Nonlinear groundwater influence on biophysical indicators of ecosystem services

Article metrics

Abstract

Groundwater is a fundamental control on biophysical processes underpinning essential ecosystem services (ES). However, interactions and feedbacks among groundwater, climate and multiple ES remain less well understood. We investigated groundwater effects on a portfolio of food, water and biogeochemical ES indicators in an urbanizing agricultural watershed. Our results show that food production, water quality and quantity, and flood control are most sensitive to groundwater, with the strongest responses under wet and dry climate extremes. Climate mediates groundwater effects, such that several ES have synergies during dry climate, but trade-offs (groundwater increased some ES but declined others) under wet climate. There is substantial spatial heterogeneity in groundwater effects on ES, which is driven primarily by water table depth (WTD) and is also sensitive to soil texture and land cover. Most ES indicators respond nonlinearly to WTD when groundwater is within a critical depth (approximately 2.5 m) of land surface, indicating that small WTD changes can have disproportionately large effects on ES in shallow groundwater areas. Within this critical WTD, increasingly shallow groundwater leads to nonlinear increases in surface flood risk, sediment erosion and phosphorus yield; nonlinear decreases in drainage to the deep vadose zone and thus groundwater recharge; and bidirectional responses of crop and grass production, carbon storage and nitrate leaching. Our study illustrates the complex role of groundwater in affecting multiple ES and highlights that strategically managing groundwater may enhance ES resilience to climate extremes in shallow groundwater settings.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1: Land use/cover, WTD and groundwater effects on ES indicators in the Yahara Watershed.
Fig. 2: Groundwater effects on ES indicators at the grid-cell level, as a function of WTD.
Fig. 3: Influence of land use/cover and soil texture on groundwater effects on ES indicators at the grid-cell level.
Fig. 4: Differences in modelled ES indicators with and without groundwater.

Data availability

The datasets generated and analysed in this study are available from the authors upon request.

References

  1. 1.

    Wada, Y. et al. Global depletion of groundwater resources. Geophys. Res. Lett. 37, L20402 (2010).

  2. 2.

    Famiglietti, J. S. The global groundwater crisis. Nat. Clim. Change 4, 945–948 (2014).

  3. 3.

    Dalin, C., Wada, Y., Kastner, T. & Puma, M. J. Groundwater depletion embedded in international food trade. Nature 543, 700–704 (2017).

  4. 4.

    Aeschbach-Hertig, W. & Gleeson, T. Regional strategies for the accelerating global problem of groundwater depletion. Nat. Geosci. 5, 853–861 (2012).

  5. 5.

    Gleeson, T. et al. Groundwater sustainability strategies. Nat. Geosci. 3, 378–379 (2010).

  6. 6.

    Fan, Y. Groundwater in the Earth’s critical zone: relevance to large-scale patterns and processes. Water Resour. Res. 51, 3052–3069 (2015).

  7. 7.

    Kollet, S. J. & Maxwell, R. M. Capturing the influence of groundwater dynamics on land surface processes using an integrated, distributed watershed model. Water Resour. Res. 44, W02402 (2008).

  8. 8.

    Maxwell, R. M. & Kollet, S. J. Interdependence of groundwater dynamics and land-energy feedbacks under climate change. Nat. Geosci. 1, 665–669 (2008).

  9. 9.

    Maxwell, R. M. & Condon, L. E. Connections between groundwater flow and transpiration partitioning. Science 353, 377–380 (2016).

  10. 10.

    Richardson, M. & Kumar, P. Critical zone services as environmental assessment criteria in intensively managed landscapes. Earths Future 5, 617–632 (2017).

  11. 11.

    Qiu, J. & Turner, M. G. Spatial interactions among ecosystem services in an urbanizing agricultural watershed. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 110, 12149–12154 (2013).

  12. 12.

    Qiu, J. et al. Scenarios reveal pathways to sustain future ecosystem services in an agricultural landscape. Ecol. Appl. 28, 119–134 (2018).

  13. 13.

    Raudsepp-Hearne, C., Peterson, G. D. & Bennett, E. M. Ecosystem service bundles for analyzing tradeoffs in diverse landscapes. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 107, 5242–5247 (2010).

  14. 14.

