig. 2.
SWAT-WET was applied to simulate hydrological processes at a daily
time step over the period of 1985 to 2015. Two land use scenarios
were set up as: (1) with GIWs as per current land use distribution (re-
ferred to as WetLU hereafter) and (2) replacing GIWs with upland for-
ested land cover (the dominant wetland vegetation type in the study
area as indicated by the NWI geospatial dataset; denoted as NoWetLU,
no wetland land use, hereafter). Under the NoWetLU Scenario, GIWs
(i.e., “sinks”) were filled using the DEM preprocessing tool embedded
in ArcSWAT (Winchell et al., 2010). This tool reconditions the DEMs to
be depressionless by raising the elevation values of sinks, so that each
(b) GIW parameters (NWI, soil)
Model simulaon
[A]
[B*]
(c) SCW parameters (NWI, SWF map, soil)
Model simulaon
 I.-Y. Yeo et al. / Science of the Total Environment 653 (2019) 1557–1570
grid cell can be assigned a specific flow direction based on an eight-
direction (D8) method (Winchell et al., 2010). Then rainfall-runoff char-
acteristics were estimated based on the Curve Number (CN value spe-
cific to forest land cover and soil type adjusted by slope (see details in
Sections 2.2.1 and 2.2.2).
Using those simulated daily water fluxes under the two contrasting
land use scenarios, we calculated terrestrial water storage (S; dS/dt = P-
ET-Qs, where Qs denotes streamflow and t time) for the watershed, and
investigated the overall mean, seasonal (intra-annual), and inter-
annual hydrological impacts of GIWs at the watershed scale. In particu-
lar, we focused on quantifying the role of GIWs in: (1) recharging soils
and groundwater by seepage after the partitioning of precipitation be-
tween atmospheric (AET) and terrestrial water storage (S), and (2) af-
fecting overall water transport mechanisms and routing processes to
generate downstream flow discharge over multiple time scales. Note
that terrestrial water storage (dS/dt) and streamflow regimes were esti-
mated based on changes in total water fluxes (from surface, soil, and
groundwater, including water stored in depressional storage) moving
through a watershed. The two contrasting land cover scenarios allowed
isolation of GIW hydrological effects, making it possible to evaluate rel-
ative effects cumulatively, by comparing differences in estimated water
fluxes and flow regime variables at the watershed scale.
A series of statistical analyses were conducted to demonstrate the
statistical significance of GIW hydrological connectivity to downstream
water and its cumulative hydrologic influence over seasonal to multi-
decadal time scales, in comparison with simulation results under
NoWetLU. We tested: (1) if the simulation results between the two sce-
narios were statistically different, using matched pairs difference tests
(both parametric t-test and nonparametric Wilcoxon matched-pairs
signed-ranks test); and (2) if simulated hydrologic fluxes showed statis-
tically significant change patterns from seasonal to inter-annual time
scales, with a linear regression method and nonparametric Mann-
Kendall trend test.
The following subsections are organized to provide a brief overview
of SWAT (Section 2.2.1) and SWAT-WET (Section 2.2.2), and to explain
input data, model set-up (Section 2.2.3), and calibration (Section 2.2.4)
of SWAT-WET to simulate the study watershed.
2.2.1. Model description on SWAT
SWAT is a semi-distributed, process-based, continuous watershed
model. It was developed to predict long-term impacts of agricultural
land management practices on water resources, sediment, and other
water quality variables at multiple spatial scales (Neitsch et al., 2011;
Arnold et al., 1998). Basic hydrologic simulation (i.e., calculation of all
vertical water and other solute fluxes) is performed at the hydrologic
response unit (HRU) level. HRUs are defined by unique combinations
of soil, land use, and slope, the basic landscape parameters that deter-
mine rainfall-runoff characteristics. Simulated water and other solute
fluxes at the HRU level (e.g., Eq. (1)) are then aggregated at the
subwatershed (as a weighted sum by the HRU area) and routed to the
watershed outlet following the stream network. Subwatersheds are de-
lineated as the contributing area for individual stream segments. SWAT
simulates water and solute transport mechanisms via surface water
runoff, lateral flow (i.e., interflow from unsaturated soils), and ground-
water from HRUs to the streams. Based on the water mass balance equa-
tion, soil moisture storage at the HRU level (Fig. 2b) is given as:
X
t
SW t ¼ SW 0 þ Pi −ET i −Q i −Di ;
i¼1
where SWt is soil water content above the wilting point at the end of day
t, SW0 is initial soil water content, Pi is daily precipitation, ETi is daily
evapotranspiration, Qi is daily surface and sub-surface runoff flow, and
Di is daily drainage into deep aquifer from the soil profile. All hydrologic
components are estimated as mm H2O normalized by the HRU area.
1561
SWAT simulates soil moisture, surface water runoff, and infiltration
based on the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) Curve Number (CN)
method at the HRU level (Neitsch et al., 2011). The CN value is statisti-
cally determined based on soil permeability, land use, and antecedent
soil water conditions and further adjusted by slope. Note that SWAT of-
fers another method for soil moisture prediction via the Green & Ampt
method, to estimate infiltration with sub-daily precipitation data
(Neitsch et al., 2011). Infiltrated water is redistributed through a soil
profile, using a storage routing technique through each soil layer (up
to 12 layers) in the root zone. A soil layer is assumed to be saturated if
water content of the soil layer exceeds field capacity. When field capac-
ity of a soil layer is exceeded and the layer below is not saturated, per-
colation (i.e., downward flow through soil profile, PERC) occurs with
flow rate governed by the soil layer's saturated hydraulic conductivity
(Fig. 2b). Soil waters between layers are further removed by plant
water uptake and soil water evaporation. In addition, upward water
movement within shallow groundwater by capillary rise (to soils) and
plant water uptake directly from the shallow groundwater as a form
of ET are simulated using ‘revap’ in SWAT (Fig. 2b). Saturated flow is
simulated to move laterally, based on slope, hillslope length, and satu-
rated hydraulic conductivity using a kinematic storage model. This lat-
eral subsurface flow contributes to stream flow.
In SWAT, evapotranspiration (ET) is estimated, including evapora-
tion from terrestrial land surfaces (soils, water bodies, and vegetative
surfaces), transpiration from plants, and sublimation. Three methods
are available to calculate potential evapotranspiration (PET): the Har-
greaves, the Priestly-Taylor, and the Penman-Montheith methods. Ac-
tual evapotranspiration (AET) is then estimated by adjusting PET
considering water uptake by plants from soils, soil depth, and soil
water content. Water uptake by plants is calculated based on biomass
production and depth of root development in soil. Biomass production
is quantified by leaf area index (LAI; the relative area covered by leaves
in a HRU), and root depth is estimated as a fraction of total biomass
partitioned to roots according to plant type. SWAT estimates LAI as a
function of Potential Heat Units (PHU) on a daily basis. Further details
on SWAT are available from Neitsch et al. (2011).
2.2.2. SWAT-WET: Improved wetland representation
Significant efforts have been made to enhance process representa-
tion of wetlands in SWAT and to develop methods to set-up more spa-
tially explicit wetland parameters using remotely sensed and other
geospatial data (Lee et al., 2017, 2018b; Yang et al., 2016; Evenson
et al., 2015, 2016, 2018; Liu et al., 2008). Based on previous studies,
SWAT-WET was improved to: (1) constrain inflow into a wetland
based on its relative spatial positioning within a subwatershed; and
(2) allow for bi-directional water exchange between riparian wetlands
(referred to as SCWs, surface water connected wetlands, hereafter)
and a stream segment at the subwatershed scale. These changes directly
affected the water budget of individual wetlands (e.g., GIW HRUs in
Fig. 2b) and other landscape elements and improved the representation
of hydrologic connectivity between wetlands and other landscape
elements.
