Biological and ecological traits of benthic freshwater macroinvertebrates: relationships and definition of groups with similar traits

Summary 1 Relating species traits to habitat characteristics can provide important insights into the structure and functioning of stream communities. However, trade-offs among species traits make it difficult to predict accurately the functional diversity of freshwater communities. Many authors have pointed to the value of working with groups of organisms as similar as possible in terms of relationships among traits and have called for definition of groups of organisms with similar suites of attributes. 2 We used multivariate analyses to examine separately the relationships among 11 biological traits and among 11 ecological traits of 472 benthic macroinvertebrate taxa (mainly genera). The main objective was to demonstrate (1) potential trade-offs among traits; (2) the importance of the different traits to separate systematic units or functional groupings; and (3) uniform functional groups of taxa that should allow a more effective use of macroinvertebrate biological and ecological traits. 3 We defined eight groups and 15 subgroups according to a biological trait ordination which highlighted size (large to small), reproductive traits (K to r strategists), food (animal to plant material) and feeding habits (predator to scraper and/or deposit feeder) as ‘significant’ factors determining the ordination of taxa. This ordination partly preserved phylogenetic relationships among groups. 4 Seven ecological groups and 13 ecological subgroups included organisms with combinations of traits which should be successively more adequate in habitats from the main channel to temporary waters, and from the crenon to the potamic sections of rivers, and to systems situated outside the river floodplain. These gradients corresponded to a gradual shift from (1) rheophilic organisms that lived in the main channel of cold oligotrophic mountain streams to (2) animals that preferred eutrophic habitats of still or temporary waters in lowlands. The groups with similar ecological traits had a more diverse systematic structure than those with similar biological traits. 5 Monitoring and assessment tools for the management of water resources are generally more effective if they are based on a clear understanding of the mechanisms that lead to the presence or absence of species groups in the environment. We believe that groups with similar relationships among their species traits may be useful in developing tools that measure the functional diversity of communities.

[1]  B. Statzner,et al.  Reproductive traits, habitat use and templet theory: a synthesis of world-wide data on aquatic insects , 1997 .

[2]  J. Quinn,et al.  Characterisation and classification of benthic invertebrate communities in 88 New Zealand rivers in relation to environmental factors , 1990 .

[3]  G. Minshall Stream Ecosystem Theory: A Global Perspective , 1988, Journal of the North American Benthological Society.

[4]  J. Lancaster,et al.  Nested Hierarchies and Scale-Dependence of Mechanisms of Flow Refugium Use , 1997, Journal of the North American Benthological Society.

[5]  G. Minshall,et al.  Macroinvertebrate community structure in relation to measures of lotic habitat heterogeneity , 1998 .

[6]  Jenny Davis,et al.  Longitudinal Changes in Near-Bed Flows and Macroinvertebrate Communities in a Western Australian Stream , 1994, Journal of the North American Benthological Society.

[7]  M. Palmer,et al.  The Influence of Environmental Heterogeneity on Patterns and Processes in Streams , 1997, Journal of the North American Benthological Society.

[8]  N. Poff Why Disturbances Can Be Predictable: A Perspective on the Definition of Disturbance in Streams , 1992, Journal of the North American Benthological Society.

[9]  C. Townsend,et al.  Species traits in relation to a habitat templet for river systems , 1994 .

[10]  Mike R. Scarsbrook,et al.  Quantifying Disturbance in Streams: Alternative Measures of Disturbance in Relation to Macroinvertebrate Species Traits and Species Richness , 1997, Journal of the North American Benthological Society.

[11]  J. Webster,et al.  Patch Dynamics in Lotic Systems: The Stream as a Mosaic , 1988, Journal of the North American Benthological Society.

[12]  Charles P. Hawkins,et al.  Role of refugia in recovery from disturbances: Modern fragmented and disconnected river systems , 1990 .

[13]  N. LeRoy Poff,et al.  Implications of Streamflow Variability and Predictability for Lotic Community Structure: A Regional Analysis of Streamflow Patterns , 1989 .

[14]  C. Townsend,et al.  Stream community structure in relation to spatial and temporal variation: a habitat templet study of two contrasting New Zealand streams , 1993 .

[15]  J. Stanford,et al.  Insect Species Diversity as a Function of Environmental Variability and Disturbance in Stream Systems , 1983 .

[16]  M. Bournaud,et al.  Macroinvertebrate Community Structure and Environmental Characteristics along a Large River: Congruity of Patterns for Identification to Species or Family , 1996, Journal of the North American Benthological Society.

[17]  B. Statzner,et al.  Theoretical habitat templets, species traits, and species richness: 548 plant and animal species in the Upper Rhône River and its floodplain , 1994 .

[18]  R. Death,et al.  Environmental Stability and Community Persistence: A Multivariate Perspective , 1994, Journal of the North American Benthological Society.

[19]  L. Johnson,et al.  Catchment and reach‐scale properties as indicators of macroinvertebrate species traits , 1997 .

[20]  J. Spence The habitat templet and life history strategies of pond skaters (Heteroptera: Gerridae): reproductive potential, phenology, and wing dimorphism , 1989 .

[21]  G. W. Milligan,et al.  An examination of procedures for determining the number of clusters in a data set , 1985 .

[22]  N. Poff,et al.  Physical habitat template of lotic systems: Recovery in the context of historical pattern of spatiotemporal heterogeneity , 1990 .

[23]  J. H. Ward Hierarchical Grouping to Optimize an Objective Function , 1963 .

[24]  Robert J. Naiman,et al.  Disturbance regimes, resilience, and recovery of animal communities and habitats in lotic ecosystems , 1990 .

[25]  J. Fiasson Introduction à l'étude des Macroinvertébrés des eaux douces (Systématique élémentaire et aperçu écologique). H. Tachet, M. Bournaud et Ph. Richoux, avec la collaboration de L. Caillère, M. Coulet, J. Fontaine, J. Juget et E. Pattée , 1981 .

[26]  Colin R. Townsend,et al.  The Patch Dynamics Concept of Stream Community Ecology , 1989, Journal of the North American Benthological Society.

[27]  Mike R. Scarsbrook,et al.  Species traits in relation to temporal and spatial heterogeneity in streams: a test of habitat templet theory , 1997 .

[28]  J. Gerritsen,et al.  Additive Biological Indices for Resource Management , 1995, Journal of the North American Benthological Society.

[29]  T. Frost,et al.  Habitat Duration and Community Structure in Temporary Ponds , 1996, Journal of the North American Benthological Society.

[30]  J. P. Grime Biodiversity and Ecosystem Function: The Debate Deepens , 1997, Science.

[31]  Arthur V. Brown,et al.  The Role of Disturbance in Stream Ecology , 1988, Journal of the North American Benthological Society.

[32]  V. Resh,et al.  Water quality monitoring and aquatic organisms: the importance of species identification. , 1975, Journal - Water Pollution Control Federation.

[33]  Daniel Chessel,et al.  A fuzzy coding approach for the analysis of long‐term ecological data , 1994 .

[34]  T. R. E. Southwood,et al.  Tactics, strategies and templets* , 1988 .

[35]  B. Statzner,et al.  Biomonitoring through biological traits of benthic macroinvertebrates : perspectives for a general tool in stream management , 1998 .

[36]  B. Statzner,et al.  Theoretical habitat templets, species traits, and species richness: a synthesis of long‐term ecological research on the Upper Rhône River in the context of concurrently developed ecological theory , 1994 .