Advertisement

Landscape Ecology

, Volume 30, Issue 4, pp 667–680 | Cite as

Flow-related disturbance creates a gradient of metacommunity types within stream networks

  • Rebecca E. CampbellEmail author
  • Michael J. Winterbourn
  • Thomas A. Cochrane
  • Angus R. McIntosh
Research Article

Abstract

Context

Metacommunities are sets of local communities linked by dispersal. Their characteristics are defined by both large-scale spatial processes such as dispersal, and local environmental processes, although which factors are likely to predominate in a given situation is poorly understood.

Objectives

We investigated whether flow regime at the network-scale helped explain the relative importance of spatial and local-environmental processes in structuring stream metacommunities.

Methods

Spatial sampling of stream macroinvertebrates was carried out in stream networks in New Zealand. Local environmental variables were also measured throughout the stream networks, while hydrographs were modelled and calibrated with field measurements.

Results

Significant associations with both spatial and local-environmental predictor variables were found, consistent with several metacommunity types. In particular, two measures of flow regime were associated with different metacommunity types. Thus, stream networks characterised by a period of stability just before sampling, and networks sampled after a long period of instability, had more significant spatial structuring of metacommunities than those of intermediate flow stability. The importance of spatial processes in structuring the network metacommunities also increased with time since the last community-resetting flow. Our results therefore suggested that metacommunity type depended on the flow regime. Dispersal traits and network topology also helped explain some of the variation among the metacommunities.

Conclusions

Overall, our findings conform to theoretical predictions related to dispersal limitation and topology, and indicate that metacommunity models need to be dynamic to capture processes in both space and time.

Keywords

Dispersal Disturbance Local environment Macroinvertebrates Metacommunity Neutral Regional Stream networks Spatial scale 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank members of the Freshwater Ecology Research Group at the University of Canterbury for assistance with field and laboratory work. Otago data sets were provided by Colin Townsend. The manuscript was improved greatly by comments on drafts from Jon O’Brien, Colin Townsend, Russell Death, Jake Overton and two anonymous reviewers. The project was funded by the Brian Mason Scientific and Technical Trust. REC was supported by a Tertiary Education Commission Top Achiever Doctoral Scholarship.

Supplementary material

10980_2015_164_MOESM1_ESM.docx (3.3 mb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 3398 kb)

