Twenty-Six Key Research Questions in Urban Stream Ecology: an Assessment of the State of the Science Author(S): Seth J
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Twenty-six key research questions in urban stream ecology: an assessment of the state of the science Author(s): Seth J. Wenger, Allison H. Roy, C. Rhett Jackson, Emily S. Bernhardt, Timothy L. Carter, Solange Filoso, Catherine A. Gibson, W. Cully Hession, Sujay S. Kaushal, Eugenia Martí, Judy L. Meyer, Margaret A. Palmer, Michael J. Paul, Alison H. Purcell, Alonso Ramírez, Amy D. Rosemond, Kate A. Schofield, Elizabeth B. Sudduth, and Christopher J. Walsh Source: Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 28(4):1080-1098. Published By: The Society for Freshwater Science https://doi.org/10.1899/08-186.1 URL: http://www.bioone.org/doi/full/10.1899/08-186.1 BioOne (www.bioone.org) is a nonprofit, online aggregation of core research in the biological, ecological, and environmental sciences. BioOne provides a sustainable online platform for over 170 journals and books published by nonprofit societies, associations, museums, institutions, and presses. Your use of this PDF, the BioOne Web site, and all posted and associated content indicates your acceptance of BioOne’s Terms of Use, available at www.bioone.org/page/terms_of_use. Usage of BioOne content is strictly limited to personal, educational, and non-commercial use. Commercial inquiries or rights and permissions requests should be directed to the individual publisher as copyright holder. BioOne sees sustainable scholarly publishing as an inherently collaborative enterprise connecting authors, nonprofit publishers, academic institutions, research libraries, and research funders in the common goal of maximizing access to critical research. J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc., 2009, 28(4):1080–1098 ’ 2009 by The North American Benthological Society DOI: 10.1899/08-186.1 Published online: 27 October 2009 Twenty-six key research questions in urban stream ecology: an assessment of the state of the science Seth J. Wenger1,17, Allison H. Roy2,18, C. Rhett Jackson3,19, Emily S. Bernhardt4,20, Timothy L. Carter1,21, Solange Filoso5,22, Catherine A. Gibson6,23, W. Cully Hession7,24, Sujay S. Kaushal5,25, Eugenia Martı´8,26, Judy L. Meyer9,27, Margaret A. Palmer5,28, Michael J. Paul10,29, Alison H. Purcell11,30, Alonso Ramı´rez12,31, Amy D. Rosemond13,32, Kate A. Schofield14,33, Elizabeth B. Sudduth15,34, 16,35 AND Christopher J. Walsh 1 River Basin Center, University of Georgia, 110 Riverbend Road, Athens, Georgia 30602 USA 2 Office of Research and Development, US Environmental Protection Agency, 26 West Martin Luther King Drive, Cincinnati, Ohio 45268 USA 3 Warnell School of Forestry and Natural Resources, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia 30602 USA 4 Department of Biology, Phytotron Box 90338, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina 27708 USA 5 University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science, Chesapeake Biological Laboratory, 1 Williams St., P.O. Box 38, Solomon, Maryland 20688 USA 6 Department of Environmental Studies, Skidmore College, 815 North Broadway, Saratoga Springs, New York 12866 USA 7 Department of Biological Systems Engineering, 304 Seitz Hall, Virginia Polytechnical Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia 24061 USA 8 Limnology Group, Centre d’Estudis Avanc¸ats de Blanes (CSIC), Acce´s a la Cala Sant Francesc 14, 17300 Blanes, Girona, Spain 9 Odum School of Ecology, University of Georgia (emeritus), 498 Shoreland Dr., Lopez Island, Washington 98261 USA 10 Tetra Tech, Inc., 400 Red Brook Blvd., Suite 200, Owings Mills, Maryland 21117 USA 11 Department of Environmental and Natural Resources Sciences, Humboldt State University, 1 Harpst St., Arcata, California 95521 USA 12 Institute for Tropical Ecosystem Studies, University of Puerto Rico, P.O. Box 21910, San Juan, Puerto Rico 00931 USA 13 Odum School of Ecology, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia 30602 USA 14 National Center for Environmental Assessment, US Environmental Protection Agency, 2400 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460 USA 15 Department of Biology, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina 27708 USA 16 Department of Resource Management and Geography, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria 3010, Australia 17 E-mail addresses: [email protected] 18 [email protected] 27 [email protected] 19 [email protected] 28 [email protected] 20 [email protected] 29 [email protected] 21 [email protected] 30 [email protected] 22 [email protected] 31 [email protected] 23 [email protected] 32 [email protected] 24 [email protected] 33 [email protected] 25 [email protected] 34 [email protected] 26 [email protected] 35 [email protected] 1080 2009] TWENTY-SIX URBAN STREAM RESEARCH QUESTIONS 1081 