Biodiversity and Conservation

, Volume 16, Issue 9, pp 2695–2713 | Cite as

Assessing Riparian Quality Using Two Complementary Sets of Bioindicators

Original Paper

Abstract

Biological indicators are being increasingly used to rapidly monitor changing river quality. Among these bioindicators are macroinvertebrates. A short-coming of macroinvertebrate rapid assessments is that they use higher taxa, and therefore lack taxonomic resolution and species-specific responses. One subset of invertebrate taxa is the Odonata, which as adults, are sensitive indicators of both riparian and river conditions. Yet adult Odonata are not necessarily an umbrella taxon for all other taxa. Therefore, we investigated whether the two metrics of aquatic macroinvertebrate higher taxa and adult odonate species might complement each other, and whether together they provide better clarity on river health and integrity than one subset alone. Results indicated that both metrics provide a similar portrait of large-scale, overall river conditions. At the smaller spatial scale of parts of rivers, Odonata were highly sensitive to riparian vegetation, and much more so than macroinvertebrate higher taxa. Odonate species were more sensitive to vegetation structure than they were to vegetation composition. Landscape context is also important, with the odonate assemblages at point localities being affected by the neighbouring dominant habitat type. Overall, benthic macroinvertebrates and adult Odonata species provide a highly complementary pair of metrics which together provide large spatial scale (river system) and small spatial scale (point localities) information on the impact of stressors such as riparian invasive alien trees. As adult Odonata are easy to sample and are sensitive to disturbance at both small and large spatial scales, they are valuable indicators for rapid assessment of river condition and riparian quality.

Keywords

Riparian ecosystems Bioindicators Benthic macroinvertebrates Adult Odonata Complementarity 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

Acknowledgements

Financial support was from the Working for Water Programme.