SWAT-WET further subdivides a subwatershed into three drainage
zones (Fig. 2a), i.e., SCW drainage, GIW-drainage, and direct (i.e.
stream) drainage zones, based on the spatial distribution of wetlands
relative to flow paths to a stream segment. Only those water fluxes (in-
cluding surface runoff (SR), lateral flow (LW), and groundwater flow
ð1Þ (GW)) generated from HRUs in a SCW drainage zone enter into SCWs
(Fig. 2c). SCWs are simulated at the subwatershed scale, while GIWs
are simulated at the HRU level. The wetland (w) water budget, Vw (in
m3 H2O), is estimated as:
V w ¼ V w;stored þ V w;pcp −V w;evap þ V w;flowin −V w;seep −δGIW VGIW
flowout
 δSCW VSCWrcfflow ; ð2Þ
1562 I.-Y. Yeo et al. / Science of the Total Environment 653 (2019) 1557–1570
where Vw, stored is previously stored water in the wetland, Vw, pcp is pre-
cipitation falling onto wetland surface area, Vw, evap is ET from open sur-
face and wetland vegetation, Vw, flowin is inflow to wetland (including SR,
LW, and GW), Vw, seep is water loss from the wetland bottom by seepage,
VGIW SCW
flowout is outflow occurring as spillage from a GIW, and Vrcfflow is the vol-
ume of surface and sub-surface water exchange between a SCW and the
stream reach segment determined by relative water levels between the
two systems moving towards an equilibrium. δGIW and δSCW (∈{0, 1}) in-
dicate the membership of w, so that that VGIW
flowout occurs only for GIWs
(i.e., δGIW = 1 only if w = GIW; otherwise, 0) and VSCW rcfflow for SCWs
only (i.e., δSCW = 1 only if w = SCW; otherwise, 0), respectively.
SWAT-WET allows water inflow to a GIW to be directly associated
with its spatial positioning and other locational characteristics. For ex-
ample, SWAT-WET delineates the upstream catchment (i.e., those up-
gradient contributing HRUs) that directly drains to a GIW HRU and al-
lows their surface and subsurface (including soil and groundwater)
water inflow draining to a GIW HRU (Evenson et al., 2015) (Fig. 3).
Not only precipitation input to a GIW, but also partitioning of vertical
fluxes occurring within a GIW is determined by site-specific character-
istics. For example, the amount of water loss by seepage (Vw,seep) is de-
termined by dominant soil characteristics (i.e., the saturated hydraulic
conductivity) in the uppermost soil horizon below the GIW (Neitsch
et al., 2011). AET (Vw,evap) from a GIW was estimated by adjusting PET
with the typical evaporation compensation factor for open water sur-
faces (i.e., 0.5 for the potholes/depressions) and seasonal variation of
leaf area index (LAI) relative to open water surface area (i.e., the sea-
sonal fractional vegetation cover for transpiration estimation) as an in-
dependent HRU (Neitsch et al., 2011). Outflow from a GIW-HRU occurs
as seepage to soils and groundwater (Vw,seep), or spillage (VGIW
flowout ) to the
stream segment (i.e., direct drainage zone) or to a SCW (i.e., SCW drain-
age zone) depending on spatial position (Fig. 3).
Note that representation of wetland processes was improved within
the semi-distributed structure of SWAT. SWAT-WET does not represent
spillage from wetlands to the downstream landscape along the flow
path. Hence, it cannot simulate “spill-and-fill” or “spill-and-merge”
inter-GIW hydrologic relationships (Lane et al., 2018; Evenson et al.,
2015, 2018). This process has been observed elsewhere (e.g., prairie
potholes and California vernal pools), but it is less likely to occur
amongst wetlands in this study area (Lane et al., 2018; Evenson et al.,
2015, 2018). Given climatic and topographic characteristics, wetlands
in our study site would not frequently exhibit overland flow between
GIWs, and between GIWs and the reach network (Evenson et al.,
Fig. 3. The spatial delineation of GIW-HRUs and contributing catchment HRUs illustrated in a hypothetical subwatershed [adapted from Evenson et al., 2015].
2015). Routing excess surface water runoff and subsurface flows from
GIWs directly to the subwatershed stream reach without interception
from intermediate GIW storage reservoirs, potentially overestimated
the quantity and rate of overland and subsurface flows entering the
stream network without time lags, and therefore underestimated the
hydrologic impacts of GIWs.
2.2.3. Input data and model set up for SWAT-WET
SWAT-WET input data consist of various geospatial and climate data
(Table 1). A high resolution (1-m) lidar-based Digital Elevation Model
(DEM), land use map, and SSURGO were used to characterize the
study site and to delineate the stream network, subwatersheds, wet-
land drainage zones, and HRUs. Daily precipitation and temperature
were obtained from three weather stations located near the GBW, and
operated by the NOAA National Climate Data Center (NCDC)
(Chestertown: USC00181750, Royal Oak: USC00187806, and Greens-
boro: US1MDCL0009; Fig. 1a). Daily solar radiation, relative humidity,
and wind speed were not monitored, so they were generated using
SWAT's built-in weather generator (Neitsch et al., 2011). A daily
streamflow dataset collected at the outlet of the GBW was obtained
from the US Geological Survey (USGS) gauge station (#01491000;
Fig. 1a). A commonly available drought index (i.e., Palmer Drought Se-
verity Index, PDSI) was used to characterize weather conditions
(e.g., drought, normal, and wet) based on historical climate records. It
was downloaded from the NOAA NCDC for the climate division (MD Re-
gion 5) within which the study watershed is situated (NOAA NCDC,
2015). A summary of input data used for this study is presented in
Table 1.
The study watershed was divided into subwatersheds and further
into HRUs following Winchell et al. (2010). HRUs were delineated first
by applying a threshold (%) of 0, 0, and 0 to land use, soil type, and
slope (i.e., no overlapping characteristics amongst HRUs), respectively.
To simplify spatial representation of wetlands and their computation re-
quirement, NWI polygons were first aggregated based on their proxim-
ity to each other (with b1 m threshold). Then, HRUs were further
processed to identify individual GIWs and their up-gradient catchment
areas as unique HRUs following Evenson et al. (2015) (Fig. 3). In addi-
tion, SCW NWI polygons that have their boundary spread over multiple
subwatersheds were separated into multiple entities to conform to
subwatershed delineation (Lee et al., 2017). In total, ~3500 GIW and
~90 SCW NWI polygons were processed, and the study watershed was
divided into 80 subwatersheds and ~23,340 HRUs (Fig. 1).
 I.-Y. Yeo et al. / Science of the Total Environment 653 (2019) 1557–1570 1563

Table 1
List of input data for SWAT-WET.

Data Source Description Year

DEM MD-DNR lidar-based 1 m resolution 2006

[http://dnrweb.dnr.state.md.us/gis/data/lidar/].
Land use USDA-NASS Cropland Data Layer (CDL) 2008–2012
[https://www.nass.usda.
gov/Research_and_Science/Cropland/Release/index.php]
MRLC National Land Cover Database (NLCD) 2006
[https://www.mrlc.gov/]
USDA-FSA-APFO National Agricultural Imagery Program digital Orthophoto quad imagery 1998
[Sexton et al., 2010]
US census bureau TIGER road map 2010
[https://www.census.gov/geo/maps-data/data/tiger.html]
Soils USDA-NRCS Soil Survey Geographical Database (SSURGO) 2012
[https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/soils/survey/]
Climate NCDC Daily precipitation and temperature 1983–2015
[NOAA NCDC, 2015]
Streamflow USGS Daily streamflow 1983–2015
[https://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/rt]
Wetland NWI National Wetlands Inventory
[https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/]
Inundation Huang et al. (2014) Annual time series inundation maps developed from Landsat images and 1985–2010
maps Jin et al. (2017) LiDAR intensity data
(SWF Maps)

Note: the CDL shows the spatial distribution of croplands and placement of crop rotations. The digital Orthophoto quad imagery, NWI and NLCD were used together to identify croplands,
wetlands, other land use types (e.g., forest, urban, etc.). MD-DNR: Maryland Department of Natural Resources, USDA-NASS: USDA-National Agricultural Statistics Service, MRLC: Multi-
Resolution Land Characteristics Consortium, USDA-FSA-APFO: USDA-Farm Service Agency-Aerial Photography Field Office, TIGER: Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and
Referencing, and USDA-NRCS: USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service.

