Food-web responses to restoration of channel heterogeneity in boreal streams

Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences

Volumn 63, Issue 11, 2006, Pages 2478-2486

  Lepori, Fabio ^a   Gaul, Dirk ^a   Palm, Daniel ^b   Malmqvist, Björn ^a  

^a UMEÅ UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

^b SWEDISH UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES   (Sweden)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BIOMASS; CARBON ISOTOPE; CHANNELIZATION; FOOD AVAILABILITY; FOOD WEB; HABITAT RESTORATION; HETEROGENEITY; NITROGEN ISOTOPE; SECONDARY PRODUCTION;

EURASIA; EUROPE; NORTHERN EUROPE; SCANDINAVIA; SWEDEN;

ALGAE; BRYOPHYTA; COTTUS GOBIO; HEXAPODA; INSECTA;

EID: 33846167807     PISSN: 0706652X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1139/F06-142     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Barmuta, L. 2002. Monitoring, survey and experimentation in streams and rivers. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
2. Bash, J.S., and Ryan, C.M. 2002. Stream restoration projects: is anyone monitoring? Environ. Manag. 29: 877-885.
3. Bunn, S.E., Davies, P.M., and Winning, M. 2003. Sources of organic carbon supporting the food web of an arid zone floodplain river. Freshw. Biol. 48: 619-635.
4. Cummins, K.W., Petersen, R.C., Howard, F.O., Wuychech, J.C., and Holt, V.I. 1973. The utilization of leaf litter by stream detritivores. Ecology, 54: 336-345.
5. Dobson, M., and Hildrew, A.G. 1992. A test of resource limitation among shredding detritivores in low order streams in southern England. J. Anim. Ecol. 61: 69-77.
6. Erman, N.E. 1986. Movements of self-marked caddisfly larvae, Chyranda centralis (Trichoptera: Limnephilidae), in a sierran spring stream, California, USA. Freshw. Biol. 16: 455-464.
7. Finlay, J.C. 2001. Stable-carbon-isotope ratios of river biota: implications for energy flow in lotic food webs. Ecology, 82: 1052-1064.
8. Fry, B. 1991. Stable isotope diagrams of freshwater food webs. Ecology, 72: 2293-2297.
9. Giller, P.S., and Malmqvist, B. 1998. The biology of streams and rivers. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.
10. Haapala, A., and Muotka, T. 1998. Seasonal dynamics of detritus and associated macroinvertebrates in a channelized boreal stream. Arch. Hydrobiol. 142: 171-189.
11. Haapala, A., Muotka, T., and Laasonen, P. 2003. Distribution of benthic macroinvertebrates and leaf litter in relation to streambed retentivity: implications for headwater stream restoration. Boreal Environ. Res. 8: 19-30.
12. Hoffsten, P.-O. 2003. Effects of an extraordinarily harsh winter on macroinvertebrates and fish in boreal streams. Arch. Hydrobiol. 157: 505-523.
13. Lepori, P., Palm, D., and Malmqvist, B. 2005a. Effects of stream restoration on ecosystem functioning: detritus retentiveness and decomposition. J. Appl. Ecol. 42: 228-238.
14. Lepori, F., Palm, D., Brännäs, E., and Malmqvist, B. 2005b. Does restoration of structural heterogeneity in streams enhance fish and macroinvertebrate diversity? Ecol. Appl. 15: 2060-2071.
15. Merritt, R.W., and Cummins, K.W. 1996. An introduction to the aquatic insects of North America. 3rd ed. Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company, Dubuque, Iowa, USA.
16. Meyer, E. 1989. The relationships between body length parameters and dry mass in running water invertebrates. Arch. Hydrobiol. 117: 191-203.
17. Mihuc, T.B. 1997. The functional trophic role of lotic primary consumers: generalist versus specialist strategies. Freshw. Biol. 37: 455-462.
18. 15N and animal age. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta, 48: 1135-1140.
19. Muotka, T., and Laasonen, P. 2002. Ecosystem recovery in restored headwater streams: the role of enhanced leaf retention. J. Appl. Ecol. 39: 145-156.