    Werling, B. P. et al. Perennial grasslands enhance biodiversity and multiple ecosystem services in bioenergy landscapes. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 1652–1657 (2014).

  15. 15.

    Zipper, S. C., Qiu, J. & Kucharik, C. J. Drought effects on US maize and soybean production: spatiotemporal patterns and historical changes. Environ. Res. Lett. 11, 094021 (2016).

  16. 16.

    Qiu, J. & Turner, M. G. Importance of landscape heterogeneity in sustaining hydrologic ecosystem services in an agricultural watershed. Ecosphere 6, 1–19 (2015).

  17. 17.

    Carpenter, S. R. et al. Nonpoint pollution of surface waters with phosphorus and nitrogen. Ecol. Appl. 8, 559–568 (1998).

  18. 18.

    Keeler, B. L. et al. Linking water quality and well-being for improved assessment and valuation of ecosystem services. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 109, 18619–18624 (2012).

  19. 19.

    Lal, R. Soil carbon sequestration to mitigate climate change. Geoderma 123, 1–22 (2004).

  20. 20.

    Nedkov, S. & Burkhard, B. Flood regulating ecosystem services—mapping supply and demand, in the Etropole municipality, Bulgaria. Ecol. Indic. 21, 67–79 (2012).

  21. 21.

    Booth, E. G., Zipper, S. C., Loheide, S. P. & Kucharik, C. J. Is groundwater recharge always serving us well? Water supply provisioning, crop production, and flood attenuation in conflict in Wisconsin, USA. Ecosyst. Serv. 21, 153–165 (2016).

  22. 22.

    Hain, C. R., Crow, W. T., Anderson, M. C. & Yilmaz, M. T. Diagnosing neglected soil moisture source–sink processes via a thermal infrared–based two-source energy balance model. J. Hydrometeorol. 16, 1070–1086 (2015).

  23. 23.

    Ukkola, A. M. et al. Land surface models systematically overestimate the intensity, duration and magnitude of seasonal-scale evaporative droughts. Environ. Res. Lett. 11, 104012 (2016).

  24. 24.

    Zipper, S. C., Soylu, M. E., Booth, E. G. & Loheide, S. P. Untangling the effects of shallow groundwater and soil texture as drivers of subfield-scale yield variability. Water Resour. Res. 51, 6338–6358 (2015).

  25. 25.

    Soylu, M. E., Kucharik, C. J. & Loheide, S. P. Influence of groundwater on plant water use and productivity: development of an integrated ecosystem—variably saturated soil water flow model. Agric. For. Meteorol. 189–190, 198–210 (2014).

  26. 26.

    Dunne, T. & Black, R. D. Partial area contributions to storm runoff in a small New England watershed. Water Resour. Res. 6, 1296–1311 (1970).

  27. 27.

    Kuppel, S., Houspanossian, J., Nosetto, M. D. & Jobbágy, E. G. What does it take to flood the Pampas? Lessons from a decade of strong hydrological fluctuations. Water Resour. Res. 51, 2937–2950 (2015).

  28. 28.

    Heathwaite, A. L. & Dils, R. M. Characterising phosphorus loss in surface and subsurface hydrological pathways. Sci. Total Environ. 251, 523–538 (2000).

  29. 29.

    Helmers, M., Christianson, R., Brenneman, G., Lockett, D. & Pederson, C. Water table, drainage, and yield response to drainage water management in southeast Iowa. J. Soil Water Conserv. 67, 495–501 (2012).

  30. 30.

    Tolomio, M. & Borin, M. Water table management to save water and reduce nutrient losses from agricultural fields: 6 years of experience in North-Eastern Italy. Agric. Water Manage. 201, 1–10 (2018).

  31. 31.

    Li, Q. et al. An approach for assessing impact of land use and biophysical conditions across landscape on recharge rate and nitrogen loading of groundwater. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 196, 114–124 (2014).

  32. 32.

    Kang, Y., Khan, S. & Ma, X. Climate change impacts on crop yield, crop water productivity and food security – A review. Prog. Nat. Sci. 19, 1665–1674 (2009).

  33. 33.

    Qiu, J., Wardropper, C. B., Rissman, A. R. & Turner, M. G. Spatial fit between water quality policies and hydrologic ecosystem services in an urbanizing agricultural landscape. Landsc. Ecol. 32, 59–75 (2017).

