Non-perennial streams are widespread, critical to ecosystems and society, and the subject of ongoing policy debate. Prior large-scale research on stream intermittency has been based on long-term averages, generally using annually aggregated data to characterize a highly variable process. As a result, it is not well understood if, how, or why the hydrology of non-perennial streams is changing. Here, we investigate trends and drivers of three intermittency signatures that describe the duration, timing, and dry-down period of stream intermittency across the continental United States (CONUS). Half of gages exhibited a significant trend through time in at least one of the three intermittency signatures, and changes in no-flow duration were most pervasive (41% of gages). Changes in intermittency were substantial for many streams, and 7% of gages exhibited changes in annual no-flow duration exceeding 100 days during the study period. Distinct regional patterns of change were evident, with widespread drying in southern CONUS and wetting in northern CONUS. These patterns are correlated with changes in aridity, though drivers of spatiotemporal variability were diverse across the three intermittency signatures. While the no-flow timing and duration were strongly related to climate, dry-down period was most strongly related to watershed land use and physiography. Our results indicate that non-perennial conditions are increasing in prevalence over much of CONUS and binary classifications of ‘perennial’ and ‘non-perennial’ are not an accurate reflection of this change. Water management and policy should reflect the changing nature and diverse drivers of changing intermittency both today and in the future.

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 watershedscale 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.

No abstract

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. Plain Language Summary A majority of global streams are nonperennial, flowing only part of the year, and are critical for sustaining flow downstream, providing habitat for many organisms, and regulating chemical and biological processes. Using long-term U.S. Geological Survey measurements for 540 watersheds across the contiguous United States, we mapped patterns and examined the causes of no-flow fraction, the fraction of each climate year with no flow, no-flow timing, the date of the climate year on which the first recorded no flow takes place, and length of the dry-down period, the average number of days from a local peak in daily flow to the first occurrence of no flow. We found differences in patterns of no-flow characteristics between regions, with higher no-flow fraction, earlier timing, and shorter dry-down duration in the western United States. No-flow fractions were greater and less variable in natural watersheds, while no-flow timing was earlier and dry-down duration was shorter in humanmodified watersheds. Aridity had the greatest effect on intermittence across the United States, but unique combinations of climate, biophysical, and human impacts were important in different regions. The number of gages measuring streamflow in nonperennial streams is small compared to perennial streams, and increased monitoring is needed to better understand drying behavior. HAMMOND ET AL.

Rivers that cease to flow are globally prevalent. Although many epithets have been used for these rivers, a consensus on terminology has not yet been reached. Doing so would facilitate a marked increase in interdisciplinary interest as well as critical need for clear regulations. Here we reviewed literature from Web of Science database searches of 12 epithets to learn (Objective 1—O1) if epithet topics are consistent across Web of Science categories using latent Dirichlet allocation topic modeling. We also analyzed publication rates and topics over time to (O2) assess changes in epithet use. We compiled literature definitions to (O3) identify how epithets have been delineated and, lastly, suggest universal terms and definitions. We found a lack of consensus in epithet use between and among various fields. We also found that epithet usage has changed over time, as research focus has shifted from description to modeling. We conclude that multiple epithets are redundant. We offer specific definitions for three epithets (non-perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral) to guide consensus on epithet use. Limiting the number of epithets used in non-perennial river research can facilitate more effective communication among research fields and provide clear guidelines for writing regulatory documents.