Hydrobiologia

, Volume 635, Issue 1, pp 113–124

Comparison of several methods to calculate reaeration in streams, and their effects on estimation of metabolism

Primary research paper

Abstract

Metabolism is an integrative measurement of stream and river ecosystem functioning, and thus, could be used to assess impairment. Stream metabolism is measured by different methods which often yield contrasting results. Furthermore, open-channel measurements of metabolism, which offer the best potential for continuous monitoring of stream functioning, rely on calculations of gas exchange with the atmosphere, for which a plethora of methods exists. Therefore, to incorporate metabolism in stream monitoring programs, it is necessary to determine which methods yield comparable results under a given set of environmental conditions. We studied 21 streams in the Basque Country (northern Spain), ranging widely in physical characteristics and water quality. We calculated reaeration during summer baseflows using three different approaches: the night-time drop in oxygen, the lag between noon and peak oxygen concentration, and ten empirical equations relating depth and velocity with reaeration coefficients obtained from the literature. Differences among methods were very large, especially at the shallower sites. The results obtained with most empirical equations were highly correlated, but showed little agreement with the night-time and peak lag methods. We then analyzed the response of reaeration rate to river stage: reaeration calculated by the night-time method during 1 year of continuous monitoring was regressed against discharge at each site, and the resulting model was compared to the results of empirical equations, using software HecRas 2.2 to model hydraulic conditions at different river stages. The shape of reaeration-discharge plots differed greatly and in a site-dependent manner, and there was little agreement between methods. Finally, we investigated the effects of reaeration rate on estimates of metabolism. The choice of method greatly affected the estimates of both primary production and respiration. The empirical equations, except E7 and E10, yielded the most unrealistic estimations of stream metabolism. Overall, the night-time method, especially when regressed against discharge, seems to be the most robust and reliable among those tested, with the energy dissipation method (E10) appearing to be a viable alternative when the night-time method does not work.

