Advertisement

Biological Invasions

, Volume 18, Issue 12, pp 3419–3435 | Cite as

Disentangling the stream community impacts of Didymosphenia geminata: How are higher trophic levels affected?

  • Phillip G. JellymanEmail author
  • Jon S. Harding
Original Paper

Abstract

Human activities frequently result in either intentional or unintentional introductions of species to new locations, and freshwater environments worldwide are particularly vulnerable to species invasions. An introduced freshwater diatom, Didymosphenia geminata, was first discovered in New Zealand in 2004 but there was limited research available to predict the drivers of D. geminata biomass and how biomass variability might influence higher trophic levels (e.g. invertebrates and fish). We examined the effect of D. geminata biomass on benthic invertebrates, invertebrate drift and fish communities in 20 rivers in New Zealand with variable hydrology, physical habitat and water chemistry. Variation in D. geminata biomass was best explained by a model that showed D. geminata biomass increased with time since the last flow event exceeding three times the median annual discharge and decreasing concentration of dissolved reactive phosphorus. Analyses of biotic responses showed that high D. geminata biomass did not affect either invertebrate or fish diversity but altered the structure of benthic communities, changed the composition of drifting invertebrate communities and reduced fish biomass by 90 %, particularly trout. A partial least squares path model was used to disentangle both direct and indirect effects of D. geminata on fish communities and showed D. geminata had a significant negative direct effect on fish communities. This is the first study to show how the potential effects of the introduced diatom D. geminata can impact fish communities and has shown that D. geminata impacts fish both directly and indirectly through changes in their invertebrate prey community.

Keywords

Flow variability Benthic invertebrates Path model Fish Diversity Didymo 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank Milen Marinov for assistance in the field and Hayley Stoddart for invertebrate processing. We are grateful to Kathy Walter (NIWA Christchurch) for her assistance in supplying flow data. Meridian Energy Ltd, Contact Energy Ltd, ECS Ltd, Environment Canterbury, Otago Regional Council and Environment Southland and are all thanked for supplying flow and/or water chemistry data. Cathy Kilroy provided helpful advice on an earlier version of this manuscript. This research was funded as part of the University of Canterbury V5 project initiative and surveys were conducted with the approval of the University of Canterbury Animal Ethics committee. Funding to PGJ by NIWA under Freshwater and Estuaries Programme 5, Freshwater Biosecurity (2015/16 SCI), assisted with manuscript preparation.

Supplementary material

10530_2016_1233_MOESM1_ESM.docx (2.7 mb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 2759 kb)

