Search for: All records

Effective groundwater management is critical to future environmental, ecological, and social sustainability and requires accurate estimates of groundwater withdrawals. Unfortunately, these estimates are not readily available in most areas due to physical, regulatory, and social challenges. Here, we compare four different approaches for estimating groundwater withdrawals for agricultural irrigation. We apply these methods in a groundwater‐irrigated region in the state of Kansas, USA, where high‐quality groundwater withdrawal data are available for evaluation. The four methods represent a broad spectrum of approaches: (1) the hydrologically‐based Water Table Fluctuation method (WTFM); (2) the demand‐based SALUS crop model; (3) estimates based on satellite‐derived evapotranspiration (ET) data from OpenET; and (4) a landscape hydrology model which integrates hydrologic‐ and demand‐based approaches. The applicability of each approach varies based on data availability, spatial and temporal resolution, and accuracy of predictions. In general, our results indicate that all approaches reasonably estimate groundwater withdrawals in our region, however, the type and amount of data required for accurate estimates and the computational requirements vary among approaches. For example, WTFM requires accurate groundwater levels, specific yield, and recharge data, whereas the SALUS crop model requires adequate information about crop type, land use, and weather. This variability highlights the difficulty in identifying what data, and how much, are necessary for a reasonable groundwater withdrawal estimate, and suggests that data availability should drive the choice of approach. Overall, our findings will help practitioners evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of different approaches and select the appropriate approach for their application. 

Non‐perennial streams are receiving increased attention from researchers, however, suitable methods for measuring their hydrologic connectivity remain scarce. To address this deficiency, we developed Bayesian statistical approaches for measuring both average active stream length, and a new metric called average communication distance. Average communication distance is a theoretical increasedeffective distancethat stream‐borne materials must travel, given non‐continuous streamflow. Because it is the product of the inverse probability of surface water presence and stream length, the average communication distance of a non‐perennial stream segment will be greater than its actual physical length. As an application we considered Murphy Creek, a simple non‐perennial stream network in southwestern Idaho, USA. We used surface water presence/absence data obtained in 2019, and priors for the probability of surface water, based on predictions from an existing regional United States Geological Survey model. Average communication distance posterior distributions revealed locations where effective stream lengths increased dramatically due to flow rarity. We also found strong seasonal (spring, summer, fall) differences in network‐level posterior distributions of both average stream length and average communication distance. Our work demonstrates the unique perspectives concerning network drying provided by communication distance, and demonstrates the general usefulness of Bayesian approaches in the analysis of non‐perennial streams.

 

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. 

Nonperennial rivers are a major—and growing—part of the global river network. New research and science-based policies are needed to ensure the sustainability of these long-overlooked waterways. 

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.

 

Disturbances fundamentally alter ecosystem functions, yet predicting their impacts remains a key scientific challenge. While the study of disturbances is ubiquitous across many ecological disciplines, there is no agreed-upon, cross-disciplinary foundation for discussing or quantifying the complexity of disturbances, and no consistent terminology or methodologies exist. This inconsistency presents an increasingly urgent challenge due to accelerating global change and the threat of interacting disturbances that can destabilize ecosystem responses. By harvesting the expertise of an interdisciplinary cohort of contributors spanning 42 institutions across 15 countries, we identified an essential limitation in disturbance ecology: the word ‘disturbance’ is used interchangeably to refer to both the events that cause, and the consequences of, ecological change, despite fundamental distinctions between the two meanings. In response, we developed a generalizable framework of ecosystem disturbances, providing a well-defined lexicon for understanding disturbances across perspectives and scales. The framework results from ideas that resonate across multiple scientific disciplines and provides a baseline standard to compare disturbances across fields. This framework can be supplemented by discipline-specific variables to provide maximum benefit to both inter- and intra-disciplinary research. To support future syntheses and meta-analyses of disturbance research, we also encourage researchers to be explicit in how they define disturbance drivers and impacts, and we recommend minimum reporting standards that are applicable regardless of scale. Finally, we discuss the primary factors we considered when developing a baseline framework and propose four future directions to advance our interdisciplinary understanding of disturbances and their social-ecological impacts: integrating across ecological scales, understanding disturbance interactions, establishing baselines and trajectories, and developing process-based models and ecological forecasting initiatives. Our experience through this process motivates us to encourage the wider scientific community to continue to explore new approaches for leveraging Open Science principles in generating creative and multidisciplinary ideas.