Aquatic Sciences

, Volume 79, Issue 4, pp 841–853 | Cite as

Experimental drought changes ecosystem structure and function in a macrophyte-rich stream

  • T. Riis
  • P. S. Levi
  • A. Baattrup-Pedersen
  • K. G. Jeppesen
  • S. Rosenhøj Leth
Research Article


Water abstraction continues to increase worldwide, causing periods with extreme low-flow in many streams, which will likely intensify in the future due to climate change. Extreme low-flow may have major effects on in-stream habitats, organisms, and consequently ecosystem functions. We investigated the effects of a 2 months experimentally induced extreme low-flow scenario on the physical, biological, and functional characteristics in a macrophyte-rich lowland stream using a before-after, control-impact (BACI) approach. We quantified nutrient dynamics, including inorganic nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations, ammonium uptake, and whole-stream metabolism. We found a significant decline in the stream wetted habitat area, an increase in water temperature, and an increase in the accumulation of fine organic matter with reduced flow, but no significant changes in dissolved oxygen or benthic chlorophyll a concentrations. Furthermore, the relative demand and overall uptake of ammonium was lower in the low-flow reach relative to the control reach, whereas the relative demand and uptake of phosphate were higher at low-flow. Our results demonstrate that low-flow conditions cause resource limitation in stream biota most likely due to increased thickness of the diffusive boundary layers and an enhanced heterotrophic activity in the accumulated fine organic matter. Our results imply that the basal resources for productivity shift from autotrophic towards more heterotrophic resources causing a shift at higher trophic levels towards more detritivore based and less herbivore based food webs with implications for the invertebrate community composition and the distribution of functional feeding groups. Based on the strong links observed between low-flow and nutrient uptake, we suggest that functional metrics are suitable to assess the effects of low-flow conditions in small streams.


Nutrient uptake Nitrogen Phosphorus Stream Stable isotopes 15Low-flow Water abstraction Macrophyte 



We would like to thank for technical and field support provided by Camilla Håkansson, Lone Ottosen, Birgitte Tagesen, and Ole Zahrtmann. We are grateful to the Danish Council for Independent Research (#272-09-0012), the EU REFRESH Project (#244121) and EU MARS Project (#603378) for providing funding to support our research.

Supplementary material

27_2017_536_MOESM1_ESM.docx (14 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 13 KB)