Abstract. Urban streams have been the focus of much research in recent years, but many questions about the mechanisms driving the urban stream syndrome remain unanswered. Identification of key research questions is an important step toward effective, efficient management of urban streams to meet societal goals. We developed a list of priority research questions by: 1) soliciting input from interested scientists via a listserv and online survey, 2) holding an open discussion on the questions at the Second Symposium on Urbanization and Stream Ecology, and 3) reviewing the literature in the preparation of this paper. We present the resulting list of 26 questions in the context of a review and summary of the present understanding of urban effects on streams. The key questions address major gaps in our understanding of ecosystem structure and function responses (e.g., what are the sublethal impacts of urbanization on biota?), characteristics of urban stream stressors (e.g., can we identify clusters of covarying stressors?), and management strategies (e.g., what are appropriate indicators of ecosystem structure and function to use as management targets?). The identified research needs highlight our limited understanding of mechanisms driving the urban stream syndrome and the variability in characteristics of the effects of urbanization across different biogeoclimatic conditions, stages of development, government policies, and cultural norms. We discuss how to proceed with appropriate management activities given our current incomplete understanding of the urban stream syndrome. Key words: urbanization, impervious surface, stressors, management, ecosystem function, community structure. Catchment urbanization sets into motion a cascade stream management objectives. Our intention is to of changes to stream ecosystems. These changes, identify research areas that will yield insights useful collectively termed the urban stream syndrome for achieving efficient, effective management of urban (Meyer et al. 2005a, Walsh et al. 2005b), have been stream stressors. the subject of an expanding field of scientific research We define urban in the broadest possible sense to that has contributed to successful characterization of include the entire landscape developed for residen- urban streams in many parts of the world (see reviews tial, commercial, industrial, and transportation pur- by Paul and Meyer 2001, Walsh et al. 2005b). poses, including cities, towns, villages, suburbs, and Nevertheless, considerable gaps in our understanding exurban sprawl that has a density of .1 residential remain. Some areas, such as urban stream processes unit/2 ha. We use this encompassing definition and sublethal effects on biotic assemblages, are only because even very low-density development can have partially understood (Martı´ et al. 2004, Smith et al. measurable negative effects on aquatic ecosystems. 2009), and the work of characterizing the variability of We focus on impervious cover (total imperviousness the urban stream syndrome under differing govern- [TI]) as an indicator of urban intensity because, in the ment policies, cultural norms, and biogeoclimatic absence of deliberate management, TI is highly conditions has only just begun. Perhaps the biggest correlated with stream degradation (Leopold 1968, gap in our knowledge concerns the relative impor- Schueler 1994, Booth and Jackson 1997). This rela- tance of different mechanisms driving the urban tionship is captured by the Impervious Cover Model stream syndrome and the interactions among them. (ICM; Center for Watershed Protection 2003), which Our ability to make inferences about the relative takes the form of a wedge-shaped distribution of importance of different stressors is often confounded ecological condition. Streams with low TI can vary because the process of urbanization changes multiple widely in condition, from minimally altered to stressors at the same time (Paul and Meyer 2001, degraded, but as TI increases, the best attainable Walsh et al. 2005b). condition declines until only degraded streams are Our objective is to advance the pace of research into observed. these difficult problems by identifying some of the The strong relationship between TI and stream most critical unanswered questions in urban stream ecosystem indicators is driven by the fact that TI ecology. We are motivated in part by an interest in affects streams via multiple mechanistic pathways developing a body of information useful to urban and is closely correlated with other stressors (Brabec stream managers. The current lack of mechanistic et al. 2002, Walsh et al. 2005b). Elevated TI causes an understanding makes difficult the identification of the increase in contaminant-laden stormwater runoff that specific stressors of concern under different condi- alters stream hydrology at the same time that it alters tions and the most efficient