References

  1. Akaike H (1973) Information theory and an extension of the maximum likelihood principle. In: Petrov BN, Csaki F (eds) Second international symposium on information theory. Springer Verlag, Budapest, pp 267–281Google Scholar
  2. Beville ST, Kerr GN, Hughey KFD (2012) Valuing impacts of the invasive alga Didymosphenia geminata on recreational angling. Ecol Econ 82:1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bickel TO, Closs GP (2008) Impact of Didymosphenia geminata on hyporheic conditions in trout redds: reason for concern? Mar Freshw Res 59:1028–1033CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Biggs BJF (2000) Eutrophication of streams and rivers: dissolved nutrient–chlorophyll relationships for benthic algae. J North Am Benthol Soc 19:17–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Booker DJ (2013) Spatial and temporal patterns in the frequency of events exceeding three times the median flow (FRE3) across New Zealand. J Hydrol (NZ) 52:15–39Google Scholar
  6. Bray J, Harding JS, Kilroy C et al (2016) Physicochemical predictors of the invasive diatom Didymosphenia geminata at multiple spatial scales in New Zealand rivers. Aquat Ecol 50:1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Burnham KP, Anderson DR (2002) Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical information theoretic approach. Springer-Verlag, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  8. Chin WW (2010) How to write up and report PLS analyses. In: Esposito Vinzi V, Chin WW, Henseler J, Wang H (eds) Handbook of partial least squares: concepts, methods and applications. Springer Handbooks of Computational Statistics, Heidelberg, pp 655–690CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chin WW, Newsted P (1999) Structural equation modeling analysis with small samples using partial least squares. In: Hoyle R (ed) Statistical strategies for small sample research. Sage, London, pp 307–341Google Scholar
  10. Cowx IG (1983) Review of the methods for estimating fish population size from survey removal data. Fish Manag 14:67–82Google Scholar
  11. Crow SK, Booker DJ, Snelder TH (2013) Contrasting influence of flow regime on freshwater fishes displaying diadromous and non–diadromous life histories. Ecol Freshw Fish 22:82–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cullis JDS, McKnight DM, Spaulding SA (2015) Hydrodynamic control of benthic mats of Didymosphenia geminata at the reach scale. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 72:902–914CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Death RG, Winterbourn MJ (1995) Diversity patterns in stream benthic invertebrate communities: the influence of habitat stability. Ecology 76:1446–1460CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Edwards E, Huryn AD (1995) Annual contribution of terrestrial invertebrates to a New Zealand trout stream. N Z J Mar Freshwater Res 29:467–477CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gillis C-A, Chalifour M (2010) Changes in the macrobenthic community structure following the introduction of the invasive algae Didymosphenia geminata in the Matapedia River (Quebec, Canada). Hydrobiologia 647:63–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Glova GJ, Sagar PM (1991) Dietary and spatial overlap between stream populations of a native and two introduced fish species in New Zealand. Aust J Mar Freshw Res 42:423–433CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hayes JW, Stark JD, Shearer KA (2000) Development and test of a whole-lifetime foraging and bioenergetics growth model for drift-feeding brown trout. Trans Am Fish Soc 129:315–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jackson LJ, Corbett L, Scrimgeour G (2016) Environmental constraints on Didymosphenia geminata occurrence and bloom formation in Canadian Rocky Mountain lotic systems. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 73:964–972CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. James DA, Ranney SH, Chipps SR et al (2010) Invertebrate composition and abundance associated with Didymosphenia geminata in a montane stream. J Freshw Ecol 25:235–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Jellyman PG, Booker DJ, Crow SK et al (2013a) Does one size fit all? An evaluation of length–weight relationships for New Zealand’s freshwater fish species. N Z J Mar Freshwater Res 47:450–468CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jellyman PG, Booker DJ, McIntosh AR (2013b) Quantifying the direct and indirect effects of flow–related disturbance on stream fish assemblages. Freshwater Biol 58:2614–2631CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kilroy C, Bothwell M (2011) Environmental control of stalk length in the bloom–forming, freshwater benthic diatom Didymosphenia geminata (Bacillariophyceae). J Phycol 47:981–989CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Kilroy C, Bothwell ML (2012) Didymosphenia geminata growth rates and bloom formation in relation to ambient dissolved phosphorus concentration. Freshw Biol 57:641–653CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kilroy C, Unwin M (2011) The arrival and spread of the bloom-forming, freshwater diatom, Didymosphenia geminata, in New Zealand. Aquat Invasions 6:249–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kilroy C, Larned ST, Biggs BJF (2009) The non–indigenous diatom Didymosphenia geminata alters benthic communities in New Zealand rivers. Freshw Biol 54:1990–2002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kilroy C, Jellyman PG, Woods S (2016) Didymosphenia geminata: a new nuisance algal species in New Zealand fresh waters. In: Jellyman PG, Davie T, Harding JS, and Pearson C (eds) Advances in New Zealand freshwater science. Christchurch (in press)Google Scholar
