, Volume 9, Issue 3, pp 386–397 | Cite as

The Spatial Structure of Variability in a Semi-arid, Fluvial Ecosystem

  • David Bruce LewisEmail author
  • John D. Schade
  • Anne K. Huth
  • Nancy B. Grimm


The arrangement and composition of flowpath types within a given network are thought to govern its functioning. This concept assumes that different flowpath types are functionally distinct. We investigated this assumption in a fluvial ecosystem by comparing the riparian zone, parafluvial zone (in-channel gravel bars), and surface stream. We hypothesized that differences in advection, uptake, and sorption would render material cycles more (a) open and (b) mutable in the surface stream, whereas the converse would occur in the riparian zone, and an intermediate state would be seen in the intervening parafluvial zone. To test our first hypothesis, we predicted that spatial heterogeneity in solute concentrations would be least in the surface stream, greater in the parafluvial zone, and greatest in the riparian zone. Using a null model, we ascertained that this pattern was shown by all solute species we examined (nitrate, ammonium, total dissolved inorganic nitrogen [DIN], dissolved organic N, total dissolved N, soluble reactive phosphorus, dissolved organic carbon, and chloride). To test our second hypothesis, we predicted that temporal change in spatial heterogeneity would be greatest in the surface stream, less in the parafluvial zone, and least in the riparian zone. Nitrate, DIN, and chloride showed this pattern. In particular, surface stream inorganic N was less spatially variable following months of high rainfall. According to an extant hypothesis, these results suggest that inorganic N processing may be a stable function in this ecosystem. Other solute species did not support our second prediction, perhaps because their retention and release dynamics are influenced principally by geochemistry. Generally, our findings indicate that a geomorphic template can generate spatial patterns in ecosystem function, warranting an expansion of the spiraling framework to a variety of flowpath types.


Arizona ecosystem function geomorphic template null model process parafluvial zone process San Pedro River riparian zone stability 



This research was funded by the Science and Technology Center for Sustainability of Semi-arid Hydrology and Riparian Areas (NSF OIA-9876800), D.B.L. was supported by the Central Arizona–Phoenix Long-Term Ecological Research Project (NSF DEB-9714833). For access to field sites and lodging, we thank Sandy Anderson of Gray Hawk Ranch, the US Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management, and the US Department of Agriculture’s Agricultural Research Service. We thank Martha Conklin, Tracy Johns, Cathy Kochert, Jill Koehler, John Petti, John Smith, and Ryan Sponseller for help with various aspects of project design, field implementation, and laboratory analyses. Ryan Sponseller, James Heffernan, and two anonymous reviewers provided insightful feedback that improved the manuscript.


