Search for: All records

Abstract Studies of stream macroinvertebrates traditionally use sampling methods that target benthic habitats. These methods could underestimate biodiversity if important assemblage components exist outside of the benthic zone. To test the efficacy of different sampling methods, we collected paired reach‐wide benthic and edge samples from up to 10 study reaches in nine basins spanning an aridity gradient across the United States. Edge sampling targeted riparian‐adjacent microhabitats not typically sampled, including submerged vegetation, roots, and overhanging banks. We compared observed richness, asymptotic richness, and assemblage dissimilarity between benthic samples alone and different combinations of benthic and edge samples to determine the magnitude of increased diversity and assemblage dissimilarity values with the addition of edge sampling. We also examined how differences in richness and assemblage composition varied across an aridity gradient. The addition of edge sampling significantly increased observed richness (median increase = 29%) and asymptotic richness (median increase = 173%). Similarly, median Bray–Curtis dissimilarity values increased by as much as 0.178 when benthic and edge samples were combined. Differences in richness metrics were generally higher in arid basins, but assemblage dissimilarity either increased or decreased across the aridity gradient depending on how benthic and edge samples were combined. Our results suggest that studies that do not sample stream edges may significantly underestimate reach diversity and misrepresent assemblage compositions, with effects that can vary across climates. We urge researchers to carefully consider sampling methods in field studies spanning climatic zones and the comparability of existing data sets when conducting data synthesis studies. 

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. 

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.