  27. Kirkwood AE, Shea T, Jackson LJ et al (2007) Didymosphenia geminata in two Alberta headwater rivers: an emerging invasive species that challenges conventional views on algal bloom development. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 64:1703–1709CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ladrera R, Rieradevall M, Prat N (2015) Massive growth of the invasive algae Didymosphenia geminata associated with discharges from a mountain reservoir alters the taxonomic and functional structure of macroinvertebrate community. River Res Appl 31:216–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Larned ST, Kilroy C (2014) Effects of Didymosphenia geminata removal on river macroinvertebrate communities. J Freshw Ecol 29:345–362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Larned S, Arscott D, Jarvie B, et al. (2007) Ecological studies of Didymosphenia geminata in New Zealand, 2006–2007. Prepared for MAF Biosecurity New Zealand. National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research, p 120Google Scholar
  31. Larned ST, Packman AI, Plew DR et al (2011) Interactions between the mat-forming alga Didymosphenia geminata and its hydrodynamic environment. Limnol Oceanogr: Fluids Environ 1:4–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lessard J, Hicks DM, Snelder TH et al (2013) Dam design can impede adaptive management of environmental flows: a case study from the Opuha Dam, New Zealand. Environ Manage 51:459–473CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. McDowall RM (2008) Diadromy, history and ecology: a question of scale. Hydrobiologia 602:5–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. McHugh PA, McIntosh AR, Jellyman PG (2010) Dual influences of ecosystem size and disturbance on food chain length in streams. Ecol Lett 13:881–890CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. McIntosh AR (2000) Aquatic predator-prey interactions. In: Collier KJ, Winterbourn MJ (eds) New Zealand Stream Invertebrates: ecology and implications for management. Caxton Press, Christchurch, pp 125–155Google Scholar
  36. Miller MP, McKnight DM, Cullis JD et al (2009) Factors controlling streambed coverage of Didymosphenia geminata in two regulated streams in the Colorado Front Range. Hydrobiologia 630:207–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Pfankuch DJ (1975) Stream reach inventory and channel stability evaluation. U.S. Department of Agriculture & Forest Service, Northern RegionGoogle Scholar
  38. Puech C, Poggi S, Baudry J et al (2015) Do farming practices affect natural enemies at the landscape scale? Landsc Ecol 30:125–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. R Development Core Team (2015) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  40. Ricciardi A, Rasmussen JB (1999) Extinction rates of North American freshwater fauna. Conserv Biol 13:1220–1222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Sagar PM, Glova GJ (1994) Food partitioning by small fish in a coastal New Zealand stream. N Z J Mar Freshwater Res 28:429–436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Sagar PM, Glova GJ (1995) Prey availability and diet of juvenile brown trout (Salmo trutta) in relation to riparian willows (Salix spp.) in three New Zealand streams. N Z J Mar Freshwater Res 29:527–537CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Sala OE, Chapin FS, Armesto JJ et al (2000) Biodiversity global biodiversity scenarios for the year 2100. Science 287:1770–1774CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Sanchez G (2013) PLS path modelling with R. Berkeley, p 222Google Scholar
  45. Sanchez G, Trinchera L, Russolillo G (2015) Tools for partial least squares path modeling (PLS-PM). R statistical packageGoogle Scholar
  46. Sax DF, Gaines SD (2008) Species invasions and extinction: the future of native biodiversity on islands. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105:11490–11497CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  47. Schwendel AC, Death RG, Fuller IC et al (2011) Linking disturbance and stream invertebrate communities: how best to measure bed stability. J North Am Benthol Soc 30:11–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Strayer DL, Dudgeon D (2010) Freshwater biodiversity conservation: recent progress and future challenges. J North Am Benthol Soc 29:344–358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Taylor BW, Bothwell ML (2014) The origin of invasive microorganisms matters for science, policy, and management: the case of Didymosphenia geminata. Bioscience 64:531–538CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  50. Vander Zanden MJ, Olden JD (2008) A management framework for preventing the secondary spread of aquatic invasive species. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 65:1512–1522CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Winterbourn MJ, Gregson LD, Dolphin CH (2000) Guide to the aquatic insects of New Zealand. Bull Entomol Soc N Z 13:102Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research LtdChristchurchNew Zealand
  2. 2.School of Biological SciencesUniversity of CanterburyChristchurchNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations