, Volume 128, Issue 1, pp 45–56 | Cite as

Influences of aquatic macrophytes on invertebrate community structure, guild structure, and microdistribution in streams

  • Watson W. Gregg
  • Fred L. Rose


The aquatic macrophytes Ranunculus aquatilis and Rorippa nasturtium-aquaticum were transplanted into substrate trays and placed in a stream alongside unvegetated substrate. Macrophytes were observed to have significant effects on 1) invertebrate community structure, 2) guild structure, and 3) microdistribution. 1) Significantly higher taxa richness and community abundances were associated with macrophytes. 2) Significantly higher abundances of shredder, scraper, and predator guilds were associated with macrophytes in fall, and all guilds had higher abundances in macrophytes in spring. However, guild frequency distributions did not differ among habitats except in spring. 3) Enallagma, Gammarus, Gyraulus, Physa, and Pisidium exhibited a strong association with macrophytes, while Hydropsyche, Simulium, Baetis tricaudatus, Glossosoma velona, and Helicopsyche borealis appeared to avoid them. A strong correlation appeared to exist between current velocity preferences of these taxa and their selection or avoidance of vegetated habitat. Thus, the effect of macrophytes in reducing current velocities appeared to be the most important influence on invertebrate microdistribution. However, macrophytes also increase physical heterogeneity and their large surface areas benefit invertebrate community abundances by creating additional living spaces in the water column where none exist above unvegetated substrate.


