Effects of geomorphic process domains on river ecosystems: a comparison of floodplain and confined valley segments

The geomorphic template of streams and rivers exerts strong controls on the structure and function of aquatic ecosystems. However, relationships between stream geomorphology and ecosystem structure and function are not always clear and have not been investigated equally across spatial scales. In mon...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:River research and applications 2014-06, Vol.30 (5), p.617-630
Hauptverfasser: Bellmore, J. R, Baxter, C. V
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 630
container_issue 5
container_start_page 617
container_title River research and applications
container_volume 30
creator Bellmore, J. R
Baxter, C. V
description The geomorphic template of streams and rivers exerts strong controls on the structure and function of aquatic ecosystems. However, relationships between stream geomorphology and ecosystem structure and function are not always clear and have not been investigated equally across spatial scales. In montane regions, rivers often alternate between canyon‐confined segments and unconfined floodplain segments. Yet, few studies have evaluated how this pattern influences aquatic ecosystems. Here, we compared five confined river segments to five paired floodplain segments in terms of allochthonous inputs, aquatic primary producer and invertebrate production, stream retentive capacity, and aquatic invertebrate community composition. We found that floodplains had a higher (up to 4×) retentive capacity, a greater richness (58%) of aquatic invertebrates, and a distinctly different invertebrate community, relative to confined segments. Contrary to our expectations, allochthonous inputs were approximately 2× greater for confined segments, and aquatic primary and invertebrate production exhibited no consistent differences between segment types. However, results did indicate that floodplains had greater overall community respiration than confined segments. Together, these findings suggest that floodplain and confined segments do indeed differ in terms of aquatic ecosystem structure and function but not entirely as expected. Confined segments had greater allochthonous inputs but a lower capacity to retain those inputs, whereas floodplains had a high capacity to retain transported organic matter and also a more diverse community of invertebrates and higher overall community respiration to ‘digest’ retained organic matter. If these findings are generalizable, then they would indicate that confined segments are sources for organic matter within river networks, whereas floodplains act as filters, removing and processing organic matter transported from upstream confined segments. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
doi_str_mv 10.1002/rra.2672
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1540235021</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>3326326711</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-a3342-1ff9638a0e2ed64a418cad0502bb69192471bf055be55b4fa5d0a9890b49adfc3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kU9r3DAQxU1podtNoN8gglxy8VZ_bau3ENImEAikyVmM5dHWi205mt2E_fZR2NBAoAcxgvebx8ybovgu-EpwLn-kBCtZ1fJTsRBGmVLoqv7872_s1-Ib0YZzUTe2WRTpMgT0W2IxsDXGMab5b-_ZnKJHItbFEfopqxNL_RMmhj7SnrY40k8GzMdxhtRTlnN_GGLs5iE3MJi6LE6hn7BjTzAMuGeE6xGnLR0VXwIMhMdvdVk8_Lq8v7gqb25_X1-c35SglJalCMFWqgGOErtKgxaNh44bLtu2ssJKXYs2cGNazE8HMB0H21jeagtd8GpZnB188zKPO6StG3vyOAwwYdyRE0ZzqbKfyOjpB3QTd2nK02VKSausNPzd0KdIlDC4OfUjpL0T3L2G73L47jX8jJYH9LnPq_-Xc3d352_8yYEPEB2sc6Tu4Y_kQudDmVrUlXoBzK6P7A</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1532939250</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Effects of geomorphic process domains on river ecosystems: a comparison of floodplain and confined valley segments</title><source>Access via Wiley Online Library</source><creator>Bellmore, J. R ; Baxter, C. V</creator><creatorcontrib>Bellmore, J. R ; Baxter, C. V</creatorcontrib><description>The geomorphic template of streams and rivers exerts strong controls on the structure and function of aquatic ecosystems. However, relationships between stream geomorphology and ecosystem structure and function are not always clear and have not been investigated equally across spatial scales. In montane regions, rivers often alternate between canyon‐confined segments and unconfined floodplain segments. Yet, few studies have evaluated how this pattern influences aquatic ecosystems. Here, we compared five confined river segments to five paired floodplain segments in terms of allochthonous inputs, aquatic primary producer and invertebrate production, stream retentive capacity, and aquatic invertebrate community composition. We found that floodplains had a higher (up to 4×) retentive capacity, a greater richness (58%) of aquatic invertebrates, and a distinctly different invertebrate community, relative to confined segments. Contrary to our expectations, allochthonous inputs were approximately 2× greater for confined segments, and aquatic primary and invertebrate production exhibited no consistent differences between segment types. However, results did indicate that floodplains had greater overall community respiration than confined segments. Together, these findings suggest that floodplain and confined segments do indeed differ in terms of aquatic ecosystem structure and function but not entirely as expected. Confined segments had greater allochthonous inputs but a lower capacity to retain those inputs, whereas floodplains had a high capacity to retain transported organic matter and also a more diverse community of invertebrates and higher overall community respiration to ‘digest’ retained organic matter. If these findings are generalizable, then they would indicate that confined segments are sources for organic matter within river networks, whereas floodplains act as filters, removing and processing organic matter transported from upstream confined segments. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley &amp; Sons, Ltd.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1535-1459</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1535-1467</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1002/rra.2672</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Bognor Regis: John Wiley &amp; Sons</publisher><subject>aquatic ecosystems ; aquatic invertebrates ; community structure ; filters ; floodplains ; Freshwater ; organic matter ; primary and secondary production ; process domains ; rivers ; stream retention ; streams</subject><ispartof>River research and applications, 2014-06, Vol.30 (5), p.617-630</ispartof><rights>Copyright © 2013 John Wiley &amp; Sons, Ltd.</rights><rights>Copyright © 2014 John Wiley &amp; Sons, Ltd.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-a3342-1ff9638a0e2ed64a418cad0502bb69192471bf055be55b4fa5d0a9890b49adfc3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002%2Frra.2672$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002%2Frra.2672$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,1417,27924,27925,45574,45575</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Bellmore, J. R</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Baxter, C. V</creatorcontrib><title>Effects of geomorphic process domains on river ecosystems: a comparison of floodplain and confined valley segments</title><title>River research and applications</title><description>The geomorphic template of streams and rivers exerts strong controls on the structure and function of aquatic ecosystems. However, relationships between stream geomorphology and ecosystem structure and function are not always clear and have not been investigated equally across spatial scales. In montane regions, rivers often alternate between canyon‐confined segments and unconfined floodplain segments. Yet, few studies have evaluated how this pattern influences aquatic ecosystems. Here, we compared five confined river segments to five paired floodplain segments in terms of allochthonous inputs, aquatic primary producer and invertebrate production, stream retentive capacity, and aquatic invertebrate community composition. We found that floodplains had a higher (up to 4×) retentive capacity, a greater richness (58%) of aquatic invertebrates, and a distinctly different invertebrate community, relative to confined segments. Contrary to our expectations, allochthonous inputs were approximately 2× greater for confined segments, and aquatic primary and invertebrate production exhibited no consistent differences between segment types. However, results did indicate that floodplains had greater overall community respiration than confined segments. Together, these findings suggest that floodplain and confined segments do indeed differ in terms of aquatic ecosystem structure and function but not entirely as expected. Confined segments had greater allochthonous inputs but a lower capacity to retain those inputs, whereas floodplains had a high capacity to retain transported organic matter and also a more diverse community of invertebrates and higher overall community respiration to ‘digest’ retained organic matter. If these findings are generalizable, then they would indicate that confined segments are sources for organic matter within river networks, whereas floodplains act as filters, removing and processing organic matter transported from upstream confined segments. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley &amp; Sons, Ltd.</description><subject>aquatic ecosystems</subject><subject>aquatic invertebrates</subject><subject>community structure</subject><subject>filters</subject><subject>floodplains</subject><subject>Freshwater</subject><subject>organic matter</subject><subject>primary and secondary production</subject><subject>process domains</subject><subject>rivers</subject><subject>stream retention</subject><subject>streams</subject><issn>1535-1459</issn><issn>1535-1467</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2014</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp1kU9r3DAQxU1podtNoN8gglxy8VZ_bau3ENImEAikyVmM5dHWi205mt2E_fZR2NBAoAcxgvebx8ybovgu-EpwLn-kBCtZ1fJTsRBGmVLoqv7872_s1-Ib0YZzUTe2WRTpMgT0W2IxsDXGMab5b-_ZnKJHItbFEfopqxNL_RMmhj7SnrY40k8GzMdxhtRTlnN_GGLs5iE3MJi6LE6hn7BjTzAMuGeE6xGnLR0VXwIMhMdvdVk8_Lq8v7gqb25_X1-c35SglJalCMFWqgGOErtKgxaNh44bLtu2ssJKXYs2cGNazE8HMB0H21jeagtd8GpZnB188zKPO6StG3vyOAwwYdyRE0ZzqbKfyOjpB3QTd2nK02VKSausNPzd0KdIlDC4OfUjpL0T3L2G73L47jX8jJYH9LnPq_-Xc3d352_8yYEPEB2sc6Tu4Y_kQudDmVrUlXoBzK6P7A</recordid><startdate>201406</startdate><enddate>201406</enddate><creator>Bellmore, J. R</creator><creator>Baxter, C. V</creator><general>John Wiley &amp; Sons</general><general>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</general><scope>FBQ</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QH</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7SS</scope><scope>7ST</scope><scope>7UA</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>F1W</scope><scope>H95</scope><scope>H96</scope><scope>L.G</scope><scope>SOI</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201406</creationdate><title>Effects of geomorphic process domains on river ecosystems: a comparison of floodplain and confined valley segments</title><author>Bellmore, J. R ; Baxter, C. V</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-a3342-1ff9638a0e2ed64a418cad0502bb69192471bf055be55b4fa5d0a9890b49adfc3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2014</creationdate><topic>aquatic ecosystems</topic><topic>aquatic invertebrates</topic><topic>community structure</topic><topic>filters</topic><topic>floodplains</topic><topic>Freshwater</topic><topic>organic matter</topic><topic>primary and secondary production</topic><topic>process domains</topic><topic>rivers</topic><topic>stream retention</topic><topic>streams</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Bellmore, J. R</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Baxter, C. V</creatorcontrib><collection>AGRIS</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Aqualine</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Entomology Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>Water Resources Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ASFA: Aquatic Sciences and Fisheries Abstracts</collection><collection>Aquatic Science &amp; Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) 1: Biological Sciences &amp; Living Resources</collection><collection>Aquatic Science &amp; Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) 2: Ocean Technology, Policy &amp; Non-Living Resources</collection><collection>Aquatic Science &amp; Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) Professional</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><jtitle>River research and applications</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Bellmore, J. R</au><au>Baxter, C. V</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Effects of geomorphic process domains on river ecosystems: a comparison of floodplain and confined valley segments</atitle><jtitle>River research and applications</jtitle><date>2014-06</date><risdate>2014</risdate><volume>30</volume><issue>5</issue><spage>617</spage><epage>630</epage><pages>617-630</pages><issn>1535-1459</issn><eissn>1535-1467</eissn><abstract>The geomorphic template of streams and rivers exerts strong controls on the structure and function of aquatic ecosystems. However, relationships between stream geomorphology and ecosystem structure and function are not always clear and have not been investigated equally across spatial scales. In montane regions, rivers often alternate between canyon‐confined segments and unconfined floodplain segments. Yet, few studies have evaluated how this pattern influences aquatic ecosystems. Here, we compared five confined river segments to five paired floodplain segments in terms of allochthonous inputs, aquatic primary producer and invertebrate production, stream retentive capacity, and aquatic invertebrate community composition. We found that floodplains had a higher (up to 4×) retentive capacity, a greater richness (58%) of aquatic invertebrates, and a distinctly different invertebrate community, relative to confined segments. Contrary to our expectations, allochthonous inputs were approximately 2× greater for confined segments, and aquatic primary and invertebrate production exhibited no consistent differences between segment types. However, results did indicate that floodplains had greater overall community respiration than confined segments. Together, these findings suggest that floodplain and confined segments do indeed differ in terms of aquatic ecosystem structure and function but not entirely as expected. Confined segments had greater allochthonous inputs but a lower capacity to retain those inputs, whereas floodplains had a high capacity to retain transported organic matter and also a more diverse community of invertebrates and higher overall community respiration to ‘digest’ retained organic matter. If these findings are generalizable, then they would indicate that confined segments are sources for organic matter within river networks, whereas floodplains act as filters, removing and processing organic matter transported from upstream confined segments. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley &amp; Sons, Ltd.</abstract><cop>Bognor Regis</cop><pub>John Wiley &amp; Sons</pub><doi>10.1002/rra.2672</doi><tpages>14</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1535-1459
ispartof River research and applications, 2014-06, Vol.30 (5), p.617-630
issn 1535-1459
1535-1467
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1540235021
source Access via Wiley Online Library
subjects aquatic ecosystems
aquatic invertebrates
community structure
filters
floodplains
Freshwater
organic matter
primary and secondary production
process domains
rivers
stream retention
streams
title Effects of geomorphic process domains on river ecosystems: a comparison of floodplain and confined valley segments
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-03T10%3A32%3A15IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Effects%20of%20geomorphic%20process%20domains%20on%20river%20ecosystems:%20a%20comparison%20of%20floodplain%20and%20confined%20valley%20segments&rft.jtitle=River%20research%20and%20applications&rft.au=Bellmore,%20J.%20R&rft.date=2014-06&rft.volume=30&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=617&rft.epage=630&rft.pages=617-630&rft.issn=1535-1459&rft.eissn=1535-1467&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002/rra.2672&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E3326326711%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1532939250&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true