Advertisement

Environmental Management

, Volume 61, Issue 4, pp 650–660 | Cite as

The Irrigation Effect: How River Regulation Can Promote Some Riparian Vegetation

  • Karen M. Gill
  • Lori A. Goater
  • Jeffrey H. Braatne
  • Stewart B. Rood
Article
  • 205 Downloads

Abstract

River regulation impacts riparian ecosystems by altering the hydrogeomorphic conditions that support streamside vegetation. Obligate riparian plants are often negatively impacted since they are ecological specialists with particular instream flow requirements. Conversely, facultative riparian plants are generalists and may be less vulnerable to river regulation, and could benefit from augmented flows that reduce drought stress during hot and dry periods. To consider this ‘irrigation effect’ we studied the facultative shrub, netleaf hackberry (Celtis reticulata), the predominant riparian plant along the Hells Canyon corridor of the Snake River, Idaho, USA, where dams produce hydropeaking, diurnal flow variation. Inventories of 235 cross-sectional transects revealed that hackberry was uncommon upstream from the reservoirs, sparse along the reservoir with seasonal draw-down and common along two reservoirs with stabilized water levels. Along the Snake River downstream, hackberry occurred in fairly continuous, dense bands along the high water line. In contrast, hackberry was sparsely scattered along the free-flowing Salmon River, where sandbar willow (Salix exigua), an obligate riparian shrub, was abundant. Below the confluence of the Snake and Salmon rivers, the abundance and distribution of hackberry were intermediate between the two upstream reaches. Thus, river regulation apparently benefited hackberry along the Snake River through Hells Canyon, probably due to diurnal pulsing that wets the riparian margin. We predict similar benefits for some other facultative riparian plants along other regulated rivers with hydropeaking during warm and dry intervals. To analyze the ecological impacts of hydropeaking we recommend assessing daily maxima, as well as daily mean river flows.

