Conservation value of waterfalls as habitat for lotic insects of western Victoria, Australia

Rackemann, Sarah L.; Robson, Belinda J.; Matthews, Tye G.

doi:10.1002/aqc.2304

Cited by 13 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These additional analyses were also based on average Sørensen distance from localities to centroid for biological data and average standardised Euclidean distance from localities to centroid for environmental data, following exactly the same statistical methodology as in the three original studies. Key environmental variables measured for each locality included channel width, shading, current velocity, depth and moss cover, which often influence stream invertebrate communities at this combination of spatial grain and spatial extent in boreal regions (Heino & Korsu, ; Grönroos & Heino, ; Heino et al ., ) and elsewhere (Robson & Barmuta, ; Robson & Chester, ; Rackemann et al ., ). We found no differences in relation to the patterns originally detected by Heino et al .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 87%

Reconceptualising the beta diversity‐environmental heterogeneity relationship in running water systems

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary Beta diversity modelling has received increased interest recently. There are multiple definitions of beta diversity, but here, we focus on variability in species composition among sampling units within a given area. This facet can be described using various approaches. Some approaches ignore the spatial scale of the area considered (i.e. region limits), while some consider different region limits as a starting point for the analysis of beta diversity. We focused specifically on the beta diversity–environmental heterogeneity relationship in running waters. First, we present two conceptual models, which assume either (1) strong environmental control among localities (riffle sites in our case) within each region unit (a region unit encompasses a species pool and can be a stream or a basin or an ecoregion) or (2) that the spatial level of a region unit affects the relative importance of mechanisms affecting variability in species composition among localities (i.e. among riffle sites) within each region unit. Second, we compared three recent studies that used similar methods to examine the beta diversity–environmental heterogeneity relationship, but which were based on different region units, comprising sets of streams or sets of basins or sets of ecoregions. Our conceptual framework assumes that environmental control is not likely to be the sole mechanism affecting variability in community composition among localities within each region unit, but it is likely to be most important when dispersal rates are intermediate (i.e. among localities within a basin). In contrast, if dispersal rates are very high (i.e. among localities within a stream) or very low (i.e. among localities within an ecoregion), environmental control is in part masked by high dispersal rates or is prevented from occurring because not all species can reach all localities, respectively. Such scale dependency in the relative strength of environmental control might therefore transcend spatial scales from individual region units to the strength of the beta diversity–environmental heterogeneity relationship. We emphasise that the beta diversity–environmental heterogeneity relationship can only be tested across multiple region units. The results of three case studies are consistent with these predictions. Specifically, the beta diversity–environmental heterogeneity regression was highly significant across multiple basins, but not across multiple streams or across multiple ecoregions. We suggest that researchers take spatial scale and region unit level explicitly into account when inferring the mechanisms structuring ecological communities and mapping variation in beta diversity. We also propose a unified terminology for studies examining the beta diversity–environmental heterogeneity relationship in running waters because inconsistent terminology is likely to hamper the progress of our science.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 87%

Reconceptualising the beta diversity‐environmental heterogeneity relationship in running water systems

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These biotopes flow vertically without obstruction and are generally more than 1 m in height (Newson & Newson, 2000). In spite of their potential importance in tropical streams, waterfalls have not received as much attention as other biotopes (Rackemann et al, 2013;Clayton & Pearson, 2016). In high elevation localities, waterfalls become common because the stream gradient steepens and the river channels form discrete, sequential pools and waterfalls (or cascades and riffles).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Benthic community structure and ecosystem functions in above- and below-waterfall pools in Borneo

