Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Population densities and density–area relationships in a community with advective dispersal and variable mosaics of resource patches

  • Population ecology - Original research
  • Published:
Oecologia Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Many communities comprise species that select resources that are patchily distributed in an environment that is otherwise unsuitable or suboptimal. Effects of this patchiness can depend on the characteristics of patch arrays and animal movements, and produce non-intuitive outcomes in which population densities are unrelated to resource abundance. Resource mosaics are predicted to have only weak effects, however, where patches are ephemeral or organisms are transported advectively. The running waters of streams and benthic invertebrates epitomize such systems, but empirical tests of resource mosaics are scarce. We sampled 15 common macroinvertebrates inhabiting distinct detritus patches at four sites within a sand-bed stream, where detritus formed a major resource of food and living space. At each site, environmental variables were measured for 100 leaf packs; invertebrates were counted in 50 leaf packs. Sites differed in total abundance of detritus, leaf pack sizes and invertebrate densities. Multivariate analysis indicated that patch size was the dominant environmental variable, but invertebrate densities differed significantly between sites even after accounting for patch size. Leaf specialists showed positive and strong density–area relationships, except where the patch size range was small and patches were aggregated. In contrast, generalist species had weaker and variable responses to patch sizes. Population densities were not associated with total resource abundance, with the highest densities of leaf specialists in sites with the least detritus. Our results demonstrate that patchy resources can affect species even in communities where species are mobile, have advective dispersal, and patches are relatively ephemeral.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Anderson MJ, Gorley RN, Clarke KR (2008) PERMANOVA + for PRIMER: Guide to Software and Statistical Methods. PRIMER-E Ltd, Plymouth

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowers MA, Matter SF (1997) Landscape ecology of mammals: relationships between density and patch size. J Mammal 78:999–1013

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bowman J, Cappuccino N, Fahrig L (2002) Patch size and population density: the effect of immigration behavior. Conserv Ecol 6:183–190

    Google Scholar 

  • Cain ML (1985) Random search by herbivorous insects: a simulation model. Ecology 66:876–888

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cain ML, Eccleston J, Kareiva PM (1985) The influence of food plant dispersion on caterpillar searching success. Ecol Entomol 10:1–7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cariss H, Dobson M (1997) Transport and retention of detritus in upland streams: a comparison of an open stream and an adjacent wooded site. Limnética 13:85–91

    Google Scholar 

  • Clarke KR, Gorley RN (2006) PRIMER v6: User Manual/Tutorial. PRIMER-E Ltd., Plymouth

    Google Scholar 

  • Connor EF, Courtney AC, Yoder JM (2000) Individual-area relationships: the relationship between animal population density and area. Ecology 81:734–748

    Google Scholar 

  • Cronin JT, Haynes KJ, Dillemuth F (2004) Spider effects on planthopper mortality, dispersal, and spatial population dynamics. Ecology 85:2134–2143

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dangles O, Malmqvist B (2004) Species richness—decomposition relationships depend on species dominance. Ecol Lett 7:395–402

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dobson M (1994) Microhabitat as a determinant of diversity: stream invertebrates colonizing leaf packs. Freshw Biol 32:565–572

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dobson MK, Hildrew AG (1992) A test of resource limitation among shredding detritivores in low order streams in southern England. J Anim Ecol 61:69–78

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Donovan TM, Lamberson RH (2001) Area-sensitive distributions counteract negative effects of habitat fragmentation on breeding birds. Ecology 82:1170–1179

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Downes BJ, Lake PS, Schreiber ESG (1993) Spatial variation in the distribution of stream invertebrates—implications of patchiness for models of community organization. Freshw Biol 30:119–132

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Downes BJ, Lancaster J, Hale R, Glaister A, Bovill W (2011) Plastic and unpredictable responses of stream invertebrates to leaf pack patches across sandy-bottomed streams. Mar Freshw Res 62:394–403

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Encalada AC, Peckarsky BL (2012) Large-scale manipulation of mayfly recruitment affects population size. Oecologia 168:967–976

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fahrig L (2003) Effects of habitat fragmentation on biodiversity. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 34:487–515

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fahrig L (2007) Non-optimal animal movement in human-altered landscapes. Funct Ecol 21:1003–1015

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gall BG, Hopkins GR, Brodie ED Jr (2011) Mechanics and ecological role of swimming behavior in the caddisfly larvae Triaenodes tardus. J Insect Behav 24:317–328

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gaston KJ (2011) Common ecology. Bioscience 61:354–362

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hambäck PA, Summerville KS, Steffan-Dewenter I, Krauss J, Englund G, Crist TO (2007) Habitat specialization, body size, and family identity explain lepidopteran density–area relationships in a cross-continental comparison. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 104:8368–8373

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Jackson HB, Zeccarias A, Cronin JT (2013) Mechansims driving the density–area relationships in a saproxylic beetle. Oecologia 173:1237–1247

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kobayashi S, Kagaya T (2002) Differences in litter characteristics and macroinvertebrate assamblages between litter patches in pools and riffles in a headwater stream. Limnology 3:37–42

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kobayashi S, Kagaya T (2004) Litter patch types determine macroinvertebrate assemblages in pools of a Japanese headwater stream. J N Am Benthol Soc 23:78–89

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lake PS (2000) Disturbance, patchiness, and diversity in streams. J N Am Benthol Soc 19:573–592

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lancaster J (2006) Using neutral landscapes to identify patterns of aggregation across resources points. Ecography 29:385–395