References

  1. Anderson MJ, Gribble NA (1998) Partitioning the variation among spatial, temporal and environmental components in a multivariate data set. Austral Ecol 23:158–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Benda L, Poff NL, Miller D, Dunne T, Reeves G, Pess G, Pollock M (2004) The network dynamics hypothesis: how channel networks structure riverine habitats. Bioscience 54:413–427CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Biggs BJ, Smith RA, Duncan MJ (1999) Velocity and sediment disturbance of periphyton in headwater streams: biomass and metabolism. J N Am Benthol Soc 18:222–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Blanchet FG, Legendre P, Borcard D (2008) Forward selection of explanatory variables. Ecology 89:2623–2632CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Brown BL, Swan CM (2010) Dendritic network structure constrains metacommunity properties in riverine ecosystems. J Anim Ecol 79:571–580CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Campbell RE (2010) Spatial pattern and community assembly: does the configuration of stream networks influence their community structure? Thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Ecology at the University of Canterbury, ChristchurchGoogle Scholar
  7. Campbell RE, McIntosh AR (2013) Do isolation and local habitat jointly limit the structure of stream invertebrate assemblages? Freshw Biol 58:128–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chaput-Bardy A, Fleurant C, Lemaire C, Secondi J (2009) Modelling the effect of in-stream and overland dispersal on gene flow in river networks. Ecol Model 220:3589–3598CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chase JM (2007) Drought mediates the importance of stochastic community assembly. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 104:17430–17434CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Clarke KR, Gorley RN (2000) PRIMER (Plymouth routines in multivariate ecological research) v5: user manual/tutorial. PRIMER-E, PlymouthGoogle Scholar
  11. Clarke A, MacNally R, Bond N, Lake PS (2008) Macroinvertebrate diversity in headwater streams: a review. Freshw Biol 53:1707–1721CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Clausen B, Biggs BJF (1998) Stream flow variability indices for riverine environmental studies. In: Wheater H, Kirby C (eds) Hydrology in a changing environment. Proceedings of the British Hydrological Society international conference. Wiley, ExeterGoogle Scholar
  13. Coté D, Kehler DG, Bourne C, Wiersma WF (2009) A new measure of longitudinal connectivity for stream networks. Landscape Ecol 24:101–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cottenie K (2005) Integrating environmental and spatial processes in ecological community dynamics. Ecol Lett 8:1175–1182CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Death RG (2010) Disturbance and riverine benthic communities: what has it contributed to general ecological theory? River Res Appl 26:15–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dray S, Legendre P, Peres-Neto PR (2006) Spatial modelling: a comprehensive framework for principal coordinate analysis of neighbour matrices (PCNM). Ecol Model 196:483–493CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Duncan MJ, Suren AM, Brown SLR (1999) Assessment of streambed stability in steep, bouldery streams: development of a new analytical technique. J N Am Benthol Soc 18:445–456CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Economo EP, Keitt TH (2008) Species diversity in neutral metacommunities: a network approach. Ecol Lett 11:52–62PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Fagan WF (2002) Connectivity, fragmentation, and extinction risk in dendritic metapopulations. Ecology 83:3243–3249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gilbert B, Bennett JR (2010) Partitioning variation in ecological communities: do the numbers add up? J Appl Ecol 47:1071–1082CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Grant EHC, Lowe WH, Fagan WF (2007) Living in the branches: population dynamics and ecological processes in dendritic networks. Ecol Lett 10:165–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hauer FR, Lamberti GA (1996) Methods in stream ecology. Academic Press, BostonGoogle Scholar
  23. Hendrickx F, Maelfait JP, Desender K, Aviron S, Bailey D, Diekotter T, Lens L, Liira J, Schweiger O, Speelmans M, Vandomme V, Bugter R (2009) Pervasive effects of dispersal limitation on within- and among-community species richness in agricultural landscapes. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 18:607–616CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hughes JM, Schmidt DJ, Finn DS (2009) Genes in streams: using DNA to understand the movement of freshwater fauna and their riverine habitat. Bioscience 59:573–583CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kiffney PM, Greene CM, Hall JE, Davies JR (2006) Tributary streams create spatial discontinuities in habitat, biological productivity, and diversity in mainstem rivers. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 63:2518–2530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Labonne J, Ravigne V, Parisi B, Gaucherel C (2008) Linking dendritic network structures to population demogenetics: the downside of connectivity. Oikos 117:1479–1490CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Leibold MA, McPeek MA (2006) Coexistence of the niche and neutral perspectives in community ecology. Ecology 87:1399–1410CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Leibold MA, Holyoak M, Mouquet N, Amarasekare P, Chase JM, Hoopes MF, Holt RD, Shurin JB, Law R, Tilman D, Loreau M, Gonzalez A (2004) The metacommunity concept: a framework for multi-scale community ecology. Ecol Lett 7:601–613CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lepori F, Malmqvist B (2009) Deterministic control on community assembly peaks at intermediate levels of disturbance. Oikos 118:471–479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lowe WH, Likens GE, Power ME (2006) Linking scales in stream ecology. Bioscience 56:591–597CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Matthaei CD, Peacock KA, Townsend CR (1999) Patchy surface stone movement during disturbance in a New Zealand stream and its potential significance for the fauna. Limnol Oceanogr 44:1091–1102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Milly PCD, Dunne KA, Vecchia AV (2005) Global pattern of trends in streamflow and water availability in a changing climate. Nature 438:347–350CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Mouquet N, Munguia P, Kneitel JM, Miller TE (2003) Community assembly time and the relationship between local and regional species richness. Oikos 103:618–626CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Oksanen J, Kindt R, Legendre P, O’Hara RB (2007) vegan: community ecology package. R package version 1.9-25. http://cran.r-project.org/
  35. Peres-Neto PR, Legendre P (2010) Estimating and controlling for spatial structure in the study of ecological communities. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 19:174–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Peres-Neto PR, Legendre P, Dray S, Borcard D (2006) Variation partitioning of species data matrices: estimation and comparison of fractions. Ecology 87:2614–2625CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Peterson EE, Theobald DM, Ver Hoef JM (2007) Geostatistical modelling on stream networks: developing valid covariance matrices based on hydrologic distance and stream flow. Freshw Biol 52:267–279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Poff NL, Olden JD, Vieira NKM, Finn DS, Simmons MP, Kondratieff BC (2006) Functional trait niches of North American lotic insects: traits-based ecological applications in light of phylogenetic relationships. J N Am Benthol Soc 25:730–755CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. R Development Core Team (2007) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  40. Sanderson RA, Eyre MD, Rushton SP (2005) The influence of stream invertebrate composition at neighbouring sites on local assemblage composition. Freshw Biol 50:221–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Smith TW, Lundholm JT (2010) Variation partitioning as a tool to distinguish between niche and neutral processes. Ecography 33:648–655CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Starzomski BM, Srivastava DS (2007) Landscape geometry determines community response to disturbance. Oikos 116:690–699CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Thompson R, Townsend C (2006) A truce with neutral theory: local deterministic factors, species traits and dispersal limitation together determine patterns of diversity in stream invertebrates. J Anim Ecol 75:476–484CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Thomson JR, Lake PS, Downes BJ (2002) The effect of hydrological disturbance on the impact of a benthic invertebrate predator. Ecology 83:628–642CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Thorp JH, Thoms MC, Delong MD (2006) The riverine ecosystem synthesis: biocomplexity in river networks across space and time. River Res Appl 22:123–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Townsend CR, Arbuckle CJ, Crowl TA, Scarsbrook MR (1997a) The relationship between land use and physicochemistry, food resources and macroinvertebrate communities in tributaries of the Taieri River, New Zealand: a hierarchically scaled approach. Freshw Biol 37:177–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Townsend CR, Scarsbrook MR, Doledec S (1997b) The intermediate disturbance hypothesis, refugia, and biodiversity in streams. Limnol Oceanogr 42:938–949CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Van de Meutter F, De Meester L, Stoks R (2007) Metacommunity structure of pond macroinvertebrates: effects of dispersal mode and generation time. Ecology 88:1687–1695CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Vitousek PM (1994) Beyond global warming: ecology and global change. Ecology 75:1861–1876CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Winterbourn MJ, Rounick JS, Cowie B (1981) Are New Zealand stream ecosystems really different? NZ J Mar Freshw Res 15:321–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Winterbourn MJ, Gregson KLD, Dolphin CH (2006) Guide to the aquatic insects of New Zealand [4th edition]. Bull Entomol Soc NZ 14:1–108Google Scholar
  52. Zhou S, Zhang D (2008) A nearly neutral model of biodiversity. Ecology 89:248–258CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rebecca E. Campbell
    • 1
    Email author
  • Michael J. Winterbourn
    • 1
  • Thomas A. Cochrane
    • 2
  • Angus R. McIntosh
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Biological SciencesUniversity of CanterburyChristchurchNew Zealand
  2. 2.Department of Civil and Natural Resources EngineeringUniversity of CanterburyChristchurchNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations