Water, Air, & Soil Pollution

, Volume 214, Issue 1–4, pp 409–421 | Cite as

Ecosystem Structure and Function are Complementary Measures of Water Quality in a Polluted, Spring-Influenced River

  • Jessica M. Hopkins
  • Amy M. Marcarelli
  • Heather A. Bechtold
Article

Abstract

We tested how ecosystem structure (macroinvertebrate community and primary producers) and functions (leaf decay and open-water metabolism) are related to water quality in the Portneuf River, southeast Idaho. This river is polluted with excess nutrients and fine sediment and simultaneously demonstrates a range of hydrologic conditions due to a variety of groundwater and spring inputs. Macroinvertebrate abundance, functional feeding group composition, and diversity responded most to hydrology due to affinity of the invasive New Zealand mudsnail for spring-influenced conditions. Macrophytes were most abundant at spring-influenced sites, while benthic periphyton standing crop was highest at sites with highest nutrient concentrations. Leaf decay rates increased by 50% at spring-influenced sites and showed no response to 3–100-fold differences in nutrient concentrations. Finally, primary production measured via open-water metabolism was highest at spring-influenced sites, which tended to have low turbidity. Community respiration, however, was greatest at the site with the highest nutrient concentrations. Therefore, open-water metabolism was a useful indicator of water quality in this nutrient-polluted river, while invertebrate community structure and leaf decay did not reflect large differences in water quality among sites. Our findings suggest that structure and function metrics provide complementary information on biotic responses to water pollution and that these metrics should be used in concert to more fully understand and monitor biotic responses to water pollution and hydrologic alterations in streams and rivers.

Keywords

Ecosystem structure Ecosystem function Macroinvertebrate community Leaf decay Open-water metabolism 

