Baseflow physical characteristics differ at multiple spatial scales in stream networks across diverse biomes
Spatial scaling of ecological processes is facilitated by quantifying underlying habitat attributes. Physical and ecological patterns are often measured at disparate spatial scales limiting our ability to quantify ecological processes at broader spatial scales using physical attributes.
We characterized variation of physical stream attributes during periods of high biological activity (i.e., baseflow) to match physical and ecological measurements and to identify the spatial scales exhibiting and predicting heterogeneity.
We measured canopy cover, wetted width, water depth, and sediment size along transects of 1st–5th order reaches in five stream networks located in biomes from tropical forest to arctic tundra. We used hierarchical analysis of variance with three nested scales (watersheds, stream orders, reaches) to identify scales exhibiting significant heterogeneity in attributes and regression analyses to characterize gradients within and across stream networks.
Heterogeneity was evident at one or multiple spatial scales: canopy cover and water depth varied significantly at all three spatial scales while wetted width varied at two scales (stream order and reach) and sediment size remained largely unexplained. Similarly, prediction by drainage area depended on the attribute considered: depending on the watershed, increases in wetted width and water depth with drainage area were best fit with a linear, logarithmic, or power function. Variation in sediment size was independent of drainage area.
The scaling of ecologically relevant baseflow physical characteristics will require study beyond the traditional bankfull geomorphology since predictions of baseflow physical attributes by drainage area were not always best explained by geomorphic power laws.
KeywordsGeomorphology Nested ANOVA Scaling Grasslands Temperate forest Boreal forest
- Benda L, Andras K, Miller D, Bigelow P (2004) Confluence effects in rivers: interactions of basin scale, network geometry, and disturbance regimes. Water Resour Res 40(4)Google Scholar
- Doyle MW, Stanley EH, Strayer DL, Jacobson RB, Schmidt JC (2005) Effective discharge analysis of ecological processes in streams. Water Resour Res 41(11)Google Scholar
- Fonstad MA, Marcus WA (2010) High resolution, basin extent observations and implications for understanding river form and process. Earth Surf Proc Land 35:680–698Google Scholar
- Haugen RK, Slaughter CW, Howe KE, Dingman SL (1982) Hydrology and climatology of the Caribou-Poker Creeks Research Watershed, Alaska. Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory Report 82-26Google Scholar
- Heffernan JB, Soranno PA, Angilletta MJ Jr, Buckley LB, Gruner DS, Keitt TH, Kellner JR, Kominoski JS, Rocha AV, Xiao J, Harms TK, Goring SJ, Koenig LE, McDowell WH, Powell H, Richardson AD, Stow CA, Vargas R, Weathers KC (2014) Macrosystems ecology: understanding ecological patterns and processes at continental scales. Front Ecol Environ 12:5–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Junk W, Bayley PB, Sparks RE (1986) The flood pulse concept in river-floodplain systems. International large river symposiumGoogle Scholar
- Leopold LB, Maddock T (1953) The hydraulic geometry of stream channels and some physiographic implications. United States Geological Survey Professional Paper. United States Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, p 252Google Scholar
- Stumpf KA (1993) The estimation of forest vegetation cover descriptions using a vertical densitometer. Joint Inventory and Biometrics Working Groups session at the SAF National Convention, Indianapolis, INGoogle Scholar
- Ward JV, Stanford JA (1983) The serial discontinuity concept of lotic ecosystems. Dynam Lotic Ecosyst 10:29–42Google Scholar