Translator Disclaimer
5 February 2010 Nutrient dynamics in streams and the role of J-NABS
Author Affiliations +
Abstract

Nutrient dynamics in streams has been an important topic of research since the 1960s. Here we review this topic and the significant role played by J-NABS in its development. We limit this review almost exclusively to studies of N and P because these elements have been shown to limit productivity in streams. We use the expression nutrient dynamics for studies that included some measures of biological processes occurring within streams. Prior to the 1970s, instream biological processes were little studied, but through 1985 conceptual advances were made, and 4 types of studies made important contributions to our understanding of instream processes: 1) evidence of increased plant production and decomposition in response to nutrient addition, 2) studies showing a downstream decrease in nutrient concentrations, 3) studies using radioisotopes, and 4) budget studies. Beginning with the first paper printed in its first issue, J-NABS has been the outlet for key papers advancing our understanding of rates and controls of nutrient dynamics in streams. In the first few years, an important review and a conceptual model for conducting experiments to study nutrient dynamics in streams were published in J-NABS. In the 1990s, J-NABS published a number of papers on nutrient recycling within algal communities, the role of the hyporheic zone, the role of spawning fish, and the coupling of data from field 15N additions and a N-cycling model to provide a synoptic view of N dynamics in streams. Since 2000, J-NABS has published influential studies on nutrient criteria for streams, rates of and controls on nitrification and denitrification, uptake of stream nutrients by riparian vegetation, and nutrient dynamics in urban streams. Nutrient dynamics will certainly continue to be an important topic in J-NABS. Topics needing further study include techniques for studying nutrient dynamics, nutrient dynamics in larger streams and rivers, the ultimate fate of nutrients taken up by plants and microbes in streams, ecological stoichiometry, the effects of climate change, and the role of streams and rivers in nutrient transformation and retention at the landscape scale.

“A lifeless river would have a very different chemical regime” (Hynes 1970, p. 52)

Streams carry many dissolved chemicals, but only a few are biologically important, and only N and P have been shown to limit productivity in streams. Other elements, such as K, Ca, S, Fe, Si, and Mb might be critical to some organisms at some times, but they have not been well studied. However, studies of some of these less important chemicals have made significant contributions to our understanding of stream processes (e.g., Pringle et al. 1986). Some other chemicals, such as Al and Se, might be important in streams because of negative effects on organisms. We are limiting our review almost exclusively to studies of N and P, and we are using the expression nutrient dynamics for studies that included some measures of biological processes occurring within streams (Table 1). Other reviews in this special issue, including those on geomorphology and hydrology (Poole 20103), organic matter dynamics and ecosystem metabolism (Tank et al. 2010), and groundwater–surface water interactions (Boulton et al. 2010) are related to the review of nutrient dynamics we present here.

Studies of Nutrient Dynamics Prior to J-NABS

Early papers made little mention of instream nutrient processes

Before the 1970s, there were a number of studies of chemical concentrations in streams and how these were related to sources. A notable example was Gibbs' (1970) study of major ions in world rivers and their relation to geological and precipitation sources and modification by instream evaporation and chemical precipitation. Bond's (1979) study of a Utah stream showed how terrestrial processes in an undisturbed watershed affected stream nutrient concentrations. Many studies illustrated how anthropogenic changes to watershed vegetation modified stream chemistry (e.g., Bormann et al. 1968, Brown et al. 1973, Johnson and Swank 1973, Vitousek and Reiners 1975). Also, many studies documented eutrophication of streams caused by nutrient inputs (summarized by Hynes 1960).

Various reviews at that time made almost no mention of instream biological processes. Hynes (1960, p. 68) showed a diagram with a decrease in nutrient concentrations downstream from a pollution source and wrote, “… if the river is long enough and receives enough extra water from tributaries and surface run-off, it can ‘re-purify’ itself.” However, in another chapter (p. 122), he noted that in addition to dilution, nutrients might be “used up,” clearly anticipating the significance of biological processes expressed in his later book (Hynes 1970). The summary by Owens et al. (1972) dealt mostly with sources of nutrients, although they did mention that low NO3 concentrations in summer could be because of plant uptake, denitrification, or NH4+ volatilization. The book edited by Allen and Kramer (1972) was titled Nutrients in Natural Waters, but streams were only briefly mentioned in one chapter with no mention of nutrient processes in streams. Stream studies clearly lagged behind lake and marine research in this regard. Golterman (1975) made no mention of instream processes in his review of river chemistry and attributed seasonal and longitudinal chemical variations to terrestrial factors. This failure to mention instream nutrient processes was not an oversight on the part of these and other authors, but rather it reflected the lack of study of nutrient dynamics at that time. Hynes' (1970) chapter on chemical characteristics of flowing waters was primarily a discussion of chemical sources, distribution, and chemical reactions. He stated (p. 46), “To my knowledge nobody has ever demonstrated or suggested that any of them [K, N, or P] is a limiting factor of plant growth in a natural stream.” In his review of P in streams, Keup (1968) mentioned biological growth as a potentially important removal process. Similarly, Casey and Newton (1972, 1973) mentioned plant and microbial uptake of nutrients but concluded that N and P were generally in excess in English streams. They found evidence of significant plant uptake of P in only one stream. Westlake (1975) suggested that N and P and perhaps K were insufficient for optimum vascular plant growth in oligotrophic English streams. Hynes (1970, p. 52) clearly recognized the potential importance of instream biological processes and concluded his chapter on stream chemistry with, “A lifeless river would have a very different chemical regime.”

Instream processes modify nutrient concentrations

Four types of studies were primarily responsible for contributing to an early understanding of the role of instream processes: 1) evidence of increased plant production and decomposition in response to nutrient addition, 2) studies showing a downstream decrease in nutrient concentrations, 3) studies using radioisotopes, and 4) budget studies.

Nutrient addition studies

In 1948, Huntsman found that placing bags of fertilizer in and adjacent to a nutrient-poor stream in Nova Scotia resulted in luxuriant algal growth, more invertebrates, and greater fish abundance. However, Warren et al. (1964) observed that simply adding sucrose to Berry Creek, Oregon, resulted in increased trout production, and Wuhrmann and Eichenberger (1975) noted that adding N and P to stream channels had no effect on productivity, although adding dilute sewage did. Similarly, Traaen (1978) found that addition of sewage increased gross primary production. In one of the early demonstrations of nutrient limitation in streams, Stockner and Shortreed (1976, 1978) observed that P fertilization in streamside channels increased algal growth. Elwood et al. (1981; Fig. 1) demonstrated that P addition to Walker Branch, Tennessee, accelerated leaf decomposition and increased primary production, and Peterson et al. (1985; Fig. 1) observed extensive changes to a tundra stream resulting from P fertilization. Bothwell (1985) found that P concentration limited algal production in the Thompson River, British Columbia, but that concentrations of only 3 to 4 µg/L were sufficient to saturate growth rates. In contrast, Triska and Sedell (1976) and Newbold et al. (1983a) observed that N addition to streams had little measurable effect on stream processes.

Observations of longitudinal declines in nutrient concentrations

As early as 1951, Neal observed relatively high concentrations of P in the headwater springs of Boone Creek, Kentucky, and suggested that this P was “consumed” downstream. Talling (1958) described longitudinal nutrient patterns in the White Nile but attributed these changes primarily to tributary inputs and depletion of plant nutrients in swamps and reservoirs. Edwards (1974) measured Si depletion in English rivers, apparently because of diatom uptake, and Hill (1979) attributed a significant decline in N in Duffin Creek, Ontario, to uptake by algae and macrophytes and to denitrification in the sediments. Aiba and Ohtake (1977) developed a model of P in a river flowing through Tokyo that included biotic assimilation of P and biological mineralization.

Radiotracer studies

The first use of radioisotope tracers in streams was published by Ball and Hooper (1963) but lagged behind similar studies in lakes by 15 y (Hutchinson and Bowen 1947). In their seminal study, Ball and Hooper (1963) released 32P into a Michigan stream and demonstrated considerable annual and longitudinal variation in P uptake. Nelson et al. (1969) and Elwood and Nelson (1972; Fig. 1) also used stream additions of 32P to measure periphyton uptake and turnover of P. Other researchers made use of contaminant releases of radionuclides to demonstrate biological uptake of nutrients (e.g., Davis and Foster 1958, Kevern 1964, Gardner and Skulberg 1966, Cushing 1967, Cushing and Rose 1970). Whitford and Schumacher (1961, 1964) studied algal P uptake with 32P in flowing-water mesocosms, and Webster and Patten (1979; Fig. 1) used radioisotopes to measure consumer nutrient turnover in streams.

Budget studies of nutrients

Budget studies provide limited information on instream processes; however, they can provide suggestions as to the significance of instream processes, especially when combined with direct process measurements. Crisp (1970) made a very careful budget of nutrients crossing a watercress bed in England and documented nutrient uptake by the harvested watercress and net input of P from the fertilized cress bed to the stream. Hall (1972) estimated a P budget for New Hope Creek, North Carolina, and found that inputs and outputs were small relative to storage and that the stream was in approximate steady state. The combination of budget data and instream process measurements led Webster and Patten (1979) to describe the spiraling of nutrients, although the process was implicit in the diagram of stream P dynamics presented by Elwood and Nelson (1972). Meyer and Likens (1979) used a budget approach to study P in Bear Brook, New Hampshire, and inferred instream processes from differences in forms of input and output.

Other studies documenting instream nutrient dynamics

These 4 types of studies (nutrient addition, longitudinal decrease in nutrient concentrations, radioisotopes studies, and budget estimations) provided clear evidence that instream process can modify nutrient concentrations. A variety of other studies documented the importance of specific instream processes. Stake (1968) found that aquatic plants in a polluted stream in Sweden accumulated P, and he noted that rooted plants might get nutrients from the sediments. Kaushik and Hynes (1968; Fig. 1) and Mathews and Kowalczewski (1969) found heterotrophic immobilization of N during leaf decomposition. Gregory (1978) used a 32P release to demonstrate heterotrophic immobilization in an Oregon stream. The importance of nutrient uptake by microbes associated with decaying leaves became recognized as one of the most significant nutrient processes in streams (e.g., Newbold et al. 1983b; Fig. 1).

Nutrient uptake by autotrophic and heterotrophic processes is now measured fairly routinely with low-concentration additions of nutrients, a technique first used by McColl (1974; Fig. 1), but measurement of the opposing process, mineralization, has been much more limited. Hynes (1975) noted that very little was known about N release back into the water. Leaf decomposition studies showed immobilization of nutrients but also suggested that, at some point, net mineralization of nutrients must occur.

Another valuable technique was the use of nutrient diffusing substrates (Pringle and Bowers 1984 [Fig. 1], Fairchild et al. 1985). This technique made it possible to compare potential nutrient limitation among various streams.

Woodall and Wallace (1975) noted the importance of detritivores to the release of chemicals from decomposing leaves, and various radiotracer studies have measured nutrient mineralization by consumers (e.g., Webster and Patten 1979). Detritivores also can influence nutrient uptake rates by heterotrophic microbes indirectly by their effects on detritus standing stocks. Mulholland et al. (1985) found that snails reduced nutrient uptake by accelerating leaf decomposition.

