USGS Science⌕ Search

Geology topics

Clifford N. Dahm

Publications and source records attributed to Clifford N. Dahm.

11 recordsLinked to original sources
USGS2016

Nutrient dynamics of the Delta: Effects on primary producers

Increasing clarity of Delta waters, the emergence of harmful algal blooms, the proliferation of aquatic water weeds, and the altered food web of the Delta have brought nutrient dynamics to the forefront. This paper focuses on the sources of nutrients, the transformation and uptake of nutrients, and the links of nutrients to primary producers. The largest loads of nutrients to the Delta come from the Sacramento River with the San Joaquin River seasonally important, especially in the summer. Nutrient concentrations reflect riverine inputs in winter and internal biological processes during periods of lower flow with internal nitrogen losses within the Delta estimated at approximately 30% annually. Light regime, grazing pressure, and nutrient availability influence rates of primary production at different times and locations within the Delta. The roles of the chemical form of dissolved inorganic nitrogen in growth rates of primary producers in the Delta and the structure of the open-water algal community are currently topics of much interest and considerable debate. Harmful algal blooms have been noted since the late 1990s, and the extent of invasive aquatic macrophytes (both submerged and free-floating forms) has increased especially during years of drought. Elevated nutrient loads must be considered in terms of their ability to support this excess biomass. Modern sensor technology and networks are now deployed that make high-frequency measurements of nitrate, ammonium, and phosphate. Data from such instruments allow a much more detailed assessment of the spatial and temporal dynamics of nutrients. Four fruitful directions for future research include utilizing continuous sensor data to estimate rates of primary production and ecosystem respiration, linking hydrodynamic models of the Delta with the transport and fate of dissolved nutrients, studying nutrient dynamics in various habitat types, and exploring the use of stable isotopes to trace the movement and fate of effluent-derived nutrients.

California↗
USGS2015

Fire effects on aquatic ecosystems: An assessment of the current state of the science

Fire is a prevalent feature of many landscapes and has numerous and complex effects on geological, hydrological, ecological, and economic systems. In some regions, the frequency and intensity of wildfire have increased in recent years and are projected to escalate with predicted climatic and landuse changes. In addition, prescribed burns continue to be used in many parts of the world to clear vegetation for development projects, encourage desired vegetation, and reduce fuel loads. Given the prevalence of fire on the landscape, authors of papers in this special series examine the complexities of fire as a disturbance shaping freshwater ecosystems and highlight the state of the science. These papers cover key aspects of fire effects that range from vegetation loss and recovery in watersheds to effects on hydrology and water quality with consequences for communities (from algae to fish), food webs, and ecosystem processes (e.g., organic matter subsidies, nutrient cycling) across a range of scales. The results presented in this special series of articles expand our knowledge of fire effects in different biomes, water bodies, and geographic regions, encompassing aquatic population, community, and ecosystem responses. In this overview, we summarize each paper and emphasize its contributions to knowledge on fire ecology and freshwater ecosystems. This overview concludes with a list of 7 research foci that are needed to further our knowledge of fire effects on aquatic ecosystems, including research on: 1) additional biomes and geographic regions; 2) additional habitats, including wetlands and lacustrine ecosystems; 3) different fire severities, sizes, and spatial configurations; and 4) additional response variables (e.g., ecosystem processes) 5) over long (>5 y) time scales 6) with more rigorous study designs and data analyses, and 7) consideration of the effects of fire management practices and policies on aquatic ecosystems.

Freshwater Science↗
USGS2014

A multiscale, hierarchical model of pulse dynamics in arid-land ecosystems

Ecological processes in arid lands are often described by the pulse-reserve paradigm, in which rain events drive biological activity until moisture is depleted, leaving a reserve. This paradigm is frequently applied to processes stimulated by one or a few precipitation events within a growing season. Here we expand the original framework in time and space and include other pulses that interact with rainfall. This new hierarchical pulse-dynamics framework integrates space and time through pulse-driven exchanges, interactions, transitions, and transfers that occur across individual to multiple pulses extending from micro to watershed scales. Climate change will likely alter the size, frequency, and intensity of precipitation pulses in the future, and arid-land ecosystems are known to be highly sensitive to climate variability. Thus, a more comprehensive understanding of arid-land pulse dynamics is needed to determine how these ecosystems will respond to, and be shaped by, increased climate variability.

Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systemati↗
USGS2010

Nitrous oxide emission from denitrification in stream and river networks

Nitrous oxide (N 2 O) is a potent greenhouse gas that contributes to climate change and stratospheric ozone destruction. Anthropogenic nitrogen (N) loading to river networks is a potentially important source of N 2 O via microbial denitrification that converts N to N 2 O and dinitrogen (N 2 ). The fraction of denitrified N that escapes as N 2 O rather than N 2 (i.e., the N 2 O yield) is an important determinant of how much N 2 O is produced by river networks, but little is known about the N 2 O yield in flowing waters. Here, we present the results of whole-stream 15 N-tracer additions conducted in 72 headwater streams draining multiple land-use types across the United States. We found that stream denitrification produces N 2 O at rates that increase with stream water nitrate (NO 3 − ) concentrations, but that <1% of denitrified N is converted to N 2 O. Unlike some previous studies, we found no relationship between the N 2 O yield and stream water NO 3 − . We suggest that increased stream NO 3 − loading stimulates denitrification and concomitant N 2 O production, but does not increase the N 2 O yield. In our study, most streams were sources of N 2 O to the atmosphere and the highest emission rates were observed in streams draining urban basins. Using a global river network model, we estimate that microbial N transformations (e.g., denitrification and nitrification) convert at least 0.68 Tg·y −1 of anthropogenic N inputs to N 2 O in river networks, equivalent to 10% of the global anthropogenic N 2 O emission rate. This estimate of stream and river N 2 O emissions is three times greater than estimated by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Humans have more than doubled the availability of fixed nitrogen (N) in the biosphere, particularly through the production of N fertilizers and the cultivation of N-fixing crops ( 1 ). Increasing N availability is producing unintended environmental consequences including enhanced emissions of nitrous oxide (N 2 O), a potent greenhouse gas ( 2 ) and an important cause of stratospheric ozone destruction ( 3 ). The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) estimates that the microbial conversion of agriculturally derived N to N 2 O in soils and aquatic ecosystems is the largest source of anthropogenic N 2 O to the atmosphere ( 2 ). The production of N 2 O in agricultural soils has been the focus of intense investigation (i.e., >1,000 published studies) and is a relatively well constrained component of the N 2 O budget ( 4 ). However, emissions of anthropogenic N 2 O from streams, rivers, and estuaries have received much less attention and remain a major source of uncertainty in the global anthropogenic N 2 O budget. Microbial denitrification is a large source of N 2 O emissions in terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. Most microbial denitrification is a form of anaerobic respiration in which nitrate (NO 3 − , the dominant form of inorganic N) is converted to dinitrogen (N 2 ) and N 2 O gases ( 5 ). The proportion of denitrified NO 3 − that is converted to N 2 O rather than N 2 (hereafter referred to as the N 2 O yield and expressed as the mole ratio) partially controls how much N 2 O is produced via denitrification ( 6 ), but few studies provide information on the N 2 O yield in streams and rivers because of the difficulty of measuring N 2 and N 2 O production in these systems. Here we report rates of N 2 and N 2 O production via denitrification measured using whole-stream 15 NO 3 − -tracer experiments in 72 headwater streams draining different land-use types across the United States. This project, known as the second Lotic Intersite Nitrogen eXperiment (LINX II), provides unique whole-system measurements of the N 2 O yield in streams. Although N 2 O emission rates have been reported for streams and rivers ( 7 , 8 ), the N 2 O yield has been studied mostly in lentic freshwater and marine ecosystems, where it generally ranges between 0.1 and 1.0%, although yields as high as 6% have been observed ( 9 ). These N 2 O yields are low compared with observations in soils (0–100%) ( 10 ), which may be a result of the relatively lower oxygen (O 2 ) availability in the sediments of lakes and estuaries. However, dissolved O 2 in headwater streams is commonly near atmospheric equilibrium and benthic algal biofilms can produce O 2 at the sediment–water interface, resulting in strong redox gradients more akin to those in partially wetted soils. Thus, streams may have variable and often high N 2 O yields, similar to those in soils ( 11 ). The N 2 O yield in headwater streams is of particular interest because much of the NO 3 − input to rivers is derived from groundwater upwelling into headwater streams. Furthermore, headwater streams compose the majority of stream length within a drainage network and have high ratios of bioreactive benthic surface area to water volume ( 12 ).

