Macroinvertebrate responses to flow and stream temperature variability across regulated and non‐regulated rivers

White, James C.; Hannah, David M.; House, Andy; Beatson, Shawn J. V.; Martin, Alexander C.; Wood, Paul J.

doi:10.1002/eco.1773

Cited by 81 publications

(68 citation statements)

References 80 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Using the standardised IV z‐ scores, it is possible to identify potential taxa and trait modalities with the strongest positive and negative associations with increasing flow velocity. This information could be incorporated into refined flow–ecology indices and environmental flow frameworks at regional scales (Statzner & Bêche, ; White et al., ), such as the frameworks proposed by Peters, Baird, Monk, and Armanini () and Poff, Richter, et al. ().…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Flow velocity–ecology thresholds in Canadian rivers: A comparison of trait and taxonomy‐based approaches

Monk

Compson

Armanini³

et al. 2017

Freshwater Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Understanding the physical and biological mechanisms contributing to flow velocity–ecology relationships is crucial for successful river management. The application of an ecological traits‐based approach offers the potential to explore mechanistic linkages between aquatic communities and a hydrological gradient. To date, however, studies focused on identifying these relationships have been limited by a lack of large‐scale, long‐term biological data. To address this gap at a scale relevant for water policy management, we employed data from a large‐scale standardised benthic monitoring program—the Canadian Aquatic Biomonitoring Network—obtained from wadeable river sites across Canada. We applied the Threshold Indicator Taxa ANalysis method to quantify the response of the macroinvertebrate community, expressed as traditional taxonomic information and also as ecological traits, along a flow velocity gradient in reference and potential reference sites. Five key findings emerged: (1) using taxa and trait modalities revealed different flow velocity thresholds, (2) trait flow velocity indicators were less variable than taxon indicators, especially for positively responding trait modalities, (3) labile and non‐labile trait modalities demonstrated highly similar patterns along the flow velocity gradient, (4) taxa from 12 different orders responded negatively to flow velocity, while only EPT taxa and some dipterans responded positively to flow velocity, and (5) traits related to mobility and ecology (e.g. climber and swimmer habits, preference of cold‐cool eurythermal water and ability to survive desiccation) tended to respond positively to flow velocity, while traits related to morphology, life history and ecology (e.g. sprawler and burrower habits, preference for warm eurythermal water and inability to survive desiccation) tended to respond negatively to flow velocity. Providing ecologically based flow management targets can improve management plans, anticipate ecosystem consequences of anthropogenic change and support the development of policies to mitigate anthropogenic flow alteration. While our taxon and trait modality flow indicators were developed for Canadian watersheds, our methods to develop flow indicators and thresholds are transferrable to other systems where long‐term biomonitoring programs are being developed, underscoring the need for long‐term biomonitoring programs to support better ecosystem management.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Flow velocity–ecology thresholds in Canadian rivers: A comparison of trait and taxonomy‐based approaches

Monk

Compson

Armanini³

et al. 2017

Freshwater Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As data was resolved to family level, the affinities of all genera recorded within a family were averaged to provide a family score, and these affinity scores were rescaled as proportions for each category (sum = 1) for each taxon (sensu Gayraud et al, 2003). To produce a trait abundance matrix, taxon-trait categories were multiplied by the ordinal abundances and subsequently scaled such that each trait equalled one (Descloux, Datry, & Usseglio-Polatera, 2014;Larsen & Ormerod, 2010a;White, Hannah, House, Beatson, Martin, & Wood 2017). Trait abundance and diversity can be achieved at the family level, regardless of spatial scales (García-Roger et al, 2013;Gayraud et al, 2003).…”

Section: Macroinvertebrate Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Traitbased approaches may provide a robust means of assessing ecological responses to hydrology across regions with different taxon pools (White, Hannah, et al, 2017). Traitbased approaches may provide a robust means of assessing ecological responses to hydrology across regions with different taxon pools (White, Hannah, et al, 2017).…”

Section: Perennial and Nonperennial Macroinvertebrate Community Assmentioning

confidence: 99%

Structural and functional responses of macroinvertebrate assemblages to long‐term flow variability at perennial and nonperennial sites

