Advertisement

Ecosystems

, Volume 20, Issue 5, pp 1058–1071 | Cite as

Forest Age Influences In-stream Ecosystem Processes in Northeastern US

  • H. A. Bechtold
  • E. J. Rosi
  • D. R. Warren
  • W. S. Keeton
Article

Abstract

A disturbance or natural event in forested streams that alter available light can have potential consequences for nutrient dynamics and primary producers in streams. In this study, we address how functional processes (primary production and nutrient uptake) in stream ecosystems respond to changes in forest canopy structure. We focus on differences in incoming irradiance, nutrient uptake (NO3, NH4, and PO4) and open-channel metabolism seasonally in 13 forested streams that drain forests with different canopy structures (10 to >300 years old) in the northeastern United States. Light irradiance was related to forest age in a U-shaped pattern, with light being the greatest in both young open forests (<50 years old) and older growth forests (>245 years old), whereas the darkest conditions were found in the secondary growth middle-aged forests (80–158 years old). Streams that had adjacent open or old-growth riparian forest had similar conditions with greater standing stock biofilm biomass (chl a), and elevated ER in October compared to streams with middle-aged riparian forests. Compared to all sites, streams with old-growth riparian forest had the greatest in-stream primary production rates (GPP) and elevated background nutrient concentrations, and to a lesser degree, increased nutrient retention and uptake (V f). Streams draining older forests tended to be more productive and retentive than middle-aged forests, likely due to increased light availability and the age and structure of surrounding forest canopies. Middle-aged forests had the least variation in response variables compared to streams in young and old-growth riparian forests, likely a result of uniform canopy conditions. As the structure of widespread middle-aged forests in NE US is altered by loss of specific tree species, climate change, and/or human activity, it will impact in-stream production and nutrient dynamics and may ultimately alter nutrient loading in downstream catchments.

Keywords

headwater streams nutrient uptake metabolism NO3 PO4 NH4 forest structure light availability climate change 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was possible due to a Grant from Northeastern States Research Cooperative Grant and funds from the Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies. We would like to thank Holly Wellard-Kelly, Shelby Servais, Arial Shogren, Dustin Kincaid, Kathryn Vallis, Garrett Peters, Clifford Kraft, the ALC Little Moose Fisheries Station, Daniel Josephson, NH Fish and Game, John McGee for collaborative efforts with the restoration measures that occurred in Nash watershed.

Supplementary material

10021_2016_93_MOESM1_ESM.tif (706 kb)
Box and whisker figures of response variables in categories of forest age from 13 Northeastern US sites and 3 seasons (June, Oct, August). We defined site categories within our dataset as follows: young forest as < 50 years old, middle-aged forest 80-158 years old and old growth forest as 245-347 years old. PAR = photosynthetically active radiation (mol m-2 d-1), Chl a = benthic chl a (standing stock, µg cm-2), Vf = uptake velocity (mm sec-1), GPP= gross primary production (g O2 m-2 d-1) ER = ecosystem respiration (g O2 m-2 d-1). Dots represent outliers more/less than 3/2 times of upper or lower quartile, error bars= maximum or minimum value (excluding outliers), boxes represent upper and lower quartiles, and mid-line shows median values of data. Online Appendix (TIFF 705 kb)

