SUMMARY1. Temporary rivers and streams are among the most common and most hydrologically dynamic freshwater ecosystems. The number of temporary rivers and the severity of flow intermittence may be increasing in regions affected by climatic drying trends or water abstraction. Despite their abundance, temporary rivers have been historically neglected by ecologists. A recent increase in temporary-river research needs to be supported by new models that generate hypotheses and stimulate further research. In this article, we present three conceptual models that address spatial and temporal patterns in temporary-river biodiversity and biogeochemistry. 2. Temporary rivers are characterised by the repeated onset and cessation of flow, and by complex hydrological dynamics in the longitudinal dimension. Longitudinal dynamics, such as advancing and retreating wetted fronts, hydrological connections and disconnections, and gradients in flow permanence, influence biotic communities and nutrient and organic matter processing. 3. The first conceptual model concerns connectivity between habitat patches. Variable connectivity suggests that the metacommunity and metapopulation concepts are applicable in temporary rivers. We predict that aggregations of local communities in the isolated water bodies of temporary rivers function as metacommunities. These metacommunities may become longitudinally nested due to interspecific differences in dispersal and mortality. The metapopulation concept applies to some temporary river species, but not all. In stable metapopulations, rates of local extinction are balanced by recolonisation. However, extinction and recolonisation in many temporary-river species are decoupled by frequent disturbances, and populations of these species are usually expanding or contracting. 4. The second conceptual model predicts that large-scale biodiversity varies as a function of aquatic and terrestrial patch dynamics and water-level fluctuations. Habitat mosaics in temporary rivers change in composition and configuration in response to inundation and drying, and these changes elicit a range of biotic responses. In the model, aquatic biodiversity initially increases directly with water level due to increasing abundance of aquatic patches. When most of the channel is inundated and most aquatic patches are connected, further increases in aquatic habitat and connectivity cause aquatic biodiversity to decline due to community homogenisation and reduced habitat diversity. The predicted responses of terrestrial biodiversity to changes in water level are the inverse of aquatic biodiversity responses. 5. The third conceptual model represents temporary rivers as longitudinal, punctuated biogeochemical reactors. Advancing fronts carry water, solutes and particulate organic matter downstream; subsequent flow recessions and drying result in deposition of transported material in reserves such as pools and bar tops. Material processing is rapid during inundated periods and slower during dry periods. The efficiency of material proc...

No abstract

Temporary rivers are increasingly common freshwater ecosystems, but there have been no global syntheses of their community patterns. In this study, we examined the responses of aquatic invertebrate communities to flow intermittence in 14 rivers from multiple biogeographic regions covering a wide range of flow intermittence and spatial arrangements of perennial and temporary reaches. Hydrological data were used to describe flow intermittence (FI, the proportion of the year without surface water) gradients. Linear mixed‐effects models were used to examine the relationships between FI and community structure and composition. We also tested if communities at the most temporary sites were nested subsets of communities at the least temporary and perennial sites. Taxon richness decreased as FI increased and invertebrate communities became dominated by ubiquitous taxa. The number of resilient taxa (with high dispersal capacities) decreased with increased FI, whereas the number of resistant taxa (with adaptations to desiccation) was not related to FI. River‐specific and river‐averaged model comparisons indicated most FI‐community relationships did not differ statistically among rivers. Community nestedness along FI gradients was detected in most rivers and there was little or no influence of the spatial arrangement of perennial and temporary reaches. These results indicate that FI is a primary driver of aquatic communities in temporary rivers, regardless of the biogeographic species pool. Community responses are largely due to resilience rather than resistance mechanisms. However, contrary to our expectations, resilience was not strongly influenced by spatial fragmentation patterns, suggesting that colonist sources other than adjacent perennial reaches were important.

No abstract

The movement of water, matter, organisms, and energy can be altered substantially at ecohydrological interfaces, the dynamic transition zones that often develop within ecotones or boundaries between adjacent ecosystems. Interdisciplinary research over the last two decades has indicated that ecohydrological interfaces are often “hot spots” of ecological, biogeochemical, and hydrological processes and may provide refuge for biota during extreme events. Ecohydrological interfaces can have significant impact on global hydrological and biogeochemical cycles, biodiversity, pollutant removal, and ecosystem resilience to disturbance. The organizational principles (i.e., the drivers and controls) of spatially and temporally variable processes at ecohydrological interfaces are poorly understood and require the integrated analysis of hydrological, biogeochemical, and ecological processes. Our rudimentary understanding of the interactions between different drivers and controls critically limits our ability to predict complex system responses to change. In this paper, we explore similarities and contrasts in the functioning of diverse freshwater ecohydrological interfaces across spatial and temporal scales. We use this comparison to develop an integrated, interdisciplinary framework, including a roadmap for analyzing ecohydrological processes and their interactions in ecosystems. We argue that, in order to fully account for their nonlinear process dynamics, ecohydrological interfaces need to be conceptualized as unique, spatially and temporally dynamic entities, which represents a step change from their current representation as boundary conditions at investigated ecosystems.