Geology topics

Laurie C. Alexander

Publications and source records attributed to Laurie C. Alexander.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources

USGS2024

Climate change will impact surface water extents and dynamics across the central United States

Climate change is projected to impact river, lake, and wetland hydrology, with global implications for the condition and productivity of aquatic ecosystems. We integrated Sentinel-1 and Sentinel-2 based algorithms to track monthly surface water extent (2017–2021) for 32 sites across the central United States (U.S.). Median surface water extent was highly variable across sites, ranging from 3.9% to 45.1% of a site. To account for landscape-based differences (e.g., water storage capacity, land use) in the response of surface water extents to meteorological conditions, individual statistical models were developed for each site. Future changes to climate were defined as the difference between 2006–2025 and 2061–2080 using MACA-CMIP5 (MACAv2-METDATA) Global Circulation Models. Time series of climate change adjusted surface water extents were projected. Annually, 19 of the 32 sites under RCP4.5 and 22 of the 32 sites under RCP8.5 were projected to show an average decline in surface water extent, with drying most consistent across the southeast central, southwest central, and midwest central U.S. Projected declines under surface water dry conditions at these sites suggest greater impacts of drought events are likely in the future. Projected changes were seasonally variable, with the greatest decline in surface water extent expected in summer and fall seasons. In contrast, many north central sites showed a projected increase in surface water in most seasons, relative to the 2017–2021 period, likely attributable to projected increases in winter and spring precipitation exceeding increases in projected temperature.

Earth's Future↗

USGS2023

High-frequency time series comparison of Sentinel-1 and Sentinel-2 for open and vegetated water across the United States (2017-2021)

Frequent observations of surface water at fine spatial scales will provide critical data to support the management of aquatic habitat, flood risk and water quality. Sentinel-1 and Sentinel-2 satellites can provide such observations, but algorithms are still needed that perform well across diverse climate and vegetation conditions. We developed surface inundation algorithms for Sentinel-1 and Sentinel-2, respectively, at 12 sites across the conterminous United States (CONUS), covering a total of >536,000 km 2 and representing diverse hydrologic and vegetation landscapes. Each scene in the 5-year (2017–2021) time series was classified into open water, vegetated water, and non-water at 20 m resolution using variables from Sentinel-1 and Sentinel-2, as well as variables derived from topographic and weather datasets. The Sentinel-1 algorithm was developed distinct from the Sentinel-2 model to explore if and where the two time series could potentially be integrated into a single high-frequency time series. Within each model, open water and vegetated water (vegetated palustrine, lacustrine, and riverine wetlands) classes were mapped. The models were validated using imagery from WorldView and PlanetScope. Classification accuracy for open water was high across the 5-year period, with an omission and commission error of only 3.1% and 0.9% for the Sentinel-1 algorithm and 3.1% and 0.5% for the Sentinel-2 algorithm, respectively. Vegetated water accuracy was lower, as expected given that the class represents mixed pixels. The Sentinel-2 algorithm showed higher accuracy (10.7% omission and 7.9% commission error) relative to the Sentinel-1 algorithm (28.4% omission and 16.0% commission error). Patterns over time in the proportion of area mapped as open or vegetated water by the Sentinel-1 and Sentinel-2 algorithms were charted and correlated for a subset of all 12 sites. Our results showed that the Sentinel-1 and Sentinel-2 algorithm open water time series can be integrated at all 12 sites to improve the temporal resolution, but sensor-specific differences, such as sensitivity to vegetation structure versus pixel color, complicate the data integration for mixed-pixel, vegetated water. The methods developed here provide inundation at 5-day (Sentinel-2 algorithm) and 12-day (Sentinel-1 algorithm) time steps to improve our understanding of the short- and long-term response of surface water to climate and land use drivers in different ecoregions.

continental United States↗

USGS2023

Identifying invertebrate indicators for streamflow duration assessments in forested headwater streams

