Bunn 1999
Bunn 1999
Bunn 1999
SUMMARY
Correspondence: S. E. Bunn, Centre for Catchment and In-Stream Research, Faculty of Environmental Sciences, Griffith University,
Nathan, QLD 4111, Australia. E-mail: s.bunn@mail.box.guedu.au
Johnstone River, 3 145°399E, 17°309S tropical wet rainforest, 83.6 0.3 6.3 0.5 1.67 0.34 1.8 0.4
far north Queensland summer rainfall
Mary River, 5 152°409E, 26°459S subtropical rainforest, 72.8 2.1 11.7 0.7 0.24 0.07 9.8 1.2
SE Queensland summer/autumn rainfall
Northern jarrah forest, 3 116°059E, 32°509S Mediterranean dry 48.0 3.6 3.9 1.3 0.96 0.36 2.2 1.3
SW Western Australia sclerophyll forest,
winter rainfall
n, number of sites.
Table 2 Features of disturbed forest stream sites in the Mary River, SE Queensland
Johnstone River 198 (31) 164 (23) 380 (36) 264 (63) 0.52 (0.04) 0.62 (0.06)
Mary River ± 152 (58) ± 174 (43) ± 0.87 (0.22)
Northern jarrah forest 125 (12) 86 (21) 255 (16) 168 (22) 0.49 (0.02) 0.51 (0.19)
Mean d13C 1 SE (ppt) (n) Mean d13C 1 SE (ppt) (n) % algal contribution
of sources of consumers to consumers
quality parameters, riparian cover accounted for most estimating percentage of habitats and scaling from
of the variation in rates of benthic metabolism in the patch-weighted measurements may contribute to the
Mary River during winter (Table 5). Riparian canopy unexplained variation in the reach-scale data. Ripar-
cover explained 44% of the variation in GPP at the ian canopy cover explained 68% of the variation in
stream reach scale (P < 0.01). Similarly, canopy cover GPP (P < 0.01) and 66% of the variation in R24
explained 32% of the variation in R24 (P < 0.01). There (P < 0.01) on cobbles, the major habitat in these
was a significant correlation (r = 0.92, P < 0.001) streams (Table 5, Fig. 1).
between GPP and R24, suggesting that much of the In both the stream reach and cobble-only analyses,
measured respiration was due to algae. Errors in the proportion of land cleared for crops or pasture
was the next most important parameter, explaining an
additional 14% of the variation in GPP in both cases. It
Table 5 Results of stepwise multiple regression with hierarch- is notable that no other catchment parameters and no
ical inclusion of benthic metabolism against catchment, riparian
water quality parameters contributed significantly to
and instream parameters, for 19 stream sites in the Mary River,
winter 1996. The distribution of percentage crops was normal-
the explained variation in stream metabolism
ized by an arc-sine square root transformation. Variation (Table 5).
explained by each variable (R2), and significance levels (P) are
shown. Positive or negative values of the slope of the relation-
ships are presented in parentheses
Stream reach
GPP Riparian canopy 0.44 (±) < 0.01
% Crops and pasture 0.14 (+) < 0.01