| Literature DB >> 23185471 |
Jeremy J Piggott1, Katharina Lange, Colin R Townsend, Christoph D Matthaei.
Abstract
Changes to land use affect streams through nutrient enrichment, increased inputs of sediment and, where riparian vegetation has been removed, raised water temperature. We manipulated all three stressors in experimental streamside channels for 30 days and determined the individual and pair-wise combined effects on benthic invertebrate and algal communities and on leaf decay, a measure of ecosystem functioning. We added nutrients (phosphorus+nitrogen; high, intermediate, natural) and/or sediment (grain size 0.2 mm; high, intermediate, natural) to 18 channels supplied with water from a nearby stream. Temperature was increased by 1.4°C in half the channels, simulating the loss of upstream and adjacent riparian shade. Sediment affected 93% of all biological response variables (either as an individual effect or via an interaction with another stressor) generally in a negative manner, while nutrient enrichment affected 59% (mostly positive) and raised temperature 59% (mostly positive). More of the algal components of the community responded to stressors acting individually than did invertebrate components, whereas pair-wise stressor interactions were more common in the invertebrate community. Stressors interacted often and in a complex manner, with interactions between sediment and temperature most common. Thus, the negative impact of high sediment on taxon richness of both algae and invertebrates was stronger at raised temperature, further reducing biodiversity. In addition, the decay rate of leaf material (strength loss) accelerated with nutrient enrichment at ambient but not at raised temperature. A key implication of our findings for resource managers is that the removal of riparian shading from streams already subjected to high sediment inputs, or land-use changes that increase erosion or nutrient runoff in a landscape without riparian buffers, may have unexpected effects on stream health. We highlight the likely importance of intact or restored buffer strips, both in reducing sediment input and in maintaining cooler water temperatures.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2012 PMID: 23185471 PMCID: PMC3503858 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0049873
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Invertebrate responses to the experimental treatments.
| Dependent variable | % | Nutrients | Ranking | Sediment | Ranking | Temperature | Ranking | Nutrients × sediment | Nutrients × temperature | Sediment × temperature |
| Total invertebrates |
| N<(I = H) |
| N<(I = H) | 0.44 | 0.49 | 0.86 |
| ||
| Total EPT |
| N<(I = H) |
| N>(I = H) |
| SI |
|
|
| |
| Invert’ taxon richness | 0.22 |
| SI | 0.27 | 0.79 | 0.62 |
| |||
| EPT richness | 0.14 |
| (N = I)>H | 0.17 |
| 0.07 | 0.08 | |||
| Community composition (MANOVA; 11 taxa) | 98.0 |
|
| 0.47 | 0.14 | 0.11 |
| |||
| Chironomidae | 54.2 |
| N<(I = H) | 0.14 | 0.71 | 0.52 |
|
| ||
| Cladocera | 6.7 | 0.26 |
| N<I | 0.50 | 0.42 | 0.11 | 0.08 | ||
| Copepoda | 4.9 | 0.12 |
| I>H | 0.48 | 0.39 | 0.22 |
| ||
|
| 2.0 | 0.07 |
| N>(I = H) |
| Amb>Heat | 0.14 | 0.06 | 0.80 | |
|
| 1.2 | 0.47 |
| N<I | 0.59 | 0.79 | 0.72 | 0.48 | ||
| Hydrobiosidae | 0.5 |
| SI | 0.75 | 0.05 (0.14) | 0.17 |
| 0.23 | ||
| Nematoda | 4.7 | 0.35 |
| N<(I = H) |
| Amb<Heat | 0.75 | 0.05 (0.20) | 0.20 | |
|
| 6.9 |
| SI | 0.05 (0.19) | 0.27 | 0.49 |
|
| ||
|
| 10.1 |
| N<I |
| (N = H)<I | 0.86 | 0.92 | 0.15 | 0.17 | |
| Conoescidae | 5.2 |
| N<(I = H) |
| N>(I = H) | 0.27 |
|
| 0.47 | |
| Tanypodinae | 1.6 | 0.66 | 0.08 | 0.37 | 0.88 | 0.89 |
|
Summary (P-values) of repeated-measures (M)ANOVAs comparing between-subjects invertebrate responses between experimental treatments. MANOVA P-values are for the Pillai’s Trace statistic. Rankings for post hoc tests in cases with significant effects are given in columns 4, 6 and 8, and relative abundances of taxa in column 2. Nutrient and sediment treatments: N, natural; I, intermediate; H, high. Temperature: Amb, ambient; Heat, heated. P-values <0.05 are in bold print. Effect sizes are shown in parentheses for cases where P≤0.05. ‘SI’ indicates cases where a substantial interaction between two factors (effect size of interaction term larger than the size of the corresponding main effects) prevented an overall post-doc ranking for the main effect in question.
Figure 1Averages of invertebrate community variables across the experimental treatments sampled on days 18 and 30 combined.
Error bars (SEs) show the within-channel variation (n = 3) that is represented by the factor ‘sample’ in the statistical analysis (see text). Text in rectangles indicates significant single-factor effects (nutrients: N, sediment: S and temperature: T) or interactions.
Figure 2Abundance patterns (averages +SEs) for common invertebrate taxa (days 18 and 30 combined) that showed significant interactions between paired manipulated factors.
For more details see Fig. 1.
