Application of ecological theory to determining recovery potential of disturbed lotic ecosystems: Research needs and priorities

This article summarizes the views of aquatic scientists who gathered to assess the ability of stream ecosystem theory to predict recovery from disturbance. Two views of disturbance were evident: a discrete removal of organisms vs an unusual deviation from normal. These were perceived as applying to different scales and/or objectives. Long-term information is required from both points of view to define recovery. Recovery also may be defined in different ways, but it is clear that recovery has both spatial and temporal components, and includes both physical and biological processes. Consensus was very strong that a major role (and challenge) for theory lies in the understanding of spatial aspects, temporal scales, coupling of physics and biology, and the interaction of these features in recovery processes. Some progress is evident in the articles of this volume, but among the topics identified as critical for further theoretical contributions were: homogeneous vs heterogeneous distribution of disturbance, local extent of disturbance relative to a regional context, critical vs noncritical patches (size and location) of disturbance at different spatial scales and temporal frequencies, delineation of reversible and nonreversible processes, and physical and biological constraints on the time frame for recovery. Such concepts need attention across different types of lotic ecosystems. Thus, there was strong consensus that a national monitoring system of representative lotic ecosystems within ecological regions be established. The purpose of this monitoring system would be to acquire long-term data on natural variability, to establish viable indicators of spatial and temporal aspects of recovery, and to develop and test emerging theoretical developments.

[1]  John M. Nestler,et al.  Instream flow studies in perspective , 1988 .

[2]  Charles P. Hawkins,et al.  Role of refugia in recovery from disturbances: Modern fragmented and disconnected river systems , 1990 .

[3]  I. Schlosser Environmental variation, life history attributes, and community structure in stream fishes: Implications for environmental management and assessment , 1990 .

[4]  G. Minshall Stream Ecosystem Theory: A Global Perspective , 1988, Journal of the North American Benthological Society.

[5]  Gary D. Grossman,et al.  Assemblage stability in stream fishes: A review , 1990 .

[6]  G. W. Prescott,et al.  Limnological Features of a Remote Alpine Lake in Montana, including a New Species of Cladophora (Chlorophyta) , 1988, Journal of the North American Benthological Society.

[7]  V. Sládeček Community structure and function in temperate and tropical streams. , 1990 .

[8]  W. Sousa The Role of Disturbance in Natural Communities , 1984 .

[9]  H. L. Ragsdale,et al.  NUTRIENT RECYCLING AND STABILITY: A REEVALUATION' , 1977 .

[10]  B. Statzner,et al.  Questions and Comments on the River Continuum Concept , 1985 .

[11]  G. Niemi,et al.  Recovery of lotic communities and ecosystems from disturbance—A narrative review of case studies , 1990 .

[12]  J. Cairns Lack of theoretical basis for predicting rate and pathways of recovery , 1990 .

[13]  R. Hughes,et al.  Ecoregions: an approach to surface water protection , 1988 .

[14]  R. Sparks,et al.  Disturbance and recovery of large floodplain rivers , 1990 .

[15]  S. Fisher Recovery processes in lotic ecosystems: Limits of successional theory , 1990 .

[16]  G. Minshall,et al.  The River Continuum Concept , 1980 .

[17]  J. Connell,et al.  On the Evidence Needed to Judge Ecological Stability or Persistence , 1983, The American Naturalist.

[18]  Claude Amoros,et al.  The reversible process concept applied to the environmental management of large river systems , 1987 .

[19]  J. Gore,et al.  Island biogeographical theory: Can it be used to predict lotic recovery rates? , 1990 .

[20]  Charles A. S. Hall,et al.  AN ASSESSMENT OF SEVERAL OF THE HISTORICALLY MOST INFLUENTIAL THEORETICAL MODELS USED IN ECOLOGY AND OF THE DATA PROVIDED IN THEIR SUPPORT , 1988 .

[21]  James Buchanan Wallace,et al.  Recovery of lotic macroinvertebrate communities from disturbance , 1990 .

[22]  R. Hughes,et al.  A regional framework for establishing recovery criteria , 1990 .

[23]  C Loehle,et al.  Hypothesis Testing in Ecology: Psychological Aspects and the Importance of Theory Maturation , 1987, The Quarterly Review of Biology.

[24]  J. Gore,et al.  Hydraulic Stream Ecology: Observed Patterns and Potential Applications , 1988, Journal of the North American Benthological Society.

[25]  B. Statzner,et al.  Stream hydraulics as a major determinant of benthic invertebrate zonation patterns , 1986 .

[26]  John R. Kelly,et al.  Indicators of ecosystem recovery , 1990 .

[27]  A. Steinman,et al.  Recovery of lotic periphyton communities after disturbance , 1990 .

[28]  Arthur V. Brown,et al.  The Role of Disturbance in Stream Ecology , 1988, Journal of the North American Benthological Society.

[29]  N. Poff,et al.  Physical habitat template of lotic systems: Recovery in the context of historical pattern of spatiotemporal heterogeneity , 1990 .

[30]  John Pastor,et al.  Overview of case studies on recovery of aquatic systems from disturbance , 1990 .