Academia.edu uses cookies to personalize content, tailor ads and improve the user experience. By using our site, you agree to our collection of information through the use of cookies. To learn more, view our Privacy Policy.

Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

Title
Abstract
Introduction
Conclusion
References
All Topics
Engineering
Environmental Engineering

The Relationship Between Fine Sediment and Macrophytes in Rivers

Profile image of Adrian CollinsAdrian Collins
format_quote

58 citations

2011, River Research and Applications

https://doi.org/10.1002/RRA.1486
visibility

…

description

13 pages

Abstract

ABSTRACTThe interplay between erosion and deposition are fundamental characteristics of river basins. These processes result in the delivery, retention and conveyance of sediment through river systems. Although the delivery of sediment to rivers is a natural phenomenon, in recent years there has been increasing concern about the enhancement of sediment loadings as a result of anthropogenic activities. The presence of macrophytes in river channels tends to increase the retention of fine sediment leading to changes in bed composition. However, a complex relationship exists between macrophytes and fine sediment: macrophytes affect the conveyance of fine sediment and are, in turn, affected by the sediment loading. This review deals with these two reciprocal effects and, in particular, summarizes the available evidence base on the impact of fine sediment on macrophytes. Increased inputs of fine sediment appear to have both direct and indirect impacts on the macrophyte community, altering...

Related papers

Submersed Macrophyte Effects on Nutrient Exchanges in Riverine Sediments
David Fischer

Estuaries, 2001

Submersed macrophytes are important in nutrient cycling in marine and lacustrine systems, although their role in nutrient exchange in tidally-influenced riverine systems is not well studied. In the laboratory, plants significantly lowered porewater nutrient pools of riverine sediments compared with bare controls. Deep-rooted Vallisneria americana lowered the porewater nutrients to a greater extent than the shallow-rooted Potamogeton pectinatus. V. americana showed significantly higher tissue nutrient content (N in roots, P in leaves) than P. pectinatus. Porewater nutrients in the river increased from spring to summer (1995) when vegetation was at its peak (for porewater PO 4 -P, p Ͻ 0.05). In 1996, porewater nutrients were higher during peak plant biomass in the summer than in the fall (for porewater PO 4 -P, p Ͻ 0.05). In the summer (1995) vegetated patches had significantly greater porewater PO 4 -P than bare patches. We hypothesize that the concentrating of particulates in riverine grassbeds and subsequent microbial processing may provide an indirect source of nutrients for submersed macrophytes. In tidally-influenced riverine systems, biological mechanisms such as root uptake of nutrients and lateral oxygen release may be masked by the interaction of physical forces (i.e., tides, currents) with the structure of the grassbeds.

View PDFchevron_right
The effects of aquatic macrophytes on the stream microenvironment
Fred G Rose

Aquatic Botany, 1982

Gregg, W.W. and Rose, F.L., 1982. The effects of aquatic macrophytes on the stream microenvironment. Aquat. Bot., The effects of aquatic macrophytes on various aspects of the stream microenvironment were observed and compared to conditions found in unvegetated substrate. Specifically, factors of micro-current velocity, substrate surface area, fine particle sediment deposition, detritus deposition and attached diatom availability were examined. Macrophytes were transplanted into substrate trays and microenvironment conditions found within them were compared to conditions found in adjacent trays containing unvegetated substrate. Macrophytes were found to alter flow characteristics and create reduced current velocities near the substrate. They also provided significantly more substrate surface area, more fine particle sediments and more detritus than unvegetated substrates. Macrophytes supported significantly lower attached diatom biomass per m 2 in moderate current regions than stones, but in slow water they may support higher biomasses, because sedimentation adversely affects diatom populations on unvegetated substrate. The possible ecological significance of these effects is discussed. 0304-3770/82/0000--0000]$02.75 O 1982 Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company

View PDFchevron_right
Effect of environmental variables on the aquatic macrophyte composition pattern in streams: a case study from Slovakia
Helena Otahelova

Fundamental and Applied Limnology, 2010

The relationships between macrophyte assemblage composition and environmental variables were assessed across 39 Slovak streams in the Pannonicum and Carpathicum bioregions. Twenty-one environmental variables including geographical characteristics, hydrology, physical habitat, water chemistry, and anthropogenic stressors were assessed. A total of 89 macrophyte taxa were identifi ed, of which 26 % and 74 % were bryophytes and vascular plants, respectively. Signifi cant differences were observed between the Pannonicum and the Carpathicum bioregions for all studied environmental variables except the following: stream width, the presence of human-made sediment and the phosphate content. Similarly, the number of species as well as the Mean Mass Total of all plant groups was signifi cantly different between the Pannonicum and the Carpathicum regions except for fi lamentous algae. Macrophyte composition in Slovak streams was affected by sediment type (5.8 %), followed by shading of shrubs and trees on the banks (3.5 %), water depth (3.0 %), NO 2-(2.8 %) and water acidity (2.2 %). Bryophytes (such as Brachythecium rivulare, Cratoneuron fi licinum, Hygrohypnum ochraceum, Lophocolea heterophylla, Marchantia polymorpha or Rhynchostegium riparioides) and only some vascular plants (such as Persicaria hydropiper and Glyceria notata) occur on coarser sediment types. In contrast, most vascular plants grew on fi ner sediment types.

View PDFchevron_right
The Natural Sediment Regime in Rivers: Broadening the Foundation for Ecosystem Management
Robb Jacobson

BioScience, 2015

Water and sediment inputs are fundamental drivers of river ecosystems, but river management tends to emphasize flow regime at the expense of sediment regime. In an effort to frame a more inclusive paradigm for river management, we discuss sediment inputs, transport, and storage within river systems; interactions among water, sediment, and valley context; and the need to broaden the natural flow regime concept. Explicitly incorporating sediment is challenging, because sediment is supplied, transported, and stored by nonlinear and episodic processes operating at different temporal and spatial scales than water and because sediment regimes have been highly altered by humans. Nevertheless, managing for a desired balance between sediment supply and transport capacity is not only tractable, given current geomorphic process knowledge, but also essential because of the importance of sediment regimes to aquatic and riparian ecosystems, the physical template of which depends on sediment-driven river structure and function.

