2015
DOI: 10.1590/1519-6984.15413
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The hyporheic zone and its functions: revision and research status in Neotropical regions

Abstract: The hyporheic zone (HZ), as the connecting ecotone between surface-and groundwater, is functionally part of both fluvial and groundwater ecosystems. Its hydrological, chemical, biological and metabolic features are specific of this zone, not belonging truly neither to surface-nor to groundwater. Exchanges of water, nutrients, and organic matter occur in response to variations in discharge and bed topography and porosity. Dynamic gradients exist at all scales and vary temporally. Across all scales, the function… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
15
0
3

Year Published

2016
2016
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 28 publications
(18 citation statements)
references
References 107 publications
0
15
0
3
Order By: Relevance
“…We also observed that the majority of the taxa captured in all riffle types on each sampling day were small-bodied macroinvertebrates that may have resided below the sediment surface and been less prone to catastrophic drift or being crushed by moving substrate. Six (Leuctridae, Hydracarina, Chironomidae, Tipulidae, Baetidae, Elmidae) of the eight most common taxa we found have been documented in the hyporheic zone [50][51][52][53] and these taxa are all characterized by a flexible, elongate body shape and/or small body size suspected to confer mobility advantages in navigating the interstices [50]. Furthermore, substrate disturbances are known to knock loose and remove fine particles of sediment and organic matter, thus opening more interstitial space for hyporheic dwellers [54].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 75%
“…We also observed that the majority of the taxa captured in all riffle types on each sampling day were small-bodied macroinvertebrates that may have resided below the sediment surface and been less prone to catastrophic drift or being crushed by moving substrate. Six (Leuctridae, Hydracarina, Chironomidae, Tipulidae, Baetidae, Elmidae) of the eight most common taxa we found have been documented in the hyporheic zone [50][51][52][53] and these taxa are all characterized by a flexible, elongate body shape and/or small body size suspected to confer mobility advantages in navigating the interstices [50]. Furthermore, substrate disturbances are known to knock loose and remove fine particles of sediment and organic matter, thus opening more interstitial space for hyporheic dwellers [54].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 75%
“…Meiofaunal and microbiotic communities have strong interactions. In the hyporheic zone, biogeochemical cycling, microbial ecology, and the ecology of invertebrate communities should not be considered as discrete systems, but rather as being interactive (Mugnai et al, 2015). The hyporheic microbiocenose consists of bacteria, archaea, protozoa, and fungi; and can be found in the plankton system; in interstitial areas, both immobile and in movement form; and in biofilms (Griebler and Lueders, 2009).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The flowpath of water through the hyporheic zone is modified by friction with the biofilm that covers inorganic granules. Thus, it is understood that a microbial community increases flow resistance and may result in clogging of the drainage system (Mugnai et al, 2015). Given that meiofauna influence microbial growth and abundances in other benthic systems, meiofauna are likely to play a central role, and influence many processes in the hyporheic stream (Hakenkamp and Palmer, 2000).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Many aquatic habitats are transitional ecotones (e.g. marine intertidal zones, mangrove belts, riparian zones, hyporheic zones) across which services flow and where gradients in ecosystem functions provide numerous ecosystem services (Sanon et al, ; Clerici et al, ; Mugnai et al, ). Conservation of ecosystem services in these transitional habitats, especially at the land–water interface, is particularly challenging because of jurisdictional ambiguities between administrations, competing demands for ecosystem services and inherent vulnerability to terrestrial and aquatic pressures (Walters et al, ; Maltby et al, ).…”
Section: Spatial Scale and Connectivity Of Ecosystem Services In Aquamentioning
confidence: 99%