Seeing the light: urban stream restoration affects stream metabolism and nitrate uptake via changes in canopy cover

The continually increasing global population residing in urban landscapes impacts numerous ecosystem functions and services provided by urban streams. Urban stream restoration is often employed to offset these impacts and conserve or enhance the various functions and services these streams provide....

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Ecological applications 2019-09, Vol.29 (6), p.1172-1186
Hauptverfasser: Reisinger, Alexander J., Doody, Thomas R., Groffman, Peter M., Kaushal, Sujay S., Rosi, Emma J.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:The continually increasing global population residing in urban landscapes impacts numerous ecosystem functions and services provided by urban streams. Urban stream restoration is often employed to offset these impacts and conserve or enhance the various functions and services these streams provide. Despite the assumption that “if you build it, [the function] will come,” current understanding of the effects of urban stream restoration on stream ecosystem functions are based on short term studies that may not capture variation in restoration effectiveness over time. We quantified the impact of stream restoration on nutrient and energy dynamics of urban streams by studying 10 urban stream reaches (five restored, five unrestored) in the Baltimore, Maryland, USA, region over a two-year period. We measured gross primary production (GPP) and ecosystem respiration (ER) at the whole-stream scale continuously throughout the study and nitrate (NO₃⁻-N) spiraling rates seasonally (spring, summer, autumn) across all reaches. There was no significant restoration effect on NO₃⁻-N spiraling across reaches. However, there was a significant canopy cover effect on NO₃⁻-N spiraling, and directly comparing paired sets of unrestored-restored reaches showed that restoration does affect NO₃⁻-N spiraling after accounting for other environmental variation. Furthermore, there was a change in GPP:ER seasonality, with restored and open-canopied reaches exhibiting higher GPP:ER during summer. The restoration effect, though, appears contingent upon altered canopy cover, which is likely to be a temporary effect of restoration and is a driver of multiple ecosystem services, e.g., habitat, riparian nutrient processing. Our results suggest that decision-making about stream restoration, including evaluations of nutrient benefits, clearly needs to consider spatial and temporal dynamics of canopy cover and trade-offs among multiple ecosystem services.
ISSN:1051-0761
1939-5582
DOI:10.1002/eap.1941