skip to main content


Search for: All records

Creators/Authors contains: "Fork, Megan L."

Note: When clicking on a Digital Object Identifier (DOI) number, you will be taken to an external site maintained by the publisher. Some full text articles may not yet be available without a charge during the embargo (administrative interval).
What is a DOI Number?

Some links on this page may take you to non-federal websites. Their policies may differ from this site.

  1. Free, publicly-accessible full text available August 1, 2024
  2. The relationship between (a) the structure and composition of the landscape around an individual's home and (b) environmental perceptions and health outcomes has been well demonstrated (eg the value of vegetation cover to well‐being). Few studies, however, have examined how multiple landscape features (eg vegetation and water cover) relate to perceptions of multiple environmental problems (eg air or water quality) and whether those relationships hold over time. We utilized a long‐term dataset of geolocated telephone surveys in Baltimore, Maryland, to identify relationships between residents’ perceptions of environmental problems and nearby landcover. Residents of neighborhoods with more vegetation or located closer to water were less likely to perceive environmental problems. Water quality was one exception to this trend, in that people were more likely to perceive water‐quality problems when nearby water cover was greater. These trends endured over time, suggesting that these relationships are stable and therefore useful for informing policy aimed at minimizing perceived environmental problems.

     
    more » « less
  3. 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. 
    more » « less
  4. null (Ed.)
  5. This dataset includes population estimates for eight focal sub-watersheds in the Baltimore Ecosystem Study based on the proportion of 2010 census blocks located within the watershed. These data can facilitate per capita calculations of watershed fluxes. 
    more » « less
  6. This dataset includes population estimates for eight focal sub-watersheds in the Baltimore Ecosystem Study based on the proportion of 2010 census blocks located within the watershed. These data can facilitate per capita calculations of watershed fluxes. 
    more » « less