Focus Article
Optimization of bioretention systems through application of ecological theory
Lisa A. Levin,
Andrew S. Mehring,
Corresponding Author
Lisa A. Levin
Center for Marine Biodiversity and Conservation and Integrative Oceanography Division, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, La Jolla, CA, USA
Correspondence to: [email protected]Search for more papers by this authorAndrew S. Mehring
Center for Marine Biodiversity and Conservation and Integrative Oceanography Division, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, La Jolla, CA, USA
Search for more papers by this authorLisa A. Levin,
Andrew S. Mehring,
Corresponding Author
Lisa A. Levin
Center for Marine Biodiversity and Conservation and Integrative Oceanography Division, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, La Jolla, CA, USA
Correspondence to: [email protected]Search for more papers by this authorAndrew S. Mehring
Center for Marine Biodiversity and Conservation and Integrative Oceanography Division, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, La Jolla, CA, USA
Search for more papers by this authorConflict of interest: The authors have declared no conflicts of interest for this article.
Abstract
Current design of bioretention systems is intended to intercept and retain stormwater, enhance infiltration, and remove organic particulates, nutrients, pathogens, metals, and other contaminants using natural processes that derive from the interactions of water, soil, microbes, plants, and animals. Most bioretention systems function as isolated patches of various shapes and sizes surrounded by impervious surface. A significant body of ecological theory has been developed that addresses the relationships among species composition, diversity, and ecosystem function, and how these vary with spatial structure. Here we highlight how such theories may be applied to improve the efficiency or effectiveness of bioretention systems. We consider (1) the role of plant and animal species that function as ecosystem engineers, (2) biodiversity–ecosystem function relationships, (3) complexity and stability, (4) disturbance and succession, and (5) spatial theory. Future testing of the utility of these theories may occur through incorporation of experiments into the design of bioretention systems or through meta-analysis of systems that span a range of configurations and biotic features. WIREs Water 2015, 2:259–270. doi: 10.1002/wat2.1072
This article is categorized under:
- Water and Life > Conservation, Management, and Awareness
- Engineering Water > Sustainable Engineering of Water
- Science of Water > Water Quality
REFERENCES
- 1Alberti M, Marzluff JM, Shulenberger E, Bradley G, Ryan C, Zumbrunnen C. Integrating humans into ecology: opportunities and challenges for studying urban ecosystems. Bioscience 2003, 53: 1169–1179.
- 2Breuste J, Niemela J, Snep RPH. Applying landscape ecological principles in urban environments. Landsc Ecol 2008, 23: 1139–1142.
- 3Niemela J. Is there a need for a theory of urban ecology? Urban Ecosyst 1999, 3: 57–65.
- 4Mitsch WJ, Jørgensen SE. Ecological engineering and ecosystem restoration. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.; 2004, 411.
- 5 BMT WBM. Evaluating options for water sensitive urban design – a national guide: prepared by the Joint Steering Committee for Water Sensitive Cities: In delivering Clause 92(ii) of the National Water Initiative, Joint Steering Committee, 2009.
- 6Roy-Poirier A, Champagne P, Filion Y. Review of bioretention system research and design: past, present, and future. J Environ Eng 2010, 136: 878–889.
- 7Yang H, Dick WA, McCoy EL, Phelan PL, Grewal PS. Field evaluation of a new biphasic rain garden for stormwater flow management and pollutant removal. Ecol Eng 2013, 54: 22–31.
- 8Payne EGI, Fletcher TD, Cook PLM, Deletic A, Hatt BE. Processes and drivers of nitrogen removal in stormwater biofiltration. Crit Rev Environ Sci Technol 2014, 44: 796–846.
- 9Brisson J, Chazarenc F. Maximizing pollutant removal in constructed wetlands; should we pay more attention to macrophyte species selection. Sci Total Environ 2009, 407: 3923–3939.
- 10Read J, Fletcher TD, Wevill T, Deletic A. Plant traits that enhance pollutant removal from stormwater in biofiltration systems. Int J Phytoremediation 2010, 12: 34–53.
- 11Mehring AS, Levin LA. Can soil fauna improve the efficiency of rain gardens used as natural storm water treatment systems? Journal of Applied Ecology (In Review).