Keywords

Metabolism Stream Reaeration Methods Gross primary production Respiration 

References

  1. Acuña, V., A. Giorgi, I. Muñoz, U. Uehlinger & S. Sabater, 2004. Flow extremes and benthic organic matter shape the metabolism of a headwater Mediterranean stream. Freshwater Biology 49: 960–971.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alba-Tercedor, J. & A. Sanchez-Ortega, 1988. Un método rápido y simple para evaluar la calidad biológica de las aguas corrientes basado en el de Hellawell. Limnetica 4: 51–56.Google Scholar
  3. Atkinson, B. L., M. R. Grace, B. T. Hart & K. E. N. Vanderkruk, 2008. Sediment instability affects the rate and location of primary production and respiration in a sand-bed stream. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 27: 581–592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Basque Government, 2003. Red de vigilancia de las masas de agua superficial de la Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco. Basque Government: 2405 pp.Google Scholar
  5. Bennett, J. P. & R. E. Rathbun, 1972. Reaeration in open channel flow. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 737.Google Scholar
  6. Bott, T. L., J. T. Brock, C. E. Cushing, S. V. Gregory, D. King & R. C. Petersen, 1978. Comparison of methods for measuring primary production and community respiration in streams. Hydrobiologia 60: 3–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bott, T. L., D. S. Montgomery, J. D. Newbold, D. B. Arscott, C. L. Dow, A. K. Aufdenkampe, J. K. Jackson & L. A. Kaplan, 2006. Ecosystem metabolism in streams of the Catskill Mountains (Delaware and Hudson River watersheds) and Lower Hudson Valley. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 25: 1018–1044.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bunn, S. E., P. M. Davies & T. D. Mosisch, 1999. Ecosystem measures of river health and their response to riparian and catchment degradation. Freshwater Biology 41: 333–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cadwallader, T. E. & A. J. McDonnell, 1969. A multivariate analysis of reaeration data. Water Research 3: 731–742.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chapra, S. C. & D. M. DiToro, 1991. Delta method for estimating primary production, respiration, and reaeration in streams. Journal of Environmental Engineering 117: 640–655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Churchill, M. A., H. L. Elmore & E. A. Buckingham, 1962. The prediction of stream reaeration rates. Journal of Sanitary Engineering, American Society of Civil Engineers 88: 1–46.Google Scholar
  12. Dobbins, W. E., 1965. Closure to “BOD and oxygen relationship in streams”. Journal of Sanitary Engineering, American Society of Civil Engineers 91: 49–55.Google Scholar
  13. Elosegi, A., A. Basaguren & J. Pozo, 2006. A functional approach to the ecology of Atlantic Basque streams. Limnetica 25: 123–134.Google Scholar
  14. Erlandsen, M. & N. Thyssen, 1983. Modelling the community oxygen production in lowland streams dominated by submersed macrophytes. In Lauenroth, W. K., G. V. Skogerboe & M. Flug (eds), Analysis of ecological systems: state of the art in ecological modelling. Elsevier, Amsterdam: 855–860.Google Scholar
  15. Fellows, C. S., J. E. Clapcott, J. W. Udy, S. E. Bunn, B. D. Harch, M. J. Smith & P. M. Davies, 2006. Benthic metabolism as an indicator of stream ecosystem health. Hydrobiologia 572: 71–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Genereux, D. P. & H. F. Hemond, 1992. Determination of gas exchange rate constants for a small stream on Walker Branch watershed, Tennessee. Water Resources Research 28: 2365–2374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gessner, M. O. & E. Chauvet, 2002. A case for using litter breakdown to assess functional stream integrity. Ecological Applications 12: 498–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Grace, M. R. & S. J. Imberger, 2006. Stream metabolism: performing and interpreting measurements. Water Studies Centre Monash University, Murray Darling Basin Commission and New South Wales Department of Environment and Climate Change,  .Google Scholar
  19. Hill, B. H., R. K. Hall, P. Husby, S. Herlihys & M. Dunne, 2000. Interregional comparisons of sediment microbial respiration in streams. Freshwater Biology 44: 213–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hornberger, G. M. & M. G. Kelly, 1975. Atmospheric reaeration in a river using productivity analysis. Journal of the Environmental Engineering Division ASCE 101: 729–739.Google Scholar
  21. Izagirre, O., M. Bermejo, J. Pozo & A. Elosegi, 2007. RIVERMET©: an Excel-based tool to calculate river metabolism from diel oxygen-concentration curves. Environmental Modelling and Software 22: 24–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Izagirre, O., U. Agirre, M. Bermejo, J. Pozo & A. Elosegi, 2008. Environmental controls of whole-stream metabolism identified from continuous monitoring of Basque streams. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 27: 252–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Krenkel, P. A. & G. T. Orlob, 1963. Turbulent diffusion and the reaeration coefficient. Transactions of the American Society of Civil Engineers 128: 293–334.Google Scholar
  24. Langbein, W. B. & W. H. Durum, 1967. The aeration capacity of streams. U.S. Geological Survey Circular 542.Google Scholar
