Impact of hydromorphology and spatial scale on macroinvertebrate assemblage composition in streams

Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management

Volumn 5, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 97-109

  Verdonschot, Piet F M ^a  

^a WAGENINGEN UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Key factor; Macroinvertebrate distribution; Management; Restoration; Risk assessment

Indexed keywords

ANIMAL; ARTICLE; ECOSYSTEM; ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING; ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; GEOLOGY; INVERTEBRATE; METHODOLOGY; PHYSIOLOGY; POPULATION DYNAMICS; RIVER; WATER FLOW;

ANIMALS; CONSERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES; ECOSYSTEM; ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING; GEOLOGY; INVERTEBRATES; POPULATION DYNAMICS; RIVERS; WATER MOVEMENTS;

EID: 66149104144     PISSN: 15513793     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1897/IEAM_2008-028.1     Document Type: Article

References (71)

1. Agences de l'Eau and Ministère de l'Environnement. 1998. SEQ-physique: A system for the evaluation of the physical quality of watercourses. Montreal (PQ): Ministère de l'Environnement et des Parcs. 15 p.
2. Allan JD, Erickson DL, Fay J. 1997. The influence of catchment land use on stream integrity across multiple spatial scales. Freshw Biol 37:149-162.
3. Allan JD, Johnson LB. 1997. Catchment-scale analysis of aquatic ecosystems. Freshw Biol 37:107-111.
4. Allan TFH, Starr TB. 1982. Hierarchy: Perspectives for ecological complexity. Chicago (IL): Univ Chicago.
5. AQEM Consortium. 2002. Manual for the application of the AQEM method: A comprehensive method to assess European streams using benthic macroinvertebrates, developed for the purpose of the Water Framework Directive. Version 1.0. Duisburg (DE): Univ Duisburg-Essen.
6. Bovee KD. 1982. A guide to stream habitat analysis using the instream flow incremental methodologies. Fort Collins (CO): US Wildlife Service Instream Flow Group. Paper 12. Report FWS/OBS-82/26.
7. Braioni MG, De Franceschi P, Braioni A, Campeol G, Caloi S, Grandis N, Pontiroli A, Ravanello P. 2001. New environmental indices for assessing bank quality in the restoration and the sustainable management of a river: the method. Ecohydrol Hydrobiol 1:133-154.
8. Bunn SE, Arthington AH. 2002. Basic principles and ecological consequences of altered flow regimes for aquatic biodiversity. Environ Manag 30:492-507.
9. Chaves ML, Chainho PM, Costa JL, Prat N, Costa MJ. 2005. Regional and local environmental factors structuring undisturbed benthic macroinvertebrate communities in the Mondego River basin, Portugal. Arch Hydrobiol 163:497-523.
10. Cummins KW, Lauff GH. 1969. The influence of substrate particle size on the microdistribution of stream benthos. Hydrobiologia 34:145-181.
11. Davies NM, Norris RH, Thoms MC. 2000. Prediction and assessment of local stream habitat features using large-scale catchment characteristics. Freshw Biol 45:343-369.
12. European Commission. 1997. Council Directive 1997/62/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council adapting to technical and scientific progress Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora. Off J Eur Community 27 October 1997.
13. European Commission. 2000. Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a framework for community action in the field of water policy. Off J Eur Community 23 October 2000. 72 p.
14. Feld CK. 2004. Identification and measure of hydromorphological degradation in central European lowland streams. Hydrobiologia 516:69-90.
15. Feld CK, Hering D. 2007. Effects of environmental stress on riverine benthic macroinvertebrates. Freshw Biol 52:1380-1399.
16. Friedrich G, Hesse KJ, Lacombe J. 1993. Die ökologische Gewasserstrukturkarte. Z Wasser Abwass 11.
17. Frissell CA, Liss WJ, Warren CE, Hurley MD. 1986. A hierarchical approach to classifying stream habitat features: viewing streams in a watershed context. Environ Manag 10:199-214.
18. Gordon ND, McMahon TA, Finlayson BL. 1992. Stream hydrology: An introduction for ecologists. Chichester (UK): John Wiley.
19. Harper D, Smith C, Barham P, Howell R. 1995. The ecological basis of the management of the natural river environment. In: Harper DM, Ferguson AJD, editors. The ecological basis for river management. Chichester (UK): John Wiley and Sons. p 219-238.
