CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 481Freshwater macroinvertebrate diversity and ecologySoil and Water Nutrient DynamicsAquatic Ecosystems and Phytoplankton Dynamics

Inter-biome comparison of factors controlling stream metabolism

Mulholland, P. J., Fellows, C. S., Tank, J. L., Grimm, N. B., Webster, J. R., Hamilton, S. K., Martí, E., Ashkenas, L. +5 more·2001·Freshwater Biology
DOI 10.1046/j.1365-2427.2001.00773.x
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

1. We studied whole‐ecosystem metabolism in eight streams from several biomes in North America to identify controls on the rate of stream metabolism over a large geographic range. The streams studied had climates ranging from tropical to cool‐temperate and from humid to arid and were all relatively uninfluenced by human disturbances. 2. Rates of gross primary production (GPP), ecosystem respiration (R) and net ecosystem production (NEP) were determined using the open‐system, two‐station diurnal oxygen change method. 3. Three general patterns in metabolism were evident among streams: (1) relatively high GPP with positive NEP (i.e. net oxygen production) in early afternoon, (2) moderate primary production with a distinct peak in GPP during daylight but negative NEP at all times and (3) little or no evidence of GPP during daylight and a relatively constant and negative NEP over the entire day. 4. Gross primary production was most strongly correlated with photosynthetically active radiation (PAR). A multiple regression model that included log PAR and stream water soluble reactive phosphorus (SRP) concentration explained 90% of the variation in log GPP. 5. Ecosystem respiration was significantly correlated with SRP concentration and size of the transient storage zone and, together, these factors explained 73% of the variation in R. The rate of R was poorly correlated with the rate of GPP. 6. Net ecosystem production was significantly correlated only with PAR, with 53% of the variation in log NEP explained by log PAR. Only Sycamore Creek, a desert stream in Arizona, had positive NEP (GPP: R > 1), supporting the idea that streams are generally net sinks rather than net sources of organic matter. 7. Our results suggest that light, phosphorus concentration and channel hydraulics are important controls on the rate of ecosystem metabolism in streams over very extensive geographic areas.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1046/j.1365-2427.2001.00773.x

Cites

50 of 50 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Nutrient spiraling lengths generally vary with the presence of biologically active structures, but they tend to be shorter in warm streams, i.e., ions of nutrients are taken up faster by the microbiota, which can be interpreted as a quicker 'self-purification' of the aquatic ecosystems.

    “Nutrient spiraling lengths generally vary with the presence of biologically active structures, but they tend to be shorter in warm streams [122], i.e., ions of nutrients are taken up faster by the microbiota, which can be interpreted as a quicker”

    From Urban Stream and Wetland Restoration in the Global South—A DPSIR Analysis (2019) · cites this paper as [122]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Mulholland, P. J., Fellows, C. S., Tank, J. L., Grimm, N. B., Webster, J. R., Hamilton, S. K., Martí, E., Ashkenas, L., Bowden, W. B., Dodds, W. K., Mcdowell, W. H., Paul, M. J., & Peterson, B. J.
Affiliations
  • Oak Ridge National Laboratory (US)
  • Griffith University (AU)
  • University of Notre Dame (US)
  • Arizona State University (US)
  • Virginia Tech (US)
  • Michigan State University (US)
  • Oregon State University (US)
  • Manaaki Whenua – Landcare Research (NZ)
  • Kansas State University (US)
  • University of New Hampshire (US)
  • University of Georgia (US)
  • Marine Biological Laboratory (US)
Corresponding author
Mulholland, P. J.
ORCID
Venue
Freshwater Biology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2001-11
Volume
46
Issue
11
Pages
1503-1517
ISSN
  • 0046-5070 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2427
DOI
10.1046/j.1365-2427.2001.00773.x
OpenAlex
W2142625044
Cited by
481
References
50
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 23 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 30 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 26 · 2018: 23 · 2017: 27 · 2016: 24 · 2015: 17 · 2014: 22 · 2013: 32 · 2012: 23
FWCI
7.05
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor, 2440 d)
Locations
  • Freshwater Biology (publishedVersion)
  • DIGITAL.CSIC (Spanish National Research Council (CSIC)) (submittedVersion)
  • Griffith Research Online (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • U.S. Department of Energy
  • Biological and Environmental Research
  • Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Freshwater macroinvertebrate diversity and ecology
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Chemistry › Soil and Water Nutrient Dynamics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Chemistry › Aquatic Ecosystems and Phytoplankton Dynamics
Keywords
stream metabolism, gross primary productivity, ecosystem respiration, net ecosystem production, photosynthetically active radiation, soluble reactive phosphorus, transient storage zones, channel hydraulics, biomes, desert streams

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review