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of↗
USGS2010

Inter-regional comparison of land-use effects on stream metabolism

1. Rates of whole-system metabolism (production and respiration) are fundamental indicators of ecosystem structure and function. Although first-order, proximal controls are well understood, assessments of the interactions between proximal controls and distal controls, such as land use and geographic region, are lacking. Thus, the influence of land use on stream metabolism across geographic regions is unknown. Further, there is limited understanding of how land use may alter variability in ecosystem metabolism across regions.2. Stream metabolism was measured in nine streams in each of eight regions (n = 72) across the United States and Puerto Rico. In each region, three streams were selected from a range of three land uses: agriculturally influenced, urban-influenced, and reference streams. Stream metabolism was estimated from diel changes in dissolved oxygen concentrations in each stream reach with correction for reaeration and groundwater input.3. Gross primary production (GPP) was highest in regions with little riparian vegetation (sagebrush steppe in Wyoming, desert shrub in Arizona/New Mexico) and lowest in forested regions (North Carolina, Oregon). In contrast, ecosystem respiration (ER) varied both within and among regions. Reference streams had significantly lower rates of GPP than urban or agriculturally influenced streams.4. GPP was positively correlated with photosynthetically active radiation and autotrophic biomass. Multiple regression models compared using Akaike's information criterion (AIC) indicated GPP increased with water column ammonium and the fraction of the catchment in urban and reference land-use categories. Multiple regression models also identified velocity, temperature, nitrate, ammonium, dissolved organic carbon, GPP, coarse benthic organic matter, fine benthic organic matter and the fraction of all land-use categories in the catchment as regulators of ER.5. Structural equation modelling indicated significant distal as well as proximal control pathways including a direct effect of land-use on GPP as well as SRP, DIN, and PAR effects on GPP; GPP effects on autotrophic biomass, organic matter, and ER; and organic matter effects on ER.6. Overall, consideration of the data separated by land-use categories showed reduced inter-regional variability in rates of metabolism, indicating that the influence of agricultural and urban land use can obscure regional differences in stream metabolism. ?? 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Freshwater Biology↗
USGS2009

Nitrate removal in stream ecosystems measured by 15 N addition experiments: Total uptake

We measured uptake length of 15 NO- 3 in 72 streams in eight regions across the United States and Puerto Rico to develop quantitative predictive models on controls of NO- 3 uptake length. As part of the Lotic Intersite Nitrogen eXperiment II project, we chose nine streams in each region corresponding to natural (reference), suburban-urban, and agricultural land uses. Study streams spanned a range of human land use to maximize variation in NO- 3 concentration, geomorphology, and metabolism. We tested a causal model predicting controls on NO- 3 uptake length using structural equation modeling. The model included concomitant measurements of ecosystem metabolism, hydraulic parameters, and nitrogen concentration. We compared this structural equation model to multiple regression models which included additional biotic, catchment, and riparian variables. The structural equation model explained 79% of the variation in log uptake length (S Wtot ). Uptake length increased with specific discharge (Q/w) and increasing NO- 3 concentrations, showing a loss in removal efficiency in streams with high NO- 3 concentration. Uptake lengths shortened with increasing gross primary production, suggesting autotrophic assimilation dominated NO- 3 removal. The fraction of catchment area as agriculture and suburban-urban land use weakly predicted NO- 3 uptake in bivariate regression, and did improve prediction in a set of multiple regression models. Adding land use to the structural equation model showed that land use indirectly affected NO- 3 uptake lengths via directly increasing both gross primary production and NO- 3 concentration. Gross primary production shortened S Wtot , while increasing NO- 3 lengthened S Wtot resulting in no net effect of land use on NO- 3 removal. ?? 2009.

