Advertisement

Access to Natural Substrates in Urban Streams Does Not Counter Impoverishment of Macroinvertebrate Communities: a Comparison of Engineered and Non-engineered Reaches

  • D. J. ReidEmail author
  • C. Tippler
Article

Abstract

Urban streams are degraded through multiple mechanisms, including severely altered flow regimes, elevated concentrations of waterborne contaminants, removal of riparian vegetation and the loss of a mosaic of heterogeneous aquatic habitats. Engineering of urban stream reaches using concrete is a widespread and extreme case of deliberate alteration of flow regimes and concomitant habitat simplification. To assess the effect of such engineering practices on stream ecosystems, we compared aquatic macroinvertebrate communities from concrete-lined engineered urban reaches, non-engineered urban reaches with natural substrates and reference reaches flowing through minimally disturbed forested subcatchments and with natural substrates, in the Sydney metropolitan region, Australia. The communities from all urban reaches were impoverished and distinctly different from more diverse communities in forested reference reaches. Despite low aquatic habitat heterogeneity, engineered urban reaches had very high abundances of Diptera and some other tolerant taxa. Diptera and/or Gastropoda were dominant in non-engineered urban reaches. Multivariate community structures were dissimilar between the urban reaches and forested reference reaches and between non-engineered and engineered urban reaches. However, the low family-level richness and SIGNAL scores in both urban reach types indicated they were severely ecological impaired, whether engineered or not. Most macroinvertebrate taxa in the regional pool that were hardy enough to inhabit urban reaches with natural substrates were also present in nearby concreted reaches. The results add weight to the growing evidence that in urban landscapes, regional-scale changes in water quality and flow regimes limit the establishment of diverse macroinvertebrate communities, which cannot be addressed through the provision of increased reach-scale habitat heterogeneity.

Keywords

Urban stream Concrete channel Stormwater Macroinvertebrates Reach-scale management 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Thank you to Michael Bartolillo, Tim Garlick, Lydia Harrison and Lucia Moon for the assistance with the fieldwork; Gerry Quinn for the advice on statistical analyses; Beth Salt and anonymous reviewers for the constructive comments to improve the manuscript; and the managers of waterways (i.e. local councils, Sydney Water and NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service) for the access.

