From pixels to riverscapes: How remote sensing and geospatial tools can prioritize riverscape restoration at multiple scales

Hayley Corrine Glassic; Kenneth C. McGwire; William W. Macfarlane; Cashe Rasmussen; Nicolaas Bouwes; Joseph M. Wheaton; Robert Al-Chokhachy

doi:10.1002/wat2.1716

USGS · 70257903

From pixels to riverscapes: How remote sensing and geospatial tools can prioritize riverscape restoration at multiple scales

Hayley Corrine Glassic·Kenneth C. McGwire·William W. Macfarlane·Cashe Rasmussen·Nicolaas Bouwes·Joseph M. Wheaton·Robert Al-Chokhachy

View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Prioritizing restoration opportunities effectively across entire riverscape networks (i.e., riverine landscape including floodplain and stream channel networks) can be difficult when relying on in-channel, reach-scale monitoring data, or watershed-level summaries that fail to capture riverscape heterogeneity and the information necessary to implement restoration actions. Leveraging remote sensing and geospatial tools to develop spatially continuous information across nested hierarchical scales may support increased understanding of local riverscape reaches in their broader network context. Using riparian (vegetation) and geomorphic (elevation) indicators to assess status of riverscape health, along with a measure of restoration capacity (valley bottom area), could be adapted to fit specific management goals related to riverscape restoration. Frameworks using remotely sensed vegetation and elevation data to prioritize restoration continuously across riverscapes at restoration-relevant, reach-scales may uphold the ecosystem services provided by riverscapes. By incorporating local knowledge and identifying caveats for using these datasets, continuous inferences can be applied at network scales (watershed to regional extent and reach-scale resolution) to prioritize restoration over a wide variety of ecoregions.

Explore related subjects

WIREs Water Article

Source-reported bounding extent: 38.09843600904033° to 41.87323893635414° latitude; -120.03969790583245° to -114.17949392211462° longitude. This indicates report coverage, not an exact sampling location. View area on OpenStreetMap.

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

Hayley Corrine Glassic, Kenneth C. McGwire, William W. Macfarlane, Cashe Rasmussen, Nicolaas Bouwes, Joseph M. Wheaton, Robert Al-Chokhachy. 2024. From pixels to riverscapes: How remote sensing and geospatial tools can prioritize riverscape restoration at multiple scales. https://doi.org/10.1002/wat2.1716

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

USGS2025

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↗

USGS2024

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↗

USGS2024

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↗