Limnology and Oceanography↗
USGS2009

Nitrate removal in stream ecosystems measured by 15 N addition experiments: Denitrification

We measured denitrification rates using a field 15 N-NO- 3 tracer-addition approach in a large, cross-site study of nitrate uptake in reference, agricultural, and suburban-urban streams. We measured denitrification rates in 49 of 72 streams studied. Uptake length due to denitrification (S Wden ) ranged from 89 m to 184 km (median of 9050 m) and there were no significant differences among regions or land-use categories, likely because of the wide range of conditions within each region and land use. N 2 production rates far exceeded N 2 O production rates in all streams. The fraction of total NO- 3 removal from water due to denitrification ranged from 0.5% to 100% among streams (median of 16%), and was related to NHz 4 concentration and ecosystem respiration rate (ER). Multivariate approaches showed that the most important factors controlling S Wden were specific discharge (discharge / width) and NO- 3 concentration (positive effects), and ER and transient storage zones (negative effects). The relationship between areal denitrification rate (U den ) and NO- 3 concentration indicated a partial saturation effect. A power function with an exponent of 0.5 described this relationship better than a Michaelis-Menten equation. Although Uden increased with increasing NO- 3 concentration, the efficiency of NO- 3 removal from water via denitrification declined, resulting in a smaller proportion of streamwater NO- 3 load removed over a given length of stream. Regional differences in stream denitrification rates were small relative to the proximate factors of NO- 3 concentration and ecosystem respiration rate, and land use was an important but indirect control on denitrification in streams, primarily via its effect on NO- 3 concentration. ?? 2009.

Limnology and Oceanography↗
USGS2008

Stream denitrification across biomes and its response to anthropogenic nitrate loading

Anthropogenic addition of bioavailable nitrogen to the biosphere is increasing and terrestrial ecosystems are becoming increasingly nitrogen-saturated, causing more bioavailable nitrogen to enter groundwater and surface waters. Large-scale nitrogen budgets show that an average of about 20-25 per cent of the nitrogen added to the biosphere is exported from rivers to the ocean or inland basins, indicating that substantial sinks for nitrogen must exist in the landscape. Streams and rivers may themselves be important sinks for bioavailable nitrogen owing to their hydrological connections with terrestrial systems, high rates of biological activity, and streambed sediment environments that favour microbial denitrification. Here we present data from nitrogen stable isotope tracer experiments across 72 streams and 8 regions representing several biomes. We show that total biotic uptake and denitrification of nitrate increase with stream nitrate concentration, but that the efficiency of biotic uptake and denitrification declines as concentration increases, reducing the proportion of in-stream nitrate that is removed from transport. Our data suggest that the total uptake of nitrate is related to ecosystem photosynthesis and that denitrification is related to ecosystem respiration. In addition, we use a stream network model to demonstrate that excess nitrate in streams elicits a disproportionate increase in the fraction of nitrate that is exported to receiving waters and reduces the relative role of small versus large streams as nitrate sinks. ??2008 Nature Publishing Group.

Nature↗
USGS2007

River and riparian restoration in the southwest: Results of the National River Restoration Science Synthesis project