Then, the post-processed NWI map, lidar DEM, and SWF maps were
further analyzed using the ArcGIS Cartography Tool (ArcGIS v 10.2), to
describe wetland geometry and to compute water storage capacity per
NWI polygon. We used the GIS-based method by Lane and D'Amico
(2010) to estimate maximum storage capacity. Inundated surface area
within a wetland, estimated from the SWF maps produced under differ-
ent weather conditions, was used to set up key parameters that control
net flow moving through a wetland (Lee et al., 2017) and to estimate in-
undated surface area from the water volume calculation as shown in
Eq. (2). Further details on wetland geometry parameters and a wetland
volume-surface area relationship are presented by Lee et al. (2017,
2018b) and Liu et al. (2008). Table 2 shows the list of wetland parame-
ters used for SWAT-WET.
Note that we defined SCWs rather specifically to support the concep-
tual representation of riparian wetlands in SWAT-WET; i.e., SCWs were
identified as those wetlands that are likely to be connected directly to a
stream segment through ‘bi-directional’ surface water flow exchange
(Lee et al., 2017; Yang et al., 2016; Liu et al., 2008). These wetlands
were identified using an ‘intersect’ operation in ArcGIS 10 (i.e., based
on spatial adjacency) that employed the aggregated NWI data and the

Table 2
List of calibrated parameters.

Parameter Description (unit) Range Value

CN⁎ SCS runoff curve number −50–50% −12%

ESCO⁎ Soil evaporation compensation factor 0–1 0.01
OV_N Manning's “n” value for land cover to estimate overland flow 0.01–3 2
SLSUBBSN Average slope length (m) −50–50% 24%
EPCO⁎ Plant uptake compensation factor 0–1 0.72
CANMX# Maximum canopy storage (mm H2O) 0–100 0.27
GW_DELAY⁎ Groundwater delay (days) 0–500 3.67
ALPHA_BF⁎ Baseflow alpha factor (1 days−1) 0–1 0.01
GWQMN⁎ Threshold depth of water in the shallow aquifer required for return flow to occur (mm H2O) 0–5000 4.06
GW_REVAP⁎ Groundwater “revap” coefficient 0.02–0.2 0.15
REVAPMN⁎ Threshold depth of water in the shallow aquifer for “revap” to occur (mm H2O) 0–500 164
SOL_AWC⁎ Available water capacity of the soil layer (mm H2O·mm soil−1) −50–50% 20%
SOL_K⁎ Saturated hydraulic conductivity (mm·hr−1) −50–50% −24%
SOL_Z⁎ Depth from soil surface to bottom of layer (mm) −50–50% −22%
CH_N2† Manning's “n” value for the main channel 0.01–0.3 0.01
CH_N1† Manning's “n” value for the tributary channels 0.01–30 0.12
SURLAG⁎ Surface runoff lag coefficient 0.5–24 1.88
SCW_NSA The surface area of a SCW at the normal water level (ha) – 0.01–36.3
SCW_MXSA The surface area of a SCW at the maximum water level (ha) – 0.23–79.6
SCW_NVOL The volume of a SCW at the normal water level (104·m3) – 0.01–6.4
SCW_MXVOL The volume of a SCW at the maximum water level (104·m3) – 0.02–98.5
SCW_K^ Hydraulic conductivity of the SCW wetland bottom (mm·hr−1) – 0.1
SCW_EVCOEFF^ Evaporation coefficient for SCW – 0.6
GIW_MXVOL The volume of a GIW at the maximum water level (104·m3) – 1.1–742.8
GIW_K Hydraulic conductivity of a GIW wetland bottom (mm·hr−1) – 72–2160.0
GIW_EVCOEFF^ Evaporation coefficient for GIW – 0.5

Note: The ranges of parameters with superscripts (*, #, †, and ^) are derived from Gitau and Chaubey (2010), Wu and Xu (2006), and Yen et al. (2014), respectively. Wetland parameters
(shaded) were derived from the SWF maps and a high resolution LiDAR. Refer to Lee et al. (2017, 2018b) for further details on the data preparation and processing for wetland parameters
in the study site.
1564 I.-Y. Yeo et al. / Science of the Total Environment 653 (2019) 1557–1570
stream map. All other wetlands were operationally defined as GIWs. It is
noteworthy to mention that the identification of GIWs and SCWs at a
landscape scale is subject to the unique character of geospatial input
data (e.g., NWI, stream maps, and DEM) and the methods used for the
spatial analysis (e.g., buffer distance and flow routing) (Lang et al.,
2012). Due in large part to the targeted mapping unit employed by
NWI data creators, use of NWI data as part of this study will lead to a
higher level of uncertainty than use of detailed field data (Lang et al.,
2012). However, the use of field data is not practical and at the time of
data creation the NWI geospatial dataset is the most accurate, as well
as spatially and categorically detailed wetland dataset available for the
US. Thus, NWI is the most suitable dataset for parameterizing hydro-
logic models, especially those that take into account the spatial relation-
ship between wetlands and streams, since it provides more spatially
explicit wetland boundaries and positions, as well as information on hy-
drologic regimes. Furthermore, it should be noted that the stream map
used in this modeling study was delineated to support SWAT modeling
and landscape-level (e.g., HRU and subwatershed) analysis within its
semi-distributed structure. Though the SWAT derived stream map was
similar to the USGS NHD High Resolution Data Product (which is now
provided with NWI Version 2 geospatial dataset), it underestimated
stream and ditch presence and length (Lang et al., 2012). Hence the ‘in-
tersect’ operation based on this stream network overestimated GIWs.
Regardless, these NWI polygons are likely to be headwater wetlands
that contribute to first order streams via a one-way surface water con-
nection (McDonough et al., 2014; Lang et al., 2012). The hydrologic con-
tribution from headwater wetlands is captured appropriately within
SWAT-WET, as their outflow is directly routed to streams. Given process
representation of wetlands within SWAT-WET, it is most unlikely that
this delineation results in significant change in simulation outputs.
2.2.4. SWAT-WET calibration
Several SWAT modeling studies have already been conducted on the
study area to simulate stream flows and other water quality variables
(Lee et al., 2016, 2017, 2018a, 2018b; Sharifi et al., 2016; Yeo et al.,
2014; Sexton et al., 2010). Previous studies reported a list of sensitive
parameters, their allowable ranges, and recommended (optimized) pa-
rameter values for the study site that exceeded the performance criteria
as outlined by Moriasi et al. (2007) and Records et al. (2014). Capitaliz-
ing on previous SWAT studies conducted on the study site, we cali-
brated SWAT-WET with additional wetland parameters. A number of
parameter values uniformly distributed within the allowable ranges
identified from the previous studies were generated and evaluated fol-
lowing the SWAT model technical guidelines (Arnold et al., 2012). We
selected those parameter values that provided best stream flow simula-
tion results while meeting the performance criteria by Moriasi et al.
(2007) and Records et al. (2014). Three different model performance
statistics, Nash-Sutcliffe efficiency coefficient (NSE), root mean squared
error (RMSE)-standard deviation (STDEVobs) ratio (RSR), and percent
bias (P-bias), were considered to evaluate simulated stream flows
against observed ones, as:
" P # streamflow after large storm events while it overestimated streamflow
n
ðO −Si Þ2
NSE ¼ 1− Pn i¼1 i 2
; ð3Þ
i¼1 ðOi − O Þ
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Pn 2
RMSE i¼1 ðOi −Si Þ
RSR ¼ ¼ qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
P
ffi;
STDEV obs n 2
i¼1 ðOi − O Þ
Pn  simplifies routing within subwatersheds, could amplify model bias dur-
i¼1 ðOi −Si Þ  100
P−bias ¼ Pn ; ð5Þ
i¼1 Oi
where Oi are observed data, Si are simulated data, Ō is observed mean
value, and n is number of observations. The prediction uncertainty of
the model was assessed using the 95% prediction uncertainty (95
PPU). The 95 PPU was calculated using all simulation outputs obtained
during the calibration procedure with different combinations of param-
eter values in the allowable range.
SWAT-WET was calibrated to daily stream flows collected at the wa-
tershed outlet over the period of 2001–2005, and validated against
those of 2006–2010, after a 2-year warm-up period (1999–2000).
