River discharge and local-scale physical habitat influence macroinvertebrate LIFE scores

1. Methods are needed to relate changing river flows to ecological response, particularly those which do not require collection of extensive new data for river segments that lack historical data. Using time-series of river biomonitoring data from wadeable lowland streams in Denmark and the East Midlands of the U.K., we describe how local-scale habitat features (indexed through River Habitat Survey or Danish Habitat Quality Survey) and changing river flow (discharge) influence the response of a macroinvertebrate community index. The approach has broad applicability in developing regional flow-ecological response models. 2. We analysed the data using multilevel linear regression, combining sample-level and site-level characteristics as predictors. We focused on the potential for common responses across sites; hence for each sample, the macroinvertebrate community was summarised into an index, Lotic Invertebrate index for Flow Evaluation (LIFE), an average of abundance-weighted flow groups which indicate the microhabitat preferences of each taxon for higher velocities and clean gravel ⁄cobble substrata or slow ⁄ still velocities and finer substrata. 3. For the Danish fauna, the LIFE score responded to three predictors in an additive manner: high flows in the preceding 4 months (positive), substratum composition and whether the channel was meandering or straight. The East Midlands fauna responded to three predictors: high and low flows in the preceding 6 months (positive) and the degree of resectioning of the channel (negative). In both cases, LIFE responded negatively to features associated with historical channel modification. We suggest that there are severalmechanisms for these relationships, including the narrower tolerances of taxa preferring high velocity habitat; these taxa are also continually recovering from extreme flow events over an inter-annual timescale. 4. At the East Midlands sites, there was an interaction between degree of resectioning and antecedent low flow. At sites with a greater extent of resectioning, the LIFE-discharge relationship was also steeper than at less modified sites. Consideration of the underlying data suggests that there are two mechanisms for this response. Firstly, in less modified sites, refugia are present during low flows for taxa preferring higher velocities such as riffle beetles, caseless caddis, mayflies and Gammarus pulex. Secondly, high flows are associated with decreasing abundances of taxa such as molluscs, flatworms and leeches at more resectioned sites, but with stable or increasing abundances at less modified sites. 5. The LIFE index responded to both antecedent flow and habitat modification in two separate data sets from lowland wadeable streams. This is the first time that the combined importance of these two factors has been demonstrated using routine invertebrate biomonitoring data. These results complement other site-specific studies that have shown how channel structure interacts with flow to create physical habitat, and should assist future work aiming to define flow-habitat-biota relationships. 6. The derived models may be used to help guide environmental flow allocations, for example by predicting the slope of response of LIFE score to flow for comparable new locations which lack biological data.

[1]  J. Webb,et al.  A Bayesian hierarchical trend analysis finds strong evidence for large-scale temporal declines in stream ecological condition around Melbourne, Australia , 2009 .

[2]  N. Friberg,et al.  Influence of disturbance on habitats and biological communities in lowland streams , 2009 .

[3]  G. Woodward,et al.  Integrating ecology with hydromorphology: a priority for river science and management , 2009 .

[4]  C. Konrad,et al.  Assessing streamflow characteristics as limiting factors on benthic invertebrate assemblages in streams across the western United States , 2008 .

[5]  David M. Hannah,et al.  Macroinvertebrate community response to inter‐annual and regional river flow regime dynamics , 2008 .

[6]  M. Doyle,et al.  Hydrologic versus geomorphic limitation on CPOM storage in stream ecosystems , 2008 .

[7]  J. Jones,et al.  A comparison of the relative contributions of temporal and spatial variation in the density of drifting invertebrates in a Dorset (U.K.) chalk stream , 2008 .

[8]  Angela H. Arthington,et al.  The impacts of drought on freshwater ecosystems: an Australian perspective , 2008, Hydrobiologia.

[9]  R. Eckert,et al.  A new index of habitat alteration and a comparison of approaches to predict stream habitat conditions , 2007 .

[10]  C. S. James,et al.  A framework for interdisciplinary understanding of rivers as ecosystems , 2007 .

[11]  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.

[12]  G. Hose,et al.  Short-term colonisation by macroinvertebrates of cobbles in main channel and inundated stream bank habitats , 2007, Hydrobiologia.

[13]  Lester L. Yuan Using biological assemblage composition to infer the values of covarying environmental factors , 2007 .

[14]  D. Phillips,et al.  Reach‐scale geomorphology affects organic matter and consumer δ13C in a forested Piedmont stream , 2007 .

[15]  N. Lamouroux,et al.  Modelling the hydraulic preferences of benthic macroinvertebrates in small European streams , 2007 .

[16]  Robert C. Bailey,et al.  Hierarchical structure of stream ecosystems: consequences for bioassessment , 2006, Hydrobiologia.

[17]  I. Jowett,et al.  Effects of floods versus low flows on invertebrates in a New Zealand gravel‐bed river , 2006 .

[18]  M. Furse,et al.  Hydromorphology – major results and conclusions from the STAR project , 2006, Hydrobiologia.

[19]  Søren E. Larsen,et al.  Comparison of macroinvertebrate sampling methods in Europe , 2006, Hydrobiologia.

[20]  R. Naiman,et al.  The challenge of providing environmental flow rules to sustain river ecosystems. , 2006, Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America.

[21]  N. Holmes The importance of long-term data sets in science and river management , 2006 .

[22]  D. Hannah,et al.  Flow variability and macroinvertebrate community response within riverine systems , 2006 .

[23]  P. Wood,et al.  The Use of Fossil Caddisfly Assemblages in the Reconstruction of Flow Environments from Floodplain Paleochannels of the River Trent, England , 2006 .

[24]  Richard G. Jones,et al.  RCM rainfall for UK flood frequency estimation. II. Climate change results , 2006 .

[25]  J. Richardson,et al.  Flow-substrate interactions create and mediate leaf litter resource patches in streams , 2006 .

[26]  L. Füreder,et al.  Long‐term studies of freshwater macroinvertebrates: a review of the frequency, duration and ecological significance , 2006 .

[27]  B. Statzner,et al.  Developments in aquatic insect biomonitoring: a comparative analysis of recent approaches. , 2006, Annual review of entomology.

[28]  M. Furse,et al.  The development and testing of a macroinvertebrate biotic index for detecting the impact of acidity on streams , 2005 .

[29]  An application of canonical correspondence analysis for developing ecological quality assessment metrics for river macrophytes , 2005 .

[30]  C. Revenga,et al.  Fragmentation and Flow Regulation of the World's Large River Systems , 2005, Science.

[31]  B. Gray,et al.  Modelling habitat associations with fingernail clam (Family: Sphaeriidae) counts at multiple spatial scales using hierarchical count models , 2005 .

[32]  Mike Acreman,et al.  Linking science and decision-making: features and experience from environmental river flow setting , 2005, Environ. Model. Softw..

[33]  R. Wagner,et al.  Yearly discharge patterns determine species abundance and community diversity: Analysis of a 25 year record from the Breitenbach , 2004 .

[34]  C. Extence,et al.  The conservation of freshwater macroinvertebrate populations: a community‐based classification scheme , 2004 .

[35]  Melissa Parsons,et al.  Using hierarchy to select scales of measurement in multiscale studies of stream macroinvertebrate assemblages , 2004, Journal of the North American Benthological Society.

[36]  C. Townsend,et al.  Scale and the detection of land-use effects on morphology, vegetation and macroinvertebrate communities of grassland streams , 2004 .

[37]  H. Habersack The river-scaling concept (RSC): a basis for ecological assessments , 2000, Hydrobiologia.

[38]  G. Petts,et al.  The effects of water abstractions on invertebrate communities in U.K. streams , 1995, Hydrobiologia.

[39]  Andrew J. Boulton,et al.  Parallels and contrasts in the effects of drought on stream macroinvertebrate assemblages , 2003 .

[40]  Darren S. Baldwin,et al.  Drought and aquatic ecosystems: an introduction , 2003 .

[41]  A. Hildrew,et al.  Mobility of stream invertebrates in relation to disturbance and refugia: a test of habitat templet theory , 2003, Journal of the North American Benthological Society.

[42]  M. Harmon,et al.  Ecological Variability in Space and Time: Insights Gained from the US LTER Program , 2003 .

[43]  A. Arthington,et al.  Basic Principles and Ecological Consequences of Altered Flow Regimes for Aquatic Biodiversity , 2002, Environmental management.

[44]  J. Negishi,et al.  Effects of channelisation on stream habitat in relation to a spate and flow refugia for macroinvertebrates in northern Japan , 2002 .

[45]  P. J. Boon,et al.  Towards a harmonized approach for hydromorphological assessment of rivers in Europe: a qualitative comparison of three survey methods , 2002 .

[46]  Mike Furse,et al.  Preparing for the European Water Framework Directive — making the links between habitat and aquatic biota , 2002 .

[47]  B. Malmqvist,et al.  Threats to the running water ecosystems of the world , 2002, Environmental Conservation.

[48]  Guy Woodward,et al.  Food web structure in riverine landscapes , 2002 .

[49]  J. Gore,et al.  Macroinvertebrate instream flow studies after 20 years: A role in stream management and restoration , 2001 .

[50]  B. Statzner,et al.  Perspectives for biomonitoring at large spatial scales: a unified measure for the functional composition of invertebrate communities in European running waters , 2001 .

[51]  N. Friberg,et al.  Biological assessment of running waters in Denmark: introduction of the Danish Stream Fauna Index (DSFI) , 2000 .

[52]  G. Petts,et al.  Flow variations and macroinvertebrate community responses in a small groundwater-dominated stream in south-east England , 2000 .

[53]  D. Hart,et al.  PHYSICAL-BIOLOGICAL COUPLING IN STREAMS: The Pervasive Effects of Flow on Benthic Organisms , 1999 .

[54]  D. M. Balbi,et al.  River flow indexing using british benthic macroinvertebrates : A framework for setting hydroecological objectives , 1999 .

[55]  Ian Maddock,et al.  The Importance of Physical Habitat Assessment for Evaluating River Health , 1999 .

[56]  P. J. Boon,et al.  Towards an integrated approach to classifying and evaluating rivers in the UK , 1998 .

[57]  F. H. Dawson,et al.  Quality assessment using River Habitat Survey data , 1998 .

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

[59]  B. Biggs,et al.  Relationships between benthic biota and hydrological indices in New Zealand streams , 1997 .

[60]  John Cairns,et al.  Ecological integrity of aquatic systems , 1995 .

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

[62]  B. Statzner,et al.  Stream hydraulics as a major determinant of benthic invertebrate zonation patterns , 1986 .

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

[64]  James R. Karr,et al.  Habitat Structure and Stream Fish Communities , 1978 .