  1. Acuña V, Wolf A, Uehlinger U, Tockner K (2008) Temperature dependence of stream benthic respiration in an Alpine river network under global warming. Freshw Biol 53:2076–2088CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arnon S, Yanuka K, Nejidat A (2013) Impact of overlying water velocity on ammonium uptake by benthic biofilms. Hydrol Process 27:570–578CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aroita M, Aristi I, Diez J, Martinez M, Oyarzun G, Elogesi A (2015) Impact of water abstraction on storage and breakdown of coarse organic matter in mountain streams. Sci Total Environ 503/504:233–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baron JS, Poff NL, Angermeier PL, Dahm CN, Gleick PH, Hairston NG, Jackson RB, Johnston CA, Richter BD, Steinman AD (2002) Meeting ecological and societal needs for fresh water. Ecol Appl 12:1247–1260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Battin TJ, Kaplan LA, Findlay S, Hopkinson CS, Martí E, Packman AI et al (2008) Biophysical controls on organic carbon fluxes in fluvial networks. Nat Geosci 1:95–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bernot MJ, Sobota DJ, Hall RO, Mulholland PJ, Dodds WK, Webster JR et al (2010) Inter-regional comparison of land-use effects on stream metabolism. Freshw Biol 55:1874–1890CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bishop PL, Gibbs JT, Cunningham BE (1997) Relationship between concentration and hydrodynamic boundary layers over biofilms. Environ Technol 18:375–385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bott TL (2006) Primary production and community respiration. In: Hauer RF, Lamberti GA (eds) Methods in stream ecology, 2nd edn. Elsevier, Oxford, pp 855Google Scholar
  9. Caissie D (2006) The thermal regime of rivers: a review. Freshw Biol 51:1389–1406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cohen MJ, Kurz MJ, Heffernan JB, Martin JB, Douglass RL, Foster CR, Thomas RG (2013) Diel phosphorus variation and the stoichiometry of ecosystem metabolism in a large spring-fed river. Ecol Monogr 83:155–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cornelisen CD, Thomas FIM (2006) Water flow enhances ammonium and nitrate uptake in a seagrass community. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 312:1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Demars BOL, Manson JR, Olafsson JS, Gislason GM, Gudmundsdottír R, Woodward G, Friberg N (2011) Temperature and the metabolic balance of streams. Freshw Biol 56:1106–1121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dewson ZS, James ABW, Death RG (2007) Stream ecosystem functioning under reduced flow conditions. Ecol Appl 17:1797–1808CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Elosegi A, Sabater S (2013) Effects of hydromorphological impacts on river ecosystem functioning: a review and suggestions for assessing ecological impacts. Hydrobiologia 712:129–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gran G (1952) Determination of the equivalence point in potentiometric titrations. Part II. Analyst 77:661–671CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gücker B, Boëchat IG (2004) Stream morphology controls ammonium retention in tropical headwaters. Ecology 85:2818–2827CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hall R Jr, Tank JL (2003) Ecosystem metabolism controls nitrogen uptake in streams in Grand Teton National Park, Wyoming. Limnol Oceanogr 48:1120–1128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Heffernan JB, Cohen MJ (2010) Direct and indirect coupling of primary production and diel nitrate dynamics in a subtropical spring-fed river. Limnol Oceanogr 55:677–688CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hille S, Jørgensen NK, Baattrup-Pedersen A, Kristensen EA, Graeber D, Riis T (2014) Fast reaction of macroinvertebrate communities to stagnation and drought in streams with contrasting nutrient availability. Freshw Sci 33:847–859CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. IPCC (2014) Climate change 2014: synthesis report. In: Pachauri RK, Meyer LA, Core Writing Team (eds) Contribution of working groups I, II and III to the fifth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. IPCC, Geneva, pp 151Google Scholar
  21. James ABW, Dewson ZS, Death RG (2008). The effect of experimental flow reductions on macroinvertebrate drift in natural and streamside channels. River Res Appl 24:22–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Levi PS, Riis T, Baisner AJ, Peipoch M, Pedersen CB, Baattrup-Pedersen A (2015) Macrophyte complexity controls nutrient uptake in lowland streams. Ecosystems 18:914–931CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Milly PC, Dunne KA, Vecchia AV (2005) Global pattern of trends in streamflow and water availability in a changing climate. Nature 438:347–350CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Mulholland PJ, Marzolf ER, Webster JR, Hart DR, Hendricks SP (1997) Evidence that hyporheic zones increase heterotrophic metabolism and phosphorus uptake in forest streams. Limnol Oceanogr 42:443–451CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mulholland PJ, Tank JL, Sanzone DM, Wollheim WM, Peterson BJ, Webster JR, Meyer JL (2000) Nitrogen cycling in a forest stream determined by a 15 N tracer addition. Ecol Monogr 70:471–493Google Scholar
  26. Mulholland PJ, Fellows CS, Tank JL, Grimm NB, Webster JR, Hamilton SK (2001) Inter-biome comparison of factors controlling stream metabolism. Freshw Biol 46:1503–1517CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Newbold JD, Elwood JW, O’Neill RV, Van Winkel W (1981) Measuring nutrient spiraling in streams. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 38:860–863CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Nilsson C, Reidy CA, Dynesius M, Revenga C (2005) Fragmentation and flow regulation of the world’s large river systems. Science 308:405–408CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Owens M (1974) Measurements on non-isolated natural communities in running waters. In: Vollenwieder RA (ed) A manual on methods for measuring primary production in aquatic environments, IBP Handbook 12, 2nd edn. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 111–119Google Scholar
  30. Owens M, Edwards RW, Gibbs JW (1964) Some reaeration studies in streams. Int J Air Water Pollut 8:469–486Google Scholar
  31. Palmer MA, Liermann CA, Nilsson C, Flörke M, Alcamo J, Lake PS, Bond N (2008) Climate change and the world’s river basins: anticipating management options. Front Ecol Environ 6:81–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Poff NL, Allan JD, Palmer MA, Hart DD, Richter BD, Arthington AH, Rogers KH, Meyer JL, Stanford JA (2003) River flows and water wars: emergent science for environmental decision making. Front Ecol Environ 1:298–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Rader RB, Belish TA (1999) Influence of mild to severe flow alterations on invertebrates in three mountain streams. Regul Rivers Res Manag 15:353–363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Riis T, Dodds WK, Kristensen PB, Baisner AJ (2012) Nitrogen cycling and dynamics in a macrophyte-rich stream as determined by a 15N release. Freshw Biol 57:1579–1591CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Riis T, Dodds WK, Kristensen PB, Baisner AJ (2014) Corrigendum: Nitrogen cycling and dynamics in a macrophyte-rich stream as determined by a 15N release. Freshw Biol 59:886–887CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Schwarz CJ (2014). Analysis of BACI experiments. In: Course notes for beginning and intermediate statistics. Accessed 29 June 2015
  37. Stanley E, Fisher HS, Grimm NB (1997) Ecosystem expansion and contraction: a desert stream perspective. Bioscience 47:427–435CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Stewart-Oaten A, Murdoch WW, Parker KR (1986) Environmental impact assessment: “Pseudoreplication” in time? Ecology 67:929–940CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Stream Solute Workshop (1990) Concepts and methods for assessing solute dynamics in stream ecosystems. J N Am Benthol Soc 9:95–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Suren AM, Riis T (2010) The effects of plant on stream communities during low flow: a conceptual model. J N Am Benthol Soc 29:711–724CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Thomas FIM, Cornelisen CD, Zande JM (2000) Effects of water velocity and canopy morphology on ammonium uptake by seagrass communities. Ecology 81:2704–2713CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Valett HM, Thomas SA, Mulholland PJ, Webster JR, Dahm CN, Fellows CS, Crenshaw CL, Peterson CG (2008) Endogenous and exogenous control of ecosystem function: N cycling in headwater streams. Ecology 89:3515–3527CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Webster JR, Valett M (2006) Solute dynamics. In: Hauer RF, Lamberti GA (eds) Methods in stream ecology. 2nd edn. Elsevier, Oxford, pp 855Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • T. Riis
    • 1
  • P. S. Levi
    • 1
    • 2
  • A. Baattrup-Pedersen
    • 3
  • K. G. Jeppesen
    • 1
  • S. Rosenhøj Leth
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of BioscienceAarhus UniversityAarhus CDenmark
  2. 2.Environmental Science and PolicyDrake UniversityDes MoinesUSA
  3. 3.Department of BioscienceAarhus UniversitySilkeborgDenmark

Personalised recommendations