How does macroinvertebrate taxonomic resolution influence ecohydrological relationships in riverine ecosystems

Ecohydrology

Volumn 5, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 36-45

  Monk, Wendy A ^a,b   Wood, Paul J ^a   Hannah, David M ^c   Extence, Chris A ^d   Chadd, Richard P ^d   Dunbar, Michael J ^e  

^a LOUGHBOROUGH UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF NEW BRUNSWICK   (Canada)

^c UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM   (United Kingdom)

^d ENVIRONMENT AGENCY   (United Kingdom)

^e CENTRE FOR ECOLOGY AND HYDROLOGY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Ecohydrology; Flow variability; Hydroecology; Lotic invertebrate index for flow evaluation (LIFE); Macroinvertebrates; Species versus family level data; Taxonomic sufficiency

Indexed keywords

ECO-HYDROLOGY; FLOW VARIABILITY; HYDRO-ECOLOGY; LOTIC-INVERTEBRATE INDEX FOR FLOW EVALUATION (LIFE); MACROINVERTEBRATES; SPECIES- VERSUS FAMILY-LEVEL DATA; TAXONOMIC SUFFICIENCY;

CONSERVATION; HYDROGEOLOGY; REGRESSION ANALYSIS;

DATA FLOW ANALYSIS;

BENTHOS; ECOHYDROLOGY; LEAST SQUARES METHOD; MACROINVERTEBRATE; NUMERICAL MODEL; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; RIVER MANAGEMENT; SPECIES RICHNESS; TAXONOMY;

COLEOPTERA; EPHEMEROPTERA; INVERTEBRATA; PLECOPTERA; TRICHOPTERA;

EID: 84856565984     PISSN: 19360584     EISSN: 19360592     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/eco.192     Document Type: Article

References (68)