Streamflow-duration assessment methods (SDAMs) are rapid, indicator-based tools for classifying streamflow duration (e.g., intermittent vs perennial flow) at the reach scale. Indicators are easily assessed stream properties used as surrogates of flow duration, which is too resource intensive to measure directly for many reaches. Invertebrates are commonly used as SDAM indicators because many are not highly mobile, and different species have life stages that require flow for different durations and times of the year. The objectives of this study were to 1) identify invertebrate taxa that can be used as SDAM indicators to distinguish between stream reaches having intermittent and perennial flow, 2) to compare indicator strength across different taxonomic and numeric resolutions, and 3) to assess the relative importance of season and habitat type on the ability of invertebrates to predict streamflow-duration class. We used 2 methods, random forest models and indicator species analysis, to analyze aquatic and terrestrial invertebrate data (presence/absence, density, and biomass) at the family and genus levels from 370 samples collected from both erosional and depositional habitats during both wet and dry seasons. In total, 36 intermittent and 53 perennial reaches were sampled along 31 forested headwater streams in 4 level II ecoregions across the United States. Random forest models for family- and genus-level datasets had stream classification accuracy ranging from 88.9 to 93.2%, with slightly higher accuracy for density than for presence/absence and biomass datasets. Season (wet/dry) tended to be a stronger predictor of streamflow-duration class than habitat (erosional/depositional). Many taxa at the family (58.8%) and genus level (61.6%) were collected from both intermittent and perennial reaches, and most taxa that were exclusive to 1 streamflow-duration class were rarely collected. However, 23 family-level or higher taxa (20 aquatic and 3 terrestrial) and 44 aquatic genera were identified as potential indicators of streamflow-duration class for forested headwater streams. The utility of the potential indicators varied across level II ecoregions in part because of representation of intermittent and perennial reaches in the dataset but also because of variable ecological responses to drying among species. Aquatic invertebrates have been an important field indicator of perennial reaches in existing SDAMs, but our findings highlight how including aquatic and terrestrial invertebrates as indicators of intermittent reaches can further maximize the data collected for streamflow-duration classifications.

Freshwater Science↗

USGS2022

Vulnerable waters are essential to watershed resilience

Watershed resilience is the ability of a watershed to maintain its characteristic system state while concurrently resisting, adapting to, and reorganizing after hydrological (for example, drought, flooding) or biogeochemical (for example, excessive nutrient) disturbances. Vulnerable waters include non-floodplain wetlands and headwater streams, abundant watershed components representing the most distal extent of the freshwater aquatic network. Vulnerable waters are hydrologically dynamic and biogeochemically reactive aquatic systems, storing, processing, and releasing water and entrained (that is, dissolved and particulate) materials along expanding and contracting aquatic networks. The hydrological and biogeochemical functions emerging from these processes affect the magnitude, frequency, timing, duration, storage, and rate of change of material and energy fluxes among watershed components and to downstream waters, thereby maintaining watershed states and imparting watershed resilience. We present here a conceptual framework for understanding how vulnerable waters confer watershed resilience. We demonstrate how individual and cumulative vulnerable-water modifications (for example, reduced extent, altered connectivity) affect watershed-scale hydrological and biogeochemical disturbance response and recovery, which decreases watershed resilience and can trigger transitions across thresholds to alternative watershed states (for example, states conducive to increased flood frequency or nutrient concentrations). We subsequently describe how resilient watersheds require spatial heterogeneity and temporal variability in hydrological and biogeochemical interactions between terrestrial systems and down-gradient waters, which necessitates attention to the conservation and restoration of vulnerable waters and their downstream connectivity gradients. To conclude, we provide actionable principles for resilient watersheds and articulate research needs to further watershed resilience science and vulnerable-water management.

Ecosystems↗

USGS2022

Wetland ecosystem health and biodiversity

• Cropland expansion from 2008 to 2016 was mostly from losses of grassland (88%), with 3% losses from wetlands (a total of nearly 275,000 acres of wetlands, concentrated in the Prairie Pothole Region). Given the lack of national or regional datasets to track changes in RFS acreage, the extent of wetland losses directly attributable to the RFS cannot be more accurately estimated in the RtC3. • Wetlands gains and losses are not distributed evenly across wetland types or sizes. Since 2007, the nation has lost 120.3 thousand acres of palustrine (marsh-like) wetlands and gained 205.9 thousand acres of lacustrine (lake-like) habitats in the conterminous United States. The diverse wetlands within these classes support different species and perform different ecosystem functions, including loss of functions that impact watershed hydrology, water quality, and water quantity. • Small, seasonal wetlands are being lost at the fastest rate. The loss and consolidation of small wetlands to promote crop production has negatively impacted amphibians, invertebrates, and other aquatic species that depend on shallow water depths for reproduction. Shifts to longer hydroperiods in large or consolidated wetlands have more uniform (less diverse) invertebrate communities and can support fish that prey on insects and amphibians. • Small wetlands and ponds are primary sources of water for aquifer recharge in the Northern Prairies. Recent studies in the Canadian portion of the Prairie Pothole Region found that while permanent ponds and wetlands are sources for recharge to aquifers, wetlands with surface water ponds that dry out every year play the dominant role in groundwater replenishment. • While some Endangered Species Act-listed and other waterbirds have declined, waterfowl (ducks, geese, swans) as a group have not experienced declines over the past decade, possibly due to availability of food (grains), increased precipitation, and the interspersion of ponded waters and agricultural fields along migration routes. • Shifts to corn and soybean production have resulted in more frequent application of chemicals, including pesticides and fertilizers. Increased usage of neonicotinoid insecticides is of particular concern because of their high toxicity to invertebrates, which are important food sources for wetland-dependent taxa. • Evidence from the Prairie Pothole Region suggests that trends in larger wetland size, shifts to lakes and ponds (vs. vegetated wetlands), and prolonged and more frequent flooding are due to the combined effects of climate change and increased wetland ditching and consolidation. These trends are highly correlated with increased annual precipitation, which is projected to continue.

