Arctic LTER Synthesis Book Stream Chapter Figures

1
Arctic LTER Synthesis BookStream Chapter Figures

• Draft Version
• Feb. 2007

2
Section 1 Landscape Drivers Slides

• 1. Stream locations
• 2. Stream locations again
• 3. spring stream picture
• 4. mountain stream picture
• 5. glacial stream picture
• 6. tundra stream picture
• 7. Seasonal Discharge
• 8. Winter Temperatures
• 9. DCA/ Stream types vs Drivers
• 10. Food Web Structure

3
Section I Locations of streams surveyed
4
Stream locations again
5
Spring Stream picture

• Springs
• fed by groundwater, clear water
• constant discharge and temperature
• dense algal and bryophyte cover
• very rich biota

Ivishak Hot Spring
6
Mountain stream picture

• Mountain
• fed by mountain run-off
• variable discharge and temperature
• unstable substrate and scoured channels
• sparse biota

Atigun River tributary
7
Glacial Stream Picture

• Glacial
• fed by glacial run-off
• high suspended sediment
• high daily variation in discharge
• unstable substrate and scoured channels
• sparse biota

Top Gates glacier Bottom Ribdon tributary
8
Tundra Stream Picture

• Tundra
• fed by tundra run-off, clear brown water
• seasonal and precipitation-driven variation is
  discharge
• seasonal and daily variation in temperature
• peat-lined banks, rock or organic substrate
• moderately rich biota

Kuparuk River
9
Seasonal Flow Variability
10
Midwinter temperature in arctic streams
11
Top DCA for streams related to substrate
stability and SRP Bottom Clusters of
macroinvertebrate attributes in different stream
types as related to disturbance freezing and
nutrient supply
12
Food Web structure in tundra , mtn and spring
streams
13
Section2 Controls and Processes

• 1. Kuparuk Region physiography
• 2. Stream bioassays
• 3. Kuparuk Carbon budget
• 4. Kuparuk Fert Drawing of dripper
• 5. Long term chl a/moss fert expt-Kuparuk (Oxy,
  Hershey,?)
• 6. primary prod/resp
• 7. Insect responsesortho/chiro
• 8. All insect responses
• 9. Fish Response- Kuparuk
• 10. Fish response (alternate)
• 11. Fish regression control vs fert
• 12. Fish growth vs discharge
• 13. Recovery
• 14. multiyear summer hydrographs
• 15. Long term Temperature/discharge

14
Upper Kuparuk physiography
15
Annual discharge regime
16
Long term annual Kuparuk River Discharge and
Temperature
Discharge (m3/s)
Temperature (C)
Mean summer discharge and temperature during the
fertilization period (June 25 August 16) in the
Kuparuk River. Note dates included in these
means may vary slightly year to year, due to
technical issues with equipment.
17
Stream Bioassays
18
Kuparuk Carbon Budget
19
Kuparuk Fertilization Experiment
20
CHL/MOSS response to Fert
8.9 2.9
Epilithic total chlorophyll during fertilization
(top) and percentage of total bryophyte cover
(bottom) in the reference and fertilized reach
riffles of the Kuparuk River. Chlorophyll values
for 1987 and 1994 means only include August
values. In 1988, fertilized reach chlorophyll
values are inflated due to contamination by green
algal filaments. Bryophyte cover was negligible
prior to 1992. Data are means 1 SE. Graphs are
updated versions of published data, K. Slavik,
2004.
21
Production respiration
22
Insect Response Ortho/Chiro
Orthocladius
Reference P-Fertilized
Density (no./m2)
ND
ND
Chironomids
Moss appears
Density (no./m2)
ND ND
ND
0
Year
Mean July densities of two major benthic insect
taxa, Orthocladius and Chironomids, in the
Kuparuk River from 1983-1998. The shift to a
moss-covered fertilized reach caused changes in
insect densities.
K. Slavik, 2004
23
All insect responses
24
Size distribution grayling
Fig Fish 1. Distribution of arctic grayling in
small and large rivers
25
Grayling diets
Hershey Creek
Kuparuk River
Early Summer
Late Summer
Early Summer
Late Summer
ABUNDANCE
BIOMASS
Fig. Fish 2. Diets of arctic grayoling in small
creeks and large Rivers.
26
Terrestrial insects -grayling
Percent
Fig. Fish 3. Contribution to arctic grayling
diets of terrestrial insects in small streams
and large rivers.
27
Reference vs fert adult grayling growth
Fig. Fish 4. Nutrient enrichment stimulation of
adult arctic grayling growth (1986 2004).
Dashed line is one-to-one relationship between
growth measured in the reference and fertilized
reach. Solid line is the regression line between
reference and fertilized reaches.
28
Yoy and adults vs discharge
Fig. Fish 5. Relationship between growth of
adult and young-of-the-year grayling and river
discharge in the Kuparuk River and Oksrukuyik
Creek.
29
Long-term fish response
A. Mean age-0 grayling 40-day weight (g 1SE) in
the reference and fertilized reaches of the
Kuparuk River. B. Adult grayling growth
(mean g/day, 1SE) in the reference and
fertilized reaches of the Kuparuk River. Ngt5 for
all years. Deegan et al., 1999.
30
Fish from moss proposal
31
Recovery Reaches on Kuparuk Riverand Oksrukuyik
Creek
6 yrs
8 yrs
2 yrs
32
Moss Recovery from fertilization
33
Kuparuk Recovery 2- MDS Insect Community
Dissimilarity
reference
recovery
fertilized
34
(No Transcript)
35
Section III. Environmental Change

