Advertisement

Environmental Monitoring and Assessment

, Volume 50, Issue 2, pp 143–158 | Cite as

Biotic and Abiotic Changes Along the Recovery Gradient of Two Impounded Rivers with Different Impoundment Use

  • Julio A. Camargo
  • Neal J. Voelz
Article

Abstract

Changes in physicochemical conditions and lotic benthic macroinvertebrates along the recovery gradient of the impounded Colorado (USA) and Duratón (Spain) Rivers were examined to identify and compare major factors affecting the structure of the macrobenthic community. Although both impounded rivers were exposed to hypolimnial releases from dams, they exhibited different impoundment use; Granby Dam (Colorado River) is used for water storage whereas Burgomillodo Dam (Duratón River) is used for hydroelectric production. The major factor responsible for macroinvertebrate responses in the Colorado River appeared to be the anomalous temperature pattern caused by Granby Dam, with relatively cool temperatures during the summer and relatively warm temperatures during the winter. In contrast, the major factors responsible for macroinvertebrate responses in the Duratón River seemed to be short-term flow fluctuations and low oxygen concentrations caused by Burgomillodo Dam. Values of taxonomic richness and relative abundances of shredders (Colorado River) and scrapers (Duratón River) increased along the recovery gradient of the impounded rivers. In general, chironomids (Diptera) were tolerant to both types of impoundment use, whereas elmids (Coleoptera) and psychomyiids (Trichoptera) were very sensitive. Overall, this environmental monitoring study denotes that the downstream changes in the biotic and abiotic components of impounded rivers is a function of the particular use of impoundments.