References

  1. Brown CA (2001) A comparison of several methods of assessing river condition using benthic macroinvertebrate assemblages. Afr J Aquat Sci 26:135–147Google Scholar
  2. Chovanec A, Waringer J (2001) Ecological integrity of river floodplain systems assessment by dragonfly surveys (Insecta: Odonata). Regulated Rivers: Res Manage 17:493–507CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Clark TE, Samways MJ (1996) Dragonflies (Odonata) as indicators of biotope quality in the Kruger National Park, South Africa. J Appl Ecol 33:1001–1012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Clark KR, Warwick RM (2001) Change in marine communities: an approach to statistical analyses and interpretation. 2nd edn. Primer-E, Plymouth, UKGoogle Scholar
  5. Corbet PS (1999) Dragonflies: behaviour and ecology of Odonata. Harley, Colchester, UKGoogle Scholar
  6. Dallas HF (1997) A preliminary evaluation of aspects of SASS (South African Scoring System) for the rapid bioassessment of water quality in rivers, with particular reference to the incorporation of SASS in a national biomonitoring programme. South Afr J Aquat Sci 23:79–94Google Scholar
  7. Davies B, Day J (1998) Vanishing waters. University of Cape Town Press, Cape TownGoogle Scholar
  8. Dickens CWS, Graham PM (2002) The South Africa Scoring System (SASS) version 5 rapid bioassessment method for rivers. Afr J Aquat Sci 27:1–10Google Scholar
  9. Dovciak AL, Perry JA (2002) In search of effective scales for stream management: does agroecoregion, watershed, or their intersection best explain the variance in stream macroinvertebrate communities? Environ Manage 30:365–377CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Eyre MD, Ball SG, Foster GN (1986) An initial classification of the habits of aquatic Coleoptera in North-east England. J Appl Ecol 23:841–852CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gerber A, Gabriel MJM (2002) Aquatic invertebrates of southern Africa. Illustrations. Institute for Water Quality Studies. Department of Water Affairs and Forestry, PretoriaGoogle Scholar
  12. Hawkins CP, Norris RH, Houge JN, Feminella JW (2000) Development and evaluation of predictive models for measuring the biological integrity of streams. Ecol Appl 10:1456–1477CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hawking JH, New TR (2002) Interpreting dragonfly diversity to aid in conservation assessment: lessons from the Odonata assemblage at Middle Creek, north-eastern Victoria, Australia. J␣Insect Conserv 6:171–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Heino J, Paavola R, Virtanen R, Muotka T (2005) Searching for biodiversity indicators in running waters: do bryophytes, macroinvertebrates, and fish show congruent diversity patterns? Biodivers Conserv 14:415–428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Karr JR (1991) Biological integrity: a long-neglected aspect of water research management. Ecol Appl 1:66–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Karr JR, Chu EW (1999) Restoring life in running waters: better biological monitoring. Island Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  17. Kinvig RG, Samways MJ (2000) Conserving dragonflies (Odonata) along streams running through commercial forestry. Odonatologica 29:195–208Google Scholar
  18. Lammert M, Allen JD (1999) Assessing biotic integrity of streams: effects of scale in measuring the influence of land use/cover and habitat structure on fish and macroinvertebrates. Environ Manage 23:257–270CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Mancini L, Formichetti P, Anselmo A, Tancioni L, Marchini S, Sorace A (2005) Biological quality of running waters in protected areas: the influence of size and land use. Biodivers Conserv 14:351–364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Metcalf-Smith JL (1994) Biological water-quality assessment of rivers: use of macroinvertebrate communities. In: Calow P, Petts GE (eds) The rivers handbook, hydrological and ecological principles. vol. 2. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 144–170Google Scholar
  21. Morley SA, Karr JR (2002) Assessing and restoring the health of urban streams in the Puget sound basin. Conserv Biol 16:1498–1509CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Norris RH, Norris KH (1995) The need for the biological assessment of water quality: Australian perspective. Aust J Ecol 20:1–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Osborn R, Samways MJ (1996) Determinants of adult dragonfly assemblage patterns at new ponds in South Africa. Odonatologica 25:49–58Google Scholar
  24. Pinhey E (1984) A survey of the dragonflies (Odonata) of South Africa Part 1. J Entomol Soc Southern Afr 47:147–188Google Scholar
  25. Rogers K, Biggs H (1999) Integrating indicators, endpoints and value systems in strategic management of the rivers of the Kruger National Park. Freshwater Biol 41:439–451CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Rosenberg DK, Noon BR, Meslow EC (1997) Biological corridors: form, function and efficacy. BioScience 47:677–687CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Rosenberg DM, Resh VH (eds) (1993) Freshwater biomonitoring and benthic macroinvertebrates. Chapman & Hall, New York, London, p 488Google Scholar
  28. Samways MJ (1993) Dragonflies (Odonata) in taxic overlays and biodiversity conservation. In:␣Gaston KJ, New TR, Samways MJ (eds) Perspectives on insect conservation. Intercept, Andover, UK, pp 111–123Google Scholar
  29. Samways MJ (1999) Diversity and conservation status of South African dragonflies (Odonata). Odonatalogica 28:13–62Google Scholar
  30. Samways MJ, Caldwell PM, Osborn R (1996) Spatial patterns for dragonflies (Odonata) as indicators for design of a conservation pond. Odonatologica 25:157–166Google Scholar
  31. Samways MJ, Steytler NS (1996) Dragonfly (Odonata) distribution patterns in urban and forest landscapes, and recommendations for riparian management. Biol Conserv 78:279–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Samways MJ, Taylor S (2004) Impacts of invasive alien plants on Red-Listed South African dragonflies (Odonata). South Afr J Sci 100:78–80Google Scholar
  33. Schutte G, Reich M, Plachter H (1997) Mobility of the rheobiont damselfly Calopteryx splendens (Harris) on fragmented habitats (Zygoptera: Calopterygidae). Odonatologica 26:317–327Google Scholar
  34. Smith MJ, Kay WR, Edward PJ, Papas K, Richardson STJ, Simpson JC, Pinder AM, Carle DJ, Horwitz PHJ, Davids JA, Yung FH, Norris RH, Halse SA (1999) AusRivAS: using macroinvertebrates to assess ecological condition of rivers in Western Australia. Freshwater Biol 41:269–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Stewart DAB, Samways MJ (1998) Conserving dragonfly (Odonata) assemblages relative to river dynamics in an Africa savanna game reserve. Conserv Biol 12:683–692CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Suh A, Samways MJ (2005) Significance of temporal changes in designing a reservoir for conservation of dragonfly diversity. Biodivers Conserv 14:165–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. ter Braak CJF (1986) Cononical correspondence analysis: a new eigenvector technique for multivariate direct gradient analysis. Ecology 65:1167–1179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Wright JF, Moss D, Armitage PD, Furse MT (1984) A preliminary classification of running-water sites in Great Britain based on macro-invertebrate species and the prediction of community type using environmental data. Freshwater Biol 14:221–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Yoder CO, Ranking ET (1995) Biological response signatures and the area of degradation value: new tools for interpreting multimetric data. In: Davis WS, Simon TP (eds) Biological assessment and criteria: tools for water resources planning and decision making. Lewis, Boca Raton Florida, pp 263–286Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jenny Smith
    • 1
  • Michael J. Samways
    • 2
  • Stuart Taylor
    • 2
  1. 1.School of Botany and ZoologyUniversity of KwaZulu-NatalPietermaritzburgSouth Africa
  2. 2.Department of Conservation Ecology and Entomology and Centre for Agricultural BiodiversityUniversity of StellenboschMatielandSouth Africa

Personalised recommendations