- 12Davis AP, Hunt WF, Traver RG, Clar M. Bioretention technology: overview of current practice and future needs. J Environ Eng 2009, 135: 109–117.
- 13Lake PS, Bond N, Reich P. Linking ecological theory with stream restoration. Freshw Biol 2007, 52: 597–615.
- 14Vymazal J. Emergent plants used in free water surface constructed wetlands: a review. Ecol Eng 2013, 61B: 582–592.
- 15Palmer MA, Ambrose RF, Poff NL. Ecological theory and community restoration ecology. Restor Ecol 1997, 5: 291–300.
- 16Zedler JB. Progress in wetland restoration ecology. Trends Ecol Evol 2000, 15: 402–407.
- 17Young TP, Petersen DA, Clary JJ. The ecology of restoration: historical links, emerging issues and unexplored realms. Ecol Lett 2005, 8: 662–673.
- 18Wezel A, Bellon S, Doré T, Francis C, Vallod D, David C. Agroecology as a science, a movement, and a practice. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 2009, 29: 503–515.
- 19Zedler JB. Ecological restoration: guidance from theory. San Francisco Estuary and Watershed Science 2005, 3: Article 4.
- 20Jones CG, Lawton JH, Shachak M. Organisms as ecosystem engineers. Oikos 1994, 69: 373–386.
- 21Crain CM, Bertness MD. Ecosystem engineering across environmental gradients: implications for conservation and management. Bioscience 2006, 56: 211–218.
- 22Tilman D, Wedin D, Knops J. Productivity and sustainability influenced by biodiversity in grassland ecosystems. Nature 1996, 379: 718–720.
- 23Loreau M, Naeem S, Inchausti P, Bengtsson J, Grime JP, Hector A, Hooper DU, Huston MA, Raffaelli D, Schmid B, et al. Biodiversity and ecosystem function: current knowledge and future challenges. Science 2001, 294: 804–808.
- 24Duffy JE, Cardinale BJ, France KE, McIntyre PB, Thebault E, Loreau M. The functional role of biodiversity in ecosystems: incorporating trophic complexity. Ecol Lett 2007, 10: 522–538.
- 25Cardinale BJ. Biodiversity improves water quality through niche partitioning. Nature 2011, 472: 86–91.
- 26May RM. Patterns of species abundance and diversity. In: ML Cody, JM Diamond, eds. Ecology and Evolution of Communities. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 1975, 81–120.
- 27McCann KS. The diversity-stability debate. Nature 2000, 405: 228–233.
- 28Tilman D, Downing JA. Biodiversity and stability in grasslands. Nature 1994, 367: 363–365.
- 29Huston MA. Hidden treatments in ecological experiments: re-evaluating the ecosystem function of biodiversity. Oecologia 1997, 110: 449–460.
- 30Grime JP. Competitive exclusion in herbaceous vegetation. Nature 1973, 242: 344–347.
- 31Horn HS. Markovian properties of forest succession. In: ML Cody, JM Diamond, eds. Ecology and Evolution of Communities. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press; 1975, 196–211. ISBN 0-674-22444-2.
- 32Connell JH. Diversity in tropical rain forests and coral reefs. Science 1978, 199: 1302–1310.
- 33Dayton PK. Competition, disturbance and community organization: the provision and subsequent utilization of space in a rocky intertidal community. Ecol Monogr 1971, 41: 351–389.
- 34Sousa WP. Disturbance in marine intertidal boulder fields: the nonequilibrium maintenance of species diversity. Ecology 1979, 60: 1225–1239.
- 35Clements FE. Research Methods in Ecology. Lincoln: University Publishing Company; 1905, 334.
- 36Gleason HA. The individualistic concept of the plant association. Bull Torrey Bot Club 1926, 53: 7–26.
- 37Whittaker RH. A consideration of climax theory: the climax as a population and pattern. Ecol Monogr 1953, 23: 41–78.
- 38Connell JH, Slayter RO. Mechanisms of succession in natural communities and their role in community stability and organization. Am Nat 1978, 111: 1119–1144.
- 39MacArthur RH, Wilson EO. The Theory of Island Biogeography. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 1967, 203.
- 40Levins R. Some demographic and genetic consequences of environmental heterogeneity for biological control. Bull Entomol Soc Am 1969, 15: 237–240.
- 41Leibold MA, Holyoak M, Moquet N, Amarasekare P, Chase JM, Hoopes MF, Holt RD, Shurin JB, Law R, Tilman D, et al. The metacommunity concept: a framework for multi-scale community ecology. Ecol Lett 2004, 7: 601–613.
- 42Turner MG. Landscape ecology: the effect of pattern on process. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 1989, 20: 171–197.
- 43Hasting A, Byers JE, Crooks JA, Cuddington K, Jones CG, Lambrinos JG, Talley TS, Wilson WG. Ecosystem engineering in space and time. Ecol Lett 2007, 10: 153–164.
- 44Odum HT, Odum B. Concepts and methods of ecological engineering. Ecol Eng 2003, 2003: 339–361.
- 45Kangas PC. Ecological Engineering: Principles and Practice. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 2004, 472.
- 46Feng W, Hatt BE, McCarthy DT, Fletcher TD, Deletic A. Biofilters for stormwater harvesting: understanding the treatment performance of key metals that pose a risk for water use. Environ Sci Technol 2012, 46: 5100–5108.
- 47Yang X, Mei Y, He J, Jiang R, Li Y, Li J. Comprehensive assessment for removing multiple pollutants by plants in bioretention systems. Chin Sci Bull 2014, 59: 1446–1453.
- 48Le Coustumer SL, Fletcher TD, Deletic A, Barraud S, Poelsma P. The influence of design parameters on clogging of stormwater biofilters: a large-scale column study. Water Res 2012, 46: 6743–6752.
- 49Holmgren M, Gómez-Aparicio L, Quero JL, Valladares F. Non-linear effects of drought under shade: reconciling physiological and ecological models in plant communities. Oecologia 2012, 169: 293–305.
- 50Xu S, Liu LL, Sayer EJ. Variability of above-ground litter inputs alters soil physicochemical and biological processes: a meta-analysis of litterfall-manipulation experiments. Biogeosciences 2013, 10: 7423–7433.
- 51Darwin C. The formation of vegetable mould through the action of worms with observation of their habits. London: John Murray; 1881, 326.
- 52Meysman FJR, Middelburg JJ, Heip CHR. Bioturbation: a fresh look at Darwin's last idea. Trends Ecol Evol 2006, 21: 688–695.
- 53Shipitalo MJ, Bayon R-CL. Quantifying the effects of earthworms on soil aggregation and porosity. In: CA Edwards, ed. Earthworm Ecology. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 2004, 183–194.
- 54Horn MA, Mertel R, Gehre M, Kästner M, Drake HL. In vivo emission of dinitrogen by earthworms via denitrifying bacteria in the gut. Appl Environ Microbiol 2006, 72: 1013–1018.
- 55Jouquet P, Dauber J, Lagerlof J, Lavelle P, Lepage M. Soil invertebrates as ecosystem engineers: intended and accidental effects on soil and feedback loops. Appl Soil Ecol 2006, 32: 153–164.
- 56Lill JT, Marquis RJ. Ecosystem engineering by caterpillars increases insect herbivore diversity on white oak. Ecology 2003, 84: 682–690.
- 57Loreau M. Linking biodiversity and ecosystems: towards a unifying ecological theory. Philos Trans R Soc B 2009, 365: 49–60.
- 58Duffy JE. Biodiversity and ecosystem function: the consumer connection. Oikos 2002, 99: 201–219.
- 59Zhang Y, Chen HYH, Reich PB. Forest productivity increases with evenness, species richness and trait variation: a global meta-analysis. J Ecol 2012, 100: 742–749.
- 60Callaway JC, Sullivan G, Zedler JB. Species-rich plantings increase biomass and nitrogen accumulation in a wetland restoration experiment. Ecol Appl 2003, 13: 1626–1639.
- 61Zedler JB, Callaway JC, Sullivan G. Declining biodiversity: why species matter and how their functions might be restored in Californian tidal marshes. Bioscience 2001, 51: 1005–1017.
- 62Ellerton JP, Hatt BE, Fletcher TD. Mixed plantings of Carex appressa and Lomandra longifolia improve pollutant removal over a monoculture of L. longifolia in stormwater biofilters. In: ACT Barton, ed. WSUD 2012: Water Sensitive Urban Design; Building the Water Sensitive Community; 7th International Conference on Water Sensitive Urban Design. Melbourne, Australia: Engineers Australia; 2012, 164–170.
