Stream Aufwuchs accumulation processes: Effects of ecosystem depopulation

Kaufman, Laurence H.

doi:10.1007/bf00015493

Cited by 10 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 19 publications

(14 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Kaufman (1980) investigated the importance of nearby colonized substrates to periphyton biomass accumulation rates, concluding that nearby colonizers are important. Kaufman (1980) investigated the importance of nearby colonized substrates to periphyton biomass accumulation rates, concluding that nearby colonizers are important.…”

Section: Recovery From Experimental Manipulationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Recovery of lotic communities and ecosystems from disturbance—A narrative review of case studies

Yount

Niemi²

1990

Environmental Management

214

144

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We present a narrative account of case studies of the recovery of flowing water systems from disturbance, focusing on the investigators' conclusions about recovery time and the factors contributing to recovery. We restrict our attention to case studies in which the recovery of some biological property of the system has been examined, excluding those that deal only with physical or chemical properties. Although natural processes and rates of recovery are emphasized, studies of reclamation or restoration of damaged eco-systems are included where they contribute to an understanding of recovery processes.For the majority of studies examined, the systems recovered quite rapidly. The most commonly cited reasons for short recovery times were: (1) life history characteristics that allowed rapid recolonization and repopulation of the affected areas, (2) the availability and accessibility of unaffected upstream and downstream areas and internal refugia to serve as sources of organisms for repopulation, (3) the high flushing rates of Iotic systems that allowed them to quickly dilute or replace polluted waters, and (4) the fact that Iotic systems are naturally subjected to a variety of disturbances and the biota have evolved life history characteristics that favor flexibility or adaptability. In general, longer recovery times were observed in disturbances, such as channelization, that resulted in alterations to physical conditions. This review also indicates that much of our knowledge of recovery in Iotic ecosystems is fragmented and uncoordinated. In addition to establishing the bounds of recovery time, our review identifies some research gaps that need to be filled.The relative stability of communities and ecosystems is determined not only by their resistance to disturbance, but also by their rate of recovery from disturbance others 1975, 1983), Disturbance is now recognized as an important area of ecological research (Gerritsen and Patten 1985) because disturbance affects the organization of communities and contributes to ecological and evolutionary processes. Here we present a narrative account of case studies of the recovery of flowing water systems from disturbance, focusing on the investigators' conclusions about recovery time and the factors contributing to recovery. Selected data from these case studies have been codified for statistical analysis, the results of which are presented in a companion paper (Niemi and others 1990).

show abstract

Section: Recovery From Experimental Manipulationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Recovery of lotic communities and ecosystems from disturbance—A narrative review of case studies

Yount

Niemi²

1990

Environmental Management

214

144

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Jones (1978) considered that, although many factors affected "equilibrium" biomass, only passive settlement influenced the duration of the initial accrual. The ability of planktonic organisms to attach and grow on the artificial substrate surface determines the course of colonisation in the early stages, with coloniser proximity being a major influence on re-population (Jones 1978;Kaufman 1980). Therefore the variability in colonisation time at each station in this Table 3 A selection of accrual times considered necessary for production assessments on artificial substrates in rivers (+ removed just before sloughing started).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Artificial substrate exposure times for periphyton biomass estimates in rivers

Biggs¹

1988

New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The time for periphyton biomass to accrue to approximately natural levels on a new artificial substrate sampler, designed for use in harsh river environments, was investigated. Six 8-week experiments were attempted in 9 New Zealand rivers of differing nutrient status. Accrual rates were highly variable and results between experiments were inconsistent within rivers. The colonisation stage, and the low biomass communities, were dominated by heterotrophic organisms and/or detritus. In unenriched and enriched rivers, biomass on the artificial substrates approximated natural substrate communities after 4 weeks. In moderately enriched rivers results were highly variable and artificial substrate biomass gave only a fair representation of natural substrate levels after 8 weeks of accrual. Because of variability in accural rates, adopting standard accrual times for artificial substrate sampling of New Zealand's shallow, swift rivers is not recommended. Samplers should be checked regularly and removed just before sloughing starts at the most productive site, to avoid comparing sloughed and non-sloughed communities.

show abstract

“…For example, both light and nutrient levels were positively associated with rates of biomass accumulation in studies by Steinman and McIntire (1987) and Pringle (1987), respectively. Although external factors (e.g., 'Goniobasis density = 1000/m 2. grazing, nutrient availability, light level) may limit the ultimate amount of biomass that can accumulate in a system, it appears that most periphyton communities have the ability to recover quickly to that limit after a flood event (Kaufman 1980).…”

Section: Floodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Recovery of lotic periphyton communities after disturbance

Steinman

McIntire

1990

Environmental Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT/Periphyton communities represent potentially excellent candidates for assessing the recovery of lotto ecosystems after disturbance. These communities are ubiquitous, relatively easy to sample and measure (in terms of total community biomass), have short generation times, and may influence the recovery rates of higher trophic levels. The first section of this article analyzes how site availability, species availability, and differential species performance influence periphyton successional dynamics. This background information provides a foundation for understanding how pertphytic organisms respond after a disturbance. The second section of this article analyzes how periphyton communities respond to four different types of disturbance (flood events, desiccation, organic nutrient enrichment, and toxic metal exposure). Although data are limited, it is concluded that the fast growth rates and short generation times of periphytic organisms, coupled with their flexible life history strategies and good dispersal ability, allow Iotic periphyton communities to recover relatively quickly after a disturbance. In addition, disturbance type and severity, local environmental conditions, and site-specific factors also will influence recovery rates.Future research needs include a better understanding of: (1) what periphyton property(ies) would serve as the best index of recovery; (2) whether or not the robustness of this index varies among different environments and different disturbances; (3) interactions between autotrophs and heterotrophs within the periphyton mat, particularly with respect to nutrient cycling; (4) competitive interactions among organisms; (5) functional redundancy of organisms; and (6) the influence of the riparian zone and channel geomorphology on periphyton recovery rates.Periphyton communities in lotic ecosystems are complex assemblages comprised of autotrophs (algae) and heterotrophs (fungi, bacteria, protozoa), attached to substrates, and often embedded in a polysaccharide matrix. Periphyton communities possess properties that make them particularly useful in evaluating the rates at which recovery occurs in lotic ecosystems following disturbance. For example, they are ubiquitous and relatively easy to sample and measure (in terms of total community biomass). In addition, compared to terrestrial biota, many periphytic organisms have very short generation times (Cairns 1982, Baars 1983. This permits periphyton growth to be monitored through many generations and different successional seres between disturbance events, potentially resulting in a better understanding of recovery dynamics. Finally, because periphyton is a high-quality food resource for many lotic invertebrates (Lamberti and Moore 1984,

show abstract

Stream Aufwuchs accumulation processes: Effects of ecosystem depopulation

Cited by 10 publications

References 19 publications

Recovery of lotic communities and ecosystems from disturbance—A narrative review of case studies

Recovery of lotic communities and ecosystems from disturbance—A narrative review of case studies

Artificial substrate exposure times for periphyton biomass estimates in rivers

Recovery of lotic periphyton communities after disturbance

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About