Geology topics

Amanda DelVecchia

Publications and source records attributed to Amanda DelVecchia.

4 recordsLinked to original sources

USGS2024

Biogeochemical and community ecology responses to the wetting of non-perennial streams

Transitions between dry and wet hydrologic states are the defining characteristic of non-perennial rivers and streams, which constitute the majority of the global river network. Although past work has focused on stream drying characteristics, there has been less focus on how hydrology, ecology and biogeochemistry respond and interact during stream wetting. Wetting mechanisms are highly variable and can range from dramatic floods and debris flows to gradual saturation by upwelling groundwater. This variation in wetting affects ecological and biogeochemical functions, including nutrient processing, sediment transport and the assembly of biotic communities. Here we synthesize evidence describing the hydrological mechanisms underpinning different types of wetting regimes, the associated biogeochemical and organismal responses, and the potential scientific and management implications for downstream ecosystems. This combined multidisciplinary understanding of wetting dynamics in non-perennial streams will be key to predicting and managing for the effects of climate change on non-perennial ecosystems.

Nature Water↗

USGS2022

Causes, responses, and implications of anthropogenic versus natural flow intermittence in river networks

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.

BioScience↗

USGS2022

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.

Nature Sustainability↗

USGS2020

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 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.

WIREs Water↗