Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-07T23:30:48.639Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The River Tay: ecological changes from source to estuary

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 December 2011

Peter S. Maitland  and
Ian R. Smith
Peter S. Maitland
Affiliation:
Institute of Terrestrial Ecology, Bush Estate, Penicuik, Midlothian EH26 OQB, U.K.
Ian R. Smith
Affiliation:
Institute of Terrestrial Ecology, Bush Estate, Penicuik, Midlothian EH26 OQB, U.K.
Get access

Synopsis

The River Tay and its estuary is one of Britain's largest and most important aquatic systems. Rising at 625 m and flowing for 148 km the River Tay is the largest by flow in Great Britain and has a catchment area of 5031 km2. There are considerable ecological changes from source to estuary. These take the form of transitions, but four main aquatic communities can be recognised: an upper, base-poor, swift-flowing alpine section, then an oligotrophic section with moderate flows at lower altitude, next a much richer, slower flowing, more lowland stretch and finally the upper estuary itself. The problems of classifying and conserving running water systems are discussed and the importance of the Tay system is emphasised. The linear form and catchment size of larger rivers makes it difficult to give them—particularly their lower reaches and estuaries—full conservation protection. The River Tay is sufficiently unique, both physically and biologically, to warrant further scientific investigation and nature conservation protection.

Type
Research Article
Information
Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, Section B: Biological Sciences , Volume 92 , Issue 3-4: The Environment of the Tay Estuary , 1987 , pp. 373 - 392
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Society of Edinburgh 1987

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Allen, S. E., Grimshaw, H. M., Parkinson, J. A. & Quarmby, C. 1974. Chemical analyses of ecological material. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Butcher, R. W. 1933. Studies on the ecology of rivers: 1. On the distribution of the macrophytic vegetation in the rivers of Britain. Journal of Ecology 21, 58–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carpenter, K. E. 1927. Faunistic ecology of some Cardiganshire streams. Journal of Ecology 15, 33–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carter, J. R. & Bailey-Watts, A. E. 1980. A taxonomic study of diatoms from standing waters in Shetland. Nova Hedwigia 33, 513–628.Google Scholar
Charlton, F. G. 1975. An appraisal of available data on gravel rivers. Report INT 151. Wallingford: Hydraulics Research Station.Google Scholar
Guppy, E. M. 1956. Chemical analysis of igneous rocks, metamorphic rocks and minerals 1931 54: compiled from the records of the Geological Survey. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
Hack, J. T. 1957. Studies of longitudinal stream profiles in Virginia and Maryland. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 294–B, 1–97.Google Scholar
Haslam, S. M. 1982. Vegetation in British rivers. Huntingdon: Nature Conservancy Council.Google Scholar
Haslam, S. M. Sinker, C. S. & Wolseley, P. A. 1975. British Water Plants. London: Field Studies Council.Google Scholar
Hawkes, H.A. 1975. River zonation and classification.In River Ecology, ed. Whitton, B. A. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Huet, M. 1946. Note preliminaire sur les relations entre la pente et les populations piscicoles des eaux courantcs. Biologisch Jaarboek 13, 232–243.Google Scholar
Hynes, H. B. N. 1961. The invertebrate fauna of a Welsh mountain stream. Arehiv für Hydrobiologie 57, 344–388.Google Scholar
Illies, J. 1953. Die Besiedlung der Fulda (insbesondere das Benthos der Salmonidregion) nach demjetzigen Stand des Untersuchungen. Bericht der Limnologischen Flussstat ion Freudenthal 5, 1–28.Google Scholar
Leopold, L. B., Wolman, M. G. & Miller, J. P. 1964. Fluvial processes in geomorphology. San Francisco: Freeman.Google Scholar
Macan, T. T. 1957. The Ephemeroptera of a stony stream. Journal of Animal Ecology 26, 317–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Macphee, F. M. 1969. Studies on invertebrate bottom fauna in streams in the west of Scotland. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Glasgow.Google Scholar
Maitland, P. S. 1964. Quantitative studies on the invertebrate fauna of sandy and stony substrates in the River Endrick, Scotland. Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh 68B, 277–301.Google Scholar
Maitland, P. S. 1966. The fauna of the River Endrick. Glasgow: Blackie.Google Scholar
Maitland, P. S. 1977. A coded checklist of animals occurring in fresh water in the British Isles. Cambridge: Institute of Terrestrial Ecology.Google Scholar
Maitland, P. S. 1979. Synoptic limnology: the analysis of British freshwater ecosystems. Cambridge: Institute of Terrestrial Ecology.Google Scholar
Maitland, P. S. 1984. Criteria for the selection of important sites for freshwater fish in the British Isles. Biological Conservation 31, 335–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maitland, P. S. 1985. The status of the River Dee (Aberdeen) in a national and international context. Proceedings of a Symposium of the Institute of Terrestrial Ecology, Edinburgh, 1985, 142–148.Google Scholar
Maitland, P. S. & Britton, R. H. 1985. The fresh waters of Shetland: 1. The strategy of a synoptic resource analysis. Scottish Geographical Magazine 1985, 150–156.Google Scholar
Maitland, P. S. & East, K. 1976. The freshwater fish fauna of Shetland. Glasgow Naturalist 19, 321–324.Google Scholar
Maitland, P. S., Smith, I. R., Jones, D. H., East, K., Morris, K. H. & Lyle, A. A. 1981. The fresh waters of Tayside. Edinburgh: Institute of Terrestrial Ecology.Google Scholar
Milner, C. 1978. Shetland ecology surveyed. Geographical Magazine, London 50, 730–753.Google Scholar
Moon, H. P. 1938. Importance of the substratum to the invertebrate animals on which fish feed. Annual Report. A von Biological Research 6, 36–40.Google Scholar
Morgan, N. C. & Britton, R. H. 1977. In A nature conservation review, ed. Ratcliffe, D. A. London: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Murray, J. & Pullar, L. 1910. Bathymetrical Survey of the Scottish Freshwater Lochs, Challenger Office, Edinburgh, Vol.1,439–513.Google Scholar
Pennak, R. W. 1971. Towards a classification of lotic habitats. Hydrobiologia 38, 321–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pontin, R. A. & Reid, J.A. 1975. The freshwater input to the Tay Estuary. Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh 75B, 1–9.Google Scholar
Ratcliffe, D. A. 1977. A nature conservation review. London: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ricker, W. E. 1934. An ecological classification of certain Ontario streams. University of Toronto Studies, Biological Series 37, 1–114.Google Scholar
Scottish Development Department 1976. Towards cleaner water 1975.Edinburgh: HMSO.Google Scholar
Smith, I. R. & Lyle, A. A. 1979. The extent and distribution of fresh waters in Great Britain. Cambridge: Institute of Terrestrial Ecology.Google Scholar
Tay River Purification Board 1983. Annual Report. Perth: Tay River Purification Board.Google Scholar
Thomas, H. J. & Saville, A. 1972. The fisheries of the Forth—Tay estuaries. Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh 7IB, 171–188.Google Scholar
Vannote, R. L., Minshall, G. W., Cummins, K. W., Sedell, J. R. & Cushing, C. E. 1980. The river continuum concept. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 37, 130–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Water Data Unit 1982. Surface water: United Kingdom 1974–76.London: HMSO.Google Scholar
Wentworth, C. K. 1922. A scale of grade and class terms for clastic sediments. Journal of Geology 30, 377–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, J. F., Moss, D., Armitage, P. D. & Furze, M. T. 1984. A preliminary classification of running water sites in Great Britain based on macro-invertebrate species and the prediction of community type using environmental data. Freshwater Biology 14, 221–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar