Aquatic Sciences

, 81:20 | Cite as

Architects of the underworld: bioturbation by groundwater invertebrates influences aquifer hydraulic properties

  • Grant C. HoseEmail author
  • Christine Stumpp
Research Article


The hydraulic properties of aquifers are critical to the storage and transmission of water to meet the needs of an increasingly groundwater-dependent global community. The hydraulic properties of aquifers can also influence the biota present, but inversely, invertebrate burrowing (bioturbation) may also influence the hydraulic properties and the flow of water through sediments. The aim of this study was to test whether groundwater invertebrates were capable of influencing the hydraulic properties of aquifer sediments in an experimental setting. Groundwater amphipods were added to sediment-filled laboratory columns, and the effective porosity (neff) and longitudinal dispersivity (αL) of the sediments were compared before and after 2 months of amphipod activity. The neff of columns without amphipods decreased significantly over time whereas in columns containing eight amphipods it remained relatively constant, and in columns with four amphipods it was highly variable. There was no difference in αL between columns with amphipod density or over time. These findings suggest that the amphipods were maintaining the amount of pore space that was actively contributing to transport but their activity was not influencing the distribution of flow paths, and amphipod density is critical to causing or maintaining changes in hydraulic properties.


Stygofauna Ecosystem engineers Stygobionts Aquifer ecosystems Burrowing Crustacea Ecosystem services 



This research was supported by DFG Grant (STU 539/2-1) to C.S. and Australian Research Council Grant (DP1095200) to G.H. We appreciate the assistance of Maria Avramov with taxonomy and Petra Seibel with analysis of isotopes. We appreciate the comments provided by the editor and two anonymous reviewers, which improved this manuscript.

Supplementary material

27_2018_613_MOESM1_ESM.docx (87 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 87 KB)


