David L. Penrose
North Carolina State University
Network
Latest external collaboration on country level. Dive into details by clicking on the dots.
Publication
Featured researches published by David L. Penrose.
Ecological Applications | 2011
Christy R. Violin; Peter Cada; Elizabeth B. Sudduth; Brooke A. Hassett; David L. Penrose; Emily S. Bernhardt
Streams, as low-lying points in the landscape, are strongly influenced by the stormwaters, pollutants, and warming that characterize catchment urbanization. River restoration projects are an increasingly popular method for mitigating urban insults. Despite the growing frequency and high expense of urban stream restoration projects, very few projects have been evaluated to determine whether they can successfully enhance habitat structure or support the stream biota characteristic of reference sites. We compared the physical and biological structure of four urban degraded, four urban restored, and four forested streams in the Piedmont region of North Carolina to quantify the ability of reach-scale stream restoration to restore physical and biological structure to urban streams and to examine the assumption that providing habitat is sufficient for biological recovery. To be successful at mitigating urban impacts, the habitat structure and biological communities found in restored streams should be more similar to forested reference sites than to their urban degraded counterparts. For every measured reach- and patch-scale attribute, we found that restored streams were indistinguishable from their degraded urban stream counterparts. Forested streams were shallower, had greater habitat complexity and median sediment size, and contained less-tolerant communities with higher sensitive taxa richness than streams in either urban category. Because heavy machinery is used to regrade and reconfigure restored channels, restored streams had less canopy cover than either forested or urban streams. Channel habitat complexity and watershed impervious surface cover (ISC) were the best predictors of sensitive taxa richness and biotic index at the reach and catchment scale, respectively. Macroinvertebrate communities in restored channels were compositionally similar to the communities in urban degraded channels, and both were dissimilar to communities in forested streams. The macroinvertebrate communities of both restored and urban degraded streams were correlated with environmental variables characteristic of degraded urban systems. Our study suggests that reach-scale restoration is not successfully mitigating for the factors causing physical and biological degradation.
Journal of The North American Benthological Society | 2009
Desiree Tullos; David L. Penrose; Gregory D. Jennings; W. Gregory Cope
Abstract Channel reconfiguration is a popular but controversial approach to river restoration, and ecological responses to channel reconfiguration have not been rigorously assessed. We compared physical-habitat variables, taxonomic and functional-trait diversities, taxonomic composition, and functional-trait abundances between 24 pairs of upstream (control) and downstream reconfigured (restored) reaches in 3 catchment land uses (urban, agricultural, rural) across the North Carolina Piedmont. We asked how environmental filters and functional species traits might provide insight to biological responses to restoration. Taxonomic and functional-trait differences between control and restored reaches suggest that restoration affected aquatic assemblages only in agricultural and rural catchments. Our results highlight 2 important aspects of channel reconfiguration as a restoration practice. First, responses to restoration differ between agricultural/rural and urban catchments, possibly because of modified hydrological regimes caused by urbanization. Second, we find evidence that channel reconfiguration disturbs food and habitat resources in stream ecosystems. Taxa sensitive to disturbance were characteristic of control reaches, whereas insensitive taxa were characteristic of restored reaches. Abundances of traits related to reproduction (voltinism, development, synchronization of emergence, adult life span), mobility (occurrence in drift, maximum crawling rate, swimming ability), and use of resources (trophic and habitat preferences) differed significantly between control and recently restored reaches. Our results suggest that taxa in restored habitats are environmentally selected for traits favored in disturbed environments. Our work suggests how functional-trait approaches could benefit the practice of river restoration when used to target restoration activities and to develop informed expectations regarding recovery following restoration activities.
Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology | 1982
David L. Penrose; David R. Lenat
As part of a statewide evaluation of the impact of nonpoint sources of water pollution (relevant to Section 208 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972), a study was conducted to determine the effects of surface runoff from apple orchards. It was conducted by the Biological Monitoring Group of the North Carolina Division of Environmental Management using aquatic macroinvertebrates as assessment organisms. Both taxa richness and total numbers were reduced below the orchards, particularly during two pesticide application periods. Results indicate chronically severe stress conditions at the most downstream site and periodic stress, followed by recovery, at an upstream site. Several taxa were especially susceptible to apple orchard runoff, includingEpeorus (Iron) sp. and all Plecoptera.
Journal of The North American Benthological Society | 1995
David L. Penrose; Samuel M. Call
Ecological Engineering | 2006
Desiree Tullos; David L. Penrose; Gregory D. Jennings
Journal of Water Pollution Control Federation | 1982
Alfred M. Duda; David R. Lenat; David L. Penrose
Journal of The American Water Resources Association | 2015
Barbara A. Doll; Gregory D. Jennings; Jean Spooner; David L. Penrose; Joseph Usset
Journal of The American Water Resources Association | 1980
Alfred M. Duda; David L. Penrose
Journal of The American Water Resources Association | 1980
David L. Lenat; David L. Penrose
Water | 2016
Barbara A. Doll; Gregory D. Jennings; Jean Spooner; David L. Penrose; Joseph Usset; James Blackwell; Mark Fernandez