Riverine macrosystems ecology: sensitivity, resistance, and resilience of whole river basins with human alterations

McCluney, Kevin E.; Poff, N. LeRoy; Palmer, Margaret A.; Thorp, James H.; Poole, Geoffrey C.; Williams, Brenda; Williams, Michael R.; Baron, Jill S.

doi:10.1890/120367

Cited by 233 publications

(214 citation statements)

References 53 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

205

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The need to perceive streams and rivers as networks or macrosystems consisting of connected and interacting systems is increasingly recognized (4,11,41). Our findings are relevant in that context because they suggest the type of linkage that governs the organization of microbial communities in relation to flow dynamics across fluvial networks.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 66%

“…Thus, the dynamics of the metacommunity, which comprises all interconnected communities in a landscape (10), are inextricably linked to the organization and hydrology of the fluvial network (5)(6)(7)(8). This perception is essential to understand, predict, and manage streams and rivers and their resistance and resilience to human alterations across scales (that is, from patches to the catchment) (11).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This question is important because microorganisms, often encapsulated in biofilms attached to the streambed, fulfill critical ecosystem functions in streams and rivers (25), which have an ongoing history of being perturbed by human activity (11,26). We addressed this question by using co-occurrence networks based on 454 pyrosequencing data (8) of the 16S rRNA gene from benthic biofilms from 114 streams of the prealpine Ybbs catchment ( Fig.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Fluvial network organization imprints on microbial co-occurrence networks

Widder

Besemer

Singer

et al. 2014

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

202

150

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent studies highlight linkages among the architecture of ecological networks, their persistence facing environmental disturbance, and the related patterns of biodiversity. A hitherto unresolved question is whether the structure of the landscape inhabited by organisms leaves an imprint on their ecological networks. We analyzed, based on pyrosequencing profiling of the biofilm communities in 114 streams, how features inherent to fluvial networks affect the co-occurrence networks that the microorganisms form in these biofilms. Our findings suggest that hydrology and metacommunity dynamics, both changing predictably across fluvial networks, affect the fragmentation of the microbial co-occurrence networks throughout the fluvial network. The loss of taxa from co-occurrence networks demonstrates that the removal of gatekeepers disproportionately contributed to network fragmentation, which has potential implications for the functions biofilms fulfill in stream ecosystems. Our findings are critical because of increased anthropogenic pressures deteriorating stream ecosystem integrity and biodiversity.stream networks | hydrological regime S treams and rivers sculpt the continental surface, forming fluvial networks (1), within which the biodiversity ranks among the highest on Earth (2). The dendritic nature of fluvial networks has been shown to affect the spatial and temporal patterns of microbial, invertebrate, and fish biodiversity (3-8). Ecological theory and observations posit that the local environment governs the dynamics and diversity of ecological communities in headwaters, the smallest and most abundant streams in fluvial networks. In contrast, dispersal ensures that communities further downstream are shaped not only by their immediate environment but also by upstream processes (3-9). Thus, the dynamics of the metacommunity, which comprises all interconnected communities in a landscape (10), are inextricably linked to the organization and hydrology of the fluvial network (5-8). This perception is essential to understand, predict, and manage streams and rivers and their resistance and resilience to human alterations across scales (that is, from patches to the catchment) (11).Ecological interactions are often usefully represented as networks (12). For example, analyses of food webs and mutualistic (e.g., pollination) networks have demonstrated that network organization can be linked to network persistence, to disturbance (12-16), or to species coexistence and richness (17). Microbial communities are so diverse and poorly studied that mapping out the interactions on the basis of biological knowledge is currently impossible for all but the simplest of habitats. Therefore, cooccurrence networks are increasingly used to infer microbial interactions (18,19) in soils (20), oceans (21), lakes (22), and even in global genomic surveys (23).A key question is whether the organization of microbial cooccurrence networks and their response to disturbance reflect physical characteristics inherent in fluvial networks such as geo...

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 66%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Fluvial network organization imprints on microbial co-occurrence networks

Widder

Besemer

Singer

et al. 2014

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

202

150

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Furthermore, some of the frameworks include indicators of human pressures and their impacts (e.g. Merovich et al, 2013;McCluney et al, 2014;Rinaldi et al, 2013Rinaldi et al, , 2015a.6. Finally, although most frameworks could be described as incorporating processes to some degree, some methods are particularly process-based, even when processes are inferred from forms and associations rather than being quantified by direct measurements.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

A multi-scale hierarchical framework for developing understanding of river behaviour to support river management

