Drying as a primary hydrological determinant of biodiversity in river systems: a broad-scale analysis

Ecography

Volumn 40, Issue 4, 2017, Pages 487-499

  Leigh, Catherine ^a,b,c   Datry, Thibault ^a,d  

^a UR MALY   (France)

^b Domain du Petit Arbois   (France)

^c GRIFFITH UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

^d MUSÉUM NATIONAL D'HISTOIRE NATURELLE   (France)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AQUATIC COMMUNITY; BIODIVERSITY; BIOGEOGRAPHY; DIVERSITY INDEX; ECOSYSTEM RESILIENCE; HYDROLOGICAL CHANGE; MACROINVERTEBRATE; NICHE; RIVER DISCHARGE; RIVER SYSTEM; SPECIES RICHNESS;

AUSTRALIA; EUROPE;

EID: 84963692178     PISSN: 09067590     EISSN: 16000587     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/ecog.02230     Document Type: Article

References (96)

1. Acuña, V. et al. 2014. Why should we care about temporary waterways? – Science 343: 1080–1081.
2. Aiken, C. M. and Navarrete, S. A. 2014. Coexistence of competitors in marine metacommunities: environmental variability, edge effects, and the dispersal niche. – Ecology 95: 2289–2302.
3. Anderson, M. J. 2006. Distance-based tests for homogeneity of multivariate dispersions. – Biometrics 62: 245–253.
4. Anderson, M. J. et al. 2008. PERMANOVA+ for PRIMER: guide to software and statistical methods. – PRIMER-E, Plymouth, UK.
5. Azeria, E. T. and Kolasa, J. 2008. Nestedness, niche metrics and temporal dynamics of a metacommunity in a dynamic natural model system. – Oikos 117: 1006–1019.
6. Balint, M. et al. 2011. Cryptic biodiversity loss linked to global climate change. – Nat. Clim. Change 1: 313–318.
7. Bogan, M. T. and Lytle, D. A. 2011. Severe drought drives novel community trajectories in desert stream pools. – Freshwater Biol. 56: 2070–2081.
8. Bogan, M. T. et al. 2015. Resistance and resilience of invertebrate communities to seasonal and supraseasonal drought in arid-land headwater streams. – Freshwater Biol. 60: 2547–2558.
9. Bonada, N. et al. 2007. Macroinvertebrate community structure and biological traits related to flow permanence in a Mediterranean river network. – Hydrobiologia 589: 91–106.
10. Booker, D. J. et al. 2015. Relationships between invertebrate communities and both hydrological regime and other environmental factors across New Zealand's rivers. – Ecohydrology 8: 13–32.
11. Boulton, A. J. 2003. Parallels and contrasts in the effects of drought on stream macroinvertebrate assemblages. – Freshwater Biol. 48: 1173–1185.
12. Boulton, A. J. et al. 1992. Stability of an aquatic macroinvertebrate community in a multiyear hydrologic disturbance regime. – Ecology 73: 2192–2207.
13. Brooks, A. J. et al. 2011. Macroinvertebrate traits distinguish unregulated rivers subject to water abstraction. – J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc. 30: 419–435.
14. Bunn, S. E. and Arthington, A. H. 2002. Basic principles and ecological consequences of altered flow regimes for aquatic biodiversity. – Environ. Manage. 30: 492–507.
15. Campbell, R. E. et al. 2015. Flow-related disturbance creates a gradient of metacommunity types within stream networks. – Landscape Ecol. 30: 667–680.
16. Cañedo-Argüelles, M. et al. 2015. Dispersal strength determines meta-community structure in a dendritic riverine network. – J. Biogeogr. 42: 778–790.
17. Cardinale, B. J. et al. 2013. Biodiversity simultaneously enhances the production and stability of community biomass, but the effects are independent. – Ecology 94: 1697–1707.
18. Carlisle, D. M. et al. 2010. Predicting the natural flow regime: models for assessing hydrological alteration in streams. – River Res. Appl. 26: 118–136.
19. Carrara, F. et al. 2012. Dendritic connectivity controls biodiversity patterns in experimental metacommunities. – Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 109: 5761–5766.
20. Chase, J. M. 2003. Community assembly: when should history matter? – Oecologia 136: 489–498.
21. Chase, J. M. 2007. Drought mediates the importance of stochastic community assembly. – Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 104: 17430–17434.