Another way by which consumers might contribute to stream nutrient dynamics is by translocation of nutrients. Juday et al. (1932) found that migrating salmon moved significant amounts of nutrients upstream. After their 32P release into a stream, Ball et al. (1963; Fig. 1) found that some of the radiotracer moved upstream. They hypothesized that this upstream movement was probably the result of upstream movement by consumers. Fittkau (1970) suggested that caimans in Amazonian rivers might function like bears in Alaska by feeding on migrating fish and mineralizing the fish-carried nutrients. Hall (1972) suggested that migrating fish might influence stream P budgets, and Durbin et al. (1979) found that nutrient mineralization by alewife migrating upstream to spawn significantly increased respiration on leaves.

The processes of N fixation and denitrification are input and output processes that are unique to the N cycle. Denitrification was suggested to be important in steams by Hill (1979) but was not actually measured until Duff et al. (1984) used the acetylene block technique in large chambers containing undisrupted periphyton communities and found that denitrification during the night could be a considerable sink for NO3 in a N-rich stream. Gray (1951) noted the presence of N-fixing bacteria in an English chalk stream, and Horne and Carniggelt (1975) first measured N fixation by the cyanobacterium Nostoc in a California stream. Few other studies have demonstrated that stream N fixation is an important process (but see Marcarelli et al. 2008).

One study done before 1986 stands out as providing a comprehensive view of nutrient dynamics in streams. Using results of P radiotracer studies, Newbold et al. (1983a) developed and calibrated a quantitative, mass-balance model that included the simultaneous processes of cycling and transport of P in streams. This model was based on the spiraling concept of Webster and Patten (1979) and used the spiraling measurement techniques developed by Newbold et al. (1981; Fig. 1). Because suitable radiotracers for N do not exist, a similarly comprehensive understanding of stream N dynamics did not occur for another decade when routine and relatively inexpensive mass spectrophotometry made the use of 15N tracers possible.

Advances in Nutrient Dynamics since 1986 and the Role of J-NABS

Beginning in the 1980s and continuing to the present, many papers have addressed patterns and controls of nutrient dynamics in streams, and these studies have considerably advanced our understanding of this aspect of stream ecology. J-NABS has played an influential role in this development. Two papers on nutrient limitation of stream algae were published in the first volume of J-NABS (Grimm and Fisher 1986 [Fig. 2], Lowe et al. 1986). Since 1990, an average of 5.3 papers/y on nutrient dynamics in streams have appeared in J-NABS (representing 8–12% of all papers in J-NABS) with a significant increase during the last few years (Fig. 3A, B). Here we discuss some of the most important developments and the role that J-NABS has played.

Nutrient dynamics and further development of the spiraling concept

Two papers, both published in J-NABS and both products of workshops, were arguably the most significant papers on nutrient dynamics in streams since the introduction of the spiraling concept and the development of field indices to quantify spiraling. Meyer et al. (1988; Fig. 2) was a product of a meeting in April 1987 at the Flathead Lake Biological Station. The authors explored gaps in our understanding of elemental dynamics in streams and focused on landscape-level processes and the relative importance of upstream, riparian, and instream controls. Meyer et al. (1988) advocated a number of future research directions, including studying critical stream ecotones, such as biofilms, hyporheic zones, and floodplains, and emphasized the potential contributions of whole-stream manipulations supplemented by intensive studies of key processes and variables. Also, Meyer et al. (1988) advocated a network of experimental streams that laid the foundation for several large cross-site experiments (see Nutrient dynamics below).

Stream Solute Workshop (1990; Fig. 2) was the product of a meeting organized by Nick Aumen and held at the University of Mississippi in early 1989. The authors used the spiraling concept as a basis from which to produce a conceptual model for studies of stream nutrients and other solutes that integrated physical, chemical, and biological processes. They also identified advantages and limitations of various methods for studying solute dynamics and recommended short-term nutrient injection experiments as a more practical substitute for isotopic tracer approaches to quantify nutrient uptake lengths in streams. This paper showed how the new transient storage model approach to stream hydrodynamics developed by Bencala and others (e.g., Bencala and Walters 1983) could be used with the spiraling approach to develop a more holistic understanding of the physical controls on nutrient dynamics. Uptake velocity, sometimes called the mass transfer coefficient (in units of length/time), was introduced as a useful stream nutrient dynamics metric for relating uptake rate to nutrient concentration in water. In more recent years, this parameter has been used to scale nutrient dynamics to entire drainage networks (e.g., Wollheim et al. 2006, Poole 2010).

Several other significant papers have helped to refine application of the spiraling concept over the past 2 decades, although most of these papers have appeared in other journals. In an influential concept paper, Fisher et al. (1998; Fig. 2) considered the stream corridor as a hydrologically connected set of subsystems from riparian zones to the stream channel and showed how the spiraling concept could be applied to the broader stream corridor to quantify resistance to and recovery from flood disturbances. Doyle (2005; Fig. 2) incorporated hydrologic variability into spiraling theory by proposing a new metric, functionally equivalent discharge, which is “the single discharge that will reproduce the magnitude of nutrient retention generated by the full hydrologic frequency distribution when all discharge takes place at that rate” (p. G01003).

Several methodological advances have occurred recently. Payn et al. (2005) found a solution to the problem identified by Mulholland et al. (2002) when using the nutrient-addition approach rather than tracer additions to compare uptake lengths and rates among streams. Payn and colleagues showed how multiple nutrient-addition experiments could be used to determine uptake lengths comparable to those determined by tracer approaches. Runkel (2007) has suggested a transport-based approach for the analysis of time-series and steady-state data during tracer addition experiments that involves fitting a transient storage model that includes uptake terms to identify uptake rate coefficients for both the main channel and storage zones. This approach does not require steady-state tracer additions and might allow the use of pulse-type additions. Tank et al. (2008; Fig. 2) conducted a pulse-type N addition in a large river (Upper Snake River, Wyoming) and applied the transport-based approach recommended by Runkel (2007). Tank et al. (2008) reported that NH4+ and NO3 uptake velocities were similar to those in smaller streams in the same drainage. This paper was important because it suggested that nutrient uptake in large rivers could be as high as in small streams and because it provided a method for determining nutrient uptake in streams and rivers that are too large to use the steady-state addition approach.

Nutrient limitation and uptake

Nutrient limitation of algae was thought to be less common in streams than in lakes or the ocean because the continuous flow of water in streams was expected to replenish nutrient supplies to biota (Hynes 1969). This view began to change in the late 1970s and early 1980s with publication of several pioneering papers on P limitation of stream algae. Nutrient limitation studies in streams became more common during the mid to late 1980s, and many of the most important papers on this topic were published in J-NABS. In fact, the very first paper in J-NABS was written by Grimm and Fisher (1986), who dealt with N limitation of algae in Sycamore Creek in the Sonoran Desert of Arizona. Their paper was one of the first to demonstrate N limitation in streams and showed that, in some regions, such as the southwestern US, N rather than P is often the limiting nutrient. Subsequently, Hill and Knight (1988) demonstrated N limitation of periphyton in a northern California stream, Lohman et al. (1991) reported N limitation of periphyton in an Ozark stream, and Wold and Hershey (1999) found colimitation by both N and P in a Lake Superior tributary stream. Together these papers expanded the regional extent of N limitation or colimitation. More recently, Francoeur (2001) did a meta-analysis of 237 stream nutrient-addition experiments and found that colimitation by N and P was more common than limitation by either nutrient alone. Rosemond (1994) showed how nutrients, light, and herbivory all limited algal production at different times of the year in a forested stream (see also Rosemond et al. 1993 [Fig. 2], 2000). Interaction between light and nutrient limitation also was demonstrated by Sabater et al. (2000), who reported that P uptake increased >2× in response to riparian deforestation along a Mediterranean stream, and by Hill and Fanta (2008), who showed that P and light could colimit stream periphyton growth simultaneously. Mulholland and Rosemond (1992) demonstrated the spatial effects of nutrient limitation in streams and showed that stream periphyton became increasingly P limited with distance downstream from nutrient inputs because of upstream uptake and retention of P.

Fine-scale nutrient recycling also is an important nutrient source for stream algae. Peterson and Grimm (1992), building from the seminal paper of Grimm (1987; Fig. 2) on algal succession, biomass development, and nutrient limitation, showed how internal N recycling became more important for meeting nutrient demand during the later stages of succession when large biomass accumulations reduced the availability of water-column nutrients. Similarly, Steinman et al. (1995), building on earlier work by Mulholland et al. (1991), showed that nutrient recycling within dense algal mats that developed in the absence of grazers was a significant nutrient source for P-limited stream periphyton.

In the last decade, work has focused on the relationship between nutrient uptake, algal biomass, and nutrient concentration. In a study of New Zealand streams, Biggs (2000) showed that variation in nutrient concentration explained up to ⅓ of the variation in benthic chlorophyll a across streams. Dodds and Welch (2000; Fig. 2) argued that nutrient criteria were the most effective way of preventing nuisance levels of algal biomass, and Dodds (2003) argued that total N and total P, rather than the dissolved inorganic forms of these nutrients, should be used to define nutrient status and establish nutrient criteria in streams. Dodds et al. (2002) showed that nutrient uptake was controlled by biological kinetics responding to nutrient concentration, but that nutrient uptake did not necessarily saturate at high concentration in streams. However, Newbold et al. (2006) found that uptake of NH4+ and PO43− in streams draining into New York City's drinking-water reservoirs could be described by Michaelis–Menten kinetics with half-saturation concentrations of ∼1 mg N/L and 12 µg P/L, respectively.

Nutrient uptake by heterotrophic organisms, particularly bacteria and fungi associated with decomposing leaves, also is important in streams (e.g., Tank et al. 2000, Webster et al. 2003, Mulholland 2004). At some times, particularly in autumn and winter in forested streams, it can be the dominant mechanism for nutrient uptake.

Role of hyporheic and riparian zones

Among the most significant new developments in stream nutrient dynamics during the past 25 y was identification of the importance of nutrient uptake and recycling in hyporheic and riparian zones. This development broadened the view of stream ecosystems to include more than surface water and benthic surfaces (reviewed in Boulton et al. 2010).

Among the most influential early papers on the role of the hyporheic zone in nutrient cycling was a series of studies by Triska and coworkers (Triska et al. 1989 [Fig. 2], 1990, 1993, Duff and Triska 1990). These papers showed that the hyporheic zone could be both a NO3 source (via nitrification) and sink (via denitrification), depending on the rate of hydrological exchange with surface water, which controlled NO3 supply and redox conditions in the hyporheic zone. Triska et al. (1989) were particularly influential in providing a hydrologic definition of the hyporheic zone (≥10% surface water) and a conceptual model of the role of the hyporheic zone in nutrient cycling. Two excellent short reviews in the mid-1990s (Findlay 1995, Jones and Holmes 1996) and a book shortly thereafter (Jones and Mulholland 2000) helped to stimulate additional work focusing on hydrologic exchange rate and residence time in hyporheic nutrient and organic C cycling and its role in stream nutrient dynamics.