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Waterfalls are geomorphic features that often partition streams into discrete zones. Our study examined aquatic communities, litter decomposition and periphyton growth rates for above-and belowwaterfall pools in Ulu Temburong National Park, Brunei. We observed higher fish densities in belowwaterfall pools (0.24 fish m -2 vs. 0.02 fish m -2 in above-waterfall pools) and higher shrimp abundance in above-waterfall pools (eight shrimp/pool vs. less than one shrimp/pool in below-waterfall pools). However, macroinvertebrate densities (excluding shrimp) were similar among both pool types. Ambient periphyton was higher in below-waterfall pools in 2013 (4.3 vs. 2.8 g m -2 in above-waterfall pools) and 2014 (4.8 vs. 3.4 g m -2 in above-waterfall pools), while periphyton growth rates varied from 0.05 to 0.26 g m -2 days -1 and were significantly higher in below-waterfall pools in 2014. Leaf litter decomposition rates (0.001 to 0.024 days -1 ) did not differ between pool types, suggesting that neither shrimp nor fish densities had consistent impacts on this ecosystem function. Regardless, this research demonstrates the varied effects of biotic and abiotic factors on community structure and ecosystem function. Our results have highlighted the importance of discontinuities, such as waterfalls, in tropical streams.

show abstract

“…Many aquatic biodiversity studies do not collect abundance data, especially when it is desirable to include rarer species in analyses, because taxon richness estimates can be compared provided that collection effort is equal among samples (Davies et al, 2008;Rackemann, Robson, & Matthews, 2013). Studies in streams elsewhere have shown that these rapid assessment methods can reliably quantify diversity and detect the effects of environmental change (Chessman, 2012;Thomson et al, 2012).…”

Section: Field Samplingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Impacts of Indian waterfern (Ceratopteris thalictroides (L.) Brongn.) infestation and removal on macroinvertebrate biodiversity and conservation in spring‐fed streams in the Australian arid zone

Carey

Strachan

Robson

2017

Aquatic Conservation

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Removal of invasive macrophytes is a priority for river managers. However, the ecological effects of macrophyte removal on macroinvertebrate diversity are rarely examined but may be of particular significance in conservation reserves and when threatened species are present. This study investigated the macroinvertebrate fauna inhabiting invasive and native macrophytes in spring‐fed channels in the Millstream‐Chichester National Park, Australia. The effects of waterfern management (periodic hand‐weeding) were examined by comparing assemblages at weeded and unweeded reaches on three occasions. Ceratopteris thalictroides harboured a diverse, insect‐dominated macroinvertebrate assemblage, including the endangered damselfly Nososticta pilbara. Total taxon richness was similar between waterfern and native macrophytes, but macroinvertebrate assemblages differed in the dry season. Damselflies (including N. pilbara) were associated with waterfern‐dominated reaches, whereas dragonfly nymphs were more common among native macrophytes. Weeding altered macroinvertebrate assemblage composition. Some weeded reaches developed assemblages indistinguishable from those in native‐dominated reaches, but others did not. Weeded reaches often supported taxa that were rare or absent from waterfern‐dominated reaches, including suspension feeders, found also in native‐dominated reaches. Odonata are particularly diverse at Millstream, with 18 species recorded. Odonate species richness was significantly lower at weeded reaches than unweeded reaches. Nososticta pilbara and other short‐range endemic species were absent from weeded reaches. As most odonates are univoltine, these adverse effects on local population size may affect species persistence. Invasive macrophyte species may support a high diversity of native invertebrates, including endangered and short‐range endemic species. Furthermore, although hand‐weeding appeared to enable a greater diversity of species to co‐exist, the removal of a large biomass of macrophytes appeared to remove whole cohorts of insect populations from stream reaches, including endangered species. Removal of invasive macrophytes should not be implemented without understanding their effects on invertebrate assemblage composition and life‐cycles.

show abstract

Conservation value of waterfalls as habitat for lotic insects of western Victoria, Australia

Cited by 13 publications

References 25 publications

Reconceptualising the beta diversity‐environmental heterogeneity relationship in running water systems

Reconceptualising the beta diversity‐environmental heterogeneity relationship in running water systems

Benthic community structure and ecosystem functions in above- and below-waterfall pools in Borneo

Impacts of Indian waterfern (Ceratopteris thalictroides (L.) Brongn.) infestation and removal on macroinvertebrate biodiversity and conservation in spring‐fed streams in the Australian arid zone

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About