20. Hart BT, Fonseka DM. 1996. An important confluence for stream ecology. Trends Ecol Evol 11:272-273.
21. Hering D, Moog O, Sandin L, Verdonschot PFM. 2004. Overview and application of the AQEM assessment system. Hydrobiologia 516:1-379.
22. Hildrew AG, Townsend CR. 1976. The distribution of two predators and their prey in an iron rich stream. J Anim Ecol 45:41-57.
23. Hynes HBN. 1975. The stream and its valley. Verh Int Ver Limnol 19:1-15.
24. Jensen ME, Bourgeron P, Everett R, Goodman I. 1996. Ecosystem management: a landscape ecology perspective. Water Resour Bull 32:203-216.
25. Johnson RK, Goedkoop W, Sandin L. 2004. Spatial scale and ecological relationships between the macroinvertebrate communities of stony habitats of streams and lakes. Freshw Biol 49:1179-1194.
26. Karr JR, Toth LA, Dudly DR. 1985. Fish communities of Midwestern rivers: a history of degradation. Bioscience 35:90-95.
27. Lorenz A, Hering D, Feld CK, Rolauffs P. 2004. A new method for assessing the impact of hydromorphological degradation on the macroinvertebrate fauna of five German stream types. Hydrobiologia 516:107-127.
28. Malmqvist B, Rundle S. 2002. Threats to the running water ecosystems of the world. Environ Conserv 29:134-153.
29. 2 ohne Bundesflüsse. Vienna (AT): Wasserwirtschaftskataster Bundesministerium für Land- und Forstwirtschaft. 177 p.
30. Mykra H, Heino J, Moutka T. 2004. Variability of lotic macroinvertebrate assemblages and stream habitat characteristics across hierarchical landscape classifications. Environ Manag 34:341-352.
31. Naiman RJ, Magnuson JJ, McKnight DM, Stanford JA, Karr JR. 1995. Freshwater ecosystems and their management: A national initiative. Science 270(5236):584-585.
32. Nestler JM, Milhous RT, Layzer JB. 1989. Instream habitat modelling techniques. In: Gore JA, Petts GE, editors. Alternatives in regulated river management. Boca Raton (FL): CRC. p 295-315.
33. Newson MD, Clark MJ, Sear DA, Brookes A. 1998. The geomorphological basis for classifying rivers. Aquat Conserv Mar Freshw Ecosyst 8:415-430.
34. Newson MD, Large ARG. 2006. 'Natural' rivers, 'hydromorphological quality' and river restoration: a challenging new agenda for applied fluvial geomorphology. Earth Surf Process Landforms 31:1606-1624.
35. Nijboer RC, Johnson RK, Sommerhäuser M, Buffagni A, Verdonschot PFM. 2004. Establishing reference conditions for European streams. Hydrobiologia 516:91-105.
36. Nijboer RC, Verdonschot PFM. 2000. Taxonomic adjustment affects data analysis: an often forgotten error. Verh Int Ver Limnol 27:1-4.
37. [NRA] National Rivers Authority. 1992. River corridor surveys. Bristol (UK): NRA.
38. [Ohio EPA] Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. 1989. Biological criteria for the protection of aquatic life. Vol I-III.: Columbus (OH): Ohio EPA.
39. O'Niell RV, DeAngelis DL, Waide JB, Allen TFH. 1986. A hierarchical concept of the ecosystem. Princeton (NJ): Princeton Univ.
40. Ormerod SJ. 2003. Restoration in applied ecology: Editor's introduction. J Appl Ecol 40:44-50.
41. Parsons M, Thoms M, Norris R. 2002. Australian river assessment system: Review of physical river assessment methods-A biological perspective. Canberra (AU): Monitoring River Heath Initiative, Commonwealth of Australia and University of Canberra. Technical Report 21. 65 p.
42. Petersen RC. 1992. The RCE: A riparian, channel and environmental inventory for small streams in the agricultural landscape. Freshw Biol 27:295-306.
43. Plafkin JL, Barbour MT, Porter KD, Gros SK, Hughes RM. 1989. Rapid bioassessment protocols for use in streams and rivers: Benthic macroinvertebrates and fish. Washington DC: US Environmental Protection Agency. EPA 444/4-89-US.
44. Poff L, Allan JD, Bain MB, Karr JR, Prestegaard KL, Richter B, Sparks R, Stromberg J. 1997. The natural flow regime: A paradigm for river conservation and restoration. Bioscience 47:769-784.
45. Power ME, Sun A, Parker M, Dietrich WE, Wootton JT. 1995. Hydraulic food-chain models: an approach to the study of food-web dynamics in large rivers. Bioscience 45:159-67.
46. Rabeni CF. 2000. Evaluating physical habitat integrity in relation to the biological potential of streams. Hydrobiologia 422/423:245-256.