22. Connell, J. H. 1978. Diversity in tropical rain forests and coral reefs. – Science 199: 1302–1310.
23. Cutler, D. R. et al. 2007. Random forests for classification in ecology. – Ecology 88: 2783–2792.
24. Datry, T. 2012. Benthic and hyporheic invertebrate assemblages along a flow intermittence gradient: effects of duration of dry events. – Freshwater Biol. 57: 563–574.
25. Datry, T. et al. 2014a. Intermittent rivers: a challenge for freshwater ecology. – BioScience 64: 229–235.
26. Datry, T. et al. 2014b. Broad-scale patterns of invertebrate richness and community composition in temporary rivers: effects of flow intermittence. – Ecography 37: 94–104.
27. Datry, T. et al. 2015. Towards understanding the organisation of metacommunities in highly dynamic ecological systems. – Oikos doi: 10.1111/oik.02922
28. Datry, T. et al. 2016a. Metacommunity patterns vary with environmental harshness across three tropical headwater streams. – Freshwater Biol. doi: 10.1111/fwb.12702
29. Datry, T. et al. 2016b. Determinants of local and regional communities in intermittent and perennial headwaters of the Bolivian Amazon. – Freshwater Biol. doi: 10.1111/fwb.12706
30. Datry, T. et al. 2016c. A landscape approach to advance intermittent river ecology. – Freshwater Biol. doi:10.1111/fwb.12645.
31. de Vries, S. B. et al. 2015. Characterizing spatial and temporal patterns of intermittent rivers. – Geophys. Res. Abstract 17, EGU General Assembly, Vienna, Austria.
32. Death, R. G. 2010. Disturbance and riverine benthic communities: what has it contributed to general ecological theory? – River Res. Appl. 26: 15–25.
33. Díaz, S. et al. 1998. Plant functional traits and environmental filters at a regional scale. – J. Veg. Sci. 9: 113–122.
34. Döll, P. and Schmied, H. M. 2012. How is the impact of climate change on river flow regimes related to the impact on mean annual runoff? A global-scale analysis. – Environ. Res. Lett. 7: 14–37.
35. Dudgeon, D. et al. 2006. Freshwater biodiversity: importance, threats, status, and conservation challenges. – Biol. Rev. 81: 163–182.
36. Earle, J. I. 2004. Stonefly (Plecoptera) species of an acidic intermittent stream in southwestern Pennsylvania, USA, comparison with a circumneutral perennial stream and consideration of survival strategies. – Arch. Hydrobiol. 159: 97–114.
37. Ellis, N. et al. 2012. Gradient forests: calculating importance gradients on physical predictors. – Ecology 93: 156–168.
38. Erős, T. and Campbell Grant, E. H. 2015. Unifying research on the fragmentation of terrestrial and aquatic habitats: patches, connectivity and the matrix in riverscapes. – Freshwater Biol. 60: 1487–1501.
39. Fernandes, I. M. et al. 2014. Spatiotemporal dynamics in a seasonal metacommunity structure is predictable: the case of floodplain-fish communities. – Ecography 37: 464–475.
40. Finn, M. A. et al. 2009. Ecological responses to artificial drought in two Australian rivers with differing water extraction. – Arch. Hydrobiol. 175: 231–248.
41. Fox, J. W. 2013. The intermediate disturbance hypothesis should be abandoned. – Trends Ecol. Evol. 28: 86–92.
42. Fritz, K. M. and Dodds, W. K. 2005. Harshness: characterisation of intermittent stream habitat over space and time. – Mar. Freshwater Res. 56: 13–23.
43. Gallart, F. et al. 2012. A novel approach to analysing the regimes of temporary streams in relation to their controls on the composition and structure of aquatic biota. – Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 16: 3165–3182.
44. Grubbs, S. A. 2011. Influence of flow permanence on headwater macroinvertebrate communities in a Cumberland Plateau watershed, USA. – Aquat. Ecol. 45: 185–195.
45. Gutiérrez-Cánovas, C. et al. 2015. Similarity in the difference: changes in community functional features along natural and anthropogenic stress gradients. – Ecology 96: 2458–2466.
46. Heino, J. 2011. A macroecological perspective of diversity patterns in the freshwater realm. – Freshwater Biol. 56: 1703–1722.