Then SWAT-WET was set to simulate hydrology retrospectively, over
the period of 1985–2015 (after 2-year spin-up period of 1983–1984),
in order to assess the long-term cumulative impacts of GIWs for the
study watershed. Table 2 provides the list of calibrated parameters
and allowable ranges reported from previous work. Note that the two-
step calibration procedure used in this study was necessary to reduce
the computational complexity and high resource demand imposed by
the use of wetland modules with daily simulation, as they involve ex-
tremely large numbers of HRUs and associated parameters. This calibra-
tion scheme (i.e., setting the initial parameter values from the previous
calibration obtained with the unmodified SWAT and then allowing it to
be changed with SWAT-WET) may lead to the local optima, given the
highly nonlinear nature of the hydrologic system and its representation
in SWAT (Arnold et al., 2012; Yeo and Guldmann, 2010). More thorough
evaluation with different initial conditions may produce different cali-
bration results.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Model calibration and validation
Fig. 4 and Table 3 show that calibrated SWAT-WET reproduced
streamflow reasonably well. Both daily and monthly simulation results
met the ‘satisfactory’ performance criteria according to the hydrologic
model performance rating described by Records et al. (2014) and
Moriasi et al. (2007), i.e., NSE N 0.2 and P-bias ≤ ±25% for daily simula-
tion (Records et al., 2014), or 0.5 b NSE ≤ 0.65, 0.6 b RSR ≤ 0.7, and ± 15%
≤ P-bias b ±25% for monthly simulation (Moriasi et al., 2007). Note that
model performance criteria are generally relaxed for daily simulations,
as they capture much more detailed high frequency processes and
hence naturally produce less accurate simulation results, compared to
longer time scale (e.g., monthly or yearly) modeling outputs (Sharifi
et al., 2016; Records et al., 2014; Arnold et al., 2012).
Overall, SWAT-WET performed better during the calibration period,
but a large bias was observed during the validation period. The different
climate and streamflow conditions between the two split sample evalu-
ation periods contributed to the model bias. The validation period
showed more variable weather conditions with extreme storms and
droughts, leading to more variable streamflow responses compared to
the calibration period. Those parameters calibrated to less variable
weather conditions may not reproduce highly variable flow conditions.
For example, the coefficient of variation (CV, the ratio of standard devi-
ation to mean) of precipitation and streamflow was 2.6 and 1.5, respec-
tively during the calibration, and 2.8 and 1.8, respectively during the
validation period. The modeled discharge pattern did not capture peak
during wetter weather conditions. This inaccurate simulation of peak
flow or streamflow during wet seasons can be potentially attributed to
the inherent limitation of SWAT and the quality of input climate data.
The SCS-CN method used in SWAT has a limited ability to accurately
predict storm effects because its surface runoff calculation does not con-
ð4Þ
sider duration and intensity of precipitation (Neitsch et al., 2011; Arnold
et al., 1998). In addition, the semi-distributed structure of SWAT, which
ing wetter conditions. SWAT routes excess surface water runoffs and
subsurface flows from HRUs directly to the subwatershed stream
reach, without time lags and interception from intermediate landscape
units along down gradient flowpaths (Neitsch et al., 2011). Lastly, this
model error could be due to climate input data, which were acquired
from two weather stations located either ~15 or ~35 km away from
 I.-Y. Yeo et al. / Science of the Total Environment 653 (2019) 1557–1570
Fig. 4. Observed and simulated daily streamflow during calibration (2001–2005) and validation (2006–2010) periods.
the study watershed. Observed precipitation from the somewhat dis-
tant stations showed some degree of inconsistency with streamflow ob-
served from the study watershed outlet. This likely indicates that the
common assumption of spatially homogeneous climate input data did
not sufficiently characterize the spatial distribution of precipitation
events and failed to capture localized storm effects (Sexton et al., 2010).
3.2. The overall mean impact of GIWs
Fig. 5 shows the 30–year average annual watershed water budget for
the study watershed (a-b) and major sources of water (i.e., groundwater
(GWa), lateral flow from soils (LWa), and surface water runoff (SRa)) that
generated streamflow at the watershed outlet (c-d), under the two sce-
narios. Note that the subscript ‘a’ indicates annual simulation results.
The partitioning of the mean annual precipitaiton (Pa) into AETa, soil
water storage (SWa), and water yield (WYa, streamflow normalized by
the watershed area) under the two scenarios (WetLU vs. NoWetLU)
was statistically different (p-value b 0.01).
Overall, WetLU produced less variable annual water fluxes for all
components. When compared to forest land cover (NoWetLU), GIWs
could potentially reduce AET as reduced biomass (LAIw, estimated
based on vegetation cover fraction relative to flooded surface water
area within a wetland) decreased transpiration by plant water uptake
(see Section 2.2). As expected, simulation results showed that WetLU
Table 3
Model performance measures computed for streamflow.
Period NSE RSR P-bias
a b a b a b
Calibration 0.31 0.59 0.83 0.64 9.50 9.70
(2001–2005)
a b a a
Validation 0.38 0.57 0.79 0.65 −24.00 −23.90
(2006–2010) b were reported since 1970s, compared to the long-term historic patterns.
Note: Model performance statistics were calculated based on the daily (a) and monthly
mean (b) simulation outputs. Model performances were rated based on the criteria ap-
plied to the monthly simulation (Moriasi et al., 2007) as follows: * Satisfactory (0.5
b NSE ≤ 0.65, 0.6 b RSR ≤ 0.7, and ± 15 ≤ P-bias b ± 25), ** Good (0.65 b NSE ≤ 0.75, 0.5
b RSR ≤ 0.6, and ±10 ≤ P-bias b ±15), and *** Very Good (0.75 b NSE ≤ 1.0, 0.0 b RSR ≤
0.5, P-bias b ±10). Use of more relaxed criteria was recommended for daily simulation
as model prediction naturally becomes less accurate at a finer time step. Improved perfor-
mance statistics over the calibration period was in part due to the difference in the climate
conditions between the two split sample evaluation periods. See Fig. 4.
1565
lowered AETa and SWa, but increased WYa, compared to NoWetLU.
This difference in water budget partioning, led to clearly different
streamflow generation mechanisms and flow regime characteristics be-
tween the two scenarios (p-value b 0.01; Fig. 5c & d). WetLU produced
higher but less variable annual mean WYa, as it was largely contributed
from GWa (Fig. 5c). Overall, ~75% of WYa was generated from GWa,
while SRa and SWa (shown as lateral flow generated from saturated
soils, LWa) only contributed to 21% and 4% of WYa, respectively. Mean-
while, NoWetLU showed reduced but more variable WYa, as it was more
influenced by SRa (36%) and LWa (7%) (Fig. 5.d). SWAT-WET showed re-
duced water stored in the unsaturated zone (i.e., less soil water (SWa),
shown by reduced lateral flow to the stream (LWa)), but increased
groundwater influence (indicating higher groundwater table with in-
creasing water stored in the saturated zone) under WetLU. The results
indicated an overall stronger connection between groundwater and
streamflow under WetLU over long run, in comparison to NoWetLU.
3.3. The inter-annual time scale impacts of GIWs
Fig. 6a showed that the study site experienced increasing precipita-
tion at a rate of 10.3 [±4.5] mm/year over 1985–2015 (Note that the
numeric value in brackets [] is the standard error of the estimate, indi-
cating the uncertainty of estimated parameter value). While this in-
creasing trend was consistent with that of the Northeastern region of
the US (Section 2.1; Kunkel et al., 2013), the local trend (Fig. 6b) was
much higher than the positive anomalies reported for the US Northeast
region. This large positive trend was likely due to the specific character-
Rating
istics of local weather conditions during the simulation period
Satisfactory (1985–2015) relative to longer-term (1895–2011), regional climate
b conditions. For example, wetter, more variable regional climate changes
Satisfactory
In addition, this local trend analysis was based on mean annual precip-
itation of 1985–2015. During this period, local precipitation showed a
cyclic pattern with frequency of 2–8 years, most likely due to the El
Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO) effect. It happened to be drier in
the beginning (1985), but became much wetter towards the end
(2010s) of the simulation period, causing a large artifact in the overall
trend fitted over this time period (Fig. 6b). Local temperature showed
a slight increase in minimum temperature (0.03 [±0.01] °C per year;
1566 I.-Y. Yeo et al. / Science of the Total Environment 653 (2019) 1557–1570
Watershed Water Budget, 1985-2018
Contribution to Streamflow, 1985-2018
Fig. 5. The 30-year average impact of GIWs on the watershed water budget (a, b) and the streamflow generation process (c, d).
p-value b 0.06) and SWAT-WET predicted clearly upward PETa (at a rate
of 7.1 [±3.6] mm/yr; p-value b 0.06).
Both scenarios showed similar soil water change patterns mirroring
this increasing precipitation trend (0.9 [±0.3] mm/yr–1.1 [±0.4] mm/
yr; p-value b 0.01), but resulted in different streamflow responses.
WetLU showed streamflow (shown as WYa) increasing at a similar
rate as precipitation (10.9 [± 3.1] mm/yr; p-value b 0.001), but
NoWetLU suggested a higher increasing trend for WYa at a rate of 12.6
[±3.5] mm/yr (p-value b 0.001) (Fig. 6c & d). The change trend in
flow regime variables (GWa, LWa, and SRa) that was responsible for
streamflow generation offered an explanation for this (Fig. 6e & f).
Both scenarios showed similar change rates for GWa over time (6.2 [±
2.1] mm/yr for NoWetLU and 6.6 [±2.2] mm/yr for WetLU; p-value b
0.001). However, NoWetLU showed much higher increasing SRa contri-
bution to streamflow generation at a rate of ~ 6.1 [±2.0] mm/yr (with p-
value b 0.01), which explained higher increasing WYa under this sce-
nario. Under WetLU, the increasing trend for SRa was kept at 4.1 [±
1.3] mm/yr (p-value b 0.01). This difference in SRa contribution to
WYa, led to different flow regime characteristics under the two scenar-
ios, and the increasing influence of SRa on WYa became more noticeable
under wetter conditions. This higher SRa offset reduced AETa under
NoWetLU (occurred at a rate of 2 [±0.8] mm/yr; p-value b 0.01),
while WetLU did not show any statistically significant change trend
for AETa.
The inter-annual trend analysis highlighted the role of densely dis-
tributed GIWs in exerting strong hydrological influence on downstream
water by regulating surface water runoff, while maintaining groundwa-
ter recharge and AET under the changing climate condition for the study
watershed. Note that the linear trend was analyzed using both paramet-
ric and non-parametric methods, and reported p-values from these two
methods were very similar for all water flux terms discussed above.
3.4. Seasonal variations of hydrological fluxes
Fig. 7 showed a seasonal variation in water fluxes (i.e., Pm, WYm,
AETm, and SWm) with monthly mean simulation outputs over
1985–2015 (note the subscript ‘m’ indicates monthly output). It
showed that the study site received relatively constant monthly precip-
itation (Pm) throughout the simulation period, with the mean and
standard deviation of 97.6 mm and 11.9 mm, respectively. Overall, cu-
mulative PETm (~1200 mm) was slightly higher than cumulative Pm
(~1171 mm). However, these two scenarios produced clearly different
seasonal partitioning of all water fluxes (p-value b 0.01). Overall,
WetLU showed less variable seasonal fluxes (as shown by a lower coef-
ficient of variation (CV) in Fig. 7). It showed lower AETm, slightly higher
WYm, and more subtle seasonal change in soil water (as shown by soil
moisture anomaly, SMAm, calculated by taking the monthly mean soil
moisture difference from the 30-year annual mean) throughout sea-
sons. Both scenarios showed that AET peaked in July (~91 mm under
WetLU and ~113 mm under NoWetLU) when solar radiation and tem-
perature reached their highest levels. Hence, overall monthly watershed
water budget (when estimated as Pm-AETm-WYm) would hit its lowest
in July. However, SWm continued to be depleted until August, showing
its persistent, “memory”, to the dry state, and reached its lowest with
a one month time lag from the highest AETm. WYm showed even slower
response than SWm, reaching its lowest level (~38 mm under WetLU
and ~31 mm under NoWetLU) in September with ~2-month time lag
from peak AETm, and then started increasing rapidly with reduced AET
and seasonal fall storms (Fig. 7b).
Gradually changing seasonal groundwater flow (GWm) offered in-
sights into the time delay and offset in seasonal streamflow pattern
(WYm). As shown in Fig. 7b, GWm plays an important role in streamflow
generation for this humid low-lying coastal watershed. Monthly varia-
tion in GWm was low compared to other hydrologic variables (see the
CV values in Fig. 7), and it remained the primary source of streamflow
throughout all seasons. Mean seasonal GWm contribution to WYm was
~35 mm (i.e., 74% of WYm, with the standard deviation of 3.5 mm)
under WetLU, though it decreased to ~24 mm (i.e., 57% of WYm, with
the standard deviation of 5.9 mm) under NoWetLU. GWm showed de-
layed and subtle response to seasonal climate variations with
2–3 month time lag from peak AETm. With seasonal fall storms and re-
duced AET, groundwater slowly recharged while increasing seasonal
surface water runoff (SRm) increased streamflow rapidly. Hence, WYm
started increasing in October before GWm.
Overall, WetLU showed consistently higher but less seasonally
variable GWm. Note that both scenarios showed similar WYm during
winter and spring (Fig. 7b), but WetLU maintained much higher sea-
sonal GWm, which showed subtle changes throughout year. For exam-
ple, NoWetLU showed much faster GWm dropping over the growing
seasons (i.e., April–October) at a rate of 2.3 mm/month (with relative
change of 50%), whereas WetLU showed GWm decreasing at a rate of
1.4 mm/month (with relative change of 27%) over the same period.
 I.-Y. Yeo et al. / Science of the Total Environment 653 (2019) 1557–1570 1567

Fig. 6. Inter-annual change trend in annual mean precipitation (a, b), the watershed water budget (c, d) and the stream flow generation (e, f) with the presence [W] and absence [N] of GIWs.

This highlights the hydrological influence of GIWs on downstream wa-
ters through the groundwater connection. In part through the hydro-
logic continuum created by GIWs, surface water and groundwater
systems in the watershed became tightly coupled, and GIWs helped to
improved terrestrial water storage by recharging groundwater during
wet seasons. This, in turn buffered the watershed water budget and
shallow groundwater dynamics during the dry season. In addition, a
large monthly difference in surface water runoff (SRm) between the
two scenarios especially during leaf-off wet season, emphasized effec-
tiveness of GIWs on controlling and storing surface water runoff,
which eventually were released into soils and groundwater as shown
by the seasonal change pattern of GWm. The analysis of seasonal
water fluxes showed the overall effectiveness of GIWs on controlling
surface water runoff and buffering dynamics of shallow groundwater
and stream base flow throughout the year.
3.5. Implication from the multi-temporal analysis
This comparative analysis allowed us to infer watershed-level hy-
drological connectivity of GIWs with downstream waters from simu-
lated hydrological functions. The long term (30+ year) average, inter-
annual trend, and seasonal variability of hydrological fluxes suggest
1568 I.-Y. Yeo et al. / Science of the Total Environment 653 (2019) 1557–1570
Fig. 7. Seasonal variation in the watershed water budget (a) and the flow regime (b) under WetLU [W] and NoWetLU [N] scenarios.
very strong, temporally persistent hydrological connection between
surface water and groundwater systems with the presence of GIWs
over multiple time scales for the study watershed. At the seasonal
time scale, GIWs were effective in increasing terrestrial water storage
during wet seasons when precipitation exceeded actual evapotranspira-
tion. Similarly, previous field-based studies conducted in the study re-
gion (Denver et al., 2014; Phillips and Shedlock, 1993) reported the
development of transient mounds of shallow groundwater near or
under selected seasonal GIWs, indicating strong groundwater coupling
with GIWs during wet (winter and spring) seasons. In addition, recent
field monitoring demonstrated that the study area's poorly drained
soils overlaid with silty and sandy top soils with high hydraulic conduc-
tivity (Section 2.1) could allow the formation of shallow perched
groundwater (Lee et al., 2018c). Shallow perched groundwater could
flow into GIWs, and sustain the period of inundation for GIWs while re-
ducing water loss due to seepage (Phillips and Shedlock, 1993; Lee et al.,
2018c). When evapotranspiration started exceeding precipitation,
GIWs helped to maintain soil and groundwater storage through seepage
and reduced AET (i.e., less water loss to the atmosphere). The inundated
land surface increased evaporation but decreased transpiration at a
greater rate than evaporation loss, compared to forested land cover.