View PDFchevron_right
Effect of Macrophytes on Flow Conditions and Deposition of Suspended Particles in Small Streams: an Experimental Study Using Artificial Vegetation
Jacques Haury

Revue des sciences de l'eau, 2015

Aquatic macrophytes are often the dominant element that influences flow conditions within streams, and are often considered as ecosystem engineers that modify their aquatic environment as a result of their physical structure and metabolic activity. The role of aquatic macrophytes on suspended matter sedimentation was studied in three shallow low-order streams in Brittany (North-western France). Field experiments were carried out in April 2007 using Callitriche-like artificial macrophytes and cylindrical sediment traps dug into the channels. Hydrodynamic characteristics (velocity profile, percentage of velocity decrease and turbulence), volume of trapped sediment, particle size characteristics, and total organic matter content were measured within the macrophytes and compared with the control traps. The aquatic macrophytes operated as sediment traps by modifying the local hydrodynamic parameters. Sedimentation of fine suspended particles within the macrophytes reached maximum values ...

View PDFchevron_right
Fine‐grained sediment in river systems: environmental significance and management issues
Ramon J Batalla

River Research and Applications, 2005

Fine‐grained sediment is a natural and essential component of river systems and plays a major role in the hydrological, geomorphological and ecological functioning of rivers. In many areas of the world, the level of anthropogenic activity is such that fine‐grained sediment fluxes have been, or are being, modified at a magnitude and rate that cause profound, and sometimes irreversible, changes in the way that river systems function. This paper examines how anthropogenic activity has caused significant changes in the quantity and quality of fine‐grained sediment within river systems, using examples of: land use change in New Zealand; the effects of reservoir construction and management in different countries; the interaction between sediment dynamics and fish habitats in British Columbia, Canada; and the management of contaminated sediment in USA rivers. The paper also evaluates present programmes and initiatives for the management of fine sediment in river systems and suggests change...

View PDFchevron_right
Substratum stability associated with the riverine macrophyte Justicia americana
Ken Fritz

Freshwater Biology, 2003

1. Patches of stable substratum in streams may be important refugia for benthic organisms during scouring floods. Streambed stone stability, packing and embeddedness were assessed within and adjacent to beds of the macrophyte Justicia americana in five Alabama streams. 2. The force needed to dislodge stones and embeddedness was about two times lower outside Justicia beds than within them. Significant positive correlations between stone stability and (i) degree of embeddedness, and (ii) the abundance of binding rhizomes and the presence of attached roots indicate that Justicia may physically modify the local streambed, indirectly enhancing substratum stability and reducing flow, thereby increasing sand deposition. 3. Despite higher stability (i.e. physical refugia during bed-moving spates) within Justicia beds, the abundance of epilithic plants (moss and Podostemum ceratophyllum) and pleurocerid snails (Elimia spp.) was similar both inside and outside the macrophyte beds. Several physical characteristics within macrophyte beds, such as low light, reduced current and increased sand intrusion, may create suboptimal conditions for benthic organisms in these habitats. 4. Additional work is needed to determine if Justicia biogenically enhances substratum stability or if its presence merely reflects patches of stable substratum within the streambed. Regardless of the mechanism, there is an association between Justicia beds and streambed characteristics.

View PDFchevron_right
Guidance for the field assessment of macrophytes of rivers within the STAR Project
Hugh Dawson

2002

Macrophytes are an important component of aquatic ecosystems and are requir within the Water Framework Directive (WFD) (2000/60/EC)], to facilitate the ecological status and the general monitoring of ecological status. In addition to macrophytes are indicators of ecological quality in running waters. In particul groups of macrophytes are typical of specific types of running waterbody and th are adversely affected by types of anthropogenic impact. The absence of aqu however be characteristic of some running water habitats such as in highly activ gravel beds or in deeper rivers where their absence may due to the limitations o through water depth, water velocity, or turbidity. Absence of plants may equall unidentified anthropogenic impact eg, chemical.

View PDFchevron_right
The Influence of the Gravel Sediment Shortage in Midstream River Channels on Riparian Vegetation Colonization
Takashi Asaeda

2016

Steep slope segments of rivers with large sediment inflow or gravelly rivers transport gravelly sediments and fill up the river channel. Originally, the vegetation cover was low in these gravelly areas. However, severe vegetation encroachment can currently be seen on these riparian areas. Therefore, we hypothesized that gravelly sediments inhibit vegetation colonization and that a reduction in movable gravelly sediments caused the change. Accordingly, the objective of our study was to assess the effect of sediment deposition and erosion on vegetation colonization. To achieve this objective, the recovery process of herbs and trees after sediment deposition or erosion was investigated using aerial photos from six rivers. A field investigation was conducted before and after a large flood at depositional and erosional locations. The aerial photo survey elucidated that the recovery of herbs or woody vegetation after flushing is substantially delayed at sites where gravel is deposited in ...

View PDFchevron_right
Riverine macrophytes control seasonal nutrient uptake via both physical and biological pathways
Tenna Riis

Freshwater Biology, 2019

1. In low-gradient, macrophyte-rich rivers, we expect that the significant change in macrophyte biomass among seasons will strongly influence both biological activity and hydraulic conditions resulting in significant effects on nutrient dynamics. Understanding seasonal variation will improve modelling of nutrient transport in river networks, including annual estimations of export, which could optimise decision-making and management outcomes. 2. We explored the relationships among seasonal differences in reach-scale nutrient uptake, macrophyte abundance, solute transport and transient storage in the River Gudenå (Denmark), a large macrophyte-rich river. We used the minimal pulse addition technique to measure uptake of ammonium, nitrate, soluble reactive phosphorus, as well as reach-scale metabolism, and surface transient storage in spring, summer, and autumn. 3. We found that riverine uptake changed among seasons and was linked to macrophyte biomass via both biological activity, reflected in reach-scale metabolism, and through physical processes, as solute transport was influenced by longitudinal dispersion. In this macrophyte-rich river, seasonal changes in macrophyte biomass affected contact time between the water and biota, which influenced ammonium and soluble reactive phosphorus uptake. Using stoichiometric scaling of reachscale metabolism, we found that seasonal variation also influenced the relative contributions of autotrophic and heterotrophic biota in assimilatory uptake. 4. In summary, riverine nutrient uptake was not static, highlighting the importance of seasonality, with significant implications for modelling of nutrient export in river networks. Moreover, current management strategies that remove macrophyte biomass (i.e. weed cutting and dredging) will short-circuit the positive effects of enhanced nutrient uptake resulting from abundant macrophytes in rivers.

