Advertisement

Ecosystems

pp 1–13 | Cite as

Loss of Potential Aquatic-Terrestrial Subsidies Along the Missouri River Floodplain

  • Jeff S. WesnerEmail author
  • David L. Swanson
  • Mark D. Dixon
  • Daniel A. Soluk
  • Danielle J. Quist
  • Lisa A. Yager
  • Jerry W. Warmbold
  • Erika Oddy
  • Tyler C. Seidel
Article

Abstract

The floodplains of large rivers have been heavily modified due to riparian development and channel modifications, both of which can eliminate shallow off-channel habitats. The importance of these habitats for aquatic organisms like fishes is well studied. However, loss of off-channel habitat also eliminates habitats for the production of emerging aquatic insects, which subsidize riparian consumers in terrestrial food webs. We used field collections of insect emergence, historical mapping, and statistical modeling to estimate the loss of insect emergence due to channel modifications along eight segments of the Missouri River (USA), encompassing 1566 river km, between 1890 and 2012. We estimate annual production of emerging aquatic insects declined by a median of 36,000 kgC (95% CrI: 3000 to 450,000) between 1890 and 2012 (a 34% loss), due to the loss of surface area in backwaters and related off-channel habitats. Under a conservative assumption that riparian birds obtain 24% of their annual energy budget from adult aquatic insects, this amount of insect loss would be enough to subsidize approximately 790,000 riparian woodland birds during the breeding and nesting period (May to August; 95% CrI: 57,000 to 10,000,000). Most of the loss is concentrated in the lower reaches of the Missouri River, which historically had a wide floodplain, a meandering channel, and a high density of off-channel habitats, but which were substantially reduced due to channelization and bank stabilization. Our results indicate that the loss of off-channel habitats in large river floodplains has the potential to substantially affect energy availability for riparian insectivores, further demonstrating the importance of maintaining and restoring these habitats for linked aquatic-terrestrial ecosystems.

Keywords

aquatic-terrestrial linkages insect emergence floodplain ecological subsidies modeling 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Funding for this study was partially provided by the National Science Foundation (NSF-DEB Award 1837233, NSF-DEB Award 1560048, NSF-OIA Cooperative Agreement 1632810), and from the University of South Dakota. Dr. Malia Volke designed the study area map. Funding for GIS mapping was provided via contracts #W912HZ-12-2-0009 and #W912DQ-07-C-0011 from the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), and a contract from the Louis Berger Group, Inc. For contract #W912HZ-12-2-0009, contracting to the University of South Dakota was facilitated through the Great Plains Cooperative Ecosystem Studies Units (GP-CESU). Funding for bird work that supported the density estimates was provided by a Wildlife Diversity Small Grant from the South Dakota Department of Game, Fish, and Parks and the two USACE contracts mentioned above. Additional support for Swanson and Dixon was provided by NSF EPSCoR Track II cooperative agreement # OIA-1632810. This study was conducted under the approval of the National Park Service (Permit #s: MNRR-2014-SCI-0004, MNRR-2015-SCI-0005, MNRR-2017-SCI-0003, MNRR-2018-SCI-0002). This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship Program to TCS under Grant No. NSF DBI-1839286. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.

Supplementary material

10021_2019_391_MOESM1_ESM.docx (975 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 975 kb)

References

  1. Aarts BGW, Van Den Brink FWB, Nienhuis PH. 2004. Habitat loss as the main cause of the slow recovery of fish faunas of regulated large rivers in Europe: the transversal floodplain gradient. River Res Appl 20:3–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allen DC, Wesner JS. 2016. Synthesis: comparing effects of resource and consumer fluxes into recipient food webs using meta analysis. Ecology 97:594-604. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1890/15-1109.1/full.
  3. Anderson KJ, Jetz W. 2005. The broad-scale ecology of energy expenditure of endotherms. Ecol Lett 8:310–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bartrons M, Papeş M, Diebel MW, Gratton C, Vander Zanden MJ. 2013. Regional-level inputs of emergent aquatic insects from water to land. Ecosystems 16:1353–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baxter CV, Fausch KD, Carl Saunders W. 2005. Tangled webs: reciprocal flows of invertebrate prey link streams and riparian zones. Freshw Biol 50:201–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Benke AC. 2001. Importance of flood regime to invertebrate habitat in an unregulated river–floodplain ecosystem. J North Am Benthol Soc 20:225–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Benson A. 2011. Effects of forest type and age class on songbird populations across a cottonwood successional gradient along the Missouri River. (Master’s Thesis), University of South Dakota.Google Scholar
  8. Bürkner P-C. 2017. Advanced Bayesian Multilevel Modeling with the R Package brms. https://journal.r-project.org/archive/2018/RJ-2018-017/RJ-2018-017.pdf.
  9. Cadmus P, Pomeranz JPF, Kraus JM. 2016. Low-cost floating emergence net and bottle trap: comparison of two designs. J Freshw Ecol 31:653–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cummins KW, Wuycheck JC. 1971. Caloric equivalents for investigations in ecological energectics: with 2 figures and 3 tables in text. Internationale Vereinigung für Theoretische und Angewandte LImnologie: Mitteilungen 18:1–158.Google Scholar
  11. Dixon MD, Johnson WC, Scott ML, Bowen DE, Rabbe LA. 2012. Dynamics of plains cottonwood (Populus deltoides) forests and historical landscape change along unchannelized segments of the Missouri River, USA. Environ Manage 49:990–1008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dunning JB. 2007. CRC Handbook of Avian Body Masses, Second Edition. CRC Press.Google Scholar
  13. Dutenhoffer MS, Swanson DL. 1996. Relationship of basal to summit metabolic rate in passerine birds and the aerobic capacity model for the evolution of endothermy. Physiol Zool 69:1232–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dzialowski AR, Bonneau JL, Gemeinhardt TR. 2013. Comparisons of zooplankton and phytoplankton in created shallow water habitats of the lower Missouri River: implications for native fish. Aquat Ecol 47:13–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Epanchin PN, Knapp RA, Lawler SP. 2010. Nonnative trout impact an alpine-nesting bird by altering aquatic-insect subsidies. Ecology 91:2406–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Funk JL, Robinson JW. 1974. Changes in the channel of the lower Missouri River and effects on fish and wildlife. Aquatic Ser Missouri Dep Conserv.Google Scholar
  17. Galat DL, Berry CR, Gardner WM, Hendrickson JC, Mestl GE, Power GJ, Stone C, Winston MR. 2005. Spatiotemporal patterns and changes in Missouri River fishes. American Fisheries Society Symposium 45:249–91.Google Scholar
  18. Galat DL, Fredrickson LH, Humburg DD, Bataille KJ, Bodie JR, Dohrenwend J, Gelwicks GT, Havel JE, Helmers DL, Hooker JB, Jones JR, Knowlton MF, Kubisiak J, Mazourek J, McColpin AC, Renken RB, Semlitsch RD. 1998. Flooding to restore connectivity of regulated, large-river wetlands: natural and controlled flooding as complementary processes along the lower Missouri River. Bioscience 48:721–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gladyshev MI, Arts MT, Sushchik NN. 2009. Preliminary estimates of the export of omega-3 highly unsaturated fatty acids (EPA+DHA) from aquatic to terrestrial ecosystems. In: Kainz M, Brett MT, Arts MT, editors. Lipids in Aquatic Ecosystems. New York, NY: Springer New York. pp 179–210.Google Scholar
