Diatoms as indicators of fine sediment stress

Jones, J. Iwan; Douthwright, Theresa A.; Arnold, Amanda; Duerdoth, C. P.; Murphy, John F.; Edwards, François; Pretty, James L.

doi:10.1002/eco.1832

Cited by 17 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, for motile taxa (e.g., raphid diatoms, ciliates, flagellates) shading from deposited fine sediment may not present a substantial problem, as they can move to higher light intensities at the river bed surface (Harper, ; Hay, Maitland, & Paterson, ). Hence, diatom assemblages tend to become dominated by motile taxa where rates of deposition of fine sediments are high (Dickman, Peart, & Wai‐Shu Yim, ; Izagirre, Serra, Guasch, & Elosegi, ; Yamada & Nakamura, ), although this trait (motility) may offer benefits under other conditions (e.g., nutrient‐rich conditions) such that the relationship with fine sediment is not straightforward (J. I. Jones et al, ).…”

Section: Controls On Ecological Responses To Fine Sedimentmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, even these species are lost if disturbance is frequent (Vilbaste & Truu, ). Under more benign conditions, rapid growth rates may compensate for losses, with associated traits such as nutrient affinity being more apparent where deposited fine sediments are abundant (J. I. Jones, Douthwright, et al, ).…”

Section: Controls On Ecological Responses To Fine Sedimentmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Physical and biological controls on fine sediment transport and storage in rivers

et al. 2018

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Excess fine sediment, comprising particles <2 mm in diameter, is a major cause of ecological degradation in rivers. The erosion of fine sediment from terrestrial or aquatic sources, its delivery to the river, and its storage and transport in the fluvial environment are controlled by a complex interplay of physical, biological, and anthropogenic factors. While the physical controls exerted on fine sediment dynamics are relatively well‐documented, the role of biological processes and their interactions with hydraulic and physicochemical phenomena has been largely overlooked. The activities of biota, from primary producers to predators, exert strong controls on fine sediment deposition, infiltration, and resuspension. For example, extracellular polymeric substances associated with biofilms increase deposition and decrease resuspension. In lower energy rivers, aquatic macrophyte growth and senescence are intimately linked to sediment retention and loss, whereas riparian trees are dominant ecosystem engineers in high energy systems. Fish and invertebrates also have profound effects on fine sediment dynamics through activities that drive both particle deposition and erosion depending on species composition and abiotic conditions. The functional traits of species present will determine not only these biotic effects but also the responses of river ecosystems to excess fine sediment. We discuss which traits are involved and put them into context with spatial processes that occur throughout the river network. While strides towards better understanding of the impacts of excess fine sediment have been made, further progress to identify the most effective management approaches is urgently required through close communication between authorities and scientists. This article is categorized under: Water and Life > Nature of Freshwater Ecosystems Water and Life > Stresses and Pressures on Ecosystems Science of Water > Water Quality

show abstract

Section: Controls On Ecological Responses To Fine Sedimentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Controls On Ecological Responses To Fine Sedimentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Physical and biological controls on fine sediment transport and storage in rivers

et al. 2018

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Since different organism groups differ in their niche requirements, degree of ecological specialization, and the spatial scale over which they operate [12,[32][33][34], it is unlikely that a single restoration measure will be equally effective for all groups. For example, rehabilitation of microhabitat diversity (e.g., in sediment size distributions) at small scales may be most beneficial for macroinvertebrates [17], while for primary producers, such as macrophytes and benthic algae, availability of a high variety of stable substrates in both shallower and deeper water habitats for rooting and attachment may be of particular importance [34,35]. Accordingly, evaluation of a project based on a single organism group could be misleading and result in uniform management and conservation practices inappropriate for other organism groups [25,36].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Instream biota respond to aspects of all five dimensions, including substrate type (e.g., wood vs. boulders vs. fines), sediment size variation, stream depth, and step-pool formation [16,[40][41][42]. For example, the addition of boulders or instream wood (1) increases the range of substrate sizes available for different species of instream plants and diatoms to attach to, (2) enhances stream bed stability, and (3) provides refugia from high flow for macrophytes and benthic macroinvertebrates [6,34,35,43]. Graphical descriptions of the five dimensions of geomorphic complexity used to get a holistic view of the effect of restoration across a gradient of restored and potential complexity.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Contrasting Responses among Aquatic Organism Groups to Changes in Geomorphic Complexity Along a Gradient of Stream Habitat Restoration: Implications for Restoration Planning and Assessment

Hasselquist

Polvi

Kahlert

et al. 2018

Water

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many stream restoration projects aim to increase geomorphic complexity, assuming that this increases habitat heterogeneity and, thus, biodiversity. However, empirical data supporting these linkages remain scant. Previous assessments of stream restoration suffer from incomplete quantification of habitat complexity, or a narrow focus on only one organism group and/or one restoration measure, limiting learning. Based on a comprehensive quantification of geomorphic complexity in 20 stream reaches in northern Sweden, ranging from streams channelized for timber floating to restored and reference reaches, we investigated responses of macroinvertebrates, diatoms, and macrophytes to multiple geomorphic metrics. Sediment size heterogeneity, which was generally improved in restored sites, favored macroinvertebrate and diatom diversity and macroinvertebrate abundance. In contrast, macrophyte diversity responded to increased variation along the longitudinal stream profile (e.g., step-pools), which was not consistently improved by the restoration. Our analyses highlight the value of learning across multiple restoration projects, both in identifying which aspects of restoration have succeeded, and pinpointing other measures that might be targeted during adaptive management or future restoration. Given our results, a combination of restoration measures targeting not only sediment size heterogeneity, but also features such as step-pools and instream wood, is most likely to benefit benthic biota in streams.

show abstract

“…The aim of this special issue is to look at the potential of different aspects of flow and sediments in restoring rivers and floodplains and the ecological responses (Figure 1). This basic ecological understanding can help to predict the submerged macrophyte distribution in altered flow regimes and possible effects of restoration interventions already in the design phase Jones et al (2017). Three papers focus on the effects on changed flow regimes and the possible implications for geomorphological processes and the biota.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%