, Volume 106, Issue 2, pp 157–168

Microhabitat preferences of benthic fauna in a woodland stream

  • Donald J. Orth
  • O. Eugene Maughan


Estimates of numbers, biomass, and diversity of benthic macroinvertebrates were made quarterly over a two-year period to investigate microhabitat preferences. Although biomass of most taxa was significantly different among sampling times, physical factors also appeared to be important in determining abundance of many taxa. Optimum depth, velocity, substrate type, and turbulence were determined for major taxa. Optimum conditions for diversity appeared to be 34 cm depth, 60 cm s−1 velocity, and rubble and boulder substrate type. Habitat preference functions were derived for several taxa based on significant polynomial regressions of biomass on depth, velocity, substrate, and Froude number (turbulence). The relationship between abundance and physical habitat conditions was tested by using the product of the preference factors (range: 0–1) for depth, velocity and substrate type as a measure of habitat suitability (joint preference factor). There were significant correlations between biomass [transformed by loge (x + 1)] of 10 benthic species and the joint preference factor. The joint preference factors accounted for from 11 to 61% of the variation of biomass of the 10 benthic species. The intercepts of the relationships between biomass of individual species and the joint preference factor were not significantly different from zero for any species. Therefore, the joint preference factors appear to be valid indicators of biomass. The preference functions have utility in habitat assessment studies, specifically with regard to minimum instream flow determinations.