Report↗

USGS2019

Influence of multi-decadal land use, irrigation practices and climate on riparian corridors across the Upper Missouri River Headwaters Basin, Montana

The Upper Missouri River Headwaters Basin (36,400 km2) depends on its river corridors to support irrigated agriculture and world-class trout fisheries. We evaluated trends (1984-2016) in riparian wetness, an indicator of riparian condition, in peak irrigation months (June, July, August) for 158 km2 of riparian area across the basin using the Landsat Normalized Difference Wetness Index (NDWI). We found that 8 of the 19 riparian reaches across the basin showed a significant drying trend over this period, including all three basin outlet reaches along the Jefferson, Madison and Gallatin Rivers. The influence of upstream climate was quantified using per reach random forest regressions. Much of the interannual variability in the NDWI was explained by climate, especially by drought indices and annual precipitation, but the significant temporal drying trends persisted in the NDWI-climate model residuals, indicating that trends were not entirely attributable to climate. Over the same period we documented a basin-wide shift from 9% of agriculture irrigated with center pivot irrigation to 50% irrigated with center pivot irrigation. Riparian reaches with a drying trend had a greater increase in the total area with center pivot irrigation (within-reach and upstream from the reach) relative to riparian reaches without such a trend (p<0.05). The drying trend, however, did not extend to river discharge. Over the same period, stream gages (n=7) showed a positive correlation with riparian wetness (p<0.05), but no trend in summer river discharge, suggesting that riparian areas may be more sensitive to changes in irrigation return flows, relative to river discharge. Identifying trends in riparian vegetation is a critical precursor to enhancing the resiliency of river systems and associated riparian corridors.

Montana↗

USGS2018

Differing modes of biotic connectivity within freshwater ecosystem mosaics

We describe a collection of aquatic and wetland habitats in an inland landscape, and their occurrence within a terrestrial matrix, as a “freshwater ecosystem mosaic” (FEM). Aquatic and wetland habitats in any FEM can vary widely, from permanently ponded lakes, to ephemerally ponded wetlands, to groundwater‐fed springs, to flowing rivers and streams. The terrestrial matrix can also vary, including in its influence on flows of energy, materials, and organisms among ecosystems. Biota occurring in a specific region are adapted to the unique opportunities and challenges presented by spatial and temporal patterns of habitat types inherent to each FEM. To persist in any given landscape, most species move to recolonize habitats and maintain mixtures of genetic materials. Species also connect habitats through time if they possess needed morphological, physiological, or behavioral traits to persist in a habitat through periods of unfavorable environmental conditions. By examining key spatial and temporal patterns underlying FEMs, and species‐specific adaptations to these patterns, a better understanding of the structural and functional connectivity of a landscape can be obtained. Fully including aquatic, wetland, and terrestrial habitats in FEMs facilitates adoption of the next generation of individual‐based models that integrate the principles of population, community, and ecosystem ecology.