Mathers

Stubbington

Leeming³

et al. 2019

Ecohydrology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Temporary streams constitute a significant proportion of rivers globally and are common in wet, cool, temperate regions. These heterogeneous ecosystems harbour high biodiversity associated with the dynamic turnover of taxa. Despite flow permanence being widely recognised as an important environmental control, few studies have characterised biotic responses to long-term hydrological variability in temporary streams. We examined taxonomic and functional macroinvertebrate communities of perennial and nonperennial river reaches over a 26-year period. Flow permanence resulted in spatial variation in taxonomic and functional macroinvertebrate communities. Nonperennial river reaches, which were characterised by dynamic habitat provision (lotic, lentic, and dry states) over the study period, supported more heterogeneous communities than perennial river reaches. Hydrological variables, in particular wetted width, water depth, and zero-flow states, were instrumental in structuring taxonomic and functional communities, although the importance of substrate conditions increased in autumn. Hydrological conditions resulted in separation of perennial and nonperennial taxonomic communities regardless of season, whereas functional communities differed only in spring. Our results emphasise that understanding of community responses to hydrological variability is enhanced by analyses that concurrently explore taxonomic and functional responses to long-term intraannual and interannual hydrological variability. Moreover, functional responses represent a robust method to test ecological responses to hydrological drivers. Further research that builds on our work is needed to inform the protection of both perennial and nonperennial streams as they adapt to ongoing environmental change.

show abstract

“…As such, there is a growing need to derive robust and spatially transferrable relationships between flow regime properties and ecological responses, which can inform how water resources could be balanced to support societal and riverine ecosystem demands (Chen & Olden, ). Flow response guilds, defined as groups of taxa that respond to water availability and fluvial disturbance in similar ways (Lytle, Merritt, Tonkin, Olden, & Reynolds, ), have been found to reliably characterize ecological responses to hydrological controls (Chen & Olden, ; Lytle et al, ; White et al, ). Despite this, flow response guilds have rarely been incorporated into biomonitoring practices, which instead focus predominantly on the sensitivity of taxa to water quality parameters (Birk et al, ; Bonada, Prat, Resh, & Statzner, ; Carter et al, ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

How freshwater biomonitoring tools vary sub‐seasonally reflects temporary river flow regimes

White

Armitage

Bass

et al. 2019

River Research & Apps

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Characterizing temporary river ecosystem responses to flow regimes is vital for conserving their biodiversity and the services they provide to society. However, freshwater biomonitoring tools rarely reflect community responses to hydrological variations or flow cessation events, and those available have not been widely tested within temporary rivers. This study examines two invertebrate biomonitoring tools characterizing community responses to different flow‐related properties: the “Drought Effect of Habitat Loss on Invertebrates” (DEHLI) and “Lotic‐invertebrate Index for Flow Evaluation” (LIFE), which, respectively reflect community responses to habitat and hydraulic properties associated with changing flow conditions. Sub‐seasonal (monthly) variations of LIFE and DEHLI were explored within two groundwater‐fed intermittent rivers, one dries sporadically (a flashy, karstic hydrology—River Lathkill) and the other dries seasonally (a highly buffered flow regime—South Winterbourne). Biomonitoring tools were highly sensitive to channel drying and also responded to reduced discharges in permanently flowing reaches. Biomonitoring tools captured ecological recovery patterns in the Lathkill following a supra‐seasonal drought. Some unexpected results were observed in the South Winterbourne where LIFE and DEHLI indicated relatively high‐flow conditions despite low discharges occurring during some summer months. This probably reflected macrophyte encroachment, which benefitted certain invertebrates (e.g., marginal‐dwelling taxa) and highlights the importance of considering instream habitat conditions when interpreting flow regime influences on biomonitoring tools. Although LIFE and DEHLI were positively correlated, the latter responded more clearly to drying events, highlighting that communities respond strongly to the disconnection of instream habitats as flows recede. The results highlighted short‐term ecological responses to hydrological variations and the value in adopting sub‐seasonal sampling strategies within temporary rivers. Findings from this study indicate the importance of establishing flow response guilds which group taxa that respond comparably to flow cessation events. Such information could be adopted within biomonitoring practices to better characterize temporary river ecosystem responses to hydrological variations.

show abstract

Macroinvertebrate responses to flow and stream temperature variability across regulated and non‐regulated rivers

Cited by 81 publications

References 80 publications

Flow velocity–ecology thresholds in Canadian rivers: A comparison of trait and taxonomy‐based approaches

Flow velocity–ecology thresholds in Canadian rivers: A comparison of trait and taxonomy‐based approaches

Structural and functional responses of macroinvertebrate assemblages to long‐term flow variability at perennial and nonperennial sites

How freshwater biomonitoring tools vary sub‐seasonally reflects temporary river flow regimes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About