Geology topics

Katie H. Costigan

Publications and source records attributed to Katie H. Costigan.

4 recordsLinked to original sources

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↗

USGS2021

Spatial patterns and drivers of nonperennial flow regimes in the contiguous United States

Over half of global rivers and streams lack perennial flow, and understanding the distribution and drivers of their flow regimes is critical for understanding their hydrologic, biogeochemical, and ecological functions. We analyzed nonperennial flow regimes using 540 U.S. Geological Survey watersheds across the contiguous United States from 1979 to 2018. Multivariate analyses revealed regional differences in no-flow fraction, date of first no flow, and duration of the dry-down period, with further divergence between natural and human-altered watersheds. Aridity was a primary driver of no-flow metrics at the continental scale, while unique combinations of climatic, physiographic and anthropogenic drivers emerged at regional scales. Dry-down duration showed stronger associations with nonclimate drivers compared to no-flow fraction and timing. Although the sparse distribution of nonperennial gages limits our understanding of such streams, the watersheds examined here suggest the important role of aridity and land cover change in modulating future stream drying.

contiguous United States↗

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↗

USGS2015

How big of an effect do small dams have? Using geomorphological footprints to quantify spatial impact of low-head dams and identify patterns of across-dam variation

Longitudinal connectivity is a fundamental characteristic of rivers that can be disrupted by natural and anthropogenic processes. Dams are significant disruptions to streams. Over 2,000,000 low-head dams (<7.6 m high) fragment United States rivers. Despite potential adverse impacts of these ubiquitous disturbances, the spatial impacts of low-head dams on geomorphology and ecology are largely untested. Progress for research and conservation is impaired by not knowing the magnitude of low-head dam impacts. Based on the geomorphic literature, we refined a methodology that allowed us to quantify the spatial extent of low-head dam impacts (herein dam footprint), assessed variation in dam footprints across low-head dams within a river network, and identified select aspects of the context of this variation. Wetted width, depth, and substrate size distributions upstream and downstream of six low-head dams within the Upper Neosho River, Kansas, United States of America were measured. Total dam footprints averaged 7.9 km (3.0–15.3 km) or 287 wetted widths (136–437 wetted widths). Estimates included both upstream (mean: 6.7 km or 243 wetted widths) and downstream footprints (mean: 1.2 km or 44 wetted widths). Altogether the six low-head dams impacted 47.3 km (about 17%) of the mainstem in the river network. Despite differences in age, size, location, and primary function, the sizes of geomorphic footprints of individual low-head dams in the Upper Neosho river network were relatively similar. The number of upstream dams and distance to upstream dams, but not dam height, affected the spatial extent of dam footprints. In summary, ubiquitous low-head dams individually and cumulatively altered lotic ecosystems. Both characteristics of individual dams and the context of neighboring dams affected low-head dam impacts within the river network. For these reasons, low-head dams require a different, more integrative, approach for research and management than the individualistic approach that has been applied to larger dams.

PLoS ONE↗