Mean annual temperature and mean annual precipitation drive much of the variation in productivity across Earth's terrestrial ecosystems but do not explain variation in gross primary productivity (GPP) or ecosystem respiration (ER) in flowing waters. We document substantial variation in the magnitude and seasonality of GPP and ER across 222 US rivers. In contrast to their terrestrial counterparts, most river ecosystems respire far more carbon than they fix and have less pronounced and consistent seasonality in their metabolic rates. We find that variation in annual solar energy inputs and stability of flows are the primary drivers of GPP and ER across rivers. A classification schema based on these drivers advances river science and informs management.

This is the author manuscript accepted for publication and has undergone full peer review but has not been through the copyediting, typesetting, pagination and proofreading process, which may lead to differences between this version and the Version of Record. Please cite this article as

Although seasonal patterns of ecosystem productivity have been extensively described and analyzed with respect to their primary forcings in terrestrial and marine systems, comparatively little is known about these same processes in rivers. However, it is now possible to perform a large‐scale synthesis on the patterns and drivers of river productivity regimes because of the recent sensor advances allowing for near‐continuous estimates of river productivity. Here, we explore a dataset of 47 U.S. rivers to examine whether there are characteristic river productivity regimes. We use classification approaches to develop a typology of productivity regimes and then use these regimes to examine differences with respect to potential controls of productivity. We identified two distinct metabolic regimes, which we named Summer Peak and Spring Peak Rivers, within our dataset. These regimes meaningfully differed in both the timing and magnitude of productivity and were robust to different approaches to classification. We also found that several variables, including watershed area and characteristics of water temperature or discharge, were able to predict the class membership of these regimes with modest accuracy. Our results support the presence of characteristic metabolic regimes and suggests that these regimes may have common sets of environmental controls. We present classification as one approach to begin exploring the productivity regimes of rivers. The strength of our approach is that it fully leverages these newly available high‐frequency productivity estimates to create classes that can be used to draw inferences about how the controls of river productivity differ between or within systems.

No abstract