Animal cells and systems

The Korean Society for Integrative Biology (한국통합생물학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Effects of low-head dam removal on benthic macroinvertebrate communities in a Korean stream

  • Kil, Hye-Kyung (Seoul Metropolitan Government Research Institute of Public Health and Environment) ;
  • Bae, Yeon-Jae (College of Life Sciences and Biotechnology, Korea University)
  • Received : 2011.04.07
  • Accepted : 2011.05.15
  • Published : 2012.02.28
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This study was conducted to examine how a low-head dam removal (partial removal) could affect benthic macroinvertebrate communities in a stream. Benthic macroinvertebrates and substrates were seasonally sampled before and after dam removal (March 2006-April 2007). Benthic macroinvertebrates and substrates were quantitatively sampled from immediately upstream (upper: pool) and downstream (lower: riffle) sites, the location of the dam itself (middle), and immediately above the impoundment (control: riffle). After the removal, species richness and density of benthic macroinvertebrates as well as the EPT group (Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera and Trichoptera) increased to higher levels than those before the removal, while functional feeding groups and habitat orientation groups changed more heterogeneously at the upper site. At the lower site, species richness and density decreased somewhat immediately after dam removal, which was associated with an increase of silt and sand, but recovered after monsoon floods which helped to enhance substrate diversity at the upper site. Decreased dominance index and increased diversity index in both the upper and lower sites are evidence of positive effects from the dam removal. In conclusion, we suggest that even a partial removal of a dam, resulting in increased substrate diversity in the upper site, could sufficiently help rehabilitate lost ecological integrity of streams without major habitat changes.

