Abstract
Degradation of groundwater-dependent ecosystems has raised a need for their restoration, but ecological responses to restoration are largely unknown. We evaluated the effectiveness of spring restoration using data from near-natural, restored, and human-impacted springs, the major impact being degradation of spring hydrology by forest drainage. We used both taxonomic (bryophytes, macroinvertebrates, and leaf-decomposing fungi) and functional (leaf breakdown) measures of restoration success. We expected that by reducing surface water input, restoration will improve spring hydrology and place spring ecosystems in a trajectory towards more natural conditions. Restored springs were thermally more stable than impacted springs and the contribution of surface water was greatly reduced. Bryophytes were more abundant in restored than in impacted springs but did not differ among restored and natural springs. Similarly, macroinvertebrate communities differed between restored and impacted springs whereas no difference was detected between restored and natural sites. Species diversity and functional attributes showed weaker responses to restoration. Our results suggest that restoration enhances spring habitat quality, and the first signs of biodiversity enhancement were also detectable only a few years post-restoration. Restoration clearly bears great promise as a conservation tool for the protection of this valuable component of regional freshwater biodiversity.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Anderson, M. J., 2001. A new method for non-parametric multivariate analysis of variance. Austral Ecology 26: 32–46.
Astorga, A., J. Oksanen, M. Luoto, J. Soininen, R. Virtanen & T. Muotka, 2012. Distance decay of similarity in freshwater communities: Do macro- and microorganisms follow the same rules? Global Ecology and Biogeography 21: 365–375.
Barquín, J. & M. Scarsbrook, 2008. Management and conservation strategies for coldwater springs. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 18: 580–591.
Baschien, C., C. K.-M. Tsui, V. Gulis, U. Szewzyk & L. Marvanova, 2013. The molecular phylogeny of aquatic hyphomycetes with affinity to the Leotiomycetes. Fungal Biology 117: 660–672.
Beauchamp, V. B., J. C. Stromberg & J. C. Stutz, 2006. Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi associated with Populus–Salix stands in a semi-arid riparian ecosystem. New Phytologist 170: 369–380.
Benfield, E. F., 1996. Leaf breakdown in stream ecosystems. In Hauer, F. R. & G. A. Lamberti (eds), Methods in Stream Ecology. Academic, San Diego: 579–589.
Bilton, D. T., J. R. Freeland & B. Okamura, 2001. Dispersal in freshwater invertebrates. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 32: 159–181.
Cantonati, M., L. Füreder, R. Gerecke, I. Jüttner & E. J. Cox, 2012. Crenic habitats, hotpots for freshwater biodiversity conservation: toward an understanding of their ecology. Freshwater Science 31: 463–480.
Caporaso, J. G., J. Kuczynski, J. Stombaugh, K. Bittinger, F. D. Bushman, E. K. Costello, N. Fierer, A. Gonzalez Peña, J. K. Goodrich, J. I. Gordon, G. A. Huttley, S. T. Kelley, D. Knights, J. E. Koenig, R. E. Ley, C. A. Lozupone, D. McDonald, B. D. Muegge, M. Pirrung, J. Reeder, J. R. Sevinsky, P. J. Turnbaugh, W. A. Walters, J. Widmann, T. Yatsunenko, J. Zaneveld & R. Knight, 2010. QIIME allows analysis of high-throughput community sequencing data. Nature Methods 7: 335–336.
Céréghino, R., J. Biggs, B. Oertli & S. Declerck, 2008. The ecology of European ponds: defining the characteristics of a neglected freshwater habitat. Hydrobiologia 597: 1–6.
Chauvet, E., J. Cornut, K. R. Sridhar, M. A. Selosse & F. Bärlocher, 2015. Beyond the water column: aquatic hyphomycetes outside their preferred habitat. Fungal Ecology 19: 112–127.
Chuzhekova, T. A., 2015. Dynamics of macrozoobenthos structure in urban spring brooks of the Middle Volga Basin. Inland Water Biology 3: 259–268.
Clark, I. D. & P. Fritz, 1997. Environmental Isotopes in Hydrogeology. Lewis Publishers, New York.
Clarke, K. R., 1993. Non-parametric multivariate analysis of changes in community structure. Australian Journal of Ecology 18: 117–143.
Dudgeon, D., A. H. Arthington, M. O. Gessner, Z. I. Kawabata, D. J. Knowler, C. Lévêque & C. A. Sullivan, 2006. Freshwater biodiversity: importance, threats, status and conservation challenges. Biological Reviews 81: 163–182.
Edgar, R. C., 2010. Search and clustering orders of magnitude faster than BLAST. Bioinformatics 26: 2460–2461.
Eurola, S., S. Hicks & E. Kaakinen, 1984. Key to Finnish mire types. In Moore, P. D. (ed.), European Mires. Academic, London: 11–117.
European Commission, 2000. Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy. Official Journal of the European Communities L327: 1–72.
Gardes, M. & T. D. Bruns, 1993. ITS primers with enhanced specificity for basidiomycetes – application to the identification of mycorrhizae and rusts. Molecular Ecology 2: 113–118.
Gat, J. R., 2010. Isotope Hydrology: A Study of the Water Cycle. Imperial College Press, London.
Gessner, M. O., 2005. Ergosterol as a measure of fungal biomass. In Methods to Study Litter Decomposition. Springer, Dordrecht: 189–195.
Haapalehto, T. O., H. Vasander, S. Jauhiainen, T. Tahvainen & J. S. Kotiaho, 2011. The effects of peatland restoration on water-table depth, elemental concentrations and vegetation: 10 years of changes. Restoration Ecology 19: 587–598.
Hasselquist, E. M., C. Nilsson, J. Hjältén, D. Jørgensen, L. Lind & L. E. Polvi, 2015. Time for recovery of riparian plants in restored northern Swedish streams: a chronosequence study. Ecological Applications 25: 1373–1389.
Heino, J., R. Virtanen, K.-M. Vuori, J. Saastamoinen, A. Ohtonen & T. Muotka, 2005. Spring bryophytes in forested landscapes: land use effects on bryophyte species richness, community structure and persistence. Biological Conservation 124: 539–545.
Holden, J., P. J. Chapman & J. C. Labadz, 2004. Artificial drainage of peatlands: hydrological and hydrochemical process and wetland restoration. Progress in Physical Geography 28: 95–123.
Ilmonen, J. & L. Paasivirta, 2005. Benthic macrocrustacean and insect assemblages in relation to spring habitat characteristics: patterns in abundance and diversity. Hydrobiologia 533: 99–113.
Ilmonen, J., L. Paasivirta, R. Virtanen & T. Muotka, 2009. Regional and local drivers of macroinvertebrate assemblages in boreal springs. Journal of Biogeography 36: 822–834.
Ilmonen, J., H. Mykrä, R. Virtanen, L. Paasivirta & T. Muotka, 2012. Responses of spring macroinvertebrate and bryophyte communities to habitat modification: community composition, species richness and red-listed species. Freshwater Science 31: 657–667.
Ilmonen, J., R. Virtanen, L. Paasivirta & T. Muotka, 2013. Detecting restoration impacts in inter-connected habitats: spring invertebrate communities in a restored wetland. Ecological Indicators 30: 165–169.
Jabiol, J., A. Bruder, M. O. Gessner, M. Makkonen, B. G. McKie, E. T. H. M. Peeters, V. C. A. Vos & E. Chauvet, 2013. Diversity patterns of leaf-associated aquatic hyphomycetes along a broad latitudinal gradient. Fungal Ecology 6: 439–448.
Jackson, D. A., 1993. Stopping rules in Principal Components Analysis: a comparison of heuristical and statistical approaches. Ecology 74: 2204–2214.
Juutinen, R., 2011. The decrease of rich fen bryophytes in springs as a consequence of large-scale environmental loss. A 50-year re-sampling study. Lindbergia 34: 2–8.
Jyväsjärvi, J., H. Suurkuukka, R. Virtanen, J. Aroviita & T. Muotka, 2014. Does the taxonomic completeness of headwater stream assemblages reflect the conservation status of the riparian forest? Forest Ecology and Management 334: 293–300.
Jyväsjärvi, J., H. Marttila, P. M. Rossi, P. Ala-Aho, B. Olofsson, J. Nisel, B. Backman, J. Ilmonen, R. Virtanen, L. Paasivirta, R. Britschgi, B. Kløve & T. Muotka, 2015. Climate-induced warming imposes a threat to North European spring ecosystems. Global Change Biology 21: 4561–4569.
Kappes, H., A. Sundermann & P. Haase, 2010. High spatial variability biases the space-for-time approach in environmental monitoring. Ecological Indicators 10: 1202–1205.
Kristensen, P. & L. Globevnik, 2014. European small water bodies. In Biology and Environment: Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy 114. Royal Irish Academy: 281–287.
Lepori, F., D. Palm, E. Brännäs & B. Malmqvist, 2005. Does restoration of structural heterogeneity in streams enhance fish and macroinvertebrate diversity? Ecological Applications 15: 2060–2071.
Liepina, L., 2012. Occurrence of fungal structures in bryophytes of the boreo-nemoral zone. Environmental and Experimental Biology 10: 35–40.
Mäkelä, K., 1972. Some aquatic hyphomycetes on grasses in Finland. Karstenia 13: 16–22.
National Board of Waters, 1981. The Analytical Methods Used by National Board of Waters. Report 213. National Broad of Waters, Helsinki.
Nylund, J. E. & H. Wallander, 1992. Ergosterol analysis as a means of quantifying mycorrhizal biomass. Methods in Microbiology 24: 77–88.
Oksanen, J., F. G. Blanchet, R. Kindt, P. Legendre, P. R. Minchin, R. B. O’Hara, G. L. Simpson, P. Solymos, M. H. H. Stevens & H. Wagner, 2015. Vegan: Community Ecology Package Version 2.3-0 [available on internet at http://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/vegan/vegan.pdf].
Palmer, M. A., K. L. Hondula & B. J. Koch, 2014. Ecological restoration of streams and rivers: shifting strategies and shifting goals. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution and Systematics 45: 247–269.
Pykälä, J., 2007. Implementation of Forest act habitats in Finland: Does it protect the right habitats for threatened species? Forest Ecology and Management 242: 281–287.
R Core Team, 2014. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna.
Ruiz-González, C., J. P. Niño-García & P. A. Del Giorgio, 2015. Terrestrial origin of bacterial communities in complex networks. Ecology Letters 18: 1198–1206.
Tolkkinen, M., H. Mykrä, A.-M. Markkola, H. Aisala, K.-M. Vuori, J. Lumme, A.-M. Pirttilä & T. Muotka, 2013. Decomposer communities in human-impacted streams: species dominance rather than richness affects leaf decomposition. Journal of Applied Ecology 50: 1142–1151.
Tolkkinen, M., H. Mykrä, M. Annala, A. M. Markkola, K.-M. Vuori & T. Muotka, 2015. Multi-stressor impacts on fungal diversity and ecosystem functions in streams: natural vs. anthropogenic stress. Ecology 96: 672–683.
Turunen, J., T. Muotka, K.-M. Vuori, S. M. Karjalainen, J. Rääpysjärvi, T. Sutela & J. Aroviita, 2016. Disentangling the responses of boreal stream assemblages to low stressor levels of diffuse pollution and altered channel morphology. Science of the Total Environment 544: 954–962.
Ulvinen, T., K. Syrjänen & S. Anttila, 2002. Bryophytes in Finland: distribution, ecology and red list status. Finnish Environment Institute, Helsinki.
Underwood, A. J., 1994. On beyond BACI: sampling designs that might reliably detect environmental disturbances. Ecological Applications 4: 3–15.
von Fumetti, S., P. Nagel, N. Scheifhacken & B. Baltes, 2006. Factors governing macrozoobenthic assemblages in perennial springs in north-eastern Switzerland. Hydrobiologia 568: 467–475.
Vuori, K.-M., I. Joensuu, J. Latvala, E. Jutila & A. Ahvonen, 1998. Forest drainage: a threat to benthic biodiversity of boreal headwater streams? Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 8: 745–759.
Ward, J. V. & K. Tockner, 2001. Biodiversity: towards a unifying theme for river ecology. Freshwater Biology 46: 807–819.
Wieçek, M., P. Martin & A. Lipinski, 2013. Water mites as potential long-term bioindicators in formerly drained and rewetted raised bogs. Ecological Indicators 34: 332–335.
Acknowledgments
We are grateful to Elina Isokangas for assistance in the field and with the SI data, and Leevi Heikura and Antti Leinonen for helping us select the study sites. We also thank Peggy Lommatzsch for her assistance in the field, Marko Suokas for his help in bioinformatics, and Lauri Paasivirta for checking our chironomid identifications. Finally, we acknowledge the two anonymous referees for their helpful and constructive comments on the previous draft of the manuscript. The study was supported by Maj and Tor Nessling Foundation (Project Number 201500223), University of Oulu (Thule Institute), and Academy of Finland (AKVA Program, Project Number 128377).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Guest editors: Mary Kelly-Quinn, Jeremy Biggs & Stefanie von Fumetti / The Importance of Small Water Bodies: Insights from Research
Electronic supplementary material
Online Resource 1. Photos of natural (a), restored (b), and human-impacted (c) springs
Online Resource 2. Bryophyte 606 and macroinvertebrate taxa list of studied springs (n = 23)
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Lehosmaa, K., Jyväsjärvi, J., Virtanen, R. et al. Does habitat restoration enhance spring biodiversity and ecosystem functions?. Hydrobiologia 793, 161–173 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-016-2760-4
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-016-2760-4