Environmental Management

, Volume 37, Issue 2, pp 247–257 | Cite as

Effects of an Experimental Enrichment of Instream Habitat Heterogeneity on the Stream Bed Morphology and Chironomid Community of a Straightened Section in a Sandy Lowland Stream

  • Bernd Spänhoff
  • Wolfgang Riss
  • Paul Jäkel
  • Nadja Dakkak
  • Elisabeth I. Meyer
Article

Abstract

A straightened stream stretch with poor habitat heterogeneity was divided into a “control” section with a low amount of submerged woody debris and an experimentally “wood-enriched” downstream section to study the effect of enhanced habitat diversity on the benthic invertebrate community. The downstream section was enriched by fixing 25 wood packages constructed from 9–10 branches on the stream bottom. Succession processes occurring in the two stream sections were compared by chironomid exuviae drift from July to November 2000 and from April to August 2001. During the first sampling period, more drifting chironomid exuviae (medians of control vs. wood-enriched: 446 vs. 331, no significant difference) and total number of taxa (44 vs. 36, Wilcoxon signed-rank test P = 0.019) were recorded for the control section. Although species compositions of both stream sections were highly similar (Sørensen index: 0.83) the diversity in the wood-enriched section was distinctly lower compared to the control section (Shannon–Weaver index: 1.19 vs. 1.50). During the second sampling period, exuviae numbers remained higher in the control section (median: 326 vs. 166), but total numbers of taxa were nearly equal (51 vs. 49), as well as species diversity (Shannon–Weaver index: 1.67 vs. 1.64). The lower chironomid diversity observed during the first sampling period coincided with a gradual but significant change of the streambed morphology in the wood-enriched section. There, the initially more U-shaped profile (V/U = 0.81 ± 0.37) had turned into a pronounced V shape (V/U = 1.14 ± 0.21), whereas the control section retained its unaltered U shape (V/U = 0.62–0.75). This small-scale study on experimental of woody debris in sandy lowland streams showed that the negative impact of increased hydraulic disturbance of the existing streambed more than outweighed any positive impact resulting from the increase in woody debris.

Keywords

Habitat enrichment Woody debris Chironomid community Pupal exuviae Drift Stream restoration 

