skip to main content

Title: Ecosystem metabolism in tropical streams and rivers: a review and synthesis

Ecosystem metabolism of freshwater ecosystems has been studied for several decades, with theory and synthesis largely derived from temperate streams and rivers in North America and Europe. Advances in sensor technology and modeling have opened a wider range of streams to be included to test theories beyond temperate streams. In this paper, we review and synthesize ecosystem metabolism data from tropical streams and rivers to determine to what extent the constraints of metabolism measured in temperate streams are similar in tropical streams. We compiled 202 measurements of gross primary productivity (GPP) and ecosystem respiration (ER) from 83 tropical streams spanning 22.2°S to 18.4°N. Overall, tropical streams were heterotrophic (ER > GPP), with GPP ranging from 0.01 to 11.7 g O2m−2d−1and ER ranging from −0.2 to −42.1 g O2m−2d−1, similar on average to rates reviewed from temperate streams, but with higher maximum ER in tropical streams. Gross primary productivity increased with watershed area; a result also observed in temperate streams. ER decreased with elevated phosphorus and higher annual rainfall. We constructed a structural equation model that explained greater variation of ER (74%) than GPP (26%), and reflects similar drivers, such as land‐use and watershed area, as in temperate streams. We conclude that tropical stream ecosystem metabolism has similar drivers as temperate streams, and a warmer and wetter climate and human use of tropical lands will influence metabolic rates in streams.

more » « less
Award ID(s):
Author(s) / Creator(s):
Publisher / Repository:
Wiley Blackwell (John Wiley & Sons)
Date Published:
Journal Name:
Limnology and Oceanography
Page Range / eLocation ID:
p. 1627-1638
Medium: X
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this

    Intermittent streams are characterized by significant periods of low to no flow, yet are also frequently subjected to flashy, high floods. Floods alter ecosystem function and result in variable successional patterns across the stream network. Yet, the timing of restored function after floods in intermittent stream networks is relatively unexplored. We measured recovery of stream ecosystem function using rates of gross primary production (GPP), ecosystem respiration (ER), net ecosystem production (NEP), and the primary production to respiration ratio (P/R) across eight locations in the Kings Creek drainage basin with differing preflood conditions (previously dry [intermittent] or flowing [perennial]) over a 30‐d period following a 2‐yr return interval flood. We found that all metabolic rates (GPP, ER, NEP, P/R) varied primarily by time (days since flood) and antecedent flow, but not spatial network position (i.e., drainage area). Intermittent sites exhibited high rates of ER (0.17–3.33 g dissolved oxygen [DO] m−2d−1) following rewetting compared to perennial sites (0.03–1.17 g DO m−2d−1), while GPP, NEP, and P/R were slower to recover and varied less between sites of differing preflood conditions. Metabolic rates were not strongly influenced by other environmental conditions. A large proportion of variation was explained by the random effect of location. Our results suggest that metabolism is temporally asynchronous and highly heterogenous across intermittent watersheds and that antecedent hydrology (drying prior to rewetting) stimulates heterotrophic activity, likely dependent on terrestrially derived organic matter and nutrient subsidies.

    more » « less
  2. Abstract

    Drought is common in rivers, yet how this disturbance regulates metabolic activity across network scales is largely unknown. Drought often lowers gross primary production (GPP) and ecosystem respiration (ER) in small headwaters but by contrast can enhance GPP and cause algal blooms in downstream estuaries. We estimated ecosystem metabolism across a nested network of 13 reaches from headwaters to the main stem of the Connecticut River from 2015 through 2017, which encompassed a pronounced drought. During drought, GPP and ER increased, but with greater enhancement in larger rivers. Responses of GPP and ER were partially due to warmer temperatures associated with drought, particularly in the larger rivers where temperatures during summer drought were > 10°C higher than typical summer baseflow. The larger rivers also had low canopy cover, which allowed primary producers to take advantage of lower turbidity and fewer cloudy days during drought. We conclude that GPP is enhanced by higher temperature, lower turbidity, and longer water residence times that are all a function of low discharge, but ecosystem response in temperate watersheds to these drivers depends on light availability regulated by riparian canopy cover. In larger rivers, GPP increased more than ER during drought, even leading to temporary autotrophy, an otherwise rare event in the typically light‐limited heterotrophic Connecticut River main stem. With climate change, rivers and streams may become warmer and drought frequency and severity may increase. Such changes may increase autotrophy in rivers with broad implications for carbon cycling and water quality in aquatic ecosystems.