biotic and abiotic components downstream changes impounded rivers 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alabaster, J. S. and Lloyd, R.: 1980, Water Quality Criteria for Freshwater Fish, Butterworths, London.Google Scholar
  2. A.P.H.A.: 1980, Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 15th ed., APHAAWWAWPCF, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  3. A.S.T.M.: 1993, Standards on Aquatic Toxicology and Hazard Evaluation, American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
  4. Becker, G.: 1987, ‘Net-building behaviour, tolerance and development of two caddisfly species from the river rhine (Hydropsyche contubernalis and H. pellucidula) in relation to the oxygen content’, Oecologia 73, 242–250.Google Scholar
  5. Boon, P. J.: 1988, ‘The impact of river regulation on invertebrate communities in the U.K.’, Regul. Riv. 2, 389–409.Google Scholar
  6. Brittain, J. E. and Saltveit, S. J.: 1989, ‘A review of the effect of river regulation on mayflies (ephemeroptera)’, Regul. Riv. 3, 191–204.Google Scholar
  7. Camargo, J. A.: 1996, ‘Spatiotemporal variations in species diversity to assess environmental impacts on aquatic communities: the use of biomass data versus density data’, Environ. Monit. Assess. 40, 125–136.Google Scholar
  8. Camargo, J. A. and García de Jalón, D.: 1995, ‘Structural and trophic changes in a riverine macrobenthic community following impoundment for hydroelectric power generation’, J. Freshwat. Ecol. 10, 311–317.Google Scholar
  9. Craig, J. F. and Kemper, J. B.: 1987, Regulated Streams: Advances in Ecology, Plenum Press, New York.Google Scholar
  10. García de Jalón, D. and Gonzalez del Tánago, M.: 1986, Métodos Biológicos para el Estudio de la Calidad de las Aguas: Aplicación a la Cuenca del Duero, Monografía 45, ICONA Press, Madrid.Google Scholar
  11. García de Jalón, D., Sanchez, P. and Camargo, J. A.: 1994, ‘Downstream Effects of a New Hydropower Impoundment on Macrophyte, Macroinvertebrate and FishCommunities’, Regul. Riv. 9, 253–261.Google Scholar
  12. Hellawell, J. M.: 1986, Biological Indicators of Freshwater Pollution and Environmental Management, Elsevier, London.Google Scholar
  13. Hemphill, N.: 1988, ‘Competition between two stream dwelling filter-feeders, Hydropsyche oslary and Simulium vigratum’, Oecologia 77, 73–80.Google Scholar
  14. Hersey, A. E. and Hiltner, L.: 1988, ‘Effects of a caddisfly on black fly density: interspecific interactions limit black flies in an arctic river’, J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc. 7, 188–196.Google Scholar
  15. Merritt, R. W. and Cummins, K. W.: 1984, An Introduction to the Aquatic Insects of North America, Kendall/Hunt, Dubuque.Google Scholar
  16. Minshall, G. W., Cummins, K. W., Petersen, R. C., Cushing, C. E., Bruns, D. A., Sedell, J. R. and Vannote, R. L.: 1985, ‘Developments in stream ecosystem theory’, Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 42, 1045–1055.Google Scholar
  17. Moog, O.: 1993, ‘Quantification of daily peak hydropower effects on aquatic fauna and management to minimize environmental impacts’, Regul. Riv. 8, 5–14.Google Scholar
  18. M.O.P.U.: 1980, Resumen del Reconocimiento Limnológico de Embalses, Centr. Pub.MOPU, Madrid.Google Scholar
  19. Naiman, R. J., Magnuson, J. J., McKnight, D. M. and Stanford, J. A.: 1995, ‘Freshwater ecosystems and their management: A national initiative’, Science 270, 584–585.Google Scholar
  20. Pennak, R.W.: 1977, ‘Trophic variables in Rocky Mountain streams’, Arch. Hydrobiol. 80, 253–285.Google Scholar
  21. Petts, G. E.: 1984, Impounded Rivers, Wiley, Chichester.Google Scholar
  22. Petts, G. E.: 1989, ‘Perspectives for Ecological Management of Regulated Rivers’, in: Gore, J. A. and Petts, G. E. (eds.), Alternatives in Regulated River Management, CRC Press, Boca Raton (FL), pp. 3–24.Google Scholar
  23. Rabeni, C. F., Davies, S. P. and Gibbs, K. E.: 1985, ‘Benthic invertebrate response to pollution abatement: structural changes and functional implications’, Water Resour. Bull. 21, 489–497.Google Scholar
  24. Rader, R. B. and Ward, J. V.: 1988, ‘Influence of regulation on environmental conditions and the macroinvertebrate community in the upper Colorado River’, Regul. Riv. 2, 597–618.Google Scholar
  25. Sokal, R. R. and Rohlf, F. J.: 1987, Introduction to Biostatistics, 2nd ed., Freeman, New York.Google Scholar
  26. Stanford, J. A. and Ward, J. V.: 1986, ‘The Colorado River System’, in: Davies, B. R. and Walker, K. F. (eds.), The Ecology of River Systems, Dr. W. Junk Publishers, Dordrecht, pp. 353–374.Google Scholar
  27. Tachet, H., Bournaud, M. and Richoux, P.: 1981, Introduction à l’ Étude des Macroinvertebrés des Eaux Douces, L' Association Française de Limnologie, Paris.Google Scholar
  28. Thorp, J. H. and Covich, A. P.: 1991, Ecology and Classification of North American Freshwater Invertebrates, Academic Press, San Diego.Google Scholar
  29. Vannote, R. L. and Sweeney, B. W.: 1980, ‘Geographic analysis of thermal equilibria: A conceptual model for evaluating the effect of natural and modified thermal regimes on aquatic insect communities’, Am. Nat. 115, 667–695.Google Scholar
  30. Vannote, R. L., Minshall, G. W., Cummins, K. W., Sedell, J. R. and Cushing, C. E.: 1980, ‘The river continuum concept’, Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 37, 130–137.Google Scholar
  31. Voelz, N. J. and Ward, J. V.: 1989, ‘Biotic and abiotic gradients in a regulated high elevation Rocky Mountain river’, Regul. Riv. 3, 143–152.Google Scholar
  32. Voelz, N. J. and Ward, J. V.: 1991, ‘Biotic responses along the recovery gradient of a regulated stream’, Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 48, 2477–2490.Google Scholar
  33. Ward, J. V.: 1985, ‘Thermal characteristics of running waters’, Hydrobiologia 125, 31–46.Google Scholar
  34. Ward, J. V.: 1986, ‘Altitudinal zonation in a Rocky Mountain stream’, Arch. Hydrobiol./Suppl. 74, 133–199.Google Scholar
  35. Ward, J. V. and Stanford, J. A.: 1979, The Ecology of Regulated Streams, Plenum Press, New York.Google Scholar
  36. Ward, J. V. and Stanford, J. A.: 1982, ‘Thermal responses in the evolutionary ecology of aquatic insects’, Annu. Rev. Entomol. 27, 97–117.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Julio A. Camargo
    • 1
  • Neal J. Voelz
    • 2
  1. 1.Centro de Ciencias Medioambientales, C.S.I.C.MadridSpain
  2. 2.Department of Biological SciencesSt. Cloud State UniversitySt. CloudU.S.A

Personalised recommendations