References

  1. Albani M, Moorcroft PR, Ellison AM, Orwig DA, Foster DR. 2011. Predicting the impact of hemlock woolly adelgid on carbon dynamics of eastern United States forests. Can J For Res 40:119–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alexander RB, Smith RA, Schwarz GE. 2000. Effect of stream channel size on the delivery of nitrogen to the Gulf of Mexico. Nature 403:758–61.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Aumen NG, Hawkins CP, Gregory SV. 1990. Influence of woody debris on nutrient retention in catastrophically disturbed streams. Hydrobiologia 190:183–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bechtold HA, Marcarelli AM, Baxter CV, Inouye RS. 2012a. Effects of N, P, and organic carbon on stream biofilm nutrient limitation and uptake in a semi-arid watershed. Limnol Oceanogr 57:1544–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bechtold H, Rosi-Marshall E, Warren D, Cole J. 2012b. A practical method for measuring integrated solar radiation reaching streambeds using photodegrading dyes. Freshw Sci 31:1070–7. doi: 10.1899/12-003.1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bernal S, Hedin LO, Likens GE, Gerber S, Buso DC. 2012. Complex response of the forest nitrogen cycle to climate change. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 109:3406–11.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. Bernhardt ES, Likens GE, Buso DC, Driscoll CT. 2003. In-stream uptake dampens effects of major forest disturbance on watershed nitrogen export. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 100:10304–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. Bernot MJ, Dodds WK. 2005. Nitrogen retention, removal and saturation in lotic ecosystems. Ecosystems 8:442–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bernot MJ, Sobota DJ, Hall RO, Mulholland PJ, Dodds WK, Webster JR, Tank JL, Ashkenas LR, Cooper LW, Dahm CN, Gregory SV, Grimm NB, Hamilton SK, Johnson SL, Mcdowell WH, Meyer JL, Peterson B, Poole GC, Valett HM, Arango C, Beaulieu JJ, Burgin AJ, Crenshaw C, Helton AM, Johnson L, Niederlehner BR, O’Brien JM, Potter JD, Sheibley RW, Thomas SM, Wilson K. 2010. Inter-regional comparison of land-use effects on stream metabolism. Freshw Biol 55:1874–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bott TL. 1996. Primary productivity and community respiration. In: Hauer FR, Lamberti GA, Eds. Methods in stream ecology. 1st edn. San Diego (CA): Academic Press. p 533–56.Google Scholar
  11. Bott TL, Newbold JD, Arscott DB. 2006a. Ecosystem metabolism in piedmont streams: reach geomorphology modulates the influence of riparian vegetation. Ecosystems 9(3):398–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bott TL, Montgomery DS, Newbold JD, Arscott DB, Dow CL, Aufdenkampe AK, Jackson JK, Kaplan LA. 2006b. Ecosystem metabolism in stream so the Catskill Mountains (Delaware and Hudson River watersheds) and lower Hudson valley. J North Am Benthol Soc 25(4):1018–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Burrows RD, Magierowski RH, Fellman JB, Barmuta LA. 2012. Woody debris input and function in old-growth and clear-felled headwater streams. For Ecol Manag 286:73–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Canham CD, Denslow JS, Platt WJ, Runkle JR, Spies TA, White PS. 1990. Light regimes beneath closed canopies and tree-fall gaps in temperate and tropical forests. Can J For Res 20(5):620–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Clapcott JE, Barmuta LA. 2010. Forest clearance increases metabolism and organic matter processes in small headwater streams. J N. Am Benthol Soc 29:546–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Collins SM, Sparks JP, Thomas SA, Wheatley SA, Flecker AS. 2016. Increased light availability reduces the importance of bacterial carbon in headwater stream food webs. Ecosystems 19(3):396–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cordova JM, Rosi-Marshall EH, Yamamuro M, Lamberti GA. 2007. Quantity, controls and functions of large woody debris in Midwestern USA streams. River Res Appl 23:21–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Curzon MT, Keeton WS. 2010. Spatial characteristics of canopy disturbances in riparian old-growth hemlock-northern hardwood forests, Adirondack Mountains, New York, USA. Can J For Res 40:67–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Danger M, Cornut J, Chauvet E, Chavez P, Elger A, Lecerf A. 2013. Benthic algae stimulate leaf litter decomposition in detritus-based headwater streams: a case of aquatic priming effect? Ecology 94:1604–1613. doi: 10.1890/12-0606.1.