  34. 34.

    Griggs, D. et al. Policy: sustainable development goals for people and planet. Nature 495, 305–307 (2013).

  35. 35.

    Kucharik, C. J. et al. Testing the performance of a dynamic global ecosystem model: water balance, carbon balance, and vegetation structure. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 14, 795–825 (2000).

  36. 36.

    Motew, M. et al. The influence of legacy P on lake water quality in a Midwestern agricultural watershed. Ecosystems 20, 1468–1482 (2017).

  37. 37.

    Parsen, M. J., Bradbury, K. R., Hunt, R. J. & Feinstein, D. T. The 2016 Groundwater Flow Model for Dane County, Wisconsin Bulletin 110 (Wisconsin Geological and Natural History Survey, 2016).

  38. 38.

    Qiu, J. et al. Understanding relationships among ecosystem services across spatial scales and over time. Environ. Res. Lett. 13, 054020 (2018).

  39. 39.

    Zipper, S. C., Soylu, M. E., Kucharik, C. J. & Loheide, S. P. II Quantifying indirect groundwater-mediated effects of urbanization on agroecosystem productivity using MODFLOW-AgroIBIS (MAGI), a complete critical zone model. Ecol. Model. 359, 201–219 (2017).

  40. 40.

    Wrede, S. et al. Towards more systematic perceptual model development: a case study using 3 Luxembourgish catchments. Hydrol. Process. 29, 2731–2750 (2015).

  41. 41.

    Carpenter, S. R., Booth, E. G. & Kucharik, C. J. Extreme precipitation and phosphorus loads from two agricultural watersheds. Limnol. Oceanogr. 63, 1221–1233 (2018).

  42. 42.

    Lowry, C. S. & Loheide, S. P. Groundwater-dependent vegetation: quantifying the groundwater subsidy. Water Resour. Res. 46, W06202 (2010).

  43. 43.

    Orellana, F., Verma, P., Loheide, S. P. & Daly, E. Monitoring and modeling water–vegetation interactions in groundwater‐dependent ecosystems. Rev. Geophys. 50, RG3003 (2012).

  44. 44.

    Zipper, S. C. & Loheide, S. P. II Using evapotranspiration to assess drought sensitivity on a subfield scale with HRMET, a high resolution surface energy balance model. Agric. For. Meteorol. 197, 91–102 (2014).

  45. 45.

    Green, T. R. & Anapalli, S. S. Irrigation variability and climate change affect derived distributions of simulated water recharge and nitrate leaching. Water Int. 43, 829–845 (2018).

  46. 46.

    Kucharik, C. J. & Brye, K. R. Integrated BIosphere Simulator (IBIS) yield and nitrate loss predictions for Wisconsin maize receiving varied amounts of nitrogen fertilizer. J. Environ. Qual. 32, 247–268 (2003).

  47. 47.

    Fan, Y., Li, H. & Miguez-Macho, G. Global patterns of groundwater table depth. Science 339, 940–943 (2013).

  48. 48.

    Licker, R. et al. Mind the gap: how do climate and agricultural management explain the ‘yield gap’ of croplands around the world?. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 19, 769–782 (2010).

  49. 49.

    Vigerstol, K. L. & Aukema, J. E. A comparison of tools for modeling freshwater ecosystem services. J. Environ. Manage. 92, 2403–2409 (2011).

  50. 50.

    Maxwell, R. M., Condon, L. E. & Kollet, S. J. A high-resolution simulation of groundwater and surface water over most of the continental US with the integrated hydrologic model ParFlow v3. Geosci. Model Dev. 8, 923 (2015).

  51. 51.

    Brooks, P. D. et al. Hydrological partitioning in the critical zone: recent advances and opportunities for developing transferable understanding of water cycle dynamics. Water Resour. Res. 51, 6973–6987 (2015).

  52. 52.

    Bennett, E. M. Research frontiers in ecosystem service science. Ecosystems 20, 31–37 (2017).

  53. 53.

    Verburg, P. H. et al. Methods and approaches to modelling the Anthropocene. Glob. Environ. Change 39, 328–340 (2016).

  54. 54.

