Small‐Scale Distribution of Aquatic Macroinvertebrates in Two Spring Fens with Different Groundwater Chemistry

Abstract

We examined responses of macroinvertebrate assemblages to environmental and temporal variations along spring source-spring brook transects in two fen habitats, sharply differing in groundwater chemistry, and compared the patterns among individual taxonomical groups. We hypothesised a different importance of environmental heterogeneity and seasonal changes primarily linked to strong tufa precipitation, which causes stronger environmental filtering in the calcareous fen. In concordance, we observed that assemblages of the more homogenous calcareous fen primarily changed over time, due to seasonal shifts in source availability and favourable conditions. Their spatial distribution was determined by the amount of CPOM, tufa crusts and temperature variation, but a substantial part of the assemblage exhibited spatial uniformity (Plecoptera, Clitellata, and especially Trichoptera and Diptera). The assemblages of the more heterogeneous Sphagnum-fen were primarily driven by water pH and substrate and the season was a notably weaker predictor. We found that different macroinvertebrate groups can display various responses to the measured variables shaping the overall pattern obtained based on the whole community. Further, greater environmental heterogeneity can result in temporally stable species distribution patterns even at very small spatial scales within a single site.

Ecological patterns of Odonata assemblages in karst springs in central Montenegro

“…The landscape factors most used in similar studies of macroinvertebrate fauna in springs were altitude, the type and the structure of the landscape, and how it is used, and the proximity of nearby water bodies (Křoupalová et al, 2011;Dumnicka et al, 2007;Martin and Brunke, 2012;Pakulnicka et al, 2016;Stryjecki et al, 2016).…”

Which factors shape macrozoobenthic communities in tufa springs? Results from Austrian meteogene travertine-depositing sites

“…The convergence of these different habitats, paired with the very special hydrochemical characteristics of travertine-depositing springs and headwaters, leads to distinct taxa sets combining both groundwater-dwelling and headwater-dwelling organisms present in other spring areas as well (Hahn, 2000;Staudacher & Füreder, 2007;Křoupalová et al, 2011;Omelková et al, 2013). A well-known example of a species confined to stable, travertine-depositing springs is the caddisfly Rhyacophila pubescens which was present in 6 out of 14 sites in the present study.…”

“…It was the most abundant caddisfly and present at 6 out of the 14 sites. This species was also observed in travertine spring habitats of the Western Carpathian Flysch belt (Křoupalová et al, 2011), but it was missing in similar habitats of Austria and Germany (Hahn, 2000;Staudacher & Füreder, 2007), where it was replaced by Plectrocnemia geniculata.…”

“…The most abundant taxon was the amphipod Gammarus fossarum, which was present in nearly all sites except for TES. The rheophilous G. fossarum is ubiquitous in freshwater and also a dominant taxon in other travertine-depositing habitats (Hahn, 2000;Pentecost, 2005;Křoupalová et al, 2011). In terms of functional feeding groups, Gammarus is a typical detritus feeder and shredder playing a major role in the organic matter cycle and often serving as prey for other organisms (Karaman & Pinkster, 1977;Kelly et al, 2002a).…”

Aquatic beetles (Coleoptera) in springs of a small lowland river: habitat factorsvs.landscape factors

“…The type of spring, however, is not the only factor determining the structure of fauna assemblages. Many hydrobiologists draw attention to the effect of local environmental factors, such as substrate, current velocity, depth, character of surrounding vegetation, or physical and chemical parameters of the water (Khmeleva et al, 1994;Smith et al, 2003;Dumnicka et al, 2007;Křoupalová et al, 2011;Martin and Brunke, 2012).…”