Leaf decomposition and algal responses to the experimental treatments.
| Dependent variable | % | Nutrients | Ranking | Sediment | Ranking | Temperature | Ranking | Nutrients × sediment | Nutrients × temperature | Sediment × temperature |
| Leaf strength loss | 0.05 (0.19) |
| N<(I = H) | 0.998 |
|
| 0.57 | |||
| Leaf mass loss | 0.75 |
| N<(I = H) | 0.98 | 0.06 | 0.15 | 0.53 | |||
| Algal cell density |
| N<(I = H) |
| N<(I = H) |
| Amb<Heat | 0.72 | 0.77 |
| |
| Algal biomass |
| N<I<H | 0.95 |
| Amb<Heat | 0.94 | 0.27 |
| ||
| Algal taxon richness | 0.18 | 0.18 | 0.88 | 0.58 | 0.62 |
| ||||
| Community composition (MANOVA; 13 taxa) | 82.7 |
|
|
|
| 0.14 | 0.42 | |||
|
| 1.4 |
| N<H |
| N<(I = H) |
| Amb<Heat | 0.48 | 0.63 | 0.82 |
|
| 1.6 | 0.07 |
| N<(I = H) | 0.12 |
| 0.93 | 0.11 | ||
|
| 1.8 | 0.73 |
| N<I | 0.25 | 0.33 | 0.27 | 0.38 | ||
|
| 2.2 | 0.35 |
| N>(I = H) | 0.29 | 0.46 | 0.51 |
| ||
|
| 6.8 |
| N<(I = H) |
| N<(I = H) | 0.72 | 0.65 | 0.37 | 0.70 | |
|
| 3.0 | 0.59 |
| N<I | 0.20 | 0.49 | 0.59 | 0.52 | ||
|
| 7.4 | 0.63 |
| N<(I = H) |
| Amb<Heat | 0.12 | 0.56 | 0.40 | |
|
| 4.5 |
| N<(I = H) |
| N<(I = H) | 0.22 | 0.49 | 0.73 | 0.28 | |
|
| 1.4 |
| SI |
| N<(I = H) | 0.97 | 0.39 |
| 0.18 | |
|
| 25.74 |
| N<(I = H) |
| N<(I = H) | 0.57 | 0.40 | 0.17 | 0.23 | |
|
| 16.5 |
| N<(I = H) |
| N<(I = H) |
| Amb<Heat | 0.89 | 0.07 | 0.07 |
|
| 7.0 | 0.06 |
| N<(I = H) | 0.06 | 0.39 | 0.70 | 0.16 | ||
|
| 3.4 |
| N<(I = H) |
| N<(I = H) |
| SI | 0.78 | 0.28 |
|
| Algal growth forms (MANOVA; 5 groups) | 100 |
|
| 0.69 |
| 0.38 | 0.30 | |||
| Filamentous | 21.0 |
| N>(I = H) |
| N>I | 0.67 | 0.10 | 0.08 |
| |
| Erect or stalked | 6.7 | 0.31 | 0.80 | 0.45 | 0.12 | 0.45 | 0.34 | |||
| Adnate or prostrate | 20.4 | 0.64 |
| N>(I = H) | 0.64 | 0.94 | 0.35 | 0.66 | ||
| Metaphyton | 18.1 |
| N<I<H |
| SI | 0.27 |
| 0.88 | 0.32 | |
| Motile | 33.9 | 0.86 |
| N<(I = H) | 0.74 | 0.42 | 0.47 | 0.42 |
Summary (P-values) of nested (M)ANOVAs comparing between-subjects leaf decomposition and algal response variables between nutrient, sediment and temperature treatments. See Table 1 for further details.
Figure 3Averages of leaf decay variables (sampled on day 18) and algal community/biomass variables (sampled on day 29) across the experimental treatments.
For more details see Fig. 1.
Figure 4Density patterns (averages +SEs) for the common benthic algal taxa sampled on day 29 that showed significant interactions between paired manipulated factors.
For more details see Fig. 1.
Figure 5Relative abundance patterns (averages +SEs) for the benthic algal growth form classifications sampled on day 29.
For more details see Fig. 1.
Overview of results for biological response variables.
| Nutrients | Sediment | Temperature | Nutrients × sediment | Nutrients × temperature | Sediment × temperature | |
| Invertebrates | 6 | 11 | 2 | 3 | 5 | 8 |
| (16 variables) | 37.5% | 68.8% | 12.5% | 18.8% | 31.3% | 50.0% |
| Mean effect size | 0.49±0.06 | 0.58±0.06 | 0.20±0.02 | 0.41±0.04 | 0.33±0.04 | 0.32±0.04 |
| Leaf decay | 0 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| (2 variables) | 100.0% | 50.0% | 50.0% | |||
| Mean effect size | 0.88±0.03 | 0.3 | 0.24 | |||
| Algae | 12 | 19 | 6 | 4 | 1 | 6 |
| (23 variables) | 52.2% | 82.6% | 26.1% | 17.4% | 4.3% | 26.1% |
| Mean effect size | 0.36±0.06 | 0.50±0.05 | 0.19±0.06 | 0.41±0.08 | 0.44±0.09 | 0.22±0.02 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| (41 variables) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Numbers and percentages of interpretable significant main effects (i.e. not including cases where a factor is involved in a substantial interaction with another; see Table 1) and significant interactions for the three categories of biological response variable. Means of effect sizes ± standard errors are shown.
Figure 6Diagram of the experimental design, showing the 6 inflow pipes (above) and the combinations of ambient and augmented stressors applied to each of the 18 channels.
Algal growth form classification.
|
|
| Species of |
|
|
| Species of |
|
|
| Species of |
|
|
| Species of |
|
|
| Species of |
Classification of algae according to growth form into five groups after Schneck et al. [20].