Type and timing of stream f low changes in urbanizing watersheds in the eastern u.s.

Elementa

Volumn 3, Issue , 2015, Pages

  Hopkins, Kristina G ^a,b   Morse, Nathaniel B ^c   Bain, Daniel J ^a   Bettez, Neil D ^d   Grimm, Nancy B ^e   Morse, Jennifer L ^f   Palta, Monica M ^g  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE   (United States)

^d CARY INSTITUTE OF ECOSYSTEM STUDIES   (United States)

^e ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^f PORTLAND STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^g ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85010824489     PISSN: None     EISSN: 23251026     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.12952/journal.elementa.000056     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. Alberti M, Booth D, Hill K, Coburn B, Avolio C, et al. 2007. The impact of urban patterns on aquatic ecosystems: An empirical analysis in Puget lowland sub-basins. Landscape Urban Plan 80: 345-361.
2. Bain DJ, Brush GS. 2008. Gradients, property templates, and land use change. Prof Geogr 60: 224-237.
3. Balascio CC, Lucas WC. 2009. A survey of storm-water management water quality regulations in four Mid-Atlantic States. J Environ Manage 90: 1-7. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2007.10.006.
4. Beighley RE, Moglen GE. 2002. Trend assessment in rainfall-runoff behavior in urbanizing watersheds. J Hydrol Eng 7: 27-34.
5. Brown LR, Cuffney TF, Coles JF, Fitzpatrick F, McMahon G, et al. 2009. Urban streams across the USA: lessons learned from studies in 9 metropolitan areas. J N Am Benthol Soc 28: 1051-1069.
6. Bürgi M, Hersperger AM, Schneeberger N. 2004. Driving forces of landscape change-current and new directions. Landscape Ecol 19: 857-868.
7. Carter T, Jackson CR, Rosemond A, Pringle C, Radcliffe D, et al. 2009. Beyond the urban gradient: barriers and opportunities for timely studies of urbanization effects on aquatic ecosystems. J N Am Benthol Soc 28: 1038-1050.
8. Costa JE. 1974. Response and recovery of a Piedmont watershed from tropical storm Agnes, June 1972. Water Resour Res 10: 106-112.
9. Cuo L, Lettenmaier DP, Alberti M, Richey JE. 2009. Effects of a century of land cover and climate change on the hydrology of the Puget Sound basin. Hydrol Process 23: 907-933.
10. DCNR. 2002. Turtle Creek Watershed River Conservation Plan. Wilmerding, PA: Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources.
11. DeAngelis R, Hodge WT. 1972. Preliminary Climatic Data Report Hurricane Agnes, June 14-23. Ashville, NC: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Environmental Data Service.
12. DeWalle DR, Swistock BR, Johnson TE, McGuire KJ. 2000. Potential effects of climate change and urbanization on mean annual streamf low in the United States. Water Resour Res 36: 2655-2664.
13. Fox HL. 1976. The urbanizing river: a case study in the Maryland Piedmont, in: Geomorphology and Engineering. Pennsylvania: Dowden, Hutchinson, & Ross, Stroudsburg. pp. 245-271.
14. Graf WL. 1977. Network characteristics in suburbanizing streams. Water Resour Res 13: 459-463.
15. Hale RL, Turnbull L, Earl SR, Childers DL, Grimm NB. 2014. Stormwater Infrastructure Controls Runoff and Dissolved Material Export from Arid Urban Watersheds. Ecosystems 18(1): 62-75. doi:10.1007/s10021-014-9812-2.
16. Hopkins K, Morse N, Bain D, Bettez N, Grimm N, et al. 2015. Assessment of regional variation in stream f low responses to urbanization and the persistence of physiography. Environ Sci Technol 49: 2724-2732.
17. Hopkins KG, Bain DJ, Copeland EM. 2014. Reconstruction of a century of landscape modification and hydrologic change in a small urban watershed in Pittsburgh, PA. Landscape Ecol 29: 413-424. doi:10.1007/s10980-013-9972-z.
18. Jennings D, Jarnagin T. 2002. Changes in anthropogenic impervious surfaces, precipitation and daily streamf low discharge: a historical perspective in a mid-Atlantic subwatershed. Landscape Ecol 17: 471-489.
