Spring semester 2016 is over! Grades were submitted Saturday night, and my research group was eager to get started with our summer research. Since I’m semi-participating in the #365scienceselfies project, I have some fun documentation of our adventures this week.
Students in GEOL 21062, Spring 2016, at Kent State University have been sharing interesting news stories with me all semester long. Here’s our complilation. Hopefully these are interesting things for other people too!
Green infrastructure, groundwater and the sustainable city
Larry Band, Institute for the Environment at University of North Carolina
Watershed context and the evolution of urban streams
Derek Booth, Bren School of Environmental Management at UC Santa Barbara
The Little Stringybark Creek project
Tim Fletcher, University of Melbourne
Contaminants of emerging concern as agents of ecological change in urban streams
Emma Rosi-Marshall, Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies and Baltimore Ecosystem Study
Stormwater-Stream Connectivity: Process, Context, and Tradeoffs
Anne Jefferson, Kent State University
Come one, come all to the internet phenom, the most nerdy fun alternative march madness event ever:
Mammals March Madness 2016! http://mammalssuck.blogspot.com/2016/02/mammal-march-madness-2016.html?m=1
Will the snow leopard be upset by the Siberian chipmunk in the first round?* Unlikely. But what happens when the #8 seed Schoolcraft College Ocelots face the #9 seed Quinnipiac Bobcats in the Mascot Mammals division? Who will make the final four? Only science, and a bit of luck, can tell.
If you are on twitter, you can follow the action starting March 7th using the hashtag #2016MMM as the matches are announced live, or you can check back with the post above for updates as the tournament goes on. But the key thing is to go the web page above, print out a bracket and fill it out with your picks for the win. Before the 7th! If you send me a picture/copy of your completed bracket, I’ll track your progress and get a tasty item from Brimfield Bread Oven for the winner of our Kent State pool.
Do we know anything about mammals? Not really. Does that matter? Probably, but Wikipedia, ARKive, and gut instinct let us place our bets anyway.
If this all sounds insane, (it is), ask people like Stuart and Eric who played the last few years and who will vouch for how much fun it is. Or listen to the story that NPR did last year: http://www.npr.org/2015/03/06/391015323/could-a-quokka-beat-a-numbat-oddsmakers-say-yes Or check out the Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mammal_March_Madness
Pass the link to the tournament along to your friends.
Can the biologists beat the geologists? Will lab alumni beat the current lab members? Can we get the paleontologists on board this year? Will anyone be able to unseat Elisabeth as the champion of long shot (cute) animals that make good?
Check back here for updates as the month progresses.
* No actual animals are harmed in the course of Mammals March Madness. All battles are simulated based on biology and an element of chance.
Stuart Baker won the pool for overall points, while Lauren Kinsman-Costello and I at least got a mammal into the championship. Verdict: Bread for everyone!
You are invited to attend Eric Traub’s public MS thesis defense in Geology.
“The Effects of Biogeochemical Sinks on the Mobility of Contaminants in an Area Affected By Acid Mine Drainage, Huff Run, Ohio.”
(Co-Advisors: David Singer and Anne Jefferson)
Monday, Feb. 22, 12:30 pm in McGilvrey Hall, room 339, Kent State University
For the second year in a row, I’ll be keeping track of the academic literature I read. This storify will serve as a roughly reverse chronological listing of that literature, with occasional color commentary.
Scroll to the bottom to find out how it went and what I read in 2015.
2015 was an incredible year of scientific adventures for the Watershed Hydrology lab. Here are some of our highlights:
These Piper diagrams show the geochemistry of flowback water from fracking operations in the Marcellus shale of Pennsylvania, relative to literature values of groundwater contaminated with road salt, septic waste, and animal manure. The information on these Piper diagrams, along with other geochemical analyses, were used to assess whether alleged contamination of rural, residential well water in northeastern Pennslyvania was likely to be due to the extensive shale gas development occurring in the area. Based on major and trace ion water chemistry, Anne and her coauthors found no evidence of flowback fluid in the tested residential wells. While this work was not definitive proof that flowback contamination is entirely absent, it was a good reminder that contamination of rural, residential wellwater is much more likely to come from leaky septic systems and other less exotic sources.