View PDFchevron_right

References (150)

  1. Ackerman JD, Okubo A. 1993. Reduced mixing in a marine macrophyte canopy. Functional Ecology 7: 305-309.
  2. Angelstein S, Wolfram C, Rahn K, Kiwel U, Frimel S, Merbach I, Schubert H. 2009. The influence of different sediment nutrient contents on growth and competition of Elodea nuttallii and Myriophyllum spicatum in nutrient-poor waters. Fundamental and Applied Limnology 175: 49-57.
  3. Angermeier PL, Wheeler AP, Rosenberger AE. 2004. A conceptual frame- work for assessing impacts of roads on aquatic biota. Fisheries 29: 19-29.
  4. Armstrong J, Armstrong W, Beckett PM. 1992. Phragmites australis: Venturi-and humidity-induced pressure flows enhance rhizome aeration and rhizosphere oxidation. New Phytologist 120: 197-207.
  5. Asaeda T, Fujino T, Manatunge J. 2005. Morphological adaptations of emergent plants to water flow: a case study with Typha angustifolia, Zizania latifolia and Phragmites australis. Freshwater Biology 50: 1991- 2001.
  6. Assani AA, Petit F, Leclercq L. 2006. The relation between geomorpho- logical features and species richness in the low flow channel of the Warche, downstream from the Butgenbach dam (Ardennes, Belgium). Aquatic Botany 85: 112-120.
  7. Bal K, Meire P. 2009. The influence of macrophyte cutting on the hydraulic resistance of lowland rivers. Journal of Aquatic Plant Management 47: 65-68.
  8. Barko JW, Gunnison D, Carpenter SR. 1991. Sediment interactions with submersed macrophyte growth and community dynamics. Aquatic Botany 41: 41-65.
  9. Barko JW, James WF. 1998. Effects of submerged aquatic macrophytes on nutrient dynamics, sedimentation, and resuspension. In The Structuring Role of Submerged Macrophytes in Lakes, Jeppesen E, Søndergaard M, Søndergaard M, Christophersen K (eds). Springer-Verlag: New York. 197-214.
  10. Bass JAB, Wharton G, Cotton JA. 2005. Flow disturbance by in-stream macrophytes: a hot-wire anemometry and scaffold system for measuring fine-scale velocity patterns and mapping sediment deposits and habitat structures. Materials and Geoenvironment 52: 189.
  11. Beresford AL. 2002. The dynamics of plant-associated invertebrate and periphyton communities in lakes. PhD, Queen Mary, University of London.
  12. Bilotta GS, Brazier RE. 2008. Understanding the influence of suspended solids on water quality and aquatic biota. Water Research 42: 2849-2861.
  13. Black MA, Maberly SC, Spence DHN. 1981. Resistances to carbon dioxide in four submerged freshwater macrophytes. New Phytologist 89: 557- 568.
  14. Boeger RT. 1992. Influence of substratum and water velocity on growth of Ranunculus aquatilis L. (Ranunculaceae). Aquatic Botany 42: 351- 360.
  15. Bornette G, Tabacchi E, Hupp C, Puijalon S, Rostan JC. 2008. A model of plant strategies in fluvial hydrosystems. Freshwater Biology 53: 1692- 1705.
  16. Bostro ¨m B, Andersen JM, Fleischer S, Jansson M. 1988a. Exchange of phosphorus across the sediment -water interface. Hydrobiologia 170: 229-244.
  17. Bostro ¨m B, Persson G, Broberg B. 1988b. Bioavailability of different phosphorus forms in fresh-water systems. Hydrobiologia 170: 133- 155.
  18. Bouma TJ, Friedrichs M, van Wesenbeeck BK, Temmerman S, Graf G, Herman PMJ. 2009. Density-dependent linkage of scale-dependent feed- backs: a flume study on the intertidal macrophyte, Spartina anglica. Oikos 118: 260-268.
  19. Brookes A. 1986. Response of aquatic vegetation to sedimentation down- stream from river channelization works in England and Wales. Biological Conservation 38: 351-367.
  20. Caffrey JM, Kemp WM. 1991. Seasonal and spatial patterns of oxygen production, respiration and root-rhizome release in Potamogeton perfo- liatus L. and Zostera marina L. Aquatic Botany 40: 109-128.
  21. Carr GM, Chambers PA. 1998. Macrophyte growth and sediment phos- phorus and nitrogen in a Canadian prairie river. Freshwater Biology 39: 525-536.
  22. Copyright # 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. River Res. Applic. 28: 1006-1018 (201 ) DOI: 10.1002/rra
  23. Chambers PA, Kalff J. 1985. The influence of sediment composition and irradiance on the growth and morphology of Myriophyllum spicatum L. Aquatic Botany 22: 253-263.
  24. Chambers PA, Prepas EE. 1990. Competition and coexistence in submerged aquatic plant communities: The effects of species interactions versus abiotic factors. Freshwater Biology 23: 541-550.
  25. Chambers PA, Prepas EE, Hamilton HR, Bothwell ML. 1991. Current velocity and its effect on aquatic macrophytes in flowing waters. Eco- logical Applications 1: 249-257.
  26. Champion PD, Tanner CC. 2000. Seasonality of macrophytes and inter- action with flow in a New Zealand lowland stream. Hydrobiologia 441: 1-12.
  27. Clarke SJ. 2002. Vegetation growth in rivers: influences upon sediment and nutrient dynamics. Progress in Physical Geography 26: 159-172.
  28. Clarke SJ, Wharton G. 2001. Sediment nutrient characteristics and aquatic macrophytes in lowland English rivers. Science of the Total Environment 266: 103-112.
  29. Cline LD, Short RA, Ward JV. 1982. The influence of highway construction on the macroinvertebrates and epilithic algae of a high mountain stream. Hydrobiologia 96: 149-159.
  30. Coble TA, Vance BD. 1987. Seed germination in Myriophyllum spicatum L. Journal of Aquatic Plant Management 25: 8-10.
  31. Collins AL, Walling DE. 2007. Sources of fine sediment recovered from the channel bed of lowland groundwater-fed catchments in the UK. Geo- morphology 88: 120-138.
  32. Corenblit D, Steiger J, Gurnell AM, Naiman RJ. 2009. Plants intertwine fluvial landform dynamics with ecological succession and natural selec- tion: a niche construction perspective for riparian systems. Global Ecology and Biogeography 18: 507-520.
  33. Corenblit D, Tabacchi E, Steiger J, Gurnell AM. 2007. Reciprocal inter- actions and adjustments between fluvial landforms and vegetation dynamics in river corridors: a review of complementary approaches. Earth-Science Reviews 84: 56-86.
  34. Cotton JA, Wharton G, Bass JAB, Heppell CM, Wotton RS. 2006. The effects of seasonal changes to in-stream vegetation cover on patterns of flow and accumulation of sediment. Geomorphology 77: 320-334.
  35. Dacey JHW. 1980. Internal winds in water lilies: an adaptation for life in anaerobic sediments. Science 210: 1017-1019.
  36. Dacey JHW. 1987. Knudsen-transitional flow and gas pressurization in leaves of Nelumbo. Plant Physiology 85: 199-203.
  37. Dacey JHW, Klug MJ. 1982. Ventilation by floating leaves in Nuphar. American Journal of Botany 69: 999-1003.
  38. Davies PE, Nelson M. 1993. The effect of steep slope logging on fine sediment infiltration into the beds of ephemeral and perennial streams of the dazzler range, Tasmania, Australia. Journal of Hydrology 150: 481- 504.
  39. Dawson FH. 1978. The seasonal effects of aquatic plant growth on the flow of water in a stream. In. Proceedings of the European Weed Research Society Fifth Symposium on Aquatic Weeds. pp. 71-78, Amsterdam.
  40. Dawson FH. 1981. The downstream transport of fine material and the organic-matter balance for a section of a small chalk stream in Southern England. Journal of Ecology 69: 367-380.
  41. Dawson FH, Castellano E, Ladle M. 1978. The concept of species succes- sion in relation to river vegetation and management. Verhandlungen der internationalen Vereinigung fu ¨r Limnologie 20: 1429-1434.
  42. Delbecque EJP. 1983. A comparison of the periphyton of Nuphar lutea and Nymphaea alba. The distribution of diatoms on the underside of floating leaves. In Periphyton of Freshwater Ecosystems, Wetzel RG (ed.). Dr. W. Junk Publishers: The Hague; 41-47.
  43. Eaton JW, Moss B. 1966. The estimation of numbers and pigment content in epipelic algal populations. Limnology and Oceanography 11: 584-595.
  44. Edwards D. 1969. Some effects of siltation upon aquatic macrophyte vegetation in rivers. Hydrobiologia 34: 29-37.
  45. El Ganaoui O, Schaaff E, Boyer P, Amielh M, Anselmet F, Grenz C. 2004. The deposition and erosion of cohesive sediments determined by a multi- class model. Estuarine Coastal and Shelf Science 60: 457-475.
  46. Enell M, Lofgren S. 1988. Phosphorus in interstitial water -methods and dynamics. Hydrobiologia 170: 103-132.
  47. Faafeng BA, Roseth R. 1993. Retention of nitrogen in small streams artificially polluted with nitrate. Hydrobiologia 251: 113-122.
  48. Flessa H. 1994. Plant-induced changes in the redox potential of the rhizo- spheres of the submerged vascular macrophytes Myriophyllum verticil- latum L and Ranunculus circinatus L. Aquatic Botany 47: 119-129.
  49. Gambi MC, Nowell ARM, Jumars PA. 1990. Flume observations on flow dynamics in Zostera marina (eelgrass) beds. Marine Ecology-Progress Series 61: 159-169.
  50. Garcia-Ruiz R, Pattinson SN, Whitton BA. 1998. Denitrification in river sediments: relationship between process rate and properties of water and sediment. Freshwater Biology 39: 467-476.
  51. Ghisalberti M, Nepf H. 2006. The structure of the shear layer in flows over rigid and flexible canopies. Environmental Fluid Mechanics 6: 277-301.
  52. Ghisalberti M, Nepf H. 2009. Shallow flows over a permeable medium: the hydrodynamics of submerged aquatic canopies. Transport in Porous Media 78: 385-402.
  53. Green JC. 2005a. Comparison of blockage factors in modelling the resist- ance of channels containing submerged macrophytes. River Research and Applications 21: 671-686.
  54. Green JC. 2005b. Further comment on drag and reconfiguration of macro- phytes. Freshwater Biology 50: 2162-2166.
  55. Green JC. 2005c. Modelling flow resistance in vegetated streams: review and development of new theory. Hydrological Processes 19: 1245-1259.
  56. Green JC. 2005d. Velocity and turbulence distribution around lotic macro- phytes. Aquatic Ecology 39: 1-10.
  57. Green JC. 2006. Effect of macrophyte spatial variability on channel resistance. Advances in Water Resources 29: 426-438.
  58. Gurnell AM, Blackall TD, Petts GE. 2008. Characteristics of freshly deposited sand and finer sediments along an island-braided, gravel-bed river: The roles of water, wind and trees. Geomorphology 99: 254- 269.
  59. Gurnell AM, Midgley P. 1994. Aquatic weed growth and flow resistance - influence on the relationship between discharge and stage over a 25 year river gauging station record. Hydrological Processes 8: 63-73.
  60. Gurnell AM, Van Oosterhout MP, De Vlieger B, Goodson JM. 2006. Reach- scale interactions between aquatic plants and physical habitat: River Frome, Dorset. River Research and Applications 22: 667-680.
  61. Haslam SM. 1978. River Plants. The Macrophytic Vegetation of Water Courses. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.
  62. Heaney SI, Foy RH, Kennedy GJA, Crozier WW, O'connor WCK. 2001. Impacts of agriculture on aquatic systems: lessons learnt and new unknowns in Northern Ireland. Marine and Freshwater Research 52: 151-163.
  63. Heppell CM, Wharton G, Cotton JAC, Bass JAB, Roberts SE. 2009. Sediment storage in the shallow hyporheic of lowland vegetated river reaches. Hydrological Processes 23: 2239-2251.
  64. Hilton J, O'hare M, Bowes MJ, Jones JI. 2006. How green is my river? A new paradigm of eutrophication in rivers. Science of the Total Environ- ment 365: 66-83.
  65. Hogg ID, Norris RH. 1991. Effects of runoff from land clearing and urban- development on the distribution and abundance of macroinvertebrates in pool areas of a river. Australian Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 42: 507-518.
  66. Holmes N, Newman J, Chadd S, Rouen K, Saint L, Dawson F. 1999. Mean Trophic Rank: A User's Manual. R&D Technical Report. E38. Environ- ment Agency: Bristol.
  67. Jackson GA, Winant CD. 1983. Effect of a kelp forest on coastal currents. Continental Shelf Research 2: 75-80.
  68. James WF, Barko JW, Butler MG. 2004. Shear stress and sediment resuspension in relation to submersed macrophyte biomass. Hydrobio- logia 515: 181-191.
  69. Jones JI, Eaton JW, Hardwick K. 2000a. The effect of changing environ- mental variables in the surrounding water on the physiology of Elodea nuttallii. Aquatic Botany 66: 115-129.
  70. Jones JI, Eaton JW, Hardwick K. 2000b. The influence of periphyton on boundary layer pH conditions: a microelectrode investigation. Aquatic Botany 67: 191-206.
  71. Jones JI, Sayer CD. 2003. Does the fish-invertebrate-periphyton cascade precipitates plant loss in shallow lakes? Ecology 84: 2155-2167.
  72. Jones KL, Poole GC, Woessner WW, Vitale MV, Boer BR, O'Daniel SJ, Thomas SA, Geffen BA. 2008. Geomorphology, hydrology, and aquatic vegetation drive seasonal hyporheic flow patterns across a gravel-domi- nated floodplain. Hydrological Processes 22: 2105-2113.
  73. Kleeberg A, Ko ¨hler J, Sukhodolova T, Sukhodolov A. 2009. Effects of aquatic macrophytes on organic matter deposition, resuspension and phosphorus entrainment in a lowland river. Freshwater Biology 55: 326-345.
  74. Ko ¨hler J, Hachoł J, Hilt S. 2010. Regulation of submersed macrophyte biomass in a temperate lowland river: Interactions between shading by bank vegetation, epiphyton and water turbidity. Aquatic Botany 92: 129- 136.
  75. Krishnappan BG. 2007. Recent advances in basic and applied research in cohesive sediment transport in aquatic systems. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering 34: 731-743.
  76. Langlade L-R, De ´camps O. 1995. Accumulation de limon et colonisation ve ´ge ´tale d'un banc de galets. Comptes Rendu del l'Acade ´mie des Sciences Paris, Sciences de la vie 317: 1073-1082.
