What’s in a site? Variation in lotic macroinvertebrate density and diversity in a spatially replicated experiment

Few studies have tested whether a small-scale, experimental difference in biotic density and diversity detected at one site has any predictive capacity at other locations, nor whether such experimental differences are significant relative to overall spatial variation. In this study, we tested textural differences between substrata– previously shown to be critical to macroinvertebrate density and diversity at one site on the Steavenson River in southeastern Australia–and replicated the experiment at this site and at two others on the same river, plus at three sites on each of two other rivers (the Acheron and Little Rivers) in the same catchment. Nine rough and nine smooth colonization substrata were set out at each site on 19 December 1995, and at the start of the experiment (26 and 27 February 1996), invertebrates were hand-picked from substrata while leaving epilithon intact. We re-collected substrata after 28 days. Substrate texture had a consistent and strong effect upon species richness at all sites, except one, and was also associated with compositional differences at the family level. Textural effects on macroinvertebrate densities were present and varied among sites and rivers somewhat, but only three of nine common species showed significant interactions between textural effects and one of the two spatial scales, and these interactions explained <10% of variance. In most but not all cases, textural effects were the same as that previously observed–higher numbers on rough surfaces compared to smooth. Most variation in species richness and densities was explained by site, which accounted for 30% of variation in species richness, 60% of total numbers of individuals, and 9–75% of variation in abundances in all nine common taxa. Site differences were also associated with large shifts in faunal composition at the family level. Differences between rivers explained 0% of the variance in most cases but it was significant in explaining the abundance of one common species (the beetle Simsonia wilsoni), where it accounted for 59% of the variance. Our results indicate that a small-scale effect, such as textural differences between substrata, can produce a consistent effect on measures of community structure and have some predictive capacity at other locations. However, the large differences between sites, relative to those seen between whole rivers, suggest that efforts must be directed to discovering what factors cause such localized fluctuations. Sites cannot be reasonably used as ‘representative’ of larger spatial units, such as long sections of entire rivers. Additionally, rivers may not necessarily have signature variation that always overrides localized, site-based differences.

[1]  C. Frissell,et al.  A hierarchical framework for stream habitat classification: Viewing streams in a watershed context , 1986 .

[2]  Stuart E. Bunn,et al.  Dispersal and Recruitment in Streams: Evidence from Genetic Studies , 1997, Journal of the North American Benthological Society.

[3]  M. Keough,et al.  Scaling of colonization processes in streams: Parallels and lessons from marine hard substrata , 1998 .

[4]  D. Padilla,et al.  Ecological neighborhoods: scaling environmental patterns , 1987 .

[5]  T. Entwisle Macroalgae in the Upper Yarra and Watts River Catchments: Distribution and Phenology , 1990 .

[6]  B. Downes,et al.  Spatial Variation in the Force Required to Initiate Rock Movement in 4 Upland Streams: Implications for Estimating Disturbance Frequencies , 1997, Journal of the North American Benthological Society.

[7]  David C. Schneider,et al.  Quantitative Ecology: Spatial and Temporal Scaling , 1994 .

[8]  J. McAuliffe Competition for Space, Disturbance, and the Structure of a Benthic Stream Community , 1984 .

[9]  M. Minchin Smoking and Breastfeeding: An Overview , 1991, Journal of human lactation : official journal of International Lactation Consultant Association.

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

[11]  S. Levin The problem of pattern and scale in ecology , 1992 .

[12]  Marti J. Anderson,et al.  Partitioning the variation among spatial, temporal and environmental components in a multivariate data set , 1998 .

[13]  Thomas A. McMahon,et al.  Stream Hydrology: An Introduction for Ecologists , 1997 .

[14]  L. Corkum Intrabiome Distributional Patterns of Lotic Macroinvertebrate Assemblages , 1990 .

[15]  A. N. Strahler Hypsometric (area-altitude) analysis of erosional topography. , 1952 .

[16]  D. Schneider 14 – SPATIAL SCALING , 1994 .

[17]  B. Chessman,et al.  Measuring the impact of sewage effluent on the macroinvertebrate community of an upland stream: The effect of different levels of taxonomic resolution and quantification , 1995 .

[18]  K. R. Clarke,et al.  Non‐parametric multivariate analyses of changes in community structure , 1993 .

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

[20]  J. Wiens Spatial Scaling in Ecology , 1989 .

[21]  G. Minshall,et al.  The River Continuum Concept , 1980 .

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

[23]  S. Kohler Competition and the Structure of a Benthic Stream Community , 1992 .

[24]  N. B. Kotliar,et al.  Multiple scales of patchiness and patch structure: a hierarchical framework for the study of heterogeneity , 1990 .

[25]  C. L. Humphrey,et al.  Baseline requirements for assessment of mining impact using biological monitoring , 1995 .

[26]  A. J. Underwood,et al.  Techniques of analysis of variance in experimental marine biology and ecology , 1981 .

[27]  P. S. Lake,et al.  Longitudinal variation in recolonization rates of macroinvertebrates along an upland river in south‐eastern Australia , 1991 .

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

[29]  M. Chapman,et al.  Spatial analyses of intertidal assemblages on sheltered rocky shores , 1998 .

[30]  R. Mac Nally,et al.  Symposium introduction: the importance of scale in ecology , 1998 .

[31]  Barbara J. Downes,et al.  Spatial variation in the distribution of stream invertebrates: implications of patchiness for models of community organization , 1993 .

[32]  M. Beck Inference and generality in ecology: current problems and an experimental solution , 1997 .

[33]  D. Simberloff Flagships, umbrellas, and keystones: Is single-species management passé in the landscape era? , 1998 .

[34]  R. Bailey,et al.  Does taxonomic resolution affect the multivariate description of the structure of freshwater benthic macroinvertebrate communities , 1997 .

[35]  Peter Calow,et al.  The Rivers Handbook , 1993 .

[36]  J. Kolasa,et al.  Introduction: The Heterogeneity of Heterogeneity: A Glossary , 1991 .

[37]  A. Butler Effect of patchsize on communities of sessile invertebrates in Gulf St Vincent, South Australia , 1991 .

[38]  D. Raffaelli,et al.  Aquatic Ecology: Scale, Pattern and Process. , 1995 .

[39]  P. S. Lake,et al.  Colonization of experimentally disturbed patches by stream macroinvertebrates in the Acheron River, Victoria , 1989 .

[40]  G. Minshall,et al.  INTERBIOME COMPARISON OF STREAM ECOSYSTEM DYNAMICS , 1983 .