Keywords

References

  1. Bednarek AT. 2001. Undamming river: A review of the ecological impacts of dam removal. Environ Manag. 27:803-814. https://doi.org/10.1007/s002670010189
  2. Born SM, Genskow KD, Filbert TL, Mora NH, Keefer ML, White KA. 1998. Socioeconomic and institutional dimensions of dam removals: the Wisconsin experience. Environ Manag. 22:359-370. https://doi.org/10.1007/s002679900111
  3. Bray JR, Curtis JT. 1957. An ordination of the upland forest communities of southern Wisconsin. Ecol Monogr. 27:325-349. https://doi.org/10.2307/1942268
  4. Brown AV, Brussock PP. 1991. Comparisons of benthic invertebrate between riffles and pools. Hydrobiologia 220:99-108. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00006542
  5. Chaplin JJ, Brightbill RA, Bilger MD. 2005. Effects of removing good hope mill dam on selected physical, chemical, and biological characteristics of Conodoguinet creek, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. Scientific Investigations Report. 2006-5226.
  6. Clesceri LS, Greenberg AE, Eaton AD. 1998. Standard method for the examination of water and wastewater. 20th ed. Washington DC: American Public Health Association.
  7. Doeg TJ, Koehn JD. 1994. Effects of draining and desilting a small weir on downstream fish and macroinvertebrates. Reg Riv Res Manag. 9:263-277. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrr.3450090407
  8. Doyle MW, Stanley EH, Orr CH, Selle AR, Sethi SA, Harbor JM. 2005. Stream ecosystem response to small dam removal: Lessons from the Heartland. Geomorphology. 71:227-244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2004.04.011
  9. Graf WL. 1999. Dam nation: a geographic census of American dams and their large scale hydraulic impact. Wat Resour Res. 35:1305-1311. https://doi.org/10.1029/1999WR900016
  10. Hart DD, Johnson TE, Bushaw-Newton KL, Horwitz RJ, Bednarek AT, Charles DF, Kreeger DA, Velinsky DJ. 2002. Dam removal: challenges and opportunities for ecological research and river restoration. BioScience. 52:669-681. https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2002)052[0669:DRCAOF]2.0.CO;2
  11. Heinz Center. 2002. Dam removal: Science and decision making. Washington DC: The H. John Heinz III Center for Science, Economics and the Environment.
  12. Hynes HBN. 1970. The ecology of running waters. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
  13. ICF Consulting. 2005. A summary of existing research on low-head dam removal projects. Lexington, MA.
  14. Junk WJ, Bayley PB, Sparks RE. 1989. The flood pulse concept in river-floodplain systems. Can Spec Publ Fish Aquat Sci. 106:110-127.
  15. Kawai T, Tanida K. 2005. Aquatic insects of Japan: manual with keys and illustrations. Kanagawa: Tokai University Press.
  16. Kil HK, Kim DG, Jung SW, Shin IK, Cho KH, Woo H, Bae YJ. 2007. Changes of benthic macroinvertebrate communities after a small dam removal from the Gyeongan stream in Gyeonggi-do, Korea. Korean J Environ Biol. 25:385-393.
  17. McCune B, Mefford MJ. 1999. PC-ORD. Multivariate analysis of ecological data, Ver 4. Gleneden Beach: OR: MjM Software Design.
  18. Merritt RW, Cummins KW. 2008. An introduction to the aquatic insects of North America. 4th ed. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.
  19. Ortiz JD, Puig MA. 2007. Point source effects on density, biomass and diversity of benthic macroinvertebrates in a Mediterraneam steam. Riv Res Appl. 23:155-170. https://doi.org/10.1002/rra.971
  20. Poff NL, Hart DD. 2002. How dams vary and why it matters for the emerging science of dam removal. BioScience. 52:659-668. https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2002)052[0659:HDVAWI]2.0.CO;2
  21. Resh VH, Myers MJ, Hannaford MJ. 1996. Methods in sream eology: Macroinvertebrates as biotic indicators of environmental quality. New York: Academic Press.
  22. Rosenberg DM, Resh VH. 1993. Freshwater biomonitoring and benthic macroinvertebrates. London: Chapman & Hall.
  23. SAS Institute. 1996. SAS/STAT guide for personal computers. Ver 6.3 ed. Cary. NC: SAS Institute.
  24. Smith RL, Smith TM. 2001. Ecology and feld bology. 6th ed. San Francisco: Benjamin Cummings.
  25. Stanley EH, Doyle MW. 2003. Trading off: the ecological effects of dam removal. Front Ecol Environ 1:15-22. https://doi.org/10.1890/1540-9295(2003)001[0015:TOTEEO]2.0.CO;2
  26. Stanley EH, Michelle AL, Doyle WD, Hart WM. 2002. Short-term changes in channel form and macroinvertebrate communities following low-head dam removal. J N Am Bethol Soc. 21:172-187. https://doi.org/10.2307/1468307
  27. Stantzner B, Higler B. 1986. Stream hydraulics as a major determinant of benthic invertebrate zonation. Freshwat Biol.16:127-139. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2427.1986.tb00954.x
  28. Thomson JR, Hart DD, Charles DF, Nightengale TL,Winter DM. 2005. Effects of removal of a small dam on downstream macroinvertebrate and algal assemblages in a Pennsylvania stream. J N Am Bethol Soc. 25:192-207.
  29. Tiemann JS, Gillette DP, Wildhaber ML, Edds DR. 2004. Effects of lowhead dam on riffle-dwelling fishes and macroinvertebrates in a Midwestern river. Trans Am Fish Soc. 133:705-717. https://doi.org/10.1577/T03-058.1
  30. Wiederholm T. 1983. Chironomidae of the Holarctic Region. Part 1. Larvae. Entomol Scand. Suppl. No. 19.
  31. Wohl DL, Wallace JB, Meyer JL. 1995. Benthic macroinvertebrate community structure, function, and production with respect to habitat type, reach and drainage basin in the southern Appalachians (U.S.A). Freshwat Biol. 34:337-464.
  32. Wood PJ, Armitage PD. 1997. Biological effects of fine sediment in the lotic environment. Environ Manag. 21:203-217. https://doi.org/10.1007/s002679900019
  33. Yoon IB. 1995. Aquatic insects of Korea. Seoul: Jeonhaengsa.

Cited by

  1. Ecosystem Restoration on Santa Catalina Island: A Review of Potential Approaches and the Promise of Bottom-Up Invader Management vol.7, pp.1, 2012, https://doi.org/10.3398/042.007.0132
  2. A global review of the downstream effects of small impoundments on stream habitat conditions and macroinvertebrates vol.23, pp.3, 2012, https://doi.org/10.1139/er-2014-0080
  3. Responses of macroinvertebrate communities to small dam removals: Implications for bioassessment and restoration vol.55, pp.4, 2012, https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.13102
  4. Responses of macroinvertebrate communities to small dam removals: Implications for bioassessment and restoration vol.55, pp.4, 2012, https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.13102
  5. Effects of Sediment Released from a Check Dam on Sediment Deposits and Fish and Macroinvertebrate Communities in a Small Stream vol.11, pp.4, 2019, https://doi.org/10.3390/w11040716
  6. A machine learning approach to identify barriers in stream networks demonstrates high prevalence of unmapped riverine dams vol.302, pp.no.pa, 2012, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.113952