Does dispersal control population densities in advection-dominated systems? A fresh look at critical assumptions and a direct test.

1. In advection-dominated systems (both freshwater and marine), population dynamics are usually presumed to be dominated by the effects of migrants dispersing by advection, especially over the small spatial scales at which populations can be studied, but few studies have tested this presumption. We tested the hypothesis that benthic densities are controlled by densities of dispersers for two aquatic insects in upland streams. 2. Our study animals were two species of caddisflies (Hydropsychidae), which become sedentary filter-feeders following settlement onto substrata. Densities of dispersers in the drift (advective dispersal) were quantified using nets placed along the upstream edges of riffles, where the latter abruptly abutted a slower, upstream run. Settlement was estimated at each site using brick pavers, half of which had been fenced to prevent colonization of their top surfaces by walking hydropsychids, thus allowing us to distinguish also the mode of movement during settlement. 3. First through fifth instars of two species, Smicrophylax sp. AV2 and Asmicridea sp. AV1, were abundant and showed disparate results. Drift and settlement were relatively strongly related for Smicrophylax. The best fit lines were shown by second and third instars settling on plain bricks, suggesting that drift played a strong role in settlement, but that some drifters dropped to the bottom and located substrata by walking. Quantile regression suggested that drift sets limits to settlement in this species and that settlement success was highly variable. In contrast, settlement by Asmicridea was poorly related to drift; settlers were mainly individuals re-dispersing within sites. 4. Smicrophylax densities appear to be controlled by dispersal from upstream, but benthic density of Asmicridea is more likely linked to local demography. Our data demonstrate the dangers of assuming that supposedly drift-prone species can all be modelled in the same way. Alternative models emphasizing little or different kinds of movement should be considered. Variability in oviposition coupled with weak dispersal, for example, is a viable alternative hypothesis to explain variation in benthic density along channels. Moreover, the constraints on settlement of Smicrophylax show that immigrants into sites can be in short supply, an hypothesis rarely considered in stream research.

[1]  R. Death,et al.  A review of the consequences of decreased flow for instream habitat and macroinvertebrates , 2007, Journal of the North American Benthological Society.

[2]  G. Englund,et al.  Scale-dependence of movement rates in stream invertebrates , 2004 .

[3]  P. Chesson,et al.  Scaling up population dynamics: integrating theory and data , 2005, Oecologia.

[4]  D. Vericat,et al.  When is stream invertebrate drift catastrophic? The role of hydraulics and sediment transport in initiating drift during flood events , 2007 .

[5]  P. Reich Patterns of composition and abundance in macroinvertebrate egg masses from temperate Australian streams , 2004 .

[6]  A. Underwood,et al.  11. Paradigms, Explanations, and Generalizations in Models for the Structure of Intertidal Communities on Rocky Shores , 1984 .

[7]  Ronald P. Stolk,et al.  A new method for characterizing surface roughness and available space in biological systems , 1995 .

[8]  M. Keough,et al.  Recruitment of marine invertebrates: the role of active larval choices and early mortality , 1982, Oecologia.

[9]  R. Rader A functional classification of the drift: traits that influence invertebrate availability to salmonids , 1997 .

[10]  S. D. Cooper,et al.  PRIMARY-PRODUCTIVITY GRADIENTS AND SHORT-TERM POPULATION DYNAMICS IN OPEN SYSTEMS , 1997 .

[11]  S. Kohler Search mechanism of a stream grazer in patchy environments: the role of food abundance , 1984, Oecologia.

[12]  B. Downes,et al.  HABITAT STRUCTURE AND REGULATION OF LOCAL SPECIES DIVERSITY IN A STONY, UPLAND STREAM , 1998 .

[13]  B. Cade,et al.  A gentle introduction to quantile regression for ecologists , 2003 .

[14]  S. D. Cooper,et al.  Effects of grazer immigration and nutrient enrichment on an open algae-grazer system , 2005 .

[15]  B. Bolker,et al.  Plants as Reef Fish: Fitting the Functional Form of Seedling Recruitment , 2007, The American Naturalist.

[16]  J. Bosch,et al.  Spatial and Temporal Variation of Macroinvertebrate Drift in Two Neotropical Streams1 , 2002 .

[17]  R. Nisbet,et al.  Effects of Multiple, Predator‐Induced Behaviors on Short‐term Producer‐Grazer Dynamics in Open Systems , 2000, The American Naturalist.

[18]  S. Harrison,et al.  Genetic and evolutionary consequences of metapopulation structure. , 1996, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[19]  Jonathan M. Chase,et al.  The metacommunity concept: a framework for multi-scale community ecology , 2004 .

[20]  S. Jenkins Larval habitat selection, not larval supply, determines settlement patterns and adult distribution in two chthamalid barnacles , 2005 .

[21]  S. Holbrook,et al.  Spatial variation in concurrent settlement of three damselfishes: relationships with near-field current flow , 2002, Oecologia.

[22]  J. Lancaster,et al.  Drift and settlement of stream insects in a complex hydraulic environment , 2010 .

[23]  B. Statzner,et al.  Field experiments on the relationship between drift and benthic densities of aquatic insects in tropical streams (Ivory coast). II: Cheumatopsyche falcifera (Trichoptera: Hydropsychidae) , 1986 .

[24]  J. Holomuzki,et al.  Effects of structural habitat on drift distance and benthic settlement of the caddisfly, Ceratopsyche sparna , 2002, Hydrobiologia.

[25]  C. Townsend,et al.  Field Experiments on the Drifting, Colonization and Continuous Redistribution of Stream Benthos , 1976 .

[26]  Bm Kerby,et al.  Factors influencing invertebrate drift in small forest streams, south-eastern Queensland , 1995 .

[27]  Francis Juanes,et al.  INFERRING ECOLOGICAL RELATIONSHIPS FROM THE EDGES OF SCATTER DIAGRAMS: COMPARISON OF REGRESSION TECHNIQUES , 1998 .

[28]  P. Qian,et al.  Juvenile mortality in benthic marine invertebrates , 1997 .

[29]  D. Hart,et al.  COLONIZATION HISTORY MASKS HABITAT PREFERENCES IN LOCAL DISTRIBUTIONS OF STREAM INSECTS , 2001 .

[30]  Stephen P. Rice,et al.  Movements of a macroinvertebrate (Potamophylax latipennis) across a gravel-bed substrate; effects of local hydraulics and micro-topography under increasing discharge , 2007 .

[31]  J. Lancaster,et al.  Movement and dispersion of insects in stream channels: what role does flow play? , 2008 .

[32]  Jean Clobert,et al.  Informed dispersal, heterogeneity in animal dispersal syndromes and the dynamics of spatially structured populations. , 2009, Ecology letters.

[33]  S. D. Cooper,et al.  Implications of scale for patterns and processes in stream ecology , 1998 .

[34]  O. Walton Substrate Attachment by Drifting Aquatic Insect Larvae , 1978 .

[35]  John E. Brittain,et al.  Invertebrate drift — A review , 1988, Hydrobiologia.

[36]  J. Webb,et al.  Scales and frequencies of disturbances: rock size, bed packing and variation among upland streams , 1998 .

[37]  B. Downes,et al.  The distribution of aquatic invertebrate egg masses in relation to physical characteristics of oviposition sites at two Victorian upland streams , 2003 .

[38]  B. Cade,et al.  QUANTILE REGRESSION REVEALS HIDDEN BIAS AND UNCERTAINTY IN HABITAT MODELS , 2005 .

[39]  C. Thomas,et al.  The spatial structure of populations , 1999 .

[40]  S. Ormerod,et al.  Macroinvertebrate drift in streams of the Nepalese Himalaya , 1994 .

[41]  Kurt E Anderson,et al.  Scaling population responses to spatial environmental variability in advection-dominated systems. , 2005, Ecology letters.

[42]  J. Roughgarden,et al.  A LATITUDINAL GRADIENT IN RECRUITMENT OF INTERTIDAL INVERTEBRATES IN THE NORTHEAST PACIFIC OCEAN , 2001 .

[43]  S. Pacala,et al.  POPULATION REGULATION: HISTORICAL CONTEXT AND CONTEMPORARY CHALLENGES OF OPEN VS. CLOSED SYSTEMS , 2002 .

[44]  J. Lancaster,et al.  Defining the limits to local density: alternative views of abundance–environment relationships , 2006 .

[45]  A. Sharpe,et al.  The effects of potential larval supply, settlement and post-settlement processes on the distribution of two species of filter-feeding caddisflies , 2006 .

[46]  William Gurney,et al.  POPULATION PERSISTENCE IN RIVERS AND ESTUARIES , 2001 .

[47]  R. Death,et al.  The influence of flow reduction on macroinvertebrate drift density and distance in three New Zealand streams , 2009, Journal of the North American Benthological Society.

[48]  P. Chesson Recruitment limitation: A theoretical perspective , 1998 .

[49]  E. Schreiber Long‐term patterns of invertebrate stream drift in an Australian temperate stream , 1995 .

[50]  R. J. Mackay,et al.  Colonization by lotic macroinvertebrates : a review of processes and patterns , 1992 .

[51]  G. Quinn,et al.  Experimental Design and Data Analysis for Biologists , 2002 .

[52]  D. R. Robertson,et al.  Evidence of self-recruitment in demersal marine populations , 2020 .

[53]  J. Lobón‐Cervià,et al.  Temporal patterns in macroinvertebrate drift in a northern Spanish stream , 1997 .

[54]  Drifting or walking? Colonisation routes used by different instars and species of lotic, macroinvertebrate filter feeders , 2005 .

[55]  R. Koenker Quantile Regression: Name Index , 2005 .

[56]  N. Poff,et al.  Size-dependent drift responses of mayflies to experimental hydrologic variation: active predator avoidance or passive hydrodynamic displacement? , 1991, Oecologia.

[57]  J. Lancaster,et al.  Spatial heterogeneity of near‐bed hydraulics above a patch of river gravel , 2006 .