Stream and interstitial water DOC of a gravel bar (Sitka stream, Czech Republic): characteristics, dynamics and presumable origin

Trulleyova, Sarka; Rulı́k, Martin; Popelka, Jiri

doi:10.1127/0003-9136/2003/0158-0407

Cited by 14 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Surface water was collected from running water at a depth of 10 cm below the surface level at the beginning and the end of the study area. Interstitial water samples were collected using a set of 15 minipiezometers placed randomly at three different depths (0–10, 10–20, 20–30 cm) in the sediments at the study site. The initial 50–100 mL of water was used as a rinse and discarded.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Contribution of Methane Benthic and Atmospheric Fluxes of an Experimental Area (Sitka Stream)

Bednařík

Čáp

Maier

et al. 2015

CLEAN Soil Air Water

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Contributions of methane benthic fluxes and methane emissions to the total methane amount were studied during the summer season for two consecutive years. Considering the fact that methane is produced in great amount within hyporheic sediments, we have expected that both methane released by the benthic fluxes into the overlying water and methane emitted to the atmosphere should significantly affect the total methane budget of the stream water within the experimental area. In order to asses this assumption, we measured methane concentrations within the vertical sediment profile of a hyporheic zone, direct benthic methane fluxes by static chambers, methane concentrations in the surface water, and methane emissions into the atmosphere simultaneously. The methane concentrations in interstitial water tended sharply to increase with sediment depth (0.54–734.99 μmol L−1) and were strongly correlated with benthic fluxes (r = 0.88, p < 0.05). We also found a considerable variability in the benthic methane fluxes (0–12.59 mmol m−2 day−1) and the spatial variability (0–71.43%) of the experimental area, suggesting that there may be various factors that affect the rate of benthic fluxes including methanotrophy in the top sediment layers. Generally, the contribution of benthic fluxes and methane emissions to the methane budgets of the experimental area was negligible (0.034 (0.45%) and 0.074 mol day−1 (0.98%), respectively).

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Contribution of Methane Benthic and Atmospheric Fluxes of an Experimental Area (Sitka Stream)

Bednařík

Čáp

Maier

et al. 2015

CLEAN Soil Air Water

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Interstitial water samples were collected using a set of 5–6 minipiezometers [ 40 ] randomly placed into hyporheic sediments on locality IV at specified depths ( Table 2 , for more details see File S1 ). The initial 50–100 mL of water was used as a rinse and discarded.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Identification of Methanogenic archaea in the Hyporheic Sediment of Sitka Stream

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Methanogenic archaea produce methane as a metabolic product under anoxic conditions and they play a crucial role in the global methane cycle. In this study molecular diversity of methanogenic archaea in the hyporheic sediment of the lowland stream Sitka (Olomouc, Czech Republic) was analyzed by PCR amplification, cloning and sequencing analysis of the methyl coenzyme M reductase alpha subunit (mcrA) gene. Sequencing analysis of 60 clones revealed 24 different mcrA phylotypes from hyporheic sedimentary layers to a depth of 50 cm. Phylotypes were affiliated with Methanomicrobiales, Methanosarcinales and Methanobacteriales orders. Only one phylotype remains unclassified. The majority of the phylotypes showed higher affiliation with uncultured methanogens than with known methanogenic species. The presence of relatively rich assemblage of methanogenic archaea confirmed that methanogens may be an important component of hyporheic microbial communities and may affect CH4 cycling in rivers.

show abstract

“…Longer residence times have been shown to correspond to increased levels of microbial processing and alteration of DOM within both the stream (Battin et al, 2008; Gooseff et al, 2011; Kaplan et al, 2008) and hyporheic zone (Briggs et al, 2013; Trulleyová et al, 2003), facilitating the conversion of more complex allochthonous DOM into more readily available labile components—fueling microbial respiration and production. During summer at the OSB, chlorophyll a and sediment carbohydrates explained more than 90% of the variance in shallow streambed microbial activity, with lower turnover times (factor of 3) in summer compared to autumn/winter (Battin, 2000).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sources, Transformation, and Fate of Dissolved Organic Matter in the Gravel Bar of a Prealpine Stream

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Gravel bars (GBs) are hotspots of biogeochemical activity, likely impacting carbon dynamics in streams and rivers. However, it remains unclear how GBs process dissolved organic matter (DOM) received from stream water and groundwater. Here we investigate the spatial and temporal variability of DOM concentration and composition within a GB using DOM absorbance and fluorescence measurements. We found clear seasonal and diurnal patterns in DOM composition within the GB, indicating changing contributions of DOM sources and transformation processes. While DOM composition was characterized by more protein‐like DOM in summer, with increasing contributions of humic‐like DOM toward winter within the stream water and GB, groundwater DOM exhibited a strong aromatic and humic‐like character year‐round. DOM composition and concentration varied diurnally during autumn and winter within the GB and stream water, while seasonally higher groundwater inputs in summer likely muted the diurnal pattern, pointing to the importance of seasonal hydrological controls on DOM dynamics. Mixing model analysis showed GB DOM characteristics to differ from that predicted by stream water‐groundwater mixing within the GB, particularly in summer. Dissolved organic carbon concentration decreased along flow paths through the GB with increasing residence time, likely pointing to microbial uptake and/or adsorption to sediment surfaces within the GB, with concurrent clear shifts in DOM composition. While freshly produced and more humified DOM increased along GB flow paths, protein‐like fluorescence (C3) was removed, indicating the simultaneous production and removal of DOM. Together, our findings highlight the role of GBs in DOM removal and transformation, influenced by seasonal shifts in temperature and hydrodynamics.

show abstract

Stream and interstitial water DOC of a gravel bar (Sitka stream, Czech Republic): characteristics, dynamics and presumable origin

Cited by 14 publications

References 0 publications

Contribution of Methane Benthic and Atmospheric Fluxes of an Experimental Area (Sitka Stream)

Contribution of Methane Benthic and Atmospheric Fluxes of an Experimental Area (Sitka Stream)

Identification of Methanogenic archaea in the Hyporheic Sediment of Sitka Stream

Sources, Transformation, and Fate of Dissolved Organic Matter in the Gravel Bar of a Prealpine Stream

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About