47. Heino, J. and Soininen, J. 2010. Are common species sufficient in describing turnover in aquatic metacommunities along environmental and spatial gradients? – Limnol. Oceanogr. 55: 2397–2402.
48. Jacobsen, D. and Dangles, O. 2012. Environmental harshness and global richness patterns in glacier-fed streams. – Global Ecol. Biogeogr. 21: 647–656.
49. Jaeger, K. L. et al. 2014. Climate change poised to threaten hydrologic connectivity and endemic fishes in dryland streams. – Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111: 13894–13899.
50. Keddy, P. A. 1992. Assembly and response rules: two goals for predictive community ecology. – J. Veg. Sci. 3: 157–164.
51. Kennard, M. J. et al. 2010. Classification of natural flow regimes in Australia to support environmental flow management. – Freshwater Biol. 55: 171–193.
52. Konrad, C. P. et al. 2008. Assessing streamflow characteristics as limiting factors on benthic invertebrate assemblages in streams across the western United States. – Freshwater Biol. 53: 1983–1998.
53. Leibold, M. A. et al. 2004 The metacommunity concept: a framework for multi-scale community ecology. – Ecol. Lett. 7: 601–613.
54. Liaw, A. and Wiener, M. 2002. Classification and regression by randomForest. – R News 2: 18–22.
55. Leigh C. et al. 2012. Understanding multiple ecological responses to anthropogenic disturbance: rivers and potential flow regime change. – Ecol. Appl. 22: 250–263.
56. Leigh, C. et al. 2015a. Ecological research and management of intermittent rivers: an historical review and future directions. – Freshwater Biol. doi:10.1111/fwb.12646
57. Leigh, C. et al. 2015b. Invertebrate assemblage responses and the dual roles of resistance and resilience to drying in intermittent rivers. – Aquat. Sci. doi: 10.1007/s00027-015-0427-2
58. Lytle, D. A. and Poff, N. L. 2004. Adaptation to natural flow regimes. – Trends Ecol. Evol. 19: 94–100.
59. Malmqvist, B. 2002. Aquatic invertebrates in riverine landscapes. – Freshwater Bid. 47: 679–694.
60. Marsh, N. A. et al. 2003. River analysis package. – Cooperative Research Centre for Catchment Hydrology, Monash Univ., Melbourne, Australia.
61. Matthews, W. J. et al. 2013. Disturbance and trajectory of change in a stream fish community over four decades. – Oecologia 173: 955–969.
62. McKinney, M. L. and Lockwood, J. L. 1999. Biotic homogenization: a few winners replacing many losers in the next mass extinction. – Trends Ecol. Evol. 14: 450–453.
63. McManamay, R. A. et al. 2015. Associations among hydrologic classifications and fish traits to support environmental flow standards. – Ecohydrology 8: 460–479.
64. Milly, P. C. D. et al. 2005. Global pattern of trends in streamflow and water availability in a changing climate. – Nature 438: 347–350.
65. Moya, N. et al. 2011. Macroinvertebrate-based multimetric predictive models for evaluating the human impact on biotic condition of Bolivian streams. – Ecol. Indicators 11: 840–847.
66. Myers, J. A. et al. 2015. Disturbance alters beta-diversity but not the relative importance of community assembly mechanisms. – J. Ecol. 103: 1291–1299.
67. Oksanen, J. et al. 2015. Vegan: community ecology package. – R package ver. 2.2-1, < http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=vegan >.
68. Olden, J. D. and Poff, N. L. 2003. Redundancy and the choice of hydrologic indices for characterizing streamflow regimes. – River Res. Appl. 19: 101–121.
69. Olden, J. D. et al. 2012. A framework for hydrologic classification with a review of methodologies and applications in ecohydrology. – Ecohydrology 5: 503–518.
70. Pitcher, C. R. et al. 2012. Exploring the role of environmental variables in shaping patterns of seabed biodiversity composition in regional-scale ecosystems. – J. Appl. Ecol. 49: 670–679.
71. Poff, N. L. 1997. Landscape filters and species traits: towards mechanistic understanding and prediction in stream ecology. – J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc. 16: 391–409.