Keywords

Celtis reticulata Hells canyon Hydropeaking Salmon river Snake river 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research was supported with funding from Idaho Power Company (IPC), the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, Alberta Innovates, and Alberta Environment and Parks. We extend thanks to Robert Simons of Simons and Associates of Colorado, and Gary Holmstead, Toni Holthuijzen, Frank Edelman, and Allen Ansell of IPC for their insightful discussions, Karen Zanewich for assistance with data analyses and graphics and two anonymous reviewers for their very helpful advisements.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that athey have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Asherin DA, Claar JJ (1976) Inventory of riparian habitats and associated wildlife along the Columbia and Snake rivers. Vol 3A. College of Forestry, Wildlife, and RangeSciences, University of Idaho, MoscowGoogle Scholar
  2. Auble GT, Scott ML, Friedman JM (1994) Relating riparian vegetation to present and future streamflows. Ecol Appl 4:544–554CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Auble GT, Scott ML, Friedman JM (2005) Use of individualistic streamflow–vegetation relations along the Fremont River, Utah, USA to assess impacts of flow alternation on wetland and riparian areas. Wetlands 25:143–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bagstad KJ, Lite SJ, Stromberg JC (2006) Vegetation, soils, and hydrogeomorphology of riparian patch types of a dryland river. West N Am Nat 66:23–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bejarano MD, Jansson R, Nilsson C (2017) The effects of hydropeaking on riverine plants: a review. Biol Rev  https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12362
  6. Braatne JH, Rood SB, Goater LA, Blair CL (2008) Analyzing the impacts of dams on riparian ecosystems: a review of research strategies and their relevance to the Snake River through Hells Canyon. Environ Manag 41:267–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bush JK, Van Auken OW (1986) Light requirements of Acacia smallii and Celtis laevigata in relation to secondary succession on floodplains of South Texas. Am Midl Nat 115:118–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Coggins VL, Cassirer EF, Matthews P, Hansen M (2000) Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep transplants in Hells Canyon. Proc North Wild Sheep Goat Counc 12:68–74Google Scholar
  9. Daubenmire R (1959) A canopy-coverage method of vegetational analysis. Northwest Sci 33:43–64Google Scholar
  10. DeBolt AM, McCune B (1995) Ecology of Celtis reticulata in Idaho. Gt Basin Nat 55:237–248Google Scholar
  11. Dixon MD, Johnson WC (1999) Riparian vegetation along the middle Snake River, Idaho: zonation, geographical trends, and historical changes. Gt Basin Nat 59:18–34Google Scholar
  12. Doody TM, Benger SN, Pritchard JL, Overton IC (2014) Ecological response of Eucalyptus camaldulensis (river red gum) to extended drought and flooding along the River Murray, South Australia (1997–2011) and implications for environmental flow management. Mar Freshw Res 65:1082–1093CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Edenhofer O, Pichs-Madruga R, Sokona Y, Seyboth K, Matschoss P,Kadner S, Zwickel T, Eickemeier P, Hansen G, Schlömer S, von Stechow C (2011) IPCC special report on renewable energy sources and climate change mitigation. Prepared by Working Group III of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
  14. Hanrahan TP (2008) Effects of river discharge on hyporheic exchange flows in salmon spawning area of a large gravel-bed river. Hydrol Process 22:127–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hillman EJ, Bigelow SG, Samuelson GM, Herzog PW, Hurly TA, Rood SB (2016) Increasing river flow expands riparian habitat: influences of flow augmentation on channel form, riparian vegetation and birds along the Little Bow River, Alberta. River Res Applic 32:1687–1697CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hultine KR, Williams DG, Burgess SSO, Keefer TO (2003) Contrasting patterns of hydraulic redistribution in three desert phreatophytes. Oecologia 135:167–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Huschle G (1975) Analysis of the vegetation along the middle and lower Snake River. Msc Thesis, University of IdahoGoogle Scholar
  18. Johnson CG, Simon SA (1987) Plant associations of the Wallowa-Snake Province, Wallowa-Whitman National Forest. USDA Pacific Northwest Region Publications R6-ECOL-TP-255B- 86, Portland, ORGoogle Scholar
  19. Johnson WC (1994) Woodland expansion in the Platte River, Nebraska: patterns and causes. Ecol Monogr 64:45–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Jones NE (2014) The dual nature of hydropeaking rivers: is ecopeaking possible? River Res Applic 30:521–526CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jones Jr JB (2016) Hydroponics: a practical guide for the soilless grower. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FLGoogle Scholar
  22. Kato C, Iwata T, Nakano S, Kishi D (2003) Dynamics of aquatic insect flux affects distribution of riparian web‐building spiders. Oikos 103:113–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Katz GL, Shafroth PB (2003) Biology, ecology and management of Elaeagnus angustifolia L. (Russian olive) in western North America. Wetlands 23:763–777CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Karrenberg S, Edwards PJ, Kollmann J (2002) The life history of Salicaceae living in the active zone of floodplains. Freshw Biol 47:733–748CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lytle DA, Poff NL (2004) Adaptation to natural flow regimes. Trends Ecol Evol 19:94–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. McCune B (2006) Non-parametric habitat models with interactions. J Veg Sci 13:603–808CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. McCune B, Mefford MJ (2009) HyperNiche, Version 2.0. MjM Software, Gleneden Beach, OR, USAGoogle Scholar
  28. Merritt DM, Cooper DJ (2000) Riparian vegetation and channel change in response to river regulation: a comparative study of regulated and unregulated streams in the Green River basin, USA. Regul River 16:543–564CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Merritt DM, Scott ML, Poff L, Auble GT, Lytle DA (2010) Theory, methods and tools for determining environmental flows for riparian vegetation: riparian vegetation‐flow response guilds. Freshw Biol 55:206–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mortenson SG, Weisberg PJ (2010) Does river regulation increase the dominance of invasive woody species in riparian landscapes? Glob Ecol Biogeogr 19:562–574Google Scholar
  31. Naiman RJ, Décamps H, McClain ME (2005) Riparia: Ecology, Conservation and Management of Streamside Communities. Elsevier Academic Press, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  32. Palmer MW (1993) Putting things in even better order: the advantages of canonical correspondence analysis. Ecology 74:2215–2230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Richter BD, Baumgartner JV, Powel J, Braun DP (1996) A method for assessing hydrologic alteration within ecosystems. Conserv Biol 10:1163–1174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Rood SB, Bigelow SG, Hall AA (2011a) Root architecture of riparian trees: river cut-banks provide natural hydraulic excavation, revealing that cottonwoods are facultative phreatophytes. Trees 25:907CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Rood SB, Mahoney JM (1990) Collapse of riparian forests downstream from dams in western prairies: Probable causes and prospects for mitigation. Environ Manag 14:451–464CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Rood SB, Braatne JH, Goater LA (2010a) Favorable fragmentation: river reservoirs can impede downstream expansion of riparian weeds. Ecol Appl 20:1664–1677CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Rood SB, Braatne JH, Goater LA (2010b) Responses of obligate and facultative riparian shrubs following river damming. River Res Appl 26:102–117Google Scholar
  38. Rood SB, Goater LA, Gill KM, Braatne JH (2011b) Sand and sandbar willow: a feedback loop amplifies environmental sensitivity at the riparian interface. Oecologia 165:31–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Salzer MA, McCord VAS, Stevens LE, Webb RH (1996) The dendrochronology of Celtis reticulata in the Grand Canyon: assessing the impact of regulated river flow on tree growth. In: Dean JS, Meko DM, Swetnam TW (eds) Tree rings, environment and humanity: Proceedings of the International Conference. Radiocarbon, Department of Geosciences, University of Arizona, Tucson, pp 273–281Google Scholar
  40. Scott ML, Auble GT, Friedman JM (1997) Flood dependency of cottonwood establishment along the Missouri River, Montana, USA. Ecol Appl 7:677–690CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Stromberg JC, Lite SJ, Marler R, Paradzick C, Shafroth PB, Shorrock D, White JM, White MS (2007) Altered stream‐flow regimes and invasive plant species: the Tamarix case. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 16:381–393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Tiedemann RB, Rood SB (2015) Flood flow attenuation diminishes cottonwood colonization sites: an experimental test along the Boise River, USA. Ecohydrol 8:825–837CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Whittemore AT (2005) Genetic structure, lack of introgression, and taxonomic status in the Celtis laevigata—C. reticulata complex (Cannabaceae). Syst Bot 30:809–817CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Biological SciencesUniversity of LethbridgeLethbridgeCanada
  2. 2.Department of Fish, Wildlife and Range ResourcesUniversity of IdahoMoscowUSA

Personalised recommendations