Variability of lotic macroinvertebrate assemblages and stream habitat characteristics across hierarchical landscape classifications

Environmental Management

Volumn 34, Issue 3, 2004, Pages 341-352

  Mykrä, Heikki ^a   Heino, Jani ^b,c   Muotka, Timo ^b,c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF JYVÄSKYLÄ   (Finland)

^b FINNISH ENVIRONMENT INSTITUTE   (Finland)

^c UNIVERSITY OF OULU   (Finland)

Author keywords

Benthic macroinvertebrates; Bioassessment; Drainage systems; Ecoregions; Streams

Indexed keywords

ECOLOGY; ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; HIERARCHICAL SYSTEMS; STATISTICAL METHODS; SURFACE WATERS;

BIOTA; MULTIRESPONSE PERMUTATION PROCEDURE (MRPP); NONMETRIC MULTIDIMENSIONAL SCALING (NMDS);

STREAM FLOW;

ECOREGION; HIERARCHICAL SYSTEM; LOTIC ENVIRONMENT; MACROINVERTEBRATE; STREAM;

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; ANALYTIC METHOD; BIOASSAY; CLASSIFICATION; DIAGNOSIS; ECOSYSTEM; HABITAT STRUCTURE; LANDSCAPE; MACROINVERTEBRATE; MULTIRESPONSE PERMUTATION PROCEDURE; NONMETRIC MULTIDIMENSIONAL SCALING; PREDICTION; QUANTITATIVE DIAGNOSIS; REVIEW; STATISTICS; STREAM (RIVER); TAXONOMY; WATER ANALYSIS;

ANIMALS; ECOLOGY; ECOSYSTEM; ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING; FOOD CHAIN; INVERTEBRATES; POPULATION DYNAMICS; RISK ASSESSMENT; RIVERS; WATER; WATER MOVEMENTS; WATER POLLUTANTS, CHEMICAL;

ALGAE; CELLULAR ORGANISMS; INVERTEBRATA;

EID: 5344246699     PISSN: 0364152X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s00267-004-0236-1     Document Type: Review

References (58)

