Effects of riparian land use on water quality and fish communities in the headwater stream of the Taizi River in China

  • Sen Ding
  • Yuan Zhang
  • Bin Liu
  • Weijing Kong
  • Wei Meng
Research Article


Riparian land use remains one of the most significant impacts on stream ecosystems. This study focuses on the relationship between stream ecosystems and riparian land use in headwater regions. Four riparian land types including forest, grassland, farmland, and residential land were examined to reveal the correlation between stream water and fish communities in headwater streams of the Taizi River in north-eastern China. Four land types along riparian of 3 km in length were evaluated at 25, 50, 100, 200 and 500 m widths, respectively. Generally, the results found a significant relationship between riparian land uses and stream water quality. Grassland was positively correlated with water quality parameters (conductivity and total dissolved solids) at scales from 100 to 500 m riparian width. Farmland and residential land was negatively correlated with water quality parameters at scales from 25 to 500 m and from 50 to 200 m riparian widths, respectively. Although the riparian forest is important for maintaining habitat diversity and fish communities, the results found that only fish communities were significantly correlated with the proportion of riparian farmland. Farmland had a positive correlation with individual fish abundance within a riparian corridor of 25 to 50 m, but a negative correlation with fish diversity metrics from 25 to 100 m. This study indicates that effective riparian management can improve water quality and fish communities in headwater streams.


fish water quality land use riparian buffer headwater stream 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Wang L, Lyons J, Kanehl P, Gatti R. Influences of watershed land use on habitat quality and biotic integrity in Wisconsin stream. Fisheries (Bethesda, Md.), 1997, 22(6): 6–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lammert M, Allan J D. Environmental auditing: assessing biotic integrity of streams: effects of scale in measuring the influence of land use/cover and habitat structure on fish and macroinvertebrates. Environmental Management, 1999, 23(2): 257–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Allan J D. Landscapes and riverscapes: the influence of land use on stream ecosystems. Annual Review of Ecology Evolution and Systematics, 2004, 35(1): 257–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Jones E B D, Helfman G S, Harper J O, Bolstad P V. Effects of riparian forest removal on fish assemblages in southern Appalachian streams. Conservation Biology, 1999, 13(6): 1454–1465CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Wright J P, Flecker A S. Deforesting the riverscape: the effects of wood on fish diversity in a Venezuelan piedmont stream. Biological Conservation, 2004, 120(3): 443–451CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Diamond J M, Bressler D W, Serveiss V B. Assessing relationships between human land uses and the decline of native mussels, fish, and macroinvertebrates in the Clinch and Powell River watershed, USA. Environmental toxicology and chemistry / SETAC, 2002, 21(6): 1147–1155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Meyer J L, Strayer D L, Wallace J B, Eggert S L, Helfman G S, Leonard N E. The contribution of headwater streams to biodiversity in river networks. Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 2007, 43(1): 86–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Richardson J S, Danehy R J. A synthesis of the ecology of headwater streams and their riparian zones in temperate forests. Forest Science, 2007, 53(2): 131–147Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wipfli M S, Richardson J S, Naiman R J. Ecological linkages between headwaters and downstream ecosystems: transport of organic matter, invertebrates, and wood down headwater channels. Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 2007, 43(1): 72–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Allan J D, Erickson D L, Fay J. The influence of catchment land use on stream integrity across multiple spatial scales. Freshwater Biology, 1997, 37(1): 149–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wang L, Lyons J, Kanehl P, Bannerman R. Impacts of urbanization on stream habitat and fish across multiple spatial scales. Environmental Management, 2001, 28(2): 255–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Snelder T H, Biggs B J F. Multiscale river environment classification for water resources management. Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 2002, 38(5): 1225–1239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Greenwood M J, Harding J S, Niyogi D K, McIntosh A R. Improving the effectiveness of riparian management for aquatic invertebrates in a degraded agricultural landscape: stream size and land-use legacies. Journal of Applied Ecology, 2012, 49(1): 213–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Osborne L L, Kovacic D A. Riparian vegetated buffer strips in water-quality restoration and stream management. Freshwater Biology, 1993, 29(2): 243–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gregory S V, Swanson F J, McKee W A, Cummins K W. An ecosystem perspective of riparian zones: focus on links between land and water. Bioscience, 1991, 41(8): 540–551CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hughes R M, Howlin S, Kaufmann P R. A biointegrity index (IBI) for coldwater streams of western Oregon and Washington. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 2004, 133(6): 1497–1515CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Paul M J, Meyer J L. Streams in the urban landscape. Annual Review of Ecology Evolution and Systematics, 2001, 32(1): 333–365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Harvey B C. Susceptibility of young-of-the-year fishes to downstream displacement by flooding. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 1987, 116(6): 851–855CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Regetz J. Landscape-level constraints on recruitment of Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) in the Columbia River Basin, USA. Aquatic Conservation, 2003, 13(1): 35–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Teresa F B, Romero R M, Casatti L, Sabino J. Fish as indicators of disturbance in streams used for snorkeling activities in a tourist region. Environmental Management, 2011, 47(5): 960–968CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Cañas CM, Pine WE III. Documentation of the temporal and spatial patterns of Pimelodidae catfish spawning and larvae dispersion in the madre de Dios River (Peru): insights for conservation in the Andean-Amazon headwaters. River Research and Applications, 2011, 27(5): 602–611CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Scrimgeour G J, Hvenegaard P J, Tchir J. Cumulative industrial activity alters lotic fish assemblages in two boreal forest watersheds of Alberta, Canada. Environmental Management, 2008, 42(6): 957–970CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    State Environmental Protection Administration & State Administration for Quality Supervision and Inspection and Quarantine. Environmental Quality Standards for Surface Water (GB3838-2002). Beijing: State Environmental Protection Administration & State Administration for Quality Supervision and Inspection and Quarantine, 2002 (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Dufrêne M, Legendre P. Species assemblages and indicator species: the need for a flexible asymmetrical approach. Ecological Monographs, 1997, 67(3): 345–366Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Keister J E, Peterson W T. Zonal and seasonal variations in zooplankton community structure off the central Oregon coast, 1998–2000. Progress in Oceanography, 2003, 57(3–4): 341–361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Gburek W J, Folmar G J. Flow and chemical contributions to streamflow in an upland watershed: a baseflow survey. Journal of Hydrology (Amsterdam), 1999, 217(1–2): 1–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Tong S T Y, Chen W. Modeling the relationship between land use and surface water quality. Journal of Environmental Management, 2002, 66(4): 377–393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Mustapha M K. Influence of watershed activities on the water quality and fish assemblages of a tropical African reservoir. Turkish Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 2009, 9(1): 1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Norton M M, Fisher T R. The effects of forest on stream water quality in two coastal plain watersheds of the Chesapeake Bay. Ecological Engineering, 2000, 14(4): 337–362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Hayakawa A, Shimizu M, Woli K P, Kuramochi K, Hatano R. Evaluating stream water quality through land use analysis in two grassland catchments: impact of wetlands on stream nitrogen concentration. Journal of Environmental Quality, 2006, 35(2): 617–627CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Abell R, Allan J D. Riparian shade and stream temperatures in an agricultural catchment, Michigan, USA. In: Proceedings of the International Association of Theoretical and Applied Limnology Conference, 2001. Melbourne. Stuttgart: Schweizerbart Science Publishers, 2002, 232–237Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Nerbonne B A, Vondracek B. Effects of local land use on physical habitat, benthic macroinvertebrates, and fish in the Whitewater River, Minnesota, USA. Environmental Management, 2001, 28(1): 87–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Osborne L L, Wiley M J. Empirical relationships between land use/ cover and stream water quality in an agricultural watershed. Journal of Environmental Management, 1988, 26(1): 9–27Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Hefting M, Beltman B, Karssenberg D, Rebel K, van Riessen M, Spijker M. Water quality dynamics and hydrology in nitrate loaded riparian zones in the Netherlands. Environmental pollution (Barking, Essex: 1987), 2006, 139(1): 143–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    US Environmental Protection Agency. National Water Quality Inventory of 1996. Washington DC: US Environmental Protection Agency, 1996Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Wang L, Lyons J, Kanehi P, Bannerman R, Emmons E. Watershed urbanization and changes in fish communities in southeastern Wisconsin streams. Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 2000, 36(5): 1173–1189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Sutherland A B, Meyer J L, Gardiner E P. Effects of land cover on sediment regime and fish assemblage structure in four southern Appalachian streams. Freshwater Biology, 2002, 47(9): 1791–1805CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Bourque C P A, Pomeroy J H. Effects of forest harvesting on summer stream temperatures in New Brunswick, Canada: an intercatchment, multiple-year comparison. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 2001, 5(4): 599–614CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Arbuckle K E, Downing J A. Freshwater mussel abundance and species richness: GIS relationships with watershed land use and geology. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 2002, 59(2): 310–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Chapman D W. Critical review of variables used to define effects of fines in redds of large salmonids. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 1988, 117(1): 1–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Armour C L, Duff D A, Elmore W. The effects of livestock grazing on riparian and stream ecosystems. Fisheries, 1990, 16(1): 7–11Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Lenat D R, Crawford J K. Effects of land use on water quality and aquatic biota of three North Carolina Piedmont streams. Hydrobiologia, 1994, 294(3): 185–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Meador M R, GoldsteinR M. Assessing water quality at large geographic scales: relations among land use, water physicochemistry, riparian condition, and fish community structure. Environmental Management, 2003, 31(4): 504–517CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Higher Education Press and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sen Ding
    • 1
    • 2
  • Yuan Zhang
    • 1
    • 2
  • Bin Liu
    • 1
    • 2
  • Weijing Kong
    • 1
    • 2
  • Wei Meng
    • 1
  1. 1.State Key Laboratory of Environmental Criteria and Risk AssessmentChinese Research Academy of Environmental SciencesBeijingChina
  2. 2.Laboratory of Riverine Ecological Conservation and TechnologyChinese Research Academy of Environmental SciencesBeijingChina

Personalised recommendations