Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Ecosystem Metabolism in Piedmont Streams: Reach Geomorphology Modulates the Influence of Riparian Vegetation

  • Published:
Ecosystems Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We measured the impact of riparian zone vegetation on ecosystem metabolism in paired forested and meadow reaches on 13 streams in southeastern Pennsylvania and Maryland, USA. Metabolism estimates were based on open-system measurements of dissolved oxygen changes, with reaeration determined from propane evasion. Daily gross primary productivity (GPP) in meadow and forested reaches averaged 2.85 and 0.86 g O2 m−2 d−1, respectively, at water temperatures of 12°C or greater when the forest canopy was developed and 1.74 and 1.09 g O2 m−2 d−1, respectively, at temperatures below 12°C when the canopy was bare. Community respiration (CR24) also was greater in meadow reaches than in forested reaches, averaging 5.58 and 3.57 g O2 m−2 d−1, respectively, in the warm season and 4.87 and 2.88 g O2 m−2 d−1, respectively, during the cold season. Thus, both meadow and forested reaches were heterotrophic. Forested reaches were always wider and nearly always shallower than companion meadow reaches. When ecosystem function was assessed per unit of stream length, the difference in average GPP between meadow and forested reaches was reduced from three-fold to 1.9-fold in the warm season, and mean GPP was greater in the forested reaches during the cold season. Mean CR24 per meter stream length was greater in forested reaches during both seasons. Even though riparian shading reduced primary productivity per unit area of streambed, the greater stream width of the forested reaches counteracted that reduction in part. Thus, when rates of ecosystem function were expressed per length of stream, differences between reaches were always smaller than when expressed per area, and activity per unit stream length was sometimes greater in forested reaches than in meadow reaches.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6
Figure 7

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alexander RB, Smith RA, Schwarz GE. 2000. Effect of stream channel size on the delivery of nitrogen to the Gulf of Mexico. Nature 403:758–61

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Battin T, Kaplan LA, Newbold JD, Hendricks SP. 2003. A mixing model analysis of stream solute dynamics and the contribution of a hyporheic zone to ecosystem function. Freshw Biol 48:995–1014

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benfield EF. 1997. Comparison of litterfall input to streams. J North Am Benthol Soc 16:104–8

    Google Scholar 

  • Beschta RL, Bilby RE, Brown GW, Holtby LB, Hofstra TD. 1987. Stream temperature and aquatic habitat: fisheries and forestry interactions. In: Salo EO, Cundy TW, Eds. Streamside management: forestry and fishery interactions. Contribution 57, Seattle, Washington, February 1986. Seattle: Institute of Forest Resources, University of Washington. p 191–232

  • Boesch DF, Brinsfield RB, Magnien RE. 2001. Chesapeake Bay eutrophication: scientific understanding, ecosystem restoration, and challenges for agriculture. J Environ Qual 30:303–20

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Borchardt MA. 1996. Nutrients. In: Stevenson RJ, Bothwell ML, Lowe RL (eds). Algal ecology: freshwater benthic ecosystems. San Diego: Academic Press. pp 183–227

    Google Scholar 

  • Boston HL, Hill WR. 1991. Photosynthesis-light relationships of stream periphyton communities. Limnol Oceanogr 36:644–56

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Bott TL, Brock JT, Cushing CE, Gregory SV, King D, Petersen RC. 1978. A comparison of methods for measuring primary productivity and community respiration in streams. Hydrobiologia 60:3–12

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Bott TL, Brock JT, Dunn CS, Naiman RJ, Ovink RW, Petersen RC. 1985. Benthic community metabolism in four temperate stream systems: an inter-biome comparison and evaluation of the river continuum concept. Hydrobiologia 123:3–45

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brazier JR, Brown GW. 1973. Buffer strips for stream temperature control. Research paper 15. Corvallis (OR): Forest Research Laboratory, Oregon State University

  • Buchanan TJ, Somers WP. 1969. Discharge measurements at gauging stations. Book 3. Chapter A8. Techniques of water resources investigations of the US Geological Survey. Washington (DC): US Government Printing Office. 65 pages

  • Bunn SE, Davies PM, Mosisch TD. 1999. Ecosystem measures of river health and their response to riparian and catchment degradation. Freshw Biol 41:333–45

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Castelle AJ, Johnson AW, Conolly C. 1994. Wetland and stream buffer size requirements. a review. J Environ Qual 23:878–82

