, Volume 572, Issue 1, pp 275–286 | Cite as

Dams and Flow in the Cotter River, Australia: Effects on Instream Trophic Structure and Benthic Metabolism

  • Heath Chester
  • Richard Norris


This study assessed benthic macroinvertebrates and periphyton and its responses to managed river-flows, in riffles downstream of three dams on the Cotter River, Australian Capital Territory. Benthic macroinvertebrates and periphyton were also assessed in adjacent tributaries of the river, as well as in a nearby unregulated river and its tributaries. Food sources of four macroinvertebrate taxa (Leptophlebiidae, Elmidae, Glossosomatidae and Orthocladiinae) were determined by stable isotope analysis of the invertebrates and their potential food, in conjunction with examination of the gut contents of individual invertebrates. Components of benthic periphyton were the main food source for the selected taxa. Orthocladiinae consumed primarily amorphous detritus, while Elmidae, Glossosomatidae and Leptophlebiidae consumed diatoms. Enclosed benthic chambers were used to measure the response of benthic metabolism to monthly flow spikes released from one of the dams. The balance of benthic metabolism as measured by the Production/Respiration ratio (P/R) showed a shift towards production after the release of flow spikes. At sites downstream of the dams, there was more periphyton chlorophyll-a in the form of filamentous green algae than at sites in the unregulated river and the tributaries, and macroinvertebrate taxa using periphyton as a food resource were missing or reduced in abundance relative to sites without dams. However, the site downstream of the dam with environmental flow releases had more macroinvertebrate taxa and less periphyton cholorophyll-a content than sites downstream of dams without managed environmental flows, suggesting that a more suitable food supply resulting from environmental flow releases shifted macroinvertebrate communities towards those of unregulated streams.