  77. Laperriere JD, Bjerklie DM, Simmons RC, Van Nieuwenhuyse E, Wagener SM, Reynolds JB. 1983. Effects of gold placer mining on interior Alaska stream ecosystems. In Managing Water Resources for Alaska's Devel- opment, Aldrich JW (ed.). University of Alaska, Institute of Water Resources: Report IWR-105 Fairbanks, Alaska.
  78. Leyton L. 1975. Fluid Behaviour in Biological Systems. Clarendon Press: Oxford.
  79. Lloyd DS, Koenings JP, Laperriere JD. 1987. Effects of turbidity in fresh waters of Alaska. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 7: 34-45.
  80. Losee RF, Wetzel RG. 1983. Selective light attenuation by the periphyton complex. In Periphyton of Freshwater Ecosystems, Wetzel RG (ed.). Dr. W. Junk Publishers: the Hague; 89-96.
  81. Losee RF, Wetzel RG. 1988. Water movement within submersed littoral vegetation. Verhandlungen der internationalen Vereinigung fu ¨r Limno- logie 23: 62-66.
  82. Losee RF, Wetzel RG. 1993. Littoral flow rates within and around sub- mersed macrophyte communities. Freshwater Biology 29: 7-17.
  83. Luhar M, Rominger J, Nepf H. 2008. Interaction between flow, transport and vegetation spatial structure. Environmental Fluid Mechanics 8: 423- 439.
  84. Madsen TV, Warncke E. 1983. Velocities of currents around and within submerged aquatic vegetation. Archiv fu ¨r Hydrobiologie 97: 389- 394.
  85. Martinova MV. 1993. Nitrogen and phosphor compounds in bottom sedi- ments -mechanisms of accumulation, transformation and release. Hydrobiologia 252: 1-22.
  86. Matthaei CD, Weller F, Kelly DW, Townsend CR. 2006. Impacts of fine sediment addition to tussock, pasture, dairy and deer farming streams in New Zealand. Freshwater Biology 51: 2154-2172.
  87. Naden P, Rameshwaran P, Mountford O, Robertson C. 2006. The influence of macrophyte growth, typical of eutrophic conditions, on river flow velocities and turbulence production. Hydrological Processes 20: 3915- 3938.
  88. Nepf H, Ghisalberti M, White B, Murphy E. 2007. Retention time and dispersion associated with submerged aquatic canopies. Water Resources Research 43.
  89. O'Hare MT, Clarke RT, Bowes MJ, Cailes C, Henville P, Bissett N, Mcgahey C, Neale M. 2010. Eutrophication impacts on a river macro- phyte. Aquatic Botany 92: 173-178.
  90. O'Hare MT, Hutchinson KA, Clarke RT. 2007. The drag and reconfiguration experienced by five macrophytes from a lowland river. Aquatic Botany 86: 253-259.
  91. Owens PN, Batalla RJ, Collins AJ, Gomez B, Hicks DM, Horowitz AJ, Kondolf GM, Marden M, Page MJ, Peacock DH, Petticrew EL, Salomons W, Trustrum NA. 2005. Fine-grained sediment in river systems: environ- mental significance and management issues. River Research and Appli- cations 21: 693-717.
  92. Pai A, McCarthy BC. 2005. Variation in shoot density and rhizome biomass of Acorus calamus L. with respect to environment. Castanea 70: 263- 275. Pain S. 1987. After the gold rush. New Scientist 115: 36-40.
  93. Palmer MR, Nepf HM, Pettersson TJR, Ackerman JD. 2004. Observations of particle capture on a cylindrical collector: implications for particle accumulation and removal in aquatic systems. Limnology and Ocean- ography 49: 76-85.
  94. Patil S, Singh VP. 2010. Characteristics of Monami wave in submerged vegetated flow. Journal of Hydrologic Engineering 15: 171-181.
  95. Parkhill KL, Gulliver JS. 2002. Effect of inorganic sediment on whole- stream productivity. Hydrobiologia 472: 5-17.
  96. Peralta G, Van Duren LA, Morris EP, Bouma TJ. 2008. Consequences of shoot density and stiffness for ecosystem engineering by benthic macro- phytes in flow dominated areas: a hydrodynamic flume study. Marine Ecology-Progress Series 368: 103-115.
  97. Pettersson K, Bostro ¨m B, Jacobsen OS. 1988. Phosphorus in sediments - speciation and analysis. Hydrobiologia 170: 91-101.
  98. Phillips GL, Eminson D, Moss B. 1978. A mechanism to account for macrophyte decline in progressively eutrophicated freshwaters. Aquatic Botany 4: 103-126.
  99. Pretty JL, Hildrew AG, Trimmer M. 2006. Nutrient dynamics in relation to surface-subsurface hydrological exchange in a groundwater fed chalk stream. Journal of Hydrology 330: 84-100.
  100. Puijalon S, Bornette G. 2006. Phenotypic plasticity and mechanical stress: biomass partitioning and clonal growth of an aquatic plant species. American Journal of Botany 93: 1090-1099.
  101. Puijalon S, Bouma TJ, Van Groenendael J, Bornette G. 2008. Clonal plasticity of aquatic plant species submitted to mechanical stress: escape versus Resistance strategy. Annals of Botany 102: 989-996.
  102. Reise K, Bouma TJ, Olenin S, Ysebaert T. 2009. Coastal habitat engineers and the biodiversity in marine sediments. Helgoland Marine Research 63: 1-2.
  103. Riis T, Suren AM, Clausen B, Sand-Jensen K. 2008. Vegetation and flow regime in lowland streams. Freshwater Biology 53: 1531-1543.
  104. Rivier B, Seguier J. 1985. Physical and biological effects of gravel extrac- tion in river beds. In Habitat Modification and Freshwater Fisheries, Alabaster JS (ed.) Butterworth: London.
  105. Sagova-Mareckova M, Petrusek A, Kvet J. 2009. Biomass production and nutrient accumulation in Sparganium emersum Rehm. After sediment treatment with mineral and organic fertilisers in three mesocosm exper- iments. Aquatic Ecology 43: 903-913.
  106. Sand-Jensen K. 1990. Epiphyte shading: its role in resulting depth distri- bution of submerged aquatic macrophytes. Folia Geobotanica et Phyto- taxonomica 25: 315-320.
  107. Sand-Jensen K. 1997. Macrophytes as biological engineers in the ecology of Danish streams. In Freshwater Biology. Priorities and Development in Danish Research, Sand-Jensen K, Pedersen O (eds). G.E.C. Gad: Copenhagen, Denmark; 74-101.
  108. Sand-Jensen K. 1998. Influence of submerged macrophytes on sediment composition and near-bed flow in lowland streams. Freshwater Biology 39: 663-679.
  109. Sand-Jensen K. 2003. Drag and reconfiguration of freshwater macrophytes. Freshwater Biology 48: 271-283.
  110. Sand-Jensen K. 2008. Drag forces on common plant species in temperate streams: consequences of morphology, velocity and biomass. Hydrobio- logia 610: 307-319.
  111. Sand-Jensen K, Borum J. 1984. Epiphyte shading and its effect on photo- synthesis and metabolism of Lobelia dortmanna L. during the spring bloom in a Danish lake. Aquatic Botany 20: 109-119.
  112. Sand-Jensen K, Jeppesen E, Nielsen K, Van Der Bijl L, Hjermind L, Nielsen LW, Iversen TM. 1989. Growth of macrophytes and ecosystem con- sequences in a lowland danish stream. Freshwater Biology 22: 15-32.
  113. Sand-Jensen K, Madsen TV. 1991. Minimum light requirements of sub- merged freshwater macrophytes in laboratory growth experiments. Jour- nal of Ecology 79: 749-764.
