Search for: All records

Empirical evidence and theory suggest that climate warming and an increase in the frequency and duration of drying events will alter the metabolic balance of freshwater ecosystems. However, the impacts of climate change on ecosystem metabolism may depend on whether energy inputs are of autochthonous or allochthonous origin. To date, few studies have examined how warming and drying may interact to alter stream metabolism, much less how their impacts may depend on the energy‐base of the food web.

To address this research gap, we conducted a multi‐factorial experiment using outdoor mesocosms to investigate the individual and synergistic effects of warming and drought on metabolic processes in stream mesocosms with green (algal‐based) vs. mixed (algal‐ and detritus‐based) vs. brown (detritus‐based) energy pathways.

We set up 48 mesocosms with one of three different levels of shade and leaf litter input combinations to create mesocosms with different primary energy channels. In addition, we warmed half of the mesocosms by ~2–3°C. We assessed changes in ecosystem respiration (ER), gross primary production (GPP), net ecosystem production (NEP) and organic matter biomass in warmed and ambient temperature mesocosms before a 24 day drying event and after rewetting.

Surprisingly, experimental warming had little effect on metabolic processes. Drying, however, led to decreased rates of ER and GPP and led to an overall reduction in NEP. Although the effects of drying were similar across energy channel treatments, reductions in ER and GPP were primarily driven by decreases in biomass of benthic and filamentous algae.

Overall, we demonstrate that drying led to lower rates of NEP in mesocosms regardless of energy inputs. While warming showed little effect in our study, our results suggest that an increase in the frequency of stream drying events could greatly alter the metabolic balance of many aquatic ecosystems.

Read the freePlain Language Summaryfor this article on the Journal blog.

 

The “dimensional stability” approach measures different components of ecological stability to investigate how they are related. Yet, most empirical work has used small‐scale and short‐term experimental manipulations. Here, we apply this framework to a long‐term observational dataset of stream macroinvertebrates sampled between the winter flooding and summer monsoon seasons. We test hypotheses that relate variation among stability metrics across different taxa, the magnitude of antecedent (monsoon) and immediate (winter) floods to stability metrics, and the relative importance of disturbance magnitude and taxonomic richness on community dimensional stability. Cluster analysis revealed four distinct stability types, and we found that the magnitude of floods during the prior monsoon was more important in influencing stability than the winter flood itself. For dimensional stability at the community level, taxonomic richness was more important than disturbance magnitude. This work demonstrates that abiotic and biotic factors determine dimensional stability in a natural ecosystem.

 

The flow regime paradigm is central to the aquatic sciences, where flow drives critical functions in lotic systems. Non‐perennial streams comprise the majority of global river length, thus we extended this paradigm to stream drying. Using 894 USGS gages, we isolated 25,207 drying events from 1979 to 2018, represented by a streamflow peak followed by no flow. We calculated hydrologic signatures for each drying event and using multivariate statistics, grouped events into drying regimes characterized by: (a) fast drying, (b) long no‐flow duration, (c) prolonged drying following low antecedent flows, (d) drying without a distinctive hydrologic signature. 77% of gages had more than one drying regime at different times within the study period. Random forests revealed land cover/use are more important to how a river dries than climate or physiographic characteristics. Clustering stream drying behavior may allow practitioners to more systematically adapt water resource management practices to specific drying regimes or rivers.

 

Non‐perennial rivers and streams are ubiquitous on our planet. Although several metrics have been used to statistically group or compare streamflow characteristics, there is currently no widely used definition of how many days or over what reach length surface flow must cease in order to classify a river as non‐perennial. At the same time, the breadth of climate and geographic settings for non‐perennial rivers leads to diversity in their flow regimes, such as how often or how quickly they go dry. These rivers have a rich and expanding body of literature addressing their ecologic and geomorphic features, but are often said to be ignored by hydrologists. Yet there is much we do know about their hydrology in terms of streamflow generation processes, water losses, and variability in flow. We also know that while they are prevalent in arid regions, they occur across all climate types and experience a diverse set of natural and anthropogenic controls on streamflow. Furthermore, measuring and modeling the hydrology of these rivers presents a distinct set of challenges, and there are many research directions, which still require further attention. Therefore, we present an overview of the current understanding, methodologic challenges, knowledge gaps, and research directions for hydrologic understanding of non‐perennial rivers; critical topics in light of both growing global water scarcity and ever‐changing laws and policies that dictate whether and how much environmental protection these rivers receive.

This article is categorized under:

Science of Water > Science of Water

 

Abstract Rivers that do not flow year-round are the predominant type of running waters on Earth. Despite a burgeoning literature on natural flow intermittence (NFI), knowledge about the hydrological causes and ecological effects of human-induced, anthropogenic flow intermittence (AFI) remains limited. NFI and AFI could generate contrasting hydrological and biological responses in rivers because of distinct underlying causes of drying and evolutionary adaptations of their biota. We first review the causes of AFI and show how different anthropogenic drivers alter the timing, frequency and duration of drying, compared with NFI. Second, we evaluate the possible differences in biodiversity responses, ecological functions, and ecosystem services between NFI and AFI. Last, we outline knowledge gaps and management needs related to AFI. Because of the distinct hydrologic characteristics and ecological impacts of AFI, ignoring the distinction between NFI and AFI could undermine management of intermittent rivers and ephemeral streams and exacerbate risks to the ecosystems and societies downstream. 

Abstract Non-perennial rivers and streams make up over half the global river network and are becoming more widespread. Transitions from perennial to non-perennial flow are a threshold-type change that can lead to alternative stable states in aquatic ecosystems, but it is unknown whether streamflow itself is stable in either wet (flowing) or dry (no-flow) conditions. Here, we investigated drivers and feedbacks associated with regime shifts between wet and dry conditions in an intermittent reach of the Arkansas River (USA) over the past 23 years. Multiple lines of evidence suggested that these regimes represent alternative stable states, including (a) significant jumps in discharge time series that were not accompanied by jumps in flow drivers such as precipitation and groundwater pumping; (b) a multi-modal state distribution with 92% of months experiencing no-flow conditions for <10% or >90% of days, despite unimodal distributions of precipitation and pumping; and (c) a hysteretic relationship between climate and flow state. Groundwater levels appear to be the primary control over the hydrological regime, as groundwater levels in the alluvial aquifer were higher than the stream stage during wet regimes and lower than the streambed during dry regimes. Groundwater level variation, in turn, was driven by processes occurring at both the regional scale (surface water inflows from upstream, groundwater pumping) and the reach scale (stream–aquifer exchange, diffuse recharge through the soil column). Historical regime shifts were associated with diverse pressures including network disconnection caused by upstream water use, increased flow stability potentially associated with reservoir operations, and anomalous wet and dry climate conditions. In sum, stabilizing feedbacks among upstream inflows, stream–aquifer interactions, climate, vegetation, and pumping appear to create alternative wet and dry stable states at this site. These stabilizing feedbacks suggest that widespread observed shifts from perennial to non-perennial flow will be difficult to reverse.