Literature Cited

  1. Bash J. S., C. M. Ryan. 2002. Stream restoration and enhancement projects: Is anyone monitoring? Environmental Management 29:877–885CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Benke A. C., T. C. van Arsdall, D. M. Gillespie. 1984. Invertebrate productivity in a subtropical blackwater river: The importance of habitat and life history. Ecological Monographs 54:25–61Google Scholar
  3. Benke A. C., J. B. Wallace. 2003. Influence of wood on invertebrate communities in streams and rivers. In S. V. Gregory, K. L. Boyer, A. M. Gurnell (eds.). The ecology and management of wood in world rivers. American Fisheries Society Symposium 37. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD. Pages 149–177Google Scholar
  4. Biggs J., A. Corfield, P. Grøn, H. O. Hansen, D. Walker, M. Whitfield, P. Williams. 1998. Restoration of the rivers Brede, Cole and Skerne: A joint Danish and British EU–LIFE demonstration project, V: Short-term impacts on the conservation value of aquatic macroinvertebrate and macrophyte assemblages. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 8:241–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Böttger K., A. Rudow. 1995. Die Chironomidae (Diptera, Nematocera) aus Emergenzfängen des norddeutschen Tieflandbaches Kossau. Limnologica 25:49–60Google Scholar
  6. Boon P. J. 1988. The impact of river regulation on invertebrate communities in the U.K. Regulated Rivers: Research and Management 2:389–409Google Scholar
  7. Brooks S. S., M. A. Palmer, B. J. Cardinal, C. M. Swan, S. Ribblett. 2002. Assessing stream ecosystem rehabilitation: limitation of community structure data. Restoration Ecology 10:156–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bunn S. E., A. H. Arthington. 2002. Basic principles and ecological consequences of altered flow regimes for aquatic biodiversity. Environmental Management 30:492–507CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cleven E.-J., E. I. Meyer. 2003. A sandy hyporheic zone limited vertically by a solid boundary. Archiv fuer Hydrobiologie 157:267–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Coffman W. P. 1973. Energy flow in a woodland stream ecosystem: II. The taxonomic composition and phenology of the Chironomidae as determined by the collection of pupal exuviae. Archiv fuer Hydrobiologie 71:281–322Google Scholar
  11. Dahlström N., C. Nilsson. 2004. Influence of woody debris on channel structure in old growth and managed forest streams in Central Sweden. Environmental Management 33:376–384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Friberg N., B. Kronvang, H. O. Hansen, L. M. Svendsen. 1998. Long-term, habitat-specific response of a macroinvertebrate community to river restoration. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 8:87–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Frissel C. A., R. K. Nawa. 1992. Incidence and causes of physical failure of artificial habitat structures in streams of Western Oregon and Washington. North American Journal of Fisheries and Management 12:182–197Google Scholar
  14. Gerhard M, M. Reich. 2000. Restoration of streams with large wood: Effects of accumulated and built-in wood on channel morphology, habitat diversity and aquatic fauna. International Review of Hydrobiology 85:123–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gørtz P. 1998. Effects of stream restoration on the macroinvertebrate community in the River Esrom, Denmark. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 8:115–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Harmon M. E., J. F. Franklin, F. J. Swanson, P. Sollins, S. V. Gregory, J. D. Lattin, N. H. Anderson, S. P. Cline, N. G. Aumen, J. R. Sedell, G. W. Lienkaemper, K. Cromack, K. W. Cummins. 1986. Ecology of coarse woody debris in temperate ecosystems. Advances in Ecological Research 15:133–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Harrison S. C., J. L. Pretty, D. Sheperd, A. G. Hildrew, C. Smith, R. D. Hey. 2004. The effect of instream rehabilitation structures on macroinvertebrates in lowland rivers. Journal of Applied Ecology 41:1140–1154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hax C. L., S. W. Golladay. 1998. Flow disturbance of macroinvertebrates inhabiting sediments and woody debris in a prairie stream. American Midland Naturalist 139:210–223Google Scholar
  19. Hering D., J. Kail, S. Eckert, M. Gerhard, E. I. Meyer, M. Mutz, M. Reich, I. Weiß. 2000. Coarse woody debris quantity and distribution in Central European streams. International Review of Hydrobiology 85:5–23Google Scholar
  20. Hoffmann A., D. Hering. 2000. Wood-associated macroinvertebrate fauna in Central European streams. International Review of Hydrobiology 85:25–48Google Scholar
  21. Laasonen P., T. Muotka, I. Kivijärvi. 1998. Recovery of macroinvertebrate communities from stream habitat restoration. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 8:101–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Langton, P. H. 1991. A key to the pupal exuviae of West Palaearctic Chironomidae. Privately published, Huntingdon, EnglandGoogle Scholar
  23. Lindegaard C., E. Mortensen. 1988. Abundance, life history and production of Chironomidae (Diptera) in a Danish lowland stream. Archiv fuer Hydrobiologie 81(Suppl.):563–587Google Scholar