    Google Scholar 

  • Cole JJ, Caraco NF. 2001. Carbon in catchments: connecting terrestrial carbon losses with aquatic metabolism. Mar Freshw Res 52:101–10

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Davies-Colley RJ. 1997. Stream channels are narrower in pasture than in forest. NZ J Mar Freshw Res 31:599–608

    Google Scholar 

  • Davies-Colley RJ, Quinn JM. 1998. Stream lighting in five regions of North Island, New Zealand: control by channel size and riparian vegetation. NZ J Mar Freshw Res 32:591–605

    Google Scholar 

  • Dodds WK, Hutson RE, Eichem AC, Evans MA, Gudder DA, Fritz KM, Gray L. 1996. The relationships of floods, drying, flow and light to primary production and producer biomass in a prairie stream. Hydrobiologia 333:151–9

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Dodds WK, Smith VH, Lohman K. 2002. Nitrogen and phosphorus relationships to benthic algal biomass in temperate streams. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 59:865–74

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elmore HL, West WF. 1961. Effect of water temperature on stream reaeration. J Sanitary Eng Div ASCE 87:59–71

    Google Scholar 

  • Flemer DA. 1970. Primary productivity of the north branch of the Raritan River, New Jersey. Hydrobiologia 35:273–6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gregory SV. 1983. Plant-herbivore interactions in stream systems. In: Barnes JR, Minshall GW. Eds. Stream ecology. New York: Plenum. p 157–89

    Google Scholar 

  • Gregory SV, Swanson FJ, McKee WA, Cummins KW. 1991. An ecosystem perspective of riparian zones. BioScience 41:540–51

    Google Scholar 

  • Grimm NB, Fisher SG. 1984. Exchange between interstitial and surface-water: implications for stream metabolism and nutrient cycling. Hydrobiologia 111:219–28

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hall RO Jr, Tank JL. 2005. Correcting whole-stream estimates of metabolism for groundwater input. Ecosystems (in press)

  • Hession CW, Pizzuto JE, Johnson TE, Horwitz RJ. 2003. Influence of bank vegetation on channel morphology in rural and urban watersheds. Geology 31:147–50

    Google Scholar 

  • Hill BH, Herlihy AT, Kaufmann PR. 2002. Benthic microbial respiration in Appalachian Mountain, Piedmont and Coastal Plains streams of the eastern USA. Freshw Biol 47:185–94

    Google Scholar 

  • Hill WR. 1996. Effects of light. In: Stevenson RJ, Bothwell ML, Lowe RL, Eds. Algal ecology: freshwater benthic ecosystems. San Diego: Academic Press. p 121–48

    Google Scholar 

  • Hill WR, Dimick SM. 2002. Effects of riparian leaf dynamics on periphyton photosynthesis and light utilisation efficiency. Freshw Biol 47:1245–56

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hoksin CM. 1959. Studies of oxygen metabolism of streams of North Carolina. Publications Inst Mar Sci Texas 6:186–92

    Google Scholar 

  • Hunt CB. 1974. Natural regions of the United States and Canada. San Francisco: WH Freeman. pp 725

    Google Scholar 

  • Jassby AD, Platt T. 1976. Mathematical formulation of the relationship between photosynthesis and light for phytoplankton. Limnol Oceanogr 21:540–7

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson SL, Jones JA. 2000. Stream temperature responses to forest harvest and debris flows in western Cascades, Oregon. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 57:1–10

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leopold LB, Wolman MG, Miller JP. 1964. Fluvial processes in geomorphology. San Francisco: WH Freeman. pp 522

    Google Scholar 

  • Lorenzen CJ. 1967. Determination of chlorophyll and pheo-pigments: spectrophotometric equations. Limnol Oceanogr 12:343–6

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Lowrance RL, Altier S, Newbold JD, Schnabel RR, Groffman PM, Denver JM, Correll DL, and others. 1997. Water quality function of riparian forest buffers in Chesapeake Bay watersheds. Environ Manage 21:685–712

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ludlow RA, Loper CA. 2004. Chester County ground-water atlas, Chester County, Pennsylvania. US Geological Survey Open-File Report 03–442

  • Lynch JA, Corbett ES, Mussallem K. 1985. Best management practices for controlling nonpoint-source pollution on forested watersheds. J Soil Water Conserv 40:164–7