  1. Bork J, Bork S, Berkhoff SE, Hahn HJ (2008) Testing unbaited stygofauna traps for sampling performance. Limnologica 38:105–115. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Boulton AJ, Fenwick GD, Hancock PJ, Harvey MS (2008) Biodiversity, functional roles and ecosystem services of groundwater invertebrates. Invertebr Syst 22:103–116. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cooney TJ, Simon KS (2009) Influence of dissolved organic matter and invertebrates on the function of microbial films in groundwater. Microb Ecol 58:599–610. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Dole-Olivier MJ, Galassi DMP, Marmonier P, Creuzé Des Châtelliers M (2000) The biology and ecology of lotic microcrustaceans. Freshw Biol 44:63–91. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dorgan KM (2015) The biomechanics of burrowing and boring. J Exp Biol 218:176–183. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Dorgan KM, Jumars PA, Johnson BD, Boudreau BP (2006) Macrofaunal burrowing: the medium is the message. In: Gibson RN, Atkinson RJA, Gordon JDM (eds) Oceanography and marine biology—an annual review, oceanography and marine biology, vol 44, pp 85–121Google Scholar
  7. Edler C, Dodds WK (1996) The ecology of a subterranean isopod. Caecidotea tridentata. Freshw Biol 35:249–259. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fetter CW (2001) Applied hydrogeology, 4 edn. edn. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle RiverGoogle Scholar
  9. Freeze RA, Cherry JA (1979) Groundwater. Prentice-Hall, Englewood CliffsGoogle Scholar
  10. Griebler C, Avramov M (2015) Groundwater ecosystem services: a review. Freshw Sci 34:355–367. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Griebler C, Lueders T (2009) Microbial biodiversity in groundwater ecosystems. Freshw Biol 54:649–677. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Griebler C, Avramov M, Hose G (2019) Groundwater ecosystems and their services—current status and potential risks. In: Schröter M, Bonn A, Klotz S, Seppelt R, Baessler C (eds) Atlas of ecosystem services—drivers, risks, and societal responses. Springer, Heidelberg (in press) Google Scholar
  13. Hahn HR (2005) Unbaited phreatic traps: a new method of sampling stygofauna. Limnologica 35:248–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hahn HJ, Fuchs A (2009) Distribution patterns of groundwater communities across aquifer types in south-western Germany. Freshw Biol 54:848–860CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hahn HJ, Matzke D (2005) A comparison of stygofauna communities inside and outside groundwater bores. Limnol Ecol Manag Inland Waters 35:31–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hancock PJ, Boulton AJ, Humphreys WF (2005) Aquifers and hyporheic zones: towards an ecological understanding of groundwater. Hydrogeol J 13:98–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hölker F, Vanni MJ, Kuiper JJ, Meile C, Grossart H-P, Stief P, Adrian R, Lorke A, Dellwig O, Brand A, Hupfer M, Mooij WM, Nützmann G, Lewandowski J (2015) Tube-dwelling invertebrates: tiny ecosystem engineers have large effects in lake ecosystems. Ecol Monogr 85:333–351. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Holm S (1979) A simple sequentially rejective multiple test procedure Scandinavian. J Stat 6:65–70Google Scholar
  19. Hose GC, Asmyhr MG, Cooper SJB, Humphreys WF (2015) Down under down under: Austral groundwater life. In: Austral Ark: the state of wildlife in Australia and New Zealand. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp 512–536Google Scholar
  20. Hose GC, Fryirs KA, Bailey J, Ashby N, White T, Stumpp C (2017) Different depths, different fauna: habitat influences on the distribution of groundwater invertebrates. Hydrobiologia 797:145–157. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Humphreys WF (2006) Aquifers: the ultimate groundwater-dependent ecosystems. Aust J Bot 54:115–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Humphreys WF (2009) Hydrogeology and groundwater ecology: Does each inform the other? Hydrogeol J 17:5–21. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Johns T, Jones JI, Knight L, Maurice L, Wood P, Robertson A (2015) Regional-scale drivers of groundwater faunal distributions. Freshw Sci 34:316–328. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Korbel KL, Hose GC (2011) A tiered framework for assessing groundwater ecosystem health. Hydrobiologia 661:329–349. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Korbel KL, Hose GC (2015) Habitat, water quality, seasonality, or site? Identifying environmental correlates of the distribution of groundwater biota. Freshw Sci 34:329–343. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Korbel KL, Lim RP, Hose GC (2013) An inter-catchment comparison of groundwater biota in the cotton-growing region of north-western. New South Wales. Crop Pasture Sci 64:1195–1208. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Korbel K, Chariton A, Stephenson S, Greenfield P, Hose GC (2017) Wells provide a distorted view of life in the aquifer: implications for sampling monitoring assessment of groundwater ecosystems. Sci Rep 7:40702. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. Leibundgut C, Maloszewski P, Kulls C (2009) Tracers in hydrology. Wiley, West Sussex. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Maurice L, Bloomfield J (2012) Stygobitic invertebrates in groundwater—a review from a hydrogeological perspective. Freshw Rev 5:51–71. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Morris BL, Lawrence ARL, Chilton PJC, Adams B, Calow RC, Klinck BA (2003) Groundwater and its susceptibility to degradation: a global assessment of the problem and options for management. Eary warning and assessment report series. United Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi, pp 03–03Google Scholar
  31. Murray BR, Hose GC, Lacari D, Eamus D (2006) Ecosystem services and the valuation of groundwater dependent ecosystems. Aust J Bot 54:221–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Nash JE, Sutcliffe JV (1970) River flow forecasting through conceptual models part I—a discussion of principles. J Hydrol 10:282–290. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Rühle FA, Klier C, Stumpp C (2013) Changes in water flow and solute transport pathways during long-term column experiments. Vadose Zone J. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Schmidt SI, Cuthbert MO, Schwientek M (2017) Towards an integrated understanding of how micro scale processes shape groundwater ecosystem functions. Sci Total Environ 592:215–227. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Schulze-Makuch D (2005) Longitudinal dispersivity data and implications for scaling behavior. Ground Water 43:443–456. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Seifert D, Engesgaard P (2007) Use of tracer tests to investigate changes in flow and transport properties due to bioclogging of porous media. J Contam Hydrol 93:58–71. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Sket B (2008) Can we agree on an ecological classification of subterranean animals? J Nat Hist 42:1549–1563. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Sorensen JPR, Maurice L, Edwards FK, Lapworth DJ, Read DS, Allen D, Butcher AS, Newbold LK, Townsend BR, Williams PJ (2013) Using boreholes as windows into groundwater ecosystems. Plos One 8:e70264. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  39. Stumpp C, Hose GC (2017) Groundwater amphipods alter aquifer sediment structure. Hydrol Process 31:3452–3454. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Underwood AJ (1997) Experiments in ecology and management: Their logical design and interpretation using analysis of variance. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  41. van Schaik L, Palm J, Klaus J, Zehe E, Schröder B (2014) Linking spatial earthworm distribution to macropore numbers and hydrological effectiveness. Ecohydrology 7:401–408 doi. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Vander Vorste R, Mermillod-Blondin F, Hervant F, Mons R, Forcellini M, Datry T (2015) Increased depth to the water table during river drying decreases the resilience of Gammarus pulex and alters ecosystem function. Ecohydrology 9:1177–1186. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Wada Y, van Beek LPH, van Kempen CM, Reckman J, Vasak S, Bierkens MFP (2010) Global depletion of groundwater resources. Geophys Res Lett 37:L20402. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Weitowitz DC, Maurice L, Lewis M, Bloomfield JP, Reiss J, Robertson AL (2017) Defining geo-habitats for groundwater ecosystem assessments: an example from England and Wales (UK). Hydrogeol J:1–14

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Biological SciencesMacquarie UniversitySydneyAustralia
  2. 2.Institute of Groundwater EcologyHelmholtz Zentrum MünchenNeuherbergGermany
  3. 3.Institute of Hydraulics and Rural Water ManagementUniversity of Natural Resources and Life SciencesViennaAustria

Personalised recommendations