  1. Adair EC, Binkley D. 2002. Co-limitation of first year Fremont cottonwood seedlings by nitrogen and water, Wetlands 22:425–9Google Scholar
  2. Baker MA, Valett HM, Dahm CN. 2000. Organic carbon supply and metabolism in a shallow groundwater ecosystem. Ecology 81:3133–48Google Scholar
  3. Coes AL, Gellenbeck DJ, Towne DC. 1999. Ground-water quality in the Sierra Vista subbasin, Arizona, 1996–97. US Geological Survey, Water - Resources Investigations Report 99-4056, viii + 50 pGoogle Scholar
  4. Costanza R, d’Arge R, de Groot R, Farber S, Grasso M, Hannon B, Limburg K, and others. 1997. The value of the world’s ecosyste m services and natural capital. Nature 387:253–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. DeAngelis DL. 1980. Energy flow, nutrient cycling, and ecosystem resilience. Ecology 6 1 :764–7:1Google Scholar
  6. D’Elia CF, Steudler PA, Corwin N. 1977. Determination of total nitrogen in aqueous samples using persulfate digestion. Limnol Oceanogr 22:760–4Google Scholar
  7. Dent CL, Grimm NB, 1999. Spatial heterogeneity of stream water nutrient concentrations over successional time. Ecology 80:2283–98Google Scholar
  8. Essington TE, Carpenter SR, 2000, Nutrient cycling in lakes and streams: insights from a comparative analysis. Ecosystems 3:131–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fisher SG, Likens GE, 1973, Energy flow in Bear Brook, New Hampshire: an integrative approach to stream ecosystem metabolism. Ecol Monogr 43:421–39Google Scholar
  10. Fisher SG, Gray LJ, Grimm NB, Busch DE. 1982. Temporal succession in a desert stream ecosystem following flash flooding. Ecol Monogr 52:93–110Google Scholar
  11. Fisher SG, Grimm NB, Marti E, Holmes RM, Jones JB, 1998. Material spiraling in stream corridors: a telescoping ecosystem model, Ecosystems 1:19–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fisher SG, Sponseller RA, Heffernan JB, 2004, Horizons in stream biogeochemistry: flowpaths to progress. Ecology 85:2369–79Google Scholar
  13. Gold AJ, Groffman PM, Addy K, Kellogg DQ, Stolt M, Rosenblatt AE. 2001. Landscape attributes as controls on ground water nitrate removal capacity of riparian zones. J Am Water Resources Assoc 37:1457–64Google Scholar
  14. Gotelli NJ, Graves GR. 1996. Null models ecology. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution PressGoogle Scholar
  15. Gregory SV, Swanson FJ, McKee WA, Cummins KW. 1991. An ecosystem perspective of riparian zones. BioScience 41 :540–511Google Scholar
  16. Grimm NB. 1987. Nitrogen dynamics during succession in a desert stream, Ecology 68:1157–70Google Scholar
  17. Grimm NB. Fisher SG. 1984. Exchange between interstitial and surface water: implications for stream metabolism and nutrient cycling. Hydrobiologia 111:219–28Google Scholar
  18. Grimm NB, Fisher SG. 1986. Nitrogen limitation potential of Arizona streams and rivers, J Arizona–Nevada Acad Sci 21:31–43Google Scholar
  19. Grimm NB, Fisher SG. 1989. Stability of periphyton and macroinvertebrates to disturbance by flash floods in a desert stream. J. North Am. Benthol. Soc 8:293–307Google Scholar
  20. Grimm NB, Gergel SB, McDowell WH, Boyer EW, Dent CL, Groffman P, Hart SC, and others. 2003. Merging aquatic and terrestrial perspectives of nutrient biogeochemistry. Oecologia 137:485–501CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Groffman PM, Bain DJ, Band LE, Belt KT, Brush GS, Pouyat RV, Yesilonis IC, and others. 2003. Down by the riverside: urban riparian ecology. Frontiers Ecol Environ 1:315–21 Google Scholar
  22. Gticker B, Boëchat IG. 2004. Stream morphology controls ammonium retention in tropical headwaters. Ecology 85:2818–27Google Scholar
  23. Hedin LO, Armesto JJ, Jolinson AH. 1995. Patterns of nutrient loss from unpolluted, old-growth temperate forests: evaluation of biogeochemical theory. Ecology 76:493–509Google Scholar
  24. Henriksen A, 1966. An automatic method for determining orthophosphate in sewage and highly polluted waters. Analyst 91:652.Google Scholar
  25. Hill AR. 1996. Nitrate removal in stream riparian zones. J Environ Qual 25:743–755Google Scholar
  26. Holmes RM, Fisher SG, Grimm NB. 1994. Parafluvial nitrogen dynamics in a desert stream ecosystem. J North Am Benthol Soc 13:468–78Google Scholar
  27. Katz J, Abraham S, Baker N. 1954. Analytical procedure using a combined combustion-diffusion vessel: improved method for combustion of organic compounds in aqueous solution. Analyt Chem 26:1503Google Scholar
  28. Kratz TK, Webster KE, Riera JL, Lewis DB. 2005. Geomorphic legacies and the landscape position of lakes. In: Magnuson JJ, Kratz TK, eds. Lakes in the landscape: Long term ecological research of north temperate lakes. New York: Oxford University Presst (in press)Google Scholar
