Article | Published:

A global analysis of terrestrial plant litter dynamics in non-perennial waterways

Abstract

Perennial rivers and streams make a disproportionate contribution to global carbon (C) cycling. However, the contribution of intermittent rivers and ephemeral streams (IRES), which sometimes cease to flow and can dry completely, is largely ignored although they represent over half the global river network. Substantial amounts of terrestrial plant litter (TPL) accumulate in dry riverbeds and, upon rewetting, this material can undergo rapid microbial processing. We present the results of a global research collaboration that collected and analysed TPL from 212 dry riverbeds across major environmental gradients and climate zones. We assessed litter decomposability by quantifying the litter carbon-to-nitrogen ratio and oxygen (O2) consumption in standardized assays and estimated the potential short-term CO2 emissions during rewetting events. Aridity, cover of riparian vegetation, channel width and dry-phase duration explained most variability in the quantity and decomposability of plant litter in IRES. Our estimates indicate that a single pulse of CO2 emission upon litter rewetting contributes up to 10% of the daily CO2 emission from perennial rivers and stream, particularly in temperate climates. This indicates that the contributions of IRES should be included in global C-cycling assessments.

Access optionsAccess options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

Additional information

Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

References

  1. 1.

    Boyero, L. et al. A global experiment suggests climate warming will not accelerate litter decomposition in streams but might reduce carbon sequestration. Ecol. Lett. 14, 289–294 (2011).

  2. 2.

    Beer, C. et al. Terrestrial gross carbon dioxide uptake: global distribution and covariation with climate. Science 329, 834–838 (2010).

  3. 3.

    Raymond, P. A. et al. Global carbon dioxide emissions from inland waters. Nature 503, 355–359 (2013).

  4. 4.

    Hotchkiss, E. R. et al. Sources of and processes controlling CO2 emissions change with the size of streams and rivers. Nat. Geosci. 8, 696–699 (2015).

  5. 5.

    Gessner, M. O. et al. Diversity meets decomposition. Trends Ecol. Evol. 25, 372–380 (2010).

  6. 6.

    Battin, T. J. et al. The boundless carbon cycle. Nature 2, 598–600 (2009).

  7. 7.

    Butman, D. et al. Aquatic carbon cycling in the conterminous United States and implications for terrestrial carbon accounting. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113, 58–63 (2016).

  8. 8.

    Datry, T., Corti, R., Foulquier, A., von Schiller, D. & Tockner, T. One for all, all for one: a global river research network. Eos 97, 13–15 (2016).

  9. 9.

    Larned, S. T., Datry, T., Arscott, D. B. & Tockner, K. Emerging concepts in temporary‐river ecology. Freshw. Biol. 55, 717–738 (2010).

  10. 10.

    Stanley, E. H., Fisher, S. G. & Grimm, N. B. Ecosystem expansion and contraction in streams. BioScience 47, 427–435 (1997).

  11. 11.

    Datry, T., Larned, S. T. & Tockner, K. Intermittent rivers: a challenge for freshwater ecology. BioScience 64, 229–235 (2014).

  12. 12.

    Acuña, V. et al. Why should we care about temporary waterways? Science 343, 1080–1081 (2014).

  13. 13.

    Jaeger, K. L., Olden, J. D. & Pelland, N. A. Climate change poised to threaten hydrologic connectivity and endemic fishes in dryland streams. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 13894–13899 (2014).

  14. 14.

    Foulquier, A., Artigas, J., Pesce, S. & Datry, T. Drying responses of microbial litter decomposition and associated fungal and bacterial communities are not affected by emersion frequency. Freshw. Sci. 34, 1233–1244 (2015).

  15. 15.

    Austin, A. T. & Vivanco, L. Plant litter decomposition in a semi-arid ecosystem controlled by photodegradation. Nature 442, 555–558 (2006).

  16. 16.

