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 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. 

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.