Advertisement

Limnology

, Volume 8, Issue 3, pp 243–250 | Cite as

Metabolic balance of streams draining urban and agricultural watersheds in central Japan

  • Tomoya IwataEmail author
  • Tetsuya Takahashi
  • Futaba Kazama
  • Yuki Hiraga
  • Norikazu Fukuda
  • Makiko Honda
  • Yuya Kimura
  • Kaori Kota
  • Daisuke Kubota
  • Shinichi Nakagawa
  • Takashi Nakamura
  • Mika Shimura
  • Satoshi Yanagida
  • Li Xeu
  • Eriko Fukasawa
  • Yuya Hiratsuka
  • Takayuki Ikebe
  • Naoki Ikeno
  • Aya Kohno
  • Kunihito Kubota
  • Kazufumi Kuwata
  • Taku Misonou
  • Yoshimi Osada
  • Yuki Sato
  • Ryo Shimizu
  • Kazue Shindo
Research Paper

Abstract

Empirical data that describe the metabolic balance of stream ecosystems in human-dominated watersheds are scarce. We measured ecosystem metabolism in 23 open-canopied lowland streams draining urban and agricultural areas in the Fuji River Basin, central Japan. Gross primary production (GPP) and community respiration (CR) were estimated using the diurnal dissolved oxygen (DO) change technique, with the reaeration coefficient (K 2) determined from seven empirical depth-velocity equations. Because the predicted values of K 2 showed variation among the depth-velocity equations, the estimates of stream metabolism also varied according to the equations. However, CR was almost always greater than GPP, resulting in negative net ecosystem production (NEP) and GPP/CR ratios below unity for most of the study reaches. Highly heterotrophic streams were found in intensively farmed watersheds, suggesting that organic matter loading from agricultural lands is likely to be a source of allochthonous carbon fueling excess respiration in the study streams. In contrast, streams draining more urbanized areas were less heterotrophic. The present results suggest that lowland streams in agriculturally developed watersheds are associated strongly with terrestrial ecosystems as a source of organic carbon. The resultant strong respiration might become the dominant process in ecosystem metabolism, as reported for headwater streams, large downstream rivers, and estuaries.