  20. Gratton C, Vander Zanden MJ. 2009. Flux of aquatic insect productivity to land: comparison of lentic and lotic ecosystems. Ecology 90:2689–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Grubaugh JW, Anderson RV. 1988. Spatial and temporal availability of floodplain habitat: long-term changes at pool 19, Mississippi River. Am Midl Nat 119:402–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hamilton SK. 2009. Wetlands of Large Rivers: Flood plains. In: Likens GE, Ed. Encyclopedia of Inland Waters. Oxford: Academic Press. p 607–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hastie TJ. 2017. Generalized Additive Models. Routledge.Google Scholar
  24. Hesse LW, Mestl GE, Robinson JW. 1994. Status of Selected Fishes in the Missouri River in Nebraska With Recommendations for Their Recovery. Nebraska Game and Parks Commission – Staff Research Publications. 22.Google Scholar
  25. Hixson SM, Sharma B, Kainz MJ, Wacker A, Arts MT. 2015. Production, distribution, and abundance of long-chain omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids: a fundamental dichotomy between freshwater and terrestrial ecosystems. Environ Rev 23:414–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hoekman D, Dreyer J, Jackson RD, Townsend PA, Gratton C. 2011. Lake to land subsidies: experimental addition of aquatic insects increases terrestrial arthropod densities. Ecology 92:2063–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Johnson WC, Burgess RL, Keammerer WR. 1976. Forest overstory vegetation and environment on the Missouri river floodplain in North Dakota. Ecol Monogr 46:59–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kennedy TA, Muehlbauer JD, Yackulic CB, Lytle DA, Miller SW, Dibble KL, Kortenhoeven EW, Metcalfe AN, Baxter CV. 2016. Flow management for hydropower extirpates aquatic insects, undermining river food webs. BioScience 66:561–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Liu M. 2015. Physiological and ecological measures of stopover habitat quality for migrant birds in natural riparian corridor woodlands and anthropogenic woodlots in southeastern South Dakota. (Doctoral dissertation, University of South Dakota).Google Scholar
  30. Liu M, Swanson DL. 2014. Physiological evidence that anthropogenic woodlots can substitute for native riparian woodlands as stopover habitat for migrant birds. Physiol Biochem Zool 87:183–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Malison RL, Benjamin JR, Baxter CV. 2010. Measuring adult insect emergence from streams: the influence of trap placement and a comparison with benthic sampling. J N Am Benthol Soc 29:647–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Mestl GE, Hesse LW. 1993. Secondary productivity of aquatic insects in the unchannelized Missouri River, Nebraska. Pages 341–349 in Hesse LW, Stalnaker CB, Benson NG, Zuboy JR, eds. Restoration Planning for the Rivers of the Mississippi River Ecosystem. Washington (DC): US Department of Interior, National Biological Survey. Biological Report 19. http://naturalresources.intersearch.com.au/naturalresourcesjspui/handle/1/2301.
  33. Morris LA, Langemeier RN, Russell TR, Witt A. 1968. Effects of Main Stem Impoundments and Channelization upon the Limnology of the Missouri River, Nebraska. Trans Am Fish Soc 97:380–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Munes EC, Dixon MD, Swanson DL, Merkord CL, Benson AR. 2015. Large, infrequent disturbance on a regulated river: response of floodplain forest birds to the 2011 Missouri River flood. http://doi.wiley.com/10.1890/ES15-00007.1.
  35. Nakano S, Murakami M. 2001. Reciprocal subsidies: dynamic interdependence between terrestrial and aquatic food webs. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 98:166–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Poff NL, Allan JD, Bain MB, Karr JR, Prestegaard KL, Richter BD, Sparks RE, Stromberg JC. 1997. The Natural Flow Regime. Bioscience 47:769–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Popova ON, Haritonov AY, Sushchik NN, Makhutova ON, Kalachova GS, Kolmakova AA, Gladyshev MI. 2017. Export of aquatic productivity, including highly unsaturated fatty acids, to terrestrial ecosystems via Odonata. Sci Total Environ 581–582:40–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Quist DJ. 2014. Historical changes and impacts of the 2011 flood on channel complexity on the missouri river. MS Thesis, University of South Dakota.s. https://search.proquest.com/docview/1658567610.
  39. R Core Team. 2017. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2017.Google Scholar
  40. Richardson JS, Sato T. 2015. Resource subsidy flows across freshwater–terrestrial boundaries and influence on processes linking adjacent ecosystems. Ecohydrology 8:406–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Sabo JL, Power ME. 2002. River–watershed exchange: effects of riverine subsidies on riparian lizards and their terrestrial prey. Ecology 83:1860–9.Google Scholar
