Advertisement

Landscape Ecology

, Volume 34, Issue 10, pp 2353–2369 | Cite as

Hierarchical variation in cellulose decomposition in least-disturbed reference streams: a multi-season study using the cotton strip assay

  • Jenna R. Webb
  • Nolan J. T. Pearce
  • Kristin J. Painter
  • Adam G. YatesEmail author
Research Article

Abstract

Context

Decomposition of organic matter dictates productivity of headwater streams in forested biomes. However, the hierarchical structure of stream ecosystems entails that research aimed at understanding patterns and drivers of decomposition incorporate multiple spatio-temporal scales.

Objectives

We assessed spatio-temporal patterns of cellulose decomposition in least-disturbed streams and determined the relative distribution of variation associated with region, stream and habitat scales. We also established the environmental drivers associated with heterogeneity in cellulose decomposition.

Methods

We applied a hierarchical design to assess spatio-temporal patterns of cellulose decomposition in least-disturbed streams of Ontario, Canada. Cotton strips were deployed in one pool and one riffle in each of 19 streams across three regions with distinct climates and physiography. Strips were deployed in spring, summer and autumn and assessed for rate of tensile strength loss.

Results

Rates of tensile loss differed among regions regardless of season. Habitat differences were observed in two of three regions during the spring and summer. Season only explained a significant amount of variance when tensile loss rates were not corrected for stream temperatures. Region and stream scales were associated with twice the variance in tensile loss than habitat. Spatial variation in tensile loss was negatively associated with latitude, forest cover, nutrients and conductivity.

Conclusions

Our findings demonstrate the importance of the regional landscape template in explaining spatio-temporal patterns of cellulose decomposition in streams. Moreover, our study suggests application of cellulose decomposition as a biomonitoring tool requires consideration of regional landscapes, habitat and season when developing sampling protocols and bioassessment models.

Keywords

River hierarchy Decomposition Landscape factors Habitat Seasonality Forest streams 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Thank you to R.C. Bailey and S.D. Tiegs for thoughtful advice on study design, methods and statistical analyses. Two anonymous reviewers provided helpful comments on a draft of this paper. Research funding was provided by a Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) Discovery Grant to AGY, NSERC Post-graduate Scholarships to NJTP and KJP, as well as a NSERC Collaborative Research and Training Experience Great Lakes Scholarship to JRW.

