Browsing by Author "Busch, Michelle H."

Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
  • Thumbnail Image
    Pervasive changes in stream intermittency across the United States
    Zipper, Samuel C.; Hammond, John C.; Shanafield, Margaret; Zimmer, Margaret; Datry, Thibault; Jones, C. Nathan; Kaiser, Kendra E.; Godsey, Sarah E.; Burrows, Ryan M.; Blaszczak, Joanna R.; Busch, Michelle H.; Price, Adam N.; Boersma, Kate S.; Ward, Adam S.; Costigan, Katie; Allen, George H.; Krabbenhoft, Corey A.; Dodds, Walter K.; Mims, Meryl C.; Olden, Julian D.; Kampf, Stephanie K.; Burgin, Amy J.; Allen, Daniel C. (2021-08)
    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.
  • Thumbnail Image
    What’s in a Name? Patterns, Trends, and Suggestions for Defining Non-Perennial Rivers and Streams
    Busch, Michelle H.; Costigan, Katie H.; Fritz, Ken M.; Datry, Thibault; Krabbenhoft, Corey A.; Hammond, John C.; Zimmer, Margaret A.; Olden, Julian D.; Burrows, Ryan M.; Dodds, Walter K.; Boersma, Kate S.; Shanafield, Margaret; Kampf, Stephanie K.; Mims, Meryl C.; Bogan, Michael T.; Ward, Adam S.; Perez Rocha, Mariana; Godsey, Sarah E.; Allen, George H.; Blaszczak, Joanna R.; Jones, C. Nathan; Allen, Daniel C. (MDPI, 2020-07-13)
    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.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Zero or not? Causes and consequences of zero-flow stream gage readings
    Zimmer, Margaret A.; Kaiser, Kendra E.; Blaszczak, Joanna R.; Zipper, Samuel C.; Hammond, John C.; Fritz, Ken M.; Costigan, Katie H.; Hosen, Jacob; Godsey, Sarah E.; Allen, George H.; Kampf, Stephanie K.; Burrows, Ryan M.; Krabbenhoft, Corey A.; Dodds, Walter K.; Hale, Rebecca; Olden, Julian D.; Shanafield, Margaret; DelVecchia, Amanda G.; Ward, Adam S.; Mims, Meryl C.; Datry, Thibault; Bogan, Michael T.; Boersma, Kate S.; Busch, Michelle H.; Jones, C. Nathan; Burgin, Amy J.; Allen, Daniel C. (2020-05)
    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 examples, 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