Let’s start thinking about water!

Barriers and Opportunities for Climate Change Education—the Case of Dallas-Fort Worth in Texas

As anyone who has conversations about climate change knows, there are a variety of understandings and positions on the topic among the public. Foss and Ko surveyed the general public and science teachers in the Dallas-Fort Worth area to identity people’s views on climate change and opportunities to improve education. Studies suggest that coastal cities are more progressive than inland cities in understanding and preparing for climate, perhaps because the ocean is a major entry point to climate impacts.

Foss and Ko surveyed 115 people at the State Fair and 118 teachers to gage their views and understanding on climate change. In general, the public and schoolteachers had similar understanding of climate threats, with teachers clocking in with a slightly better understanding (although both cohorts mistakenly linked the hole in the ozone layer as contributing to climate change).

Interestingly (given a previous think+water piece on Texan attitudes to climate change), on a scale of 1 (disagree) to 5 (agree), the State Fairers gave a 3.7 and schoolteachers gave a 4.1 to the statement “Global climate change [is] connected to local events.” Somewhat disheartening is that a majority of the public and teachers believe that there is significant disagreement among scientists over the causes of climate change. But somewhat heartening is that both groups strongly agree with changing behaviors if climate change is real. Despite the massive support of the scientific community on human-forced climate change, 80.5% of teachers believe that they should teach both “sides” of the issue. Based on the surveys, the authors provide several well-thought-out recommendations to improve climate education.

Changes in Community Composition of Riverine Mussels After a Severe Drought Depend on Local Conditions—a Comparative Study in Four Tributaries of a Subtropical River

Climate change is expected to bring warmer temperatures and increased droughts with increased intensity. These droughts are then expected to impact the flows in the state’s rivers and streams and affect the species that live in them, including various native (and potentially endangered) mussels. In the study, Mitchell and friends analyzed mussel assemblages on four tributaries to the Colorado River before and after the 2011 drought (Elm Creek, Concho River, San Saba River, and Llano River).

Surveys were conducted between 2005 and 2011 before the drought and in 2017 after the drought. Of the 30 sites surveyed, Mitchell and friends did not find mussels at nine sites where they were present before the drought. Mussel abundance and number of species decreased at most of the other study sites. Lower-flow and higher-temperature tributaries appear to be most at risk, emphasizing how groundwater pumping, along with drought, may impact mussel habitat.

Isotopic Tracers of Sources of Water for Springs From the Edwards Aquifer, Central Texas, USA

Comal Springs

Folks have measured for and analyzed for isotopes in the Edwards Aquifer in the past, but this is the first effort I’m aware of where water from San Antonio Springs (Blue Hole) and San Pedro Springs has been sampled. The authors did not review previous isotopic work in the Edwards Aquifer, so I don’t know if that’s true or not.

The authors sampled three other springs: Comal Springs and two headwater springs for Cibolo Creek in southwestern Kendall County. I had to keep reminding myself that the authors refer to the “Edwards Aquifer System” and “Edwards Aquifer Region” because those springs in Kendall County issue from the Trinity Aquifer, not the Edwards.

The spring data is collectively pooled for much of the analysis, including for the main conclusion, which is that springflow is “supplied from deep groundwater with a longer residence time (an average of 67%) and supplemental epikarst interflow with a shorter residence time (an average of 33%).” This conclusion would be much more valuable presented for each spring or for each aquifer instead of all together, since the flow system in regional springs is so much different that headwater springs. Nonetheless, it is interesting how similar the data is among the five springs.