  42. Sauer, JR, Niven DK, Hines, JE, Ziolkowski Jr, DJ, Parkieck, KL, Fallon, FE, and Link, WA. 2017. The North American Breeding Bird Survey, Results and Analysis 1966 - 2015. Version 2.07.2017 USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, MD.Google Scholar
  43. Swanson DL. 1999. Avifauna of an early successional habitat along the middle Missouri River. Prairie Naturalist 31:145–64.Google Scholar
  44. Stan Development Team. 2016. RStan: the R Interface to Stan. R Package Version 2.14.1Google Scholar
  45. Sterner V, Bowman R, Eder BL, Negus S, Mestl G, Whiteman K, Garner D, Travnichek V, Schloesser J, McMullen J, Hill T. 2009. Final Report – Missouri River Fish and Wildlife Mitigation Program: Fish Community Monitoring and Habitat Assessment of Off-channel Mitigation Sites. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/nebgamestaff/57/. Last accessed 23/08/2018.
  46. Swanson DL. 2010. Seasonal Metabolic Variation in Birds: Functional and Mechanistic Correlates. In: Thompson CF, editor. Current Ornithology Volume 17. New York, NY: Springer New York. pp 75–129.Google Scholar
  47. Swanson DL, Liknes ET. 2006. A comparative analysis of thermogenic capacity and cold tolerance in small birds. J Exp Biol 209:466–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Tallman DA, Swanson DL, Palmer JS. 2002. Birds of South Dakota. Aberdeen, South Dakota: South Dakota Ornithologists’ Union, Northern State University.Google Scholar
  49. Tockner K, Stanford JA. 2002. Riverine flood plains: present state and future trends. Environ Conserv 29:308–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Twining CW, Brenna JT, Lawrence P, Shipley JR, Tollefson TN, Winkler DW. 2016. Omega-3 long-chain polyunsaturated fatty acids support aerial insectivore performance more than food quantity. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 113:10920–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Volke MA, Scott ML, Johnson WC, Dixon MD. 2015. The ecological significance of emerging deltas in regulated rivers. BioScience 65:598–611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Warmbold J. 2016. Effects of fish on aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. MS Thesis, University of South Dakota. https://search.proquest.com/docview/1819287883.
  53. Warmbold JW, Wesner JS. 2018. Predator foraging strategy mediates the effects of predators on local and emigrating prey. Oikos 127:579–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Whiles MR, Goldowitz BS. 2001. Hydrologic influences on insect emergence production from central Platte river wetlands. Ecol Appl 11:1829–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Whiles MR, Goldowitz BS. 2005. Macroinvertebrate communities in central Platte River wetlands: Patterns across a hydrologic gradet alient. Wetlands 25:462–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Whitley JR, Campbell RS. 1974. Some aspects of water quality and biology of the Missouri River. Trans Mo Acad Sci 8:60–72.Google Scholar
  57. Wohl E, Bledsoe BP, Jacobson RB, Poff NL, Rathburn SL, Walters DM, Wilcox AC. 2015. The Natural Sediment Regime in Rivers: Broadening the Foundation for Ecosystem Management. Bioscience 65:358–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Wood SN. 2017. Generalized additive models: an introduction with R. https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/9781498728348.
  59. Yager LA, Dixon MD, Cowman TC, Soluk DA. 2013. Historic changes (1941–2008) in side channel and backwater habitats on an unchannelized reach of the Missouri River. River Res Appl 29:493–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jeff S. Wesner
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • David L. Swanson
    • 1
    • 2
  • Mark D. Dixon
    • 1
    • 2
  • Daniel A. Soluk
    • 1
    • 2
  • Danielle J. Quist
    • 1
    • 4
  • Lisa A. Yager
    • 3
  • Jerry W. Warmbold
    • 1
  • Erika Oddy
    • 1
  • Tyler C. Seidel
    • 1
    • 5
  1. 1.Department of BiologyUniversity of South DakotaVermillionUSA
  2. 2.Missouri River InstituteUniversity of South DakotaVermillionUSA
  3. 3.National Park ServiceMissouri National Recreational RiverYanktonUSA
  4. 4.Biology DepartmentAnoka-Ramsey Community CollegeCoon RapidsUSA
  5. 5.Department of Ecology, Evolution and BehaviorUniversity of MinnesotaSaint PaulUSA

Personalised recommendations