1. Armitage, P. D., D. Moss, J. F. Wright, and M. T. Furse. 1983. The performance of a new biological water quality score system based on macroinvertebrates over a wide range of unpolluted running-water sites. Water Research 17:333-347.
2. Barbour, M. T., J. Gerritsen, G. E. Griffith, R. Frydenborg, E. McCarron, J. S. White, and M. L. Bastian. 1996. A framework for biological criteria for Florida streams using benthic macroinvertebrates. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 15:185-211.
3. Bennington, C. C., and W. V. Thayne. 1994. Use and misuse of mixed model analysis of variance in ecological studies. Ecology 75:717-722.
4. Boyero, L., Bailey, R.C. (2001) "Organization of macroinvertebrate communities at a hierarchy of spatial scales in a tropical stream" Hydrobiologic 464:219-225.
5. Carter, J. L., S. V. Fend, and S. S. Kennelly. 1996. The relationships among three habitat scales and benthic invertebrate community structure. Freshwater Biology 35:109-124.
6. Cooper, S. D., L. Barmuta, O. Sarnelle, K. Kratz, and S. Diehl. 1997. The description of patchiness and its applications to the study of biological interactions in streams. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 16:174-188.
7. Cooper, S. D., S. Diehl, K. Kratz, and O. Sarnelle. 1998. Implications of scale for patterns and processes in stream ecology. Australian Journal of Ecology 23:27-40.
8. Corkum, L. 1989. Patterns of benthic invertebrate assemblages in rivers of northwestern North America. Freshwater Biology 21:191-205.
9. Corkum, L. 1990. Intrabiome distributional patterns of lotic macroinvertebrate assemblages. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 47:2147-2157.
10. Crowl, T. A., and G. D. Schnell. 1990. Factors determining population density and size distribution of a freshwater snail in streams: Effects of spatial scale. Oikos 59:359-367.
11. Dangles, O. B., XXX Malmqvist, and H. Laudon. 2004. Naturally acid freshwater ecosystems are diverse and functional: Evidence from boreal streams. Oikos 104:149-155.
12. Dovciak, A. L., and J. A. Perry. 2002. In search of effective scales for stream management: Does agroecoregion, watershed, or their intersection best explain the variance in stream macroinvertebrate communities. Environmental Management 30:365-377.
13. Downes, B. J., P. S. Lake, and E. S. G. Schreiber. 1993. Spatial variation in the distribution of stream invertebrates: Implications of patchiness for models of community organization. Freshwater Biology 30:119-132.
14. Downes, B.J., P. S. Lake, and E. S. G. Schreiber. 1995. Habitat structure and invertebrate assemblages on stream stones: A multivariate view from the riffle. Australian Journal of Ecology 20:502-514.
15. Feminella, J. 2000. Correspondence between stream macroinvertebrate assemblages and 4 ecoregions of the southeastern USA. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 19:442-461.
16. Fore, L. S., J. R. Karr, and R. W. Wisseman. 1996. Assessing invertebrate responses to human activities. Evaluating alternative approaches. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 15:212-231.
17. Frissell, C. A., W. J. Wiss, C. E. Warren, and M. D. Huxley. 1986. A hierarchical framework for stream classification: Viewing streams in watershed context. Environmental Management 10:199-214.
18. Hämäläinen, H., and P. Huttunen. 1990. Estimation of acidity in streams by means of benthic invertebrates: Evaluation of two methods. Pages 1051-1070 in P. Kauppi, P. Anttila, and K. Kenttämies. (eds.), Acidification in Finland. Springer-Vertag, Berlin.
19. Hawkins, C. P., and J. R. Sedell. 1981. Longitudinal and seasonal changes in functional organization of macroinvertebrate communities in four Oregon streams. Ecology 62:387-397.
20. Hawkins, C. P., and M. R. Vinson. 2000. Weak correspondence between landscape classifications and stream invertebrate assemblages: Implications for bioassessment. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 19:501-517.
21. Hawkins, C. P., R. H. Norris, J. Gerritsen, R. M. Hughes, S. K. Jackson, R. K. Johnson, and R. J. Stevenson. 2000. Evaluation of the use of landscape classifications for the prediction of freshwater biota: Synthesis and recommendations. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 19:541-556.
22. Heino, J., T. Muotka, R. Paavola, H. Hämäläinen, and E. Koskenniemi. 2002. Correspondence between regional delineations and spatial patterns in macroinvertebrate assemblages of boreal headwater streams. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 21:397-413.
23. Heino, J., T. Muotka, H. Mykrä, R. Paavola, H. Hämälä inen, and E. Koskenniemi. 2003a. Defining macroinvertebrate assemblage types of headwater streams: Implications for bioassessment and conservation. Ecological Applications 13:842-852.
24. Heino, J., T. Muotka, R. Paavola, and L. Paasivirta. 2003b. Among-taxon congruence in biodiversity patterns: can stream insect diversity be predicted using single taxonomic groups. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 66:1639-1649.
25. Karr, J. R., and E. W. Chu. 1999. Restoring life in running waters: Better biological monitoring. Island Press, Washington, DC.
26. Kerans, B. L., and J. R. Karr. 1994. A benthic index of biotic integrity (B-IBI) for rivers of the Tennessee Valley. Ecological Applications 4:768-785.
27. Kohler, S. L., and M. J. Wiley. 1997. Pathogen outbreaks reveal large-scale effects of competition in stream communities. Ecology 73:2164-2176.