1. Acreman MC, Ferguson JD. 2010. Environmental flows and the European water framework directive. Freshwater Biology 55: 32-48.
2. Armanini DG, Horrigan N, Monk WA, Peters DL, Baird DJ. 2010. Development of a benthic macroinvertebrate flow sensitivity index for Canadian Rivers. River Research and Applications doi:10.1002.rra.1389.
3. Armitage PD, Moss D, Wright JF, Furse MT. 1983. The performance of a new biological water quality score system based on macroinvertebrates over a wide range of unpolluted sites. Water Research 17: 333-347.
4. Arscott DB, Jackson JK, Kratzer EB. 2006. Role of rarity and taxonomic resolution in a regional and spatial analysis of stream macroinvertebrates. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 25: 977-997.
5. Balbi DM. 2001. Paired Hydrology and Ecology Data Sets-W6-044-03. Environment Agency: Bristol.
6. Bowman MF, Bailey RC. 1997. Does taxonomic resolution affect the multivariate description of the structure of freshwater benthic macroinvertebrate communities? Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 54: 1802-1807.
7. Buss DF, Vitorino AS. 2010. Rapid bioassessment protocols using benthic macroinvertebrates in Brazil: evaluation of taxonomic sufficiency. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 29: 562-571.
8. Chadd R, Extence C. 2004. The conservation of freshwater macroinvertebrate populations: a community-based classification scheme. Aquatic Conservation-Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 14: 597-624.
9. Chapman MG. 1998. Relationships between spatial patterns of benthic assemblages in a mangrove forest using different levels of taxonomic resolution. Marine Ecology-Progress Series 162: 71-78.
10. Chessman BC, Trayler KM, Davis JA. 2002. Family- and species-level biotic indices for macroinvertebrates on wetlands on wetlands on the Swan Coastal Plain, Western Australia. Marine and Freshwater Research 53: 919-930.
11. Chessman B, Williams S, Besley C. 2007. Bioassessment of streams with macroinvertebrates: effect of sampled habitat and taxonomic resolution. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 26: 546-565.
12. Clarke KR. 1993. Non-parametric multivariate analyses of changes in community structure. Australian Journal of Ecology 18: 117-143.
13. Clarke KR, Warwick RM. 2001. Change in Marine Communities: An Approach to Statistical Analysis and Interpretation, 2nd edn. Plymouth Marine Laboratory: UK.
14. Clausen B, Biggs BJF. 1997. Relationships between benthic biota and hydrological indices in New Zealand streams. Freshwater Biology 38:pp. 327-342.
15. Clausen B, Biggs BJF. 2000. Flow variables for ecological studies in temperate streams: groupings based on covariance. Journal of Hydrology 237: 184-197.
16. Cucherousset J, Santoul F, Figuerola J, Cereghino R. 2008. How do biodiversity patterns of river animals emerge from the distributions of common and rare species? Biological Conservation 141: 2984-2992.
17. Davy-Bowker J, Murphy JF, Rutt GR, Steel JEC, Furse MT. 2005. The development and testing of a macroinvertebrate index for detecting the impact of acidity on streams. Archiv für Hydrobiologie 163: 383-403.
18. Dickens CWS, Graham PM. 2002. The South African scoring system (SASS) version 5 rapid bioassessment methods for rivers. African Journal of Aquatic Sciences 27: 1-10.
19. Dineen G, Harrison SSC, Giller PS. 2007. Diet partitioning in sympatric Atlantic salmon and brown trout in streams with contrasting riparian vegetation. Journal of Fish Biology 71: 17-38.
20. Dunbar MJ, Pedersen ML, Cadman D, Extence C, Waddingham J, Chadd R, Larsen SE. 2010a. River discharge and local-scale physical habitat influence macroinvertebrate LIFE scores. Freshwater Biology 55: 226-242.
21. Dunbar MJ, Warren M, Extence C, Baker L, Cadman D, Mould DJ, Hall J, Chadd R. 2010b. Interaction between microinvertebrates, discharge and physical habitat in upland rivers. Aquatic Conservation-Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 20(1): S31-S44.
22. Ellis D. 1985. Taxonomic sufficiency in pollution assessment. Marine Pollution Bulletin 16: 439.
23. Eriksson L, Hermens JLM, Johansson E, Verhaar HJM, Wold S. 1995. Multivariate analysis of aquatic toxity data with PLS. Aquatic Sciences 57: 217-241.
24. Eriksson L, Johansson E, Kettaneh-Wold N, Wold S. 1999. Introduction to Multi- and Megavariate Data Analysis Using Projection Methods (PCA & PLS). Umetrics AB: Umeå, Sweden; 490.
25. Extence CA, Balbi DM, Chadd RP. 1999. River flow indexing using British benthic macroinvertebrates: a framework for setting hydroecological objectives. Regulated Rivers-Research & Management 15: 543-574.
26. Eyre MD, Foster GN, Luff ML. 2005. Exploring the relationship between land cover and the distribution of water beetle species (Coleoptera) at the regional scale. Hydrobiologia 533: 87-98.
27. Guerold F. 2000. Influence of taxonomic determination level on several community indices. Water Research 34: 487-492.
28. Hawkes HA. 1998. Origin and development of the biological monitoring working party score system. Water Research 32: 964-968.
29. Heino J, Soininen J. 2007. Are higher taxa adequate surrogates for species-level assemblage patterns and species richness in stream organisms? Biological Conservation 137: 78-89.
30. Hering D, Schmidt-Kloiber A, Murphy J, Lucke S, Zamora-Munoz C, Lopez-Rodriguez MJ, Huber T, Graf W. 2009. Potential impact of climate change on aquatic insects: a sensitivity analysis for the European caddisflies (Trichoptera) based on distribution patterns and ecological preferences. Aquatic Sciences 71: 3-14.
31. Hewlett R. 2000. Implications of taxonomic resolution and sample habitat fro stream classification at a broad geographic scale. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 19: 352-361.
32. Hilsenhoff WL. 1987. An improved biotic index of organic stream pollution. Great Lakes Entomologist 20: 31-39.
33. Jones FC. 2008. Taxonomic sufficiency: the influence of taxonomic resolution on freshwater bioassessments using benthic macroinvertebrates. Environmental Reviews 16: 45-69.
34. Kerney M. 1999. Atlas of the Land and Freshwater Molluscs of Britain and Ireland. Harley Books: Colchester.