J-NABS played an important role in our understanding of stream nutrient cycling and the hyporheic zone beginning with the paper of Valett et al. (1990; Fig. 2). Valett and colleagues showed that the hyporheic zone was a significant source of nutrients to surface water in Sycamore Creek, Arizona, as mediated by the spatial distribution of hydraulic head (upwelling vs downwelling), which controlled dissolved O2 inputs and mineralization in the hyporheic zone. In the first issue of 1993, J-NABS published a series of papers on various hyporheic zone perspectives organized by Valett, Hakenkamp, and Boulton (Valett et al. 1993). This collection included a paper by Bencala (1993) that presented a catchment perspective on hyporheic zone hydrology and solute dynamics. Papers by Stanford and Ward (1993), Hendricks (1993), and Palmer (1993) touched on the topic of nutrient dynamics, but focused mostly on hydrology and organisms.

A series of 5 J-NABS papers focused specifically on hyporheic N dynamics. In a pair of studies in Sycamore Creek, Holmes et al. (1994) and Jones et al. (1995) showed that the parafluvial (hyporheic zone lateral to the stream channel) and hyporheic zones were sources of NO3 to surface water as a result of mineralization of organic N, nitrification, and flow paths that transported materials from these zones to surface water. Wondzell and Swanson (1996) reported similar findings for a stream in Oregon. Dent et al. (2001) showed that patchy geomorphic features produced characteristic spatial variability in hydrodynamics (upwelling and downwelling) and surface-water nutrient concentrations at scales ranging from a few meters to several kilometers in Sycamore Creek. Last, in an Antarctic stream study published in J-NABS, McKnight et al. (2004) reported that the hyporheic zone beneath seasonal glacial meltwater streams can act as either a NO3 source to benthic algal mats via mineralization or a NO3 sink via denitrification depending on the direction and rate of subsurface flow.

The effect of riparian zones on stream nutrient dynamics has not received much attention in J-NABS. A number of studies published in other journals have shown that the riparian zone can be an important sink for NO3 in groundwater before entering streams (e.g., Peterjohn and Correll 1984, Lowrance et al. 1984, McDowell et al. 1992, Hill 1996 [Fig. 2]). However, Schade et al. (2005b; Fig. 2) showed that the effect can be in the other direction, as well—riparian-zone vegetation can be a significant sink for streamwater N along water flowpaths from the stream to adjacent riparian zones.

N dynamics

In the past decade, studies on the rates and controls on N uptake and retention have become an important part of stream nutrient research. Concern about eutrophication of estuaries and coastal oceans (e.g., seasonal development of dead zones in the Gulf of Mexico, harmful algal blooms in North Carolina estuaries, loss of benthic macrophyte beds in the Chesapeake Bay) and the role of streams as N filters or sinks has driven much of this work.

Several studies in which traditional techniques, such as mass balance, uptake of added nutrients, and nitrapyrin addition (nitrification) or acetylene block (denitrification), were used to explore stream N dynamics were published in J-NABS. Kemp and Dodds (2001) showed how stream algae stimulated nitrification rates via dissolved O2 production, and Strauss et al. (2004) showed that O2 penetration into sediments controls nitrification rates in the Upper Mississippi River. In a study of N fluxes associated with epilithon communities in the River Garonne, France, Teissier et al. (2007) reported a biomass threshold between net N assimilation by autotrophs and net mineralization by heterotrophs at epilithon biomass levels of 23 g ash-free dry mass (AFDM)/m2. In a recent paper, Hoellein et al. (2009) used substratum-specific and whole-stream NO3 addition experiments to show the importance of streambed composition on seasonal variability in reach-scale uptake and the important role of epilithic biofilms for NO3 uptake in forested streams.

A series of papers on denitrification using the acetylene block technique on sediments demonstrated the importance of NO3 concentration and, secondarily, temperature as controlling factors (Martin et al. 2001, Schaller et al. 2004, Strauss et al. 2006). Teissier et al. (2007) also showed that denitrification rates increased with biomass, but only in the dark when O2 was not being produced by the autotrophic component of the biofilm. Ruehl et al. (2007) presented an interesting approach that combined measurements of longitudinal changes in NO3 concentration and stable N and O isotope enrichment factors to evaluate NO3 uptake rates and the role of denitrification (which results in isotopic enrichment of NO3) in the Pajaro River, California.

One of the most important advances in the study of N dynamics in streams was the development of a field tracer 15N addition approach. This approach was first used in a study of NH4+ uptake in the Kuparuk River (Peterson et al. 1997; Fig. 2). Wollheim et al. (1999; Fig. 2) showed how data from field 15N experiments could be coupled with a model to provide a more synoptic view of N cycling in streams, and Hall et al. (1998; Fig. 2) showed how the 15N approach could be used to trace N cycling in stream food webs. Others then used the tracer 15N additions to examine foodweb linkages (Mulholland et al. 2000), preferential use of the upper layer of epilithon by grazers (Rezanka and Hershey 2003), and the relative importance of autochthonous versus allochthonous N in stream food webs (Hamilton et al. 2004).

The 15N addition approach was the basis of a large cross-site study known as the Lotic Intersite Nitrogen Experiment (LINX). In summary papers from the LINX study, Peterson et al. (2001; Fig. 2) and Webster et al. (2003) used experimentally measured average rates of N cycling (gross N uptake and remineralization) to show that instream uptake could reduce N concentrations and flux by an average of ⅔ over a 1-km distance in a 1st-order stream. Mulholland et al. (2004) adapted the 15N addition approach to measure reach-scale NO3 uptake and denitrification in streams, and in a 2nd cross-site study (LINX II), Mulholland and colleagues used it to compare NO3 dynamics in 72 streams draining different land uses across the US (Mulholland et al. 2008 [Fig. 2], 2009a, Hall et al. 2009).

In recent years, several studies have attempted to put stream N uptake into a landscape and even global context by defining the role of streams in N retention in large river basins. This work has resulted in somewhat conflicting views regarding where within the drainage network N retention is most important. Some authors suggest that small streams (generally ≤3rd–4th-order) might control N exports from river networks because of their high surface area to volume ratios and large contribution to total network stream length (Alexander et al. 2000 [Fig. 2], Peterson et al. 2001). Other studies indicate that larger streams and rivers might dominate N removal in drainage networks because of their longer water residence times and transport distances (Seitzinger et al. 2002, Wollheim et al. 2006, Ensign and Doyle 2006). Mulholland et al. (2008) offered an explanation for these conflicting views based on their observation that NO3 uptake and denitrification rates are strongly related to NO3 concentration across many biomes and landuse types. Mulholland et al. (2008) developed a model that used this relationship to predict N retention in a large river basin and showed that the relative significance of small vs large streams is a function of NO3 loading, with the importance of larger streams increasing at high loading rates as the capacity for uptake in smaller streams becomes saturated and a larger fraction of the NO3 load is exported downstream. More recently, Alexander et al. (2009) showed how interactions among N loading, instream denitrification rates, and hydrological factors controlled seasonal as well as spatial variation in N retention within river networks. These landscape or globally oriented stream and river N-uptake papers have not appeared in J-NABS, probably because of the attempt of the authors to reach a broader audience.

Role of consumers in stream nutrient dynamics

The role of anadromous fish migrations as nutrient subsidies enhancing nutrient availability and cycling in streams has been a valuable area of research. Early studies by Richey et al. (1975) and Sugai and Burrell (1984) and more recent studies (e.g., Wipfli et al. 1998, 1999, Johnston et al. 2004) have reported greater primary productivity or epilithic biomass in streams with spawning salmon runs or when salmon carcasses were experimentally added to streams than in streams without salmon, presumably because of the nutrient subsidy provided by salmon. Natural abundance 15N studies have shown that marine-derived N is incorporated into food webs and cycled within stream ecosystems (Kline et al. 1990, Bilby et al. 1996). However, some studies found no effect of spawning fish carcasses on periphyton (Minshall et al. 1991, Rand et al. 1992). A recent study in southeast Alaska streams indicated that salmon clearly increased nutrient concentrations, but responses by epilithon were variable because of factors, such as light limitation and hydrologic disturbance (Mitchell and Lamberti 2006). In a related study focusing on the aquatic insect communities of these Alaskan streams, Lessard and Merritt (2006) found that the positive effect of marine-derived N on abundance and biomass was limited to certain taxa, primarily chironomid midges.

J-NABS has played a modest role as an outlet for work in this area of research. Schuldt and Hershey (1995) used both comparative and experimental approaches to examine the effect of salmon carcass decomposition on Lake Superior tributary streams and found higher P concentrations and periphyton biomass with than without salmon. Schuldt and Hershey (1995) also reported 15N evidence that salmon-derived N cycled through the stream food web. Minakawa et al. (2002) reported increased biomass and growth rate of stream insects with experimentally added salmon carcasses in a Washington stream, primarily as a result of direct consumption of the carcasses by insects. In contrast, Ambrose et al. (2004) reported that salmon carcass additions to northern California streams had no effect on periphyton biomass or primary production, possibly because of light limitation. However, Peterson and Matthews (2009) reported higher periphyton biomass and significant uptake of salmon-derived nutrients by periphyton, bryophytes, and decomposing leaves when salmon carcasses were added to laboratory streams. Summarizing work to date, it appears that spawning runs of salmon and other anadromous fish can provide nutrient subsidies and enhance nutrient uptake in stream ecosystems through both direct feeding by consumers on carcasses and bottom-up enhancement of periphyton productivity by nutrients released during carcass decomposition, but the latter mechanism might be confined to those streams in which light levels are high and nutrients are strongly limiting.

Nutrient retention in urban streams

Recent interest in nutrient cycling and retention in urban streams appears to be driven largely by rapid urbanization and the need for better understanding of nutrient cycling and its controls in urban streams to mitigate or minimize effects of urbanization on stream ecosystem function and basin-scale nutrient retention. Historically, the focus of research on the effects of urbanization on stream nutrient dynamics has been on point-source nutrient inputs from wastewater treatment plants and other facilities. Some studies, including 2 in J-NABS (Meals et al. 1999, Haggard et al. 2005) examined nutrient uptake below wastewater treatment plant effluents.

Much of the recent work on nutrient dynamics in urban streams has been more comprehensive and has evaluated how structural and functional changes caused by urbanization affect nutrient uptake and cycling. In a review of urban streams, Paul and Meyer (2001) noted that ecosystem processes were understudied and nutrient uptake and retention largely ignored, and that urban streams provide opportunities to test stream concepts and to understand and manage ecosystems that include humans. Perhaps in response to the challenges laid out by Paul and Meyer (2001), a special series of papers from a symposium held in Melbourne, Australia, in December 2003 was published in J-NABS Volume 24, Issue 3 (Feminella and Walsh 2005). Several of these papers focused on nutrient dynamics in urban streams. Meyer et al. (2005; Fig. 2) showed that NH4+ and soluble reactive P (SRP) uptake rates decreased with the proportion of urbanized area in the catchment and that this effect appeared to be related to declines in sediment organic matter and the biotic demand for nutrients associated with this material. Groffman et al. (2005) also reported that denitrification could be a significant sink for streamwater NO3 in urban streams, but that denitrification in these geomorphologically unstable systems is limited by the paucity of debris accumulations that provide the conditions necessary for denitrification. Grimm et al. (2005) suggested that some urban modifications to stream networks, such as detention basins and artificial lakes in the Phoenix, Arizona, area could enhance nutrient uptake and retention.