    Bardgett, R. D., Bowman, W. D., Kaufmann, R. & Schmidt, S. K. A temporal approach to linking aboveground and belowground ecology. Trends Ecol. Evol. 20, 634–641 (2005).

  55. 55.

    Qiu, J. et al. Evidence-based causal chains for linking health, development, and conservation actions. BioScience 68, 182–193 (2018).

  56. 56.

    Mitchell, M. G. E., Bennett, E. M. & Gonzalez, A. Strong and nonlinear effects of fragmentation on ecosystem service provision at multiple scales. Environ. Res. Lett. 10, 094014 (2015).

  57. 57.

    Rieb, J. T. et al. When, where, and how nature matters for ecosystem services: challenges for the next generation of ecosystem service models. BioScience 67, 820–833 (2017).

  58. 58.

    Herron, C. & Ruark, M. The Extent of Tile Drainage in Wisconsin (Univ. Wisconsin-Extension, 2017); https://learningstore.uwex.edu/Assets/pdfs/A4124.pdf

  59. 59.

    Rodríguez, J. P. et al. Trade-offs across space, time, and ecosystem services. Ecol. Soc. 11, 28 (2006).

  60. 60.

    Raudsepp-Hearne, C. & Peterson, G. Scale and ecosystem services: how do observation, management, and analysis shift with scale—lessons from Québec. Ecol. Soc. 21, 16 (2016).

  61. 61.

    Groffman, P. M. et al. Ecological thresholds: the key to successful environmental management or an important concept with no practical application? Ecosystems 9, 1–13 (2006).

  62. 62.

    Foley, J. A. et al. An integrated biosphere model of land surface processes, terrestrial carbon balance, and vegetation dynamics. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 10, 603–628 (1996).

  63. 63.

    Kucharik, C. J. Evaluation of a process-based agro-ecosystem model (Agro-IBIS) across the US Corn Belt: simulations of the interannual variability in maize yield. Earth Interact. 7, 14 (2003).

  64. 64.

    Šimůnek, J., van Genuchten, M. T. & Šejna, M. The HYDRUS-1D Software Package for Simulating the One-dimensional Movement of Water, Heat, and Multiple Solutes in Variably-saturated Media v.3.0 Research Report (Univ. California Riverside, 2005)..

  65. 65.

    Richards, L. A. Capillary conduction of liquids through porous mediums. Physics 1, 318–333 (1931).

  66. 66.

    Booth, E. G. et al. From qualitative to quantitative environmental scenarios: translating storylines into biophysical modeling inputs at the watershed scale. Environ. Model. Softw. 85, 80–97 (2016).

  67. 67.

    R Core Team R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2016); https://www.R-project.org/

  68. 68.

    Hothorn, T., Bretz, F. & Westfall, P. Simultaneous inference in general parametric models. Biom. J. 50, 346–363 (2008).

  69. 69.

    Bates, D. et al. lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using Eigen and S4, 2014. R Package v.1.1-7 (2015)..

  70. 70.

    Kuznetsova, A., Brockhoff, P. B. & Christensen, R. H. B. Package ‘lmerTest’. R Package v.2.0-29 (2015)..

Download references

Acknowledgements

Funding support is from the National Science Foundation Water Sustainability and Climate Program under grant DEB-1038759 and the North Temperate Lakes Long-Term Ecological Research (DEB-1440297). We thank P. Pinkas for computational assistance. J.Q. acknowledges the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture, Hatch Project (FLA-FTL-005640) and McIntire-Stennis (1014703) projects for partial financial support of this work.

Author information

J.Q. and S.C.Z. designed the research and analysed data. J.Q., S.C.Z., M.M. and E.G.B. performed the research. J.Q., S.C.Z., M.M., E.G.B., C.J.K. and S.P.L. interpreted the results. J.Q. and S.C.Z. led the writing process and all authors contributed substantially with commentary, edits and revisions.

Correspondence to Jiangxiao Qiu.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Notes, Supplementary Table 1, Supplementary Figs. 1–12 and Supplementary Refs. 1–75

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Qiu, J., Zipper, S.C., Motew, M. et al. Nonlinear groundwater influence on biophysical indicators of ecosystem services. Nat Sustain 2, 475–483 (2019) doi:10.1038/s41893-019-0278-2

Download citation

Further reading