Journal of the American Water Resources Associatio↗

USGS2018

Wetlands inform how climate extremes influence surface water expansion and contraction

Effective monitoring and prediction of flood and drought events requires an improved understanding of how and why surface water expansion and contraction in response to climate varies across space. This paper sought to (1) quantify how interannual patterns of surface water expansion and contraction vary spatially across the Prairie Pothole Region (PPR) and adjacent Northern Prairie (NP) in the United States, and (2) explore how landscape characteristics influence the relationship between climate inputs and surface water dynamics. Due to differences in glacial history, the PPR and NP show distinct patterns in regards to drainage development and wetland density, together providing a diversity of conditions to examine surface water dynamics. We used Landsat imagery to characterize variability in surface water extent across 11 Landsat path/rows representing the PPR and NP (images spanned 1985–2015). The PPR not only experienced a 2.6-fold greater surface water extent under median conditions relative to the NP, but also showed a 3.4-fold greater change in surface water extent between drought and deluge conditions. The relationship between surface water extent and accumulated water availability (precipitation minus potential evapotranspiration) was quantified per watershed and statistically related to variables representing hydrology-related landscape characteristics (e.g., infiltration capacity, surface storage capacity, stream density). To investigate the influence stream connectivity has on the rate at which surface water leaves a given location, we modeled stream-connected and stream-disconnected surface water separately. Stream-connected surface water showed a greater expansion with wetter climatic conditions in landscapes with greater total wetland area, but lower total wetland density. Disconnected surface water showed a greater expansion with wetter climatic conditions in landscapes with higher wetland density, lower infiltration and less anthropogenic drainage. From these findings, we can expect that shifts in precipitation and evaporative demand will have uneven effects on surface water quantity. Accurate predictions regarding the effect of climate change on surface water quantity will require consideration of hydrology-related landscape characteristics including wetland storage and arrangement.

Prairie Pothole Regino↗

USGS2018

Featured collection introduction: Connectivity of streams and wetlands to downstream waters

Connectivity is a fundamental but highly dynamic property of watersheds. Variability in the types and degrees of aquatic ecosystem connectivity presents challenges for researchers and managers seeking to accurately quantify its effects on critical hydrologic, biogeochemical, and biological processes. However, protecting natural gradients of connectivity is key to protecting the range of ecosystem services that aquatic ecosystems provide. In this featured collection, we review the available evidence on connections and functions by which streams and wetlands affect the integrity of downstream waters such as large rivers, lakes, reservoirs, and estuaries. The reviews in this collection focus on the types of waters whose protections under the U.S. Clean Water Act have been called into question by U.S. Supreme Court cases. We synthesize 40+ years of research on longitudinal, lateral, and vertical fluxes of energy, material, and biota between aquatic ecosystems included within the Act's frame of reference. Many questions about the roles of streams and wetlands in sustaining downstream water integrity can be answered from currently available literature, and emerging research is rapidly closing data gaps with exciting new insights into aquatic connectivity and function at local, watershed, and regional scales. Synthesis of foundational and emerging research is needed to support science‐based efforts to provide safe, reliable sources of fresh water for present and future generations.

Journal of the American Water Resources Associatio↗

USGS2018

Connectivity of streams and wetlands to downstream waters: An integrated systems framework

Interest in connectivity has increased in the aquatic sciences, partly because of its relevance to the Clean Water Act. This paper has two objectives: (1) provide a framework to understand hydrological, chemical, and biological connectivity, focusing on how headwater streams and wetlands connect to and contribute to rivers; and (2) briefly review methods to quantify hydrological and chemical connectivity. Streams and wetlands affect river structure and function by altering material and biological fluxes to the river; this depends on two factors: (1) functions within streams and wetlands that affect material fluxes; and (2) connectivity (or isolation) from streams and wetlands to rivers that allows (or prevents) material transport between systems. Connectivity can be described in terms of frequency, magnitude, duration, timing, and rate of change. It results from physical characteristics of a system, e.g., climate, soils, geology, topography, and the spatial distribution of aquatic components. Biological connectivity is also affected by traits and behavior of the biota. Connectivity can be altered by human impacts, often in complex ways. Because of variability in these factors, connectivity is not constant but varies over time and space. Connectivity can be quantified with field‐based methods, modeling, and remote sensing. Further studies using these methods are needed to classify and quantify connectivity of aquatic ecosystems and to understand how impacts affect connectivity.

Journal of the American Water Resources Associatio↗

USGS2018

Biota connect aquatic habitats throughout freshwater ecosystem mosaics

Freshwater ecosystems are linked at various spatial and temporal scales by movements of biota adapted to life in water. We review the literature on movements of aquatic organisms that connect different types of freshwater habitats, focusing on linkages from streams and wetlands to downstream waters. Here, streams, wetlands, rivers, lakes, ponds, and other freshwater habitats are viewed as dynamic freshwater ecosystem mosaics (FEMs) that collectively provide the resources needed to sustain aquatic life. Based on existing evidence, it is clear that biotic linkages throughout FEMs have important consequences for biological integrity and biodiversity. All aquatic organisms move within and among FEM components, but differ in the mode, frequency, distance, and timing of their movements. These movements allow biota to recolonize habitats, avoid inbreeding, escape stressors, locate mates, and acquire resources. Cumulatively, these individual movements connect populations within and among FEMs and contribute to local and regional diversity, resilience to disturbance, and persistence of aquatic species in the face of environmental change. Thus, the biological connections established by movement of biota among streams, wetlands, and downstream waters are critical to the ecological integrity of these systems. Future research will help advance our understanding of the movements that link FEMs and their cumulative effects on downstream waters.