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lancaster J, Belyea LR (1997) Nested hierarchies and scale-dependence of mechanisms of flow refugium use. J N Am Benthol Soc 16:221–238

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lancaster J, Downes BJ (2004) Spatial pattern analysis of available and exploited resources. Ecography 27:94–102

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lancaster J, Downes BJ (2014) Maternal behaviours may explain riffle-scale variations in some stream insect populations. Freshw Biol 59:502–513

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lancaster J, Downes BJ, Reich P (2003) Linking landscape patterns of resource distribution with models of aggregation in ovipositing stream insects. J Anim Ecol 72:969–978

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lancaster J, Dobson M, Magana AM, Arnold A, Mathooko JM (2008) An unusual terrestrial subsidy and potentially fragile species dominance in a tropical stream. Ecology 89:2325–2334

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lancaster J, Downes BJ, Glaister A (2009) Interacting environmental gradients, trade-offs and reversals in the abundance–environment relationships of stream insects: when flow is unimportant. Mar Freshw Res 60:259–270

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Lancaster J, Downes BJ, Arnold A (2010) Environmental constraints on oviposition may limit density of a stream insect at multiple scales. Oecologia 163:373–384

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lancaster J, Downes BJ, Arnold A (2011) Lasting effects of maternal behaviour on the distribution of a dispersive stream insect. J Anim Ecol 80:1061–1069

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Leroy CJ, Marks JC (2006) Litter quality, stream characteristics and litter diversity influence decomposition rates and macroinvertebrates. Freshw Biol 51:605–617

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mancinelli G, Sabetta L, Basset A (2005) Short-term patch dynamics of macroinvertebrate colonization on decaying reed detritus in a Mediterranean lagoon (Lake Alimini Grande, Apulia, SE Italy). Mar Biol 148:271–283

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matter SF (2000) The importance of the relationship between population density and habitat area. Oikos 89:613–619

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nee S, Cotgreave P (2002) Does the species/area relationship account for the density/area relationship? Oikos 99:545–551

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olden JD (2007) Critical threshold effects of benthiscape structure on stream herbivore movement. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B 362:461–472

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olden JD, Hoffman AL, Monroe JB, Poff NL (2004) Movement behaviour and dynamics of an aquatic insect in a stream benthic landscape. Can J Zool 82:1135–1146

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palmer TM (1995) The influence of spatial heterogeneity on the behaviour and growth of two herbivorous stream insects. Oecologia 104:476–486

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palmer MA, Swan CM, Nelson K, Silver P, Alvestad R (2000) Streambed landscapes: evidence that stream invertebrates respond to the type and spatial arrangement of patches. Landsc Ecol 15:563–576

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Püttker T, Bueno AA, dos Santos de Barros C, Sommer S, Pardini R (2011) Immigration rates in fragmented landscapes—empirical evidence for the importance of habitat amount for species persistence. PLoS ONE 6:e27963

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Resetarits WJ Jr, Binckley CA (2013) Patch quality and context, but not patch number, drive multi-scale colonization dynamics in experimental landscapes. Oecologia 173:933–946

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ripley BD (1981) Spatial statistics. Wiley, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Robertson AL, Lancaster J, Hildrew AG (1995) Stream hydraulics and the distribution of microcrustacea: a role for refugia? Freshw Biol 33:469–484

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Root RB (1973) Organization of plant-arthropod associatation in simple and diverse habitats: the fauna of collards. Ecol Monogr 45:95–120

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Silver P, Cooper JK, Palmer MA, Davis EJ (2000) The arrangement of resources in patchy landscapes: effects of distribution, survival, and resource acquisition of chironomids. Oecologia 124:216–224

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simons DB, Richardson EV (1961) Forms of bed roughness in alluvial channels. J Hydraul Eng Div ASCE 87:87–105

    Google Scholar 

  • St. Clair RM (1994) Diets of some larval Leptoceridae (Trichoptera) in south-eastern Australia. Mar Freshw Res 45:1023–1032

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Summerville KS, Crist TO (2004) Contrasting effects of habitat quantity and quality on moth communities in fragmented landscapes. Ecography 27:3–12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tillman DC, Moerke AH, Ziehl CL, Lamberti GA (2003) Subsurface hydrology and degree of burial affect mass loss and invertebrate colonisation of leaves in a woodland stream. Freshw Biol 48:98–107

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Tindall AR (1964) The skeleton and musculature of the larval thorax of Triaenodes bicolor Curtis (Trichoptera: Limnephilidae). Trans R Entomol Soc 116:151–210

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wallace JB, Eggert SL, Meyer JL, Webster JR (1999) Effects of resource limitation on a detrital-based ecosystem. Ecol Monogr 69:409–442

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiens JA (2002) Riverine landscapes: taking landscape ecology into the water. Freshw Biol 47:501–515

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by Australian Research Council Discovery Project grants awarded to B.J.D. and J.L. (DP0772854 and DP120103145). We are deeply indebted to Amanda Arnold and Alena Glaister for their stalwart support in the field in blistering heat. Thanks to the various landholders for their support with access to the stream.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Resource Management and Geography, University of Melbourne, 221 Bouverie Street, Parkville, VIC, 3010, Australia

    Jill Lancaster & Barbara J. Downes

Authors
  1. Jill Lancaster
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Barbara J. Downes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jill Lancaster.

Additional information

Communicated by Leon A. Barmuta.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lancaster, J., Downes, B.J. Population densities and density–area relationships in a community with advective dispersal and variable mosaics of resource patches. Oecologia 176, 985–996 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-014-3062-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-014-3062-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation