Search USGS⌕ Search

Geology topics

Sam Zipper

Publications and source records attributed to Sam Zipper.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

Potential impacts of groundwater pumping on stream temperature are greatest in streams with substantial cold groundwater inflows

Groundwater pumping-induced reductions in streamflow (known as ‘streamflow depletion’) have been documented worldwide, but potential impacts of streamflow depletion on stream temperature are not well understood. Here, we use two types of models to identify potential impacts of pumping on stream temperature across the conterminous United States (CONUS) to determine which aspects of a stream's annual thermograph (thermal signatures) can be used to monitor and manage streamflow depletion impacts on stream temperature. We used long-term streamflow and stream temperature data from 30 streamgages across CONUS and surrogate models of streamflow depletion to analyse potential stream temperature impacts at each site. We compared two different stream temperature modelling approaches: (i) a process-based energy balance model and (ii) statistical regression models based on air temperature and stream discharge. We calculated a suite of thermal signatures under depleted and non-depleted conditions for each stream and found that maximum annual 7-day temperature and annual temperature range are potentially the most sensitive to streamflow depletion, with potential changes of at least 2°C at > 70% of the sites when using the process-based model. We also found that the regression-based models predicted much less sensitivity of stream temperature to streamflow depletion than the process-based model. This work provides an initial evaluation and sensitivity analysis of the potential impacts of streamflow depletion on stream temperature. We demonstrate that stream temperature may be most sensitive to pumping in streams with a high proportion of flow sourced from relatively cold groundwater inputs, and that regression-based stream temperature models may underpredict stream temperature changes caused by streamflow depletion.

conterminous United States↗

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↗

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↗