    more » « less
  3. Abstract

    River metabolism and, thus, carbon cycling are governed by gross primary production and ecosystem respiration. Traditionally river metabolism is derived from diel dissolved oxygen concentrations, which cannot resolve diel changes in ecosystem respiration. Here, we compare river metabolism derived from oxygen concentrations with estimates from stable oxygen isotope signatures (δ18O2) from 14 sites in rivers across three biomes using Bayesian inverse modeling. We find isotopically derived ecosystem respiration was greater in the day than night for all rivers (maximum change of 113 g O2 m−2 d−1, minimum of 1 g O2 m−2 d−1). Temperature (20 °C) normalized rates of ecosystem respiration and gross primary production were 1.1 to 87 and 1.5 to 22-fold higher when derived from oxygen isotope data compared to concentration data. Through accounting for diel variation in ecosystem respiration, our isotopically-derived rates suggest that ecosystem respiration and microbial carbon cycling in rivers is more rapid than predicted by traditional methods.

    more » « less
  4. Abstract

    Global change is influencing production and respiration in ecosystems across the globe. Lakes in particular are changing in response to climatic variability and cultural eutrophication, resulting in changes in ecosystem metabolism. Although the primary drivers of production and respiration such as the availability of nutrients, light, and carbon are well known, heterogeneity in hydrologic setting (for example, hydrological connectivity, morphometry, and residence) across and within regions may lead to highly variable responses to the same drivers of change, complicating our efforts to predict these responses. We explored how differences in hydrologic setting among lakes influenced spatial and inter annual variability in ecosystem metabolism, using high-frequency oxygen sensor data from 11 lakes over 8 years. Trends in mean metabolic rates of lakes generally followed gradients of nutrient and carbon concentrations, which were lowest in seepage lakes, followed by drainage lakes, and higher in bog lakes. We found that while ecosystem respiration (ER) was consistently higher in wet years in all hydrologic settings, gross primary production (GPP) only increased in tandem in drainage lakes. However, interannual rates of ER and GPP were relatively stable in drainage lakes, in contrast to seepage and bog lakes which had coefficients of variation in metabolism between 22–32%. We explored how the geospatial context of lakes, including hydrologic residence time, watershed area to lake area, and landscape position influenced the sensitivity of individual lake responses to climatic variation. We propose a conceptual framework to help steer future investigations of how hydrologic setting mediates the response of metabolism to climatic variability.

    more » « less
  5. Abstract

    Accurate estimation of terrestrial gross primary productivity (GPP) remains a challenge despite its importance in the global carbon cycle. Chlorophyll fluorescence (ChlF) has been recently adopted to understand photosynthesis and its response to the environment, particularly with remote sensing data. However, it remains unclear how ChlF and photosynthesis are linked at different spatial scales across the growing season. We examined seasonal relationships between ChlF and photosynthesis at the leaf, canopy, and ecosystem scales and explored how leaf‐level ChlF was linked with canopy‐scale solar‐induced chlorophyll fluorescence (SIF) in a temperate deciduous forest at Harvard Forest, Massachusetts,USA. Our results show that ChlF captured the seasonal variations of photosynthesis with significant linear relationships between ChlF and photosynthesis across the growing season over different spatial scales (R= 0.73, 0.77, and 0.86 at leaf, canopy, and satellite scales, respectively;P < 0.0001). We developed a model to estimateGPPfrom the tower‐based measurement ofSIFand leaf‐level ChlF parameters. The estimation ofGPPfrom this model agreed well with flux tower observations ofGPP(R= 0.68;P < 0.0001), demonstrating the potential ofSIFfor modelingGPP. At the leaf scale, we found that leafFq/Fm, the fraction of absorbed photons that are used for photochemistry for a light‐adapted measurement from a pulse amplitude modulation fluorometer, was the best leaf fluorescence parameter to correlate with canopySIFyield (SIF/APAR,R= 0.79;P < 0.0001). We also found that canopySIFandSIF‐derivedGPP(GPPSIF) were strongly correlated to leaf‐level biochemistry and canopy structure, including chlorophyll content (R= 0.65 for canopyGPPSIFand chlorophyll content;P < 0.0001), leaf area index (LAI) (R= 0.35 for canopyGPPSIFandLAI;P < 0.0001), and normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI) (R= 0.36 for canopyGPPSIFandNDVI;P < 0.0001). Our results suggest that ChlF can be a powerful tool to track photosynthetic rates at leaf, canopy, and ecosystem scales.

    more » « less