  114. Sand-Jensen K, Madsen TV. 1992. Patch dynamics of the stream macro- phyte Callitriche cophocarpa. Freshwater Biology 27: 277-282.
  115. Sand-Jensen K, Mebus JR. 1996. Fine-scale patterns of water velocity within macrophyte patches in streams. Oikos 76: 169-180.
  116. Sand-Jensen K, Pedersen ML. 2008. Streamlining of plant patches in streams. Freshwater Biology 53: 714-726.
  117. Sand-Jensen K, Pedersen O. 1999. Velocity gradients and turbulence around macrophyte stands in streams. Freshwater Biology 42: 315-328.
  118. Sand-Jensen K, Prahl C, Stocholm M. 1982. Oxygen release from roots of submerged aquatic macrophytes. Oikos 38: 349-354.
  119. Sanders IA, Heppell CM, Cotton JA, Wharton G, Hildrew AG, Flowers EJ, Trimmer M. 2007. Emission of methane from chalk streams has potential implications for agricultural practices. Freshwater Biology 52: 1176- 1186.
  120. Schoelynck J, Bal K, Backx H, Okruszko T, Meire P, Struyf E. 2010. Silica uptake in aquatic and wetland macrophytes: a strategic choice between silica, lignin and cellulose? New Phytologist 186: 385-391.
  121. Schulz M, Kozerski HP, Pluntke T, Rinke K. 2003. The influence of macrophytes on sedimentation and nutrient retention in the lower River Spree (Germany). Water Research 37: 569-578.
  122. Sculthorpe CD. 1985. The Biology of Aquatic Vascular Plants. Koeltz Scientific Books: Ko ¨nigstein, Germany.
  123. Sear DA, Millington CE, Kitts DR, Jeffries R. 2010. Logjam controls on channel:floodplain interactions in wooded catchments and their role in the formation of multichannel patterns. Geomorphology 116: 305- 319.
  124. Spence DHN, Crystal J. 1970a. Photosynthesis and zonation of freshwater macrophytes I. Depth distribution and shade tolerance. New Phytologist 69: 205-215.
  125. Spence DHN, Crystal J. 1970b. Photosynthesis and zonation of freshwater macrophytes II. Adaptability of species of deep and shallow water. New Phytologist 69: 217-227.
  126. Spink AJ, Murphy KJ, Smith SM, Westlake DF. 1993. Effects of eutro- phication on Ranunculus and Potamogeton. Journal of Aquatic Plant Management 31: 113-117.
  127. Statzner B, Lamouroux N, Nikora V, Sagnes P. 2006. The debate about drag and reconfiguration of freshwater macrophytes: comparing results obtained by three recently discussed approaches. Freshwater Biology 51: 2173-2183.
  128. Stutter MI, Langan SJ, Demars BOL. 2007. River sediments provide a link between catchment pressures and ecological status in a mixed land use Scottish River system. Water Research 41: 2803-2815.
  129. Svendsen LM, Kronvang B. 1993. Retention of nitrogen and phosphorus in a Danish lowland river system: implications for the export from the watershed. Hydrobiologia 251: 123-135.
  130. Thomaz SM, Chambers PA, Pierini SA, Pereira G. 2007. Effects of phosphorus and nitrogen amendments on the growth of Egeria najas. Aquatic Botany 86: 191-196.
  131. Trimmer M, Sanders IA, Heppell CM. 2009. Carbon and nitrogen cycling in a vegetated lowland chalk river impacted by sediment. Hydrological Processes 23: 2225-2238.
  132. Turnpenny AWH, Williams R. 1980. Effects of sedimentation on the gravels of an industrial river system. Journal of Fish Biology 17: 681-693.
  133. Van TK, Wheeler GS, Center TD. 1999. Competition between Hydrilla verticillata and Vallisneria americana as influenced by soil fertility. Aquatic Botany 63: 225-233.
  134. van der Heide T, Bouma TJ, van Nes EH, van de Koppel J, Scheffer M, Roelofs JGM, van Katwijk MM, Smolders AJP. 2010. Spatial self- organized patterning in seagrasses along a depth gradient of an intertidal ecosystem. Ecology 91: 362-369.
  135. Van Nieuwenhuyse E, Laperriere JD. 1986. Effects of placer gold mining on primary production in subarctic streams of Alaska. Water Resources Bulletin, 22: 91-99.
  136. Van Wijk RJ. 1988. Ecological studies on Potamogeton-pectinatus L I. General characteristics biomass production and life cycles under field conditions. Aquatic Botany 31: 211-258.
  137. Van Wijk RJ. 1989. Ecological studies on Potamogeton pectinatus L. III. Reproductive strategies and germination ecology. Aquatic Botany 33: 271-300.
  138. Vermaat JE, De Bruyne RJ. 1993. Factors limiting the distribution of submerged waterplants in the lowland River Vecht (the N.L.). Freshwater Biology 30: 147-157.
  139. Vermaat JE, Hootsmans MJM. 1991. Periphyton dynamics in a temperature- light gradient. In Macrophytes, a Key to Understanding Changes Caused by Eutrophication in Shallow Freshwater Ecosystems, Hootsmans MJM, Vermaat JE (eds). International Institute for Hydraulic and Environ- mental Engineering: Delft; 157-187.
  140. Vermaat JE, Santamaria L, Roos PJ. 2000. Water flow across and sediment trapping in submerged macrophyte beds of contrasting growth form. Archiv fu ¨r Hydrobiologie 148: 549-562.
  141. Wang SR, Jin XC, Jiao LX, Wu FC. 2009. Response in root morphology and nutrient contents of Myriophyllum spicatum to sediment type. Ecological Engineering 35: 1264-1270.
  142. Waters TF. 1995. Sediment in streams: sources, biological effects, and control. American Fisheries Society Monograph 7, Bethesda, Maryland.
  143. Welton JS. 1980. Dynamics of sediment and organic detritus in a small chalk stream. Archiv fu ¨r Hydrobiologie 90: 162-181.
  144. Wharton G, Cotton JA, Wotton RS, Bass JAB, Heppell CM, Trimmer M, Sanders IA, Warren LL. 2006. Macrophytes and suspension-feeding invertebrates modify flows and fine sediments in the Frome and Piddle catchments, Dorset (UK). Journal of Hydrology 330: 171-184.
  145. Willby NJ, Eaton JW. 1996. Backwater habitats and their role in nature conservation on navigable waterways. Hydrobiologia 340: 333-338.
  146. Wood PJ, Armitage PD. 1997. Biological effects of fine sediment in the lotic environment. Environmental Management 21: 203-217.
  147. Wood PJ, Armitage PD. 1999. Sediment deposition in a small lowland stream -Management implications. Regulated Rivers-Research and Management 15: 199-210.
  148. Wu J, Cheng SP, Liang W, He F, Wu ZB. 2009. Effects of sediment anoxia and light on turion germination and early growth of Potamogeton crispus. Hydrobiologia 628: 111-119.
  149. Xiao C, Wang X, Xia J, Liu G. 2010. The effect of temperature, water level and burial depth on seed germination of Myriophyllum spicatum and Potamogeton malaianus. Aquatic Botany 92: 28-32.
  150. Yamada H, Nakamura F. 2002. Effect of fine sediment deposition and channel works on periphyton biomass in the Makomanai River, northern Japan. River Research and Applications 18: 481-493.
About the author
Adrian Collins
Papers
201
Followers
15
View all papers from Adrian Collinsarrow_forward

