Search

Asian swamp eels (Monopterus albus/javanensis) were first reported as introduced to Florida waterbodies in 1997 near Tampa and Miami; a third population was recorded by 1999 in Homestead. Initial assessments, published soon after swamp eels in southern Florida were first recorded in wetlands beyond canals and ponds (in 2007), concluded there was little threat to Florida’s aquatic ecosystems. Long-term data now suggest they precipitated population crashes of crayfishes and small fishes in the eastern Everglades. We used records from continuous long-term monitoring programs, sporadic monitoring studies, and online databases to reconstruct swamp eel presence across Florida. Monitoring studies provided wetland hydrologic variables to assess limits for swamp eels. From 1997–2007, populations in southern Florida remained restricted to canals; initial spread from 2007–2017 across southern Everglades National Park proceeded slowly and the two populations covered ~1500 km² of southern Florida. From 2017–2022, the rate of spread increased as they spread west and north (~5800 km² range). Through 2014, the Tampa population occurred only along southern/eastern Tampa Bay (~60 km²) but has since spread south along the Gulf Coast, east into central Florida, and south along the Lake Wales Ridge (~11,000 km²). We found evidence of two potentially new introductions, in Palm Beach County and Orlando. There was no clear evidence of limitation of wetland drying on swamp eel occurrence in the Everglades; they were captured in marshes that dried for 1–5 months during the previous dry season, but short-hydroperiod wetlands may have slowed spread. In the Everglades, evidence suggests swamp eels may have been inadvertently spread into marshes from canals used to deliver water for flood control and hydrologic restoration. Swamp eels are currently spreading unchecked across Florida, and there should be great concern about continued spread in this region and their establishment and spread elsewhere. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

[Display omitted] • The trends of surface runoff and flood area changes were different. • Rainfall change is the dominant driver compared with land use change. • There are coupled effects from rainfall and land use changes on both surface runoff and flood area. • The easily flooded areas would experience negative coupled effects under future rainfall and land use conditions. • The areas with inadequate drainage and low elevation variation would be of high probability to suffer flooding issues. Future rainfall and land use are two important factors for flood management since they both directly and indirectly affect the functionality and performance of urban stormwater drainage infrastructures. Although some studies have already examined the coupled effects of future rainfall and land use conditions, they have not concluded how such effects on both surface runoff and flood areas would change with regional surface elevation variation and infrastructure conditions. This paper analyzed the coupled effects of future rainfall and land use on urban drainage systems in terms of surface runoff quantity and flood area changes using EPA SWMM. Future downscaled and bias-corrected precipitation projections for 2040–2060 and 2080–2099 from "Downscaled CMIP3 and CMIP5 Climate and Hydrology Projections" Archive and future land use for 2050 s and 2090 s from EPA ICLUS project were used for the City of Tampa in Florida (USA). It was shown that potential runoff volume and flood area changes ranged from −40% to 160%, and −40% to 400% due to rainfall change, while potential changes induced by land use change ranged from 0% to 3.5%, and 0% to 18% respectively. Additionally, this study examined the coupled effects of future rainfall and land use changes on flood area variations, considering the capacity of drainage infrastructure and elevation variation of study site. Results showed that flood area variations are not solely influenced by runoff quantity changes due to the two external drivers, but also by other factors. Specifically, in low-relief areas with inadequate drainage infrastructure and less elevation variation, these two drivers have no additive effects on the percentage of flood area changes. In contrast, in areas with adequate drainage infrastructure and greater surface elevation variation, there are additive effects from rainfall and land use changes on flood area expansions. These findings have important implications for stakeholders involved in city planning and flooding control, particularly for urban areas facing future precipitation and urbanization challenges. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]