19. Kaushal SS, Belt KT. 2012. The urban watershed continuum: evolving spatial and temporal dimensions. Urban Ecosyst 15: 409-435.
20. Kendall MG. 1938. A new measure of rank correlation. Biometrika 30: 81-89.
21. Konrad CP, Booth DB. 2005. Hydrologic changes in urban streams and their ecological significance, in, American Fisheries Society Symposium. pp. 157-177.
22. Lins HF, Slack JR. 1999. Streamf low trends in the United States. Geophys Res Lett 26: 227-230.
23. Mann HB, Whitney DR. 1947. On a Test of Whether one of Two Random Variables is Stochastically Larger than the Other. Ann Math Stat 18: 50-60.
24. McCabe G, Wolock D. 2002. A step increase in streamf low in the conterminous United States. Geophys Res Lett 29: 2185.
25. Meierdiercks KL, Smith JA, Baeck ML, Miller AJ. 2010. Analyses of Urban Drainage Network Structure and its Impact on Hydrologic Response. J Am Water Resour As 46: 932-943 . doi:10.1111/j.1752-1688.2010.00465.x.
26. Minnesota Population Center. 2011. National Historical Geographic Information System: Version 2.0. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota.
27. Muggeo V. 2003. Estimating regression models with unknown break-points. Stat Med 22: 3055-3071.
28. Nelson PA, Smith JA, Miller AJ. 2006. Evolution of channel morphology and hydrologic response in an urbanizing drainage basin. Earth Surf Proc Land 31: 1063-1079.
29. O'Driscoll M, Clinton S, Jefferson A, Manda A, McMillan S. 2010. Urbanization effects on watershed hydrology and in-stream processes in the southern United States. Water 2: 605-648.
30. Olson SH. 1979. Baltimore imitates the spider. Ann Assoc Am Geogr 69: 557-574.
31. Poff NL, Bledsoe BP, Cuhaciyan CO. 2006. Hydrologic variation with land use across the contiguous United States: geomorphic and ecological consequences for stream ecosystems. Geomorphology 79: 264-285.
32. Poff NL, Olden JD, Merritt DM, Pepin DM. 2007. Homogenization of regional river dynamics by dams and global biodiversity implications. P Natl Acad Sci USA 104: 5732-5737.
33. R Core Team. 2014. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
34. Reger J, Cleaves E. 2008. Physiographic Map of Maryland and Open-File Report 08-03-1 (No. 08-03-1). Maryland Geological Survey. Baltimore, MD.
35. Richter BD, Baumgartner JV, Powell J, Braun DP. 1996. A method for assessing hydrologic alteration within ecosystems. Conserv Biol 10: 1163-1174.
36. Rutledge AT. 1998. Computer Programs for Describing the Recession of Ground-Water Discharge and for Estimating Mean Ground-Water Recharge and Discharge from Streamf low Data. Water-Resources Investigations Report 98-4148. Reston, VA: U.S. Geological Survey.
37. Schubel JR. 1974. Effects of Tropical Storm Agnes on the Suspended Solids of the Northern Chesapeake Bay, in Gibbs RJ, ed., Suspended Solids in Water, Marine Science. US: Springer. pp. 113-132.
38. Schueler TR, Fraley-McNeal L, Cappiella K. 2009. Is impervious cover still important? Review of recent research. J Hydrol Eng 14: 309-315.
39. Shuster WD, Bonta J, Thurston H, Warnemuende E, Smith DR. 2005. Impacts of impervious surface on watershed hydrology: A review. Urban Water 2: 263-275. State of Maryland. 1969. State Highway Systems and Connections.
40. Wagner W. 1970. Geology of the Pittsburgh Area (No. G-59). Pittsburgh, PA: Pittsburgh Geological Society, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
41. Walsh CJ, F letcher TD, Ladson AR. 2005b. Stream restoration in urban catchments through redesigning stormwater systems: looking to the catchment to save the stream. J N Am Benthol Soc 24: 690-705.
42. Walsh CJ, Roy AH, Feminella JW, Cottingham PD, Groffman PM, et al. 2005a. The urban stream syndrome: current knowledge and the search for a cure. J N Am Benthol Soc 24: 706-723.
43. Williams GP, Wolman MG. 1984. Downstream effects of dams on alluvial rivers. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1286. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.