BackgroundWhile freshwater sustainability is generally defined as the provisioning of water for both people and the environment, in practice it is largely focused only on supplying water to furnish human population growth. Symptomatic of this is the state of Arizona, where rapid growth outside of the metropolitan Phoenix-Tucson corridor relies on the same groundwater that supplies year-round flow in rivers. Using Arizona as a case study, we present the first study in the southwestern United States that evaluates the potential impact of future population growth and water demand on streamflow depletion across multiple watersheds.Methodology/Principal FindingsWe modeled population growth and water demand through 2050 and used four scenarios to explore the potential effects of alternative growth and water management strategies on river flows. Under the base population projection, we found that rivers in seven of the 18 study watersheds could be dewatered due to municipal demand. Implementing alternative growth and water management strategies, however, could prevent four of these rivers from being dewatered.Conclusions/SignificanceThe window of opportunity to implement water management strategies is narrowing. Because impacts from groundwater extraction are cumulative and cannot be immediately reversed, proactive water management strategies should be implemented where groundwater will be used to support new municipal demand. Our approach provides a low-cost method to identify where alternative water and growth management strategies may have the most impact, and demonstrates that such strategies can maintain a continued water supply for both people and the environment.

The recent mortality of up to 20% of forests and woodlands in the southwestern United States, along with declining stream flows and projected future water shortages, heightens the need to understand how management practices can enhance forest resilience and functioning under unprecedented scales of drought and wildfire. To address this challenge, a combination of mechanical thinning and fire treatments are planned for 238,000 hectares (588,000 acres) of ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa) forests across central Arizona, USA. Mechanical thinning can increase runoff at fine scales, as well as reduce fire risk and tree water stress during drought, but the effects of this practice have not been studied at scales commensurate with recent forest disturbances or under a highly variable climate. Modifying a historical runoff model, we constructed scenarios to estimate increases in runoff from thinning ponderosa pine at the landscape and watershed scales based on driving variables: pace, extent and intensity of forest treatments and variability in winter precipitation. We found that runoff on thinned forests was about 20% greater than unthinned forests, regardless of whether treatments occurred in a drought or pluvial period. The magnitude of this increase is similar to observed declines in snowpack for the region, suggesting that accelerated thinning may lessen runoff losses due to warming effects. Gains in runoff were temporary (six years after treatment) and modest when compared to mean annual runoff from the study watersheds (0–3%). Nonetheless gains observed during drought periods could play a role in augmenting river flows on a seasonal basis, improving conditions for water-dependent natural resources, as well as benefit water supplies for downstream communities. Results of this study and others suggest that accelerated forest thinning at large scales could improve the water balance and resilience of forests and sustain the ecosystem services they provide.

Higher tree density, more fuels, and a warmer, drier climate have caused an increase in the frequency, size, and severity of wildfires in western U.S. forests. There is an urgent need to restore forests across the western United States. To address this need, the U.S. Forest Service began the Four Forest Restoration Initiative (4FRI) to restore four national forests in Arizona. The objective of this study was to evaluate how restoration of ~400,000 ha under the 4FRI program and projected climate change would influence carbon dynamics and wildfire severity from 2010 to 2099. Specifically, we estimated forest carbon fluxes, carbon pools and wildfire severity under a moderate and fast 4FRI implementation schedule and compared those to status quo and no‐harvest scenarios using the LANDIS‐II simulation model and climate change projections. We found that the fast‐4FRI scenario showed early decreases in ecosystem carbon due to initial thinning/prescribed fire treatments, but total ecosystem carbon increased by 9–18% over no harvest by the end of the simulation. This increased carbon storage by 6.3–12.7 million metric tons, depending on the climate model, equating to removal of carbon emissions from 55,000 to 110,000 passenger vehicles per year until the end of the century. Nearly half of the additional carbon was stored in more stable soil pools. However, climate models with the largest predicted temperature increases showed declines by late century in ecosystem carbon despite restoration. Our study uses data from a real‐world, large‐scale restoration project and indicates that restoration is likely to stabilize carbon and the benefits are greater when the pace of restoration is faster.

Increasing aridity is a challenge for forest managers and reducing stand density to minimize competition is a recognized strategy to mitigate drought impacts on growth. In many dry forests, the most widespread and common forest management programs currently being implemented focus on restoration of historical stand structures, primarily to minimize fire risk and enhance watershed function. The implications of these restoration projects for drought vulnerability are not well understood. Here, we examined how planned restoration treatments in the Four Forests Restoration Initiative, the largest forest restoration project in the United States, would alter landscape‐scale patterns of forest growth and drought vulnerability throughout the 21st century. Using drought–growth relationships developed within the landscape, we considered a suite of climate and treatment scenarios and estimated average forest growth and the proportion of years with extremely low growth as a measure of vulnerability to long‐term decline. Climatic shifts projected for this landscape include higher temperatures and shifting seasonal precipitation that promotes lower soil moisture availability in the early growing season and greater hot‐dry stress, conditions negatively associated with tree growth. However, drought severity and the magnitude of future growth declines were moderated by the thinning treatments. Compared to historical conditions, proportional growth in mid‐century declines by ~40% if thinning ceases or continues at the status quo pace. By comparison, proportional growth declines by only 20% if the Four Forest Restoration Initiative treatments are fully implemented, and <10% if stands are thinned even more intensively than currently planned. Furthermore, restoration treatments resulted in dramatically fewer years with extremely low growth in the future, a recognized precursor to forest decline and eventual tree mortality. Benefits from density reduction for mitigating drought‐induced growth declines are more apparent in mid‐century and under RCP4.5 than under RCP8.5 at the end of the century. Future climate is inherently uncertain, and our results only reflect the climate projections from the representative suite of models examined. Nevertheless, these results indicate that forest restoration projects designed for other objectives also have substantial benefits for minimizing future drought vulnerability in dry forests and provide additional incentive to accelerate the pace of restoration.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.