Last, several recent papers have compared N dynamics among urban, agricultural, and forested streams in the same region. O'Brien et al. (2007) used 15N additions to compare NO3uptake among 9 streams of contrasting land use in Kansas and found that NO3 concentration rather than land use per se was the most important factor controlling uptake and denitrification rates. Perhaps somewhat surprisingly, O'Brien and colleagues also reported that uptake rates did not appear to saturate with increasing NO3 concentration when comparing among streams, a finding confirmed in the full LINX II study (Mulholland et al. 2008). Arango and Tank (2008) compared nitrification and denitrification rates among 18 agricultural and urban streams in southwestern Michigan and found that both were positively related to sediment C content, which was not related to land use. However, denitrification was also positively related to NO3 concentration which tended to be higher in agricultural than in urban streams. In a whole-stream 15N addition study conducted in forested, agricultural, and urban streams in northeastern Spain, von Schiller et al. (2009) reported highest rates of NO3 uptake and denitrification in the agricultural stream and intermediate rates in the urban stream, a result that probably reflected the higher NO3 concentrations compared to the forested stream. Epilithon largely accounted for the higher NO3 uptake rates in the agricultural stream, probably because the streambed was largely cobble, and epilithon were more productive under higher NO3 concentration.

Importance of instream uptake for catchment nutrient budgets

An important advance in the understanding of stream nutrient dynamics was the appreciation that nutrient concentrations and flux in streams are not necessarily reflective of the biogeochemistry of the terrestrial ecosystems they drain. The development of the small-catchment approach to terrestrial biogeochemistry with the seminal studies of Likens and Bormann (e.g., Likens et al. 1977) used stream chemistry as the spatial integrator of the net effects of the forest in processing atmospheric inputs, internal cycling of nutrients, and the biogeochemical response to disturbances. Although never explicitly stated, and despite the early recognition by Hynes (1970) that streams affect nutrient concentrations, the underlying assumption (at least by some) was that instream processes would not appreciably alter the signals from terrestrial processes (i.e., streams were largely drainage pipes).

Gradually this view began to change, beginning with papers by Meyer and Likens (1979), Grimm (1987), Munn and Meyer (1990), Mulholland (1992; Fig. 2), and Burns (1998) that showed substantial uptake of N and P within streams. Mulholland used an inverse modeling approach to show that distinct seasonal patterns in NO3 and SRP concentrations were related to instream processes rather than to seasonal changes in the forest (Mulholland and Hill 1997, Mulholland 2004). Peterson et al. (2001) used a model of stream nutrient dynamics and data from cross-site field 15N addition experiments to show that instream processes could remove most of the N entering streams in groundwater within 1 km of its entry. Bernhardt et al. (2003; Fig. 2) showed that the increases in NO3 concentrations commonly observed in response to forest disturbance were highly dampened by instream uptake of NO3 after a severe ice storm that caused extensive forest damage at Hubbard Brook Experimental Forest. In a subsequent paper, Bernhardt et al. (2005) argued that the unexplained long-term decline in NO3 outputs from New England catchments might be caused, in part, by increased uptake in streams as forests have aged and debris dams and organic matter storage in streams has increased. While assimilatory uptake is probably not a long-term sink for N, it might enhance denitrification rates by providing the organic-rich sediments conducive to development of anoxic hotspots for tightly coupled processes of mineralization and denitrification (sensu Seitzinger et al. 2006).

Building on past work in Walker Branch, Roberts and Mulholland (2007) used a mass-balance approach to show that high rates of instream inorganic N retention are related to seasonal peaks of primary production during early spring and of heterotrophic respiration associated with leaf decomposition in autumn. Hall and Tank (2003) also showed tight coupling of NO3 uptake with primary production in streams (see also Tank et al. 2010). Goodale et al. (2009) reported very low stream NO3 concentrations after leaffall in autumn, a pattern increasingly being reported for streams draining deciduous forests and resulting from high rates of instream uptake by heterotrophic microbes during leaf decomposition. A revised concept of catchment nutrient dynamics that includes the active role of stream processes in controlling exports has been nicely summarized by Hall (2003). However, Brookshire et al. (2009) argued that most streams are in longitudinal steady state with no net uptake of nutrients, and thus, stream chemistry can be used as an integrated measure of terrestrial outputs. Clearly, more work is needed on this subject.

Where to Now?

Nutrient dynamics in streams and the role of streams in nutrient retention will remain an important and exciting area of future research. One significant and unresolved issue is the role of streams as landscape nutrient filters at regional and continental scales and what stream properties control this role. Several papers have been published recently on this topic (Alexander et al. 2000, Peterson et al. 2001, Mulholland et al. 2008), but more work is needed. This issue is central to topics, such as the preservation or reestablishment of riparian buffer zones and designing stream restorations. For example, Roberts et al. (2007) demonstrated the importance of woody debris additions for enhancing nutrient uptake in stream restorations.

A better understanding is needed of the rates and controls on nutrient dynamics in larger streams and rivers. Few empirical studies of nutrient dynamics have been done in rivers, but recent modeling efforts have suggested that rivers play a considerable role in nutrient retention at the scale of large drainage basins (Seitzinger et al. 2002, Wollheim et al. 2006). Methodological constraints have limited empirical studies in large rivers (e.g., constant rate 15N addition techniques might be difficult at high discharge), so clever new approaches are needed.

The ultimate fate of nutrients removed from water by benthic organisms in streams and rivers is an important issue for long-term nutrient retention and prevention of eutrophication. Are these nutrients simply released back to the water at or near the location of uptake; transported downstream in particulate organic form during periods of high flow (storms) and deposited in sediments of floodplains, lakes, reservoirs, estuaries, and coastal oceans; or further transformed (e.g., to dissolved organic form) and potentially lost (e.g., denitrification) from the system? What are the factors controlling these fates? These questions must be addressed to provide a full understanding of the role of streams and rivers in landscape nutrient budgets and the eutrophication of lakes, reservoirs, and coastal ecosystems downstream.

Before 1986, stream nutrient studies were mostly about P, and more recent studies have focused more on N. Studies that have considered N and P simultaneously are rare. Ecological stoichiometry (Sterner and Elser 2002) addresses how elemental composition of producers, consumers, and their interactions drive changes in N and P availability and alter nutrient limitation of biotic processes. Ecological stoichiometry has been applied in streams (e.g., Frost et al. 2002 [Fig. 2], Cross et al. 2003, 2005, Dodds et al. 2004, Schade et al. 2005a, Rothlisberger et al. 2008), and we foresee continued advances in our understanding of stream nutrient dynamics coming from additional stoichiometric studies of stream processes.

Climate change and its impacts on stream nutrient dynamics will also be an important area of future research. Stream nutrient dynamics will undoubtedly change as climate changes in the future because the input and cycling of nutrients are strongly influenced by climate (temperature and seasonality, precipitation and runoff). Climate change might influence stream nutrient dynamics as much via indirect effects (e.g., changes in riparian vegetation and light availability, quantity and quality of organic matter inputs; e.g., Mulholland et al. 2009b) as via direct effects. Understanding how climate change is likely to affect stream nutrient dynamics will be critical as we plan how to manage or restore streams to adjust to those changes.

Last, advances in measurement technologies hold exciting promise for future research on nutrient dynamics in streams. Battery-powered in situ sensors with datalogging capabilities that allow unattended field measurement of some nutrients (PO43−, NH4+, NO3) at high frequency (e.g., min–h) have recently become available. Such in situ, high-frequency measurements should allow observation of signals of ecosystem responses (e.g., diurnal, storm-related, disturbance) that have been difficult to detect by manual sampling and that should enhance our understanding of patterns and controls on nutrient dynamics. These measurements also might enhance the use of stream chemistry as a monitoring tool to provide a spatially integrated signal of catchment biogeochemistry. In situ mass spectrometers capable of measuring the stable isotope content of nutrients in water (e.g., 13C, 15N, 18O of dissolved organic and inorganic forms of N and P) are another technology that might not be far off. Stable isotope studies have been influential in understanding nutrient sources and transformations in streams, but the need to sample and process water and organic matter manually has limited the scope and temporal resolution of this information.

Methodological advancements and breakthroughs are often the drivers for major advances in ecosystem science and allow us to ask new questions and view systems with entirely new perspectives. Development of radiotracer techniques, use of stable isotopes, nutrient releases, and nutrient diffusion substrates all contributed significantly to our understanding of stream nutrient dynamics. Future research should benefit greatly from new measurement technologies over the next decade.

Acknowledgments

Partial support for PJM during manuscript preparation was provided by the US Department of Energy, Office of Science, Biological and Environmental Research under contract DE-AC05-00OR22725 with UT-Battelle.

Literature Cited

1.

S. Aiba and H. Ohtake . 1977. Simulation of PO4-P balance in a shallow and polluted river. Water Research 11:159–164. Google Scholar

2.

R. B. Alexander, J. K. Bohlke, E. W. Boyer, M. B. David, J. W. Harvey, P. J. Mulholland, S. P. Seitzinger, C. R. Tobias, C. Tonitto, and W. M. Wollheim . 2009. Dynamic modeling of nitrogen losses in river networks unravels the coupled effects of hydrological and biogeochemical processes. Biogeochemistry 93:91–116. Google Scholar

3.

R. B. Alexander, R. A. Smith, and G. E. Schwarz . 2000. Effect of stream channel size on the delivery of nitrogen to the Gulf of Mexico. Nature 403:758–761. Google Scholar

4.

H. E. Allen and J. R. Kramer . 1972. Nutrients in natural waters Wiley and Sons, New York. Google Scholar

5.

H. E. Ambrose, M. A. Wilzbach, and K. W. Cummins . 2004. Periphyton response to increased light and salmon carcass introduction in northern California streams. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 23:701–712. Google Scholar

6.

C. P. Arango and J. L. Tank . 2008. Land use influences the spatiotemporal controls on nitrification and denitrification in headwater streams. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 27:90–107. Google Scholar

7.

R. C. Ball and F. F. Hooper . 1963. Translocation of phosphorus in a trout stream ecosystem. 217–228. in V. Schultz and A. W. Klement (editors). Radioecology. Reinhold, New York. Google Scholar

8.

R. C. Ball, T. A. Wojtalik, and F. F. Hooper . 1963. Upstream dispersion of radiophosphones in a Michigan trout stream. Michigan Academy of Science, Arts and Letters 48:57–64. Google Scholar

9.

K. E. Bencala 1993. A perspective on stream–catchment connections. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 12:44–47. Google Scholar

10.

K. E. Bencala and R. A. Walters . 1983. Simulation of solute transport in a mountain pool-and-riffle stream: a transient storage model. Water Resources Research 19:718–724. Google Scholar

11.

E. S. Bernhardt, G. E. Likens, D. C. Buso, and C. T. Driscoll . 2003. In-stream uptake dampens effects of major forest disturbance on watershed nitrogen export. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 100:10304–10308. Google Scholar

12.

E. S. Bernhardt, G. E. Likens, R. O. Hall, D. C. Buso, S. G. Fisher, T. M. Burton, J. L. Meyer, W. H. McDowell, M. S. Mayer, W. B. Bowden, S. E. G. Findlay, K. H. MacNeale, R. S. Stelzer, and W. H. Lowe . 2005. Can't see the forest for the stream? In-stream processing and terrestrial nitrogen exports. BioScience 55:219–230. Google Scholar

13.

B. J. F. Biggs 2000. Eutrophication of streams and rivers: dissolved nutrient–chlorophyll relationships for benthic algae. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 19:17–31. Google Scholar

14.

R. E. Bilby, B. R. Fransen, and P. A. Bisson . 1996. Incorporation of nitrogen and carbon from spawning coho salmon into the trophic system of small streams: evidence from stable isotopes. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 55:1909–1918. Google Scholar

15.

H. W. Bond 1979. Nutrient concentration patterns in a stream draining a montane ecosystem in Utah. Ecology 60:1184–1196. Google Scholar

16.

F. H. Bormann, G. E. Likens, D. W. Fisher, and R. S. Pierce . 1968. Nutrient loss accelerated by clear-cutting of a forest ecosystem. Science 159:882–884. Google Scholar

17.

M. L. Bothwell 1985. Phosphorus limitation of lotic periphyton growth rates: an intersite comparison using continuous-flow troughs (Thompson River system, British Columbia). Limnology and Oceanography 30:527–542. Google Scholar

18.

A. J. Boulton, T. Datry, T. Kasahara, M. Mutz, and J. A. Stanford . 2010. Ecology and management of the hyporheic zone: stream–groundwater interactions of running waters and their floodplains. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 29:26–40. Google Scholar

19.

E. N. J. Brookshire, H. M. Valett, and S. Gerber . 2009. Maintenance of terrestrial nutrient loss signatures during in-stream transport. Ecology 90:293–299. Google Scholar

20.

G. W. Brown, A. R. Gahler, and R. B. Marston . 1973. Nutrient losses after clear-cut logging and slash burning in the Oregon Coast Range. Water Resources Research 9:1450–1453. Google Scholar

21.

D. A. Burns 1998. Retention of NO3 in an upland stream environment: a mass balance approach. Biogeochemistry 40:73–96. Google Scholar

22.

H. Casey and P. V. R. Newton . 1972. The chemical composition and flow of the South Winterbourne in Dorset. Freshwater Biology 2:229–234. Google Scholar

23.

H. Casey and P. V. R. Newton . 1973. The chemical composition and flow of the River Frome and its main tributaries. Freshwater Biology 3:317–335. Google Scholar

24.

D. T. Crisp 1970. Input and output of minerals for a small watercress bed fed by chalk water. Journal of Applied Ecology 7:117–140. Google Scholar

25.

W. F. Cross, J. P. Benstead, P. C. Frost, and S. A. Thomas . 2005. Ecological stoichiometry in freshwater benthic systems: recent progress and perspectives. Freshwater Biology 50:1895–1912. Google Scholar

26.

W. F. Cross, J. P. Benstead, A. D. Rosemond, and J. B. Wallace . 2003. Consumer-resource stoichiometry in detritus-based streams. Ecology Letters 6:721–732. Google Scholar

27.

C. E. Cushing 1967. Periphyton productivity and radionuclide accumulation in the Columbia River, Washington, USA. Hydrobiologia 16:125–139. Google Scholar

28.

C. E. Cushing and F. L. Rose . 1970. Cycling of zinc-65 by Columbia River periphyton in a closed lotic microcosm. Limnology and Oceanography 15:762–767. Google Scholar

29.

J. J. Davis and R. F. Foster . 1958. Bioaccumulation of radioisotopes through aquatic food chains. Ecology 39:530–535. Google Scholar

30.

C. L. Dent, N. B. Grimm, and S. G. Fisher . 2001. Multiscale effects of surface–subsurface exchange on stream water nutrient concentrations. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 20:162–181. Google Scholar

31.

W. K. Dodds 2003. Misuse of inorganic N and soluble reactive P concentrations to indicate nutrient status of surface waters. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 22:171–181. Google Scholar

32.

W. K. Dodds, A. J. Lopez, W. B. Bowden, S. Gregory, N. B. Grimm, S. K. Hamilton, A. E. Hershey, E. Martí, W. H. McDowell, J. L. Meyer, D. Morrall, P. J. Mulholland, B. J. Peterson, J. L. Tank, H. M. Valett, J. R. Webster, and W. Wollheim . 2002. Nitrogen uptake as a function of concentration in streams. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 21:206–220. Google Scholar

33.

W. K. Dodds, E. Martí, J. L. Tank, J. Pontius, S. K. Hamilton, N. B. Grimm, W. B. Bowden, W. H. McDowell, B. J. Peterson, H. M. Valett, J. R. Webster, and S. Gregory . 2004. Carbon and nitrogen stoichiometry and nitrogen cycling rates in streams. Oecologia (Berlin) 140:458–467. Google Scholar

34.

W. K. Dodds and E. B. Welch . 2000. Establishing nutrient criteria in streams. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 19:186–196. Google Scholar

35.

M. W. Doyle 2005. Incorporating hydrologic variability into nutrient spiraling. Journal of Geophysical Research 110:G01003. doi:10.1029/2005JG000015. Google Scholar

36.

J. H. Duff and F. J. Triska . 1990. Denitrification in sediments from the hyporheic zone adjacent to a small forested stream. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 47:1140–1147. Google Scholar

37.

J. H. Duff, F. J. Triska, and R. S. Oremland . 1984. Denitrification associated with stream periphyton: chamber estimates from undisturbed communities. Journal of Environmental Quality 13:514–518. Google Scholar

38.

A. G. Durbin, S. W. Nixon, and C. A. Oviatt . 1979. Effects of the spawning immigration of the alewife, Alosa pseudohorengus, in freshwater ecosystems. Ecology 60:8–17. Google Scholar

39.

A. M. C. Edwards 1974. Silicon depletions in some Norfolk rivers. Freshwater Biology 4:267–274. Google Scholar

40.

J. W. Elwood and D. J. Nelson . 1972. Periphyton production and grazing rates in a stream measured with a 32P material balance method. Oikos 23:295–303. Google Scholar

41.

J. W. Elwood, J. D. Newbold, A. F. Trimble, and R. W. Stark . 1981. The limiting role of phosphorus in a woodland stream ecosystem: effects of P enrichment on leaf decomposition and primary producers. Ecology 62:146–158. Google Scholar

42.

S. H. Ensign and M. W. Doyle . 2006. Nutrient spiraling in streams and river networks. Journal of Geophysical Research 111:G04009. doi:10.1029/2005JG000114. Google Scholar

43.

G. W. Fairchild, R. L. Lowe, and W. B. Richardson . 1985. Algal periphyton growth on nutrient-diffusing substrates: an in situ bioassay. Ecology 66:465–472. Google Scholar

44.

J. W. Feminella and C. J. Walsh . 2005. Urbanization and stream ecology: an introduction to the series. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 24:585–587. Google Scholar

45.

S. Findlay 1995. Importance of surface-subsurface exchange in stream ecosystems: the hyporheic zone. Limnology and Oceanography 40:159–164. Google Scholar

46.

S. G. Fisher, N. B. Grimm, E. Martí, R. M. Holmes, and J. B. Jones . 1998. Material spiraling in stream corridors: a telescoping ecosystem model. Ecosystems 1:19–34. Google Scholar

47.

E. J. Fittkau 1970. Role of caimans in the nutrient regime of mouth-lakes of Amazon effluents (an hypothesis). Biotropica 2:138–142. Google Scholar

48.

S. N. Francoeur 2001. Meta-analysis of lotic nutrient amendment experiments: detecting and quantifying subtle responses. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 20:358–368. Google Scholar

49.

P. C. Frost, R. S. Stelzer, G. A. Lamberti, and J. J. Elser . 2002. Ecological stoichiometry of trophic interactions in the benthos. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 21:515–528. Google Scholar

50.

K. Gardner and O. Skulberg . 1966. Experimental investigation on the accumulation of radioisotopes by fresh water biota. Acta Hydrobiologia 62:50–69. Google Scholar

51.

R. J. Gibbs 1970. Mechanisms controlling world water chemistry. Science 170:1088–1090. Google Scholar

52.

H. L. Golterman 1975. Chemistry. 39–80. in B. A. Whitton (editors). River ecology. University of California Press, Berkeley, California. Google Scholar

53.

C. L. Goodale, S. A. Thomas, G. Fredriksen, E. M. Elliott, K. M. Flinn, T. J. Butler, and M. T. Walter . 2009. Unusual seasonal patterns and inferred processes of nitrogen retention in forested headwaters of the Upper Susquehanna River. Biogeochemistry 93:197–218. Google Scholar

54.

E. Gray 1951. The ecology of the bacteria in Hogson's Brook, a Cambridgeshire chalk stream. Journal of General Microbiology 5:840–859. Google Scholar

55.

S. V. Gregory 1978. Phosphorus dynamics on organic and inorganic substrates in streams. Verhandlungen der Internationalen Vereinigung für theoretische und angewandte Limnologie 20:1340–1346. Google Scholar

56.

N. B. Grimm 1987. Nitrogen dynamics during succession in a desert stream. Ecology 68:1157–1170. Google Scholar

57.

N. B. Grimm and S. G. Fisher . 1986. Nitrogen limitation in a Sonoran Desert stream. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 5:2–15. Google Scholar

58.

N. B. Grimm, R. W. Sheibley, C. L. Crenshaw, C. N. Dahm, W. J. Roach, and L. H. Zeglin . 2005. N retention and transformation in urban streams. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 24:626–642. Google Scholar

59.

P. M. Groffman, A. M. Dorsey, and P. M. Mayer . 2005. N processing within geomorphic structures in urban streams. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 24:613–625. Google Scholar

60.

B. E. Haggard, E. H. Stanley, and D. E. Storm . 2005. Nutrient retention in a point-source-enriched stream. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 24:29–47. Google Scholar

61.

C. A. S. Hall 1972. Migration and metabolism in a temperate stream ecosystem. Ecology 53:585–604. Google Scholar

62.

R. O. Hall 2003. A stream's role in watershed nutrient export. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science of the United States of America 100:10137–10138. Google Scholar

63.

R. O. Hall, B. J. Peterson, and J. L. Meyer . 1998. Testing a nitrogen-cycling model of a forest stream by using a nitrogen-15 tracer addition. Ecosystems 1:283–298. Google Scholar

64.

R. O. Hall and J. L. Tank . 2003. Ecosystem metabolism controls nitrogen uptake in streams in Grand Teton National Park, Wyoming. Limnology and Oceanography 48:1120–1128. Google Scholar

65.

