Floods, with their inherent spatiotemporal variability, drive floodplain physical and ecological processes. This research identifies a flood regime typology and approach for flood regime characterization, using unsupervised cluster analysis of flood events defined by ecologically meaningful metrics, including magnitude, timing, duration, and rate of change as applied to the unregulated lowland alluvial Cosumnes River of California, United States. Flood events, isolated from the 107‐year daily flow record, account for approximately two‐thirds of the annual flow volume. Our analysis suggests six flood types best capture the range of flood event variability. Two types are distinguished primarily by high peak flows, another by later season timing and long duration, two by small magnitudes separated by timing, and the last by later peak flow within the flood event. The flood regime was also evaluated through inter‐ and intra‐annual frequency of the identified flood types, their relationship to water year conditions, and their long‐term trends. This revealed, for example, year‐to‐year variability in flood types, associations between wet years and high peak magnitude types and between dry years and the low magnitude, late season flood type, and increasing and decreasing contribution to total annual flow in the highest two peak magnitude classes, respectively. This research focuses needed attention on floodplains, flood hydrology, ecological implications, and the utility of extending flow regime classification typically used for environmental flow targets. The approach is broadly applicable and extensible to other systems, where findings can be used to understand physical processes, assess change, and improve management strategies.more » « less
- NSF-PAR ID:
- Publisher / Repository:
- Wiley Blackwell (John Wiley & Sons)
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
Excessive phosphorus (P) applications to croplands can contribute to eutrophication of surface waters through surface runoff and subsurface (leaching) losses. We analyzed leaching losses of total dissolved P (TDP) from no-till corn, hybrid poplar (Populus nigra X P. maximowiczii), switchgrass (Panicum virgatum), miscanthus (Miscanthus giganteus), native grasses, and restored prairie, all planted in 2008 on former cropland in Michigan, USA. All crops except corn (13 kg P ha−1 year−1) were grown without P fertilization. Biomass was harvested at the end of each growing season except for poplar. Soil water at 1.2 m depth was sampled weekly to biweekly for TDP determination during March–November 2009–2016 using tension lysimeters. Soil test P (0–25 cm depth) was measured every autumn. Soil water TDP concentrations were usually below levels where eutrophication of surface waters is frequently observed (> 0.02 mg L−1) but often higher than in deep groundwater or nearby streams and lakes. Rates of P leaching, estimated from measured concentrations and modeled drainage, did not differ statistically among cropping systems across years; 7-year cropping system means ranged from 0.035 to 0.072 kg P ha−1 year−1 with large interannual variation. Leached P was positively related to STP, which decreased over the 7 years in all systems. These results indicate that both P-fertilized and unfertilized cropping systems may leach legacy P from past cropland management. Experimental details The Biofuel Cropping System Experiment (BCSE) is located at the W.K. Kellogg Biological Station (KBS) (42.3956° N, 85.3749° W; elevation 288 m asl) in southwestern Michigan, USA. This site is a part of the Great Lakes Bioenergy Research Center (www.glbrc.org) and is a Long-term Ecological Research site (www.lter.kbs.msu.edu). Soils are mesic Typic Hapludalfs developed on glacial outwash54 with high sand content (76% in the upper 150 cm) intermixed with silt-rich loess in the upper 50 cm55. The water table lies approximately 12–14 m below the surface. The climate is humid temperate with a mean annual air temperature of 9.1 °C and annual precipitation of 1005 mm, 511 mm of which falls between May and September (1981–2010)56,57. The BCSE was established as a randomized complete block design in 2008 on preexisting farmland. Prior to BCSE establishment, the field was used for grain crop and alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) production for several decades. Between 2003 and 2007, the field received a total of ~ 300 kg P ha−1 as manure, and the southern half, which contains one of four replicate plots, received an additional 206 kg P ha−1 as inorganic fertilizer. The experimental design consists of five randomized blocks each containing one replicate plot (28 by 40 m) of 10 cropping systems (treatments) (Supplementary Fig. S1; also see Sanford et al.58). Block 5 is not included in the present study. Details on experimental design and site history are provided in Robertson and Hamilton57 and Gelfand et al.59. Leaching of P is analyzed in six of the cropping systems: (i) continuous no-till corn, (ii) switchgrass, (iii) miscanthus, (iv) a mixture of five species of native grasses, (v) a restored native prairie containing 18 plant species (Supplementary Table S1), and (vi) hybrid poplar. Agronomic management Phenological cameras and field observations indicated that the perennial herbaceous crops emerged each year between mid-April and mid-May. Corn was planted each year in early May. Herbaceous crops were harvested at the end of each growing season with the timing depending on weather: between October and November for corn and between November and December for herbaceous perennial crops. Corn stover was harvested shortly after corn grain, leaving approximately 10 cm height of stubble above the ground. The poplar was harvested only once, as the culmination of a 6-year rotation, in the winter of 2013–2014. Leaf emergence and senescence based on daily phenological images indicated the beginning and end of the poplar growing season, respectively, in each year. Application of inorganic fertilizers to the different crops followed a management approach typical for the region (Table 1). Corn was fertilized with 13 kg P ha−1 year−1 as starter fertilizer (N-P-K of 19-17-0) at the time of planting and an additional 33 kg P ha−1 year−1 was added as superphosphate in spring 2015. Corn also received N fertilizer around the time of planting and in mid-June at typical rates for the region (Table 1). No P fertilizer was applied to the perennial grassland or poplar systems (Table 1). All perennial grasses (except restored prairie) were provided 56 kg N ha−1 year−1 of N fertilizer in early summer between 2010 and 2016; an additional 77 kg N ha−1 was applied to miscanthus in 2009. Poplar was fertilized once with 157 kg N ha−1 in 2010 after the canopy had closed. Sampling of subsurface soil water and soil for P determination Subsurface soil water samples were collected beneath the root zone (1.2 m depth) using samplers installed at approximately 20 cm into the unconsolidated sand of 2Bt2 and 2E/Bt horizons (soils at the site are described in Crum and Collins54). Soil water was collected from two kinds of samplers: Prenart samplers constructed of Teflon and silica (http://www.prenart.dk/soil-water-samplers/) in replicate blocks 1 and 2 and Eijkelkamp ceramic samplers (http://www.eijkelkamp.com) in blocks 3 and 4 (Supplementary Fig. S1). The samplers were installed in 2008 at an angle using a hydraulic corer, with the sampling tubes buried underground within the plots and the sampler located about 9 m from the plot edge. There were no consistent differences in TDP concentrations between the two sampler types. Beginning in the 2009 growing season, subsurface soil water was sampled at weekly to biweekly intervals during non-frozen periods (April–November) by applying 50 kPa of vacuum to each sampler for 24 h, during which the extracted water was collected in glass bottles. Samples were filtered using different filter types (all 0.45 µm pore size) depending on the volume of leachate collected: 33-mm dia. cellulose acetate membrane filters when volumes were less than 50 mL; and 47-mm dia. Supor 450 polyethersulfone membrane filters for larger volumes. Total dissolved phosphorus (TDP) in water samples was analyzed by persulfate digestion of filtered samples to convert all phosphorus forms to soluble reactive phosphorus, followed by colorimetric analysis by long-pathlength spectrophotometry (UV-1800 Shimadzu, Japan) using the molybdate blue method60, for which the method detection limit was ~ 0.005 mg P L−1. Between 2009 and 2016, soil samples (0–25 cm depth) were collected each autumn from all plots for determination of soil test P (STP) by the Bray-1 method61, using as an extractant a dilute hydrochloric acid and ammonium fluoride solution, as is recommended for neutral to slightly acidic soils. The measured STP concentration in mg P kg−1 was converted to kg P ha−1 based on soil sampling depth and soil bulk density (mean, 1.5 g cm−3). Sampling of water samples from lakes, streams and wells for P determination In addition to chemistry of soil and subsurface soil water in the BCSE, waters from lakes, streams, and residential water supply wells were also sampled during 2009–2016 for TDP analysis using Supor 450 membrane filters and the same analytical method as for soil water. These water bodies are within 15 km of the study site, within a landscape