2019 article

Featured Collection Introduction: The Emerging Science of Aquatic System Connectivity II

Smith, L. L., Jones, C. N., & Nelson, N. G. (2019, June). JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION, Vol. 55, pp. 526–528.

co-author countries: United States of America πŸ‡ΊπŸ‡Έ
Source: Web Of Science
Added: June 24, 2019

The science of aquatic systems connectivity has developed rapidly over the past 20 years (Jones, Nelson, et al. 2019). Research spans the different forms and functions of connectivity (hydrologic, biogeochemical, and biological) at vastly different spatial scales and hydrologic settings (Larsen et al. 2012; Bracken et al. 2013; Harvey and Gooseff 2015; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2015; Cohen et al. 2016; Covino 2017; Fritz et al. 2018; Wohl et al. 2019). This collection, The Emerging Science of Aquatic Systems Connectivity II, includes eight papers focused on aquatic system connectivity and follows the featured collection The Emerging Science of Aquatic Systems Connectivity I (Jones, Nelson, et al. 2019). The papers in both collections are products of the 2017 American Water Resources (AWRA) Specialty Conference, Connecting the Dots: The Emerging Science of Aquatic System Connectivity, which took place in May 2017 in Snowbird, Utah. The conference consisted of 33 technical sessions with over 140 presenters and with this most recent collection produced a total of 19 papers. As with Collection I, these papers increase our understanding of the functions of aquatic systems and include novel modeling approaches to characterizing connectivity and contribute to management and restoration of these functions. Three papers in this issue used modeling approaches to examine the hydrologic role of wetlands at the landscape scale. Ameli and Creed (2019) modeled effects of wetland location relative to stream networks on flows during floods and droughts in the Nose Creek watershed of the Prairie Pothole Region. Their model combined historical, existing, and drained wetlands in the watershed to estimate the hydrological functions of wetlands located at different distances from the main stream network. They found wetlands close to the main stream network play a disproportionately important role in attenuating peakflow, but wetland location is less important for regulating baseflow. These findings can help managers prioritize wetland restoration efforts for flood or drought risk mitigation. Green et al. (2019) modeled the runoff storage potential of drained upland depressions on the Des Moines Lobe of Iowa using hydrologically enforced Light Detection and Ranging (LIDAR)-derived Digital Elevation Models and a unique geoprocessing algorithm to determine storage capacities. In contrast to Ameli and Creed (2019), Green et al. (2019) determined the drained upland depressions in this region have insufficient storage capacity to significantly alter regional and local flood events. Jones, Ameli, et al. (2019) review the current capabilities of hydrologic models and their ability to simulate hydrologic connectivity of non-floodplain wetlands. They present four distinct case studies that employ process-based models which vary in complexity, spatial representation of hydrologic processes, and fidelity (i.e., the models ability to faithfully represent reality). Jones, Ameli, et al. (2019) ends with a synthesis of five best modeling practices to guide future model application and development. Bieger et al. (2019) used the Soil & Water Assessment Tool (SWAT)+ model to represent connectivity of upland areas to floodplains and streams. They tested the concept of incorporating hydrologic connectivity in watershed models, which improves the simulation of processes controlling the response of watersheds to rainfall events. A realistic representation of connectivity in watershed models has important implications for the identification of pollution sources and sinks. Follstad Shah et al. (2019) addressed implications of connectivity on water quality. They quantified proportional inputs and the magnitude of discharge associated with natural and engineered sources of water in a semiarid urban river system. Authors used synoptic sampling of water isotopes and both a Bayesian mixing model framework and a separate hydrological mass balance approach to quantify spatial and temporal variation in water sources. They found spatiotemporal variability in water sources controls chemical and physical properties of the river system. One paper considered the role of connectivity on ecosystem function. Blersch et al. (2019) propose a new metric, called metabolic variance, to detect changes in a stream's primary productivity and respiration as a result of restoration. Metabolic variance uses stream metabolism to assess how restoration-driven changes to instream hydraulics translate into shifts in ecosystem function. Two papers used modeling to assess connectivity among habitats for rare fauna. Caruso et al. (2019) used hydrodynamic modeling to facilitate restoration of connections between the Green River and floodplain wetlands for endangered fish species recovery at Ouray National Wildlife Refuge in Utah. Zaffaroni et al. (2019) used geospatial analysis and remote sensing to assess wetland networks (wetlandscapes) and habitat quality to improve conservation outcomes for threatened amphibian species which rely on different wetland, stream, and upland habitats to complete their life cycle. Both wetland habitat quality and connectivity act jointly but differently on amphibian population dynamics and should both be considered when managing wetlandscapes. Combined, the two featured collections on The Emerging Science of Aquatic System Connectivity add 19 papers to the growing body of aquatic system science literature. These papers are representative of the depth and breadth of this growing interdisciplinary community, where studies span spatial scales (i.e., individual wetlands to watersheds), hydrologic units (e.g., upland wetlands to downstream waters and natural to engineered systems), and the many dimensions of connectivity (i.e., physical, chemical, ecological, and biological). In this second featured collection, papers focused on modeling aquatic system connectivity of both upland and floodplain wetlands, and examining the role of connectivity on water quality and biological function. In the coming decades, managing and restoring our aquatic systems will continue to be a grand challenge, and the community of researchers investigating aquatic system connectivity must continue to provide actionable and science-based solutions to meet those challenges. This collection is an effort aimed at fostering an interdisciplinary dialogue on how best to address aquatic system connectivity concerns for restoring and managing our ecosystems. We thank Heather Golden, Charles Lane, and Tamara Newcomer-Johnson (USEPA) for their guidance on this featured collection. The AWRA specialty conference, and this featured collection, would not have been possible without their efforts and those of the AWRA leadership. CNJ is supported by the National Socio-Environmental Synthesis Center under funding received from the National Science Foundation DBI-1052875. NGN is supported by the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture, Hatch project 1016068.