- 63Payne EGI, Pham T, Cook PLM, Fletcher TD, Hatt BE, Deletic A. Biofilter design for effective nitrogen removal from stormwater – influence of plant species, inflow hydrology and use of a saturated zone. Water Sci Technol 2014, 69: 1312–1319.
- 64Bruno JF, Stachowica JJ, Bertness MD. Inclusion of facilitation into ecological theory. Trends Ecol Evol 2003, 18: 119–125.
- 65Zedler JB, Morzaria-Luna H, Ward K. The challenge of restoring vegetation on tidal, hypersaline substrates. Plant Soil 2003, 253: 259–273.
- 66Whitcraft CR, Levin LA. Light-mediated regulation of the sediment ecosystem by salt marsh plants. Ecology 2007, 88: 904–917.
- 67Elton CS. The Ecology of Invasions by Animals and Plants. London: Methuen; 1958, 181.
- 68Gardner MR, Ashby WR. Connectance of large dynamic (cybernetic) systems: critical values for stability. Nature 1970, 228: 784.
- 69Pimm SL, Lawton JH. On feeding on more than one trophic level. Nature 1978, 275: 542–544.
- 70Yodzis P. The stability of real ecosystems. Nature 1981, 289: 674–676.
- 71Gray JS. Effects of environmental stress on species rich assemblages. Biol J Linn Soc 1989, 37: 19–32.
- 72Vymazal J. Removal of nutrients in various types of constructed wetlands. Sci Total Environ 2007, 380: 48–65.
- 73Holzner W, Werger MJA, Ikusima I. Man's impact on vegetation. The Hague: W. Junk Publishers; 1983.
- 74Mills EL, Leach JH, Carlton JT, Secor CL. Exotic species and the integrity of the Great Lakes. BioScience 1994, 44: 666–676.
- 75Altman S, Whitlatch RB. Effects of small-scale disturbance on invasion success in marine communities. J Exp Marine Biol Ecol 2007, 342: 15–29.
- 76Davis MA, Grime JP, Thompson K. Fluctuating resources in plant communities: a general theory of invasibility. J Ecol 2000, 88: 528–534.
- 77Hatt BE, Fletcher TD, Deletic A. Hydraulic and pollutant removal performance of fine media stormwater filtration systems. Environ Sci Tech 2008, 42: 2535–2541.
- 78Kazemi F, Beecham S, Gibbs J. Streetscape biodiversity and the role of bioretention swales in an Australian urban environment. Landsc Urban Plan 2011, 101: 139–148.
- 79Logue JB, Mouquet N, Peter H, Hillebrand H. Empirical approaches to metacommunities: a review and comparison with theory. Trends Ecol Evol 2011, 26: 482–491.
- 80Ambrose RF, Winfrey BK. Comparison of stormwater biofiltration systems in southern California and southeast Australia. WIREs: Water, This volume. In press. doi:10.1002/wat2.1064.
- 81Levin LA, Talley T. Influences of vegetation and abiotic environmental factors on salt marsh benthos. In: MP Weinstein, DA Kreeger, eds. Concepts and Controversies in Tidal Marsh Ecology. Amsterdam: Kluwer Academic Publishers; 2000, 661–708.
- 82Moreno-Mateos D, Power ME, Comín FA, Yockteng R. Structural and functional loss in restored wetland ecosystems. PLoS Biol 2012, 10: e1001247. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1001247.
- 83Bernhardt ES, Palmer MA. River restoration: the fuzzy logic of repairing reaches to reverse catchment scale degradation. Ecol Appl 2011, 21: 1926–1931.
- 84Endreny TA. Storm water management for society and nature via service learning, ecological engineering and ecohydrology. Int J Water Resour Dev 2004, 20: 445–462.
- 85Lawrence BA, Zedler JB. Carbon storage by Carex stricta tussocks: a restorable ecosystem service? Wetlands 2013, 33: 483–493.
- 86Sitas N, Prozesky HE, Esler KJ, Reyers B. Exploring the gap between ecosystem service research and management in development planning. Sustainability 2014, 6: 3802–3824.