macrophytes invertebrates community structure guild structure microdistribution 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Barber, W. E. & N. R. Kevern, 1973. Ecological factors influencing macroinvertebrate standing crop distribution. Hydrobiologia 43: 53–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Berg, C. O., 1949. Limnological relations of insects to plants of the genus Potamogeton. Trans. am. microsc. Soc. 68: 279–291.Google Scholar
  3. Butcher, R. W., 1927. A preliminary account of the vegetation of the River Itchen. J. Ecol. 15: 55–65.Google Scholar
  4. Coen, L. D., K. L. Heck & L. G. Abele, 1981. Experiments on competition and predation among shrimps of seagrass meadows. Ecology 62: 1484–1493.Google Scholar
  5. Crowder, L. B. & W. E. Cooper, 1982. Habitat structural complexity and the interaction between bluegills and their prey. Ecology 63: 1802–1813.Google Scholar
  6. Cummins, K. W. & G. H. Lauff, 1969. The influence of substrate particle size on the microdistribution of stream macrobenthos. Hydrobiologia 34: 145–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Frohne, W. C., 1938. Contribution to the knowledge of the limnological role of the higher aquatic plants. Trans. am. microsc. Soc. 57: 256–268.Google Scholar
  8. Friberg, F., L. M. Nilsson, C. Otto, P. Sjostrum, B. W. Svensson, B. Svensson & S. Ulfstrand, 1977. Diversity and environments of benthic invertebrate communities in south Swedish streams. Arch. Hydrobiol. 81: 129–154.Google Scholar
  9. Gilinksy, E., 1984. The role of fish predation and spatial heterogeneity in determining benthic community structure. Ecology 65: 455–468.Google Scholar
  10. Godfrey, P. J., 1978. Diversity as a measure of benthic macroinvertebrate community response to water pollution. Hydrobiologia 57: 111–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gregg, W. W. & F. L. Rose, 1982. The effects of aquatic macrophytes on the stream micro-environment. Aquat. Bot. 14: 309–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Harrod, J. J., 1964. The distribution of invertebrates on submerged aquatic plants in a chalk stream. J. anim. Ecol. 33: 335–341.Google Scholar
  13. Hawkins, C. P., M. L. Murphy & N. H. Anderson, 1982. Effects of canopy, substrate composition, and gradient on the structure of macroinvertebrate communities in Cascade Range streams of Oregon. Ecology 63: 1840–1856.Google Scholar
  14. Heck, K. L. & G. S. Wetstone, 1977. Habitat complexity and invertebrate species richness and abundance in tropical seagrass meadows. J. Biogeogr. 4: 135–142.Google Scholar
  15. Hynes, H. B. N., 1960. The biology of polluted waters. University of Toronto Press, Toronto, Canada, Buffalo, N.Y., 202 pp.Google Scholar
  16. Hynes, H. B. N., 1970a. The ecology of running waters. University of Toronto Press, Toronto, Canada, 555 pp.Google Scholar
  17. Hynes, H. B. N., 1970b. The ecology of stream insects. Ann. Rev. Ent. 15: 25–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jaag, O. & H. Ambuhl, 1964. The effect of current on the biocoenosis in flowing water streams. In Int. Conf. Wat. Pollut. Res., Lond. Pergamon Press, Oxford: 31–49.Google Scholar
  19. Kondratieff, P. F. & G. M. Simmons, 1982. Nutrient retention and macroinvertebrate community structure in a small stream receiving sewage effluent. Arch. Hydrobiol. 94: 83–98.Google Scholar
  20. Krecker, F. H., 1939. A comparative study of the animal population of certain submerged aquatic plants. Ecology 20: 553–562.Google Scholar
  21. Krull, J. H., 1970. Aquatic plant-macroinvertebrate associations and waterfowl. J. Wildl. Mgmt. 34: 707–718.Google Scholar
  22. Ladle, M. & H. Casey, 1971. Growth and nutrient relationships of Ranunculus penicillatus var. calcareous in a small chalk stream. In Proc. eur. Weed Res. Conn., 3rd int. Symp. aquat. Weeds: 53–63.Google Scholar
  23. Macan, T. T., 1949. Survey of a moorland fishpond. J. anim. Ecol. 18: 160–186.Google Scholar
  24. Margalef, R., 1960. Ideas for a synthetic approach to the ecology of running waters. Int. Revue ges. Hydrobiol. 45: 133–153.Google Scholar
  25. McGaha, Y. J., 1952. The limnological relations of insects to certain aquatic flowering plants. Trans. am. microsc. Soc. 71: 335–381.Google Scholar
  26. McLachlan, A. J., 1969. The effect of aquatic macrophytes on the variety and abundance of benthic fauna in a newly created lake in the tropics (Lake Kariba). Arch. Hydrobiol. 66: 212–231.Google Scholar
  27. Merritt, R. W. & K. W. Cummins, 1978. An introduction to the aquatic insects of North America. Kendall-Hunt Publishing Co., Dubuque, Iowa, 441 pp.Google Scholar
  28. Minckley, W. L., 1963. The ecology of a spring stream, Doe Run, Meade County, Kentucky Wildl. Monogr. 11: 1–124.Google Scholar
  29. Minshall, G. W. & D. A. Andrews, 1973. An ecological investigation of the Portneuf River, Idaho: a semiarid land-stream subjected to pollution. Freshwat. Biol. 3: 1–30.Google Scholar
  30. Minshall, G. W. & J. N. Minshall, 1977. Microdistribution of benthic invertebrates in a Rocky Mountain (U.S.A.) stream. Hydrobiologia 55: 231–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Odum, H. T., 1957. Trophic structure and productivity of Silver Springs, Florida. Ecol. Monogr. 27: 55–112.Google Scholar
  32. Percival, E. & H. Whitehead, 1929. A quantitative study of the fauna of some types of stream bed. J. Ecol. 17: 282–314.Google Scholar
  33. Petr, T., 1968. Population changes in aquatic invertebrates living on two water plants in a tropical man-made lake. Hydrobiologia 32: 449–485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Pip, E., 1978. A survey of the ecology and composition of submerged aquatic snail-plant communities. Can. J. Zool. 56: 2263–2279.Google Scholar
  35. Pip, E. & J. M. Stewart, 1976. The dynamics of two aquatic plant-snail associations. Can. J. Zool. 54: 1192–1205.Google Scholar
  36. Rabeni, C. F. & G. W. Minshall, 1977. Factors affecting microdistribution of stream benthic invertebrates. Oikos 29: 33–43.Google Scholar
  37. Reice, S. R., 1977. The role of animal associations and current velocity in sediment-specific leaf litter decomposition. Oikos 29: 357–365.Google Scholar
  38. Reice, S. R., 1980. The role of substratum in benthic macroinvertebrate microdistribution and litter decomposition in a woodland stream. Ecology 61: 580–590.Google Scholar
  39. Rosine, W. N., 1955. The distribution of invertebrates on submerged aquatic plant surfaces in Muskee Lake, Colorado. Ecology 36: 308–314.Google Scholar
  40. Shannon, C. E. & W. Weaver, 1964. The mathematical theory of communication. University of Illinois Press, Urbana, Ill., 125 pp.Google Scholar
  41. Shaw, S. W. & G. W. Minshall, 1980. Colonization of an introduced substrate by stream macroinvertebrates. Oikos 34: 259–271.Google Scholar
  42. Shelly, T. E., 1979. The effect of rock size upon the distribution of Orthocladiinae (Chironomidae: Diptera) and Baetis intercalaris McDunnough (Baetidae: Ephemeroptera). Ecol. Ent. 4: 95–100.Google Scholar
  43. Soszka, G. J., 1975a. Ecological relations between invertebrates and submerged macrophytes in the lake littoral. Ekol. pol. 23: 393–415.Google Scholar
  44. Soszka, G. J., 1975b. The invertebrates on submerged macrophytes in three Masurian lakes. Ekol. pol. 23: 371–391.Google Scholar
  45. Thorp, J. H. & E. A. Bergey, 1981. Field experiments on responses of a freshwater, benthic macroinvertebrate community to vertebrate predators. Ecology 62: 365–375.Google Scholar
  46. Urban, E., 1975. The mining fauna in four macrophyte species in Mikolajskie Lake. Ekol. pol. 23: 417–435.Google Scholar
  47. Westlake, D. F., 1965. Some basic data for investigations of the productivity of aquatic macrophytes. Mem. Ist. ital. Idrobiol., Suppl. 19: 229–248.Google Scholar
  48. Westlake, D. F., 1973. Aquatic macrophytes in rivers. A review. Pol. Arch. Hydrobiol. 20: 31–40.Google Scholar
  49. Westlake, D. F., 1975. Macrophytes. In B. A. Whitton (ed.), River Ecology. University of California Press, Berkeley, Los Angeles: 106–128.Google Scholar
  50. Whitehead, H., 1935. An ecological study of the invertebrate fauna of a chalk stream near Great Driffield, Yorkshire. J. anim. Ecol. 4: 58–78.Google Scholar
  51. Wright, J. F., P. D. Hiley, A. C. Cameron, M. E. Wigham & A. D. Berrie, 1983. A quantitative study of the macroinvertebrate fauna of five biotopes in the River Lamourn, Berkshire, England. Arch. Hydrobiol. 96: 271–292.Google Scholar
  52. Zar, J. H., 1974. Biostatistical analysis. Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 620 pp.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Dr W. Junk Publishers 1985

Authors and Affiliations

  • Watson W. Gregg
    • 1
  • Fred L. Rose
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Marine ScienceUniversity of South FloridaSt. PetersburgUSA
  2. 2.Joint Center for Graduate StudyRichlandUSA

Personalised recommendations