28. Kuusela, K. 1984. Emergence of Plecoptera in two lotic habitats in the Oulanka National Park, northeastern Finland. Annales limnologica 20:63-68.
29. Lammert, M., and J. D. Allan. 1999. Assessing biotic integrity of streams: Effects of scale in measuring the influence of land use/cover and habitat structure on fish and macroinvertebrates. Environmental Management 23:257-270.
30. Legendre, P., and L. Legendre. 1998. Numerical ecology. Developments in Environmental Modeling 20. Elsevier, Amsterdam.
31. Li, J., A. Herlihy, W. Gerth, P. Kaufman, S. Gregory, S. Urquhart, and D. P. Larsen. 2001. Variability in stream macroinvertebrates at multiple spatial scales. Freshwater Biology 46:87-97.
32. Malmqvist, B., and M. Mäki. 1994. Benthic macroinvertebrate assemblages in north Swedish streams: environmental relationships. Ecography 17:9-16.
33. McCune, B., and M. J. Mefford. 1999. PC-ORD. Multivariate analysis of ecological data, version 4.0. MJM Software Design. Gleneden Beach, Oregon.
34. Menge, B. A., and A. M. Olson. 1990. Role of scale and environmental factors in regulation of community structure. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 5:52-57.
35. Merritt, R. W., and K. W. Cummins. 1996. An introduction to the aquatic insects of North America, 3rd ed. Kendall/Hunt, Dubuque, Iowa.
36. Morrisey, D. J., L. Howitt, A. J. Underwood, and J. S. Stark. 1992. Spatial variation in soft-sediment benthos. Marine Ecology Progress Series 81:197-204.
37. Newall, P. R., and J. J. Magnuson. 1999. The importance of ecoregion versus drainage area on fish distributions in the St. Croix River and its Wisconsin tributaries. Environmental Biology of Fishes 55:245-254.
38. Nordic Council of Ministers 1984. Naturgeografisk regionindelning av Norden. Nordiska Ministerrådet, Oslo, Norway.
39. Otto, C., and B. Svensson. 1983. Properties of acid brown water streams in South Sweden. Archiv für Hydrobiologie 99:15-36.
40. Paavola, R., T. Muotka, and P. Tikkanen. 2000. Macroinvertebrate community structure and species diversity in humic streams of Finnish Lapland. Verhandlungen der Internationalen Vereinigung für theoretische und angewandte Limnologie 27:2550-2555.
41. Paavola, R., T. Muotka, R. Virtanen, J. Heino, and P. Kreivi. 2003. Are biological classifications of headwater streams concordant across multiple taxonomic groups. Freshwater Biology 48:1912-1923.
42. Parsons, M., M. C. Thoms, and R. H. Norris. 2003. Scales of macroinvertebrate distribution in relation to the hierarchical organization of river systems. Journal of the North American Bentholocical Society 22:105-122.
43. Poff, L. N. 1997. Landscape filters and species traits: towards mechanistic understanding and prediction in stream ecology. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 16:391-409.
44. Rabeni, C. F., and K. E. Doisy. 2000. Correspondence of stream benthic invertebrate assemblages to regional classification schemes in Missouri. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 19:419-428.
45. Richards, C., R. J. Haro, L. B. Johnson, and G. E. Host. 1997. Catchment and reach-scale properties as indicators of macroinvertebrate species traits. Freshwater Biology 37:219-230.
46. Reynoldson, T. B., R. H. Norris, V. H. Resh, K. E. Day, and D. M. Rosenberg. 1997. The reference condition: a comparison of multimetric and multivariate approaches to assess water-quality impairment using benthic macroinvertebrates. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 16:833-852.
47. Sandin, L., and R. K. Johnson. 2000a. Ecoregions and benthic macroinvertebrate assemblages of Swedish streams. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 19:462-474.
48. Sandin, L., and R. K. Johnson. 2000b. The statistical power of selected indicator metrics using macroinvertebrates for assessing acidification and eutrophication of running waters. Hydrobiologia 422:233-243.
49. SPSS Inc 1999. SPSS base 10.0 applications guide. SPPS Inc, Chicago, Illinois.
50. Tonn, W. M. 1990. Climate change and fish communities: a conceptual approach. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 199:337-352.
51. Underwood, A. J. 1997. Experiments in ecology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
52. Vannote, R. L., G. W. Minshall, K. W. Cummins, J. R. Sedell, and C. E. Cushing. 1980. The river continuum concept. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 37:130-137.
53. Vuori, K. M., and T. Muotka. 1999. Benthic communities in humic streams. Pages 193-207 in J. Keskitalo, and P. Eloranta. (eds.), Limnology of humic waters. Backhyus, Leiden, The Netherlands.
54. Whittier, T. R., R. M. Hughes, and D. P. Larsen. 1988. Correspondence between ecoregions and spatial patterns in stream ecosystems in Oregon. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 45:1264-1278.
55. Wiberg-Larsen, P., K. P. Brodersen, S. Birgholm, P. N. Gron, and J. Skriver. 2000. Species richness and assemblage structure of Trichoptera in Danish streams. Freshwater Biology 43:633-647.
56. Wiens, J. 1989. Spatial scaling in ecology. Functional Ecology 3:385-397.
57. Wiley, M., Kohler, S.L., Seelbach, P. (1997) "Reconciling landscape and local views of equatic communities: lessons from Michigan trout streams" Freshwater Biology 37:133-148.
58. Zimmerman, G. M., H. Goetz, and P. W. Mielke Jr. 1985. Use of an improved statistical method for group comparisons to study effects of prairie fire. Ecology 66:606-611.