References

  1. Agricutlure and Agri-Food Canada, AAFC (2012) AAFC annual crop inventory 2011. http://data.gc.ca/data/en/dataset/58ca7629-4f6d-465a-88ebad7fd3a847e3. Accessed 9 Feb 2017
  2. American Water Works Association, AWWA (2004) Flow injection analysis for orthophosphate. Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater, 22nd edn. American Public Health Association, American Water Works Association, Water Environment Federation, 4500-P-GGoogle Scholar
  3. Bailey RC, Norris RH, Reynoldson TB (2004) Bioassessment of freshwater ecosystems using the reference condition approach. Kluwer Academic Publishers, BostonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bates D, Maechler M, Bolker B, Walker S (2015) Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J Stat Softw 67:1–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Benfield EF (2007) Decomposition of leaf material. In: Hauer FR, Lamberti GA (eds) Methods in stream ecology, 2nd edn. Academic Press, Elsevier, pp 711–720CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Boulton AJ, Boon PI (1991) A review of methodology used to measure leaf litter decomposition in lotic environments: time to turn over an old leaf? Aust J Mar Freshw Res 42:1–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Boulton AJ, Quinn JM (2000) A simple and versatile technique for assessing cellulose decomposition potential in floodplain and riverine sediments. Arch Hydrobiol 23:133–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Carrascal LM, Galván I, Gordo O (2009) Partial least squares regression as an alternative to current regression methods used in ecology. Oikos 118:681–690CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chapman LJ (1966) The physiography of Southern Ontario. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, TorontoGoogle Scholar
  10. Clapcott JE, Barmuta LA (2010) Metabolic patch dynamics in small headwater streams: exploring spatial and temporal variability in benthic processes. Freshw Biol 55:806–824CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Claret C, Boulton AJ, Dole-Olivier MJ, Marmonier P (2001) Functional processes versus state variables: interstitial organic matter pathways in floodplain habitats. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 58:1594–1602CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cooper SD, Diehl S, Kratz K, Sarnelle O (1998) Implications of scale for patterns and processes in stream ecology. Aust J Ecol 23:27–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Eriksson L, Johansson E, Kettaneh-Wold N, Wold S (1999) Introduction to multi- and megavariate data analysis using projection methods (PCA & PLS). Umetrics AB, UmeaGoogle Scholar
  14. Eriksson L, Kettaneh-Wold N, Trygg J, Wikström C, Wold S (2006) Multi-and megavariate data analysis: part I: basic principles and applications. Umetrics AB, UmeaGoogle Scholar
  15. ESRI (2010) ArcMap 10.0. Environmental Systems Resource Institute, RedlandsGoogle Scholar
  16. Fernandes I, Uzun B, Pascoal C, Cássio F (2009) Responses of aquatic fungal communities on leaf litter to temperature-change events. Int Rev Hydrobiol 94:410–418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ferreira V, Canhoto C (2014) Effect of experimental and seasonal warming on litter decomposition in a temperate stream. Aquat Sci 76:155–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ferreira V, Chauvet E (2011) Synergistic effects of water temperature and dissolved nutrients on litter decomposition and associated fungi. Glob Chang Biol 17:551–564CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Frissell CA, Liss WJ, Warren CE, Hurley MD (1986) A hierarchical framework for stream habitat classification: viewing streams in a watershed context. Environ Manag 10:199–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Geraldes P, Pascoal C, Cássio F (2012) Effects of increased temperature and aquatic fungal diversity on litter decomposition. Fungal Ecol 5:734–740CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gessner MO, Chauvet E (2002) A case for using litter breakdown to assess functional stream integrity. Ecol Appl 12:498–510CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Griffiths NA, Tiegs SD (2016) Organic-matter decomposition along a temperature gradient in a forested headwater stream. Freshw Sci 35:518–533CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hering D, Buffagni A, Moog O, Sandin L, Sommerhauser M, Stubauer I, Feld C, Johnson R, Pinto P, Skoulikidis N, Verdonschot P, Zahradkova S (2003) The development of a system to assess the eclogical quality of streams based on macroinvertebrates—design of the sampling programme within the AQEM project. Int Rev Hyrobiol 88:345–361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Imberger SJ, Thompson RM, Grace MR (2010) Searching for effective indicators of ecosystem function in urban streams: assessing cellulose decomposition potential. Freshw Biol 55:2089–2106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Irons JG, Oswood MW, Stout RJ, Pringle CM (1994) Latitudinal patterns in leaf litter breakdown: is temperature really important? Freshw Biol 32:401–411CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kuznetsova A, Brockhoff PB, Christensen RHB (2017) lmerTest package: tests in linear mixed effects models. J Stat Softw 82:1–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Leroy CJ, Marks JC (2006) Litter quality, stream characteristics and litter diversity influence decomposition rates and macroinvertebrates. Freshw Biol 51:605–617CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lüdecke D (2019) sjstats: statistal functions for regression models. Version 0.17.4Google Scholar