    Google Scholar 

  • MacIntyre HL, Kana TM, Anning T, Geider RJ. 2002. Photoacclimation of photosynthesis irradiance response curves and photosynthetic pigments in microalgae and Cyanobacteria. J Phycol 38:17–38

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marker AFH. 1976. The benthic algae of some streams in southern England, 2. The primary production of epilithon in a small chalk-stream. J Ecol 64:359–73

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Marra J. 1978. Effect of short-term variations in light intensity on photosynthesis of a marine phytoplankter: a laboratory simulation study. Mar Biol 46:191–202

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Marzolf ER, Mulholland PJ, Steinman AD. 1994. Improvements to the diurnal upstream-downstream dissolved oxygen change technique for determining whole-stream metabolism in small streams. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 51:1591–9

    Google Scholar 

  • Marzolf ER, Mulholland PJ, Steinman AD. 1998. Reply: improvements to the diurnal upstream-downstream dissolved oxygen change technique for determining whole-stream metabolism in small streams. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 55:1786–7

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • McCutchan JH Jr, Lewis WM Jr. 2002. Relative importance of carbon sources for macroinvertebrates in a Rocky Mountain stream. Limnol Oceanogr 47:742–52

    Google Scholar 

  • McCutchan JH Jr, Saunders JF III, Lewis WM Jr, Hayden MG. 2002. Effects of groundwater flux on open-channel estimates of stream metabolism. Limnol Oceanogr 47:321–4

    Google Scholar 

  • McIntire CD, Phinney HK. 1965. Laboratory studies of periphyton production and community metabolism in lotic environments. Ecol Monogr 35:237–58

    Google Scholar 

  • McTammany ME, Webster JR, Benfield EF, Neatrour MA. 2003. Longitudinal patterns of metabolism in a southern Appalachian river. J North Am Benthol Soc 22:359–70

    Google Scholar 

  • Mulholland PJ, Marzolf ER, Webster JR, Hart DR, Hendricks SP. 1997. Evidence that hyporheic zones increase heterotrophic metabolism and phosphorus uptake in forest streams. Limnol Oceanogr 42:1012–23

    Google Scholar 

  • Mulholland PJ, Fellows SC, Tank JL, Grimm NB, Webster JR, Hamilton SK, Marti E, and others. 2001. Inter-biome comparison of factors controlling stream metabolism. Freshw Biol 46:1503–17

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Newbold JD, Bott TL, Kaplan LA, Sweeney BW, Vannote RL. 1997. Organic matter dynamics in White Clay Creek, Pennsylvania, USA. In: Webster JR, Meyer JL, Eds. Stream organic matter budgets. J North Am Benthol Soc 16:46–50

    Google Scholar 

  • Odum EP. 1971. Fundamentals of ecology, 3rd ed. Philadelphia: WB Saunders. pp 574

    Google Scholar 

  • Odum HT. 1956. Primary production in flowing waters. Limnol Oceanogr 1:102–17

    Google Scholar 

  • Owens M. 1974. Measurements on non-isolated natural communities in running waters. In: Vollenweider RA, Ed. A manual on methods for measuring primary production in aquatic environments. IBP handbook no. 12. Oxford: Blackwell Scientific. p 111–9

    Google Scholar 

  • Owens M, Edwards RW, Gibbs JW. 1964. Some reaeration studies in streams. Int J Air Water Pollut 8:469–86

    Google Scholar 

  • Pizzuto JE, Hession WC, McBride M. 2000. Comparing gravel-bed rivers in paired urban and rural catchments of southeastern Pennsylvania. Geology 28:79–82

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quinn JM, Cooper AB, Stroud MJ, Burrell GP. 1997. Shade effects on stream periphyton and invertebrates: an experiment in streamside channels. NZ J Mar Freshw Res 31:665–83

    Google Scholar 

  • Rathbun RE, Stephens DW, Shultz DJ, Tai DY. 1978. Laboratory studies of gas tracers for reaeration. J Environ Eng ASCE 104:215–29

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Rosemond AD. 1993. Interactions among irradiance, nutrients, and herbivores constrain a stream algal community. Oecologia 94:585–94

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Runkel RL. 1998. One-dimensional transport with inflow and storage (OTIS): a solute transport model for streams and rivers. US Geological Survey Water Resources Investigations Report 98−4018

