Zero or not? Causes and consequences of zero-flow stream gage readings.
aquatic network
non-perennial
stream gages
streamflow
zero flow
Journal
WIREs. Water
ISSN: 2049-1948
Titre abrégé: WIREs Water
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101649438
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
27 Apr 2020
27 Apr 2020
Historique:
entrez:
18
8
2020
pubmed:
18
8
2020
medline:
18
8
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
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 fully dried; 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 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 methodss 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.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32802326
doi: 10.1002/wat2.1436
pmc: PMC7425737
mid: NIHMS1589962
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Subventions
Organisme : Intramural EPA
ID : EPA999999
Pays : United States
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Conflict of Interest The authors have declared no conflicts of interest for this article.
Références
Glob Chang Biol. 2019 May;25(5):1591-1611
pubmed: 30628191
Sci Rep. 2018 Apr 11;8(1):5834
pubmed: 29643438
PLoS One. 2014 Feb 25;9(2):e89481
pubmed: 24586812
J Exp Biol. 2003 Nov;206(Pt 22):4021-8
pubmed: 14555742
Front Ecol Environ. 2017 Aug;15(6):319-327
pubmed: 30505246
Sci Total Environ. 2018 Jan 1;610-611:154-166
pubmed: 28803193
Ecology. 2015 May;96(5):1371-82
pubmed: 26236850
Ground Water. 2006 Nov-Dec;44(6):837-52
pubmed: 17087756
Sci Total Environ. 2017 Jan 1;575:378-389
pubmed: 27750134
Ground Water. 2004 Nov-Dec;42(6-7):939-44
pubmed: 15584307
Environ Monit Assess. 2019 Mar 18;191(4):226
pubmed: 30887248
Nature. 2020 Jan;577(7788):69-73
pubmed: 31894147
Sci Data. 2018 Nov 06;5:180224
pubmed: 30398476
Sci Rep. 2017 Oct 16;7(1):13198
pubmed: 29038431
Science. 2014 Mar 7;343(6175):1080-1
pubmed: 24604183
Sci Adv. 2019 Jun 19;5(6):eaav4574
pubmed: 31223647
Ecol Appl. 2012 Jan;22(1):250-63
pubmed: 22471088
Glob Chang Biol. 2017 Apr;23(4):1610-1625
pubmed: 27808458
Trends Ecol Evol. 2004 Feb;19(2):94-100
pubmed: 16701235
Environ Monit Assess. 1986 Jan;6(1):71-90
pubmed: 24254545
Hydrol Process. 2018 Feb 15;32(4):516-532
pubmed: 29576682