Helophyte impacts on the response of hyporheic invertebrate communities to inundation events in intermittent streams

Abstract

The effects of experimental inundation on invertebrate communities in artificial flumes fed with treated wastewater were investigated. Flumes, designed to simulate intermittent river conditions, were planted with 3 species of helophytes widely used in river restoration around the water‐stressed regions of Europe. Different species of vegetation had different capabilities to reduce the invertebrate's negative reaction to inundation, related mostly to rhizosphere density. Of the 3 helophyte species tested, only 1, Lysimachia vulgaris, showed significant capabilities to reduce invertebrate negative reaction on inundation. Species richness of invertebrates before and after the inundation did not change in any of the flumes, whereas species density significantly declined in all flumes except one planted with L. vulgaris. This helophyte species was associated with high densities of the Culicidae larvae (common mosquitos), which has severe implications for river restoration and vector management in the region. This study indicates that the selection and establishment of different helophyte species will impact invertebrate communities in restored streams, especially streams experiencing variable inundation conditions.

Organizational Principles of Hyporheic Exchange Flow and Biogeochemical Cycling in River Networks across Scales

“…In addition, it is crucial to determine how streambed sediment structures and hydraulic conductivity patterns are controlled by ecological drivers, such as interactions between aquatic vegetation and streambed sediments (Baranov et al, 2017;Jones et al, 2008Jones et al, , 2012Ullah et al, 2014; Figure 2g) causing sediment clogging and by particle deposition and biofilm growth (Brunke, 1999;Nogaro et al, 2010;Rode et al, 2015; Figure 2h), bioengineers causing bioturbation (Baranov et al, 2016;Mendoza-Lera & Mutz, 2013) and the impact of flow obstacles, such as large woody debris (Gippel, 1995;Krause, Klaar, et al, 2014;Sawyer et al, 2012;Shelley et al, 2017; Figure 2i). These processes are critical to engineering streambeds for purposes, such as nutrient removal and river restoration, which involves using spatial heterogeneity to control fluxes and residence times to achieve desired outcomes (Herzog et al, 2018;Vaux, 1968;Ward et al, 2011).…”

“…At larger scales, the dynamic growth of submerged macrophytes has been shown to strongly modify turbulent flow patterns in the channel and enhance the trapping of fine sediment (Drummond et al, 2014;Liu et al, 2018;Liu & Nepf, 2016;Sand-jensen, 1998; Figure 2g), directly impacting hyporheic exchange and hyporheic biogeochemical processes (Salehin et al, 2003;Ullah et al, 2014). The presence of macrophytes alters flow paths and residence time distributions, providing additional substrate and input of organic carbon as well as enhancing nutrient uptake during the growth phase (Baranov et al, 2017;Nikolakopoulou et al, 2018;Ribot et al, 2019).…”

Organizational Principles of Hyporheic Exchange Flow and Biogeochemical Cycling in River Networks Across Scales

“…These limitations propagate to conclusions that have suggested only limited impacts of streambed structural heterogeneity on residence time distributions and biogeochemical cycling in the hyporheic zone (Bardini et al., 2013; Laube et al., 2018). In addition, it is crucial to determine how streambed sediment structures and hydraulic conductivity patterns are controlled by ecological drivers, such as interactions between aquatic vegetation and streambed sediments (Baranov et al., 2017; Jones et al., 2008, 2012; Ullah et al., 2014; Figure 2g) causing sediment clogging and by particle deposition and biofilm growth (Brunke, 1999; Nogaro et al., 2010; Rode et al., 2015; Figure 2h), bioengineers causing bioturbation (Baranov et al., 2016; Mendoza‐Lera & Mutz, 2013) and the impact of flow obstacles, such as large woody debris (Gippel, 1995; Krause, Klaar, et al., 2014; Sawyer et al., 2012; Shelley et al., 2017; Figure 2i). These processes are critical to engineering streambeds for purposes, such as nutrient removal and river restoration, which involves using spatial heterogeneity to control fluxes and residence times to achieve desired outcomes (Herzog et al., 2018; Vaux, 1968; Ward et al., 2011).…”

“…At larger scales, the dynamic growth of submerged macrophytes has been shown to strongly modify turbulent flow patterns in the channel and enhance the trapping of fine sediment (Drummond et al., 2014; Liu et al., 2018; Liu & Nepf, 2016; Sand‐jensen, 1998; Figure 2g), directly impacting hyporheic exchange and hyporheic biogeochemical processes (Salehin et al., 2003; Ullah et al., 2014). The presence of macrophytes alters flow paths and residence time distributions, providing additional substrate and input of organic carbon as well as enhancing nutrient uptake during the growth phase (Baranov et al., 2017; Nikolakopoulou et al., 2018; Ribot et al., 2019).…”

Medidores de baixo custo para a quantificação de fluxo e coleta de amostras de água na interface leito/sedimentos em rios de montanha

“…dos em canais artificiais alimentados com águas residuais tratadas (BARANOV et al, 2017), a investigação da melhora da remoção de nutrientes em leitos fluviais arenosos e com cascalho através do acoplamento entre variação do fluxo vertical e transformações mediadas por micróbios (LI et al, 2017), a interação entre a dinâmica do escoamento superficial com a concentração de oxigênio dissolvido na ZH (KAUFMAN et al, 2017), a relação entre textura dos sedimentos, bioquímica e atividade biológica (HOU et al, 2017), e a influência das diferenças hidrológicas e físico-químicas entre as zonas bentônica e hiporreica na decomposição microbiana das folhas e na estrutura e função da comunidade microbiana associada (RISSE-BUHL et al, 2017).…”