  • Sabater S, Butturini A, Clement J-C, Burt T, Dowrick D, Hefting M, Maître V and others. 2003. Nitrogen removal by riparian buffers along a European climatic gradient: patterns and factors of variation. Ecosystems 6:20–30

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Steinman AD, McIntire CD, Gregory SV, Lamberti GA. 1989. Effects of irradiance and grazing on lotic algal assemblages. J Phycol 25:478–85

    Google Scholar 

  • Sweeney BW. 1992. Streamside forests and the physical, chemical and trophic characteristics of Piedmont streams in eastern North America. Water Sci Technol 26:2653–73

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Sweeney BW. 1993. Effects of streamside vegetation on macroinvertebrate communities of White Clay Creek in eastern North America. Proc Acad Nat Sci Phila 144:291–340

    Google Scholar 

  • Sweeney BW, Bott TL, Jackson JK, Kaplan LA, Newbold JD, Standley LJ, Hession WC, and others. 2004. Riparian deforestation, stream narrowing, and loss of stream ecosystem services. Proc Nat Acad Sci USA 101:14132–7

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Tabacchi E, Correll DL, Hauer R, Pinay G, Planty-Tabacchi A-M, Wissmar RC. 1998. Development, maintenance and role of riparian vegetation in the river landscape. Freshw Biol 40:497–516

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ter Braak CJF, Smilauer P. 1998. CANOCO reference manual and user’s guide to Canoco for Windows: software for canonical community ordination. ver. 4. Ithaca (NY): Microcomputer Power

    Google Scholar 

  • Tsivoglou HC, Neal LA. 1976. Tracer measurement of reaeration: III. Predicting the reaeration capacity of inland streams. J Water Pollut Control Fed 489:2669–89

    Google Scholar 

  • [US EPA] US Environmental Protection Agency. 1993. Determination of inorganic substances in environmental samples. EPA-600/R-93–100

  • Vogelmann JE, Sohl TL, Campbell PV, Shaw DM. 1998. Regional land cover characterization using Landsat thematic mapper data and ancillary data sources. Environ Monit Assess 51:415–28

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wanninkhof R, Mulholland PJ, Elwood JW. 1990. Gas exchange rates for a first-order stream determined with deliberate and natural tracers. Water Resources Res 26:1621–30

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Wellnitz T, Rinne B. 1999. Photosynthetic response of stream periphyton to fluctuating light regimes. J Phycol 35:667–72

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams M. 1989. Americans and their forests: a historical geography. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p 599

    Google Scholar 

  • Woodwell GM, Whittaker RH. 1968. Primary production in terrestrial ecosystems. Am Zool 8:19–30

    Google Scholar 

  • Young RG, Huryn AD. 1998. Comment: improvements to the diurnal upstream-downstream dissolved oxygen change technique for determining whole-stream metabolism in small streams. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 55:1784–5

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Young RG, Huryn AD. 1999. Effects of land use on stream metabolism and organic matter turnover. Ecol Appl 9:1359–76

    Google Scholar 

  • Zimmerman RC, Goodlett JC, Comer GH. 1967. The influence of vegetation on channel form of small streams. Int Assoc Sci Hydrol Symp River Morphol Publication 75. p 255–275

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by National Science Foundation (NSF)/Environmental Protection Agency Water and Watersheds grant no. DEB-9613588, NSF grant no. DEB-0096276, and the Pennswood Endowment. Thanks are due to David Gartner, Brian Hughes, David Montgomery, and Bruce Wallace for lab and field assistance, and to Rob Fox, Nick Principe, and Charles Dow for help with data processing and statistical analyses. Charles Dow prepared the map. W. Cully Hession, University of Vermont, Burlington, provided data concerning watershed use. Nancy Grimm and two anonymous reviewers provided many useful comments on an earlier draft.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Stroud Water Research Center, 970 Spencer Road, Avondale, Pennsylvania, 19311, USA

    Thomas L. Bott, J. Denis Newbold & David B. Arscott

Authors
  1. Thomas L. Bott
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. J. Denis Newbold
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. David B. Arscott
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Thomas L. Bott.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bott, T.L., Newbold, J.D. & Arscott, D.B. Ecosystem Metabolism in Piedmont Streams: Reach Geomorphology Modulates the Influence of Riparian Vegetation. Ecosystems 9, 398–421 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-005-0086-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-005-0086-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation