[freeztar]

This thread is for the exploration of topics related to stream systems and their ecology.

To start it off...

Ahmabeliever made the following posts in another thread:
http://hypography.com/forums/theolog...tml#post215943
and
http://hypography.com/forums/theolog...tml#post215966

Pending his source for these statements, I find it interesting that the river ecology adapted so quickly. I wonder, how would the results be different if the riparian zone was absent?

[InfiniteNow]

Hey dude,

I could always wiki it, but it's better for dialog if I ask here... What's a "riperian zone?"

Why is this important from your perspective?

[freeztar]

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

Hey dude,

I could always wiki it, but it's better for dialog if I ask here... What's a "riperian zone?"

Why is this important from your perspective?

The riparian zone is the area adjacent to a river corridor. Typically, these areas are influenced by the riverine system.

A riparian zone is extremely important in regulating local water temperatures via exposure to sunlight. It gets much more complex when nutrient loading is factored in.

A stream with no riparian zone is typically plagued with algae and other "sun lovers". This has a tendency to "suffocate" the streams due to anoxic conditions. The loss of leaf material and the loss of shade would cause the primary trophic community to shift towards producers rather than scavengers, or shredders.

To add pain to injury, the additional input of farm runoff, contributing to high N2 levels in waterbodies, is very conducive to algae blooms and a potential vector for invasive species' range expansion. The accumulated runoff feeding into the Mississippi River has been blamed for the anoxic "dead zone" in the Gulf of Mexico, right of the coast of the river delta.

[Ahmabeliever]

Please join in at the new topic I created in the Biology forum.

OK

What do you do for work, might I ask? You obviously have a formal education in ecology. Give me the details.

Work! You're scaring me already. I'm semi retired at 40. I do a bit of writing, a bit of Aquaponics, I rent out a sound system. Am writing a new comedy show. I have a prototype fishtank that cleans itself and am about to start selling this in New Zealand.

Education.

I'm a school dropout. I got interested in Aquaponics about 7ish years back and made a system of my own design through combining several previous interests. Then I learned how it worked. I covered many many things to try and understand the significance of combining both terrestrial and aquatic environments to reduce wastes.

It is this background that I suspect makes you suspect I have some education in riverine ecology.

I studied, or wanted to know, 'how to clean water'. How to 'compost in water'. These were some disciplines Got interested in native fish and began studying habitats, fresh water, salt, estuarine environments.

I figured out all sorts of crazy schemes for cleaning streams and lakes etc. I got into gardening too. With a background involving some market gardening I wanted to learn to do it naturally. (not organic, an eco-system is by it's nature organic, I'm a bit tired of the word)

So I got into soil biology and discovered my previous aquaponic leanings had many similar functions and activities. I grew very interested in VAM fungi and the way plants become a network through them. Companion planting, diversification, habitat restoration.

Just got asked about penning a restoration article for a pond magazine. He mistook me as edumecated too.

I can talk about this stuff all day long. I've been waiting for members with similar interests.

Me too!

I wonder, how would the results be different if the riparian zone was absent?

Greatly decreased biodiversity in the entire trophic web. Of course nature provides many grasslands with waterways, not all waterways are born equal. From what I recall waterways without extensive riparian cover do not hold as much life, original state or not. There are several studies pertaining to this exact same question. I will dig up a few of these tidbits as I search for the elusive leaf removal study.

[freeztar]

Education is a broad term. Self-education is acceptable.

I'm looking forward to the leaf removal study.

[Rade]

See these sample studies about effects of riparian (hence leaf litter) removal on stream ecosystems. I received 871 hits on published papers in peer reviewed journals when I searched under the topic "riparian removal"--this is a large area of research. There is no one single explanation to the question about importance of riparian zones to streams, the stream riparian dynamics are much too complex and context specific--for example, the size of stream is of great importance. There are many textbooks on the topic of stream riparian dynamics--the forest industry and US Forest Service also have interest in this topic:

Soil communities and plant litter decomposition as influenced by forest debris: Variation across tropical riparian and upland sites
Author: Ruan, HH
Add.Author / Editor: Li, YQ
Zou, XM
Citation: PEDOBIOLOGIA 49 (6): 529-538 2005
Year: 2005
Abstract: Forest debris on ground surface can interact with soil biota and consequently change ecosystem processes across heterogeneous landscape. We examined the interactions between forest debris and titter decomposition in riparian and upland sites within a tropical wet forest. Our experiment included control and debris-removal treatments. Debris-removal reduced leaf litter decomposition rates in both the riparian and upland sites. Debris-removal also reduced soil microbial biomass C in the upland site, but had no effect on microbial biomass C in the riparian site. In contrast, debris-removal altered the density of selected arthropod groups in the riparian site. Litter decomposition rates correlated with both soil microbial biomass and the density of millipedes in a multiple stepwise regression model. Removal of forest debris can substantially reduce rates of leaf litter decomposition through suppressing soil activities. This influence can be further modified by landscape position. Forest debris plays an essential role in maintaining soil activities and ecosystem functioning in this tropical wet forest. (c) 2005 Elsevier GmbH. All rights reserved.

===

Changes in solar input, water temperature, periphyton accumulation, and allochthonous input and storage after canopy removal along two small salmon streams in southeast Alaska
Author: Hetrick, NJ
Add.Author / Editor: Brusven, MA
Meehan, WR
Bjornn, TC
Citation: TRANSACTIONS OF THE AMERICAN FISHERIES SOCIETY 127 (6): 859-875 NOV 1998
Year: 1998
Abstract: Changes in solar radiation, water temperature, periphyton accumulation, and allochthonous inputs and storage were measured after we removed patches of deciduous, second-growth riparian vegetation bordering two small streams in southeast Alaska that produce coho salmon Oncorhynchus kisutch. Solar radiation and leaf litter input were measured at the water surface at random locations dispersed through six alternating closed- and open-canopy stream sections. Water temperature, periphyton, and stored organic samples were collected near the downstream end of each section. Solar radiation intensity was measured with digital daylight integrators and pyronometers, periphyton biomass and chlorophyll a were measured on red clay tile substrates, allochthonous input was measured with leaf litter baskets, and benthic organic matter was measured with a Hess sampler. Average intensity of solar radiation that reached the water surface of open-canopy sections was significantly higher than in closed-canopy sections of two streams measured during daylight hours in summer 1988 and of one stream measured day and night in summer 1989. Average daily water temperature was similar in the two canopy types in summer 1988, but was higher in open- than in closed-canopy sections in 1989. Accumulation of periphyton biomass was significantly higher in open- than in closed-canopy sections of the two streams studied in the summer of 1988 and of the one stream sampled in 1989.
accrual of periphyton biomass on tiles placed in the stream for 30-d colonization periods during the: summer months of 1989 was also significantly higher in the open than closed sections. Accumulation of chlorophyll a was significantly higher in the open- than in closed-canopy sections of the two streams in 1988 but did not differ significantly between canopy types in 1989. Thirty-day accrual of chlorophyll a was greater in open- than in closed-canopy sections of the one stream studied in 1989. Allochthonous input to the streams decreased after canopy removal, but the amount of organic material stored in the substrate did not differ significantly between open- and closed-canopy sections. Weather was predominantly overcast and rainy in summer 1988 and mostly sunny with infrequent rain in 1989. We speculate that advective heat transfer and high stream discharge from frequent rains moderated the effect of canopy removal and increased solar radiation on water temperatures in open-canopy stream sections in 1988. In 1989. solar radiation was a significant factor in regulating water temperature, especially when streamflows were low. Using a model, we predicted that water temperatures would change little in a 160-m open-canopy reach of Eleven Creek during any weather condition when hows were high. With low flows. however, stream temperatures in open sections of Eleven Creek were predicted to exceed the optimum for growth of juvenile coho salmon in abo
ut 20 m during clear sunny weather and in about 50 m when cloudy and overcast.

====

Effects of removal of riparian vegetation on algae and heterotrophs in a Mediterranean stream
Author: Sabater, Sergi
Butturini, Andrea
Munoz, Isabel
Romani, Anna
Wray, Joanne
Sabater, Francesc
Citation: Journal of Aquatic Ecosystem Stress and Recovery
6(2) 1997 ( 1997 (1998). 129-140.
Year: 1997 (1998)
Abstract: The effect of removal of a riparian strip on aquatic autotrophic (algae) and heterotrophic (bacteria, macroinvertebrates) organisms was monitored in a Mediterranean stream during the canopy growing period. Community composition, biomass and metabolic activities were compared with those recorded during a pre-riparian removal period and in a forested stretch downstream. Higher irradiance was associated with Cladophora increase in the logged section. Algal biomass increased up to ten times, and productivity was up to four times higher than in the pre-removal period and the forested section. Bacterial communities showed higher ectoenzymatic activities glucosidase, (beta-xylosidase) in the logged section than in forested conditions. Moreover the coincidence between the maxima of beta-glucosidase and chlorophyll-a suggests that bacterial activity was enhanced by the higher availability of high-quality algal material. The macroinvertebrate community had higher density and biomass in the logged section than in the forested section and in the pre-removal period. Scrapers and filterers become dominant after riparian removal, while shredders, predators and collectors did not show significant changes either between sites or periods. Responses of environmental variables and biotic communities indicate that the changes occurring in the stream due to riparian removal could be considered bottom-up controlled, as increased illumination was the main mechanism responsible.

====

Effects of Riparian Forest Removal on Fish Assemblages in Southern Appalachian Streams.
Author: Jones, E. B. Dale
Add.Author / Editor: Jones, E. B. Dale
Helfman, Gene S.
Harper, Joshua O.
Bolstad, Paul V.
Citation: Conservation Biology Dec99, Vol. 13 Issue 6, p1454-1465
Year: 1999
Abstract: Deforestation of riparian zones is known to influence the numbers and kinds of organisms that inhabit adjoining streams, but little quantitative information is available on how much deforestation must occur before the biota isaffected. We sampled fishes and stream habitats in 12 stream segments downstream from deforested but vegetated riparian patches 0-5.3 km long, all downslope from watersheds with at least 95% forest cover. We found an overall decrease in fish abundance with increasing length of nonforested riparian patch; sculpins, benthic minnows, and darters decreased, and sunfishes and water-column minnows increased in numbers. Introduced species were more common downstream from longer riparian patches. Habitat diversity decreased and riffles became filled with fine sediments as upstream patch length increased. Length of upstream nonforested patch and substrate particle size were much stronger predictors of fish occurrence than riparian patch width. Faunal characteristics and
physical features of the stream changed in direct proportion to the gradient of riparian disturbance, but the abundance of several species underwent pronounced change at particular threshold patch lengths. These results suggest that riparian forest removal leads to shifts in the structure of stream fish assemblages due to (1) decreases in fish species that do not guard hidden eggs or that are dependent on swift, shallow water that flows over relatively sediment-free substrates, or (2) increases in fishes that guard their young in pebble or pit nests or that live in slower, deeper water. When watershed development is anticipated or planned, limited clearing of riparian trees may cause minor disturbance to the fish assemblage, but streams in even a heavily forested watershed with vegetated riparian buffers cannot tolerate disruption of riparian-zone trees over much more than 1 km in length. Riparian buffer length and area should be given stronger consideration in stream...

[Ahmabeliever]

Dang, I'm looking forward to the leaf removal study too. I've searched and searched racked my brains for the key words...

Rade - Yes, there are many studies on removal of riparian cover. This particular study was different. It dealt with removing the leaf debris while retaining the riparian cover. To see what effect the removal of leaf litter had on the food chain. It cross referenced another study on evergreen riparian cover and difference in benthic species to deciduous cover, then removed leaf matter and put nets over the stream to stop more leaves falling in and watched what happened.

Fascinating study where the heck is it!!?

Again, NIWA, Waitakere's, New Zealand. Best I can do for now. I might have to ring them and see who might remember it. Maybe a sleep on it...

The difference in species diversity and density according to a waterways setting was an easily discernable thing for me as a child just by observing larger creatures.

From farmland drains with eels and duckweed to streams with no cover with eels, catfish, oxygen weed and duckweed, to non covered rivers with the previous list plus many other plants and various introduced trout, goldfish, and native salmonids, to bush streams with smaller salmonids freshwater crayfish filter feeding molluscs eels and more. The cleaner the water got the more types of species were present. The more type of species present the faster nutrients can be cycled, the cleaner it stays...

Riparian zones today are depleted around many streams. Restoring these is neccessary to provide buffer zones capable of collecting nutrient runoff before it accesses waterways. The easiest way is to clean up farming practises - LOL!

The restoration of habitat is not as hard as people make it out to be. The beauty of natures attempts to adapt to change can be used to great benefit in restorative projects.

Through observing the nature of a well functioning ecosystem and the species you wish to re-integrate into the project. Then collecting bacteria and algae and fungi from the 'good' eco system to seed your restoration project as it progresses.

ie - plant natives known to be riparian type plants of that region. Ensure specific trees used for spawning activities are included ie: willow. Simultaneously collect and innoculate VAM fungi from the same species of plants to your planting site. Specific fish require specific treatment to re-introduce. The native salmonids (banded kokopu) I have been tinkering with spawn and wash out to sea for a while. 4 months later they follow pheremone trails upstream to where mum spawned them. This is a local delicacy called whitebait and is avidly fished for in season.

If the environments right - some whitebait make it home to Mum. Tadaa! Re-introduced species. I just go to a site where new riparian plants are now established (small stream they won't go in the big ones and compete with introduced trout anymore), take some pregnant females, and let them go. when the tide is high and the barometic pressure high, they'll spawn in the leaf litter on the waters edge. And when you go back to that stream and see your good works have resulted in a population of native fish, paid or not, that's worth getting up for!

Most of the NZ population don't even know these fish exist. But where else do the whitebait come from if not a mum. Creation?

I forgot to mention my 3 PHD's.

Pot Head Dropout
Post Hole Digger
Previous Hair Do.

[freeztar]

Good post Rade.

Originally Posted by Rade

See these sample studies about effects of riparian (hence leaf litter) removal on stream ecosystems. I received 871 hits on published papers in peer reviewed journals when I searched under the topic "riparian removal"--this is a large area of research. There is no one single explanation to the question about importance of riparian zones to streams, the stream riparian dynamics are much too complex and context specific--for example, the size of stream is of great importance. There are many textbooks on the topic of stream riparian dynamics--the forest industry and US Forest Service also have interest in this topic:

It's safe to say that the removal of a riparian zone greatly influences the local ecology, if only on the level of the benthic macro-invertebrates. The forest industry is interested in riparian zones because of all the heat they have recieved for clear cutting next to streams and leaving no riparian zone. Before people really understood riverine ecology, this was a common practice. Now, the state agencies usually do a good job of holding these companies accountable.

In my county, no development can take place within 50 feet of a stream, in order to preserve riparian habitat. Of course, if there is no way to avoid the impact, the developer can apply for a stream buffer variance which are administered by the state Environmental Protection Division. It's at their discretion to supply a permit or not. If the permit is aproved, the developer must still pay for (or create) riparian restoration somewhere else within the watershed.

Changes in solar input, water temperature, periphyton accumulation, and allochthonous input and storage after canopy removal along two small salmon streams in southeast Alaska
Author: Hetrick, NJ
Add.Author / Editor: Brusven, MA
Meehan, WR
Bjornn, TC
Citation: TRANSACTIONS OF THE AMERICAN FISHERIES SOCIETY 127 (6): 859-875 NOV 1998
Year: 1998
Abstract: Changes in solar radiation, water temperature, periphyton accumulation, and allochthonous inputs and storage were measured after we removed patches of deciduous, second-growth riparian vegetation bordering two small streams in southeast Alaska that produce coho salmon Oncorhynchus kisutch. Solar radiation and leaf litter input were measured at the water surface at random locations dispersed through six alternating closed- and open-canopy stream sections. Water temperature, periphyton, and stored organic samples were collected near the downstream end of each section. Solar radiation intensity was measured with digital daylight integrators and pyronometers, periphyton biomass and chlorophyll a were measured on red clay tile substrates, allochthonous input was measured with leaf litter baskets, and benthic organic matter was measured with a Hess sampler. Average intensity of solar radiation that reached the water surface of open-canopy sections was significantly higher than in closed-canopy sections of two streams measured during daylight hours in summer 1988 and of one stream measured day and night in summer 1989. Average daily water temperature was similar in the two canopy types in summer 1988, but was higher in open- than in closed-canopy sections in 1989. Accumulation of periphyton biomass was significantly higher in open- than in closed-canopy sections of the two streams studied in the summer of 1988 and of the one stream sampled in 1989.
accrual of periphyton biomass on tiles placed in the stream for 30-d colonization periods during the: summer months of 1989 was also significantly higher in the open than closed sections. Accumulation of chlorophyll a was significantly higher in the open- than in closed-canopy sections of the two streams in 1988 but did not differ significantly between canopy types in 1989. Thirty-day accrual of chlorophyll a was greater in open- than in closed-canopy sections of the one stream studied in 1989. Allochthonous input to the streams decreased after canopy removal, but the amount of organic material stored in the substrate did not differ significantly between open- and closed-canopy sections.

That last sentence quoted above is surprising. Even though leaf litter input (allochthonous input) was decreased (or absent), the amount of organic material in the substrate did not differ significantly. Interesting...
I wonder if the paper describes the type of organic material found in the substrate of the open canopy stream?

Effects of removal of riparian vegetation on algae and heterotrophs in a Mediterranean stream
Author: Sabater, Sergi
Butturini, Andrea
Munoz, Isabel
Romani, Anna
Wray, Joanne
Sabater, Francesc
Citation: Journal of Aquatic Ecosystem Stress and Recovery
6(2) 1997 ( 1997 (1998). 129-140.
Year: 1997 (1998)
Abstract: The effect of removal of a riparian strip on aquatic autotrophic (algae) and heterotrophic (bacteria, macroinvertebrates) organisms was monitored in a Mediterranean stream during the canopy growing period. Community composition, biomass and metabolic activities were compared with those recorded during a pre-riparian removal period and in a forested stretch downstream. Higher irradiance was associated with Cladophora increase in the logged section. Algal biomass increased up to ten times, and productivity was up to four times higher than in the pre-removal period and the forested section. Bacterial communities showed higher ectoenzymatic activities glucosidase, (beta-xylosidase) in the logged section than in forested conditions. Moreover the coincidence between the maxima of beta-glucosidase and chlorophyll-a suggests that bacterial activity was enhanced by the higher availability of high-quality algal material.

That's not surprising.

The macroinvertebrate community had higher density and biomass in the logged section than in the forested section and in the pre-removal period. Scrapers and filterers become dominant after riparian removal, while shredders, predators and collectors did not show significant changes either between sites or periods. Responses of environmental variables and biotic communities indicate that the changes occurring in the stream due to riparian removal could be considered bottom-up controlled, as increased illumination was the main mechanism responsible.

That's interesting. Predators are typically the most sensitive among the macro-invertebrates, yet this study found no significant changes. I imagine that changes would be seen, given enough time.

[freeztar]

Originally Posted by Ahmabeliever

Riparian zones today are depleted around many streams. Restoring these is neccessary to provide buffer zones capable of collecting nutrient runoff before it accesses waterways. The easiest way is to clean up farming practises - LOL!

Not only do they collect nutrient runoff, but also sediment in runoff.

The restoration of habitat is not as hard as people make it out to be. The beauty of natures attempts to adapt to change can be used to great benefit in restorative projects.

Stream restoration is more cut and dry then wetland restoration, for sure, but I wouldn't call it easy. It takes a really knowledgeable stream engineer to make a successful stream restoration. Usually hydrologic engineers are employed and they study things like scour, sediment load, stream cross section, 100yr highs, bank full width, etc. Ecologists then take note of riparian trees above 12" in diameter and mark them so a survey crew can pick up the points. All this info is fed into hydrological modeling programs and GIS. It's quite the endeavor. I've seen very successful projects, and others that did not seem to help at all. Of course, riparian restoration is usually pretty simple as it usually just involves planting trees and native vegetation along the banks.

Through observing the nature of a well functioning ecosystem and the species you wish to re-integrate into the project. Then collecting bacteria and algae and fungi from the 'good' eco system to seed your restoration project as it progresses.

None of the projects I have worked on involved this "seeding" idea you mentioned, but it makes sense. I'll try to run it by some people here and see what they think.

If the environments right - some whitebait make it home to Mum. Tadaa! Re-introduced species. I just go to a site where new riparian plants are now established (small stream they won't go in the big ones and compete with introduced trout anymore), take some pregnant females, and let them go. when the tide is high and the barometic pressure high, they'll spawn in the leaf litter on the waters edge. And when you go back to that stream and see your good works have resulted in a population of native fish, paid or not, that's worth getting up for!

That's awesome Ahma, good work!

[Not half, but whole!]

Originally Posted by Ahmabeliever

OK



Work! You're scaring me already. I'm semi retired at 40. I do a bit of writing, a bit of Aquaponics, I rent out a sound system. Am writing a new comedy show. I have a prototype fishtank that cleans itself and am about to start selling this in New Zealand.

soory to divert from the thread, but...
You prototype aquarium, is a mechanical cleaning or is it biologically based? (Im a huge aquarium nerd...)