A preview of this full-text is provided by Springer Nature.
Content available from Environmental Management
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
Environmental Management (2018) 61:650–660
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-017-0991-4
The Irrigation Effect: How River Regulation Can Promote Some
Riparian Vegetation
Karen M. Gill1●Lori A. Goater1●Jeffrey H. Braatne2●Stewart B. Rood 1
Received: 11 June 2017 / Accepted: 29 December 2017 / Published online: 11 January 2018
© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018
Abstract
River regulation impacts riparian ecosystems by altering the hydrogeomorphic conditions that support streamside vegetation.
Obligate riparian plants are often negatively impacted since they are ecological specialists with particular instream flow
requirements. Conversely, facultative riparian plants are generalists and may be less vulnerable to river regulation, and could
benefit from augmented flows that reduce drought stress during hot and dry periods. To consider this ‘irrigation effect’we
studied the facultative shrub, netleaf hackberry (Celtis reticulata), the predominant riparian plant along the Hells Canyon
corridor of the Snake River, Idaho, USA, where dams produce hydropeaking, diurnal flow variation. Inventories of 235
cross-sectional transects revealed that hackberry was uncommon upstream from the reservoirs, sparse along the reservoir
with seasonal draw-down and common along two reservoirs with stabilized water levels. Along the Snake River
downstream, hackberry occurred in fairly continuous, dense bands along the high water line. In contrast, hackberry was
sparsely scattered along the free-flowing Salmon River, where sandbar willow (Salix exigua), an obligate riparian shrub, was
abundant. Below the confluence of the Snake and Salmon rivers, the abundance and distribution of hackberry were
intermediate between the two upstream reaches. Thus, river regulation apparently benefited hackberry along the Snake River
through Hells Canyon, probably due to diurnal pulsing that wets the riparian margin. We predict similar benefits for some
other facultative riparian plants along other regulated rivers with hydropeaking during warm and dry intervals. To analyze
the ecological impacts of hydropeaking we recommend assessing daily maxima, as well as daily mean river flows.
Keywords Celtis reticulata ●Hells canyon ●Hydropeaking ●Salmon river ●Snake river
Introduction
River damming and flow regulation have altered many
riparian ecosystems, resulting in woodland decline,
encroachment from upland vegetation, invasion of intro-
duced species, and changes in population structure, suc-
cessional pathways, and community composition (Naiman
et al. 2005). The responses often depend on the nature of
hydrologic alteration, how streamflow magnitude, timing,
frequency, duration, and rate of change have been modified
(Richter et al. 1996). For example, water withdrawal and
storage for irrigation have reduced spring and summer flows
and caused woodland decline along some rivers in the North
American western prairies (Rood and Mahoney 1990).
Attenuated peak flows for flood control has resulted in
woodland expansion and channel narrowing along other
rivers in western North America (Johnson 1994; Dixon and
Johnson 1999; Merritt and Cooper 2000; Tiedemann and
Rood 2015). One common aspect of flow alteration that has
been recognized to impact fish and aquatic ecosystems but
has had limited investigation relative to riparian vegetation
is ‘hydropeaking’(Bejarano et al. 2017). This represents
diurnal flow pulsing associated with peak power demand,
resulting in daily water level fluctuations of up to several
meters. Dam operations for hydroelectric power generation
often produce outflows that are highly variable on short
time scales and studies of aquatic species including fish and
invertebrates have shown that rapid variation in physical
conditions can displace ecological specialists with general-
ists, which can better tolerate the artificial flow regime
(Jones 2014).
*Stewart B. Rood
rood@uleth.ca
1Department of Biological Sciences, University of Lethbridge,
Lethbridge, AB, Canada
2Department of Fish, Wildlife and Range Resources, University of
Idaho, Moscow, ID, USA
1234567890();,:
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.