Thread by @FloodHydrology

Below is a long-ish thread🧵for some context to this amazing meme from @DrArialShogren and @thats_me_del_p.

TL;DR -- Our words matter. They shape and bias our understanding of the systems we study.

[1/n]

First -- I'm blessed to have great colleagues @UaDeptBSC who put up with my shenanigans.

This conversation started with me giving @thats_me_del_p a hard time about a small grant proposal. The title mentioned "drivers of intermittence."

[2/n]

I'm not a big fan of umbrella terms like #sustainability, #connectivity, and now #intermittence.

In #interdisciplinary teams, negotiating a common language is difficult. I actually think its often MORE difficult when we share common terms with slightly diverging definitions

Moreover, the way we use these terms shapes both our conceptual model of our systems and the way we ask questions.

As an example, take Martin Doyle's 2009 paper on reference frames in #river science:

doi.org/10.1525/bio.20…

[4/n]

Side note: Doyle presented this work at a seminar when I was in #gradschool, and that seminar (which I went to by chance!) changed the way I do science! #GoHokies [5/n]

In this paper, Doyle describes how #Eulerian and #Lagrangian reference frames shape our hypotheses, measurements, and ultimately the results of our studies. [6/n]

Now for a bit of tangent --

Several years, 1 PhD, and a postdoc later -- I found myself at @sesync working with a a group of #ecologists negotiating nuanced definitions of hydrologic connectivity. #TheGloryDays #DelmarvaDisco @kellyproof

Two main things came out of these discussions:

(1) Reference frames (i.e., eularian vs lagrangian) matter

(2) #Connectivity is NOT a measurable quantity (i.e., When given the chance, always use quantifiable metric INSTEAD of connectivity) [8/n]

Re Reference Frames:

When we talk about hydrologic connectivity, we typically discuss it in terms of lagrangian reference frame (i.e., water moves along flowpaths). However, we often characterize connectivity using eularian reference frames (i.e., storage and fluxes!)

[9/n]

Some of these ideas found their way into a review paper on #hydrologic #modeling of #headwater wetlands #ShamelessPlug

doi.org/10.1111/1752-1…

[10/n]

Re: Connectivity is not a measurable quantity --

There is a [valid!] argument that umbrella terms unify people. (see paper below!)

However, the problem begins when people use that term as a quantity or characteristic.

doi.org/10.1111/1752-1…

[11/n]

In the case of hydrologic connectivity -- its used WILDLY different even among folks who work in similar fields. To pick on myself, using phrases like "ditching will increase hydrologic connectivity" leads to quite a bit of confusion

[12/n]

Examples of different uses of #connectivity --

@margaret_zimmer's work on 3D connectivity (doi.org/10.1002/2017WR…)

@jesusgomezvelez work on hyporheic exchange flows (doi.org/10.1002/2014GL…)

@goldenheather2's work on connectivity between #wetlands and downstream waters

Now back to the term intermittence -- I'm not a fan.

First, @mhopebusch lead a @DryRiversRCN paper on why we should use the term non-perennial streams.

doi.org/10.3390/w12071…

[14/n]

Second, and the source of the discussion today, I really don't think we should use it as a measurable quantity OR dependent variable!

[15/n]

Specifically, I'm suggesting we avoid phrases like "Slope is a driver of intermittence."

The problem here is -- what is "intermittence"? Flow duration at a given point, stream network expansion/contraction, frequency of no flow?

[16/n]

Both across the #AIMS and @DryRiversRCN teams, we are working with both very large and very #interdiplinary groups. The more precise we can be with our language (especially paper titles, objective statements, and hypotheses), the stronger our shared conceptual models will be!

That all I've got.

Thank your for coming to my #TEDtalk

#EndRant

[18/n]

PS Bonus for those of you who actually made it to the end of this obnoxiously long thread:

Be careful with the spelling of 'non-perennial'...