Advertisement

Benthic macroinvertebrates in biological surveillance: Monte carlo significance tests on functional groups' responses to environmental gradients

  • Daniel P. Faith
Biological Assessment of Impact

Abstract

Functional feeding groups are evaluated as summaries of benthic macroinvertebrate communities for the Upper La Trobe river system of Victoria, Australia. Two related questions are addressed. First, ‘what is the form of response of functional groups to environmental gradients?’ Second, ‘are observed group patterns significant insofar as they are unlikely to arise in randomly defined groups of taxa?’

Five functional feeding groups are evaluated relative to an environmental space defined at the structural, taxonomic level. A three-dimensional multidimensional scaling ordination of the sample sites, based upon this structural data, reveals a strong correlation with stream order in one direction in the space, and with particle size and benthic organic matter in another orthogonal direction. With the exception of filterers, the observed high correlations of functional group abundance with this space also would have occurred in randomly-defined groups. Scrapers, while not significant as a group in terms of linear response, are significant in terms of unimodal or clumped response to this environmental space. The utilization of such clumped responses in ordination space for biological surveillance programs is discussed.

Keywords

Significance Test River System Linear Response Multidimensional Scaling Environmental Gradient 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Belbin, L: 1988,PATN Reference Manual, CSIRO Division of Wildlife and Ecology, Canberra, Australia.Google Scholar
  2. Biondini, M. E., Mielke Jr., P. W. and Berry, K. J.: 1988, ‘Data-Dependent Permutation Techniques for the Analysis of Ecological Data’,Veget. 75, 161–168.Google Scholar
  3. Bunn, S. E.: 1986, ‘Spatial and Temporal Variation in the Macroinvertebrate Fauna of Streams of the Northern Jarrah Forest, Western Australia: Functional Organization’,Freshw. Biol. 16, 621–632.Google Scholar
  4. Carroll, J. D. and Chang, J.: unpublished, ‘A General Index of Nonlinear Correlation and its Application to the Problem of Relating Physical and Psychological Dimensions’, Bell Telephone Laboratories.Google Scholar
  5. Chessman, B. C.: 1982, ‘Algal and functional ecology’,LaTrobe Valley Water Resources Biological Studies Commission of Victoria Volume 3, State Electricity Commission of Victoria, Melbourne.Google Scholar
  6. Cummins, K. W.: 1974, ‘Structure and Function of Stream Ecosystems’,Biosc. 24, 631–641.Google Scholar
  7. Cummins, K. W.: 1973, ‘Trophic Relations of Aquatic Insects’,Ann. Rev. Entom. 18, 183–206.Google Scholar
  8. Faith, D. P., Minchin, P. R. and Belbin, L.: 1987, ‘Compositional Dissimilarity as a Robust Measure of Ecological Distance’,Veget. 69, 57–68.Google Scholar
  9. Gaufin, A. R.: 1973, ‘Use of Aquatic Invertebrates in the Assessment of Water Quality’,Biological Methods for the Assessment of Water Quality, American Society for Testing and Materials, Phil. Pa., pp. 96–116.Google Scholar
  10. Greig-Smith, P.: 1983,Quantitative Plant Ecology, Oxford: Blackwell. 3rd ed.Google Scholar
  11. Hawkes, H. A.: 1979, ‘Invertebrates as Indicators of River Water Quality’, in A. James and L. Evison (eds.),Biological Indicators of Water Quality, New York: John Wiley and Sons, pp. 2-1–2-45.Google Scholar
  12. Hellawel, J. M.: 1978,Biological Surveillance of Rivers. A Biological Monitoring Handbook, Strevenage, England: Water Research Centre.Google Scholar
  13. Herricks, E. E. and Cairns Jr., J.: 1982, ‘Biological Monitoring. Part I-Receiving System Methodology Based on Community Structure’,Water Res. 16, 141–153.Google Scholar
  14. Hildrew, A. G. and Townsend, C. R.: 1987, ‘Organisation in Freshwater Benthic Communities’, in J. H. R. Gee and P. S. Giller (eds.),Organisation of Communities: Past and Present, British Ecological Society Symposium, Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford, pp. 347–371.Google Scholar
  15. Hillman, T. J.: 1986, ‘Billabongs’, in P. De Deckker and W. D. Williams (eds.),Limnology in Australia, CSIRO, p. 457–470.Google Scholar
  16. Holmes, R. T., Bonney Jr., R. E. and Pacala, S. W.: 1979, ‘Guild Structure of the Hubbard Brook Bird Community: A Multivariate Approach’,Ecol. 60, 512–520.Google Scholar
  17. Inger, R. F. and Colwell, R. K.: 1977, ‘Organization of Contiguous Communities of Amphibians and Reptiles in Thailand’,Ecol. Monogr. 47, 229–253.Google Scholar
  18. Jackson, J. K. and Resh, V. H.: 1988, ‘Sequential Decision Plans in Monitoring Benthic Macroinvertebrates: Cost Savings, Classification Accuracy, and Development of Plans’,Can. J. Fish, Aquat. Sci. 45, 280–286.Google Scholar