35. Lavoie I, Dillon PJ, Campeau S. 2009. The effect of excluding diatom taxa and reducing taxonomic resolution on multivariate analyses and stream bioassessment. Ecological Indicators 9: 213-225.
36. Legendre P, Legendre L. 1998. Numerical Ecology. Elsevier: Amsterdam.
37. Lenat DR, Resh VH. 2001. Taxonomy and stream ecology-the benefits of genus- and species-level identifications. Journal of the North Benthological Society 20: 287-298.
38. Lepori F, Palm D, Malmqvist B. 2005. Effects of stream restoration on ecosystem functioning: detritus retentiveness and decomposition. Journal of Applied Ecology 42: 228-238.
39. Lytle DA, Poff NL. 2004. Adaptation to natural flow regimes. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 19: 94-100.
40. Mandelik Y, Dayan T, Chikatunov V, Kravchenko V. 2007. Reliability of a higher-taxon approach to richness, rarity, and composition assessments at the local scale. Conservation Biology 21: 1506-1515.
41. Marshall JC, Steward AL, Harch BD. 2006. Taxonomic resolution and quantification of freshwater macroinvertebrate samples from an Australian dryland river: the benefits and costs of using species abundance data. Hydrobiologia 572: 171-194.
42. Melo AS. 2005. Effects of taxonomic and numeric resolution on the ability to detect ecological patterns at a local scale using stream macroinvertebrates. Archiv Fur Hydrobiologie 164: 309-323.
43. Mevik B-H, Wehrens R. 2007. The PLS package: principal component and partial least squares regression in R. Journal of Statistical Software 18: 1-24.
44. Monk WA, Wood PJ, Hannah DM, Wilson DA, Extence CA, Chadd RP. 2006. Flow variability and macroinvertebrate community response within riverine systems in England and Wales. River Research and Applications 22: 595-615.
45. Monk WA, Wood PJ, Hannah DM, Wilson DA. 2007. Selection of river flow indices for the assessment of hydroecological change. River Research and Applications 23: 113-122.
46. Monk WA, Wood PJ, Hannah DM, Wilson DA. 2008. Macroinvertebrate community response to inter-annual and regional river flow regime dynamics. River Research and Applications 24: 988-1001.
47. Murray-Bligh J. 1999. Procedures for collecting and analysing macroinvertebrate samples-BT001. The Environment Agency: Bristol.
48. Olden JD, Poff NL. 2003. Redundancy and the choice of hydrological indices for characterizing streamflow regimes. River Research and Applications 19: 101-121.
49. Olsgard F, Somerfield PJ, Carr MR. 1997. Relationships between taxonomic resolution and data transformations in analyses of a macrobenthic community along an established pollution gradient. Marine Ecology-Progress Series 149: 173-181.
50. Poff NL. 1997. Landscape filters and species traits: towards mechanistic understanding and prediction in stream ecology. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 16: 391-409.
51. Poff NL, Allan JD, Bain MB, Karr JR, Prestegaard KL, Richter BD, Sparks RE, Stromberg JC. 1997. The natural flow regime: a paradigm for river conservation and restoration. BioScience 47: 769-784.
52. Poff NL, Richter B, Arthington AH, Bunn SE, Naiman RJ, Kendy E, Acreman M, Apse C, Bledsoe BP, Freeman M, Henriksen J, Jacobson RB, Kennen J, Merritt DM, O'Keefe J, Olden J, Rogers K, Tharme RE, Warner A. 2010. The Ecological Limits of Hydrologic Alteration (ELOHA): A new framework for developing regional environmental flow standards. Freshwater Biology 55: 147-170.
53. PRIMER. 2006. Plymouth routines in multivariate ecological research (PRIMER), version 6. Plymouth.
54. R Development Core Team. 2009. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R foundation for statistical computing. Vienna.
55. Richter BD, Baumgartner JV, Powell J, Braun DP. 1996. A method for assessing hydrologic alteration within ecosystems. Conservation Biology 10: 1163-1174.
56. Richter BD, Baumgartner JV, Wigington R, Braun DP. 1997. How much water does a river need? Freshwater Biology 37: 231-249.
57. Schmidt-Kloiber A, Nijboer RC. 2004. The effect of taxonomic resolution on the assessment of ecological water quality classes. Hydrobiologia 516: 269-283.
58. SPSS Inc. 2008. Statistical Package for the Social Sciences Version 17.0. SPSS Inc: Chicago, IL.
59. Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS. 2001. Using Multivariate Statistics. Allyn and Bacon: MA.
60. Trigal-Domínguez C, Fernández-Aláez C, Garc ía-Criado F. 2010. Ecological assessment of highly heterogeneous systems: the importance of taxonomic sufficiency. Limnologica-Ecology and Management of Inland Waters 40: 208-214.
61. Vaughan IP, Ormerod SJ. 2010. Linking ecological and hydromorphological data: approaches, challenges and future prospects for riverine science. Aquatic Conservation-Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 20: 125-130.
62. Verdonschot PFM. 2006. Data composition and taxonomic resolution in macroinvertebrate stream typology. Hydrobiologia 566: 59-74.
63. Warwick JA. 1988. The level of taxonomic discrimination required to detect pollution effects on marine benthic communities. Marine Pollution Bulletin 19: 259-268.
64. Wilby RL, Orr H, Watts G, Battarbee RW, Perry PM, Chadd R, Dugdale SJ, Dunbar MJ, Elliott JA, Extence C, Hannah DM, Holmes N, Johnson AC, Knights B, Milner NJ, Ormerod SJ, Solomon D, Timlett R, Whitehead PJ, Wood PJ. 2010. Evidence needed to manage freshwater ecosystems in a changing climate: turning adaptation principles into practice. Science of the Total Environment 408: 4150-4164.
65. Wold S, Sjöström M, Eriksson L. 2001. PLS-regression: a basic tool of chemometrics. Chemometrics and Intelligent Laboratory Systems 58: 109-130.
66. Wood PJ, Agnew MD, Petts GE. 2000. Flow variations and macroinvertebrate community responses in a small groundwater-dominated stream in south-east England. Hydrological Processes 14: 3133-3147.
67. Wood PJ, Armitage PD. 2004. The response of the macroinvertebrate community to low-flow variability and supra-seasonal drought within a groundwater dominated river. Archiv für Hydrobiologie 161: 1-20.
68. Wood PJ, Hannah DM, Agnew MD, Petts GE. 2001. Scales of hydroecological variability within a groundwater-dominated stream. Regulated Rivers-Research & Management 17: 347-367.