Restoration activity has exponentially increased across the Southwest since 1990. Over 37,000 records were compiled into the National River Restoration Science Synthesis (NRRSS) database to summarize restoration trends and assess project effectiveness. We analyzed data from 576 restoration projects in the Southwest (NRRSS-SW). More than 50% of projects were less than or equal to 3 km in length. The most common restoration project intent categories were riparian management, water quality management, in-stream habitat improvement, and flow modification. Common project activities were well matched to goals. Conservative estimates of total restoration costs exceeded $500 million. Most restoration dollars have been allocated to flow modification and water quality management. Monitoring was linked to 28% of projects across the Southwest, as opposed to just 10% nationwide. Mean costs were statistically similar whether or not projects were monitored. Results from 48 telephone interviews provided validation of NRRSS-SW database analyses but showed that project costs are often underreported within existing datasets. The majority of interviewees considered their projects to be successful, most often based upon observed improvements to biota or positive public reaction rather than evaluation of field data. The efficacy of restoration is difficult to ascertain given the dearth of information contained within most datasets. There is a great need for regional entities that not only track information on project implementation but also maintain and analyze monitoring data associated with restoration. Agencies that fund or regulate restoration should reward projects that emphasize monitoring and evaluation as much as project implementation. ?? 2007 Society for Ecological Restoration International.

Restoration Ecology↗
USGS2002

Meeting ecological and societal needs for freshwater

Human society has used freshwater from rivers, lakes, groundwater, and wetlands for many different urban, agricultural, and industrial activities, but in doing so has overlooked its value in supporting ecosystems. Freshwater is vital to human life and societal well-being, and thus its utilization for consumption, irrigation, and transport has long taken precedence over other commodities and services provided by freshwater ecosystems. However, there is growing recognition that functionally intact and biologically complex aquatic ecosystems provide many economically valuable services and long-term benefits to society. The short-term benefits include ecosystem goods and services, such as food supply, flood control, purification of human and industrial wastes, and habitat for plant and animal life—and these are costly, if not impossible, to replace. Long-term benefits include the sustained provision of those goods and services, as well as the adaptive capacity of aquatic ecosystems to respond to future environmental alterations, such as climate change. Thus, maintenance of the processes and properties that support freshwater ecosystem integrity should be included in debates over sustainable water resource allocation. The purpose of this report is to explain how the integrity of freshwater ecosystems depends upon adequate quantity, quality, timing, and temporal variability of water flow. Defining these requirements in a comprehensive but general manner provides a better foundation for their inclusion in current and future debates about allocation of water resources. In this way the needs of freshwater ecosystems can be legitimately recognized and addressed. We also recommend ways in which freshwater ecosystems can be protected, maintained, and restored. Freshwater ecosystem structure and function are tightly linked to the watershed or catchment of which they are a part. Because riverine networks, lakes, wetlands, and their connecting groundwaters, are literally the “sinks” into which landscapes drain, they are greatly influenced by terrestrial processes, including many human uses or modifications of land and water. Freshwater ecosystems, whether lakes, wetlands, or rivers, have specific requirements in terms of quantity, quality, and seasonality of their water supplies. Sustainability normally requires these systems to fluctuate within a natural range of variation. Flow regime, sediment and organic matter inputs, thermal and light characteristics, chemical and nutrient characteristics, and biotic assemblages are fundamental defining attributes of freshwater ecosystems. These attributes impart relatively unique characteristics of productivity and biodiversity to each ecosystem. The natural range of variation in each of these attributes is critical to maintaining the integrity and dynamic potential of aquatic ecosystems; therefore, management should allow for dynamic change. Piecemeal approaches cannot solve the problems confronting freshwater ecosystems. Scientific definitions of the requirements to protect and maintain aquatic ecosystems are necessary but insufficient for establishing the appropriate distribution between societal and ecosystem water needs. For scientific knowledge to be implemented science must be connected to a political agenda for sustainable development. We offer these recommendations as a beginning to redress how water is viewed and managed in the United States: (1) Frame national and regional water management policies to explicitly incorporate freshwater ecosystem needs, particularly those related to naturally variable flow regimes and to the linking of water quality with water quantity; (2) Define water resources to include watersheds, so that freshwaters are viewed within a landscape, or systems context; (3) Increase communication and education across disciplines, especially among engineers, hydrologists, economists, and ecologists to facilitate an integrated view of freshwater resources; (4) Increase restoration efforts, using well-grounded ecological principles as guidelines; (5) Maintain and protect the remaining freshwater ecosystems that have high integrity; and (6) Recognize the dependence of human society on naturally functioning ecosystems.

Ecological Applications↗