Related papers

Influence of a macrophyte bed on sediment deposition in a small plain stream
Claudia Feijoó

SIL Proceedings, 1922-2010, 1994

View PDFchevron_right
Hydrologic and hydraulic control of macrophyte establishment and performance in streams
Tenna Riis

Limnology and Oceanography, 2003

Macrophytes play a key role in many unshaded lotic ecosystems, but little is known of the factors controlling their presence, abundance, and composition. Macrophyte abundance, diversity, and composition were studied in 15 New Zealand streams to test the hypotheses that the presence and development of macrophytes in lotic systems is primarily controlled by the hydrologic regime (frequency of high-velocity flood events) and that the interflood spatial distribution and performance of taxa in more stable systems is strongly influenced by local hydraulic conditions (depth/velocity/sediments). Both hypotheses were supported by our results. We found that the abundance and diversity of macrophytes decreased as flood disturbance frequency increased (r 2 ϭ 0.52, P ϭ 0.002 for abundance; r 2 ϭ 0.53, P ϭ 0.022 for diversity) and that vegetation was absent in streams with more than ϳ13 highflow disturbances per year. An experiment in an ecohydraulics flume identified that the main mechanism causing these effects was not stem breakage at high water velocity but probably uprooting associated with bed sediment erosion. We found that plants with high propagule production constituted a greater proportion of the vegetation in more flood disturbed streams than in stable streams, suggesting that this species trait is important for the maintenance of macrophyte communities in flood prone streams. Distinct velocity, depth, and substrate particle size habitat preferences were displayed by four common species in the study streams. None of the macrophytes showed overlapping preferences for all three habitat variables, suggesting coexisting of the species in streams by physical niche separation. These results significantly expand our understanding of the role of flow regimes in determining lotic ecosystem structure and functioning.

View PDFchevron_right
The role of lateral connectivity in the maintenance of macrophyte diversity and production in large rivers
Nigel Willby

Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, 2013

1. Large European river floodplains have been intensively reduced through human activities over several millennia. Ecological assessments of natural large river systems remain rare and potentially flawed since they typically omit either the main channel of the river or, more commonly, aquatic habitats that occur naturally in the floodplain of dynamic systems.

View PDFchevron_right
Fine sediment retention as affected by annual shoot collapse: Sparganium erectum as an ecosystem engineer in a lowland stream
Lalith Rajapakse

River Research and Applications, 2009

To examine the effect of different growth forms of Sparganium erectum (Sparganiaceae) on its sediment trapping and retention characteristics, the plant phenology and morphological attributes based on stands along the edge of a river channel, river flow velocity distribution and sedimentation rates in- and outside the stands of a downstream site were examined over a 3-year period. A decomposition experiment was carried out to determine the respective fragmentation rates of S. erectum shoots and rhizomes. The preliminary monitoring revealed that S. erectum shoots attained distinct phonological stages; submerged in winter, subsequently emerging in late-spring, while the same cycle was followed by successive secondary cohorts. Our results highlighted that the growth form substantially affected the flow condition in- and outside the stands, thus affecting associated sedimentation rates. Although the sedimentation was high if the shoots were submerged in early-spring, the accumulated fine sediment layer was unleashed following shoot emergence, despite their large biomass and the resulting low flow velocity. The collapse of S. erectum shoots accelerated sedimentation again by increasing constriction to flow, producing a more preferable habitat for its soft roots and rhizomes. The collapse of emergent shoots, therefore, appeared to be a vital part of the inherent phonological cycle of S. erectum. Further, due to the high-decomposition rate, the collapsed shoots disappeared within 40–60 days, whereas the decomposed materials occupied a large fraction of the floating organic matter. The collapse of shoots increased flow resistance by ∼50%, though the stand area occupied a mere one-fifth of the channel. The seasonal observations provided further insight into the modification of flows due to the growth and changing growth form affecting associated fine sediment trapping and retention characteristics within the stands, deriving important management implications and highlighting the role of S. erectum as an ecosystem engineer in lowland streams. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

