Search for: All records

Abstract Rivers that do not flow year-round are the predominant type of running waters on Earth. Despite a burgeoning literature on natural flow intermittence (NFI), knowledge about the hydrological causes and ecological effects of human-induced, anthropogenic flow intermittence (AFI) remains limited. NFI and AFI could generate contrasting hydrological and biological responses in rivers because of distinct underlying causes of drying and evolutionary adaptations of their biota. We first review the causes of AFI and show how different anthropogenic drivers alter the timing, frequency and duration of drying, compared with NFI. Second, we evaluate the possible differences in biodiversity responses, ecological functions, and ecosystem services between NFI and AFI. Last, we outline knowledge gaps and management needs related to AFI. Because of the distinct hydrologic characteristics and ecological impacts of AFI, ignoring the distinction between NFI and AFI could undermine management of intermittent rivers and ephemeral streams and exacerbate risks to the ecosystems and societies downstream. 

Abstract Non-perennial streams are widespread, critical to ecosystems and society, and the subject of ongoing policy debate. Prior large-scale research on stream intermittency has been based on long-term averages, generally using annually aggregated data to characterize a highly variable process. As a result, it is not well understood if, how, or why the hydrology of non-perennial streams is changing. Here, we investigate trends and drivers of three intermittency signatures that describe the duration, timing, and dry-down period of stream intermittency across the continental United States (CONUS). Half of gages exhibited a significant trend through time in at least one of the three intermittency signatures, and changes in no-flow duration were most pervasive (41% of gages). Changes in intermittency were substantial for many streams, and 7% of gages exhibited changes in annual no-flow duration exceeding 100 days during the study period. Distinct regional patterns of change were evident, with widespread drying in southern CONUS and wetting in northern CONUS. These patterns are correlated with changes in aridity, though drivers of spatiotemporal variability were diverse across the three intermittency signatures. While the no-flow timing and duration were strongly related to climate, dry-down period was most strongly related to watershed land use and physiography. Our results indicate that non-perennial conditions are increasing in prevalence over much of CONUS and binary classifications of ‘perennial’ and ‘non-perennial’ are not an accurate reflection of this change. Water management and policy should reflect the changing nature and diverse drivers of changing intermittency both today and in the future. 

Streamflow generation in mountain watersheds is strongly influenced by snow accumulation and melt, and multiple studies have found that snow loss leads to earlier snowmelt timing and declines in annual streamflow. However, hydrologic responses to snow loss are heterogeneous, and not all areas experience streamflow declines. This research examines whether streamflow generation is different for rainfall versus snowmelt inputs. We compiled a sample of 57 small U.S. Geological Survey watersheds in the western United States containing a Natural Resource Conservation Service Snow Telemetry site and having ratios of mean annual peak snow water equivalent to precipitation ratios >0.25. Daily streamflow was separated into quickflow and baseflow using a digital filter, and quickflow was then divided into quickflow response intervals using thresholds in quickflow slope. Each quickflow response interval was categorized by its fraction of input from snowmelt. Most sites exhibited two streamflow generation peaks each year, with one peak in the winter when runoff efficiency is greatest, and the second in the spring during peak snowmelt input. On average, study watersheds were dominated by snowmelt inputs (70%), and snowmelt and mixed inputs usually generated greater streamflow than rainfall because of higher inputs and longer durations. However, rainfall produced high streamflow generation in winter, when watersheds have their highest runoff efficiency (81%) across all input types. We demonstrate that while snowmelt is important for streamflow generation due to high input over long periods, increases in rain and mixed input during wet winter periods can countervail tendencies for reduced streamflow with declining snowpacks.

 

Around the world, long‐term changes in the timing and magnitude of streamflow are testing the ability of large managed water resource systems constructed in the 20th century to continue to meet objectives in the 21st century. Streamflow records for unregulated rivers upstream of reservoirs can be combined with records downstream of reservoirs using a paired‐watershed framework and concepts of water resource system performance to assess how reservoir management has responded to long‐term change. Using publicly available data, this study quantified how the intra‐annual timing of inflows and outflows of 25 major reservoirs has shifted, how management has responded, and how this has influenced reliability and vulnerability of the water resource system in the 668,000 km²Columbia River basin from 1950 to 2012. Reservoir inflows increased slightly in early spring and declined in late spring to early fall, but reservoir outflows increased in late summer from 1950 to 2012. Average inflows to reservoirs in the low flow period exceeded outflows in the1950s, but inflows are now less than outflows. Reservoirs have increased hedging, that is, they have stored more water during the spring, in order to meet the widening gap between inflows and outflows during the summer low flow period. For a given level of reliability (the fraction of time flow targets were met), vulnerability (the maximum departure from the flow target) was greater during periods with lower than average inflows. Thus, the water management system in this large river basin has adjusted to multi‐decade trends of declining inflows, but vulnerability, that is, the potential for excess releases in spring and shortfalls in summer, has increased. This study demonstrates the value of combining publicly available historical data on streamflow with concepts from paired‐watershed analyses and metrics of water resource performance to detect, evaluate, and manage water resource systems in large river basins.

 

The flow regime paradigm is central to the aquatic sciences, where flow drives critical functions in lotic systems. Non‐perennial streams comprise the majority of global river length, thus we extended this paradigm to stream drying. Using 894 USGS gages, we isolated 25,207 drying events from 1979 to 2018, represented by a streamflow peak followed by no flow. We calculated hydrologic signatures for each drying event and using multivariate statistics, grouped events into drying regimes characterized by: (a) fast drying, (b) long no‐flow duration, (c) prolonged drying following low antecedent flows, (d) drying without a distinctive hydrologic signature. 77% of gages had more than one drying regime at different times within the study period. Random forests revealed land cover/use are more important to how a river dries than climate or physiographic characteristics. Clustering stream drying behavior may allow practitioners to more systematically adapt water resource management practices to specific drying regimes or rivers.

 

Rivers that cease to flow are globally prevalent. Although many epithets have been used for these rivers, a consensus on terminology has not yet been reached. Doing so would facilitate a marked increase in interdisciplinary interest as well as critical need for clear regulations. Here we reviewed literature from Web of Science database searches of 12 epithets to learn (Objective 1—O1) if epithet topics are consistent across Web of Science categories using latent Dirichlet allocation topic modeling. We also analyzed publication rates and topics over time to (O2) assess changes in epithet use. We compiled literature definitions to (O3) identify how epithets have been delineated and, lastly, suggest universal terms and definitions. We found a lack of consensus in epithet use between and among various fields. We also found that epithet usage has changed over time, as research focus has shifted from description to modeling. We conclude that multiple epithets are redundant. We offer specific definitions for three epithets (non-perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral) to guide consensus on epithet use. Limiting the number of epithets used in non-perennial river research can facilitate more effective communication among research fields and provide clear guidelines for writing regulatory documents.