  24. Mangelsdorf L., K. Scheurmann, F.-H. Weiß. 1990. River morphology. Springer-Verlag, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  25. Mathooko J. M., C. O. Otieno. 2002. Does surface textural complexity of woody debris in lotic ecosystems influence their colonization by aquatic invertebrates? Hydrobiologia 489:11–20Google Scholar
  26. Moerke A. H., G. A. Lamberti. 2004. Restoring stream ecosystems: Lessons from a midwestern state. Restoration Ecology 12:327–334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Muotka T., P. Laasonen. 2002. Ecosystem recovery in restored headwater streams: The role of enhanced leaf retention. Journal of Applied Ecology 39:145–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mutz M. 2000. Influences of woody debris on flow patterns and channel morphology in a low energy, sand-bed stream reach. International Review of Hydrobiology 85:107–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Negishi J. N., M. Inoue, M. Nunokawa. 2002. Effects of channelization on stream habitat in relation to a spate and flow refugia for macroinvertebrates in northern Japan. Freshwater Biology 47:1515–1529CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Nilsen H. C., R. W. Larimore. 1973. Establishment of invertebrate communities on log substrates in the Kaskasia river, Illinois. Ecology 54:367–374Google Scholar
  31. O’Connor N. A. 1991. The effects of habitat complexity on the macroinvertebrates colonising wood substrates in a lowland stream. Oecologia 85:504–512Google Scholar
  32. Palmer M. A., P. Arensburger, A. P. Martin, D. W. Denman. 1996. Disturbance and patch-specific responses: the interactive effects of woody debris and floods on lotic invertebrates. Oecologia 105:247–257Google Scholar
  33. Phillips E. C., R. V. Kilambi. 1994. Use of coarse woody debris by Diptera in Ozark streams, Arizona. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 13:151–159Google Scholar
  34. Pretty J. L., S. C. Harrison, D. J. Shepherd, C. Smith, A. G. Hildrew, R. D. Hey. 2003. River rehabilitation and fish populations: assessing the benefit of instream structures. Journal of Applied Ecology 40:251–265Google Scholar
  35. Ruse L., M. Davison. 2000. Long-term data assessment of chironomid taxa structure and function in the river Thames. Regulated Rivers: Research and Management 16:113–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Shields F. D., M. Asce, N. Morin, C. M. Cooper. 2004. Large woody debris structures for sand-bed channels. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering 130:208–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Shields F. D., S. S. Knight, N. Morin, J. Blank. 2003. Responses of fish and aquatic habitats to sand-bed stream restoration using large woody debris. Hydrobiologia 494:251–257Google Scholar
  38. Smock L. A., G. M. Metzler, J. E. Gladden. 1989. The role of debris dams in the structure and function of low-gradient, headwater streams. Ecology 70:764–775Google Scholar
  39. Spänhoff B., M. O. Gessner. 2004. Slow initial decomposition and fungal colonization of pinewood branches in a nutrient-rich lowland stream. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 61:2007–2013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Spänhoff B., E. I. Meyer. 2004. Breakdown rates of wood in streams. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 23:189–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Spänhoff B., C. Alecke, E. I. Meyer. 2000. Colonization of submerged twigs and branches of different wood genera by aquatic macroinvertebrates. International Review of Hydrobiology 85:49–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Spänhoff B., N. Kaschek, E. I. Meyer. 2004. Laboratory investigation on community composition, emergence patterns and biomass of wood-inhabiting Chironomidae (Diptera) from a sandy lowland stream in Central Europe (Germany). Aquatic Ecology 38:547–560CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Verdonschot P. F. M. 2000. Soft-bottomed lowland streams: A dynamic desert. Verhandlungen der Internationalen Vereinigung fuer theoretische und angewandte Limnologie 27:2577–2581Google Scholar
  44. Wallace J. B., J. R. Webster, J. L. Meyer. 1995. Influence of log additions on physical and biotic characteristics of a mountain stream. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 52:2120–2137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Waters T. F. 1995. Sediments in streams: Sources, biological effects, and control. American Fisheries Society Monograph 7. America fisheris Society, Bethesda, MDGoogle Scholar
  46. Wilson, R. S., and J. D. McGill. 1982. A practical key to the genera of pupal exuviae of British Chironomidae (Diptera, Insecta). Bristol University Printing Office, Bristol, UKGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bernd Spänhoff
    • 1
    • 2
  • Wolfgang Riss
    • 3
  • Paul Jäkel
    • 3
  • Nadja Dakkak
    • 3
  • Elisabeth I. Meyer
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Limnology, Institute of Animal Evolution and EcologyUniversity of MuensterGermany
  2. 2.Research Group for LimnologyInstitute of Ecology, University of JenaGermany
  3. 3.Department of Limnology, Institute of Animal Evolution and EcologyUniversity of MuensterGermany

Personalised recommendations