  29. Krueper D, Bart J, Rich TD. 2003. Response of vegetation and breeding birds to the removal of cattle on the San Pedro River, Arizona (USA). Conserv Biol 17:607–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lenzi MA. 2004. Displacement and transport of marked pebbles, cobbles and boulders during floods in a steep mountain stream. Hydrolog Proc 18:1899–914Google Scholar
  31. Levin SA. 1998. Ecosystems and the biosphere as complex adaptive systems. Ecosystems 1:431–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lewis DB, Magnuson JJ. 2000. Landscape spatial patterns in freshwater snail assemblages across Northern Highland catchments. Freshwater Biol 43:409–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lytle DA, Merritt DM. 2004. Hydrologic regimes and riparian forests: a structured population model for cottonwood. Ecology 85:2493–503Google Scholar
  34. Mulholland PJ, Tank JL, Webster JR, Bowden WB, Dodds WK, Gregory SV, Grimm NB, and others. 2002. Can uptake length in streams be determined by nutrient addition experiments? Results from an interbiome comparison study. J North Am Benthol Soc 21:544–60Google Scholar
  35. Newbold JD, Elwood JW, O’Neill RV, Van Winkle W. 1981. Measuring nutrient spiralling in streams. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 38:860–3Google Scholar
  36. Pinay G, Black VJ, Planty-Tabacchi AM, Gumiero B, Decamps H. 2000. Geomorphic control of denitrification in large river floodplain soils, Biogeochemistry 50:163–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Pinay G, O’Keefe T, Edwards R, Naiman RJ. 2003. Potential denitrification activity in the landscape of a western Alaska drainage basin, Ecosystems 6:336–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Schade JD, Fisher SG, Grimm NB, Seddon JA. 2001. The influence of a riparian shrub on nitrogen cycling in a Sonoran Desert stream. Ecology 82:3363–76Google Scholar
  39. Scott RL, Edwards EA, Shuttleworth WJ, Huxman TE, Watts C, Goodrich DC. 2004. Interannual and seasonal variation in fluxes of water and carbon dioxide from a riparian woodland ecosystem. Agric For Meteorol 122:65–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Solorzano L, 1969. Determination of ammonium in natural waters by the phenolhypochlorite method. Limnol Oceanog 14:799–801Google Scholar
  41. Sponseller RA, Fisher SG. 2005. Drainage size, stream intermittency, and ecosystem function in a Sonoran Desert landscape. Ecosystems (in press)Google Scholar
  42. Stanley EH, Doyle MW. 2002. A geomorphic perspective on nutrient retention following dam removal. Bioscience 52:693–701Google Scholar
  43. Stanley EH, Fisher SG, Grimm NB. 1997. Ecosystem expansion and contraction in streams. Bioscience 47:427–35Google Scholar
  44. Stromberg JC. 1993. Frémont cottonwood–Goodding willow riparian forests: a review of their ecology, threats, and recovery potential. J Arizona–Nevada Acad Sci 26:97–110Google Scholar
  45. Stromberg JC, Richter BD, Patten DT, Wolden LG. 1993. Response of a Sonoran riparian forest to a 10-year return flood. Great Basin Nat 53:118–30Google Scholar
  46. Tank JL, Meyer JL, Sanzone DM, Mulholland PJ, Webster JR, Peterson BJ, Wollheim WM, and others. 2000. Analysis of nitrogen cycling in a forest stream during autumn using a 15N-tracer addition. Limnol Oceanogr 45:1013–29Google Scholar
  47. Valett HM, Fisher SG, Grimm NB, Camill P. 1994. Vertical hydrologic exchange and ecological stability of a desert stream ecosystem. Ecology 75:548–60Google Scholar
  48. Valett HM, Baker MA, Morrice JA, Crawford CS, Molles MC, Dahm CN, Moyer DL, and others. 2005. Biogeochemical and metabolic responses to the flood pulse in a semiarid floodplain. Ecology 86:220–34Google Scholar
  49. Wagener SM, Oswood MW, Schimel JP. 1998. Rivers and soils: parallels in carbon and nutrient processing. Bioscience 48:104–8Google Scholar
  50. Webster JR, Mulholland PJ, Tank JL, Valett HM, Dodds WK, Peterson BJ, Bowden WB, and others. 2003. Factors affecting ammonium uptake in streams: an inter-biome perspective. Freshwater Biol 48:1329–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Wood ED, Armstrong FAJ, Richards FA. 1967. Determination of nitrate in seawater by cadmium–copper reduction to nitrite. J Mar Biol Assoc 47:23–31Google Scholar
  52. Zall DM, Fisher D, Garner MQ. 1956. Photometric determination of chlorides in water. Analyt Chem 28:1665–68Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • David Bruce Lewis
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • John D. Schade
    • 1
  • Anne K. Huth
    • 3
  • Nancy B. Grimm
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.School of Life SciencesArizona State UniversityTempeUSA
  2. 2.International Institute for SustainabilityArizona State UniversityTempeUSA
  3. 3.Department of Hydrology and Water ResourcesUniversity of ArizonaTucsonUSA

Personalised recommendations