View PDFchevron_right
Long-Term Changes in Macrophyte Distribution and Abundance in a Lowland River
Igor Zelnik

Plants

The aim of this study was to reveal the changes of macrophyte community over time and along the course of the Ižica River. In 1996, 2000, and 2016, we surveyed the distribution and abundance of macrophyte species in the lowland Ižica River, which originates in the town of Ig and then flows through an agricultural landscape. We calculated the River Macrophyte Index (RMI), which reflects the ecological status of the river. In 2016, ecomorphological conditions of the river, using the Riparian, Channel and Environmental inventory, were also assessed. In just 10.5 km of the river, we identified 27 taxa of macrophytes, among which Potamogeton natans, Sagittaria sagittifolia, and P. perfoliatus were the most abundant. Detrended correspondence analysis showed that, in 1996, the surveyed stretches differed more according to macrophyte composition than in the following years. The assessed environmental parameters explained 43% of the variability of the macrophyte species; riverbank stability ...

View PDFchevron_right

Related topics

  • Environmental Engineering
  • Environmental Science
  • Hydrology
  • Ecology
  • Ecology and Environment
  • ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE AND MANAGE...

    • Cited by

    Faunal response to benthic and hyporheic sedimentation varies with direction of vertical hydrological exchange
    Rachel Stubbington

    Freshwater Biology, 2014

    30 1. Sedimentation and clogging of benthic and hyporheic zone substrates is 31 increasingly being recognised as one of the greatest threats to the ecological 32 integrity of riverine ecosystems globally. This ex-situ study examined the 33 influence of sedimentation (benthic and hyporheic) and pattern of hydrological 34 exchange on the vertical distribution of the freshwater shrimp Gammarus 35 pulex within the experimental substrates of running water mesocosms.

    View PDFchevron_right
    Mean and turbulent velocity fields near rigid and flexible plants and the implications for deposition
    Andrew Ashton, Heidi Nepf

    Journal of Geophysical Research: Earth Surface, 2013

    1] The transport of fine sediment and organic matter plays an important role in the nutrient dynamics of shallow aquatic systems, and the fate of these particles is closely linked to vegetation. We describe the mean and turbulent flow near circular patches of synthetic vegetation and examine how the spatial distribution of flow is connected to the spatial distribution of suspended sediment deposition. Patches of rigid, emergent, and flexible, submerged vegetation were considered, with two different stem densities. For the rigid emergent vegetation, flow adjustment was primarily two-dimensional, with flow deflected in the horizontal plane. Horizontal shear layers produced a von Kármán vortex street. Flow through the patch shifted the vortex street downstream, resulting in a region directly downstream of the patch in which both the mean and turbulent velocities were diminished. Net deposition was enhanced within this region. In contrast, for the flexible, submerged vegetation, flow adjustment was three-dimensional, with shear layers formed in the vertical and horizontal planes. Because of strong vertical circulation, turbulent kinetic energy was elevated directly downstream of the patch. Consistent with this, deposition was not enhanced at any point in the wake. This comparison suggests that morphological feedbacks differ between submerged and emergent vegetation. Further, enhanced deposition occurred only in regions where both turbulent and mean velocities were reduced, relative to the open channel. Reduced deposition (indicating enhanced resuspension) occurred in regions of high turbulence kinetic energy, regardless of local mean velocity. These observations highlight the importance of turbulence in controlling deposition. Citation: Ortiz, A. C., A. Ashton, and H. Nepf (2013), Mean and turbulent velocity fields near rigid and flexible plants and the implications for deposition,

    View PDFchevron_right
    Linking nutrient enrichment and streamflow to macrophytes in agricultural streams
    Nancy Simon

    Hydrobiologia, 2014

    This is the authors' self-archive version of this publication. The article of record was published in http://dx.

    View PDFchevron_right
    Sediment source fingerprinting: benchmarking recent outputs, remaining challenges and emerging themes
    Adrian Collins

    Journal of Soils and Sediments

    Purpose This review of sediment source fingerprinting assesses the current state-of-the-art, remaining challenges and emerging themes. It combines inputs from international scientists either with track records in the approach or with expertise relevant to progressing the science. Methods Web of Science and Google Scholar were used to review published papers spanning the period 2013–2019, inclusive, to confirm publication trends in quantities of papers by study area country and the types of tracers used. The most recent (2018–2019, inclusive) papers were also benchmarked using a methodological decision-tree published in 2017. Scope Areas requiring further research and international consensus on methodological detail are reviewed, and these comprise spatial variability in tracers and corresponding sampling implications for end-members, temporal variability in tracers and sampling implications for end-members and target sediment, tracer conservation and knowledge-based pre-selection, t...

    View PDFchevron_right
    Contrasting Responses among Aquatic Organism Groups to Changes in Geomorphic Complexity Along a Gradient of Stream Habitat Restoration: Implications for Restoration Planning and Assessment
    Christer Nilsson

    Water

    Many stream restoration projects aim to increase geomorphic complexity, assuming that this increases habitat heterogeneity and, thus, biodiversity. However, empirical data supporting these linkages remain scant. Previous assessments of stream restoration suffer from incomplete quantification of habitat complexity, or a narrow focus on only one organism group and/or one restoration measure, limiting learning. Based on a comprehensive quantification of geomorphic complexity in 20 stream reaches in northern Sweden, ranging from streams channelized for timber floating to restored and reference reaches, we investigated responses of macroinvertebrates, diatoms, and macrophytes to multiple geomorphic metrics. Sediment size heterogeneity, which was generally improved in restored sites, favored macroinvertebrate and diatom diversity and macroinvertebrate abundance. In contrast, macrophyte diversity responded to increased variation along the longitudinal stream profile (e.g., step-pools), whi...

    View PDFchevron_right
    580 California St., Suite 400
    San Francisco, CA, 94104
    © 2026 Academia. All rights reserved