    Corti, R. & Datry, T. Invertebrates and sestonic matter in an advancing wetted front travelling down a dry river bed (Albarine, France). Freshw. Sci. 31, 1187–1201 (2012).

  17. 17.

    Rosado, J., Morais, M. & Tockner, K. Mass dispersal of terrestrial organisms during first flush events in a temporary stream. River Res. Appl. 31, 912–917 (2015).

  18. 18.

    Michaletz, S. T., Cheng, D., Kerkhoff, A. J. & Enquist, B. J. Convergence of terrestrial plant production across global climate gradients. Nature 512, 39–43 (2014).

  19. 19.

    Ehrman, T. P. & Lamberti, G. A. Hydraulic and particulate matter retention in a 3rd-order Indiana stream. J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc. 11, 341–349 (1992).

  20. 20.

    Boyero, L. et al. Riparian plant litter quality increases with latitude. Sci. Rep. 7, 10562 (2017).

  21. 21.

    Vannote, R. L., Minshall, G. W., Cummins, K. W., Sedell, J. R. & Cushing, C. E. The river continuum concept. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 37, 130–137 (1980).

  22. 22.

    Olson, J. S. Energy storage and the balance of producers and decomposers in ecological systems. Ecology 44, 322–331 (1963).

  23. 23.

    Aerts, R. Climate, leaf litter chemistry and leaf litter decomposition in terrestrial ecosystems: a triangular relationship. Oikos 79, 439–449 (1997).

  24. 24.

    Cleveland, C. C., Neff, J. C., Townsend, A. R. & Hood, E. Composition, dynamics, and fate of leached dissolved organic matter in terrestrial ecosystems: results from a decomposition experiment. Ecosystems 7, 175–285 (2004).

  25. 25.

    Hasler, C. T., Butman, D., Jeffrey, J. D. & Suski, C. D. Freshwater biota and rising pCO2? Ecol. Lett. 19, 98–108 (2016).

  26. 26.

    Gómez-Gener, L. et al. When water vanishes: magnitude and regulation of carbon dioxide emissions from dry temporary streams. Ecosystems 19, 710–723 (2016).

  27. 27.

    Bernhardt, E. S. et al. Control points in ecosystems: moving beyond the hot spot hot moment concept. Ecosystems 20, 665–682 (2017).

  28. 28.

    Benstead, J. P. & Leigh, D. S. An expanded role for river networks. Nat. Geosci. 5, 678–679 (2012).

  29. 29.

    Leigh, C. et al. Ecological research and management of intermittent rivers: an historical review and future directions. Freshw. Biol. 61, 1181–1199 (2016).

  30. 30.

    Stubbington, R., England, J., Wood, P. J. & Sefton, C. E. Temporary streams in temperate zones: recognizing, monitoring and restoring transitional aquatic‐terrestrial ecosystems. WIRES Water 4, e1223 (2017).

  31. 31.

    Datry, T., Bonada, N. & Boulton, A. J. (eds) in Intermittent Rivers and Ephemeral Streams: Ecology and Management 1–20 (Academic, Oxford, 2017).

  32. 32.

    Snelder, T. H. et al. Regionalization of patterns of flow intermittence from gauging station records. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 17, 2685–2699 (2013).

  33. 33.

    Tooth, S. Process, form and change in dryland rivers: a review of recent research. Earth Sci. Rev. 51, 67–107 (2000).

  34. 34.

    Levick, L. R. et al. The Ecological and Hydrological Significance of Ephemeral and Intermittent Streams in the Arid and Semi-arid American Southwest (US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington DC, 2008).

  35. 35.

    Huston, M. A. & Wolverton, S. The global distribution of net primary production: resolving the paradox. Ecol. Monogr. 79, 343–377 (2009).

  36. 36.

    Murphy, P. G. & Lugo, A. E. Ecology of tropical dry forest. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 17, 67–88 (1986).

  37. 37.