benthic macroinvertebrates instream flow management depth velocity substrate microhabitat preferences 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Allan, J. D., 1975. The distributional ecology and diversity of benthic insects in Cement Creek, Colorado. Ecology 56: 1040–1053.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ambühl, H., 1959. Die Bedeutung der Strömung als ökologischer Factor. Schweiz. Z. Hydrol. 21: 133–264.Google Scholar
  3. Anderson, N. H. & Sedell, J. R., 1979. Detritus processing by macroinvertebrates in stream ecosystems. Ann. Rev. Ent. 24: 351–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barber, W. E. & Kevern, N. R., 1973. Ecological factors influencing macroinvertebrate standing crop distribution. Hydrobiologia 43: 53–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boobar, L. R. & Granett, J., 1980. Simulium penobscotensis (Diptera: Simuliidae) habitat characteristics in the Penobscot River, Maine. Envir. Ent. 9: 412–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bovee, K. D., 1978. Probability-of-use criteria for the family Salmonidae. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv., Instream Flow Info. Pap. 4, Fort Collins, Col., USA.Google Scholar
  7. Bovee, K. D., 1982. A guide to stream habitat analysis using the instream flow incremental methodology. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv., Instream Flow Info. Pap. 12, Fort Collins, Col., USA.Google Scholar
  8. Bovee, K. D. & Cochnauer, T., 1977. Development and evaluation of weighted criteria, probability-of-use curves for instream flow assessments: Fisheries. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv., Instream Flow Info. Pap. 3, Fort Collins, Col., USA.Google Scholar
  9. Bovee, K. D. & Milhous, R. T., 1978. Hydraulic simulation in instream flow studies: Theory and techniques. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv., Instream Flow Info. Pap. 5, Fort Collins, Col., USA.Google Scholar
  10. Brusven, M. A. & Prather, K. V., 1974. Influence of stream sediments on distribution of macrobenthos. J. Ent. Soc. br. Columbia, 71: 25–32.Google Scholar
  11. Carle, F. L. & Maughan, O. E., 1980. Accurate and efficient estimation of benthic populations: a comparison between removal estimation and conventional sampling techniques. Hydrobiologia 71: 181–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Carle, F. L. & Strub, M. R., 1978. A new method for estimating population size from removal data. Biometrics 23: 621–630.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chow, V. T., 1959. Open channel hydraulics. McGraw-Hill Book Co., NY., 680 pp.Google Scholar
  14. Coffman, W. P., Cummins, K. W. & Wuycheck, J. C., 1971. Energy flow in a woodland stream ecosystem. 1. Tissue support trophic structure of the autumnal community. Arch. Hydrobiol. 68: 232–276.Google Scholar
  15. Conover, W. J., 1971. Practical nonparametric statistics. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., Lond., 462 pp.Google Scholar
  16. Cummins, K. W., 1974. Structure and function of stream ecosystems. Bioscience 24: 631–641.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cummins, K. W. & Lauff, G. H., 1969. The influence of substrate particle size on the microdistribution of stream macrobenthos. Hydrobiologia 34: 145–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. De March, B. G. E., 1976. Spatial and temporal patterns in macrobenthic stream diversity. J. Fish. Res. Bd Can. 33: 1261–1270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Draper, N. R. & Smith, H., 1966. Applied regression analysis. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., N.Y., 407 pp.Google Scholar
  20. Edington, J. M., 1968. Habitat preferences in net-spinning caddis larvae with special reference to the influence of water velocity. J. anim. Ecol. 37: 675–692.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Egglishaw, H. J., 1969. The distribution of benthic invertebrates on substrata in fast flowing streams. J. anim. Ecol. 38: 19–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fisher, S. G. & Likens, G. E., 1973. Energy flow in Bear Brook, New Hampshire: An integrative approach to stream ecosystem metabolism. Ecol. Monogr. 43: 421–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gore, J. A., 1978. A technique for predicting in-stream flow requirements of benthic macroinvertebrates. Freshwat. Biol. 8: 141–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gore, J. A. & Judy, R. D., 1981. Predictive models of benthic macroinvertebrate density for use in instream flow studies and regulated flow management. Can. J. Fish. aquat. Sci. 38: 1363–1370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Maitland, P. S. & Penny, M. M., 1967. The ecology of the Simuliidae in a Scottish river. J. anim. Ecol. 36: 179–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Minshall, G. W. & Minshall, J. N., 1977. Micro-distribution of benthic invertebrates in a Rocky Mountain (U.S.A.) stream. Hydrobiologia 55: 231–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Oklahoma State Department of Health, 1977. Surface water quality assessment for Oklahoma, water year 1977. St. Wat. Qual. Lab., Rep. 305b, Okla. City, Okla., USA.Google Scholar
  28. Orth, D. J. & Maughan, O. E., 1982. Evaluation of the incremental methodology for recommending instream flows for fishes. Trans. am. Fish. Soc. 111: 413–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Pennak, R. W. & Van Gerpen, E. D., 1947. Bottom fauna production and physical nature of the substrate in northern Colorado trout streams. Ecology 28: 42–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Philipson, G. N., 1954. The effect of water flow and oxygen concentration on six species of caddis fly (Trichoptera) larvae. Proc. zool. Soc. Lond. 124: 547–564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Rabeni, C. F. & Gibbs, K. E., 1980. Ordination of deep river invertebrate communities in relation to environmental variables. Hydrobiologia 74: 67–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Rabeni, C. F. & Minshall, G. W., 1977. Factors affecting microdistribution of stream benthic insects. Oikos 29: 33–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Railsback, S. F., in press. Modeling benthic insect habitat. Symp., Acquisition and utilization of aquatic habitat inventory information. West. Div. Am. Fish. Soc.Google Scholar
  34. Scott, D., 1968. Ecological studies on the Trichoptera of the River Dean, Cheshire. Arch. Hydrobiol. 54: 340–392.Google Scholar
  35. Shannon, C. E. & Weaver, V., 1948. The mathematical theory of communication. Univ. Illinois Press, Urbana, Ill., USA, 117 pp.Google Scholar
  36. Sprules, W. M., 1947. An ecological investigation of stream insects in Algonquin Park, Ontario. Univ. Toronto Studies, Biol. Ser. 56: 1–81.Google Scholar
  37. Stalnaker, C. B., 1979. The use of habitat structure preferenda for establishing flow regimes necessary for maintenance of fish habitat. In J. V. Ward & J. A. Stanford (eds). The ecology of regulated streams. Plenum Press, N.Y., USA: 321–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Statzner, B., 1981. The relation between ‘hydraulic stress’ and microdistribution of benthic macroinvertebrates in a lowland running water system, the Schierenseebrooks (North Germany). Arch. Hydrobiol. 91: 192–218.Google Scholar
  39. Steele, R. G. D. & Torrie, J. H., 1960. Principles and procedures of statistics. McGraw-Hill Book Co., N.Y., 481 pp.Google Scholar
  40. Tolbert, V. R., 1978. Effects of strip mining related disturbance on the benthic insect communities of selected streams in the New River Basin of east Tennessee. Ph.D. Diss., Univ. Tenn., Knoxville, Tenn., USA.Google Scholar
  41. Ulfstrand, S., 1967. Microdistribution of benthic species (Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, Diptera: Simuliidae) in Lapland streams. Oikos 18: 293–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1975. Draft environmental statement, Lukfata Lake, Glover Creek, Oklahoma, U.S. Army Corps Engineers, Tulsa, Okla., USA.Google Scholar
  43. U.S. Geological Survey, 1977. Water resources data for Oklahoma, water year 1976, 2. U.S. Geol. Surv., Water-Data Rep. OK-76–2, Okla. City, Okla., USA.Google Scholar
  44. U.S. Geological Survey, 1978. Water resources data for Oklahoma, water year 1977, 2. U.S. Geol. Surv., Water-Data Rep. OK-77–2, Okla. City, Okla., USA.Google Scholar
  45. Ward, J. V., 1975. Bottom fauna-substrate relationships in a northern Colorado stream. Ecology 56: 1429–1434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Ward, J. V., 1976. Effects of flow patterns below large dams on stream benthos: A review. In J. F. Orsborn & C. H. Allman (eds). Instream flow needs, 2. Am. Fish. Soc., Bethesa, Md., USA: 235–253.Google Scholar
  47. Wene, G. & Wickliffe, F. I., 1940. Modifications of a stream bottom and its effect on the insect fauna. Can. Ent. 72: 131–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Wiggins, G. B., 1966. The critical problem of systematics in stream ecology. In K. W. Cummins, C. A. Tryon Jr. & R. T. Hartman (eds). Organism-substrate relationships in streams. Pymatuning Lab. Ecol., Spec. Pub. 4, Univ. Pittsburg, Pa., USA: 52–58.Google Scholar
  49. Williams, D. D., 1980. Some relationships between stream benthos and substrate heterogeneity. Limnol. Oceanogr. 25: 166–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Williams, N. E. & Hynes, H. B. N., 1973. Microdistribution and feeding of the net-spinning caddisflies (Trichoptera) of a Canadian stream. Oikos 24: 73–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Wolman, M. G., 1971. The nations rivers. Science 174: 905–918.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Zahar, A. R., 1951. The ecology and distribution of black flies in southeast Scotland. J. anim. Ecol. 20: 33–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Dr W. Junk Publishers 1983

Authors and Affiliations

  • Donald J. Orth
    • 1
  • O. Eugene Maughan
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Fisheries and Wildlife SciencesVirginia Polytechnic Institute and State UniversityBlacksburgU.S.A.
  2. 2.Oklahoma Cooperative Fishery Research UnitOklahoma State UniversityStillwaterU.S.A.

Personalised recommendations