Journal of the American Water Resources Associatio↗

USGS2017

Estimating restorable wetland water storage at landscape scales

Globally, hydrologic modifications such as ditching and subsurface drainage have significantly reduced wetland water storage capacity (i.e., volume of surface water a wetland can retain) and consequent wetland functions. While wetland area has been well documented across many landscapes and used to guide restoration efforts, few studies have directly quantified the associated wetland storage capacity. Here, we present a novel raster-based approach to quantify both contemporary and potential (i.e., restorable) storage capacities of individual depressional basins across landscapes. We demonstrate the utility of this method by applying it to the Delmarva Peninsula, a region punctuated by both depressional wetlands and drainage ditches. Across the entire peninsula, we estimated that restoration (i.e., plugging ditches) could increase storage capacity by 80%. Focusing on an individual watershed, we found that over 59% of restorable storage capacity occurs within 20 m of the drainage network, and that 93% occurs within 1 m elevation of the drainage network. Our demonstration highlights widespread ditching in this landscape, spatial patterns of both contemporary and potential storage capacities, and clear opportunities for hydrologic restoration. In Delmarva and more broadly, our novel approach can inform targeted landscape-scale conservation and restoration efforts to optimize hydrologically mediated wetland functions.

Hydrological Processes↗

USGS2017

Integrating geographically isolated wetlands into land management decisions

Wetlands across the globe provide extensive ecosystem services. However, many wetlands – especially those surrounded by uplands, often referred to as geographically isolated wetlands (GIWs) – remain poorly protected. Protection and restoration of wetlands frequently requires information on their hydrologic connectivity to other surface waters, and their cumulative watershed‐scale effects. The integration of measurements and models can supply this information. However, the types of measurements and models that should be integrated are dependent on management questions and information compatibility. We summarize the importance of GIWs in watersheds and discuss what wetland connectivity means in both science and management contexts. We then describe the latest tools available to quantify GIW connectivity and explore crucial next steps to enhancing and integrating such tools. These advancements will ensure that appropriate tools are used in GIW decision making and maintaining the important ecosystem services that these wetlands support.

Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment↗

USGS2017

The influence of data characteristics on detecting wetland/stream surface-water connections in the Delmarva Peninsula, Maryland and Delaware

The dependence of downstream waters on upstream ecosystems necessitates an improved understanding of watershed-scale hydrological interactions including connections between wetlands and streams. An evaluation of such connections is challenging when, (1) accurate and complete datasets of wetland and stream locations are often not available and (2) natural variability in surface-water extent influences the frequency and duration of wetland/stream connectivity. The Upper Choptank River watershed on the Delmarva Peninsula in eastern Maryland and Delaware is dominated by a high density of small, forested wetlands. In this analysis, wetland/stream surface water connections were quantified using multiple wetland and stream datasets, including headwater streams and depressions mapped from a lidar-derived digital elevation model. Surface-water extent was mapped across the watershed for spring 2015 using Landsat-8, Radarsat-2 and Worldview-3 imagery. The frequency of wetland/stream connections increased as a more complete and accurate stream dataset was used and surface-water extent was included, in particular when the spatial resolution of the imagery was finer (i.e., <10 m). Depending on the datasets used, 12–60% of wetlands by count (21–93% of wetlands by area) experienced surface-water interactions with streams during spring 2015. This translated into a range of 50–94% of the watershed contributing direct surface water runoff to streamflow. This finding suggests that our interpretation of the frequency and duration of wetland/stream connections will be influenced not only by the spatial and temporal characteristics of wetlands, streams and potential flowpaths, but also by the completeness, accuracy and resolution of input datasets.