    De Deyn, G. B., Cornelissen, J. H. C. & Bardgett, R. D. Plant functional traits and soil carbon sequestration in contrasting biomes. Ecol. Lett. 11, 516–531 (2008).

  38. 38.

    Leopold, L. B. Channel and Hillslope Processes in a Semiarid Area, New Mexico (Department of the Interior, Washington DC, 1966).

  39. 39.

    Gordon, N. D, McMahon, T. A., Finlayson, B. L., Gippel, C. J. & Nathan, R. J. Stream Hydrology. An Introduction for Ecologists 2nd edn (John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, 2004).

  40. 40.

    World Atlas of Desertification 2nd edn (UNEP, 1997).

  41. 41.

    Peel, M. C., Finlayson, B. L. & McMahon, T. A. Updated world map of the Köppen–Geiger climate classification. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 11, 1633–1644 (2007).

  42. 42.

    Estiarte, M. & Peñuelas, J. Alteration of the phenology of leaf senescence and fall in winter deciduous species by climate change: effects on nutrient proficiency. Glob. Change Biol. 21, 1005–1017 (2015).

  43. 43.

    Benton, T. G., Solan, M., Travis, J. M. & Sait, S. M. Microcosm experiments can inform global ecological problems. Trends Ecol. Evol. 22, 516–521 (2007).

  44. 44.

    Mora-Gómez, J. et al. Microbial decomposition is highly sensitive to leaf litter emersion in a permanent temperate stream. Sci. Total Environ. 621, 486–496 (2018).

  45. 45.

    Dorca-Fornell, C. et al. Increased leaf mesophyll porosity following transient retinoblastoma-related protein silencing is revealed by microcomputed tomography imaging and leads to a system-level physiological response to the altered cell division pattern. Plant J. 76, 914–929 (2013).

  46. 46.

    Davidson, E. A. & Janssens, I. A. Temperature sensitivity of soil carbon decomposition and feedbacks to climate change. Nature 440, 165–173 (2006).

  47. 47.

    Dilly, O. Microbial respiratory quotient during basal metabolism and after glucose amendment in soils and litter. Soil Biol. Biochem. 33, 117–127 (2001).

  48. 48.

    Pitcher, R. C. et al. Exploring the role of environmental variables in shaping patterns of seabed biodiversity composition in regional-scale ecosystems. J. Appl. Ecol. 49, 670–679 (2012).

  49. 49.

    Breiman, L. Random forests. Mach. Learn. 45, 5–32 (2001).

  50. 50.

    Leigh, C. & Datry, T. Drying as a primary hydrological determinant of biodiversity in river systems: a broad-scale analysis. Ecography 40, 487–499 (2017).

  51. 51.

    R. Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2017).

  52. 52.

    Liaw, A. & Wiener, M. Classification and regression by Random Forest. R News 2, 18–22 (2002).

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study was made possible thanks to a large collective effort of a global research network entitled the “1000 Intermittent River Project” (1000IRP) that merges individual knowledge, forces and passion through simple, consistent and comparable joint field experiments worldwide.

Author information

T.D., A.F., R.C., D.vS. and K.T. assumed responsibility for the overall project planning and coordination. All authors collected plant litter in their countries and processed and analysed this material. The centralized lab analyses were conducted by T.D., A.F., R.C., C.M.-L. and J.C.C. The data compilation and database management was carried out by R.C. and C.M.-L. The data analyses were performed by T.D., A.F., R.C. and C.M.-L. T.D. led the writing of the manuscript with A.F. and notable contributions by M.O.G., B.G., M.Moleón and R.Stubbington. All the other authors commented on and contributed to revising draft versions.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Correspondence to T. Datry.

Supplementary information

  1. Supplementary Information

    Supplementary Material 1–10

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Further reading

Fig. 1: Main variables predicted to control plant litter accumulation and decomposability in IRES.
Fig. 2: Partial dependence of the probability of the quantity of LL accumulated in dry reaches.
Fig. 3: CO 2 release.