4.6 Article

Riparian subsidies and hierarchical effects of ecosystem structure on leaf breakdown in Appalachian coalfield constructed streams

期刊

ECOLOGICAL ENGINEERING
卷 97, 期 -, 页码 389-399

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoleng.2016.10.012

关键词

Ecosystem function; Leaf decomposition; Compensatory mitigation; Stream restoration; Mine reclamation; Valley fill

资金

  1. Powell River Project

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Stream construction is a compensatory mitigation strategy that is commonly used in the Appalachian coalfield, eastern USA, to offset surface-mining impacts to headwater streams. Mitigation assessments currently rely on structural metrics, and there is a paucity of research concerning ecosystem functions in streams constructed for mitigation purposes on mined areas. For eight such constructed streams and four reference streams in the coalfields of southwestern Virginia, we evaluated catchment- and riparian-level land cover, measures of stream ecosystem structure, and riparian litterfall and in-stream leaf breakdown functions across two years. Mean litterfall to reference streams was approximately four times greater than constructed-stream levels. Leaf breakdown rates in coarse-mesh bags were typically faster in reference streams, with reference means exceeding constructed-stream means by 40-50%. Depressed constructed-stream rates resulted from diminished microbial + physicochemical processing of leaves and reduced macroinvertebrate-mediated breakdown. However, breakdown rates in some constructed streams were similar to reference-stream means. Among constructed streams, leaf breakdown rates varied negatively with detention-pond coverage and stream temperature and varied positively with riparian-forest cover. Our results suggest hierarchical relationships among these factors and that rapid establishment of woody riparian canopy could accelerate restoration of organic-matter functions in constructed headwater streams. (C) 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据