References

  1. Anderson, M. J., Gorley, R. N., & Clarke, K. R. (2008). PERMANOVA+ for PRIMER: guide for Software and Statistical Methods. Devon: PRIMER-E Ltd.Google Scholar
  2. APHA (American Public Health Association). (1998). Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater (20th ed.). Washington, DC: American Public Health Association.Google Scholar
  3. Beavan, L., Sadler, J., & Pinder, C. (2001). The invertebrate fauna of a physically modified urban river. Hydrobiologia, 445, 97–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Biggs, B. J. F., Nikora, V. I., & Snelder, T. H. (2005). Linking scales of flow variability to lotic ecosystem structure and function. River Research and Applications, 21, 283–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Burton, C. A., Brown, L. A., & Belitz, K. (2005). Assessing water source and channel type factors affecting benthic macroinvertebrates and periphyton assemblages in the highly urbanized Santa Ana River Basin, California. American Fisheries Society Symposium, 47, 239–262.Google Scholar
  6. Chessman, B. C. (1995). Rapid assessment of rivers using macroinvertebrates: a procedure based on habitat-specific sampling, family level identification and a biotic index. Australian Journal of Ecology, 20, 122–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chessman, B. (2003). SIGNAL 2 – a scoring system for macro-invertebrate (‘water bugs’) in Australian rivers. Monitoring River Health Initiative. Technical Report no. 31. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.Google Scholar
  8. Clarke, K. R., & Gorley, R. N. (2015). PRIMER v.7: user manual. Plymouth: PRIMER-E.Google Scholar
  9. Clarke, K. R., & Warwick, R. M. (1994). Change in marine communities: an approach to statistical analysis and interpretation. Plymouth: PRIMER-E Ltd.Google Scholar
  10. Davies, P. J., Wright, I. A., Findlay, S. J., Jonasson, O. J., & Burgin, S. (2010). Impact of urban development on aquatic macroinvertebrates in south eastern Australia: degradation of in-stream habitats and comparison with non-urban streams. Aquatic Ecology, 44, 685–700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. DEST, EPA, & WRDC. (1994). River bioassessment manual. Version 1.0, National River Processes and Management Program, Monitoring River Health Initiative. Canberra: Department of Environment, Sport and Territories, Environment Protection Agency, and Land and Water Research and Development Corporation.Google Scholar
  12. Downes, B. J., Lake, P. S., Schreiber, E. S. G., & Glaister, A. (1998). Habitat structure and regulation of local species diversity in a stony, upland stream. Ecological Monographs, 68, 237–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gobster, P. H., & Westphal, L. M. (2004). The human dimensions of urban greenways: planning for recreation and related expenses. Landscape and Urban Planning, 68, 147–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gooderham, J., & Tsyrlin, E. (2002). The Waterbug Book – guide to the freshwater macroinvertebrates of temperate Australia. Melbourne: CSIRO.Google Scholar
  15. Gresens, S. E., Belt, K. T., Tang, J. A., Gwinn, D. C., & Banks, P. A. (2007). Temporal and spatial responses of Chironomidae (Diptera) and other benthic invertebrates to urban stormwater runoff. Hydrobiologia, 575, 173–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gurnell, A., Lee, M., & Souch, C. (2007). Urban rivers: hydrology, geomorphology, ecology and opportunities for change. Geography Compass, 1, 1118–1137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hawking, J., & Smith, F. (1997). Colour guide to invertebrates of Australian inland waters. Identification Guide no. 8. Albury: Cooperative Research Centre for Freshwater Ecology.Google Scholar
  18. IBM Corp. (2016). IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, version 24.0. Armon, NY: IBM.Google Scholar
  19. Kenney, M. A., Wilcock, P. R., Hobbs, B. F., Flores, N. E., & Martinez, D. C. (2012). Is urban stream restoration worth it? Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 48, 603–615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Konrad, C. P., & Booth, D. B. (2005). Hydrologic changes in urban streams and their ecological significance. American Fisheries Society Symposium, 47, 157–177.Google Scholar
  21. Krebs, C. (1989). Ecological methodology. New York: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
  22. Lake, P. S., Bond, N., & Reich, P. (2007). Linking ecological theory with stream restoration. Freshwater Biology, 52, 597–615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Laub, B. G., Baker, D. W., Bledsoe, B. P., & Palmer, M. A. (2012). Range of variability of channel complexity in urban, restored and forested reference streams. Freshwater Biology, 57, 1076–1095.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lowrance, R., Leonard, R., & Sheridan, J. (1985). Managing riparian ecosystems to control nonpoint pollution. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 40, 87–91.Google Scholar
  25. Meyer, J. L., Paul, M. J., & Taulbee, W. K. (2005). Stream ecosystem function in urbanizing landscapes. Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 24, 602–612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Munn, N. L., & Meyer, J. L. (1990). Habitat-specific solute retention in two small streams: an intersite comparison. Ecology, 71, 2069–2082.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Palmer, M. A., Ambrose, R. F., & Poff, N. L. (1997). Ecological theory and community restoration ecology. Restoration Ecology, 5, 291–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Palmer, M. A., Menninger, H. L., & Bernhardt, E. (2010). River restoration, habitat heterogeneity and biodiversity: a failure of theory or practice? Freshwater Biology, 55, 205–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Paul, M. J., & Meyer, J. L. (2001). Streams in the urban landscape. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 32, 333–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Poff, N. L. (1997). Landscape filters and species traits: towards mechanistic understanding and prediction in stream ecology. Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 16, 391–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Reid, D. J., & Tippler, C. (2018). Using concreted stormwater channels to determine ‘worse case scenarios’ for grading the relative condition of urban waterways. In Proceedings of the 9th Australian Stream Management Conference. Hobart, Tasmania.Google Scholar
  32. Sauer, E. P., VandeWalle, J. L., Bootsma, M. J., & McLellan, S. L. (2011). Detection of human specific Bacteroides genetic marker provides widespread evidence of widespread sewage contamination of stormwater in the urban environment. Water Research, 45, 4081–4091.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Schueler, T., & Brown, K. (2004). Urban subwatershed restoration manual no. 4: urban stream repair practices. Center for watershed protection.Google Scholar
  34. Tippler, C., & Dean, M. (2016). Assessing riparian vegetation and creek channel condition in a rapidly changing urban space: a case study from Blacktown LGA. In: G. J. Vietz, A. J. Flatley and I. D. Rutherfurd (Eds.), Proceedings of the 8 th Australian stream management conference. Leura, NSW, pp. 499–506.Google Scholar
  35. Tippler, C., Wright, I. A., & Hanlon, A. (2012). Is catchment imperviousness a keystone factor degrading urban waterways? A case study from a partly urbanised catchment (Georges River, South-Eastern Australia). Water, Air, and Soil Pollution, 223, 5331–5344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Tippler, C., Wright, I. A., Davies, P. J., & Hanlon, A. (2014). The influence of concrete on the geochemical qualities of urban streams. Marine and Freshwater Research, 65, 1009–1017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Trimble, S. W. (1997). Contribution of stream channel erosion to sediment yield from an urbanizing watershed. Science, 278, 1442–1444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Vermonden, K., Leuven, R. S. E. W., van der Velde, G., van Katwijk, M. M., Roelofs, J. G. M., & Hendriks, A. J. (2009). Urban drainage systems; an undervalued habitat for aquatic macroinvertebrates. Biological Conservation, 142, 1105–1115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Violin, C. R., Cada, P., Sudduth, E. B., Hassett, B. A., Penrose, D. L., & Bernhardt, E. S. (2011). Effects of urbanization and urban stream restoration on the physical and biological structure of stream ecosystems. Ecological Applications, 21, 1932–1949.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Walsh, C. J. (2004). Protection of in-stream biota from urban impacts: minimize catchment imperviousness or improve drainage design. Marine and Freshwater Research, 55, 317–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Walsh, C. J., Sharpe, A. K., Breen, P. F., & Sonneman, J. A. (2001). Effects of urbanization on streams of the Melbourne region, Victoria, Australia. I. Benthic macroinvertebrate communities. Freshwater Biology, 46, 535–551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Walsh, C. J., Roy, A. H., Feminella, J. W., Cottingham, P. D., Groffman, P. M., & Morgan, R. P., II. (2005). The urban stream syndrome: current knowledge and the search for a cure. Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 24, 706–723.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Walsh, C. J., Waller, K. A., Gehling, J., & MacNally, R. (2007). Riverine invertebrate assemblages are degraded more by catchment urbanisation than by riparian deforestation. Freshwater Biology, 52, 574–587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Wright, I. A., Davies, P. J., Findlay, S. J., & Jonasson, O. J. (2011). A new type of water pollution: concrete drainage infrastructure and geochemical contamination in urban waters. Marine and Freshwater Research, 62, 1355–1361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Zar, J. H. (2010). Biostatistical analysis (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River: Pearson Prentice Hall, Inc..Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Georges RiverkeeperHurstvilleAustralia
  2. 2.Macquarie UniversityMacquarie ParkAustralia
  3. 3.CT EnvironmentalWagga WaggaAustralia

Personalised recommendations