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Contact CEH NORA team at noraceh@ceh.ac.ukThe NERC and CEH trademarks and logos ('the Trademarks') are registered trademarks of NERC in the UK and other countries, and may not be used without the prior written consent of the Trademark owner. 1The following paper is the final version prior to publication on 22 September 2015. are proposed, the way in which indicators could contribute to classification is discussed. All of the methods described in Table 1 consider a hierarchy of spatial units, but the degree to which they develop the other aspects of the conceptual approach proposed by Frissell et al.(1986) varies widely.2. Many of the frameworks focus entirely on hydromorphological processes and forms that are either directly measured or inferred. This is because interactions between processes and forms control the dynamic morphology or behaviour of rivers and their mosaics of habitats.Hydromorphological processes drive longitudinal and lateral connectivity within river networks and corridors, the assemblage and turnover of physical habitats, and the sedimentary and vegetation structures associated with those habitats.3. Some frameworks are conceptual, providing a way of thinking about or structuring analyses of river systems, and interpreting their processes, morphology and function (e.g. Frissell et al., 1986;Habersack, 2000;Fausch et al., 2002;Thorp et al., 2006;Beechie et al., 2010;McCluney et al., 2014). Some frameworks are more quantitative, generating one or more indices or classifications of spatial units that support assessment of river systems (e.g. Rosgen, 1994;González del Tánago and García de Jalón, 2004;Merovich et al., 2013;Rinaldi et al., 2013Rinaldi et al., , 2015a MacDonald, 2002;Brierley and Fryirs, 2005;Beechie et al., 2010; Rinaldi et al., 2013a Rinaldi et al., , 2015.In some cases, theoretical or historical analyses or consideration of specific future scenarios are used to develop space-time understanding that can support management decisionmaking (e.g. Buffington, 1997, 1998;Montgomery and MacDonald, 2002;Benda et al., 2004;Brierley and Fryirs, 2005;McCluney et al., 2014 , 1997, 1998Montgomery and MacDonald, 2002;Benda et al., 2004;Brierley and Fryirs, 2005;Merovich et al., 2013;Rinaldi et al., 2013Rinaldi et al., , 2015a. Furthermore, some of the frameworks include indicators of human pressures and their impacts (e.g. Merovich et al., 2013;McCluney et al., 2014;Rinaldi et al., 2013Rinaldi et al., , 2015a.6. Finally, although most frameworks could be described as incorporating processes to some degree, some methods are particularly process-based, even when processes are inferred from forms and associations rather than being quantified by direct measurements.Frameworks that consider temporal dynamics and trajectories of historical change (see point 4, above) are particularly effective in developing understanding of processes and the impacts of changed processes cascading through time and across spatial scales.Although the list of frameworks presented in Table 1 is far from comprehensive, ...

show abstract

“…Decreased variability of flow achieved by engineering interventions (e.g. a reservoir with constant release of water to generate hydropower) may have negative consequences for fish and other biota (Richter et al, 2003;McCluney et al, 2014). In an extensive literature review Poff and Zimmerman (2010) found no general, transferable quantitative relationships between flow alteration and ecological response, but the risk of ecological change increases with increasing magnitude of flow alteration.…”

Section: Saliencementioning

confidence: 99%

Flood risk reduction and flow buffering as ecosystem services – Part 1: Theory on flow persistence, flashiness and base flow

Noordwijk

Tanika²,

Lusiana³

2017

Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Flood damage reflects insufficient adaptation of human presence and activity to location and variability of river flow in a given climate. Flood risk increases when landscapes degrade, counteracted or aggravated by engineering solutions. Efforts to maintain and restore buffering as an ecosystem function may help adaptation to climate change, but this require quantification of effectiveness in their specific social-ecological context. However, the specific role of forests, trees, soil and drainage pathways in flow buffering, given geology, land form and climate, remains controversial. When complementing the scarce heavily instrumented catchments with reliable long-term data, especially in the tropics, there is a need for metrics for data-sparse conditions. We present and discuss a flow persistence metric that relates transmission to river flow of peak rainfall events to the base-flow component of the water balance. The dimensionless flow persistence parameter F p is defined in a recursive flow model and can be estimated from limited time series of observed daily flow, without requiring knowledge of spatially distributed rainfall upstream. The F p metric (or its change over time from what appears to be the local norm) matches local knowledge concepts. Inter-annual variation in the F p metric in sample watersheds correlates with variation in the "flashiness index" used in existing watershed health monitoring programmes, but the relationship between these metrics varies with context. Inter-annual variation in F p also correlates with common base-flow indicators, but again in a way that varies between watersheds. Further exploration of the responsiveness of F p in watersheds with different characteristics to the interaction of land cover and the specific realisation of space-time patterns of rainfall in a limited observation period is needed to evaluate interpretation of F p as an indicator of anthropogenic changes in watershed conditions.

show abstract

Riverine macrosystems ecology: sensitivity, resistance, and resilience of whole river basins with human alterations

Cited by 233 publications

References 53 publications

Fluvial network organization imprints on microbial co-occurrence networks

Fluvial network organization imprints on microbial co-occurrence networks

A multi-scale hierarchical framework for developing understanding of river behaviour to support river management

Flood risk reduction and flow buffering as ecosystem services – Part 1: Theory on flow persistence, flashiness and base flow

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About