  29. Minshall GW, Petersen RC, Cummins KW, Bott TL, Sedell JR, Cushing CE, Vannote RL (1983) Interbiome comparison of stream ecosystem dynamics. Ecol Monogr 53:1–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. R Core Team (2018) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  31. Rosset J, Bärlocher F, Oertill JJ (1982) Decomposition of conifer needles and deciduous leaves in two Black Forest and two Swiss Jura streams. Int Rev Gesamten Hydrobiol 67:695–711Google Scholar
  32. Royer TD, Minshall GW (2003) Controls on leaf processing in streams from spatial-scaling and hierarchical perspectives. J N Am Benthol Soc 22:352–358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sanchez G (2016) plsdepot: partial least squares data analysis methods. Version 0.1.17Google Scholar
  34. Slocum MG, Roberts J, Mendelssohn IA (2009) Artist canvas as a new standard for the cotton-strip assay. J Plant Nutr Soil Sci 172:71–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Sponseller RA, Benfield E (2001) Influences of land use on leaf breakdown in southern Appalachian headwater streams: a multiple-scale analysis. J N Am Benthol Soc 20:44–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Suberkropp K, Chauvet E (1995) Regulation of leaf breakdown by fungi in streams: influences of water chemistry. Ecology 76:1433–1445CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 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 29:118–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Thorp JH, Thoms MC, Delong MD (2008) The riverine ecosystem synthesis. Academic Press/Elsevier, AmsterdamCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Tiegs SD, Akinwole PO, Gessner MO (2009) Litter decomposition across multiple spatial scales in stream networks. Oecologia 161:343–361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Tiegs SD, Clapcott JE, Griffiths NA, Boulton AJ (2013) A standardized cotton-strip assay for measuring organic-matter decomposition in streams. Ecol Indic 32:131–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Tiegs SD, Costello DM, Isken MW, Woodward G, McIntyre PB, Gessner MO, Chauvet E, Griffiths NA, Flecker AS, Acuña V, Albariño R (2019) Global patterns and drivers of ecosystem functioning in rivers and riparian zones. Sci Adv 5(1):eaav0486CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Tonin AM, Hepp LU, Goncalves JF Jr (2018) Spatial variability of plant litter decomposition in stream networks: from litter bags to watersheds. Ecosystems 21:567–581CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Von Schiller D, Acuña V, Aristi I, Arroita M, Basaguren A, Bellin A, Boyero L, Butturini A, Ginebreda A, Kalogianni E, Larrañaga A, Majone B, Martínez A, Monroy S, Muñoz I, Paunović M, Pereda O, Petrovic M, Pozo J, Rodríguez-Mozaz S, Rivas D, Sabater S, Sabater F, Skoulikidis N, Solagaistua L, Vardakas L, Elosegi A (2018) River ecosystem processes: a synthesis of approaches, criteria of use and sensitivity to environmental stressors. Sci Total Environ 596–597:465–480Google Scholar
  44. Vyšná V, Dyer F, Maher W, Norris R (2014) Cotton-strip decomposition rate as a river condition indicator—diel temperature range and deployment season and length also matter. Ecol Indic 45:508–521CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Wallace JB, Eggert SL, Meyer JL, Webster JR (1997) Multiple trophic levels of a forest stream linked to terrestrial litter inputs. Science 277:102–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Wallace JB, Eggert SL, Meyer JL, Webster JR (2015) Stream invertebrate productivity linked to forest subsidies: 37 stream years of reference and experimental data. Ecology 96:1213–1228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Webster JR, Benfield EF (1986) Vascular plant breakdown in freshwater ecosystems. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 17:567–594CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Wiens JA (1989) Spatial scaling in ecology. Funct Ecol 3:385–397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Wolman MG (1954) A method of sampling coarse river-bed material. Trans Am Geophys Union 35:951–956CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Woodward G, Gessner MO, Giller PS, Gulis V, Hladyz S, Lecerf A, Malmqvist B, McKie BG, Tiegs SD, Cariss H, Dobson M, Elosegi A, Ferreira V, Graca MA, Fleituch T, Lacoursiere JO, Nistorescu M, Pozo J, Risnoveanu G, Schindler M, Vadineanu A, Vought LB, Chauvet E (2012) Continental-scale effects of nutrient pollution on stream ecosystem functioning. Science 336:1438–1440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Young RG, Collier KJ (2009) Contrasting responses to catchment modification among a range of functional and structural indicators of river ecosystem health. Freshw Biol 54:2155–2170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Young RG, Matthaei CD, Townsend CR (2008) Organic matter breakdown and ecosystem metabolism: functional indicators for assessing river ecosystem health. J N Am Benthol Soc 27:605–625CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of GeographyThe University of Western Ontario and Canadian Rivers InstituteLondonCanada

Personalised recommendations