Key words

Allochthonous organic matter Land use Net heterotrophy Stream ecosystem metabolism 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alexander RB, Smith RA (2006) Trends in the nutrient enrichment of U.S. rivers during the late 20th century and their relation to changes in probable stream trophic conditions. Limnol Oceanogr 51:639–654CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allan JD (1995) Stream ecology. Kluwer, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  3. Bennett J, Rathbun R (1972) Reaeration in open channel flow. Professional paper 737. U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  4. Bott TL (1996) Primary productivity and community respiration. In: Hauer FR, Lamberti GA (eds) Methods in stream ecology. Academic Press, San Diego, pp 533–556Google Scholar
  5. Bott TL, Brock JT, Dunn CS, Naiman RJ, Ovink RW, Petersen RC (1985) Benthic community metabolism in four temperate stream systems: an inter-biome comparison and evaluation of the river continuum concept. Hydrobiologia 123:3–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Caraco NF, Cole JJ (2004) When terrestrial organic matter is sent down the river: the importance of allochthonous carbon inputs to the metabolism of lakes and rivers. In: Polis GA, Power ME, Huxel GR (eds) Food webs at the landscape level. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 301–316Google Scholar
  7. Churchill MA, Elmore HL, Buckingham RA (1962) The prediction of stream reaeration rates. J Sanit Eng Div ASCE 88:1–46Google Scholar
  8. Cole JJ, Caraco NF (2001) Carbon in catchments: connecting terrestrial carbon losses with aquatic metabolism. Mar Freshw Res 52:101–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. del Giorgio PA, Williams PJLB (2005) Respiration in aquatic ecosystems. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  10. del Giorgio PA, Cole JJ, Cimbleris A (1997) Respiration rates in bacteria exceed phytoplankton production in unproductive aquatic ecosystems. Nature (Lond) 385:148–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dodds WK (2006) Eutrophication and trophic state in rivers and streams. Limnol Oceanogr 51:671–680CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Duarte CM, Agustí S (1998) The CO2 balance of unproductive aquatic ecosystems. Science 281:234–236PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Elmore HL, West WF (1961) Effect of water temperature on stream reaeration. J Sanit Eng Div ASCE 87:59–71Google Scholar
  14. Frankignoulle M, Abril G, Borges A, Bourge I, Canon C, Delille B, Libert E, Théate J-M (1998) Carbon dioxide emission from European estuaries. Science 282:434–436PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Genereux DP, Hemond HF (1992) Determination of gas exchange rate constants for a small stream on Walker Branch watershed, Tennessee. Water Resour Res 28:2365–2374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gücker B, Brauns M, Pusch MT (2006) Effects of wastewater treatment plant discharge on ecosystem structure and function of lowland streams. J N Am Benthol Soc 25:313–329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hall RO, Tank JL (2005) Correcting whole-system estimates of metabolism for groundwater input. Limnol Oceanogr Methods 3:222–229Google Scholar
  18. Isaacs WP, Gaudy AF (1968) Atmospheric oxygenation in a simulated stream. J Sanit Eng Div ASCE 94:319–344Google Scholar
  19. Iwata T, Nakano S, Inoue M (2003) Impacts of past riparian deforestation on stream communities in a tropical rain forest in Borneo. Ecol Appl 13:461–473CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kayaba Y (2005) Estimation of reaeration coefficient and metabolism in a stream based on diurnal observation of dissolved oxygen (in Japanese). Jpn J Limnol 66:93–105Google Scholar
  21. Kling GW, Kipphut GW, Miller MC (1991) Arctic lakes and streams as gas conduits to the atmosphere: implications for tundra carbon budgets. Science 251:298–301PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Langbein WB, Durum WJ (1967) The aeration of streams. US Geological Survey circular no. 542. U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  23. Mayorga E, Aufdenkampe AK, Masiello CA, Krusche AV, Hedges JI, Quay PD, Richey JE, Brown TA (2005) Young organic matter as a source of carbon dioxide outgassing from Amazonian rivers. Nature (Lond) 436:538–541CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. McCutchan JH, Saunders JF, Lewis WM, Hayden MG (2002) Effects of groundwater flux on open-channel estimates of stream metabolism. Limnol Oceanogr 47:321–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Meyer JL, Paul MJ, Taulbee WK (2005) Stream ecosystem function in urbanizing landscapes. J N Am Benthol Soc 24:602–612Google Scholar
  26. Minshall GW, Petersen RC, Cummins KW, Bott TL, Sedell JR, Cushing CE, Vannote RL (1983) Interbiome comparison of stream ecosystem dynamics. Ecology 53:1–25Google Scholar
  27. Mulholland PJ, Fellows CS, Tank JL, Grimm NB, Webster JR, Hamilton SK, Martí E, Ashkenas L, Bowden WB, Dodds WK, McDowell WH, Paul MJ, Peterson BJ (2001) Inter-biome comparison of factors controlling stream metabolism. Freshw Biol 46:1503–1517CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Negulescu M, Rojanski V (1969) Recent research to determine reaeration coefficient. Water Res 3:189–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. O’Connor DJ, Dobbins WE (1958) Mechanism of reaeration in natural streams. Trans Am Soc Civil Eng 123:641–684Google Scholar
  30. Owens M, Edwards RW, Gibbs JW (1964) Some reaeration studies in streams. Int J Air Water Pollut 8:469–486Google Scholar
  31. Richey JE, Melack JM, Aufdenkampe AK, Ballester VM, Hess LL (2002) Outgassing from Amazonian rivers and wetlands as a large tropical source of atmospheric CO2. Science 416:617–620Google Scholar
  32. Trumbore S (2006) Carbon respired by terrestrial ecosystems: recent progress and challenges. Global Change Biol 12:141–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Vannote RL, Minshall GW, Cummins KW, Sedell JR, Cushing CE (1980) The river continuum concept. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 37: 130–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Webster JR, Meyer JL (1997) Stream organic matter budgets. J N Am Benthol Soc 16:3–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Wilcock RJ (1982) Simple predictive equations for calculating stream reaeration rate coefficients. N Z J Sci 25:53–56Google Scholar
  36. Wilcock RJ, Nagels JW, McBride GB, Collier KJ, Wilson BT, Huser BA (1998) Characterization of lowland streams using a single-station diurnal curve analysis model with continuous monitoring data for dissolved oxygen and temperature. N Z J Mar Freshw Res 32:67–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Young RG, Huryn AD (1999) Effects of land use on stream metabolism and organic matter turnover. Ecol Appl 9:1359–1376CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Japanese Society of Limnology 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tomoya Iwata
    • 1
    Email author
  • Tetsuya Takahashi
    • 1
  • Futaba Kazama
    • 1
  • Yuki Hiraga
    • 1
  • Norikazu Fukuda
    • 1
  • Makiko Honda
    • 1
  • Yuya Kimura
    • 1
  • Kaori Kota
    • 1
  • Daisuke Kubota
    • 1
  • Shinichi Nakagawa
    • 1
  • Takashi Nakamura
    • 1
  • Mika Shimura
    • 1
  • Satoshi Yanagida
    • 1
  • Li Xeu
    • 1
  • Eriko Fukasawa
    • 1
  • Yuya Hiratsuka
    • 1
  • Takayuki Ikebe
    • 1
  • Naoki Ikeno
    • 1
  • Aya Kohno
    • 1
  • Kunihito Kubota
    • 1
  • Kazufumi Kuwata
    • 1
  • Taku Misonou
    • 1
  • Yoshimi Osada
    • 1
  • Yuki Sato
    • 1
  • Ryo Shimizu
    • 1
  • Kazue Shindo
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Ecosocial System EngineeringUniversity of YamanashiKofuJapan

Personalised recommendations