No abstract

Diatom‐bound 15N/14N was used to reconstruct the glacial nutrient status of the Subantarctic Zone in the Southern Ocean. Down‐core records from both the Pacific and Indian sectors show δ15N of 5 to 6‰ during the Last Glacial Maximum and a decrease, coincident with the glacial termination, to values as low as 2‰. The effect of either diatom assemblage or physiological change on the diatom‐bound 15N/14N is unknown and cannot yet be ruled out as a possible explanation for the observed change. However, the consistency between Indian and Pacific sector records and with other paleoceanographic data suggests that the glacial‐interglacial difference in diatom‐bound 15N/14N was driven by higher consumption of nitrate in the subantarctic surface during the last ice age. Such a change in nutrient consumption may have resulted from atmospheric iron fertilization and/or decreased glacial mixed layer depths associated with sea ice melting. Enhanced nutrient consumption in the glacial subantarctic would have worked to lower the concentration of CO2 in the ice age atmosphere. It also would have reduced the preformed nutrient content of the low‐latitude thermocline, leading to decreases in low‐latitude productivity, suboxia, and denitrification.

Reductions in streamflow due to groundwater pumping (“streamflow depletion”) can negatively impact water users and aquatic ecosystems but are challenging to estimate due to the time and expertise required to develop numerical models often used for water management. Here we develop analytical depletion functions, which are simpler approaches consisting of (i) stream proximity criteria, which determine the stream segments impacted by a well; (ii) a depletion apportionment equation, which distributes depletion among impacted stream segments; and (iii) an analytical model to estimate streamflow depletion in each segment. We evaluate 50 analytical depletion functions via comparison to an archetypal numerical model and find that analytical depletion functions predict streamflow depletion more accurately than analytical models alone. The choice of a depletion apportionment equation has the largest impact on analytical depletion function performance and equations that consider stream network geometry perform best. The best‐performing analytical depletion function combines stream proximity criteria which expand through time to account for the increasing size of the capture zone; a web squared depletion apportionment equation, which considers stream geometry; and the Hunt analytical model, which includes streambed resistance to flow. This analytical depletion function correctly identifies the stream segment most affected by a well >70% of the time with mean absolute error < 15% of predicted depletion and performs best for wells in relatively flat settings within ~3 km of streams. Our results indicate that analytical depletion functions may be useful water management decision support tools in locations where calibrated numerical models are not available.

Groundwater is a vital water supply worldwide for people and nature. However, species and ecosystems that depend on groundwater for some or all of their water needs, known as groundwater dependent ecosystems (GDEs), are increasingly becoming threatened worldwide due to growing human water demands. Over the past two decades, the protection and management of GDEs have been incorporated into several water management policy initiatives worldwide including jurisdictions within Australia, the European Union, South Africa, and the United States. Among these, Australia has implemented the most comprehensive framework to manage and protect GDEs through its water policy initiatives. Using a science-based approach, Australia has made good progress at reducing uncertainty when selecting management thresholds for GDEs in their water management plans. This has been achieved by incorporating appropriate metrics for GDEs into water monitoring programs so that information gathered over time can inform management decisions. This adaptive management approach is also accompanied by the application of the "Precautionary Principle" in cases where insufficient information on GDEs exist. Additionally, the integration of risk assessment into Australia's approach has enabled water managers to prioritize the most valuable and vulnerable ecologic assets necessary to manage GDEs under Australia's national sustainable water management legislation. The purpose of this paper is to: (1) compare existing global policy initiatives for the protection and management of GDEs; (2) synthesize Australia's adaptive management approach of GDEs in their state water plans; and (3) highlight opportunities and challenges of applying Australia's approach for managing GDEs under other water management policies worldwide.

Groundwater management is important and challenging, and nowhere is this more evident than in California. Managed aquifer recharge (MAR) projects can play an important role in ensuring California manages its groundwater sustainably. Although the benefits and economic costs of surface water storage have been researched extensively, the benefits and economic costs of MAR have been little researched. Historical groundwater data are sparse or proprietary within the state, often impairing groundwater analyses. General obligation bonds from ballot propositions offer a strategic means of mining information about MAR projects, because the information is available publicly. We used bond-funding applications to identify anticipated MAR project benefits and proposed economic costs. We then compared these costs with actual project costs collected from a survey, and identified factors that promote or limit MAR. Our analysis indicates that the median proposed economic cost for MAR projects in California is $410 per acre-foot per year ($0.33 per m 3 per year). Increasing Water Supply, Conjunctive Use, and Flood Protection are the most common benefits reported. Additionally, the survey indicates that (1) there are many reported reasons for differences between proposed and actual costs ($US 2015) and (2) there is one primary reason for differences between proposed recharge volumes and actual recharge volumes (AFY): availability of source water for recharge. Although there are differences between proposed and actual costs per recharge volume ($US 2015/AFY), the ranges for proposed costs per recharge volume and actual costs per recharge volume for the projects surveyed generally agree. The two most important contributions to the success of a MAR project are Financial Support and Good Communication with Stakeholders.