R. O. Hall, J. L. Tank, D. J. Sobota, P. J. Mulholland, J. M. O'Brien, W. K. Dodds, J. R. Webster, H. M. Valett, G. C. Poole, B. J. Peterson, J. L. Meyer, W. H. McDowell, S. L. Johnson, S. K. Hamilton, N. B. Grimm, S. V. Gregory, C. N. Dahm, L. W. Cooper, L. R. Ashkenas, S. M. Thomas, R. W. Sheibley, J. D. Potter, B. R. Niederlehner, L. Johnson, A. M. Helton, C. Crenshaw, A. J. Burgin, M. J. Bernot, J. J. Beaulieu, and C. Arango . 2009. Nitrate removal in stream ecosystems measured by 15N addition experiments: total uptake. Limnology and Oceanography 54:653–665. Google Scholar

66.

S. K. Hamilton, J. L. Tank, D. F. Raikow, E. R. Siler, N. J. Dorn, and N. E. Leonard . 2004. The role of instream vs allochthonous N in stream food webs: modeling the results of an isotope addition experiment. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 23:429–448. Google Scholar

67.

S. P. Hendricks 1993. Microbial ecology of the hyporheic zone: a perspective integrating hydrology and biology. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 12:70–78. Google Scholar

68.

A. R. Hill 1979. Denitrification in the nitrogen budget of a river ecosystem. Nature 281:291–292. Google Scholar

69.

A. R. Hill 1996. Nitrate removal in stream riparian zones. Journal of Environmental Quality 25:743–755. Google Scholar

70.

W. R. Hill and S. E. Fanta . 2008. Phosphorus and light colimit periphyton growth at subsaturating irradiances. Freshwater Biology 53:215–225. Google Scholar

71.

W. R. Hill and A. W. Knight . 1988. Nutrient and light limitation of algae in two northern California streams. Journal of Phycology 24:125–132. Google Scholar

72.

T. J. Hoellein, J. L. Tank, E. J. Rosi-Marshall, and S. A. Entrekin . 2009. Temporal variation in substratum-specific rates of N uptake and metabolism and their contribution at the stream-reach scale. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 28:305–318. Google Scholar

73.

R. M. Holmes, S. G. Fisher, and N. B. Grimm . 1994. Parafluvial nitrogen dynamics in a desert stream ecosystem. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 13:468–478. Google Scholar

74.

A. J. Horne and C. J. W. Carniggelt . 1975. Algal nitrogen fixation in California streams: seasonal cycles. Freshwater Biology 5:461–470. Google Scholar

75.

A. G. Huntsman 1948. Fertility and fertilization of streams. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 7:248–253. Google Scholar

76.

G. E. Hutchinson and V. T. Bowen . 1947. A direct demonstration of the phosphorus cycle in a small lake. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 33:148–153. Google Scholar

77.

H. B. N. Hynes 1960. The biology of polluted waters University of Toronto Press, Toronto, Ontario. Google Scholar

78.

H. B. N. Hynes 1969. The enrichment of streams. 188–196. in. Eutrophication: causes, consequences, correctives National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC. Google Scholar

79.

H. B. N. Hynes 1970. The ecology of running waters University of Toronto Press, Toronto, Ontario. Google Scholar

80.

H. B. N. Hynes 1975. The stream and its valley. Verhandlungen der Internationalen Vereinigung für theoretische und angewandte Limnologie 19:1–15. Google Scholar

81.

P. L. Johnson and W. T. Swank . 1973. Studies of cation budgets in the southern Appalachians on four experimental watersheds with contrasting vegetation. Ecology 54:70–80. Google Scholar

82.

N. T. Johnston, E. A. MacIsaac, P. J. Tschaplinski, and K. J. Hall . 2004. Effects of the abundance of spawning sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) on nutrients and algal biomass in forested streams. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 61:384–403. Google Scholar

83.

J. B. Jones, S. G. Fisher, and N. B. Grimm . 1995. Nitrification in the hyporheic zone of a desert stream ecosystem. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 14:249–258. Google Scholar

84.

J. B. Jones and R. M. Holmes . 1996. Surface-subsurface interactions in stream ecosystems. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 11:239–242. Google Scholar

85.

J. B. Jones and P. J. Mulholland . 2000. Streams and ground waters Academic Press, San Diego, California. Google Scholar

86.

C. Juday, W. W. Rich, G. I. Kemmerer, and A. Mann . 1932. Limnological studies of Karluk Lake, Alaska, 1926–1930. Bulletin of the United States Bureau of Fisheries 47:407–436. Google Scholar

87.

W. K. Kaushik and H. B. N. Hynes . 1968. Experimental study on the role of autumn shed leaves in aquatic environments. Journal of Ecology 56:229–245. Google Scholar

88.

M. J. Kemp and W. K. Dodds . 2001. Centimeter-scale patterns in dissolved oxygen and nitrification rates in a prairie stream. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 20:347–357. Google Scholar

89.

L. E. Keup 1968. Phosphorus in flowing waters. Water Research 2:373–386. Google Scholar

90.

N. R. Kevern 1964. Strontium and calcium uptake by the green alga, Oocystis eremosphaeria. Science 145:1445–1446. Google Scholar

91.

T. C. Kline, J. J. Goering, O. A. Mathisen, and P. H. Poe . 1990. Recycling of elements transported upstream by runs of pacific salmon: 1. 15N and 13C evidence in Sashin Creek, southeastern Alaska. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 47:136–144. Google Scholar

92.

J. L. Lessard and R. W. Merritt . 2006. Influence of marine-derived nutrients from spawning salmon on aquatic insect communities in southeast Alaskan streams. Oikos 113:334–343. Google Scholar

93.

G. E. Likens, F. H. Borman, R. S. Pierce, J. S. Eaton, and N. M. Johnson . 1977. Biogeochemistry of a forested ecosystem Springer, New York. Google Scholar

94.

K. Lohman, J. R. Jones, and C. Baysinger-Daniel . 1991. Experimental evidence for nitrogen limitation in a northern Ozark stream. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 10:14–23. Google Scholar

95.

R. L. Lowe, S. W. Golladay, and J. R. Webster . 1986. Periphyton response to nutrient manipulation in streams draining clearcut and forested watersheds. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 5:221–229. Google Scholar

96.

R. Lowrance, R. Todd, J. Fail, O. Hendrickson, and R. Leonard . 1984. Riparian forests as nutrient filters in agricultural watersheds. BioScience 34:374–377. Google Scholar

97.

A. M. Marcarelli, M. A. Baker, and W. A. Wurtsbaugh . 2008. Is in-stream N2 fixation an important N source for benthic communities and stream ecosystems? Journal of the North American Benthological Society 27:186–211. Google Scholar

98.

L. A. Martin, P. J. Mulholland, J. R. Webster, and H. M. Valett . 2001. Denitrification in sediments of headwater streams in the southern Appalachian Mountains, USA. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 20:505–519. Google Scholar

99.

C. P. Mathews and A. Kowalczewski . 1969. The disappearance of leaf litter and its contribution to production in the River Thames. Journal of Ecology 57:543–552. Google Scholar

100.

R. H. S. McColl 1974. Self-purification of small freshwater streams: phosphate, nitrate, and ammonia removal. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 8:375–388. Google Scholar

101.

W. H. McDowell, W. B. Bowden, and C. E. Ashbury . 1992. Riparian nitrogen dynamics in two geomorphologically distinct tropical rain forest watersheds: subsurface solute patterns. Biogeochemistry 18:53–75. Google Scholar

102.

D. M. McKnight, R. L. Runkel, C. M. Tate, J. H. Duff, and D. L. Moorhead . 2004. Inorganic N and P dynamics of Antarctic glacial meltwater streams as controlled by hyporheic exchange and benthic autotrophic communities. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 23:171–188. Google Scholar

103.

D. W. Meals, S. N. Levine, D. Wang, J. P. Hoffmann, E. A. Cassell, J. C. Drake, D. K. Pelton, H. M. Galarneau, and A. B. Brown . 1999. Retention of spike additions of soluble phosphorus in a northern eutrophic stream. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 18:185–198. Google Scholar

104.

J. L. Meyer and G. E. Likens . 1979. Transport and transformation of phosphorus in a forest stream ecosystem. Ecology 60:1255–1269. Google Scholar

105.

J. L. Meyer, W. H. McDowell, T. L. Bott, J. W. Elwood, C. Ishizaki, J. M. Melack, B. L. Peckarsky, B. J. Peterson, and P. A. Rublee . 1988. Elemental dynamics in streams. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 7:410–432. Google Scholar

106.

J. L. Meyer, M. J. Paul, and W. K. Taulbee . 2005. Stream ecosystem function in urbanizing landscapes. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 24:602–612. Google Scholar

107.

N. Minakawa, R. I. Gara, and J. M. Honea . 2002. Increased individual growth rate and community biomass of stream insects associated with salmon carcasses. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 21:651–659. Google Scholar

108.

G. W. Minshall, E. Hitchcock, and J. R. Barnes . 1991. Decomposition of rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) carcasses in a forest stream ecosystem inhabited only by nonanadromous fish populations. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 48:191–195. Google Scholar

109.

N. L. Mitchell and G. A. Lamberti . 2006. Responses in dissolved nutrients and epilithon abundance to spawning salmon in southeast Alaska streams. Limnology and Oceanography 50:217–227. Google Scholar

110.

P. J. Mulholland 1992. Regulation of nutrient concentrations in a temperate forest stream: roles of upland, riparian, and instream processes. Limnology and Oceanography 37:1512–1526. Google Scholar

111.

P. J. Mulholland 2004. The importance of in-stream uptake for regulating stream concentrations and outputs of N and P from a forested watershed: evidence from long-term chemistry records for Walker Branch Watershed. Biogeochemistry 70:403–426. Google Scholar

112.

P. J. Mulholland, J. W. Elwood, J. D. Newbold, and L. A. Ferren . 1985. Effect of a leaf-shredding invertebrate on organic matter dynamics and phosphorus spiralling in heterotrophic laboratory streams. Oecologia (Berlin) 66:199–206. Google Scholar

113.

P. J. Mulholland, R. O. Hall, D. J. Sobota, W. K. Dodds, S. Findlay, N. B. Grimm, S. K. Hamilton, W. H. McDowell, J. M. O'Brien, J. L. Tank, L. R. Ashkenas, L. W. Cooper, C. N. Dahm, S. V. Gregory, S. L. Johnson, J. L. Meyer, B. J. Peterson, G. C. Poole, H. M. Valett, J. R. Webster, C. Arango, J. J. Beaulieu, M. J. Bernot, A. J. Burgin, C. Crenshaw, A. M. Helton, L. Johnson, B. R. Niederlehner, J. D. Potter, R. W. Sheibley, and S. M. Thomas . 2009a. Nitrate removal in stream ecosystems measured by 15N addition experiments: denitrification. Limnology and Oceanography 54:666–680. Google Scholar

114.

P. J. Mulholland, A. M. Helton, G. C. Poole, R. O. Hall, S. K. Hamilton, B. J. Peterson, J. L. Tank, L. R. Ashkenas, L. W. Cooper, C. N. Dahm, W. K. Dodds, S. Findlay, S. V. Gregory, N. B. Grimm, S. L. Johnson, W. H. McDowell, J. L. Meyer, H. M. Valett, J. R. Webster, C. Arango, J. J. Beaulieu, M. J. Bernot, A. J. Burgin, C. Crenshaw, L. Johnson, J. Merriam, B. R. Niederlehner, J. M. O'Brien, J. D. Potter, R. W. Sheibley, D. J. Sobota, and S. M. Thomas . 2008. Excess nitrate from agricultural and urban areas reduces denitrification efficiency in streams. Nature 452:202–205. Google Scholar

115.

P. J. Mulholland and W. R. Hill . 1997. Seasonal patterns in streamwater nutrient and dissolved organic carbon concentrations: separating catchment flow path and in-stream effects. Water Resources Research 33:1297–1306. Google Scholar

116.

P. J. Mulholland, B. J. Roberts, W. R. Hill, and J. G. Smith . 2009b. Stream ecosystem responses to the 2007 spring freeze in the southeastern United States: unexpected effects of climate change. Global Change Biology 15:1767–1776. Google Scholar

117.

P. J. Mulholland and A. D. Rosemond . 1992. Periphyton response to longitudinal nutrient depletion in a first-order stream. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 11:405–419. Google Scholar

118.

P. J. Mulholland, A. D. Steinman, A. V. Palumbo, J. W. Elwood, and D. B. Kirschtel . 1991. Role of nutrient recycling and herbivory in regulating periphyton communities in laboratory streams. Ecology 72:966–982. Google Scholar

119.

P. J. Mulholland, J. L. Tank, D. M. Sanzone, W. M. Wollheim, B. J. Peterson, J. R. Webster, and J. L. Meyer . 2000. Food web relationships in a forested stream determined by natural abundance and experimental 15N-tracer studies. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 19:145–157. Google Scholar

120.

P. J. Mulholland, J. L. Tank, J. R. Webster, W. B. Bowden, W. K. Dodds, S. V. Gregory, N. B. Grimm, S. K. Hamilton, S. L. Johnson, E. Martí, W. H. McDowell, J. Merriam, J. L. Meyer, B. J. Peterson, H. M. Valett, and W. M. Wollheim . 2002. Can uptake length in streams be determined by nutrient addition experiments? Results from an inter-biome comparison study. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 21:544–560. Google Scholar

121.

P. J. Mulholland, H. M. Valett, J. R. Webster, S. A. Thomas, L. N. Cooper, S. K. Hamilton, and B. J. Peterson . 2004. Stream denitrification and total nitrate uptake rates measured using a field 15N isotope tracer approach. Limnology and Oceanography 49:809–820. Google Scholar

122.

N. L. Munn and J. L. Meyer . 1990. Habitat-specific solute retention in two small streams: an intersite comparison. Ecology 71:2069–2082. Google Scholar

123.

J. K. Neal 1951. Interrelationships of certain physical and chemical features in a headwater limestone stream. Ecology 32:368–391. Google Scholar

124.

D. J. Nelson, N. R. Kevern, J. L. Wilhm, and N. A. Griffith . 1969. Estimates of periphyton mass and stream bottom areas using phosphorus-32. Water Resources 3:367–373. Google Scholar

125.

J. D. Newbold, T. L. Bott, L. A. Kaplan, C. L. Dow, J. K. Jackson, A. K. Aufdenkampe, L. A. Martin, D. J. Van Horn, and A. A. de Long . 2006. Uptake of nutrients and organic C in streams in New York City drinking-water supply watersheds. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 25:998–1017. Google Scholar

126.

J. D. Newbold, J. W. Elwood, R. V. O'Neill, and A. L. Sheldon . 1983a. Phosphorus dynamics in a woodland stream ecosystem: a study of nutrient spiralling. Ecology 64:1249–1265. Google Scholar

127.

J. D. Newbold, J. W. Elwood, R. V. O'Neill, and W. Van Winkle . 1981. Measuring nutrient spiralling in streams. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 38:860–863. Google Scholar

128.

J. D. Newbold, J. W. Elwood, M. S. Schulze, R. W. Stark, and J. C. Barmeier . 1983b. Continuous ammonium enrichment of a woodland stream: uptake kinetics, leaf decomposition, and nitrification. Freshwater Biology 13:193–204. Google Scholar

129.

J. M. O'Brien, W. K. Dodds, K. C. Wilson, J. N. Murdock, and J. Eichmiller . 2007. The saturation of N cycling in Central Plains streams: 15N experiments across a broad gradient of nitrate concentrations. Biogeochemistry 84:31–49. Google Scholar

130.

M. Owens, J. H. W. Garland, I. C. Hand, and G. Wood . 1972. Nutrient budgets in rivers. Symposium of the Zoological Society of London 29:21–46. Google Scholar

131.

M. A. Palmer 1993. Experimentation in the hyporheic zone: challenges and prospectus. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 12:84–93. Google Scholar

132.

M. J. Paul and J. L. Meyer . 2001. Streams in the urban landscape. Annual Review Ecology and Systematics 32:333–365. Google Scholar

133.

R. A. Payn, J. R. Webster, P. J. Mulholland, H. M. Valett, and W. K. Dodds . 2005. Estimation of stream nutrient uptake from nutrient addition experiments. Limnology and Oceanography Methods 3:174–182. Google Scholar

134.

W. T. Peterjohn and D. L. Correll . 1984. Nutrient dynamics in an agricultural watershed: observations on the role of the riparian forest. Ecology 65:1466–1475. Google Scholar

135.

B. J. Peterson, M. Bahr, and G. W. Kling . 1997. A tracer investigation of nitrogen cycling in a pristine tundra river. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 54:2361–2367. Google Scholar

136.

B. J. Peterson, J. E. Hobbie, A. E. Hershey, M. A. Lock, T. E. Ford, J. R. Vestal, V. L. McKinley, M. A. J. Hullar, M. C. Miller, R. M. Ventullo, and G. S. Volk . 1985. Transformation of a tundra river from heterotrophy to autotrophy by addition of phosphorus. Science 229:1383–1386. Google Scholar

137.

B. J. Peterson, W. M. Wollheim, P. J. Mulholland, J. R. Webster, J. L. Meyer, J. L. Tank, E. Martí, W. B. Bowden, H. M. Valett, A. E. Hershey, W. H. McDowell, W. K. Dodds, S. K. Hamilton, S. Gregory, and D. J. Morrall . 2001. Control of nitrogen export from watersheds by headwater streams. Science 292:86–90. Google Scholar

138.

C. G. Peterson and N. B. Grimm . 1992. Temporal variation in enrichment effects during periphyton succession in a nitrogen-limited desert stream ecosystem. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 11:20–36. Google Scholar

139.

M. Peterson and R. Matthews . 2009. Retention of salmon-derived N and P by bryophytes and microbiota in mesocosm streams. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 28:352–359. Google Scholar

140.

G. C. Poole 2010. Stream hydrogeomorphology as a physical science basis for advances in stream ecology. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 29:12–25. Google Scholar

141.

C. M. Pringle and J. A. Bowers . 1984. An in situ substratum fertilization technique: diatom colonization on nutrient-enriched, sand substrata. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 41:1247–1251. Google Scholar

142.

C. M. Pringle, P. Paaby-Hansen, P. D. Vaux, and C. R. Goldman . 1986. In situ nutrient assays of periphyton growth in a lowland Costa Rican stream. Hydrobiologia 134:207–213. Google Scholar

143.

P. S. Rand, C. A. S. Hall, W. H. McDowell, N. H. Ringler, and J. G. Kennen . 1992. Factors limiting primary productivity in Lake Ontario tributaries receiving salmon migrations. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 49:2377–2385. Google Scholar

144.

K. M. Rezanka and A. E. Hershey . 2003. Examining primary producer-consumer interactions in a Lake Superior tributary using 15N-tracer, grazer reduction, and nutrient-bioassay experiments. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 22:371–387. Google Scholar

145.

J. E. Richey, M. A. Perkins, and C. R. Goldman . 1975. Effects of Kokanee salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) decomposition on the ecology of a subalpine stream. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 32:817–820. Google Scholar

146.

B. J. Roberts and P. J. Mulholland . 2007. In-stream biotic control on nutrient biogeochemistry in a forested headwater stream, West Fork of Walker Branch. Journal of Geophysical Research 112:G04002. doi: 10.1029/2007JG000422. Google Scholar

147.

B. J. Roberts, P. J. Mulholland, and J. N. Houser . 2007. Effects of upland disturbance and in-stream restorations on hydrodynamics and ammonium uptake in headwater streams. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 26:38–53. Google Scholar

148.

A. D. Rosemond 1994. Multiple factors limit seasonal variation in periphyton in a forest stream. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 13:333–344. Google Scholar

149.

A. D. Rosemond, P. J. Mulholland, and S. H. Brawley . 2000. Seasonally shifting limitation of stream periphyton: response of algal populations and assemblage biomass and productivity to variation in light, nutrients, and herbivores. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 57:66–75. Google Scholar

150.

A. D. Rosemond, P. J. Mulholland, and J. W. Elwood . 1993. Top-down and bottom-up control of periphyton in a woodland stream: effects of and between nutrients and herbivores. Ecology 74:1264–1280. Google Scholar

151.

J. D. Rothlisberger, M. A. Baker, and P. C. Frost . 2008. Effects of periphyton stoichiometry on mayfly excretion rates and nutrient ratios. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 27:497–508. Google Scholar

152.

C. R. Ruehl, A. T. Fisher, M. Los Huertos, S. D. Wankel, C. G. Wheat, C. Kendall, C. E. Hatch, and C. Shennan . 2007. Nitrate dynamics within the Pajaro River, a nutrient-rich, losing stream. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 26:191–206. Google Scholar

153.

R. L. Runkel 2007. Toward a transport-based analysis of nutrient spiraling and uptake in streams. Limnology and Oceanography Methods 5:50–62. Google Scholar

154.

F. Sabater, A. Butturini, E. Martí, I. Munoz, A. Romani, J. Wray, and S. Sabater . 2000. Effects of riparian vegetation removal on nutrient retention in a Mediterranean stream. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 19:609–620. Google Scholar

155.

J. D. Schade, J. F. Espeleta, C. A. Klausmeier, M. E. McGroddy, S. A. Thomas, and L. Zhang . 2005a. A conceptual framework for ecosystem stoichiometry: balancing resource supply and demand. Oikos 109:40–51. Google Scholar

156.

J. D. Schade, J. R. Welter, E. Martí, and N. B. Grimm . 2005b. Hydrologic exchange and N uptake by riparian vegetation in an arid-land stream. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 24:19–28. Google Scholar

157.

J. L. Schaller, T. V. Royer, M. B. David, and J. L. Tank . 2004. Denitrification associated with plants and sediments in an agricultural stream. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 23:667–676. Google Scholar

158.

J. A. Schuldt and A. E. Hershey . 1995. Effect of salmon carcass decomposition on Lake Superior tributary streams. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 14:259–268. Google Scholar

159.