20. Negishi, J.N., Inoue, M., and Nunokawa, M. 2002. The effects of channelization on stream habitat in relation to a spate and flow refugia for macroinvertebrates in northern Japan. Freshw. Biol. 47: 1515-1529.
21. Nilsson, C., Lepori, F., Malmqvist, B., Törnlund, E., Hjerdt, N., Helfield, J.M., Palm, D., Östergren, J., Jansson, R., Brännäs, E., and Lundqvist, H. 2005. Forecasting environmental responses to restoration of rivers used as log floatways: an interdisciplinary challenge. Ecosystems, 8: 779-800.
22. Ormerod, S.J. 2003. Restoration in applied ecology: Editor's introduction. J. Appl. Ecol. 40: 44-50.
23. Palmer, M.A., Ambrose, R.E., and Poff, N.L. 1997. Ecological theory and community restoration ecology. Restor. Ecol. 5: 291-300.
24. Persson, J., Hansson, H., and Renberg, I. 2006. The Stone Brusher, a new sampler for submerged epilithic material in shallow streams and lakes. Hydrobiologia, 560: 385-392.
25. Peterson, B.J., Fry, B., Deegan, L., and Hershey, A. 1993. The trophic significance of epilithic algal production in a fertilized tundra river ecosystem. Limnol. Oceanogr. 38: 872-878.
26. Pretty, J.L., Harrison, S.S.C., Sheperd, D.J., Smith, C., Hildrew, A.G., and Hey, R.D. 2003. River rehabilitation and fish populations: assessing the benefit of instream structures. J. Appl. Ecol. 40: 251-265.
27. Richardson, J.S. 1991. Seasonal food limitation of detritivores in a montane stream: an experimental test. Ecology, 72: 873-887.
28. Sempeski, P., and Gaudin, P. 1995. Size-related changes in diel distribution of young grayling (Thymallus thymallus). Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 52: 1842-1848.
29. Speaker, R., Moore, K., and Gregory, S. 1984. Analysis of the process of organic matter in stream ecosystems. Verh. Int. Ver. Limnol. 22: 1835-1841.
30. Steinman, A.D., and Lamberti, G.A. 1996. Biomass and pigments of benthic algae. In Methods in stream ecology. Edited by F.R. Hauer and G.A. Lamberti. Academic Press, San Diego, California, USA. pp. 295-313.
31. Tachet, H., Bournaud, M., Richoux, P., Callière, L., Coulet, M., Fontaine, J., Juget, J., and Pattée, E. 2002. Introduction à l'étude des macroinvertébrés des eaux douces. Association Française de Limnologie, Thonon CEDEX, France.
32. Thorp, J.H., and Delong, M.D. 1994. The riverine productivity model: an heuristic view of carbon sources and organic processing in large river ecosystems. Oikos, 70: 305-308.
33. Thorp, J.H., Delong, M.D., Greenwood, K.S., and Casper, A.F. 1998. Isotopic analysis of three food web theories in constricted and floodplain regions of a large river. Oecologia, 117: 551-563.
34. Törnlund, E., and Östlund, L. 2002. Floating timber in northern Sweden. The construction of floatways and transformation of rivers. Environ. Hist. 8: 85-106.
35. Van Guelpen, L., Markle, D.F., and Duggan, D.J. 1982. An evaluation of accuracy, precision, and speed of several zooplankton sub-sampling techniques. J. Cons. 40: 226-236.
36. Vannote, R., Minshall, G.W., Cummins, K.W., Sedell, J.R., and Cushing, C.E. 1980. The river continuum concept. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 37: 130-137.
37. Vinson, M.R., and Hawkins, C.P. 1996. Effects of sampling area and subsampling procedure on comparisons of taxa richness among streams. J. North Am. Benthol. Soc. 15: 392-399.
38. Wallace, J.B., Eggert, S.L., Meyer, J.L., and Webster, J.R. 1997. Multiple trophic levels of a forest stream linked to terrestrial litter inputs. Science (Washington, D.C.), 277: 102-104.
39. Webster, J.R., Covich, A.P., Tank, J.L., and Crockett, T.V. 1994. Retention of coarse organic particles in streams in the southern Appalachian Mountains. J. North Am. Benthol. Soc. 13: 140-150.