Figure 3 from Reilly, D., Singer, D., Jefferson, A., and Eckstein, Y., 2015. Identification of Local Groundwater Pollution in Northeastern Pennsylvania: Marcellus Flow-back or Not?, Environmental Earth Sciences, 73(12): 8097-8109. doi:10.1007/s12665-014-3968-0
This year I was pleased to find a way to merge her interests in urban hydrology and using water stable isotopes as tools in hydrology. We published a paper that shows that stormwater detention ponds produce distinctive isotopic signatures that can be used to trace the influence of stormwater on the receiving urban streams. Using a two end-member mixing model, my team showed that a stormwater pond in suburban Charlotte, North Carolina had an outsized contribution to streamflow during hydrograph recession periods, thanks to the temporary storage and slow release of water from the pond. For more on this project, you can read the paper or take a look at slides from the talk I gave at the Geological Society of America meeting in November.
Rain gardens and their fancier cousins, bioretention cells, are popping up all over the urban landscape. But how well do they work? Engineers have done an excellent job designing and testing them at the site scale, but few studies have been able to test their effectiveness at larger scales. What happens when a bunch of rain gardens and bioretention cells are added to a neighborhood? Do they make a significant difference in the stormwater runoff entering the local stream? Thanks to a brilliant study design by Cleveland Metroparks, Anne and graduate student Kimm Jarden were able to answer this question with a resounding “Yes, but…” Their paired watershed study showed that the green infrastructure retrofits can very effective at reducing peak and total stormflow, but that seemingly small differences in design and construction can have big ramifications for performance at the neighborhood scale.
Bioretention cells, like the one pictured, are designed to capture stormwater runoff and infiltrate it into the ground. Plants use and evapotranspire some of the infiltrated water. In some designs, the infiltrated water moves deeper and recharges groundwater, while in other designs, a perforated underdrain at the bottom of the bioretention cell eventually delivers the water to the storm sewer system – ideally, after the storm has passed.
The picture above is one of the bioretention cells Anne and her collaborators studied in the project above. This bioretention cell has an underdrain, so it probably wasn’t super-helpful at reducing total runoff volumes, but did delay water entering the storm sewer system and receiving stream.
On Thursday at the American Geophysical Union meeting, graduate student Stuart Baker gave a talk presenting results of his in-progress M.S. thesis research. Stuart’s research examines how subsurface properties of streambeds change in the months and years following stream restoration. Stuart employed a high density array of piezometers to make repeated hydraulic conductivity and head measurements in two streams. At the end of his field work, he extracted freeze cores (“gravel popsicles”) to see if areas near the head of constructed riffles had measurable differences in sediment size and geochemistry relative to riffle tails or pool positions.
As part of an NSF-funded project aiming to devise and test methods for improving stable isotope content understanding amongst geoscience undergraduates, my collaborators (with a little help from me) developed a lab module on Rayleigh distillation. This module can be used in an environmental geochemistry class or oceanography class, and is adaptable into a variety of formats (with or without isotope instrumentation, or even just as a data analysis exercise). We’ve written it up so that others can adopt or adapt the technique, and our paper is appeared in the December 2015 issue of Oceanography. The paper and affiliated files (which are open access) have everything you need to use the exercise in your classroom.
The West Creek watershed has been a major focus of our research for the past 3 years, because it is (a) emblematic of the problems facing urban streams; (b) a place where a lot of effort is being put into managing stormwater; and (c) one of the most beautiful urban streams I have ever seen. This shot of West Creek in Parma, Ohio, was taken on October 24th, when the Watershed Hydrology class field trip visited the stream and nearby Cleveland Metroparks Watershed Stewardship Center.
At the Geological Society of America annual meeting in Baltimore, I sought out a fantastic example of an innovative and successful approach to improving urban water quality. The Inner Harbor Water Wheel, affectionately known as Mr. Trash Wheel, is moored at the mouth of Jones Falls, an ultra-urban stream that drains much of the City of Baltimore. Floating rubbish is diverted to Mr. Trash Wheel by booms that span the stream, and the stream’s current powers rakes and a conveyor belt that lift the trash out of the water and deposit it into a dumpster barge. Solar panels power the operation when the stream’s velocity is insufficient to power the water wheel. Thousands of pounds of trash can be removed from the stream per day. As an added bonus, Mr. Trash Wheel has a charismatic Twitter account. Read more about the water wheel at Southern Fried Science and help fund a second one.
I can’t resist the terrible pun about my work taking me to new heights in 2015. I have a new project monitoring five pieces of green infrastructure at Cleveland Metroparks’ Watershed Stewardship Center, and I’m having a blast learning the ins and outs of this particular site’s green roof, bioretention cells, enhanced swale, and constructed wetland. I have two new graduate students and two fantastic collaborators working with me on the project, and I’m anticipating the arrival of a postdoctoral scholar soon. I think it’s safe to say that my urban hydrology research looks set to soar in 2016.
Our work with Cleveland Metroparks on assessing the effects of retrofitting bioretention cells, rain gardens, and rain barrels into residential neighborhoods in Parma, Ohio has been been featured in several news stories thanks to a nice press release issued by Kent State.
On November 20th, Cleveland.com ran the story: “Kent State University, Cleveland Metroparks project reduces storm water, pollution in Parma neighborhoods”
The study was also featured in Cleveland.com’s “best of the beat” roundup on November 22.
The local Record-Courier ran a fantastic feature on the work (unfortunately behind a paywall) on November 30th. They called the article “Kent State professor studies rain gardens’ effect on storm water runoff.”
To read the full scientific story of the work, check out our recent publication:
Jarden, K.M., Jefferson, A., and Grieser, J.M. 2015. Assessing the effects of catchment-scale green infrastructure retrofits on hydrograph characteristics. Hydrological Processes, online ahead of print. doi: 10.1002/hyp.10736.
Kent Wired, the electronic version of Kent State University’s student media, ran a story on Saturday about the work Kimm Jarden and I have been doing on the effectiveness of green infrastructure retrofits in a neighborhood in Parma, Ohio. Hopefully I’ll have more to say about this in the next few days. In the meantime, if you want a glimpse of what we’ve been up to, you can check out the news article here.
From a distance, Anne has been watching an incredibly unusual summer play out in the Pacific Northwest, following a winter with far less snow (but more rain) than usual. Folks on the ground in Oregon have been collecting data on the response of the Oregon Cascades streams to “no snow, low flow” conditions. Anne is making minor contributions to the following poster, to be presented in Session No. 291, Geomorphology and Quaternary Geology (Posters) at Booth# 101 on Wednesday, 4 November 2015: 9:00 AM-6:30 PM.
HOW LOW WILL THEY GO? THE RESPONSE OF HEADWATER STREAMS IN THE OREGON CASCADES TO THE 2015 DROUGHT
LEWIS, Sarah L.1, GRANT, Gordon E.2, NOLIN, Anne W.1, HEMPEL, Laura A.1, JEFFERSON, Anne J.3 and SELKER, John S.4, (1)College of Earth Ocean and Atmospheric Sciences, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97331, (2)Pacific Northwest Research Station, USDA Forest Service, 3200 SW Jefferson Way, Corvallis, OR 97331-8550, (3)Department of Geology, Kent State University, Kent, OH 44242, (4)Biological & Ecological Engineering, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97331, email@example.com
Larger rivers draining the Oregon Cascades are sourced from headwater systems with two distinct runoff regimes: surface-flow dominated watersheds with flashy hydrographs, rapid baseflow recession, and very low summer flows; and spring-fed systems, with slow-responding hydrographs, long baseflow recession, and summer flow sustained by deep groundwater fed coldwater springs. Our previous research has explored these differences on both the wet west-side and dry east-side of the Cascade crest, as expressed in contrasting discharge and temperature regimes, drainage efficiency, low and peak flow dynamics, and sensitivity to snowpack and climate change scenarios. In 2015, record low winter snowpack combined with an anomalously dry spring resulted in historically low flows across our research sites and throughout Oregon. These extreme meteorological conditions, equivalent to a 4°C warming scenario, offer an exceptional opportunity to witness how these contrasting stream networks might respond to anticipated changes in amount and timing of recharge.
Conceptually, channel network response to decreasing discharge may involve both lateral and longitudinal contraction. Lateral contraction, the decrease of wetted channel width and depth, occurs in both surface-flow and spring-fed streams as flows diminish. Longitudinal contraction may be expressed as (a) a gradual drying of the stream channel and downstream retreat of the channel head, (b) a “jump” of the channel head downstream to the next spring when an upper spring goes dry, or (c) no change in channel head despite diminishing flows. We hypothesize that while individual stream channels may display a combination of these dynamics, surface-flow and spring-fed watersheds will have distinctive and different behaviors. We field test our hypothesis by monitoring channel head locations in 6 watersheds during the low flow recession of 2015, and repeatedly measuring discharge, water quality and hydraulic geometry at a longitudinal array of sites along each surface-flow or spring-fed channel. The resulting data set can be used to explore the fundamental processes by which drainage networks accommodate decreasing flows.