Geology topics

Megan L. Fork

Publications and source records attributed to Megan L. Fork.

4 recordsLinked to original sources

USGS2023

Stream restoration milestones: Monitoring scales determine successes and failures

Urban stream restoration is growing globally, but there is much to learn from successes, failures, and evaluating tradeoffs in restoration practices. Significant time and resources have been invested towards restoring the structure and function of urban ecosystems and understanding and slowing the drivers of degradation. However, the rapid pace of urbanization and its effects on urban waters present an ever-growing challenge to environmental managers and restoration practitioners when identifying and prioritizing effective strategies for restoration and monitoring outcomes. Here, we synthesize major findings and papers originating from the 5th Symposium on Urbanization and Stream Ecology (SUSE5) and propose a new concept for monitoring restoration based on lessons learned. Efforts from SUSE5 showed that urban disturbances and restoration activities have strong localized impacts that can be challenging to detect and disentangle across broader watershed scales and longitudinal flowpaths. Most urban stream restoration projects are monitored at only one or a few locations that do not capture significant variability across stream reaches and longer flowpaths. Based on knowledge from SUSE5, we present a new concept called ‘restoration milestones.’ The restoration milestones concept proposes that the scale of stream monitoring over space and time can influence whether a stream restoration project is considered a success or failure. Therefore, answers to questions regarding restoration effectiveness and durability can be affected by spatial and temporal monitoring scales. Setting realistic restoration milestones involves establishing monitoring strategies that account for spatial and temporal variability. Tracking restoration performance through time across stream reaches along longitudinal flowpaths could aid in more accurately assessing project performance. We explore applications for evaluating restoration milestones along longitudinal stream flowpaths including: (1) identifying target areas of improvement along drainage networks, (2) accurately accounting for tradeoffs in habitat, protection of infrastructure, and water quality along flowpaths, and (3) detecting how far downstream the effects of stream restoration and stormwater management can be propagated. Monitoring across different spatial and temporal scales is an overlooked but critical factor in determining restoration success. Additionally, the scale of the restoration project itself can determine the type and magnitude of improvements. Expectations for what a restoration project can accomplish in terms of water quality improvements should be calibrated to the project’s spatial scale and evolution over time. Longitudinal studies of stream restoration help identify successes and failures along flowpaths.

Urban Ecosystems↗

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

Urbanization and stream ecology: Moving the bar on multidisciplinary solutions to wicked urban stream problems

Decades of research on the effects of urbanization on stream ecology have shown that urban stream problems are inherently wicked. These problems are wicked in the sense that they are difficult to solve because information is incomplete, changing, or conflicting and because finding potential solutions often requires input from stakeholders who can have conflicting and competing values. The 5 th Symposium on Urbanization and Stream Ecology (SUSE5) in February 2020 brought together diverse perspectives from scientists, managers, practitioners, and local communities. Participants at SUSE5 discussed the state of the science in urban stream ecology and worked through in-depth case studies in teams to tackle complex real-world problems in urban stream management. The papers in this special series on urbanization and stream ecology include empirical research studies and synthesis papers sparked by discussions at SUSE5 and advance multidisciplinary solutions to wicked urban stream problems.

Freshwater Science↗

USGS2015

Ecosystem consequences of changing inputs of terrestrial dissolved organic matter to lakes: current knowledge and future challenges

Lake ecosystems and the services that they provide to people are profoundly influenced by dissolved organic matter derived from terrestrial plant tissues. These terrestrial dissolved organic matter (tDOM) inputs to lakes have changed substantially in recent decades, and will likely continue to change. In this paper, we first briefly review the substantial literature describing tDOM effects on lakes and ongoing changes in tDOM inputs. We then identify and provide examples of four major challenges which limit predictions about the implications of tDOM change for lakes, as follows: First, it is currently difficult to forecast future tDOM inputs for particular lakes or lake regions. Second, tDOM influences ecosystems via complex, interacting, physical-chemical-biological effects and our holistic understanding of those effects is still rudimentary. Third, non-linearities and thresholds in relationships between tDOM inputs and ecosystem processes have not been well described. Fourth, much understanding of tDOM effects is built on comparative studies across space that may not capture likely responses through time. We conclude by identifying research approaches that may be important for overcoming those challenges in order to provide policy- and management-relevant predictions about the implications of changing tDOM inputs for lakes.

Ecosystems↗