ORCID Profile
0000-0002-6666-8930
Current Organisation
Kansas State University
Does something not look right? The information on this page has been harvested from data sources that may not be up to date. We continue to work with information providers to improve coverage and quality. To report an issue, use the Feedback Form.
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 13-04-2020
DOI: 10.1002/WAT2.1436
Abstract: Streamflow observations can be used to understand, predict, and contextualize hydrologic, ecological, and biogeochemical processes and conditions in streams. Stream gages are point measurements along rivers where streamflow is measured, and are often used to infer upstream watershed‐scale processes. When stream gages read zero, this may indicate that the stream has dried at this location however, zero‐flow readings can also be caused by a wide range of other factors. Our ability to identify whether or not a zero‐flow gage reading indicates a dry fluvial system has far reaching environmental implications. Incorrect identification and interpretation by the data user can lead to inaccurate hydrologic, ecological, and/or biogeochemical predictions from models and analyses. Here, we describe several causes of zero‐flow gage readings: frozen surface water, flow reversals, instrument error, and natural or human‐driven upstream source losses or bypass flow. For these ex les, we discuss the implications of zero‐flow interpretations. We also highlight additional methods for determining flow presence, including direct observations, statistical methods, and hydrologic models, which can be applied to interpret causes of zero‐flow gage readings and implications for reach‐ and watershed‐scale dynamics. Such efforts are necessary to improve our ability to understand and predict surface flow activation, cessation, and connectivity across river networks. Developing this integrated understanding of the wide range of possible meanings of zero‐flows will only attain greater importance in a more variable and changing hydrologic climate. This article is categorized under: Science of Water Methods Science of Water Hydrological Processes Water and Life Conservation, Management, and Awareness
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 09-2017
DOI: 10.1002/ECS2.1959
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 30-09-2023
DOI: 10.1002/LOL2.10356
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 28-08-2020
DOI: 10.1002/WAT2.1473
Abstract: Conceptual models underpin river ecosystem research. However, current models focus on continuously flowing rivers and few explicitly address characteristics such as flow cessation and drying. The applicability of existing conceptual models to nonperennial rivers that cease to flow (intermittent rivers and ephemeral streams, IRES) has not been evaluated. We reviewed 18 models, finding that they collectively describe main drivers of biogeochemical and ecological patterns and processes longitudinally (upstream‐downstream), laterally (channel‐riparian‐floodplain), vertically (surface water‐groundwater), and temporally across local and landscape scales. However, perennial rivers are longitudinally continuous while IRES are longitudinally discontinuous. Whereas perennial rivers have bidirectional lateral connections between aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems, in IRES, this connection is unidirectional for much of the time, from terrestrial‐to‐aquatic only. Vertical connectivity between surface and subsurface water occurs bidirectionally and is temporally consistent in perennial rivers. However, in IRES, this exchange is temporally variable, and can become unidirectional during drying or rewetting phases. Finally, drying adds another dimension of flow variation to be considered across temporal and spatial scales in IRES, much as flooding is considered as a temporally and spatially dynamic process in perennial rivers. Here, we focus on ways in which existing models could be modified to accommodate drying as a fundamental process that can alter these patterns and processes across spatial and temporal dimensions in streams. This perspective is needed to support river science and management in our era of rapid global change, including increasing duration, frequency, and occurrence of drying. This article is categorized under: Water and Life Nature of Freshwater Ecosystems Water and Life Stresses and Pressures on Ecosystems Science of Water Hydrological Processes
Publisher: Oxford University Press (OUP)
Date: 07-12-2022
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 bio ersity 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.
Publisher: American Geophysical Union (AGU)
Date: 26-01-2021
DOI: 10.1029/2020GL090794
Abstract: Over half of global rivers and streams lack perennial flow, and understanding the distribution and drivers of their flow regimes is critical for understanding their hydrologic, biogeochemical, and ecological functions. We analyzed nonperennial flow regimes using 540 U.S. Geological Survey watersheds across the contiguous United States from 1979 to 2018. Multivariate analyses revealed regional differences in no‐flow fraction, date of first no flow, and duration of the dry‐down period, with further ergence between natural and human‐altered watersheds. Aridity was a primary driver of no‐flow metrics at the continental scale, while unique combinations of climatic, physiographic and anthropogenic drivers emerged at regional scales. Dry‐down duration showed stronger associations with nonclimate drivers compared to no‐flow fraction and timing. Although the sparse distribution of nonperennial gages limits our understanding of such streams, the watersheds examined here suggest the important role of aridity and land cover change in modulating future stream drying.
Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Date: 25-04-2022
Publisher: American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)
Date: 26-02-2016
Abstract: Ion-specific standards are needed to protect bio ersity
No related grants have been discovered for Walter Dodds.