Hydrobiologia

, Volume 575, Issue 1, pp 231–244 | Cite as

Natural variation in macroinvertebrate assemblages and the development of a biological banding system for interpreting bioassessment data—a preliminary evaluation using data from upland sites in the south-western Cape, South Africa

Primary Research Paper

Abstract

The variability of macroinvertebrate assemblages was investigated at 27 upland reference sites in the south-western Cape, South Africa. Multivariate analyses showed that sites did not group on the basis of geomorphological zonation, i.e. mountain stream and foothill-cobble bed. When separate analyses were undertaken for mountain stream (n = 21) and foothill-cobble bed sites (n = 6), assemblages formed three and two groups, respectively. Similarity amongst groups ranged from 47% to 52%, while within-group similarity was between 54% and 67%. Environmental variables shown to contribute to this variability included distance from source, cation ratio ([Na+]+[K+]/([Na+]+[K+]+[Ca2+]+[Mg2+]), pH, longitude and stream width. Whilst overall variability in the metrics of the biotic index, SASS (South African Scoring System), is high at reference sites, the interpretation of monitoring-site data using biological bands derived from a range of reference sites, ensured that variability was taken into account and that detection of disturbance at a monitoring site was not impeded. A biological banding system has been developed for upland sites in the south-western Cape, together with a list of reference or expected SASS-taxa. This list includes details pertaining to seasonality and biotope preferences. The ability to define reference conditions that take intrinsic variability amongst reference sites into account is important for the accurate interpretation of bioassessment data.

Keywords

Bioassessment Spatial variability South African Scoring System SASS Biotic indices Reference condition Biological bands 