Delaware, Maryland↗

USGS2017

The significant surface-water connectivity of "geographically isolated wetlands"

We evaluated the current literature, coupled with our collective research expertise, on surface-water connectivity of wetlands considered to be “geographically isolated” (sensu Tiner Wetlands 23:494–516, 2003a) to critically assess the scientific foundation of grouping wetlands based on the singular condition of being surrounded by uplands. The most recent research on wetlands considered to be “geographically isolated” shows the difficulties in grouping an ecological resource that does not reliably indicate lack of surface water connectivity in order to meet legal, regulatory, or scientific needs. Additionally, the practice of identifying “geographically isolated wetlands” based on distance from a stream can result in gross overestimates of the number of wetlands lacking ecologically important surface-water connections. Our findings do not support use of the overly simplistic label of “geographically isolated wetlands”. Wetlands surrounded by uplands vary in function and surface-water connections based on wetland landscape setting, context, climate, and geographic region and should be evaluated as such. We found that the “geographically isolated” grouping does not reflect our understanding of the hydrologic variability of these wetlands and hence does not benefit conservation of the Nation’s diverse wetland resources. Therefore, we strongly discourage use of categorizations that provide overly simplistic views of surface-water connectivity of wetlands fully embedded in upland landscapes.

Wetlands↗

USGS2017

Biota: Providing often-overlooked connections among freshwater systems

When we think about connections in and among aquatic systems, we typically envision clear headwater streams flowing into downstream rivers, river floodwaters spilling out onto adjacent floodplains, or groundwater connecting wetlands to lakes and streams. However, there is another layer of connectivity moving materials among freshwater systems, one with connections that are not always tied to downgradient flows of surface waters and groundwater. These movements are those of organisms, key components of virtually every freshwater system on the planet. In their movements across the landscape, biota connect aquatic systems in often-overlooked ways.

Water Resources Impact↗

USGS2016

Patterns and drivers for wetland connections in the Prairie Pothole Region, United States

Ecosystem function in rivers, lakes and coastal waters depends on the functioning of upstream aquatic ecosystems, necessitating an improved understanding of watershed-scale interactions including variable surface-water flows between wetlands and streams. As surface water in the Prairie Pothole Region expands in wet years, surface-water connections occur between many depressional wetlands and streams. Minimal research has explored the spatial patterns and drivers for the abundance of these connections, despite their potential to inform resource management and regulatory programs including the U.S. Clean Water Act. In this study, wetlands were identified that did not intersect the stream network, but were shown with Landsat images (1990–2011) to become merged with the stream network as surface water expanded. Wetlands were found to spill into or consolidate with other wetlands within both small (2–10 wetlands) and large (>100 wetlands) wetland clusters, eventually intersecting a stream channel, most often via a riparian wetland. These surface-water connections occurred over a wide range of wetland distances from streams (averaging 90–1400 m in different ecoregions). Differences in the spatial abundance of wetlands that show a variable surface-water connection to a stream were best explained by smaller wetland-to-wetland distances, greater wetland abundance, and maximum surface-water extent. This analysis demonstrated that wetland arrangement and surface water expansion are important mechanisms for depressional wetlands to connect to streams and provides a first step to understanding the frequency and abundance of these surface-water connections across the Prairie Pothole Region.

Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota↗

USGS2016

Do geographically isolated wetlands influence landscape functions?

Geographically isolated wetlands (GIWs), those surrounded by uplands, exchange materials, energy, and organisms with other elements in hydrological and habitat networks, contributing to landscape functions, such as flow generation, nutrient and sediment retention, and biodiversity support. GIWs constitute most of the wetlands in many North American landscapes, provide a disproportionately large fraction of wetland edges where many functions are enhanced, and form complexes with other water bodies to create spatial and temporal heterogeneity in the timing, flow paths, and magnitude of network connectivity. These attributes signal a critical role for GIWs in sustaining a portfolio of landscape functions, but legal protections remain weak despite preferential loss from many landscapes. GIWs lack persistent surface water connections, but this condition does not imply the absence of hydrological, biogeochemical, and biological exchanges with nearby and downstream waters. Although hydrological and biogeochemical connectivity is often episodic or slow (e.g., via groundwater), hydrologic continuity and limited evaporative solute enrichment suggest both flow generation and solute and sediment retention. Similarly, whereas biological connectivity usually requires overland dispersal, numerous organisms, including many rare or threatened species, use both GIWs and downstream waters at different times or life stages, suggesting that GIWs are critical elements of landscape habitat mosaics. Indeed, weaker hydrologic connectivity with downstream waters and constrained biological connectivity with other landscape elements are precisely what enhances some GIW functions and enables others. Based on analysis of wetland geography and synthesis of wetland functions, we argue that sustaining landscape functions requires conserving the entire continuum of wetland connectivity, including GIWs.

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of↗