mosaic of row crops, grasslands, deciduous forest, and wetlands, with some residential development (Supplementary Fig. S2, Supplementary Table S2). Details of land use and cover change in the vicinity of KBS are given in Hamilton et al.48, and patterns in nutrient concentrations in local surface waters are further discussed in Hamilton62. Leaching estimates, modeled drainage, and data analysis Leaching was estimated at daily time steps and summarized as total leaching on a crop-year basis, defined from the date of planting or leaf emergence in a given year to the day prior to planting or emergence in the following year. TDP concentrations (mg L−1) of subsurface soil water were linearly interpolated between sampling dates during non-freezing periods (April–November) and over non-sampling periods (December–March) based on the preceding November and subsequent April samples. Daily rates of TDP leaching (kg ha−1) were calculated by multiplying concentration (mg L−1) by drainage rates (m3 ha−1 day−1) modeled by the Systems Approach for Land Use Sustainability (SALUS) model, a crop growth model that is well calibrated for KBS soil and environmental conditions. SALUS simulates yield and environmental outcomes in response to weather, soil, management (planting dates, plant population, irrigation, N fertilizer application, and tillage), and genetics63. The SALUS water balance sub-model simulates surface runoff, saturated and unsaturated water flow, drainage, root water uptake, and evapotranspiration during growing and non-growing seasons63. The SALUS model has been used in studies of evapotranspiration48,51,64 and nutrient leaching20,65,66,67 from KBS soils, and its predictions of growing-season evapotranspiration are consistent with independent measurements based on growing-season soil water drawdown53 and evapotranspiration measured by eddy covariance68. Phosphorus leaching was assumed insignificant on days when SALUS predicted no drainage. Volume-weighted mean TDP concentrations in leachate for each crop-year and for the entire 7-year study period were calculated as the total dissolved P leaching flux (kg ha−1) divided by the total drainage (m3 ha−1). One-way ANOVA with time (crop-year) as the fixed factor was conducted to compare total annual drainage rates, P leaching rates, volume-weighted mean TDP concentrations, and maximum aboveground biomass among the cropping systems over all seven crop-years as well as with TDP concentrations from local lakes, streams, and groundwater wells. When a significant (α = 0.05) difference was detected among the groups, we used the Tukey honest significant difference (HSD) post-hoc test to make pairwise comparisons among the groups. In the case of maximum aboveground biomass, we used the Tukey–Kramer method to make pairwise comparisons among the groups because the absence of poplar data after the 2013 harvest resulted in unequal sample sizes. We also used the Tukey–Kramer method to compare the frequency distributions of TDP concentrations in all of the soil leachate samples with concentrations in lakes, streams, and groundwater wells, since each sample category had very different numbers of measurements. Individual spreadsheets in “data table_leaching_dissolved organic carbon and nitrogen.xls” 1. annual precip_drainage 2. biomass_corn, perennial grasses 3. biomass_poplar 4. annual N leaching _vol-wtd conc 5. Summary_N leached 6. annual DOC leachin_vol-wtd conc 7. growing season length 8. correlation_nh4 VS no3 9. correlations_don VS no3_doc VS don Each spreadsheet is described below along with an explanation of variates. Note that ‘nan’ indicate data are missing or not available. First row indicates header; second row indicates units 1. Spreadsheet: annual precip_drainage Description: Precipitation measured from nearby Kellogg Biological Station (KBS) Long Term Ecological Research (LTER) Weather station, over 2009-2016 study period. Data shown in Figure 1; original data source for precipitation (https://lter.kbs.msu.edu/datatables/7). Drainage estimated from SALUS crop model. Note that drainage is percolation out of the root zone (0-125 cm). Annual precipitation and drainage values shown here are calculated for growing and non-growing crop periods. Variate Description year year of the observation crop “corn” “switchgrass” “miscanthus” “nativegrass” “restored prairie” “poplar” precip_G precipitation during growing period (milliMeter) precip_NG precipitation during non-growing period (milliMeter) drainage_G drainage during growing period (milliMeter) drainage_NG drainage during non-growing period (milliMeter) 2. Spreadsheet: biomass_corn, perennial grasses Description: Maximum aboveground biomass measurements from corn, switchgrass, miscanthus, native grass and restored prairie plots in Great Lakes Bioenergy Research Center (GLBRC) Biomass Cropping System Experiment (BCSE) during 2009-2015. Data shown in Figure 2. Variate Description year year of the observation date day of the observation (mm/dd/yyyy) crop “corn” “switchgrass” “miscanthus” “nativegrass” “restored prairie” “poplar” replicate each crop has four replicated plots, R1, R2, R3 and R4 station stations (S1, S2 and S3) of samplings within the plot. For more details, refer to link (https://data.sustainability.glbrc.org/protocols/156) species plant species that are rooted within the quadrat during the time of maximum biomass harvest. See protocol for more information, refer to link (http://lter.kbs.msu.edu/datatables/36) For maize biomass, grain and whole biomass reported in the paper (weed biomass or surface litter are excluded). Surface litter biomass not included in any crops; weed biomass not included in switchgrass and miscanthus, but included in grass mixture and prairie. fraction Fraction of biomass biomass_plot biomass per plot on dry-weight basis (Grams_Per_SquareMeter) biomass_ha biomass (megaGrams_Per_Hectare) by multiplying column biomass per plot with 0.01 3. Spreadsheet: biomass_poplar Description: Maximum aboveground biomass measurements from poplar plots in Great Lakes Bioenergy Research Center (GLBRC) Biomass Cropping System Experiment (BCSE) during 2009-2015. Data shown in Figure 2. Note that poplar biomass was estimated from crop growth curves until the poplar was harvested in the winter of 2013-14. Variate Description year year of the observation method methods of poplar biomass sampling date day of the observation (mm/dd/yyyy) replicate each crop has four replicated plots, R1, R2, R3 and R4 diameter_at_ground poplar diameter (milliMeter) at the ground diameter_at_15cm poplar diameter (milliMeter) at 15 cm height biomass_tree biomass per plot (Grams_Per_Tree) biomass_ha biomass (megaGrams_Per_Hectare) by multiplying biomass per tree with 0.01 4. Spreadsheet: annual N leaching_vol-wtd conc Description: Annual leaching rate (kiloGrams_N_Per_Hectare) and volume-weighted mean N concentrations (milliGrams_N_Per_Liter) of nitrate (no3) and dissolved organic nitrogen (don) in the leachate samples collected from corn, switchgrass, miscanthus, native grass, restored prairie and poplar plots in Great Lakes Bioenergy Research Center (GLBRC) Biomass Cropping System Experiment (BCSE) during 2009-2016. Data for nitrogen leached and volume-wtd mean N concentration shown in Figure 3a and Figure 3b, respectively. Note that ammonium (nh4) concentration were much lower and often undetectable (<0.07 milliGrams_N_Per_Liter). Also note that in 2009 and 2010 crop-years, data from some replicates are missing. Variate Description crop “corn” “switchgrass” “miscanthus” “nativegrass” “restored prairie” “poplar” crop-year year of the observation replicate each crop has four replicated plots, R1, R2, R3 and R4 no3 leached annual leaching rates of nitrate (kiloGrams_N_Per_Hectare) don leached annual leaching rates of don (kiloGrams_N_Per_Hectare) vol-wtd no3 conc. Volume-weighted mean no3 concentration (milliGrams_N_Per_Liter) vol-wtd don conc. Volume-weighted mean don concentration (milliGrams_N_Per_Liter) 5. Spreadsheet: summary_N leached Description: Summary of total amount and forms of N leached (kiloGrams_N_Per_Hectare) and the percent of applied N lost to leaching over the seven years for corn, switchgrass, miscanthus, native grass, restored prairie and poplar plots in Great Lakes Bioenergy Research Center (GLBRC) Biomass Cropping System Experiment (BCSE) during 2009-2016. Data for nitrogen amount leached shown in Figure 4a and percent of applied N lost shown in Figure 4b. Note the fraction of unleached N includes in harvest, accumulation in root biomass, soil organic matter or gaseous N emissions were not measured in the study. Variate Description crop “corn” “switchgrass” “miscanthus” “nativegrass” “restored prairie” “poplar” no3 leached annual leaching rates of nitrate (kiloGrams_N_Per_Hectare) don leached annual leaching rates of don (kiloGrams_N_Per_Hectare) N unleached N unleached (kiloGrams_N_Per_Hectare) in other sources are not studied % of N applied N lost to leaching % of N applied N lost to leaching 6. Spreadsheet: annual DOC leachin_vol-wtd conc Description: Annual leaching rate (kiloGrams_Per_Hectare) and volume-weighted mean N concentrations (milliGrams_Per_Liter) of dissolved organic carbon (DOC) in the leachate samples collected from corn, switchgrass, miscanthus, native grass, restored prairie and poplar plots in Great Lakes Bioenergy Research Center (GLBRC) Biomass Cropping System Experiment (BCSE) during 2009-2016. Data for DOC leached and volume-wtd mean DOC concentration shown in Figure 5a and Figure 5b, respectively. Note that in 2009 and 2010 crop-years, water samples were not available for DOC measurements. Variate Description crop “corn” “switchgrass” “miscanthus” “nativegrass” “restored prairie” “poplar” crop-year year of the observation replicate each crop has four replicated plots, R1, R2, R3 and R4 doc leached annual leaching rates of nitrate (kiloGrams_Per_Hectare) vol-wtd doc conc. volume-weighted mean doc concentration (milliGrams_Per_Liter) 7. Spreadsheet: growing season length Description: Growing season length (days) of corn, switchgrass, miscanthus, native grass, restored prairie and poplar plots in the Great Lakes Bioenergy Research Center (GLBRC) Biomass Cropping System Experiment (BCSE) during 2009-2015. Date shown in Figure S2. Note that growing season is from the date of planting or emergence to the date of harvest (or leaf senescence in case of poplar). Variate Description crop “corn” “switchgrass” “miscanthus” “nativegrass” “restored prairie” “poplar” year year of the observation growing season length growing season length (days) 8. Spreadsheet: correlation_nh4 VS no3 Description: Correlation of ammonium (nh4+) and nitrate (no3-) concentrations (milliGrams_N_Per_Liter) in the leachate samples from corn, switchgrass, miscanthus, native grass, restored prairie and poplar plots in Great Lakes Bioenergy Research Center (GLBRC) Biomass Cropping System Experiment (BCSE) during 2013-2015. Data shown in Figure S3. Note that nh4+ concentration in the leachates was very low compared to no3- and don concentration and often undetectable in three crop-years (2013-2015) when measurements are available. Variate Description crop “corn” “switchgrass” “miscanthus” “nativegrass” “restored prairie” “poplar” date date of the observation (mm/dd/yyyy) replicate each crop has four replicated plots, R1, R2, R3 and R4 nh4 conc nh4 concentration (milliGrams_N_Per_Liter) no3 conc no3 concentration (milliGrams_N_Per_Liter) 9. Spreadsheet: correlations_don VS no3_doc VS don Description: Correlations of don and nitrate concentrations (milliGrams_N_Per_Liter); and doc (milliGrams_Per_Liter) and don concentrations (milliGrams_N_Per_Liter) in the leachate samples of corn, switchgrass, miscanthus, native grass, restored prairie and poplar plots in Great Lakes Bioenergy Research Center (GLBRC) Biomass Cropping System Experiment (BCSE) during 2013-2015. Data of correlation of don and nitrate concentrations shown in Figure S4 a and doc and don concentrations shown in Figure S4 b. Variate Description crop “corn” “switchgrass” “miscanthus” “nativegrass” “restored prairie” “poplar” year year of the observation don don concentration (milliGrams_N_Per_Liter) no3 no3 concentration (milliGrams_N_Per_Liter) doc doc concentration (milliGrams_Per_Liter)more » « less
The phenology of critical biological events in aquatic ecosystems are rapidly shifting due to climate change. Growing variability in phenological cues can increase the likelihood of trophic mismatches, causing recruitment failures in commercially, culturally, and recreationally important fisheries. We tested for changes in spawning phenology of regionally important walleye (Sander vitreus) populations in 194 Midwest US lakes in Minnesota, Michigan, and Wisconsin spanning 1939-2019 to investigate factors influencing walleye phenological responses to climate change and associated climate variability, including ice-off timing, lake physical characteristics, and population stocking history. Data from Wisconsin and Michigan lakes (185 and 5 out of 194 total lakes, respectively) were collected by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) and the Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission (GLIFWC) through standardized spring walleye mark-recapture surveys and spring tribal harvest season records. Standardized spring mark-recapture population estimates are performed shortly after ice-off, where following a marking event, a subsequent recapture sampling event is conducted using nighttime electrofishing (typically AC – WDNR, pulsed-DC – GLIFWC) of the entire shoreline including islands for small lakes and index stations for large lakes (Hansen et al. 2015) that is timed to coincide with peak walleye spawning activity (G. Hatzenbeler, WDNR, personal communication; M. Luehring, GLIFWC, personal communication; Beard et al. 1997). Data for four additional Minnesota lakes were collected by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MNDNR) beginning in 1939 during annual collections of walleye eggs and broodstock (Schneider et al. 2010), where date of peak egg take was used to index peak spawning activity. For lakes where spawning location did not match the lake for which the ice-off data was collected, the spawning location either flowed into (Pike River) or was within 50 km of a lake where ice-off data were available (Pine River) and these ice-off data were used. Following the affirmation of off-reservation Ojibwe tribal fishing rights in the Ceded Territories of Wisconsin and the Upper Peninsula of Michigan in 1987, tribal spearfishers have targeted walleye during spring spawning (Mrnak et al. 2018). Nightly harvests are recorded as part of a compulsory creel survey (US Department of the Interior 1991). Using these records, we calculated the date of peak spawning activity in a given lake-year as the day of maximum tribal harvest. Although we were unable to account for varying effort in these data, a preliminary analysis comparing spawning dates estimated using tribal harvest to those determined from standardized agency surveys in the same lake and year showed that they were highly correlated (Pearson’s correlation: r = 0.91, P < 0.001). For lakes that had walleye spawning data from both agency surveys and tribal harvest, we used the data source with the greatest number of observation years. Ice-off phenology data was collected from two sources – either observed from the Global Lake and River Ice Phenology database (Benson et al. 2000)t, or modeled from a USGS region-wide machine-learning model which used North American Land Data Assimilation System (NLDAS) meteorological inputs combined with lake characteristics (lake position, clarity, size, depth, hypsography, etc.) to predict daily water column temperatures from 1979 - 2022, from which ice-off dates could be derived (https://www.sciencebase.gov/catalog/item/6206d3c2d34ec05caca53071; see Corson-Dosch et al. 2023 for details). Modeled data for our study lakes (see (Read et al. 2021) for modeling details), which performed well in reflecting ice phenology when compared to observed data (i.e., highly significant correlation between observed and modeled ice-off dates when both were available; r = 0.71, p < 0.001). Lake surface area (ha), latitude, and maximum depth (m) were acquired from agency databases and lake reports. Lake class was based on a WDNR lakes classification system (Rypel et al. 2019) that categorized lakes based on temperature, water clarity, depth, and fish community. Walleye stocking history was defined using the walleye stocking classification system developed by the Wisconsin Technical Working Group (see also Sass et al. 2021), which categorized lakes based on relative contributions of naturally-produced and stocked fish to adult recruitment by relying heavily on historic records of age-0 and age-1 catch rates and stocking histories. Wisconsin lakes were divided into three groups: natural recruitment (NR), a combination of stocking and natural recruitment (C-ST), and stocked only (ST). Walleye natural recruitment was indexed as age-0 walleye CPE (number of age-0 walleye captured per km of shoreline electrofished) from WDNR and GLIFWC fall electrofishing surveys (see Hansen et al. 2015 for details). We excluded lake-years where stocking of age-0 fish occurred before age-0 surveys to only include measurements of naturally-reproduced fish.more » « less
Alteration of flow regimes due to change in climate and its potential impact on habitat and species has become a major cause of concern for riverine ecosystems. Areas that are more vulnerable to such changes are semiarid river systems or regions experiencing intermittent flow and cyclic droughts. Although ecological changes are expected to occur with flow regime alterations, the biological changes cannot be predicted until the flow in such regions is analysed. This study addresses this concern by providing an analysis of flow for a semiarid river basin in the Central Great Plains from a 50 and 100‐year projection climate data. The projected data for these two periods are then compared with 30‐year historical data to determine changes in flow. Five major components of flow regime, magnitude, duration, and timing of annual extreme water conditions, frequency and duration of high and low pulses, and rate and frequency of water condition changes, were examined with respect to climate change for their impact on the ecology of the basin. This analysis strongly suggests that inter‐ and intra‐annual changes in flow regimes will result in the intensified drying of the basin represented by the increased number of low flow periods followed by higher occurrences of high flow events of shorter duration with expected changes in climate.
Climate change is leading to phenological shifts across a wide range of species globally. Polar oceans are hotspots of rapid climate change where sea ice dynamics structure ecosystems and organismal life cycles are attuned to ice seasonality. To anticipate climate change impacts on populations and ecosystem services, it is critical to understand ecosystem phenology to determine species activity patterns, optimal environmental windows for processes like reproduction, and the ramifications of ecological mismatches. Since 1991, the Palmer Antarctica Long‐Term Ecological Research (LTER) program has monitored seasonal dynamics near Palmer Station. Here, we review the species that occupy this region as year‐round residents, seasonal breeders, or periodic visitors. We show that sea ice retreat and increasing photoperiod in the spring trigger a sequence of events from mid‐November to mid‐February, including Adélie penguin clutch initiation, snow melt, calm conditions (low winds and warm air/sea temperature), phytoplankton blooms, shallow mixed layer depths, particulate organic carbon flux, peak humpback whale abundances, nutrient drawdown, and bacterial accumulation. Subsequently, from May to June, snow accumulates, zooplankton indicator species appear, and sea ice advances. The standard deviation in the timing of most events ranged from ~20 to 45 days, which was striking compared with Adélie penguin clutch initiation that varied <1 week. In general, during late sea ice retreat years, events happened later (~5 to >30 days) than mean dates and the variability in timing was low (<20%) compared with early ice retreat years. Statistical models showed the timing of some events were informative predictors (but not sole drivers) of other events. From an Adélie penguin perspective, earlier sea ice retreat and shifts in the timing of suitable conditions or prey characteristics could lead to mismatches, or asynchronies, that ultimately influence chick survival via their mass at fledging. However, more work is needed to understand how phenological shifts affect chick thermoregulatory costs and the abundance, availability, and energy content of key prey species, which support chick growth and survival. While we did not detect many long‐term phenological trends, we expect that when sea ice trends become significant within our LTER time series, phenological trends and negative effects from ecological mismatches will follow.
Green stormwater infrastructure implementation in urban watersheds has outpaced our understanding of practice effectiveness on streamflow response to precipitation events. Long‐term monitoring of experimental suburban watersheds in Clarksburg, Maryland, USA, provided an opportunity to examine changes in event‐based streamflow metrics in two treatment watersheds that transitioned from agriculture to suburban development with a high density of infiltration‐focused stormwater control measures (SCMs). Urban Treatment 1 has predominantly single family detached housing with 33% impervious cover and 126 SCMs. Urban Treatment 2 has a mix of single family detached and attached housing with 44% impervious cover and 219 SCMs. Differences in streamflow‐event magnitude and timing were assessed using a before‐after‐control‐reference‐impact design to compare urban treatment watersheds with a forested control and an urban control with detention‐focused SCMs. Streamflow and precipitation events were identified from 14 years of sub‐daily monitoring data with an automated approach to characterize peak streamflow, runoff yield, runoff ratio, streamflow duration, time to peak, rise rate, and precipitation depth for each event. Results indicated that streamflow magnitude and timing were altered by urbanization in the urban treatment watersheds, even with SCMs treating 100% of the impervious area. The largest hydrologic changes were observed in streamflow magnitude metrics, with greater hydrologic change in Urban Treatment 2 compared with Urban Treatment 1. Although streamflow changes were observed in both urban treatment watersheds, SCMs were able to mitigate peak flows and runoff volumes compared with the urban control. The urban control had similar impervious cover to Urban Treatment 2, but Urban Treatment 2 had more than twice the precipitation depth needed to initiate a flow response and lower median peak flow and runoff yield for events less than 20 mm. Differences in impervious cover between the Urban Treatment watersheds appeared to be a large driver of differences in streamflow response, rather than SCM density. Overall, use of infiltration‐focused SCMs implemented at a watershed‐scale did provide enhanced attenuation of peak flow and runoff volumes compared to centralized‐detention SCMs.