References

  1. Armitage, P. D., D. Moss, J. F. Wright & M. T. Furse, 1983. The performance of a new biological water quality score system based on macroinvertebrates over a wide range of unpolluted running-water sites. Water Research 17: 333–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Brown, C. A., 1997. Modelling and managing the effects of trout farms on Cape rivers. Unpublished Doctoral thesis, Zoology Department, University of Cape Town, South Africa, 175 pp.Google Scholar
  3. Chutter F. M., 1998. Research on the Rapid Biological Assessment of Water Quality Impacts in Streams and Rivers. Water Research Commission Report No 422/1/98. Water Research Commission, Pretoria, South Africa, 230 pp.Google Scholar
  4. Cooper, S. D., 1984 The effects of trout on water strider in stream pools. Oecologia 63: 376–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cooper, S. D., L. Barmuta, O. Sarnelle, K. Kratz & S. Diehl, 1997. Quantifying spatial heterogeneity in streams. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 16(1): 174–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Crowl, T. A., C. R. Townsend, N. Bouwes & H. Thomas, 1997. Scales and causes of patchiness in stream invertebrate assemblages: top-down predator effects. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 16(1): 277–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dallas, H. F., 2002. Spatial and temporal heterogeneity in lotic systems: implications for defining reference conditions for riverine macroinvertebrates. Water Research Commission Report No.KV138/03, Water Research Commission, Pretoria, 218 pp.Google Scholar
  8. Dallas, H. F., 2004. Seasonal variability of macroinvertebrate assemblages in two regions of South Africa: implications for aquatic bioassessment. African Journal of Aquatic Science 29(2): 173–184.Google Scholar
  9. Dallas, H. F., In Press. The influence of biotope availability on macroinvertebrate assemblages in South African rivers: implications for aquatic bioassessment. Freshwater Biology.Google Scholar
  10. Davies, B. R. & J. A. Day, 1998. Vanishing Waters. University of Cape Town Press, South Africa. .Google Scholar
  11. Furse, M. T., 2000. The application of RIVPACS procedures in headwater streams – an extensive and important natural resource. In Wright, J. F., D. W. Sutcliffe & M. T. Furse (eds), Assessing the Biological Quality of Fresh Waters: RIVPACS and Other Techniques Freshwater Biological Association, United Kingdom.Google Scholar
  12. Golterman, H. I., Clymo, R. S. & M. A. M Ohnstad, 1978. Methods for Chemical and Physical Analysis of Fresh Waters. IBP Handbook No. 8. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford, United Kingdom.Google Scholar
  13. Harrison, A. D. & J. D. Agnew, 1962. The distribution of invertebrates endemic to acid streams in the Western and Southern Cape Province. Annals of the Cape Provincial Museums II, CSIR Reprint No. RW 121, Pretoria, South Africa.Google Scholar
  14. Hawkins, C. P., J. N. Hogue, L. M. Decker & J. W. Feminella, 1997. Channel morphology, water temperature, and assemblage structure of stream insects. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 16(4): 728–749.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. King, J. M. & D. M. Schael, 2001. Assessing the Ecological Relevance of a Spatially-nested Geomorphological Hierarchy for River Management. Water Research Commission Report 754/1/01. Pretoria, South Africa.Google Scholar
  16. Low, A.B. & A. G. Rebelo A.G., 1996. Vegetation of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. Department of Environmental Affairs & Tourism, Pretoria, South Africa.Google Scholar
  17. Palmer, C., A. Palmer, J. O’keeffe & R. Palmer, 1994. Macroinvertebrate community structure and altitudinal changes in the upper reaches of a warm, temperate southern African river. Freshwater Biology 32: 337–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Palmer, M. A. & N. L. Poff, 1997. Heterogeneity in streams: the influence of environmental heterogeneity on patterns and processes in streams. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 16(1): 169–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Parsons, M. & R. H. Norris, 1996. The effect of habitat-specific sampling on biological assessment of water quality using a predictive model. Freshwater Biology 36: 419–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Poff, N. L. & J. V. Ward, 1990. Physical habitat template of lotic systems: recovery in the context of historical pattern of spatiotemporal heterogeneity. Environmental Management 14(5): 629–645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Primer, 1999. Version 5. Plymouth Marine Laboratory, United Kingdom.Google Scholar
  22. Pringle, C. M., R. J. Naiman, G. Bretchko, J. R. Karr, M. W. Oswood, J. R. Webster, R. L. Welcome & M. J. Winterbourn, 1988. Patch dynamics in lotic systems: the stream as a mosaic. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 7: 503–524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Rowntree, K. M. & R. A. Wadeson, 1999. A Hierarchical Geomorphological Model for the Classification of Selected South African Rivers. Water Research Commission Report No. 497/1/99. Water Research Commission, Pretoria, South Africa.Google Scholar
  24. Simpson, J. C. & R. H. Norris, 2000. Biological assessment of river quality: developments of AUSRIVAS models and outputs. In Wright J. F., D. W. Sutcliffe & M. T. Furse (eds), Assessing the Biological Quality of Fresh Waters: RIVPACS and Other Techniques Freshwater Biological Association, United Kingdom.Google Scholar
  25. Smith, M. J., W. R. Kay, D. H. D. Edward, P. J. Papas, K. J. Richardson,.J. C. Simpson, A. M. Pinder, D. J. Cale, P. H. J. Howitz, J. A. Davis, F. H. Yung, R. H. Norris & S. A. Halse, 1999. AusRiVAS: using macroinvertebrates to assess ecological condition of rivers in Western Australia. Freshwater Biology 41(2): 269–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Snaddon, C. D. & B. R. Davies, 1998. A preliminary assessment of the effects of a small inter-basin transfer of water on discharge and invertebrate community structure. Regulated Rivers: Research and Management 14: 421–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Stevens, D. M. & M. D. Picker, 1999. A revision of Aphanicercella Tillyard (Plecoptera: Notonemouridae) including the A. barnardii (Tillyard) species-complex. African Entomology 7: 197–209.Google Scholar
  28. Stewart, B. A. & C. L. Griffiths, 2001. Amphipods. In Day J. A., B. A. Stewart, I. J. De Moor & A. E. Louw (eds), Guides to the Freshwater Invertebrates of Southern Africa, Vol. 4, Crustaceae III. Water Research Commission, Pretoria, South Africa.Google Scholar
  29. Townsend, C. R., S. Doledec & M. R. Scarsbrook, 1997. Species traits in relation to temporal and spatial heterogeneity in streams: a test of habitat templet theory. Freshwater Biology 37: 367–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Vegter J. R., 1995. Geology Map of South Africa with Simplified Lithostratigraphy for Geohydrological Use. Water Research Commission TT 74/95, Pretoria, South Africa.Google Scholar
  31. Wishart, M. J. & J. A. Day, 2002. Endemism in the freshwater fauna of the south-western Cape, South Africa. Verhandlungen der Internationalen Vereinigung fűr Theoretische und Angewandte Limnologie 28: 1–5.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of ZoologyUniversity of Cape TownCape TownSouth africa

Personalised recommendations