47. Raven PJ, Holmes NTH, Dawson FH, Fox PJA, Everard M, Fozzard IR, Rouen KJ. 1997. River habitat quality: The physical character of rivers and streams in the U.K. and Isle of Man. Bristol (UK): Environment Agency.
48. Raven PJ, Holmes NTH, Charrier P, Dawson FH, Naura M, Boon PJ. 2002. Towards a harmonized approach for hydromorphological assessment of rivers in Europe: A qualitative comparison of three survey methods. Aquat Conserv Mar Freshw Ecosyst 12:405-424.
49. Richter BD, Baumgartner JV, Powell J, Braun DP. 1996. A method for assessing hydrologic alternation within ecosystems. Conserv Biol 10:1163-1174.
50. Riis T, Sand-Jensen K. 2001. Historical changes of species composition and richness accompanying disturbance and eutrophication of lowland streams over 100 years. Freshw Biol 46:269-280.
51. Sandin L, Johnson RK. 2004. Local, landscape and regional factors structuring benthic macroinvertebrate assemblages in Swedish streams. Landsc Ecol 19:501-514.
52. Sedell JR, Reeves GH, Hauer FR, Stanford JA, Hawkins CP. 1990. Role of refugia in recovery from disturbances: modern fragmented and disconnected river systems. Environ Manag 14:711-724.
53. Siligardi M, Cappelletti C. 2006. A new approach to evaluating fluvial functioning (FFI): Towards a landscape ecology. Biol Monit Rivers 401-418.
54. Sponseller RA, Benfield EF, Valett HM. 2001. Relationships between land use, spatial scale and stream macroinvertebrate communities. Freshw Biol 46:1409-1424.
55. ter Braak CJF. 1987. CANOCO [computer program]. Version 2.1. Wageningen (NL): Agricultural Mathematics Group, Univ Wageningen. 95 p.
56. ter Braak CJF, Šmilauer P. 1998. CANOCO reference manual and users guide to CANOCO for Windows: Software for canonical community ordination (Ver 4). Wageningen (NL): Centre for Biometry.
57. Thomson JR, Taylor MP, Fryirs KA, Brierley GJ. 2001. Geomorphological framework for river characterization and habitat assessment. Aquat Conserv Mar Freshw Ecosyst 11:373-389.
58. Tickner D, Armitage PD, Bickerton MA, Hall KA. 2000. Assessing stream quality using information on mesohabitat distribution and character. Aquat Conserv Mar Freshw Ecosyst 10:179-196.
59. Tolkamp HH. 1980. Organism-substratum relationships in lowland streams [PhD thesis]. Wageningen (NL): Centre for Agricultural Publishing and Documentation. 211 p.
60. Turner MG. 1990. Landscape changes in nine rural counties in Georgia. Photogram Eng Remote Sens 56:379-386.
61. US Fish and Wildlife Service. 1981. Habitat evaluation procedures (HEP). Washington DC.ESM 102 USFWS. 135 p.
62. van Walsum PEV, Verdonschot PFM, Runhaar J. 2001. Effects of climate and landuse change on lowland stream ecosystems. Wageningen (NL): Dutch National Research Programme on Global Air Pollution and Climate Change, Report 410 200 067. 201 p.
63. Verdonschot PFM. 1994. Water typology: a tool for water management and nature conservation. Verh Int Ver Limnol 25:1911-1913.
64. Verdonschot PFM. 2000. Integrated ecological assessment methods as a basis for sustainable catchment management. Hydrobiologia 422/423:389-412.
65. Verdonschot PFM, Driessen JMC, Mosterdijk HG, Schot JA. 1998. The 5-S-Model, an integrated approach for stream rehabilitation. In: Hansen HO, Madsen BL, editors. Proceedings of the River Restoration '96, session lectures; 1995 Sep; Silkeborg, Denmark. Roskilde (DK): National Environmental Research Institute, Univ Aarhus. p 36-44.
66. Verdonschot PFM, Nijboer RC. 2002. Towards a decision support system for stream restoration in the Netherlands: An overview of restoration projects and future needs. Hydrobiologia 478:131-148.
67. Verdonschot PFM, Nijboer RC. 2004. Testing the European stream typology of the Water Framework Directive for macroinvertebrates. Hydrobiologia 175:35-54.
68. Vlek HE, Verdonschot PFM, Nijboer RC. 2004. Towards a multimetric index for the assessment of Dutch streams using benthic macroinvertebrates. Hydrobiologia 516:173-189.
69. Ward JV. 1989. The four dimensional nature of lotic ecosystems. J North Am Benthol Soc 8:2-8.
70. Werth W. 1987. Okomorphologische Gewasserbewertung [Ecomorphological survey of streams]. Osterr Wasserwirtsch 39:122-128. In German.
71. Williams RN, Calvin LD, Coutant CC, Erho MW, Lichatowich JA, Liss WJ, McConnaha WE, Mundy PR, Stanford JA, Whitney RR. 1996. Return to the river: Restoration of salmonid fishes in the Columbia River ecosystem. Portland (OR): Northwest Power Planning Council.