Assessing placement bias of the global river gauge network.

Knowing where and when rivers flow is paramount to managing freshwater ecosystems. Yet stream gauging stations are distributed sparsely across rivers globally and may not capture the diversity of fluvial network properties and anthropogenic influences. Here we evaluate the placement bias of a global stream gauge dataset on its representation of socioecological, hydrologic, climatic and physiographic diversity of rivers. We find that gauges are located disproportionally in large, perennial rivers draining more human-occupied watersheds. Gauges are sparsely distributed in protected areas and rivers characterized by non-perennial flow regimes, both of which are critical to freshwater conservation and water security concerns. Disparities between the geography of the global gauging network and the broad diversity of streams and rivers weakens our ability to understand critical hydrologic processes and make informed water-management and policy decisions. Our findings underscore the need to address current gauge placement biases by investing in and prioritizing the installation of new gauging stations, embracing alternative water-monitoring strategies, advancing innovation in hydrologic modelling, and increasing accessibility of local and regional gauging data to support human responses to water challenges, both today and in the future.

Reconceptualizing the hyporheic zone for nonperennial rivers and streams.

Nonperennial streams dominate global river networks and are increasing in occurrence across space and time. When surface flow ceases or the surface water dries, flow or moisture can be retained in the subsurface sediments of the hyporheic zone, supporting aquatic communities and ecosystem processes. However, hydrological and ecological definitions of the hyporheic zone have been developed in perennial rivers and emphasize the mixing of water and organisms, respectively, from both the surface stream and groundwater. The adaptation of such definitions to include both humid and dry unsaturated conditions could promote characterization of how hydrological and biogeochemical variability shape ecological communities within nonperennial hyporheic zones, advancing our understanding of both ecosystem structure and function in these habitats. To conceptualize hyporheic zones for nonperennial streams, we review how water sources and surface and subsurface structure influence hydrological and physicochemical conditions. We consider the extent of this zone and how biogeochemistry and ecology might vary with surface states. We then link these components to the composition of nonperennial stream communities. Next, we examine literature to identify priorities for hydrological and ecological research exploring nonperennial hyporheic zones. Lastly, by integrating hydrology, biogeochemistry, and ecology, we recommend a multidisciplinary conceptualization of the nonperennial hyporheic zone as the porous subsurface streambed sediments that shift between lotic, lentic, humid, and dry conditions in space and time to support aquatic-terrestrial biodiversity. As river drying increases in extent because of global change, we call for holistic, interdisciplinary research across the terrestrial and aquatic sciences to apply this conceptualization to characterize hyporheic zone structure and function across the full spectrum of hydrological states.

A Classification Framework to Assess Ecological, Biogeochemical, and Hydrologic Synchrony and Asynchrony.

Ecosystems in the Anthropocene face pressures from multiple, interacting forms of environmental change. These pressures, resulting from land use change, altered hydrologic regimes, and climate change, will likely change the synchrony of ecosystem processes as distinct components of ecosystems are impacted in different ways. However, discipline-specific definitions and ad hoc methods for identifying synchrony and asynchrony have limited broader synthesis of this concept among studies and across disciplines. Drawing on concepts from ecology, hydrology, geomorphology, and biogeochemistry, we offer a unifying definition of synchrony for ecosystem science and propose a classification framework for synchrony and asynchrony of ecosystem processes. This framework classifies the relationships among ecosystem processes according to five key aspects: 1) the focal variables or relationships representative of the ecosystem processes of interest, 2) the spatial and temporal domain of interest, 3) the structural attributes of drivers and focal processes, 4) consistency in the relationships over time, and 5) the degree of causality among focal processes. Using this classification framework, we identify and differentiate types of synchrony and asynchrony, thereby providing the basis for comparing among studies and across disciplines. We apply this classification framework to existing studies in the ecological, hydrologic, geomorphic, and biogeochemical literature, and discuss potential analytical tools that can be used to quantify synchronous and asynchronous processes. Furthermore, we seek to promote understanding of how different types of synchrony or asynchrony may shift in response to ongoing environmental change by providing a universal definition and explicit types and drivers with this framework.

Zero or not? Causes and consequences of zero-flow stream gage readings.

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 fully dried; 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 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 methodss 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.

A Comparison of Hyporheic Transport at a Cross-Vane Structure and Natural Riffle.

While restoring hyporheic flowpaths has been cited as a benefit to stream restoration structures, little documentation exists confirming that constructed restoration structures induce comparable hyporheic exchange to natural stream features. This study compares a stream restoration structure (cross-vane) to a natural feature (riffle) concurrently in the same stream reach using time-lapsed electrical resistivity (ER) tomography. Using this hydrogeophysical approach, we were able to quantify hyporheic extent and transport beneath the cross-vane structure and the riffle. We interpret from the geophysical data that the cross-vane and the natural riffle induced spatially and temporally unique hyporheic extent and transport, and the cross-vane created both spatially larger and temporally longer hyporheic flowpaths than the natural riffle. Tracer from the 4.67-h injection was detected along flowpaths for 4.6 h at the cross-vane and 4.2 h at the riffle. The spatial extent of the hyporheic zone at the cross-vane was 12% larger than that at the riffle. We compare ER results of this study to vertical fluxes calculated from temperature profiles and conclude significant differences in the interpretation of hyporheic transport from these different field techniques. Results of this study demonstrate a high degree of heterogeneity in transport metrics at both the cross-vane and the riffle and differences between the hyporheic flowpath networks at the two different features. Our results suggest that restoration structures may be capable of creating sufficient exchange flux and timescales of transport to achieve the same ecological functions as natural features, but engineering of the physical and biogeochemical environment may be necessary to realize these benefits.