Skip to main content
Log in

Urban beaver ponds show limited impact on stream carbon quantity in contrast to stormwater ponds

  • Published:
Urban Ecosystems Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Urban beaver and stormwater ponds provide hydrologic retention in the landscape while collecting dissolved organic matter (DOM)-rich runoff that can promote primary productivity. Our objective was to determine how the quantity, source, and bioavailability of DOM changed across urban stormwater and beaver pond systems, then compare the two pond types to each other. We measured dissolved organic carbon (DOC) and specific ultraviolet absorbance at 254 nm (SUVA254) from upstream, within, and downstream of seven ponds in Atlanta, GA, USA, biweekly from March to December 2021. Additionally, we completed 28-day laboratory microcosm incubations of pond in- and out-flow during summer and autumn of 2021. We found higher concentrations of DOC in the pond and outflows of stormwater ponds, whereas beaver ponds did not cause any change. Effects of pond type (beaver vs. stormwater) were greater than other controls on concentration, including flow and season. In contrast, SUVA254 showed a shift toward more aromatic carbon below both systems without a clear difference between pond types. Beaver and stormwater pond outflows had similar ranges of DOM bioavailability in summer, but during autumn bioavailability at both sites declined to near zero. Overall, we found that stormwater ponds and beaver ponds had similar impacts on aromaticity and bioavailability, however stormwater ponds increased the quantity of DOC while beaver ponds did not. This suggests that in addition to increasing hydrologic residence times in urbanized systems, urban beaver ponds may limit the export of bioavailable carbon and reduce microbial processing downstream.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

Data Availability

The data used in this paper can be found at http://www.hydroshare.org/resource/e38dc2d79aa243a285437281d0a993ce.

References

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Claire Wadler and Alisha Webb for their field work assistance along with numerous undergraduate lab assistants. Thanks to the Atlanta Department of Watershed Management and the Department of Parks and Recreation, Livable Buckhead, and the Gwinnett County Department of Community Services for site access.

Funding

Funding for this project came from NSF awards EAR-2024411, EAR-2024338, and EAR-2024421. DOC analysis was supported by NSF MRI-1826920. The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

Conceptualization: Julian Sheppy and Sarah H. Ledford; Formal analysis: Julian Sheppy and Sarah H. Ledford; Methodology: Elizabeth Sudduth and Sandra Clinton; Investigation: Julian Sheppy; Data Curation: Julian Sheppy and Sarah H. Ledford; Writing- Original Draft: Julian Sheppy and Sarah H. Ledford; Writing- Editing and Reviewing: Julian Sheppy, Elizabeth Sudduth, Sandra Clinton, Diego Riveros-Iregui, and Sarah H. Ledford; Resources: Elizbeth Sudduth and Sarah H. Ledford; Visualization: Sarah H. Ledford; Supervision: Sarah H. Ledford; Funding Acquisition: Elizabeth Sudduth, Sandra Clinton, Diego Riveros-Iregui, and Sarah H. Ledford.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sarah H. Ledford.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 1489 KB)

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sheppy, J., Sudduth, E.B., Clinton, S. et al. Urban beaver ponds show limited impact on stream carbon quantity in contrast to stormwater ponds. Urban Ecosyst (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-024-01536-y

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-024-01536-y

Keywords

Navigation