S. Seitzinger, A. Harrison, J. K. Böhlke, A. F. Bouwman, R. Lowrance, B. Peterson, C. Tobias, and G. Van Drecht . 2006. Denitrification across landscapes and waterscapes: a synthesis. Ecological Applications 16:2064–2090. Google Scholar

160.

S. P. Seitzinger, R. V. Styles, E. W. Boyer, R. B. Alexander, G. Billen, R. W. Howarth, B. Mayer, and N. Van Breemen . 2002. Nitrogen retention in rivers: model development and application to watersheds in the northeastern U.S.A. Biogeochemistry 57/58:199–237. Google Scholar

161.

E. Stake 1968. Higher vegetation and phosphorus in a small stream in central Sweden. Schweizerische Zeitschrift für Hydrologie 30:353–373. Google Scholar

162.

J. A. Stanford and J. V. Ward . 1993. An ecosystem perspective of alluvial rivers: connectivity and the hyporheic corridor. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 12:48–60. Google Scholar

163.

A. D. Steinman, P. J. Mulholland, and J. J. Beauchamp . 1995. Phosphorus cycling and biomass accrual in stream periphyton communities. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 14:371–381. Google Scholar

164.

R. W. Sterner and J. J. Elser . 2002. Ecological stoichiometry: the biology of elements from molecules to the biosphere Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey. Google Scholar

165.

J. G. Stockner and K. R. S. Shortreed . 1976. Autotrophic production in Carnation Creek, a coastal rainforest stream on Vancouver Island, British Columbia. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 33:1553–1563. Google Scholar

166.

J. G. Stockner and K. R. S. Shortreed . 1978. Enhancement of autotrophic production by nutrient addition in a coastal rainforest stream on Vancouver Island. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 35:28–34. Google Scholar

167.

E. A. Strauss, W. B. Richardson, L. A. Bartsch, J. C. Cavanaugh, D. A. Bruesewitz, H. Imker, J. A. Heinz, and D. M. Soballe . 2004. Nitrification in the Upper Mississippi River: patterns, controls, and contribution to the NO3 budget. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 23:1–14. Google Scholar

168.

E. A. Strauss, W. B. Richardson, J. C. Cavanaugh, L. A. Bartsch, R. M. Kreiling, and A. J. Standorf . 2006. Variability and regulation of denitrification in an Upper Mississippi river backwater. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 25:596–606. Google Scholar

169.

Stream Solute Workshop 1990. Concepts and methods for assessing solute dynamics in stream ecosystems. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 9:95–119. Google Scholar

170.

S. F. Sugai and D. C. Burrell . 1984. Transport of dissolved organic carbon, nutrients, and trace metals from the Wilson and Blossom rivers to Smeaton Bay, southeast Alaska. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 41:180–190. Google Scholar

171.

J. F. Talling 1958. The longitudinal succession of water characteristics in the White Nile. Hydrobiologia 11:73–89. Google Scholar

172.

J. L. Tank, J. L. Meyer, D. M. Sanzone, P. J. Mulholland, J. R. Webster, B. J. Peterson, W. M. Wollheim, and N. E. Leonard . 2000. Analysis of nitrogen cycling in a forest stream during autumn using a 15N tracer addition. Limnology and Oceanography 45:1013–1029. Google Scholar

173.

J. L. Tank, E. Rosi-Marshall, M. A. Baker, and R. O. Hall . 2008. Are rivers just big streams? A pulse method to quantify nitrogen demand in a large river. Ecology 89:2935–2945. Google Scholar

174.

J. L. Tank, E. J. Rosi-Marshall, N. A. Griffiths, S. A. Entrekin, and M. L. Stephen . 2010. A review of allochthonous organic matter dynamics and metabolism in streams. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 29:118–146. Google Scholar

175.

S. Teissier, M. Torre, F. Delmas, and F. Garabétian . 2007. Detailing biogeochemical N budgets in riverine epilithic biofilms. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 26:178–190. Google Scholar

176.

T. S. Traaen 1978. Effects of effluents from a variety of sewage treatment methods on primary productivity, respiration and algal communities in artificial stream channels. Verhandlungen der Internationalen Vereinigung für theoretische und angewandte Limnologie 20:1767–1771. Google Scholar

177.

F. J. Triska, J. H. Duff, and R. J. Avanzino . 1990. Influence of exchange flow between the channel and hyporheic zone on nitrate production in a small mountain stream. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 47:2099–2111. Google Scholar

178.

F. J. Triska, J. H. Duff, and R. J. Avanzino . 1993. Patterns of hydrological exchange and nutrient transformation in the hyporheic zone of a gravel-bottom stream: examining terrestrial-aquatic linkages. Freshwater Biology 29:259–274. Google Scholar

179.

F. J. Triska, V. C. Kennedy, R. J. Avanzino, G. W. Zellweger, and K. E. Bencala . 1989. Retention and transport of nutrients in a third-order stream in northwestern California: hyporheic processes. Ecology 70:1893–1905. Google Scholar

180.

F. J. Triska and J. R. Sedell . 1976. Decomposition of four species of leaf litter in response to nitrate manipulation. Ecology 57:783–792. Google Scholar

181.

H. M. Valett, S. G. Fisher, and E. H. Stanley . 1990. Physical and chemical characteristics of the hyporheic zone of a Sonoran Desert stream. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 9:201–215. Google Scholar

182.

H. M. Valett, C. C. Hakenkamp, and A. J. Boulton . 1993. Perspectives on the hyporheic zone: integrating hydrology and biology. Introduction. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 12:40–43. Google Scholar

183.

P. M. Vitousek and W. A. Reiners . 1975. Ecosystem succession and nutrient retention: a hypothesis. BioScience 25:376–381. Google Scholar

184.

D. von Schiller, E. Martí, and J. L. Riera . 2009. Nitrate retention and removal in Mediterranean streams bordered by contrasting land uses: a 15N tracer study. Biogeosciences 6:181–196. Google Scholar

185.

C. E. Warren, J. H. Wales, G. E. Davis, and P. Doudoroff . 1964. Trout production in an experimental stream enriched with sucrose. Journal of Wildlife Management 28:617–660. Google Scholar

186.

J. R. Webster, P. J. Mulholland, J. L. Tank, H. M. Valett, W. K. Dodds, B. J. Peterson, W. B. Bowden, C. N. Dahm, S. Findlay, S. V. Gregory, N. B. Grimm, S. K. Hamilton, S. L. Johnson, E. Martí, W. H. McDowell, J. L. Meyer, D. D. Morrall, S. A. Thomas, and W. M. Wollheim . 2003. Factors affecting ammonium uptake in streams – an interbiome perspective. Freshwater Biology 48:1329–1352. Google Scholar

187.

J. R. Webster and B. C. Patten . 1979. Effects of watershed perturbation on stream potassium and calcium dynamics. Ecological Monographs 49:51–72. Google Scholar

188.

D. F. Westlake 1975. Macrophytes. 106–128. in B. A. Whitton (editor). River ecology. University of California Press, Berkeley, California. Google Scholar

189.

L. A. Whitford and G. J. Schumacher . 1961. Effect of current on mineral uptake and respiration by a fresh-water alga. Limnology and Oceanography 6:423–425. Google Scholar

190.

L. A. Whitford and G. J. Schumacher . 1964. Effect of a current on respiration and mineral uptake in Spirogyra and Oedogonium. Ecology 45:168–170. Google Scholar

191.

M. S. Wipfli, J. P. Hudson, and J. Caouette . 1998. Influence of salmon carcasses on stream productivity: response of biofilm and benthic macroinvertebrates in southeastern Alaska, U.S.A. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 55:1503–1511. Google Scholar

192.

M. S. Wipfli, J. P. Hudson, D. T. Chaloner, and J. P. Caouette . 1999. Influence of salmon spawner densities on stream productivity in southeast Alaska. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 56:1600–1611. Google Scholar

193.

A. P. Wold and A. E. Hershey . 1999. Spatial and temporal variability of nutrient limitation in 6 North Shore tributaries to Lake Superior. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 18:2–14. Google Scholar

194.

W. M. Wollheim, B. J. Peterson, L. A. Deegan, M. Bahr, J. E. Hobbie, D. Jones, W. B. Bowden, A. E. Hershey, G. W. Kling, and M. C. Miller . 1999. A coupled field and modeling approach for the analysis of nitrogen cycling in streams. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 18:199–221. Google Scholar

195.

W. M. Wollheim, C. J. Vörösmarty, B. J. Peterson, S. P. Seitzinger, and C. S. Hopkinson . 2006. Relationship between river size and nutrient removal. Geophysical Research Letters 33:L06410. doi:10.1029/2006GL025845. Google Scholar

196.

S. M. Wondzell and F. J. Swanson . 1996. Seasonal and storm dynamics of the hyporheic zone of a 4th-order mountain stream. II: Nitrogen cycling. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 15:20–34. Google Scholar

197.

W. R. Woodall and J. B. Wallace . 1975. Mineral pathways in small Appalachian streams. 408–422. in F. G. Howell, J. B. Gentry, and M. H. Smith (editors). Mineral cycling in southeastern ecosystems. Energy Research and Development Administration (ERDA) Symposium Series, CONF-740513. National Technical Information Service, US Department of Commerce, Springfield, Virginia. Google Scholar

198.

K. Wuhrmann and E. Eichenberger . 1975. Experiments on the effects of inorganic enrichment of rivers on periphyton primary production. Verhandlungen der Internationalen Vereinigung für theoretische und angewandte Limnologie 19:2028–2034. Google Scholar

Fig. 1.

A timeline of significant papers contributing to our understanding of stream nutrient dynamics before J-NABS was established. Details of these contributions are presented in the text. Dashed lines are used for clarity when a connecting line passes behind a box

i0887-3593-029-01-0100-f01.gif

Fig. 2.

A timeline of significant papers contributing to our understanding of stream nutrient dynamics after J-NABS was established. Details of these contributions are presented in the text. Dashed lines are used for clarity when a connecting line passes behind a box. Boldface indicates paper was published in J-NABS

i0887-3593-029-01-0100-f02.gif

Fig. 3.

Frequency distribution of papers on stream nutrient dynamics appearing in J-NABS as total number of papers per interval (A) and as a percentage of all J-NABS papers published during that interval (B). Note the last interval is only 3 y

i0887-3593-029-01-0100-f03.gif

Table 1.

Components of nutrient dynamics in streams. DIn  =  dissolved inorganic nutrient, DOM  =  dissolved organic matter, POM  =  particulate organic matter

i0887-3593-029-01-0100-t01.gif

[3] Boldface indicates paper was published in J-NABS

Patrick J. Mulholland and Jackson R. Webster "Nutrient dynamics in streams and the role of J-NABS," Journal of the North American Benthological Society 29(1), 100-117, (5 February 2010). https://doi.org/10.1899/08-035.1
Received: 21 February 2008; Accepted: 1 July 2009; Published: 5 February 2010
JOURNAL ARTICLE
18 PAGES


SHARE
ARTICLE IMPACT
Back to Top