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Denicola DM, Hoagland KD, Roemer SC. 1992. Influences of canopy cover on spectral irradiance and periphyton assemblages in a prairie stream. J N. Am Benthol Soc 11:391–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Dickman EM, Vanni MJ, Horgan MJ. 2006. Interactive effects of light and nutrients on phytoplankton stoichiometry. Oecologia 149:676–89.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Duveneck MJ, Thompson JR, Gustafson EJ, Liang Y, de Bruijn AMG. 2016. Recovery dynamics and climate change effects to future New England forests. Landsc Ecol . doi: 10.1007/s10980-016-0415-5.Google Scholar
  23. Fausch KD, Northcote TG. 2011. Large woody debris and salmonid habitat in a small coastal British Columbia stream. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 49(4):682–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Fellows CS, Clapcott CE, Udy JW, Bunn SE, Harch BD, Smith MJ, Davies PM. 2006. Benthic metabolism as an indicator of stream ecosystem health. Hydrobiologia 572:71–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Fisher SG, Likens GE. 1973. Energy flow in bear brook, New Hampshire—integrative approach to stream ecosystem metabolism. Ecol Monogr 43(4):421–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Fisichelli NA, Abella SR, Peters M, Krist FJ Jr. 2014. Climate, trees, pests and weeds: change, uncertainty and biotic stressors in eastern U.S. national park forests. For Ecol Manag 327:3–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Franklin JF, Spies TA, Van Pelt R, Carey AB, Thornburgh DA, Rae Berg D, Lindenmayer DB, Harmon ME, Keeton WS, Shaw DC, Bible K, Chen J. 2002. Disturbances and structural development of natural forest ecosystems with silvicultural implications, using Douglas-fir forest as an example. For Ecol Manag 155:399–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Franklin JF, Van Pelt R. 2004. Spatial aspects of structural complexity in old-growth forests. J For 102:22–8.Google Scholar
  29. Grace M, Giling D, Hladyz S, MacNally R. 2015. Fast processing of diel oxygen curves: estimating stream metabolism with BASE (Bayesian Single-station Estimation). Limnol Oceanogr Methods 13(3):103–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Gray SM, Ellis PS, Grace MR, McKelvie ID. 2006. Spectrophotometric determination of ammonia in estuarine waters by hybrid reagent-injection gas-diffusion flow analysis. Spectrosc Lett 39:737–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Greenwood JL, Rosemond AD. 2005. Periphyton response to long-term nutrient enrichment in a shaded headwater stream. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 62:2033–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Grimm NB, Chapin FSIII, Bierwagen B, Gonzalez P, Groffman PM, Luo Y, Melton F, Nadelhoffer K, Pairis A, Raymond P, Schimel J, Williamson CE. 2013. The impacts of climate change on ecosystem structure and function. Fron Ecol Environ 119(9):474–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hanafi S, Grace MR, Webb JA, Hart BT. 2007. Uncertainty in nutrient spiraling: sensitivity of spiraling indices to small errors in measured nutrient concentration. Ecosystems 10:477–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hall RO, Baker MA, Rosi-Marshall EJ, Tank JL, Newbold JD. 2013. Solute specific scaling of inorganic nitrogen and phosphorus uptake in streams. Biogeosciences 10:7323–31. doi: 10.5194/bg-10-7323-2013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hall RO Jr, Tank JL. 2003. Ecosystem metabolism controls nitrogen uptake in streams in Grand Teton National Park, Wyoming. Limnol Oceanogr 48:1120–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hanson JJ, Lorimer CG. 2007. Forest structure and light regimes following moderate wind storms; implications for multi-cohort management. Ecol Appl 17(5):1325–40.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Hedin LO, Armesto JJ, Johnson AH. 1995. Patterns of nutrient loss from unpolluted, old-growth temperate forests: evaluation of biogeochemical theory. Ecology 76:493–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hill WR, Dimick SM. 2002. Effects of riparian leaf dynamics on periphyton photosynthesis and light utilization efficiency. Freshw Biol 47:1245–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Hill WR, Mulholland PJ, Marzolf ER. 2001. Stream ecosystem responses to forest leaf emergence in spring. Ecology 82:2306–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Hill WR, Ryon MG, Schilling EM. 1995. Light limitation in a stream ecosystem: responses by primary producers and consumers. Ecology 76:1297–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Jenkins JC, Aber JD, Canham CD. 1999. Hemlock woolly adelgid impacts on community structure and N cycling rates in eastern hemlock forests. Can J For Res 29:630–45. doi: 10.1139/cjfr-29-5-630.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Julian JP, Seegert SZ, Powers SM, Stanley EH, Doyle MW. 2011. Light as a first-order control on ecosystem structure in a temperate stream. Ecohydrology 4:422–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Keeton WS, Kraft CE, Warren DR. 2007. Mature and old-growth riparian forests: structure, dynamics, and effects on Adirondack stream habitats. Ecol Appl 17:852–68.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Kiffney PM, Buhle ER, Naman SM, Pess GR, Klett RS. 2014. Linking resource availability and habitat structure to stream organisms: an experimental and observational assessment. Ecosphere 5:39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Kohler TJ, Heatherly TN, El-Sabaawi RW, Zandona E, Marchal MC, Flecker AS, Pringle CM, Reznick DN, Thomas SA. 2012. Flow, nutrients and light availability influence Neotropical epilithon biomass and stoichiometry. Freshw Sci 31(4):1019–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Krause S, Klaar MJ, Hannah DM, Mant J, Bridgeman J, Trimmer M, Manning-Jones S. 2014. The potential of large woody debris to alter biogeochemical processes and ecosystem services in lowland rivers. Wiley Interdiscip Rev 1(3):263–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Matheson FE, Quinn JM, Martin ML. 2012. Effects of irradiance on diel and seasonal patterns of nutrient uptake by stream periphyton. Freshw Biol 57:1617–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Mulholland PJ, Thomas SA, Valett HM, Webster JR, Beaulieu J. 2006. Effects of light on NO3 uptake in small forested streams: diurnal and day-to-day variations. J N. Am Benthol Soc 25:583–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Mulholland PJ, Fellows CS, Tank JL, Grimm NB, Webster JR, Hamilton SK, Marti E, Askenas L, Bowden WB, Dodds WK, McDowell WH, Paul JM, Peterson BJ. 2001. Inter-biome comparison of factors controlling stream metabolism. Freshw Biol 46:1503–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Mosisch TD, Bunn SE, Davies PM. 2001. The relative importance of shading and nutrients on algal production in subtropical streams. Freshw Biol 46:1269–78. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2427.2001.00747.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Pan YM, Chen JM, Birdsey R, McCullough K, He L, Deng F. 2011. Age, structure and disturbance legacy of North American Forests. Biogeosciences 8:715–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Quinn JM, Cooper AB, Stroud MJ, Burrell GP. 1997. Shade effects on stream periphyton and invertebrates: an experiment in streamside channels. N. Z. J Mar Freshw Res 31:665–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Rasband WS. (1997). ImageJ. U. S. National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA, http://imagej.nih.gov/ij/, 1997–2014
