Nutrient uptake in a stream affected by hydropower plants: comparison between stream channels and diversion canals
- 425 Downloads
Small hydropower plants divert part of the water from wide and physically complex stream channels with active hyporheic areas to narrow and hydraulically simple concrete canals, and thus, might affect nutrient dynamics. We compared nutrient uptake in diversion canals and in stream channels in the Leitzaran Stream (Basque Country, northern Spain). We predicted that simple morphology in diversion canals will result in lower nutrient uptake in canals than in stream channels. Periphytic chlorophyll and biomass did not differ significantly between reach types. Water was significantly deeper and faster in canals than in stream channels, but the transient storage zone did not differ significantly between reach types. There were no significant differences between uptake length for neither phosphate nor ammonium between reach types. Uptake length in both stream channels and diversion canals decreased with discharge, in a pattern similar to that previously described for pristine rivers across the world. Uptake velocity and uptake rate for phosphate did not differ significantly between reach types, but in the case of ammonium both retention metrics were significantly larger in the diversion canals. Results suggest that although hydropower schemes have minor effects on nutrient retention, these depend on the proportion of flow diverted.
KeywordsHydropower plant Stream Nitrogen Phosphorus Uptake Hydromorphology Water diversion
This research has been funded by the Spanish Department of Science and Technology, the University of the Basque Country, and the European Regional Development Fund, through projects 9/UPV00118.310-14476/2002 and BOS2003-04466. The authors want to thank Félix Izco and Patxi Tamés (Province Government of Guipuscoa), for continuous support. Oihana Izagirre did this study, thanks to a pre-doctoral grant by the Basque Government.
- APHA, 1998. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 20th ed. American Public Health Association, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
- Biggs, B. J. F. & C. Kilroy, 2000. Stream Periphyton Monitoring Manual. New Zealand Ministry for the Environment/NIWA, Christchurch.Google Scholar
- Doyle, M. W., E. H. Stanley & J. M. Harbor, 2003. Hydrogeomorphic controls of phosphorus retention in streams. Water Resources Research 39: 1147–1163.Google Scholar
- Elosegi, A., L. Flores & J. R. Díez, 2011. The importance of local processes on habitat characteristics: a Basque stream case study. Limnetica 30: 183–196.Google Scholar
- Gooseff, M. N., R. O. Hall & J. L. Tank, 2007. Relating transient storage to channel complexity in streams of varying land use in Jackson Hole, Wyoming. Water Resources Research 43. doi: 10.1029/2005WR004626.
- Government of Navarre, 2005. Estudio de determinación de índices bióticos en 87 puntos de los ríos de Navarra. Government of Navarre, Pamplona.Google Scholar
- Jain, S. C., 2001. Open-channel Flow. Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
- Martí, E. & F. Sabater, 2009. Retención de nutrientes en ecosistemas fluviales. In Elosegi, A. & S. Sabater (eds), Conceptos y técnicas en ecología fluvial. Fundación BBVA, Bilbao.Google Scholar
- Mulholland, P. J., J. L. Tank, D. M. Sanzone, W. M. Wollheim, B. J. Peterson, J. R. Webster & J. L. Meyer, 2000. Nitrogen cycling in a forest stream determined by a 15N tracer addition. Ecological Monographs 70: 471–493.Google Scholar
- Peterson, B. J., W. Wolheim, P. J. Mulholland, J. R. Webster, J. L. Meyer, J. L. Tank, N. B. Grimm, E. Martí, W. B. Bowden, H. M. Vallet, A. E. Hershey, W. B. McDowell, W. K. Dodds, S. K. Hamilton, S. V. Gregory & D. J. D’Angelo, 2001. Control of nitrogen export from watersheds by headwater streams. Science 292: 86–90.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Petts, G. E., 1984. Impounded Rivers—Perspectives for Ecological Management. Wiley, Chichester.Google Scholar
- Runkel, R. L., 1998. One-dimensional Transport with Inflow and Storage (OTIS): A Solute Transport Model for Streams and Rivers. U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigation Report 98-4018, Denver, CO.Google Scholar
- Ward, J. V. & J. A. Stanford (eds), 1979. The Ecology of Regulated Streams. Plenum Press, New York.Google Scholar
- Ward, J. V., K. Tockner & F. Schiemer, 1999. Biodiversity of floodplain river ecosystems: ecotones and connectivity. Regulated Rivers: Research and Management 15: 125–139.Google Scholar
- Webster, J. R. & M. H. Valett, 2006. Solute dynamics. In Hauer, F. R. & G. A. Lamberti (eds), Methods in Stream Ecology. Academic, San Diego.Google Scholar
- Webster, J. R., P. J. Mulholland, J. L. Tank, H. M. Valett, W. K. Dodds, B. J. Peterson, W. B. Bowden, C. N. Dahm, S. Findlay, S. V. Gregory, N. B. Grimm, S. K. Hamilton, S. L. Johnson, E. Martí, W. H. McDowell, J. L. Meyer, D. D. Morrall, S. A. Thomas & W. M. Wollheim, 2003. Factors affecting ammonium uptake in streams—an interbiome perspective. Freshwater Biology 48: 1329–1352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Zarnetske, J. P., M. N. Gooseff, T. R. Brosten, J. H. Bradford, J. P. McNamara & W. B. Bowden, 2007. Transient storage as a function of geomorphology, discharge, and permafrost active layer conditions in Arctic tundra streams. Water Resources Research, 43. doi: 10.1029/2005WR004816.