  19. Kendall, D. G.: 1970, ‘A Mathematical Approach to Seriation’,Philos. Trans R. Soc. Lond. A. 269, 125–135.Google Scholar
  20. Kruskal, J. B. and Wish, M.: 1978,Multidimensional Scaling, Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  21. Kulczynski, S.: 1928, ‘Die Pflanzenassoziationen der Pieninen’,Bull. Int. Acad. Pol. Sci. Lett, Cl. Sci. Math. Nath. Ser. B. (suppl. 2), pp. 57–203.Google Scholar
  22. Lake, P. S., Barmuta, L. A., Boulton, A. J., Campbell, I. C. and St. Clair, R. M.: 1985, ‘Australian Streams and Northern Hemisphere Strean Ecology: Comparisons and Problems’,Proc. Ecol. Soc. Aust. 14, 61–82.Google Scholar
  23. Lake, P. S. and Barmuta, L. A.: 1986, ‘Stream Benthic Communities: Persistent Presumptions and Current Speculations’ in P. De Deckker and W. D. Williams (ed.),Limnology in Australia, CSIRO, pp. 263–276.Google Scholar
  24. Landres, P. B. and MacMahon, J. A.: 1980, ‘Guilds and Community Organization: Analysis of an Oak Woodland Avifauna in Sonora, Mexico’,Auk 97, 351–365.Google Scholar
  25. Lenat, D. R., Smock, L. A. and Penrose, D. L.: 1980, ‘Use of Benthic Macroinvertebrates as Indicators of Environmental Quality’, in D. L. Worf (ed.),Biological Monitoring for Environmental Effects, D. C. Heath and Co.Google Scholar
  26. Mac Nally, R. C. and Doolan, J. M.: 1986, ‘Patterns of Morphology and Behaviour in a Cicada Guild: A Neutral Model Analysis’,Aus. J. Ecol. 11, 279–294.Google Scholar
  27. Marchant, R., Metzeling, L., Graesser, A. and Suter, P.: 1985, ‘The Organization of Macroinvertebrate Communities in the Major Tributaries of the LaTrobe River, Victoria, Australia’,Freshw. Biol. 15, 315–331.Google Scholar
  28. Mathews, R. A., Buikema Jr., A. L., Cairns Jr., J. and Rodgers Jr., J. H.: 1982, ‘Biological Monitoring: Part IIA-Receiving System Functional Methods, Relationships and Indices’,Water Res. 16, 129–139.Google Scholar
  29. Metzeling, L., Graesser, A., Suter, P. and Marchant, R.: 1984, ‘The Distribution of Aquatic Macroinvertebrates in the Upper Catchment of the Latrobe River, Victoria’,Occasional Papers from the Museum of Victoria 1, 1–62.Google Scholar
  30. Mielke, P. W., Berry, K. J. and Johnson, E. S.: 1976, ‘Multiresponse Permutation Procedures fora priori Classifications’,Comm. Statistics-Theory Meth. A5, 1409–1424.Google Scholar
  31. Minshall, G. W., Petersen, R. C., Cummins, K. W., Bott, T. L., Sedell, J. R., Cushing, C. E. and Vannote, R. L.: 1983, ‘Interbiome Comparison of Stream Ecosystem Dynamics’,Ecol. Monogr. 53, 1–25.Google Scholar
  32. Minshall, G. W., Cummins, K. W., Petersen, R. C., Cushing, C. E., Bruns, D. A., Sedell, J. R. and Vannote, R. L.: 1985, ‘Developments in Stream Ecosystem Theory’,Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 42, 1045–1055.Google Scholar
  33. Olive, J. H., Jackson, J. L., Bass, J., Holand, L. and Svisky, T.: 1988, ‘Benthic Macroinvertebrates as Indexes of Water Quality in the Upper Cuyahoga River’,Ohio J. Science 88, 91–98.Google Scholar
  34. Ormerod, S. J. and Edwards, R. W.: 1987, ‘The Ordination and Classification of Macroinvertebrate Assemblages in the Catchment of the River Wye in Relation to Environmental Factors’,Freshw. Biol. 17, 533–546.Google Scholar
  35. Perry, J. A. and Schaeffer, D. J.: 1987, ‘The Longitudinal Distribution of Riverine Benthos: A River Discontinuum?’,Hydrobiologia 148, 257–268.Google Scholar
  36. Pielou, E. C.: 1984, ‘Probing Multivariate Data with Random Skewers: A Preliminary to Direct Gradient Analysis’,Oikos 42, 161–165.Google Scholar
  37. Schaeffer, D. J. and Perry, J. A.: 1986, ‘Gradients in the Distribution of Riverine Benthos’,Freshw. Biol. 16, 745–757.Google Scholar
  38. Statzner, B. and Higler, B.: 1985, ‘Questions and Comments on the River Continuum Concept’,Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 42, 1038–1044.Google Scholar
  39. Van den Wollenberg, A. L.: 1977, ‘Redundancy Analysis. An Alternative for Canonical Correlation Analysis’,Psychometrika 42, 207–219.Google Scholar
  40. Vannote, R. L., Minshall, G. W., Cummins, K. W., Sedell, J. R. and Cushing, C. E.: 1980, ‘The River Continuum Concept’,Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 37, 130–137.Google Scholar
  41. Winterbourn, M. J., Rounick, J. S. and Cowie, B.: 1981, ‘Are New Zealand Stream Ecosystems Really Different?’,N. z. J. Mar. Freshw. Res. 15, 321–328.Google Scholar
  42. Wright, J. F., Moss, D., Armitage, P. D. and Furse, M. T.: 1984, ‘A Preliminary Classification of Running-Water Sites in Great Britain Based upon Macro-Invertebrate Species and the Prediction of Community Type Using Environmental Data’,Freshw. Biol. 14, 221–256.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • Daniel P. Faith
    • 1
  1. 1.Division of Wildlife and EcologyCommonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research OrganisationLynehamAustralia

Personalised recommendations