We hypothesized topographic features alone could be used to locate groundwater discharge, but only where diagnostic topographic signatures could first be identified through the use of limited field observations and geologic data. We built a geodatabase from geologic and topographic data, with the geologic data only covering ~40% of the study area and topographic data derived from airborne LiDAR covering the entire study area. We identified two types of groundwater discharge: shallow hillslope groundwater discharge, commonly manifested as diffuse seeps, and aquifer-outcrop groundwater discharge, commonly manifested as springs. We developed multistep manual procedures that allowed us to accurately predict the locations of both types of groundwater discharge in 93% of cases, though only where geologic data were available. However, field verification suggested that both types of groundwater discharge could be identified by specific combinations of topographic variables alone. We then applied maximum entropy modeling, a machine learning technique, to predict the prevalence of both types of groundwater discharge using six topographic variables: profile curvature range, with a permutation importance of 43.2%, followed by distance to flowlines, elevation, topographic roughness index, flow-weighted slope, and planform curvature, with permutation importance of 20.8%, 18.5%, 15.2%, 1.8%, and 0.5%, respectively. The AUC values for the model were 0.95 for training data and 0.91 for testing data, indicating outstanding model performance.

The implications of cumulative land-use decisions and shifting climate on forests, require us to integrate our understanding of ecosystems, markets, policy, and resource management into a social-ecological system. Humans play a central role in macrosystem dynamics, which complicates ecological theories that do not explicitly include human interactions. These dynamics also impact ecological services and related markets, which challenges economic theory. Here, we use two forest macroscale management initiatives to develop a theoretical understanding of how management interacts with ecological functions and services at these scales and how the multiple large-scale management goals work either in consort or conflict with other forest functions and services. We suggest that calling upon theories developed for organismal ecology, ecosystem ecology, and ecological economics adds to our understanding of social-ecological macrosystems. To initiate progress, we propose future research questions to add rigor to macrosystem-scale studies: (1) What are the ecosystem functions that operate at macroscales, their necessary structural components, and how do we observe them? (2) How do systems at one scale respond if altered at another scale? (3) How do we both effectively measure these components and interactions, and communicate that information in a meaningful manner for policy and management across different scales?

Successful implementation of forest management as a nature‐based climate solution is dependent on the durability of management‐induced changes in forest carbon storage and sequestration. As forests face unprecedented stability risks in the face of ongoing climate change, much remains unknown regarding how management will impact forest stability, or how interactions with climate might shift the response of forests to management across spatiotemporal scales. Here, we used a process‐based model to simulate multidecadal projections of forest dynamics in response to changes in management and climate. Simulations were conducted across gradients in forest type, edaphic factors, and management intensity under two alternate radiative forcing scenarios (RCP4.5 and RCP8.5). This allowed for the quantification of forest stability shifts in response to climate change, and the role of management in modulating that response, where ecosystem stability is characterized as the resilience and temporal stability of net primary production, aboveground biomass, and soil carbon. Our results indicate that forest structure is primarily shaped by management, but the same management strategy often produced divergent structures over time, due to interactions with regional climate change. We found that management can be used to increase stability and minimize the release of stored carbon by reducing mortality, but also highlight the regional dependency of management‐induced changes in resilience to climate change.

Understanding where groundwater recharge occurs is essential for managing groundwater resources, especially source-water protection. This can be especially difficult in remote mountainous landscapes where access and data availability are limited. We developed a groundwater recharge potential (GWRP) map across such a landscape based on six readily available datasets selected through the literature review: precipitation, geology, soil texture, slope, drainage density, and land cover. We used field observations, community knowledge, and the Analytical Hierarchy Process to rank and weight the spatial datasets within the GWRP model. We found that GWRP is the highest where precipitation is relatively high, geologic deposits are coarse-grained and unconsolidated, soils are variants of sands and gravels, the terrain is flat, drainage density is low, and land cover is undeveloped. We used GIS to create a map of GWRP, determining that over 83% of this region has a moderate or greater capacity for groundwater recharge. We used two methods to validate this map and assessed it as approximately 87% accurate. This study provides an important tool to support informed groundwater management decisions in this and other similar remote mountainous landscapes.

There are over 700 aquatic ecological assessment approaches across the globe that meet specific institutional goals. However, in many cases, multiple assessment tools are designed to meet the same management need, resulting in a confusing array of overlapping options. Here, we look at six riverine wetland assessments currently in use in Montana, USA, and ask which tool (1) best captures the condition across a disturbance gradient and (2) has the most utility to meet the regulatory or management needs. We used descriptive statistics to compare wetland assessments (n = 18) across a disturbance gradient determined by a landscape development intensity. Factor analysis showed that many of the tools had internal metrics that did not correspond well with overall results, hindering the tool’s ability to act as designed. We surveyed regional wetland managers (n = 56) to determine the extent of their use of each of the six tools and how well they trusted the information the assessment tool provided. We found that the Montana Wetland Assessment Methodology best measured the range of disturbance and had the highest utility to meet Clean Water Act (CWA§ 404) needs. Montana Department of Environmental Quality was best for the CWA§ 303(d) & 305(b) needs. The US Natural Resources Conservation Service’s Riparian Assessment Tool was the third most used by managers but was the tool that had the least ability to distinguish across a disturbance, followed by the US Bureau of Land Management’s Proper Functioning Condition.

Between the 1780 and 1980s, more than half of the wetlands in the conterminous US were lost. As wetlands have been lost, numerous artificial water features (AWFs), such as stormwater retention ponds, golf course water features, and reservoirs, have been constructed. We contrasted the loss of wetland area and perimeter to the gain of AWF area and perimeter and further explored how this transformation has altered the spatial characteristics of the waterscape. We conducted this analysis in the Tampa Bay Watershed, a large coastal watershed that lost 33% of its wetland area between the 1950s-2007. Trends have been towards fewer, smaller wetlands and more, smaller AWFs. The loss of wetland area far exceeds the gain in AWF area, leading to an overall loss of 23% of the combined wetland and AWF area. However, the loss of wetland perimeter almost equals the gain in AWF perimeter, leading to an overall loss of just 2% of the combined wetland and AWF perimeter. The loss of wetlands and gain of AWFs have predominantly occurred in different geographic locations, with the loss of wetlands predominantly in the headwaters and the gain in AWFs predominantly adjacent to Tampa Bay. Wetlands became further apart, though generally retained their natural distribution, while AWFs became closer to one another and now mirror the more natural wetland distribution. Overall, the physical structure of the waterscape of today is different than in the past, which likely reflects a change in functions performed and related ecological services provided at local and landscape scales.