Urban Ecosystems

, Volume 15, Issue 1, pp 71–85 | Cite as

Small-scale and extensive hydrogeomorphic modification and water redistribution in a desert city and implications for regional nitrogen removal

Article

Abstract

There are numerous examples of small-scale hydrogeomorphic manipulations within urban ecosystems. These modifications are motivated both by a need to handle storm drainage and by a human desire for aquatic ecosystems as places for recreation and aesthetics. In the Phoenix Arizona metropolitan area, two examples of these local modifications are artificial lakes and stormwater retention basins. Although lakes are not a natural feature of Sonoran Desert ecosystems, numerous artificial lakes are evident in the region. Retention basins are a common landscaping practice for preventing damage from rare but potentially large storm events. Here we attempt to quantify the heretofore unknown number and extent of these designed aquatic ecosystems and consider their potential impact on hydrologic landscape connectivity and regional nitrogen (N) removal. For lakes, we found that official GIS layers from local and state agencies had significant misclassifications and omissions. We used two published GIS datasets and state impoundment-permit information to determine the number, areal extent, and water source for artificial lakes. We discovered that there are 908–1,390 lakes in the Phoenix area, with the number varying according to level of aggregation. There are no existing GIS data on retention basins, so we employed drywell-permit data to estimate that there may be 10,000 retention basins in the region. Basic data on N stocks in these ecosystems are discussed within the context of the regional N budget. Accurate data on the extent and distribution of these designed ecosystems will be vital for water-resources planning and stormwater management.

Keywords

Urban ecology Phoenix, AZ Artificial lakes Stormwater retention basins Drywells Nitrogen 

References

  1. ADEQ (2004) Surface water data submittal guidance Document. Report, Arizona Department of Environmental QualityGoogle Scholar
  2. ADEQ (2008) 2006/2008 Status of Ambient Surface Water Quality in Arizona: Arizona’s Integrated 305(b) Assessment and 303(d) Listing ReportGoogle Scholar
  3. \ADWR (2009) Phoenix AMA Summary Budget Jan 6 2009. http://www.azwater.gov/AzDWR/WaterManagement/Assessments/default.htm. Accessed on 4/15/2010
  4. Archibold R (2007) Western states agree to water-sharing pact. The New York Time, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  5. Arnold CL, Gibbons CJ (1996) Impervious surface coverage: the emergence of a key environmental indicator. J Am Plan Assoc 62:243–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. ARS (1987) The “Lakes Bill”. Arizona Revised Statutes § 45–132Google Scholar
  7. Baker LA, Hope D, Xu Y, Edmonds J, Lauver L (2001) Nitrogen balance for the central Arizona-Phoenix (CAP) ecosystem. Ecosystems 4:582–602CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gober P, Burns EK (2002) The size and shape of Phoenix’s urban fringe. J Plan Educ Res 21:379–390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Groffman PM, Holland EA, Myrold DD, Robertson GP, Zou X, Robertson GP, Coleman DC, Bledsoe CS, Sollins P (1999) Denitrification. In: Anonymous (ed) Standard Soil Methods for Long-Term Ecological Research. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 272–288Google Scholar
  10. Karl TR, Melillo JM, Peterson TC (editors) (2009) Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States. Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  11. Kaye JP, Groffman PM, Grimm NB, Baker LA, Pouyat RV (2006) A distinct urban biogeochemistry? Trends Ecol Evol 21:192–199PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Larson E, Grimm N, Gober P, Redman C (2005) The paradoxical ecology and management of water in the Phoenix, USA metropolitan area. J Ecohydology Hydrobiology 5:287–296Google Scholar
  13. Leopold LB, Huppman R, Miller A (2005) Geomorphic effects of urbanization in forty-one years of observation. Proc Am Philos Soc 149:349–371Google Scholar
  14. MAG (2007) Socioeconomic projections of population, housing, and employment by municipal planning area and regional analysis zone. Phoenix, AZGoogle Scholar
  15. Maricopa Planning and Development Department (2004) Drainage Regulations for Maricopa County. ARS 11-151 and ARS 11-251.05Google Scholar
  16. McClain ME, Boyer EW, Dent CL, Gergel SE, Grimm NB, Groffman PM, Hart SC, Harvey JW, Johnston CA, Mayorga E, McDowell WH, Pinay G (2003) Biogeochemical hot spots and hot moments at the interface of terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. Ecosystems 6:301–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Moeller M (2007) Land cover classification using Landsat Enhanced Thematic Mapper (ETM) data - year 2000. Central Arizona – Phoenix Long Term Ecological Research ProjectGoogle Scholar
  18. Parry M, Canziani O, Palutikof J, van der Linden P, Hanson C (eds) (2007) Climate change 2007: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  19. Roach WJ, Heffernan JB, Grimm NB, Arrowsmith JR, Eisinger C, Rychener T (2008) Unintended consequences of urbanization for aquatic ecosystems: a case study from the Arizona desert. Bioscience 58:715–727CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Seitzinger S, Harrison JA, Bohlke JK, Bouwman AF, Lowrance R, Peterson B, Tobias C, Van Drecht G (2006) Denitrification across landscapes and waterscapes: a synthesis. Ecol Appl 16:2064–2090PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Shochat E, Warren PS, Faeth SH, McIntyre NE, Hope D (2006) From patterns to emerging processes in mechanistic urban ecology. Trends Ecol Evol 21:186–191PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Stefanov W (2004) Land cover classification using ASTER data - year 2000. Central Arizona – Phoenix Long Term Ecological Research ProjectGoogle Scholar
  23. UNPD (2008) World urbanization prospects: the 2007 revision. United Nations Population Division, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  24. US Census (2003) Population in metropolitan and micropolitan statistical areas in alphabetical order and numerical and percent change for the United States and Puerto Rico: 1990 and 2000Google Scholar
  25. US Census (2006) Cumulative estimates of population change for metropolitan statistical areas and rankings: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2006 (CBSA-EST2006-07)Google Scholar
  26. US Census (2008) Annual estimates of the population of metropolitan and micropolitan statistical areas: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2008 (CBSA-EST2008-01)Google Scholar
  27. Walsh CJ, Roy AH, Feminella JW, Cottingham PD, Groffman PM, Morgan RP (2005) The urban stream syndrome: current knowledge and the search for a cure. J N Am Benthological Soc 24:706–723Google Scholar
  28. Wollheim WM, Pellerin BA, Vorosmarty CJ, Hopkinson CS (2005) N retention in urbanizing headwater catchments. Ecosystems 8:871–884CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Zhu WX, Dillard ND, Grimm NB (2004) Urban nitrogen biogeochemistry: status and processes in green retention basins. Biogeochemistry 71:177–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Urban Ecology Research Laboratory, College of Built EnvironmentsUniversity of WashingtonSeattleUSA
  2. 2.School of Life SciencesArizona State UniversityTempeUSA

Personalised recommendations