scholarly journals Consumer return chronology alters recovery trajectory of stream ecosystem structure and function following drought

Ecology ◽  
2010 ◽  
Vol 91 (4) ◽  
pp. 1048-1062 ◽  
Author(s):  
Justin N. Murdock ◽  
Keith B. Gido ◽  
Walter K. Dodds ◽  
Katie N. Bertrand ◽  
Matt R. Whiles
1991 ◽  
Vol 69 (1) ◽  
pp. 55-61 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael E. Smith ◽  
Charles T. Driscoll ◽  
Barbara J. Wyskowski ◽  
Carol M. Brooks ◽  
Christina C. Cosentini

Stream ecosystem structure and function were studied in an acidic second-order Adirondack Mountain stream system with current beaver activity. Acid-neutralizing capacity, pH, dissolved organic carbon, Fe2+, and Mn2+ values were elevated and [Formula: see text], Aln−, and dissolved oxygen concentrations were decreased following water transport through the beaver impoundment. Upstream acidity was primarily ameliorated by [Formula: see text] and Fe retention in the impoundment during the low-flow summer period. High Fe and Al sediment concentrations were present during low-flow periods immediately downstream of the beaver dam. During the high-flow period, Fe and Al concentrations were highest 0.25 km downstream of the dam, owing to slow metal hydrolysis–oxidation kinetics during spring snowmelt. The immediate downstream site exhibited significantly lower invertebrate richness and diversity and collector–filterer, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera densities, but significantly higher total invertebrate, Diptera, Ephemeroptera, predator, and collector–gatherer densities. Significant differences were noted primarily during April and July. Our results indicate that beaver dams modify stream ecosystems longitudinally and temporally and ameliorate stream acidity. Current lotic ecosystem paradigms like the river continuum concept should incorporate "patch" occurrences such as those created by beaver.


2012 ◽  
Vol 22 (8) ◽  
pp. 2144-2163 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas L. Bott ◽  
John K. Jackson ◽  
Matthew E. McTammany ◽  
J. Denis Newbold ◽  
Steven T. Rier ◽  
...  

2013 ◽  
Vol 32 (2) ◽  
pp. 586-596 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elena M. Traister ◽  
William H. McDowell ◽  
Pavel Krám ◽  
Daniela Fottová ◽  
Kateřina Kolaříková

2015 ◽  
Vol 23 (4) ◽  
pp. 443-460 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael J. Lawrence ◽  
Holly L.J. Stemberger ◽  
Aaron J. Zolderdo ◽  
Daniel P. Struthers ◽  
Steven J. Cooke

War is an ever-present force that has the potential to alter the biosphere. Here we review the potential consequences of modern war and military activities on ecosystem structure and function. We focus on the effects of direct conflict, nuclear weapons, military training, and military produced contaminants. Overall, the aforementioned activities were found to have overwhelmingly negative effects on ecosystem structure and function. Dramatic habitat alteration, environmental pollution, and disturbance contributed to population declines and biodiversity losses arising from both acute and chronic effects in both terrestrial and aquatic systems. In some instances, even in the face of massive alterations to ecosystem structure, recovery was possible. Interestingly, military activity was beneficial under specific conditions, such as when an exclusion zone was generated that generally resulted in population increases and (or) population recovery; an observation noted in both terrestrial and aquatic systems. Additionally, military technological advances (e.g., GPS technology, drone technology, biotelemetry) have provided conservation scientists with novel tools for research. Because of the challenges associated with conducting research in areas with military activities (e.g., restricted access, hazardous conditions), information pertaining to military impacts on the environment are relatively scarce and are often studied years after military activities have ceased and with no knowledge of baseline conditions. Additional research would help to elucidate the environmental consequences (positive and negative) and thus reveal opportunities for mitigating negative effects while informing the development of optimal strategies for rehabilitation and recovery.


2005 ◽  
Vol 53 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 93-108 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bénédicte Pasquer ◽  
Goulven Laruelle ◽  
Sylvie Becquevort ◽  
Véronique Schoemann ◽  
Hugues Goosse ◽  
...  

2010 ◽  
pp. 111-145
Author(s):  
Thomas Lacher ◽  
"Jr Bickham ◽  
Claude Gascon ◽  
Rhys Green ◽  
Robin Moore ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document