Geographically isolated wetlands (GIWs), those surrounded by uplands, exchange materials, energy, and organisms with other elements in hydrological and habitat networks, contributing to landscape functions, such as flow generation, nutrient and sediment retention, and biodiversity support. GIWs constitute most of the wetlands in many North American landscapes, provide a disproportionately large fraction of wetland edges where many functions are enhanced, and form complexes with other water bodies to create spatial and temporal heterogeneity in the timing, flow paths, and magnitude of network connectivity. These attributes signal a critical role for GIWs in sustaining a portfolio of landscape functions, but legal protections remain weak despite preferential loss from many landscapes. GIWs lack persistent surface water connections, but this condition does not imply the absence of hydrological, biogeochemical, and biological exchanges with nearby and downstream waters. Although hydrological and biogeochemical connectivity is often episodic or slow (e.g., via groundwater), hydrologic continuity and limited evaporative solute enrichment suggest both flow generation and solute and sediment retention. Similarly, whereas biological connectivity usually requires overland dispersal, numerous organisms, including many rare or threatened species, use both GIWs and downstream waters at different times or life stages, suggesting that GIWs are critical elements of landscape habitat mosaics. Indeed, weaker hydrologic connectivity with downstream waters and constrained biological connectivity with other landscape elements are precisely what enhances some GIW functions and enables others. Based on analysis of wetland geography and synthesis of wetland functions, we argue that sustaining landscape functions requires conserving the entire continuum of wetland connectivity, including GIWs.connectivity | navigable waters | significant nexus Understanding connectivity-patterns of matter, energy, and organism exchanges among landscape elements and across scales-is a challenge that unites the fields of ecology and hydrology (1). Connectivity enables dispersal of organisms and flows of water between landscape elements at multiple spatial and temporal scales

No abstract

Recent U.S. Supreme Court rulings have limited federal protections for geographically isolated wetlands (GIWs) except where a ''significant nexus'' to a navigable water body is demonstrated. Geographic isolation does not imply GIWs are hydrologically disconnected; indeed, wetland-groundwater interactions may yield important controls on regional hydrology. Differences in specific yield (S y ) between uplands and inundated GIWs drive differences in water level responses to precipitation and evapotranspiration, leading to frequent reversals in hydraulic gradients that cause GIWs to act as both groundwater sinks and sources. These reversals are predicted to buffer surficial aquifer dynamics and thus base flow delivery, a process we refer to as landscape hydrologic capacitance. To test this hypothesis, we connected models of soil moisture, upland water table, and wetland stage to simulate hydrology of a low-relief landscape with GIWs, and explored the influences of total wetland area, individual wetland size, climate, and soil texture on water table and base flow variation. Increasing total wetland area and decreasing individual wetland size substantially decreased water table and base flow variation (e.g., reducing base flow standard deviation by as much as 50%). GIWs also decreased the frequency of extremely high and low water tables and base flow deliveries. For the same total wetland area, landscapes with fewer (i.e., larger) wetlands exhibited markedly lower hydrologic capacitance than those with more (i.e., smaller) wetlands, highlighting the importance of small GIWs to regional hydrology. Our results suggest that GIWs buffer dynamics of the surficial aquifer and stream base flow, providing an indirect but significant nexus to the regional hydrologic system.

Governments worldwide do not adequately protect their limited freshwater systems and therefore place freshwater functions and attendant ecosystem services at risk. The best available scientific evidence compels enhanced protections for freshwater systems, especially for impermanent streams and wetlands outside of floodplains that are particularly vulnerable to alteration or destruction. New approaches to freshwater sustainability - implemented through scientifically informed adaptive management - are required to protect freshwater systems through periods of changing societal needs. One such approach introduced in the US in 2015 is the Clean Water Rule, which clarified the jurisdictional scope for federally protected waters. However, within hours of its implementation litigants convinced the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit to stay the rule, and the subsequently elected administration has now placed it under review for potential revision or rescission. Regardless of its outcome at the federal level, policy and management discussions initiated by the propagation of this rare rulemaking event have potential far-reaching implications at all levels of government across the US and worldwide. At this timely juncture, we provide a scientific rationale and three policy options for all levels of government to meaningfully enhance protection of these vulnerable waters. A fourth option, a 'do-nothing' approach, is wholly inconsistent with the well-established scientific evidence of the importance of these vulnerable waters.