Stream–Groundwater Interactions of Running Waters and Their Floodplains
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Ecology and management of the hyporheic zone: stream–groundwater interactions of running waters and their floodplains Authors: Boulton, Andrew J., Datry, Thibault, Kasahara, Tamao, Mutz, Michael, and Stanford, Jack A. Source: Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 29(1) : 26-40 Published By: Society for Freshwater Science URL: https://doi.org/10.1899/08-017.1 BioOne Complete (complete.BioOne.org) is a full-text database of 200 subscribed and open-access titles in the biological, ecological, and environmental sciences published by nonprofit societies, associations, museums, institutions, and presses. Your use of this PDF, the BioOne Complete website, and all posted and associated content indicates your acceptance of BioOne’s Terms of Use, available at www.bioone.org/terms-of-use. Usage of BioOne Complete content is strictly limited to personal, educational, and non - commercial use. Commercial inquiries or rights and permissions requests should be directed to the individual publisher as copyright holder. BioOne sees sustainable scholarly publishing as an inherently collaborative enterprise connecting authors, nonprofit publishers, academic institutions, research libraries, and research funders in the common goal of maximizing access to critical research. Downloaded From: https://bioone.org/journals/Freshwater-Science on 17 Jul 2020 Terms of Use: https://bioone.org/terms-of-use J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc., 2010, 29(1):26–40 ’ 2010 by The North American Benthological Society DOI: 10.1899/08-017.1 Published online: 5 February 2010 Ecology and management of the hyporheic zone: stream– groundwater interactions of running waters and their floodplains Andrew J. Boulton1,6, Thibault Datry2,7, Tamao Kasahara3,8, 4,9 5,10 Michael Mutz , AND Jack A. Stanford 1 Ecosystem Management, University of New England, Armidale, New South Wales, Australia, 2351 2 Aquatic Ecosystem Biology, CEMAGREF-Lyon 3 bis quai Chauveau, F-69336 Lyon cedex 09, France 3 Department of Watershed Sciences, Utah State University, 5210 Old Main Hill, Logan, Utah 84321 USA 4 Department of Freshwater Conservation, Brandenburg University of Technology Cottbus, Seestraße 45, D-15526 Bad Saarow, Germany 5 Flathead Lake Biological Station, The University of Montana, 32111 BioStation Lane, Polson, Montana, 59860 USA Abstract. Over the last 25 y, stream ecosystem theory has expanded to include explicitly the vertical dimension of surface–groundwater linkages via the hyporheic zone and below alluvial floodplains. Hydrological exchange between the stream and hyporheic zone mediates transport of products from the biogeochemical activities within the sediments. Hot-spots of primary productivity in the surface stream often result from upwelling nutrient-rich water. Conversely, downwelling surface water supplies organic matter and dissolved O2 to hyporheic invertebrates and microbes, enhancing hyporheic productivity. Many of the papers seminal to conceptual and empirical advances in hyporheic research have been published in J-NABS, reflecting stream benthologists’ awareness of the relevance of processes and biota in the hyporheic zone. However, major research gaps remain. One is the need for further empirical data to test the predictions of several current conceptual frameworks that hypothesize conditions under which the hyporheic zone might be expected to contribute most to surface stream metabolism, especially in large rivers with shallow alluvial aquifers. A second is how to apply research findings about the functional significance of the hyporheic zone to river restoration and conservation. Many activities that restore or protect surface biota and habitats probably benefit hyporheic processes and fauna as well, but this prediction should be tested. Last, hyporheic exchange and the biogeochemical processes within the sediments occur across multiple hierarchical spatial scales, but we are yet to understand fully these interactions or to extrapolate successfully across scales. J-NABS should continue to play a significant role in publishing research on the hyporheic zone and extend the scope to include applications in river and floodplain management and restoration. Key words: hyporheic, river restoration, hydrological exchange, alluvial aquifer, subsurface inverte- brates, biogeochemical transformations, human impacts, hydrogeomorphology. The scientific disciplines of stream ecology and played by stream–groundwater interactions in the benthology, aquatic biogeochemistry, hydrogeology, hyporheic zone, the saturated interstices below the geomorphology, and hydrology have entwined over stream bed and adjacent banks that contain some the last 25 y to advance our understanding of the roles proportion of channel water (White 199311). The hyporheic zone can be viewed as a benthic dynamic 6 ecotone (Gibert et al. 1990 [Fig. 1], Vervier et al. 1992) E-mail addresses: [email protected] where hydrological, ecological, and biogeochemical 7 [email protected] processes interact. These interactions influence key 8 [email protected] stream ecosystem processes, such as primary produc- 9 [email protected] tivity and nutrient cycling, in the surface stream (see 10 [email protected] Mulholland and Webster 2010), and the sediments harbor microbes and invertebrates (Brunke and Gonser 11 Boldface indicates paper was published in J-NABS 1997; Fig. 1) and are used by some fish for spawning 26 Downloaded From: https://bioone.org/journals/Freshwater-Science on 17 Jul 2020 Terms of Use: https://bioone.org/terms-of-use 2010] STREAM–GROUNDWATER INTERACTIONS 27 FIG. 1. A timeline of significant papers contributing to our understanding of the hyporheic zone and its functional significance. Boldface indicates papers published in J-NABS. (Pollard 1955 [Fig. 1], Greig et al. 2007). Explicit because human activities have impaired many of the incorporation of vertical hydrological connectivity in functions of the hyporheic zone in rivers (Hancock conceptual models of stream ecosystems lagged 2002, Kasahara et al. 2009). behind inclusion of the more obvious longitudinal and lateral linkages (e.g., River Continuum Concept; A Dynamic Ecotone Where Stream and Ground Flood Pulse Concept). However, several perceptive Water Exchange authors flagged the probable importance of the Defining the hyporheic zone hyporheic zone early (e.g., Orghidan 1959 [Fig. 1], Schwoerbel 1964, Williams and Hynes 1974 [Fig. 1]), The hyporheic zone is popularly defined as the and its inclusion is now explicit in most contemporary saturated interstitial spaces below the stream bed and stream ecosystem models (e.g., Thorp et al. 2006). adjacent stream banks that contain some proportion Our review explores significant advances, many of channel water (White 1993). Early attempts to described in seminal J-NABS papers, in our under- delineate the hyporheic zone were based on the standing of benthos and processes occurring in the distribution of subsurface and surface invertebrates. hyporheic zone and their significance to lotic ecosys- For example, Schwoerbel (1961; Fig. 1) considered the tems. We review the development of relevant hydro- hyporheic zone as a ‘middle zone’ between channel logical, biogeochemical, and ecological themes (Fig. 1) waters above and true ground water below. Later leading up to the 1993 special issue of J-NABS, before authors tried to refine this definition further based on examining several aspects in detail as they relate to the vertical and lateral distribution of interstitial contemporary stream benthology, hydrology, and invertebrates (e.g., Stanford and Gaufin 1974 [Fig. 1], biogeochemistry. The relevance and application of Williams and Hynes 1974, Williams 1989). However, this research to current management, conservation, the diversity of hyporheic zone types (e.g., perched, and restoration of rivers comprise our conclusions losing, or gaining reach configurations; Malard et al. Downloaded From: https://bioone.org/journals/Freshwater-Science on 17 Jul 2020 Terms of Use: https://bioone.org/terms-of-use 28 A. J. BOULTON ET AL. [Volume 29 FIG. 2. Simplified diagram of the interactions among variables across 3 overlapping spatial scales (macro = landscape– catchment, meso = catchment–reach, micro = reach–sediment particle) that potentially influence the distribution and composition of the hyporheos. 2002) and the many other factors governing hyporheic criticism (Vervier et al. 1992), this early definition was invertebrate distribution (Fig. 2) confound any defi- a valuable application of hydrological criteria to help nition based solely on the distribution of mobile define the hyporheic zone using the very factor that organisms (Danielopol 1989 [Fig. 1], White 1993). drives many of the processes occurring within it. This problem prompted alternative or complemen- tary definitions based on physicochemical variables. The dynamic ecotone concept Triska et al. (1989) used tracer studies to attempt to delineate the hyporheic zone based on chemical One fruitful direction in describing the hyporheic differences between channel and ground water. They zone has been the concept of its role as a dynamic defined the ‘surface zone’ as the region immediately ecotone (Gibert et al. 1990)—‘dynamic’ in that its beneath the bed that is chemically indistinguishable boundaries fluctuate in response to sediment charac- from channel water and contains .98% channel teristics and hydrological exchange; ‘ecotone’ because water. Beneath the surface zone, they recognized an it bounds the stream above and