72. Poff, N. L. et al. 1997. The natural flow regime: a paradigm for river conservation and restoration. – BioScience 47: 769–784.
73. Poff, N. L. et al. 2006a. Functional trait niches of North American lotic insects: traits-based ecological applications in light of phylogenetic relationships. – J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc. 25: 730–755.
74. Poff, N. L. et al. 2006b. Placing global stream flow variability in geographic and geomorphic contexts. – River Res. Appl. 22: 149–166.
75. Poff, N. L. et al. 2007. Homogenization of regional river dynamics by dams and global biodiversity implications. – Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 104: 5732–5737.
76. Power, M. E. et al. 1988. Biotic and abiotic controls in river and stream communities. – J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc. 7: 456–479.
77. Presley, S. J. et al. 2010. A comprehensive framework for the evaluation of metacommunity structure. – Oikos 119: 908–917.
78. Puckridge, J. T. et al. 1998. Flow variability and the ecology of large rivers. – Mar. Freshwater Res. 49: 55–72.
79. Ríos-Touma, B. et al. 2012. Invertebrate drift and colonization processes in a tropical Andean stream. – Aquat. Biol. 14: 233–246.
80. Rolls, R. J. et al. 2012. Mechanistic effects of low-flow hydrology on riverine ecosystems: ecological principles and consequences of alteration. – Freshwater Sci. 31: 1163–1186.
81. Seager, R. et al. 2013. Projections of declining surface-water availability for the southwestern United States. – Nat. Clim. Change 3: 482–486.
82. Sheldon, F. et al. 2010. Ecological roles and threats to aquatic refugia in arid landscapes: dryland river waterholes. – Mar. Freshwater Res. 61: 885–895.
83. Snelder, T. et al. 2012. Can bottom-up procedures improve the performance of stream classifications? – Aquat. Sci. 74: 45–59.
84. Snelder, T. H. et al. 2013. Characterization of regional patterns of flow intermittence from gauging station records. – Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 17: 2685–2699.
85. Strobl, C. et al. 2008. Conditional variable importance for random forests. – BMC Bioinform. 9: 307.
86. Stubbington, R. et al. 2009. The response of perennial and temporary headwater stream invertebrate communities to hydrological extremes. – Hydrobiologia 630: 299–312.
87. Tachet, H. et al. 2000. Invertébrés d'eau douce: systématique, biologie, écologie. – CNRS éditions.
88. Tonkin, J. D. et al. 2015. Environmental controls on river assemblages at the regional scale: an application of the elements of metacommunity structure framework. – PLoS One 10: e0135450.
89. Turak, E. et al. 2011. River conservation in a changing world: invertebrate diversity and spatial prioritisation in south-eastern coastal Australia. – Mar. Freshwater Res. 62: 300–311.
90. Vander Vorste, R. et al. 2015a. Invertebrate communities in gravel-bed, braided rivers are highly resilient to flow intermittence. – Freshwater Sci. doi: 10.1086/683274
91. Vander Vorste, R. et al. 2015b. Is drift the primary process promoting the resilience of river invertebrate communities? A manipulative field experiment In an intermittent alluvial river. – Freshwater Biol. doi: 10.1111/fwb.12658
92. Vellend, M. et al. 2008. Using subsets of species in biodiversity surveys. – J. Appl. Ecol. 45: 161–169.
93. Vörösmarty, C. J. et al. 2010. Global threats to human water security and river biodiversity. – Nature 467: 555–561.
94. Weiher, E. et al. 2011. Advances, challenges and a developing synthesis of ecological community assembly theory. – Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 366: 2403–2413.
95. Wood, P. J. and Armitage, P. D. 2004. The response of the macroinvertebrate community to low-flow variability and supra-seasonal drought within a groundwater dominated stream. – Arch. Hydrobiol. 161: 1–20.
96. Worrall, T. P. 2014. The identification of hydrological indices for the characterisation of macroinvertebrate community response to flow regime variability. – Hydrol. Sci. J. 59: 645–658.