References

  1. American Public Health Association. (2005). Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater. Washington, DC: American Public Health Association.Google Scholar
  2. Baldwin, J., Wicherski, B., Cody, C., & Taylor, R. (2004). Evaluation of water quality impacts associated with FMC and Simplot phosphate ore processing facilities, Pocatello, Idaho. Boise, ID: Idaho Department of Environmental Quality Technical Services Division.Google Scholar
  3. Barbour, M. T., Gerritsen, J., Snyder, B. D., & Stribling, J. B. (1999). Rapid bioassessment protocols for use in streams and wadeable rivers: periphyton, benthic macroinvertebrates and fish. EPA 841-B-99-002 (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water.Google Scholar
  4. Barton, G. J. (2004). Surface- and ground-water relations on the Portneuf River, and temporal changes in ground-water levels in the Portneuf Valley, Caribou and Bannock Counties, Idaho, 2001–02. US Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2004-5170. Reston, VA: US Geological Survey.Google Scholar
  5. Benfield, E. F. (2006). Decomposition of leaf material. In F. R. Hauer & G. A. Lamberti (Eds.), Methods in stream ecology (2nd ed., pp. 711–720). San Diego, CA: Academic.Google Scholar
  6. Bernot, M. J., & Dodds, W. K. (2005). Nitrogen retention, removal, and saturation in lotic ecosystems. Ecosystems, 8, 442–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bott, T. L. (2006). Primary production and community respiration. In F. R. Hauer & G. A. Lamberti (Eds.), Methods in stream ecology (2nd ed., pp. 663–690). San Diego, CA: Academic.Google Scholar
  8. Boulton, A. J., & Boon, P. I. (1991). A review of methodology used to measure leaf litter decomposition in lotic environments: Time to turn over a new leaf? Australian Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research, 42, 1–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brock, J. T., & Ray, A. M. (2004). Quality assurance project plan for the Lower Portneuf River monitoring project. Submitted to US Environmental Protection Agency Region 10 Watershed Restoration Unit, Seattle, WA. Approved 23 July 2004.Google Scholar
  10. Bunn, S. E., & Davies, P. M. (2000). Biological processes in running waters and their implications for the assessment of ecological integrity. Hydrobiologia, 422/423, 61–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bunn, S. E., Davies, P. M., & Mosisch, T. D. (1999). Ecosystem measures of river health and their response to riparian and catchment degradation. Freshwater Biology, 41, 333–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chessman, B., Growns, I., Currey, J., & Plunkett-Cole, N. (1999). Predicting diatom communities at the genus level for the rapid biological assessment of rivers. Freshwater Biology, 41, 317–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dodds, W. K. (2002). Freshwater ecology: Concepts and environmental applications. New York, NY: Academic.Google Scholar
  14. Earl, S. R., Valett, H. M., & Webster, J. R. (2006). Nitrogen saturation in stream ecosystems. Ecology, 87, 3140–3151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fellows, C. S., Clapcott, J. E., Udy, J. W., Bunn, S. E., Harch, B. D., Smith, M. J., et al. (2006). Benthic metabolism as an indicator of stream ecosystem health. Hydrobiologia, 572, 71–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gessner, M. O., & Chauvet, E. (2002). A case for using litter breakdown to assess functional stream integrity. Ecological Applications, 12, 498–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Greenwood, J. L., & Rosemond, A. D. (2005). Periphyton response to long-term nutrient enrichment in a shaded headwater stream. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 62, 2033–2045.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Grimm, N. B., Sheibley, R. W., Crenshaw, C. L., Dahm, C. N., Roach, W. J., & Zeglin, L. H. (2005). N retention and transformation in urban streams. Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 24, 626–642.Google Scholar
  19. Gücker, B., Brauns, M., & Pusch, M. T. (2006). Effects of wastewater treatment plant discharge on ecosystem structure and function of lowland streams. Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 25, 313–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gulis, V., Ferreira, V., & Graca, M. A. S. (2006). Stimulation of leaf litter decomposition and associated fungi and invertebrates by moderate eutrophication: Implications for stream assessment. Freshwater Biology, 51, 1655–1669.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hagen, E. M., Webster, J. R., & Benfield, E. F. (2006). Are leaf breakdown rates a useful measure of stream integrity along an agricultural landuse gradient? Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 25, 330–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hall, R. O., Tank, J. L., & Dybdahl, M. F. (2003). Exotic snails dominate nitrogen and carbon cycling in a highly productive stream. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 1, 407–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hill, W. R., Ryon, M. G., & Schilling, E. M. (1995). Light limitation in a stream ecosystem: responses by primary producers and consumers. Ecology, 76, 1297–1309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hilsenhoff, W. L. (1969). An artificial substrate device for sampling benthic stream invertebrates. Limnology and Oceanography, 14, 465–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hilsenhoff, W. L. (1987). An improved biotic index of organic stream pollution. Great Lakes Entomologist, 20, 31–39.Google Scholar
  26. Hopkins, J. M. (2007). Spatial and temporal evaluation of macroinvertebrate communities in the Portneuf River, Idaho and an inquiry-based field and laboratory exercise on in-stream leaf litter decay. DA Dissertation. Pocatello, ID: Idaho State University.Google Scholar
  27. Hornberger, G. M., & Kelly, M. G. (1975). Atmospheric reaeration in a river using productivity analysis. Journal of the Environmental Engineering Division ASCE, 101, 729–739.Google Scholar
  28. Idaho Division of Environmental Quality. (1999). Portneuf River TMDL: Water body assessment and total maximum daily load. Pocatello, ID: Idaho Department of Environmental Quality.Google Scholar
  29. Iwata, T., Takahashi, T., Kazama, F., Hiraga, Y., Fukuda, N., Honda, M., et al. (2007). Metabolic balance of stream draining urban and agricultural watersheds in central Japan. Limnology, 8, 243–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Izagirre, O., Bermejo, M., Pozo, J., & Elosegi, A. (2007). RIVERMET©: An Excel based tool to calculate river metabolism from diel oxygen-concentration curves. Environmental Modelling and Software, 22, 24-32.Google Scholar
  31. Karr, J. R. (1991). Biological integrity: A long-neglected aspect of water resource management. Ecological Applications, 1, 66–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kearns, B. L., Dybdahl, M. F., Gangloff, M. M., & Jannot, J. E. (2005). Potamopyrgus antipodarum: Distribution, density, and effects on native macroinvertebrate assemblages in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 24, 123–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kennard, M. J., Pusey, B. J., Arthington, A. H., Harch, B. D., & MacKay, S. J. (2006). Development and application of a predictive model of freshwater fish assemblage composition to evaluate river heath in eastern Australia. Hydrobiologia, 572, 33–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Marcarelli, A. M., Bechtold, H. A., Rugenski, A. T., & Inouye, R. S. (2009). Nutrient limitation of biofilm biomass and metabolism in the Upper Snake River basin, southeast Idaho, USA. Hydrobiologia, 620, 63–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Merritt, R. W., & Cummins, K. W. (1996). An introduction to the aquatic insects of North America. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.Google Scholar
  36. Meyer, J. L., Paul, M. J., & Taulbee, W. K. (2005). Stream ecosystem function in urbanizing landscapes. Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 24, 602–612.Google Scholar
  37. Minshall, G. W. (1996). Bringing biology back into water quality assessments. In Committee on Inland Aquatic Ecosystems, National Research Council (Ed.), Freshwater ecosystems: Revitalizing educational programs in limnology (pp. 289–324). Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  38. Minshall, G. W., & Andrews, D. A. (1973). An ecological investigation of the Portneuf River, Idaho: a semiarid-land stream subjected to pollution. Freshwater Biology, 3, 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Minshall, G. W., Petersen, R. C., Cummins, K., Bott, T. L., Sedell, J. R., Cushing, C. E., et al. (1983). Interbiome comparison of stream ecosystem dynamics. Ecological Monographs, 53, 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Mulholland, P. J., Fellows, C. S., Tank, J. L., Grimm, N. B., Webster, J. R., Hamilton, S. K., et al. (2001). Inter-biome comparison of factors controlling stream metabolism. Freshwater Biology, 46, 1503–1517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Mulholland, P. J., Thomas, S. A., Valett, H. M., Webster, J. R., & Beaulieu, J. (2006). Effects of light on NO3- uptake in small forested streams: diurnal and day-to-day variations. Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 25, 583–595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Niyogi, D. K., Lewis, W. M., Jr., & McKnight, D. M. (2001). Litter breakdown in mountain streams affected by mine drainage: Biotic mediation of abiotic controls. Ecological Applications, 11, 506–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Odum, H. T. (1956). Primary production in flowing waters. Limnology and Oceanography, 1, 102–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Pascoal, C., Pinho, M., Cassio, F., & Gomes, P. (2003). Assessing structural and functional ecosystem condition using leaf breakdown: Studies on a polluted river. Freshwater Biology, 48, 2033–2044.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Paul, M. J., Meyer, J. L., & Couch, C. A. (2006). Leaf breakdown in streams differing in catchment land use. Freshwater Biology, 51, 1684–1695.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Plafkin, J. L., Barbour, M. T., Porter, K. D., Gross, S. K., & Hughes, R. M. (1989). Rapid bioassessment protocols for use in streams and rivers: Benthic macroinvertebrates and fish. Washington: US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water Regulations and Standards.Google Scholar
  47. Poff, N. L., & Ward, J. V. (1990). Physical habitat template of lotic systems: Recovery in the context of historical pattern of spatiotemporal heterogeneity. Environmental Management, 14, 629–645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Poff, N. L., Allan, J. D., Bain, M. B., Karr, J. R., Prestegaard, K. L., Richter, B. D., et al. (1997). The natural flow regime. Bioscience, 47, 769–784.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Resh, V. H. (2008). Which group is best? Attributes of different biological assemblages used in freshwater biomonitoring programs. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 138, 131–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Robinson, C. T., & Gessner, M. O. (2000). Nutrient addition accelerates leaf breakdown in an alpine springbrook. Oecologia, 122, 258–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Rosemond, A. D., Mulholland, P. J., & Elwood, J. W. (1993). Top-down and bottom-up control of stream periphyton: effects of nutrients and herbivores. Ecology, 74, 1264–1280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Rosenberg, D. M., & Resh, V. H. (1993). Introduction to freshwater biomonitoring and benthic macroinvertebrates. London: Chapman & Hall.Google Scholar
  53. Royer, T. V., & Minshall, G. W. (1997). Rapid breakdown of allochthonous and autochthonous plant material in a eutrophic river. Hydrobiologia, 344, 81–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Royer, T. V., & Minshall, G. W. (2001). Effects of nutrient enrichment and leaf quality on the breakdown of leaves in a hardwater stream. Freshwater Biology, 46, 603–610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Sandin, L., & Solimini, A. G. (2009). Freshwater ecosystem structure–function relationships: From theory to application. Freshwater Biology, 54, 2017–2024.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Sponseller, R. A., & Benfield, E. F. (2001). Influences of land use on leaf breakdown in southern Appalachian headwater streams: a multiple-scale analysis. Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 20, 44–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Suberkropp, K., & Chauvet, E. (1995). Regulation of leaf breakdown by fungi in streams: Influences of water chemistry. Ecology, 76, 1433–1445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. USEPA. (2007). National section 303(d) list fact sheet. Washington, DC: USEPA. http://oaspub.epa.gov/waters/national_rept.control#TOP_IMP Accessed 2 Jan. 2008.
  59. Vinson, M. (2004). The occurrence and distribution of New Zealand mudsnail (Potamopyrgus antipodarum) in Utah. Salt Lake City: Utah Department of Natural Resources Division of Wildlife Resources.Google Scholar
  60. Von Schiller, D., Martí, E., Riera, J. L., Ribot, M., Marks, J. C., & Sabater, F. (2008). Influence of land use on stream ecosystem function in a Mediterranean catchment. Freshwater Biology, 53, 2600–2612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Wiggins, G. B. (1996). Larvae of the North American Caddisfly Genera (Trichoptera) (2nd ed.). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
  62. Young, R. G., & Huryn, A. D. (1999). Effects of land use on stream metabolism and organic matter turnover. Ecological Applications, 9, 1359–1376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Young, R. G., & Collier, K. J. (2009). Contrasting responses to catchment modification among a range of functional and structural indicators of river ecosystem health. Freshwater Biology, 54, 2155–2170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Young, R. G., Huryn, A. D., & Townsend, C. R. (1994). Effects of agricultural development on processing of tussock leaf litter in high country New Zealand streams. Freshwater Biology, 32, 413–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Young, R. G., Matthaei, C. D., & Townsend, C. R. (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. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jessica M. Hopkins
    • 1
    • 2
  • Amy M. Marcarelli
    • 3
    • 4
  • Heather A. Bechtold
    • 3
  1. 1.Stream Ecology Center, Department of Biological SciencesIdaho State UniversityPocatelloUSA
  2. 2.Department of BiologyThe University of AkronAkronUSA
  3. 3.Center for Ecological Research and Education, Department of Biological SciencesIdaho State UniversityPocatelloUSA
  4. 4.Department of Biological SciencesMichigan Technological UniversityHoughtonUSA

Personalised recommendations