  25. Marzolf, E. R., P. J. Mulholland & A. D. Steinman, 1994. Improvements to the diurnal upstream-downstream dissolved oxygen change technique for determining whole-stream metabolism in small streams. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 51: 1591–1599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. McBride, G. B., 2002. Calculating stream reaeration coefficients from oxygen profiles. Journal of Environmental Engineering 128: 384–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. McCutchan, J. H., W. M. Lewis & J. F. Saunders, 1998. Uncertainty in the estimation of stream metabolism from open-channel oxygen concentrations. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 17: 155–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Morse, N., W. B. Bowden, A. Hackman, C. Pruden, E. Steiner & E. Berger, 2007. Using sound pressure to estimate reaeration in streams. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 26: 28–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mulholland, P. J., C. S. Fellows, J. L. Tank, N. B. Grimm, J. R. Webster, S. K. Hamilton, E. Marti, L. Ashkenas, W. B. Bowden, W. K. Dodds, W. H. McDowell, M. J. Paul & B. J. Peterson, 2001. Inter-biome comparison of factors controlling stream metabolism. Freshwater Biology 46: 1503–1517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mulholland, P. J., J. N. Houser & K. O. Maloney, 2005. Stream diurnal oxygen profiles as indicators of in-stream metabolism and disturbance effects: Fort Benning as a case study. Ecological Indicators 5: 243–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Naegeli, M. W. & U. Uehlinger, 1997. Contribution of the hyporheic zone to ecosystem metabolism in a prealpine gravel-bed river. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 16: 794–804.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Odum, H. T., 1956. Primary production in flowing waters. Limnology and Oceanography 2: 85–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Owens, M., R. W. Edwards & J. W. Gibbs, 1964. Some reaeration studies in streams. International Journal of Air and Water Pollution 8: 469–486.Google Scholar
  34. Parker, G. W. & F. B. Gay, 1987. A procedure for estimating reaeration coefficients for Massachusetts streams. U.S. Geological Survey Water Resources Investigations Report 86-4111.Google Scholar
  35. Rathbun, R. E., D. J. Stephens, D. J. Schultz & D. Y. Tai, 1978. Laboratory studies of gas tracers for reaeration. Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers 104:215–229.Google Scholar
  36. Thyssen, N., M. Erlansen, E. Jepesen & T. F. Holm, 1983. Modelling the reaeration capacity of low-land streams dominated by submerged macrophytes. In Lauenroth, W. K., G. V. Skogerboe & M. Flug (eds), Analysis of ecological systems: state of the art in ecological modelling. Elsevier, Amsterdam: 861–867.Google Scholar
  37. Tsivoglou, E. C. & L. A. Neal, 1976. Tracer measurement of reaeration: III. Predicting the reaeration capacity of inland streams. Journal of the Water Pollution Control Federation 48: 2669–2689.Google Scholar
  38. Uehlinger, U., 2000. Resistance and resilience of ecosystem metabolism in a flood-prone river system. Freshwater Biology 45: 319–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Uehlinger, U., 2006. Annual cycle and inter-annual variability of gross primary production and ecosystem respiration in a floodprone river during a 15-year period. Freshwater Biology 56: 938–950.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Uehlinger, U., C. König & P. Reichert, 2000. Variability of photosynthesis-irradiance curves and ecosystem respiration in a small river. Freshwater Biology 44: 493–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. von Schiller, D., E. Martí, J. L. Riera, M. Ribot, J. C. Marks & F. Sabater, 2008. Influence of land use on stream ecosystem function in a Mediterranean catchment. Freshwater Biology 12: 2600–2612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Wanninkhof, R., P. J. Mulholland & J. W. Elwood, 1990. Gas exchange rates for a first-order stream determined with deliberate and natural tracers. Water Resources Research 26: 1621–1630.Google Scholar
  43. Young, R. G. & A. D. Huryn, 1996. Inter-annual variation in discharge controls ecosystem metabolism along a grassland river continuum. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 53: 2199–2211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Young, R. G. & A. D. Huryn, 1999. Effects of land use on stream metabolism and organic matter turnover. Ecological Applications 9: 1359–1376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Young, R. G., C. R. Townsend & C. Matthaei, 2004. Functional indicators of river ecosystem health—an interim guide for use in New Zealand. Report No. 870. Cawthron, Dunedin, New Zealand: 57 pp.Google Scholar
  46. Young, R. G., C. Matthaei & C. R. Townsend, 2006. Functional indicators of river ecosystem health. Final project report. Report No. 1174. Cawthron, Dunedin, New Zealand: 38 ppGoogle Scholar
  47. Young, R. G., C. Matthaei & C. R. Townsend, 2008. Organic matter breakdown and ecosystem metabolism: functional indicators for assessing river ecosystem health. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 27: 605–625.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lide Aristegi
    • 1
  • Oihana Izagirre
    • 1
  • Arturo Elosegi
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of Science and TechnologyUniversity of the Basque CountryBilbaoSpain

Personalised recommendations