• I. Space Time for Streams Figure
• 2. Discharge exceedance graph
• 3. Direct and cascade effects of climate-diagram
• 4. Changing nitrate export- Kuparuk fluxes
• 5. Stream template model predictions
• 6. Stream Inverse Model predictions-
  calibrations/testing
• 7. Marc Stieglitz climate projections for Toolik
  2090-2100
• 8. Inverse Model Forecasts
• 9. Thermokarsts
• 10. Human activities-overfishing, roads

36
Pulse and press/ramp events

• Draw figure on time-space domain of
  changes/events affecting streams.

37
Hydrology-

• Too be added- Richard McHorney and Adrian Green

38
Kuparuk River daily discharge (1971-2005).
Lower Kuparuk Gauge
USGS
39
Kuparuk River spring discharge shifting into May.
p 0.002
p 0.583
p 0.134
40
Climate change affects ecosystems and linkages
41
Kuparuk River Summer/Fall Discharge Increasing
July
August
p 0.071
p 0.027
Oct.
p 0.030
p 0.012
Sept.
p 0.005
Combined
42
Landscape Nutrient Fluxes changing?
Kuparuk River nitrate fluxes increasing with temp?
43
Stream Template Model predictions
44
Inverse Model Calibration/testing
Predictions for 2100
Calibration and testing
45
Climate drivers now 1990-1999 and future 2090-2100
46
Inverse Model Forecasts
Future Climate
Future climate 2090-2100
47
Thermokarsts exports of sediments and nutrients
to streams
Toolik River Thermokarst 2004
Fig. 1BB22 
Fig. 2
Bowden et al 2007
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10BB23 
 BB1Does anybody recognize this
reference?  BB2John I pieced this together
from your 2004 paper and tried to make it
relevant to the thermokarst imaging effort. The
editing Ive done may have created important
inaccuracies and/or omissions. Please read and
edit this section carefully.  BB3Regarding this
paragraph Is this really relevant or should it
be replaced with a much shorter section that
simply references the use of GPR to investigate
permafrost. The only good image we have is in 22
Sept 2004 when the entire system was largely
frozen. See the next paragraph.  BB4Maybe
delete the first paragraph above and start
here?  BB5Lael/Andrew Correct or did we start
these surveys in 2004?  BB6Lael or Andrew
please fill in.  BB7There is some considerable
slight of hand here. Do you buy
it?  BB8Adrian Are you and Bruce willing to
share these data for this purpose? If so, we
need to make a new table or figure for these
data.  BB9John Do you have other figures in
this series and associated text? Would it be
useful to include these?  BB10Lael Can you
quantify this based on the GIS surveys?  BB11And
rew or Lael Is it necessary to add anything
more technical to this description?  BB12This
comparison to the I-Series is a bit of a stretch.
Should we keep it? I dont doubt the truth of
the conclusions. But will reviewers accept the
logic?  BB13Bruce and Adrian Do you want to
add the annual analyses from the Imnaviat Creek
thermokarst here? I think it would go nicely at
this point. If you agree, we should probably add
some descriptive material to the General
Observations section.  BB14Need to decide on a
naming convention. Simple letter them in
order?  BB15Name?  BB16Adrian Can you fill
in the number of years for which we have data? Or
at least the first year in which we have
data?  BB17Citation? Should this be Best et
al. ??  BB18Should we get comparable images for
2005 and 2006?  BB19Is this too much of a
stretch? Should we delete this?  BB20Andrew
Can we get a better map than this. We should
rename the TK features too, to be something a bit
more logical. Just letter then A, B, Cin a
clockwise directly from I minus 1?  BB21Agument
with more TKs as surveyed by Andrew in Aug 2006?
Can we get slopes on these? Can we add any other
info to the characteristics?  BB22Better base
map? Or is this okay? Need to edit left panel to
show study area.  BB23Need a better base map.
Need to add Toolik TK location. Need to add any
new TKs Andrew noted in Aug 2006 survey.
48
Human activities- overfishing, road building

• Need figs or pics- what about Kuparuk fishermen
  from DOT camp with big catch of grayling?