metabolism periphyton macroinvertebrates diet environmental flows stable isotopes 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. ANZECC & ARMCANZ, 2000. National Water Quality Management Strategy: Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality. Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council and the Agriculture and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand.
  2. Armitage P. D. (1978). Downstream changes in the composition, numbers and biomass of bottom fauna in the Tees below Cow Green reservoir and in an unregulated tributary Maize Becke, in the first five years after impoundment. Hydrobiologia 58: 145–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Becker G. (1994). Food preference by five trichopteran scrapers. Hydrobiologia 273: 171–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Belbin L. and McDonald C. (1993). Comparing three classification strategies for use in ecology. Journal of Vegetation Science 4: 341–348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Biggs B. F. (1996). Hydraulic habitat of plants in streams. Regulated Rivers: Research and Management 12: 131–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Biggs B. J. F. (1995). The contribution of flood disturbance, catchment geology and land use to the habitat template of periphyton in steam ecosystems. Freshwater Biology 33: 419–438CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Boulton A. J. and Brock M. A. (1999). Australian Freshwater Ecology: Processes and Management. Gleneagles Publishing, Glen Osmond, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  8. Brennan A., Mclachlan A. J. and Wotton R. S. (1978). Particulate material and midge larvae (Chironomidae: Diptera) in an upland river. Hydrobiologia 59: 67–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bunn S. E., Davies P. M. and Mosisch T. D. (1999). Ecosystem measures of river health and their response to riparian can catchment degradation. Freshwater Biology 41: 333–345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cadwallader P. L. and Eden K. A. (1979). Observations on the food of Maquarie Perch, Maquaria australasica (Pisces : Percichthydiae), in Victoria. Australian Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 30: 401–409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cattaneo A., Keriman T., Roberge M. and Marty J. (1997). Periphyton distribution and abundance on substrata of different size along a gradient of stream trophy. Hydrobiologia 354: 101–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chessman B. C. (1986). Dietary studies of aquatic insects from two Victorian rivers. Australian Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 37: 129–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Clarke K. R. and Warwick R. M. (2001). Change in Marine Communities: An Approach to Statistical Analysis and Interpretation. PRIMER-E Ltd. Plymouth, United KingdomGoogle Scholar
  14. Coysh, J. L., S. J. Nichols, J. C. Simpson, R. H. Norris, L. A. Barmuta, B. C. Chessman & P. Blackman, 2000. Australian RIVer Assessment System (AUSRIVAS) National River Health Program Predictive Model Manual. Cooperative Research Centre for Freshwater EcologyGoogle Scholar
  15. Cullen, P. & P. S. Lake, 1995. Water Resources and Biodiversity; Past Present and Future Problems and Solutions. Conserving Biodiversity threats and solutions, Beatrice and Sons: 115–135Google Scholar
  16. Davies, P. M., 1997. Assessing river health by measuring community metabolism. Report to the Land and Water Research Development Corporation UWA14. CanberraGoogle Scholar
  17. DeNicola D. M. (1996). Periphyton response to temperature at different ecological levels. In: Jan Stevenson, R., Bothwell, M. I. and Lowe, R. L. (eds) Algal Ecology: Freshwater Benthic Ecosystems, pp. Academic Press Inc, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  18. Entlewise T. J., Sonneman J. A. and Lewis S. H. (1997). Freshwater Algae in Australia. Sainty and Associates Pty Ltd, Potts Point, New South WalesGoogle Scholar
  19. Faith D. P., Minchin P. R. and Belbin L. (1987). Compositional dissimilarity as a robust measure of ecological distance. Vegetatio 69: 57–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Franson M. (1985). Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater. American Public Health Association, American Water Works Association and Water Pollution Control Federation, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  21. Gore J. A. (1977). Reservoir manipulations and benthic macroinvertebrates on a prairie river. Hydrobiologia 55: 113–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Growns I. O. and Growns J. E. (2001). Ecological effects of flow regulation on macroinvertebrate and periphytic diatom assemblages in the Hawkesbury-Nepean River, Australia. Regulated Rivers: Research and Management 17: 275–293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hawking J. H. (1997). Colour guide to freshwater invertebrates of Australian inland waters. Cooperative Research Centre for Freshwater Ecology, AlburyGoogle Scholar
  24. Jan Stevenson R. (1996). The stimulation and drag of current. In: Jan Stevenson, R., Bothwell, M. I. and Lowe, R. L. (eds) Algal Ecology: Freshwater Benthic Ecosystems, pp. Academic Press Inc, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  25. Kutka F. J. and Richards C. (1996). Relating diatom assemblage structure to stream habitat quality. Journal North American Benthological Society 15: 469–480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lamberti G. A. (1996). The role of periphyton in benthic food webs. In: Stevenson, R. J., Bothwell, M. L. and Lowe, R. L. (eds) Algal Ecology, Freshwater Benthic Ecosystems, pp 753. Academic Press, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  27. Lancaster J. and Waldron S. (2001). Stable isotope values of lotic invertebrates: sources of variation, experimental design and statistical interpretation. Limnology and Oceanography 46: 723–730CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lau Y. L. and Liu D. (1993). Effect of flow rate on biofilm accumulation in open channels. Water Resources 27: 355–360Google Scholar
  29. Ledger M. E. and Hildrew A. G. (1998). Temporal and spatial variation in the epilithic biofilm of an acid stream. Freshwater Biology 40: 655–670CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lintermans M. (1998). The Ecology of the Two-spined Blackfish Gadopsis bispinosus (Pisces: Gadopsidae). Divison of Botany and Zoology. Australian National University, CanberraGoogle Scholar
  31. Lock M. A. and Peter J. H. (1979). The effect of flow patterns on uptake of phosphorus by river periphyton. Limnology and Oceanography 24: 376–383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Loeb S. L. (1981). An in situ method for measuring the primary productivity and standing crop of the epilithic periphyton community in lentic systems. Limnology and Oceanography 26: 394–400Google Scholar
  33. Maddock I. (1999). The importance of physical habitat assessment for evaluating river health. Freshwater Biology 41: 373–391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Marchant R. (1989). A subsampler for samples of benthic invertebrates. Bulletin of the Australian Society of Limnology 12: 49–52Google Scholar
  35. Marchant R. and Hehir G. (2002). The use of AUSRIVAS predictive models to assess the response of lotic macroinvertebrates to dams in south-east Australia. Freshwater Biology 47: 1033–1050CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Mathieu J. (1996). Epilithic metabolism resulting from altered nutrient and grazing conditions and from a point source of sewage effluent. Canberra, Ecology and Environmental Science, University of CanberraGoogle Scholar
  37. McCune B. and Mefford M. J. (1999). Multivariate Analysis of Ecological Data Version 4.20. MjM Software, Gleneden Beach, Oregon, USAGoogle Scholar
  38. McCutchan J. H. and Lewis W. M. (2002). Relative importance of carbon sources for macroinvertebrates in a Rocky Mountain stream. Limnology and Oceanography 47: 742–752CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Mosisch T. D. and Bunn S. E. (1997). Temporal patterms of rainforest stream epilithic algae in relation ot flow-related disturbance. Aquatic Botany 58: 181–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Mulholland P. J., Tank J. L., Sanzone W. M., Peterson B. J., Webster J. R. and Meyer J. L. (2000). Food resources of stream macroinvertebrates determined by natural-abundance stable C and N isotopes and a 15N addition. Journal North American Benthological Society 19: 145–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Osborne L. L. (1983). Colonization and recovery of lotic epilithic communities: A metabolic approach. Hydrobiologia 99: 29–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Parsons M. and Norris R. H. (1996). The effect of habitat-specific sampling on biological assessment of water quality using a predicitive model. Freshwater Biology 36: 419–434CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Peterson C. G. (1996). Response of Benthic Algal Communities to Natural Physical Disturbance. Academic Press Inc, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  44. Petts G. E. (1980). Long-term consequences of upstream impoundment. Environmental Conservation 7: 325–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Petts G. E. (1984). Impounded Rivers. John Wiley and Sons, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  46. Petts G. E. and Greenwood M. (1981). Habitat changes below Dartmoor Reservoirs. Reports and transactions. Devonshire Association for the Advancement of Science, Literature and Art 113: 13–27Google Scholar
  47. Poff L. N. and Ward J. V. (1991). Drift responses of benthic invertebrates to experimental streamflow variation in a hydrologically stable stream. Canadian Journal of Fish and Aquatic Science 48: 1926–1936CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Power P. E. and Stewart A. J. (1985). Disturbance and recovery of an algal assemblage following flooding in an Oklahoma stream. The American Midland Naturalist 117: 333–345Google Scholar
  49. Rainer Z., Burgherr P., Bernasconi S. M. and Uehlinger U. (2001). Stable isotopes analysis of macroinvertebrates and their food sources in a glacier stream. Freshwater Biology 46: 871–882CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Reiser D. W., Ramey M. P. and Wesche T. A. (1989). Flushing Flows. CRC Press, Boce RatonGoogle Scholar
  51. Reiter M. A. (1986). Interactions between the hydrodynamics of flowing water and the development of a benthic algal community. Journal of Freshwater Ecology 3: 511–517Google Scholar
  52. Russell R. B. and Belish T. A. (1999). Influence of mild to severe flow alterations on invertebrates in three mountain streams. Regulated Rivers: Research and Management 15: 353–363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Salas M. and Dudgeon D. (2001). Stable-isotope determination of mayfly (Insecta: Ephemeroptera) food sources in three tropical Asian streams. Archiv fur Hydrobiologia 151: 17–32Google Scholar
  54. Sheldon F. and Walker K. F. (1997). Changes in the biofilms induced by flow regulation could explain extinctions of aquatic snails in the lower River Murray, Australia. Hydrobiologia 347: 97–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Sloane P., Davies N. and Norris R. (1999). ACT Component of the First National Assessment of River Health: Interim Report Spring (1999). Department of Urban Services, CanberraGoogle Scholar
  56. Sloane P., Simpson J. and Norris R. (1998). ACT Component of the Monitoring River Health Initiative: Final Report. Department of Urban Services, Canberra, 45Google Scholar
  57. Talsma T. (1983). Soils of the Cotter Catchment Area, A.C.T.: Distribution, chemical and physical properties. Australian Journal of Soil Research 21: 241–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Talsma T. and Hallam P. M. (1982). Stream water quality if forest catchments in the Cotter Valley, ACT. In: O’Loughlin, E. M. and Bren, J. L. (eds) The First National Symposium on Forest Hydrology, pp 50–60. Institute of Engineers Australia, CanberraGoogle Scholar
  59. Udy J. W., Clapcott J. E., Fellows C. S., Harch B. D., Bunn S. E. and Davies P. M. (2001). Measures of Primary Production as Indicators of Ecosystem Health. Center for Catchment and Instream Research, Griffith University and South east Regional Water Quality Management Strategy, BrisbaneGoogle Scholar
  60. Uehlinger U. (1991). Spatial and temporal variability of peri phyton biomass in a prealpine river (Necker, Switzerland). Archiv für Hydrobiologie 123: 219–237Google Scholar
  61. Uehlinger U. and Naegeli M. W. (1998). Ecosystem, disturbance and stability in a prealpine gravel bed river. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 17: 165–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Vander Zander M. J. and Rasmussen J. B. (1999). Primary consumer 13C and 15N and the trophic position of aquatic consumers. Ecology 80: 1395–1404Google Scholar
  63. Walker K. F. (1985). A review of the ecological effects of river regulation in Australia. Hydrobiologia 125: 111–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Ward, J. V. & J. A. Stanford (eds.), 1979. The Ecology of Regulated Streams. In Proceedings of the First International Symposium on Regulated Streams Held in Erie, April 18–20, 1979. Plenum Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  65. Weisberg S. B., Janicki A. J., Gerritsen J. and Wilson H. T. (1990). Enhancement of benthic macroinvertebrates by minimum flow from a hydroelectric dam. Regulated Rivers: Research and Management 5: 265–277Google Scholar
  66. Woodward G. and Hildrew A. G. (2002). Food web structure in riverine landscapes. Freshwater Biology 47: 777–798CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Cooperative Research Centre for Freshwater EcologyUniversity of CanberraCanberraAustralia

Personalised recommendations