Geology ReportsSearch

USGS · 70210544

Zero or not? Causes and consequences of zero-flow stream gage readings

Abstract

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.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Margaret Zimmer, Kendra E. Kaiser, Joanna Blaszczak, Samuel Zipper, John C. Hammond, Ken M. Fritz, Katie H. Costigan, Jacob D. Hosen, Sarah E Godsey, George H. Allen, Stephanie K. Kampf, Ryan Burrow, Corey Krabbenhoft, Walter Dodds, Rebecca Hale, Julian D. Olden, Margaret Shanafield, Amanda DelVecchia, Adam S Ward, Meryl C. Mims, Thibault Datry, Michael A. Bogan, Kate Boersma, Michelle Busch, Nathan M. Jones, Amy Burgin, Daniel C. Allen. 2020-04-13. Zero or not? Causes and consequences of zero-flow stream gage readings. https://doi.org/10.1002/wat2.1436

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

Disparate groundwater responses to wildfire

Post-wildfire investigations of groundwater response reveal a range of outcomes, varying from substantial increases to notable decreases in recharge and baseflow, with some studies indicating negligible or short-lived effects. This review assesses these varied responses within five critical categories: climate, vegetation, hydrogeology, fire characteristics, and the cryosphere, examining both short-term (within 2 years) and intermediate (2–10 years post-fire) effects. Despite considerable variability, some consistent patterns emerge. For instance, in hydroclimatic settings where water input and evaporative demand cycles are out of sync, post-wildfire groundwater responses tend to be positive (i.e., increased flux or storage), whereas under low fire severity conditions or in vegetation types that quickly recover, groundwater responses tend to be negative (i.e., decreased flux or storage). We synthesize relevant findings into a compendium of testable hypotheses aimed at explaining the spatiotemporal variability in observed post-wildfire groundwater responses. A recurring theme is the critical influence of the pre-wildfire groundwater regime on expected response and recovery. We identify opportunities for specific improvements in post-wildfire monitoring and modeling that would further advance capabilities to predict groundwater response. A key area for further research is understanding how wildfire effects on snow dynamics and other cryospheric processes translate to changes in groundwater.

WIREs Water

Food for fish: Challenges and opportunities for quantifying foodscapes in river networks

Riverine fishes face many challenges including habitat degradation and climate change, which alter the productivity of the riverscapes in which fish live, reproduce, and feed. Understanding the watershed portfolio of foraging and growth opportunities that sustain productive and resilient fish populations is important for prioritizing conservation and restoration. However, the spatiotemporal distribution and availability of fish food are poorly understood relative to other factors such as abiotic habitat quantity and quality (e.g., water temperature). In this paper, we build on the concept of “foodscapes,” and describe three components of food for fish, including abundance, accessibility, and quality. We then discuss methodological advances to help address three key questions: (1) Why is food availability hard to estimate? (2) What are the consequences of uncertainty in food availability estimates? and (3) What approaches are available or emerging for quantifying food available to fish? To address the first question, we characterize data acquisition and analytical challenges; for the second, we demonstrate the importance of evaluating and communicating potential consequences of uncertainty; and for the third, we posit opportunities for future work. Collectively, we highlight the need for greater appreciation of the role food plays in stream fish conservation, especially given its critical influence on responses to warming temperatures.

WIREs Water

Resilient riverine social–ecological systems: A new paradigm to meet global conservation targets

The United Nations' Convention on Biological Diversity set forth the 30 × 30 target, an agenda for countries to protect at least 30% of their terrestrial, inland water, and coastal and marine areas by 2030. With <6 years to reach that goal, riverine conservation professionals are faced with the difficult decision of prioritizing which rivers or river segments should be conserved (protected and/or restored). While incorporating resilience into conservation planning is essential for enhancing, restoring, and maintaining the vital riverine ecosystem services (ES) most threatened by climate change and other environmental and human stresses, this paradigm is at odds with traditional conservation approaches that are either opportunistic or reactionary, where only unique and highly visible ecosystems have been prioritized. Barriers to implementing resilience-based riverine conservation planning include: (1) difficulties in conceptualizing and quantifying resilience; (2) insufficient consideration of the social components of riverine systems; (3) the inapplicability of terrestrial-only conservation models to aquatic systems; and (4) the traditional ad hoc and opportunistic approach to conservation. To overcome these barriers, we propose a resilience-based riverine conservation framework that includes: (1) assessing riverine resilience using indicator frameworks; (2) considering rivers as dynamically coupled social–ecological systems; (3) explicitly incorporating terrestrial–aquatic network connectivity into conservation decision-making; and (4) strategic systems planning using a novel resilience–conservation matrix as a tool. This framework has the potential to transform conservation practices around the globe to more effectively protect river systems and enhance their resilience to climate change and human development.

WIREs Water