Overall, GIWs in the study region helped to maintain higher terres-
trial water storage throughout all seasons, in comparison to NoWetLU
(with absence of GIWs), which resulted in higher stream flow discharge
over multiple time scales. However, streamflow from the GIW domi-
nated watershed (i.e., WetLU) was more stable seasonally and inter-
annually, in spite of an increasing precipitation pattern with more fre-
quent seasonal storms. This was because streamflow in this region
was primarily contributed from groundwater, which showed persis-
tence to changing weather and climate conditions. In particular,
WetLU showed higher seasonal groundwater flow with more subtle
fluctuations, highlighting the role of GIW's in maintaining base flow.
Note that the study watershed has very dense GIW distribution, which
covers ~25% of the watershed area. Despite their small size, this large
coverage of headwater GIWs relative to watershed area collectively pro-
vided a very high water retention threshold (Evenson et al., 2018; Lane
et al., 2018; Lee et al., 2018b; Fossey et al., 2016). In particular, the inter-
annual change trend of surface water runoff contribution to streamflow
underscored the importance of the water holding capacity of GIWs in
flood attenuation and maintaining base flow through redistribution of
surface runoff, under changing (wetter) weather conditions. This retro-
spective multi-decadal analysis substantiated the potential role of GIWs
in modulating the long-term hydrologic effects of changing weather/cli-
mate conditions in this study region, building upon previous studies
that demonstrated the importance of GIWs in stabilizing downstream
flow fluctuations in response to large storm effects. Note that these
long-term effects of GIWs on modulating flow regimes, may not directly
apply for other regions. This is because GIW effects on watershed hydro-
logic functioning largely depend on the dominant type of hydrologic
connectivity between wetlands and surrounding landscapes and local
climate conditions. For example, depressional wetlands in the Prairie
Pothole Region (PPR) are primarily hydrologically connected via over-
land flow (i.e., surface water connection) and have been shown to be ef-
fective at storing precipitation and snowmelt (Evenson et al., 2018).
While GIWs in the PPR attenuated downstream peak flow, they were
less effective at maintaining baseflow (Evenson et al., 2018).
Overall, this simulation study provided additional explanation and
support for previous studies that highlight landscape-level hydrological
connectivity and functioning of GIWs in the study region. Hydrological
connection between selected GIWs and downstream waters via
groundwater at the seasonal time scale (during the wet period) has
been demonstrated through field data (Denver et al., 2014; Phillips
and Shedlock, 1993) and modeling (Golden et al., 2016). It was sug-
gested that the long-term annual hydrological regime of seasonal for-
ested GIWs in the temperate region responded to seasonal weather
patterns (precipitation and evapotranspiration) (Brooks, 2006). Simi-
larly, our analysis in Part 1 (Yeo et al., 2018) of this two part manuscript
series illustrated the statistically meaningful relationship between inun-
dation patterns and the stream flow change trend at the seasonal time
scale. Furthermore, it suggested the correlation between the long-
term inter-annual water regime of GIWs and seasonal dynamics of in-
undation, by showing consistent inundation patterns between SWF
maps and NWI hydrologic modifiers. This simulation study provides a
logical explanation to relate inter-annual water regime to seasonal
change dynamics and supports the geospatial modeling approach pro-
posed in the Part 1 (i.e., mapping hydrologic connectivity between wet-
lands and downstream waters using multi-temporal remote sensing
such as SWF maps, albeit at a coarse temporal resolution and with lim-
ited availability throughout season).
The next logical step is to quantify the spatial and temporal variabil-
ity of connectivity and isolation between wetlands and downstream
waters and other landscape components at multiple spatial scales. Ex-
plicit representation of the spatial and temporal patterns of connectivity
between streams and wetlands at the individual level (e.g., wetland-
wetland, wetland-stream) could be impractical for GIW dominated wa-
tersheds similar to this study site. However, quantifying connectivity at
a finer landscape scale than a watershed (e.g., the subwatershed) in a
‘quasi-explicit’ manner (Golden et al., 2017), would be informative for
 I.-Y. Yeo et al. / Science of the Total Environment 653 (2019) 1557–1570
the development of management policies pertinent to wetland protec-
tion and restoration (Creed et al., 2017). For such modeling, characteri-
zation of relevant spatial resolution and dynamic inundation extent
would need careful consideration as inundation within wetlands and
river networks changes across the landscape at different time scales.
Surface water dynamics characterized by multi-temporal remote sens-
ing could be helpful in supporting this effort (Vanderhoof et al., 2016,
2017; Huang et al., 2014).
To provide reliable quantitative information on hydrologic connec-
tivity (with details on the frequency, magnitude, duration, timing, and
rate of change considering different flowpath types) at a finer spatial
resolution, semi-distributed simulation models, such as SWAT-WET,
need further enhancement. For example, SWAT (similar to other
models) needs to improve process representation of GIWs considering
their interaction with contributing areas and down gradient ecosystems
along flow paths, so that more complete hydrologic behaviours of the
wetland complex (including the fill-and-merge or fill-and-spill) and in-
duced impacts can be considered (Lane et al., 2018; Evenson et al., 2016,
2018). In addition, improved representation of groundwater process
would be needed, so that groundwater change dynamics, considering
their interaction with wetlands and redistribution of water flows (or
discharge to surface stream water or soils) with time lags, could be ex-
plained more explicitly (Ameli et al., 2017; McLaughlin et al., 2014).
Lastly, more detailed field-based data are needed to provide insights
into wetland-groundwater processes and other internal landscape pro-
cesses (e.g., inundation of GIWs) (Lee et al., 2017; McDonnell and
Beven, 2014), as well as to provide crucial information on land surface
properties (e.g., soil depths and properties, such as the hydraulic con-
ductivities) that affect soil water storage, the rate of seepage, and
hence the hydroperiod of GIWs. With increasing availability and capa-
bility of remote sensing, we expect to have more frequent, finer resolu-
tion surface inundation or soil moisture data products in the near future.
This information would be extremely valuable for calibrating land sur-
face parameters (near surface soil properties such as hydraulic conduc-
tivity) (Salvucci and Entekhabi, 2011) and for evaluating emergent
properties of hydrological fluxes and associated landscape processes at
multiple spatial scales.
4. Conclusion
This study elucidates how GIWs in aggregate could influence
partitioning of precipitation into evapotranspiration and terrestrial
water storage, and how this further affects water transport mechanisms
and lateral routing processes that generate streamflow over multiple
time scales across the landscapes. Based on a retrospective modeling
analysis conducted in an agricultural watershed with densely distrib-
uted GIWs, this study demonstrated GIWs in aggregate could improve
hydrologic functioning at a watershed scale. GIWs in aggregate were
found to significantly influence the overall water budget over the long
run. Seasonal variations in water fluxes showed the overall effectiveness
of GIWs in attenuating surface water runoff and buffering dynamics of
shallow groundwater and stream base flow throughout the year.
Through the hydrological continuum generated via GIWs in this
groundwater dominated watershed, surface water and groundwater
systems become more tightly coupled during wet seasons. Hence, the
study watershed demonstrated enhanced terrestrial water storing ca-
pacity during wet seasons, which in turn affected the long-term annual
hydrological regime of GIWs and watershed streamflow, creating a
feedback loop. Furthermore, GIWs provide important hydrological ben-
efits by maintaining base flow and attenuating flood effects during wet-
ter periods with more seasonal variability, by controlling the timing,
amount, and dominant flow paths to the river network across the land-
scape, under changing weather conditions.
Furthermore, findings on watershed-scale wetland hydrologic func-
tion from this study (Part 2), support the basis for the geospatial model-
ing approach presented in Part 1 of this two part manuscript series (Yeo
1569
et al., 2018). Part 1 capitalized on a time series of remotely sensed sur-
face water inundation information (i.e., SWF maps) to inform local hy-
drological conditions of a groundwater dominated, wetland dense
landscape and to map landscape-scale hydrological connectivity of
GIWs with downstream waters. This two-part study (Parts 1 & 2) pro-
vides crucial information to infer watershed-scale hydrological connec-
tivity of GIWs in groundwater dominated systems based on convergent
evidence from field-based studies, remote sensing, and modeling, and
thus highlights the importance of protecting GIWs for improved hydro-
logical and ecological watershed functioning.
Acknowledgements
This research project was funded by the NASA's Land Cover and Land
Use Change (LCLUC) Program (contract No: NNX12AG21G) and by
USDA NRCS Conservation Effects Assessment Project (CEAP) Water-
sheds and CEAP Wetlands components. We are thankful to Dr. Yongbo
Liu from University of Guelph, Canada for providing the riparian wet-
land module (RWM) and Dr. Heather Golden from U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) for providing crucial insights and suggestions.
We greatly appreciate valuable comments and suggestions from the
reviewers.
The findings and conclusions in this article are those of the author
(s) and do not necessarily represent the views of the U.S. Fish and Wild-
life Service (FWS) or the U.S. Department of Agriculture-Agricultural
Research Service.
References
Alexander, R.B., Boyer, E.W., Smith, R.A., Schwarz, G.E., Moore, R.B., 2007. The role of head-
water streams in downstream water quality. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 43, 41–59.
Alexander, L.C., Fritz, K.M., Schofield, K.A., Autrey, B.C., DeMeester, J.E., Golden, H.E.,
Goodrich, D.C., Kepner, W.G., Lane, C.R., LeDuc, S.D., Leibowitz, S.G., McManus, M.G.,
Pollard, A.I., Raanan, H., Ridley, C.E., Vanderhoof, M.K., Wigington Jr., P.J., 2018. Fea-
tured collection introduction: connectivity of streams and wetlands to downstream
waters. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 54 (2), 287–297.
Ali, G., Oswald, C., Spence, C., Wellen, C., 2018. The T-TEL method for assessing water, sed-
iment, and chemical connectivity. Water Resour. Res. 54, 634–662. https://doi.org/
10.1002/2017WR020707.
Ameli, A.A., Creed, I.F., 2017. Quantifying hydrologic connectivity of wetlands to surface
water systems. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 21, 1791–1808. https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-
21-1791-2017.
Arnold, J.G., Srinivasan, R., Muttiah, R.S., Williams, J.R., 1998. Large area hydrologic model-
ing and assessment part I: model development1. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 34,
73–89. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-1688.1998.tb05961.x.
Arnold, J.G., Moriasi, D.N., Gassman, P.W., Abbaspour, K.C., White, M.J., Srinivasan, R.,
Santhi, C., Harmel, R.D., Van Griensven, A., Van Liew, M.W., Kannan, N., 2012.
SWAT: model use, calibration, and validation. Trans. Am. Soc. Agric. Biol. Eng. 55
(4), 1491–1508.
Brooks, B., 2006. A review of basin morphology and pool hydrology of isolated ponded
wetlands: implications for seasonal forest pools of the northeastern United States.
Wetl. Ecol. Manag. 13, 334–335. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11273-004-7526-5.
Calhoun, A.J.K., Mushet, D.M., Bell, K.P., Boix, D., Fitzsimons, J.A., Isselin-Nondedeug, F.,
2018. Temporary wetlands: challenges and solutions to conserving a ‘disappearing’
ecosystem. Biol. Conserv. 211, 3–11.
Cohen, M.J., Creed, I.F., Alexander, L.C., Basu, N.B., Calhoun, A.J., Craft, C., D'Amico, E.,
DeKeyser, E., Fowler, L., Golden, H.E., Jawitz, J.W., Kalla, P., Kirkman, L.K., Lane, C.R.,
Lang, M., Leibowitz, S.G., Lewis, D.B., Marton, J., McLaughlin, D.L., Mushet, D.M.,
Raanan-Kiperwas, H., Rains, M.C., Smith, L., Walls, S.C., 2016. Do geographically isolated
wetlands influence landscape functions? Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 113 (8), 1978–1986.
Creed, I.F., Lane, C.R., Serran, J.N., Alexander, L.C., Basu, N.B., Calhoun, A.J.K., Christensen,
J.R., Cohen, M.J., Craft, C., D'Amico, E., DeKeyser, E., Fowler, L., Golden, H.E., Jawitz,
J.W., Kalla, P., Kirkman, L.K., Lang, M., Leibowitz, S.G., Lewis, D.B., Marton, J.,
McLaughlin, D.L., Raanan-Kiperwas, H., Rains, M.C., Rains, K.C., Smith, L., 2017. En-
hancing protection for vulnerable waters. Nat. Geosci. 10, 809–815.
Denver, J.M., Ator, S.W., Lang, M.W., Fisher, T.R., Gustafson, A.B., Fox, R., Clune, J.W.,
McCarty, G.W., 2014. Nitrate fate and transport through current and former
depressional wetlands in an agricultural landscape, Choptank Watershed, Maryland,
United States. J. Soil Water Conserv. 69 (1), 1–16.
Evenson, G.R., Golden, H.E., Lane, C.R., D'Amico, E., 2015. Geographically isolated wetlands
and watershed hydrology: a modified model analysis. J. Hydrol. 529, 240–256.
Evenson, G.R., Golden, H.E., Lane, C.R., D'Amico, E., 2016. An improved representation of
geographically isolated wetlands in a watershed-scale hydrologic model. Hydrol. Pro-
cess. 30 (22), 4168–4184.
Evenson, G.R., Golden, H.E., Lane, C.R., McLaughlin, D.L., D'Amico, E., 2018. Depressional
wetlands affect watershed hydrological, biogeochemical, and ecological functions.
Ecol. Appl. 28 (4), 953–966. https://doi.org/10.1002/eap.1701.
1570 I.-Y. Yeo et al. / Science of the Total Environment 653 (2019) 1557–1570
Fossey, M., Rousseau, A.N., Savary, S., 2016. Assessment of the impact of spatio-temporal
attributes of wetlands on stream flows using a hydrological modelling framework: a
theoretical case study of a watershed under temperate climatic conditions. Hydrol.
Process. 30 (11), 1768–1781.
Freeman, M.C., Pringle, C.M., Jackson, C.R., 2007. Hydrologic connectivity and the contri-
bution of stream headwaters to ecological integrity at regional scales. J. Am. Water
Resour. Assoc. 43, 5–14.
Gitau, M.W., Chaubey, I., 2010. Regionalization of SWAT model parameters for use in
ungauged watersheds. Water 2 (4), 849–871.
Golden, H.E., Lane, C.R., Amatya, D.M., Bandilla, K.W., Kiperwas, H.R., Knightes, C.D.,
Ssegane, H., 2014. Hydrologic connectivity between geographically isolated wetlands
and surface water systems: a review of select modeling methods. Environ. Model
Softw. 53, 190–206.
Golden, H.E., Sander, H.A., Lane, C.R., Zhao, C., Price, K., D'Amico, E., Christensen, J.R., 2016.
Relative effects of geographically isolated wetlands on streamflow: a watershed-scale
analysis. Ecohydrology 9, 21–38.
Golden, H.E., Creed, I.F., Ali, G., Basu, N.B., Neff, B., Rains, M.C., McLaughlin, D.L., Alexander,
L.C., Ameli, A.A., Christensen, J.R., Evenson, G.R., Jones, C.N., Lane, C.R., Lang, M., 2017.
Scientific tools for integrating geographically isolated wetlands into land manage-
ment decisions. Front. Ecol. Environ. 15, 319–327. https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.1504.
Huang, C., Peng, Y., Lang, M.W., Yeo, I.-Y., McCarty, G.W., 2014. Wetland inundation map-
ping and change monitoring using Landsat and airborne LiDAR data. Remote Sens.
Environ. 141, 231–242.
Jin, H., Huang, C., Lang, M.W., Yeo, I.-Y., Stehman, S.V., 2017. Monitoring of wetland inun-
dation dynamics in the Delmarva Peninsula using Landsat time-series imagery from
1985 to 2011. Remote Sens. Environ. 190, 26–41.
Kunkel, K.E., Stevens, L.E., Stevens, S.E., Sun, L., Janssen, E., Wuebbles, D., Rennells, J.,
DeGaetano, A., Dobson, J.G., 2013. Technical Report NESDIS 142-1: Regional Climate
Trends and Scenarios for the US National Climate Assessment- Part 1. Climate of
the Northeast U.S., Silver Spring, MD. USA.
Lane, C.R., D'Amico, E., 2010. Calculating the ecosystem service of water storage in isolated
wetlands using LiDAR in North Central Florida, USA. Wetlands 30 (5), 967–977.
Lane, C.R., D'Amico, E., 2016. Identification of putative geographically isolated wetlands of
the conterminous United States. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 52, 705–722.
Lane, C.R., Leibowitz, S.G., Autrey, B.C., LeDuc, S.D., Alexander, L.C., 2018. Hydrological,
hysical, and chemical functions and connectivity of non-floodplain wetlands to
downstream waters: a review. J. Am. Water Res. Assoc. 54 (2), 346–371. https://
doi.org/10.1111/1752-1688.12633.
Lang, M., McDonough, O., McCarty, G., Oesterling, R., Wilen, B., 2012. Enhanced detection
of wetland-stream connectivity using LiDAR. Wetlands 32, 461–473.
Lee, S., Yeo, I.-Y., Sadeghi, A.M., McCarty, G.W., Hively, W.D., Lang, M.W., 2016. Impacts of
watershed characteristics and crop rotations on winter cover crop nitrate uptake ca-
pacity within agricultural watersheds in the Chesapeake Bay Region. PLoS One 11 (6),
e0157637.
Lee, S., Yeo, I.-Y., Lang, L.W., McCarty, G.W., Sadeghi, A.M., Sharifi, A., Jin, H., Liu, Y., 2017.
Improving the catchment scale wetland modeling using remotely sensed data. Envi-
ron. Model Softw. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2017.11.001 (In press).
Lee, S., Yeo, I.-Y., Sadeghi, A.M., McCarty, G.W., Hively, W.D., Lang, M.W., Sharifi, A., 2018a.
Comparative analyses of hydrological responses of two adjacent watersheds to cli-
mate variability and change using the SWAT model. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 22,
689–708. https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-22-689-2018.
Lee, S., Yeo, I.-Y., Lang, L.W., Sadeghi, A.M., McCarty, G.W., Moglen, G., Evenson, G., 2018b.
Assessing the cumulative impacts of wetlands on the watershed hydrology using the
SWAT model coupled with improved wetland modules. J. Environ. Manag. 223,
37–48.
Lee, S., McCarty, G.W., Moglen, G., Lang, L.W., Sadeghi, A.M., Green, T.R., Yeo, I.-Y.,
Rabenhorst, R.C., 2018c. Effects of subsurface soil characteristics on wetland-
groundwater interaction in the Coastal Plain of the Chesapeake Bay watershed.
Hydrol. Process. https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.13326 (In press).
Leibowitz, S.G., Wigington Jr., P.J., Schofield, K.A., Alexander, L.C., Vanderhoof, M.K.,
Golden, H.E., 2018. Connectivity of streams and wetlands to downstream waters:
an integrated systems framework. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 54 (2), 298–322.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1752-1688.12631.
Liu, Y.B., Yang, W.H., Wang, X.X., 2008. Development of a SWAT extension module to sim-
ulate riparian wetland hydrologic processes at a watershed scale. Hydrol. Process. 22
(16), 2901–2915.
McDonnell, J.J., Beven, K., 2014. Debates-the future of hydrological sciences: a (common)
path forward? A call to action aimed at understanding velocities, celerities, and resi-
dence time distributions of the headwater hydrograph. Water Resour. Res. 50,
5342–5350. https://doi.org/10.1002/2013WR015141.
McDonough, O.T., Lang, M.W., Hosen, J., Palmer, M., 2014. Surface hydrologic connectivity
between Delmarva Bay wetlands and nearby streams along a gradient of agricultural
alteration. Wetlands 35. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13157-014-0591-5.
McLaughlin, D.L., Kaplan, D.A., Cohen, M.J., 2014. A significant nexus: geographically iso-
lated wetlands influence landscape hydrology. Water Resour. Res. 50, 7153–7166.
Moriasi, D.N., Arnold, A.G., Van Liew, M.W., Bingner, R.L., Harmel, R.D., Veith, T.L., 2007.
Model evaluation guidelines for systematic quantification of accuracy in watershed
simulations. Trans. ASABE 50 (3), 885–900.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) National Climate Data Center,
2015. Available from: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/prelim/
drought/palmer.html.
Neitsch, S.L., Arnold, J.G., Kiniry, J.R., Williams, J.R., 2011. Soil and Water Assessment Tool
Theoretical Documentation Version 2009. Texas Water Resources Institute Technical
Report Texas A&M University System, College Station, Texas, p. 618.
Phillips, P.J., Shedlock, R.J., 1993. Hydrology and chemistry of groundwater and seasonal
ponds in the Atlantic Coastal Plain in Delaware, USA. J. Hydrol. 141, 157–178.
Records, R.M., Arabi, M., Fassnacht, S.R., Duffy, W.G., Ahmadi, M., Hegewisch, K.C., 2014.
Climate change and wetland loss impacts on a western river's water quality. Hydrol.
Earth Syst. Sci. 18 (11), 4509–4527.
Salvucci, G.D., Entekhabi, D., 2011. An alternate and robust approach to calibration for the
estimation of land surface model parameters based on remotely sensed observations.
Geophys. Res. Lett. 38, L16404. https://doi.org/10.1029/2011GL048366.
Sexton, A.M., Sadeghi, A.M., Zhang, X., Srinivasan, R., Shirmohammadi, A., 2010. Using
NEXRAD and rain gauge precipitation data for hydrologic calibration of SWAT in a
Northeastern watershed. Trans. ASABE 53 (5), 1501–1510.
Sharifi, A., Lang, M.W., McCarty, G.W., Sadeghi, A.M., Lee, S., Yen, H., Yeo, I.-Y., 2016. Im-
proving model prediction reliability through enhanced representation of wetland
soil processes and constrained model auto calibration: a paired watershed study.
J. Hydrol. 541, 1088–1103.
Vanderhoof, M.K., Alexander, L.C., Todd, M.J., 2016. Temporal and spatial patterns of wet-
land extent influence variability of surface water connectivity in the Prairie Pothole
Region, United States. Landsc. Ecol. 31, 805–824.
Vanderhoof, M.K., Distler, H.E., Lang, M.W., Alexander, L.C., 2017. The influence of data
characteristics on detecting wetland/stream surface-water connections in the
Delmarva Peninsula, Maryland and Delaware. Wetl. Ecol. Manag. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s11273-017-9554-y.
Winchell, M., Srinivasan, R., Di Luzio, M., Arnold, J., 2010. ArcSWAT Interface for
SWAT2009 User's Guide. Texas Agricultural Experiment Station and U.S. Department
of Agriculture, Temple, TX, p. 415.
Wu, K., Xu, Y.J., 2006. Evaluation of the applicability of the swat model for coastal water-
sheds in Southeastern Louisiana. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 42 (5), 1260.
Yang, W., Liu, Y., Ou, C., Gabor, S., 2016. Examining water quality effects of riparian wet-
land loss and restoration scenarios in a Southern Ontario watershed. J. Environ.
Manag. 174, 26–34.
Yen, H., Jeong, J., Feng, Q., Deb, D., 2014. Assessment of input uncertainty in SWAT using
latent variables. Water Resour. Manag. 29 (4), 1137–1153.
Yeo, I.-Y., Guldmann, J.-M., 2010. Global spatial optimization with hydrological systems
simulation: application to land-use allocation and peak runoff minimization. Hydrol.
Earth Syst. Sci. 14 (2), 325–338. https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-14-325-2010.
Yeo, I.-Y., Lee, S., Sadeghi, A.M., Beeson, P.C., Hively, W.D., McCarty, G.W., Lang, M.W.,
2014. Assessing winter cover crop nutrient uptake efficiency using a water quality
simulation model. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 18 (12), 5239–5253.
Yeo, I.-Y., Lang, M.W., Lee, S., McCarty, G.W., Sadeghi, A.M., Yetemen, O., Huang, C., 2018.
Mapping landscape-level hydrological connectivity of headwater wetlands to down-
stream waters: A geospatial modeling approach - Part 1. Sci. Total Environ. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.11.238 (In press).