  54. Ribot M, Von Shiller D, Peipoch M, Sabater F, Grimm NB, Marti E. 2013. Influence of nitrate and ammonium availability on uptake kinetics of stream biofilms. Freshw Sci 32(4):1155–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Reilly MJ, Spies TA. 2015. Regional variation in stand structure and development in forest of Oregon, Washington, and inland Northern California. Ecosphere 6(10):1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Richardson K, Beardall J, Raven JA. 1983. Adaptation of unicellular algae to irradiance: an analysis of strategies. New Phytol 93:157–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Rosemond AD. 1993. Interactions among irradiance, nutrients, and herbivores constrain a stream algal community. Oecologia 94:585–94.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. Sabater F, Butturini A, Marti E, Munoz I, Romani A, Wray J, Sabater S. 2000. Effects of riparian vegetation removal on nutrient retention in a Mediterranean stream. J N. Am Benthol Soc 19(4):609–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Steinman AD. 1992. Does an increase in irradiance influence periphyton in a heavily-grazed woodland stream. Oecologia 91:163–70.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. Stovall J, Keeton WS, Kraft CE. 2009. Late-successional riparian forest structure results in heterogeneous periphyton distributions in low-order streams. Can J For Res 29:2343–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Stream Solute Workshop. 1990. Solute dynamics in streams. J N. Am Benthol Soc 9:95–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Tank JL, Rosi-Marshall EJ, Griffiths NA, Entrekin SA, Stephen ML. 2010. A review of allochthonous organic matter dynamics and metabolism in streams. J N. Am Benthol Soc 29:118–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Tank JL, Bernot MJ, Rosi-Marshall EJ. 2006. Nitrogen limitation and uptake. In: Hauer FR, Lamberti GA, Eds. Stream ecology methods. San Diego (CA): Elsevier Press. p 213–38.Google Scholar
  64. Valett HM, Crenshaw CL, Wagner PF. 2002. Stream nutrient uptake, forest succession, and biogeochemical theory. Ecology 83:2888–901.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Vitousek PA, Reiners WA. 1975. Ecosystem succession and nutrient retention: a hypothesis. BioScience 25:376–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Warren DR, Bernhardt ES, Hall RO, Likens GE. 2007. Forest age, wood, and nutrient dynamics in headwater streams of the Hubbard Brook Experimental Forest, NH. Earth Surf Proc Landf 32:1154–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Warren DR, Kraft CE, Keeton WS, Nunery JS, Likens GE. 2009. Dynamics of wood recruitment in stream of the northeastern US. Forest Ecol Manag 258:804–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Warren DR, Keeton WS, Bechtold HA, Rosi-Marshall EJ. 2013. Comparing streambed light availability and canopy cover in streams with old-growth versus early-mature riparian forests western Oregon. Aquat Sci 75:547–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Warren DR, Collins SM, Purvis EM, Kaylor MJ, Bechtold HA. 2016a. Spatial variability in light yields colimitation of primary production by both light and nutrients in a forested stream ecosystem. Ecosystems. doi: 10.1007/s10021-016-0024-9.
  70. Warren DR, Keeton WS, Kiffney PM, Kaylor MJ, Bechtold HA, Magee J. 2016b. Changing forests—changing streams: riparian forest stand development and ecosystem function in temperate headwaters. Ecosphere 7(8):e01435. doi: 10.1002/ecs2.1435.
  71. Webster JR, Valett HM. 2006. Solute dynamics. In: Hauer FR, Lamberti GA, Eds. Methods in stream ecology. 2nd edn. San Diego: Academic Press. p 169–85.Google Scholar
  72. Wetzel RG. 1964. A comparative study of the primary production of higher aquatic plants, periphyton, and phytoplankton in a large, shallow lake. Internationale Revue der gesamten Hydrobiologie und Hydrographie 49:1522–2632.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Woliheim WM, Vorosmarty CJ, Peterson BJ, Seitxinger SP, Hopkinson CS. 2006. Relationship between river size and nutrient removal. Geophys Res Lett 33:L06410. doi: 10.1029/2006GL025845.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • H. A. Bechtold
    • 1
    • 2
  • E. J. Rosi
    • 1
  • D. R. Warren
    • 3
  • W. S. Keeton
    • 4
  1. 1.Cary Institute of Ecosystem StudiesMillbrookUSA
  2. 2.Department of Biological SciencesLock Haven UniversityLock HavenUSA
  3. 3.Department of Forest Ecosystems and Society/Department of Fisheries and WildlifeOregon State UniversityCorvallisUSA
  4. 4.Rubenstein School of Environment and Natural ResourcesUniversity of VermontBurlingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations