Landscape Ecology

, Volume 15, Issue 6, pp 563–576 | Cite as

Streambed landscapes: evidence that stream invertebrates respond to the type and spatial arrangement of patches

  • Margaret A. Palmer
  • Christopher M. Swan
  • Karen Nelson
  • Pamela Silver
  • Rachel Alvestad


The availability and spatial arrangement of habitat patches are known to strongly influence fauna in terrestrial ecosystems. The importance of patch arrangement is not well-studied within running-water systems where flow-induced movements of patches and of fauna could decouple habitat characteristics and faunal habitat preferences. Using small, stream-dwelling invertebrates, we asked if fauna in such systems can distinguish among patch types and if patch arrangement at their `landscape scale' (i.e., within a streambed across which they move and forage) can be linked to faunal abundance. We quantified the spatial distribution of sand and leaf patches at multiple sites on a streambed at regular intervals over a 1\(\frac{1}{2}\)yr period, estimated faunal abundance in the two patch types, and experimentally determined if faunal colonization varied among leaf patches that were similar structurally but differed in their potential microbial food resources. We show that despite their small size and limited swimming abilities, these stream invertebrates did respond to patch type, that specific characteristics of an individual patch influenced faunal colonization, and that the spatial arrangement of patches on the streambed was linked to field abundances. Larval chironomids and adult copepods were more abundant in leaves than in sand and preferentially colonized leaf patches made with rapidly decomposing leaves that harbored higher microbial (bacteria and fungi) abundances over leaf patches with more refractory leaves and lower microbial abundances. Further, statistical models that included spatially-explicit data on patch arrangement (e.g., patch contagion, distance between patches) explained significantly more variation in faunal abundance, than models that included only nonspatial information (e.g., date, time since last flood). Despite the fact that these fauna live in a highly dynamic environment with variable flow rates during the year, unstable patch configurations, and seasonal changes in total abundance, our findings suggest a need for aquatic ecologists to test the hypothesis that small-scale landscape attributes within streams (e.g., leaf patch aggregation) may be important to faunal dynamics. If patch aggregation has negative consequences for stream biota, streambed `landscapes' may be fundamentally different from many terrestrial landscapes due to the inherent connectivity provided by the water and the over-riding importance of patch edges. Regardless of these differences, our findings suggest that the spatial configuration of patches in a landscape may have consequences for fauna even in highly dynamic systems, in which patches move and fauna periodically experience high levels of passive dispersal.

decomposition invertebrates leaf packs patch dynamics patchiness spatial ecology streams. 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Allan, J.D. 1995. Stream ecology: structure and function of running waters. Chapman and Hall, London, UK.Google Scholar
  2. Borchardt, M.A. and Bott, T.L. 1995. Meiofaunal grazing of bacteria and algae in a Piedmont stream. J. North Amer. Benthol. Soc. 14: 269–277.Google Scholar
  3. Bosch, W. 1978. A procedure for quantifying certain geomorphological features. Geog. Analysis 10: 241–247.Google Scholar
  4. Crowl, T.A., Townsend, C.R., Bouwes, N. and Thomas, H. 1997. Scales and causes of patchiness in stream invertebrate assemblages: top-down predator effects? J. North Amer. Benthol. Soc. 16: 277–285.Google Scholar
  5. Davis, J.C. 1986. Statistics and data analysis in geology. 2nd edition. John Wiley, N.Y.Google Scholar
  6. Dobson, M. 1994. Microhabitat as a determinant of diversity: stream invertebrates colonizing leaf packs. Freshw. Biol. 32: 565–572.Google Scholar
  7. Dooley, J.L. and Bowers, M.A. 1998. Demographic responses to habitat fragmentation: experimental tests at the landscape and patch scale. Ecology 69: 969–980.Google Scholar
  8. Downes, B.J. 1990. Patch dynamics and mobility of fauna in streams and other habitats. Oikos 59: 411–413.Google Scholar
  9. Downes, B.J., Lake, P.S. and Schreiber, E.S.G. 1993. Spatial variation in the distribution of stream invertebrates: implications of patchiness for models of community organization. Freshw. Biol. 30: 119–132.Google Scholar
  10. Epstein, S.S. and Rossel, J. 1995. Enumeration of sandy sediment bacteria: search for optimum protocol. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 117: 289–298.Google Scholar
  11. Fahrig, L. and Merriam, G. 1985. Habitat patch connectivity and population survival. Ecology 66: 1762–1768.Google Scholar
  12. Fahrig, L. and Merriam, G. 1994. Conservation of fragmented populations. Cons. Biol. 8: 50–59.Google Scholar
  13. Fahrig, L. and Paloheimo, J. 1988. Effect of spatial arrangement of habitat patches on local population sizes. Ecology 69: 468–475.Google Scholar
  14. Forman, R.T.T. 1995. Land mosaics: the ecology of landscapes and regions. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
  15. Frid, C.L.J. and Townsend, C.R. 1989. An appraisal of the patch dynamics concept in stream and marine benthic communities whose members are highly mobile. Oikos 56: 137–141.Google Scholar
  16. Gardner, R.H. and O'Neill, R.V. 1991. Pattern, process and predictability: the use of neutral models for landscape analysis. In Quantitative methods in landscape ecology. pp. 289–308 Edited by Turner, M.G. and Gardner, R.H. Springer-Verlag. New York.Google Scholar
  17. Grassle, J.P., Butman, C.A. and Mills, S.W. 1992. Active habitat selection by Capitella sp. I larvae. II. Multiple choice experiments in still water and flume flows. J. Mar. Res. 50: 617–743.Google Scholar
  18. Hall, R.O. 1995. Use of a stable isotope addition to trace bacterial carbon through a stream food web. J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc. 14: 269–277.Google Scholar
  19. Hamazaki, T. 1996. Effects of patch shape on the number of organisms. Landscape Ecol. 11: 299–306.Google Scholar
  20. Hanski, I. 1995. Effects of landscape pattern on species interactions. In Mosaic landscapes and ecological processes, pp. 203–224. Edited by Hanson, L., Fahrig, L. and Merrriam, G. Chapman and Hall, London, UK.Google Scholar
  21. Hansson, L., Fahrig, L. and Merriam, G. 1995. Mosaic landscapes and ecological processes. Chapman and Hall, London, UK.Google Scholar
  22. Hakenkamp, C.H. 1997. Oxygen consumption in streambeds: examining the impacts of environmental factors and hyporheic fauna. Ph.D. Dissertation. Univ. of Maryland, College Park, MD.Google Scholar
  23. Hildrew, A.G. and Giller, P.S. 1994. Patchiness, species interactions, and disturbance in the stream benthos. In Aquatic Ecology: scale, pattern, and process. 34th Symposium of The British Ecological Society. pp. 21–62 Giller, Edited by P. S., Hildrew, A. G., and Rafaelli, D. G. Blackwell Scientific Publications, London.Google Scholar
  24. Johnson, L.B. and Gage, S.H. 1997. A landscape approach to analysing aquatic ecosystems. Freshw. Biol. 37: 113–132.Google Scholar
  25. Johnson, A.R., Wiens, J.A., Milne, B.T. and Crist, T.O. 1992. Animal movements and population dynamics in heterogeneous landscapes. Landscape Ecol. 7: 63–75.Google Scholar
  26. Kleinbaum, D.G., Kupper, L.L. and Muller, K.E. 1988. Applied Regression Analysis and Other Multivariable Methods. Duxbury Press, Belmont, California, U.S.A.Google Scholar
  27. Kohler, S.L. 1992. Competition and the structure of a benthic stream community. Ecol. Monogr. 62: 165–188.Google Scholar
  28. Lampert, W. 1984. The measurement of respiration. Chapter 10 In: A Manual on Methods for the Assessment of Secondary Productivity in Fresh Waters. Edited by Downing, J. A. and Rigler, F.H. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford.Google Scholar
  29. Lancaster, J. and Belyea L.R. 1997. Nested hierarchies and scaledependence of mechanisms of flow refugium use. J. N. Amer. Benthol. Soc. 16: 221–238.Google Scholar
  30. Lancaster, J. and Hildrew A.G. 1993. Flow refugia and the microdistribution of lotic macroinvertebrates. J. N. Amer. Benthol. Soc. 12: 385–393.Google Scholar
  31. Lancaster, J., Hildrew, A.G., and G. Charlotte. 1996. Invertebrate drift and longitudinal transport processes in streams. Can. J. Fish. Aq. Sci. 53: 572–582.Google Scholar
  32. Leff, L.G. and McArthur J.V. 1989. The effect of leaf pack composition on processing: a comparison of mixed and single species packs. Hydrobiologia 182: 219–224.Google Scholar
  33. Littell, R.C., Freund, R.J. and Spector, P.C. 1991. SAS System for Linear Models, Third edition. SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, North Carolina.Google Scholar
  34. McAuliffe, J.R. 1984. Competition for space, disturbance, and the structure of a benthic stream community. Ecology 65: 894–908.Google Scholar
  35. Murphy, J.F., Giller, P.S. and Horan, M.A. 1998. Spatial scale and the aggregation of stream macroinvertebrates associated with leaf packs. Freshw. Biol. 39: 325–337.Google Scholar
  36. Newell, S.Y., Arsuffi, T.L. and Fallon, R.D. 1988. Fundamental procedures for determining ergosterol content of decaying plant material by liquid chromatography. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 54: 1876–1879.Google Scholar
  37. Oliver, D. R. 1971. Life histories of the Chironomidae. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Sys. 16: 211–230.Google Scholar
  38. O'Neill, R.V., Krummel, J.R., Gardner, R.H., Sugihara, G., Jackson, B., DeAngelis, D.L., Milne, B.T., Turner, M.G., Zygmunt, B., Christenson, S.W., Dale, V.H. and Graham, R.L. 1988. Indices of landscape pattern. Landscape Ecol. 1: 153–162.Google Scholar
  39. Pahl-Wostl, C. 1998. Ecosystem organization across a continuum of scales: a comparative analysis of lakes and rivers. In Ecological scale: theory and applications, pp. 141–170. Edited by Peterson, D.L. and Parker, V.T., Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  40. Palmer, M.A. 1990. Temporal and spatial dynamics of meiofauna within the hyporheic zone of Goose Creek, Virginia. J. N. Amer. Benthol. Soc. 9: 17–25.Google Scholar
  41. Palmer, M.A. 1992. Incorporating lotic meiofauna into our understanding of faunal transport processes. Limnol. Oceanogr. 37: 329–341.Google Scholar
  42. Palmer, M.A., Allan, J.D. and Butman, C.A. 1996a. Dispersal as a regional process affecting the local dynamics of marine and stream benthic invertebrates. Trends Ecol. Evol. 11: 322–326Google Scholar
  43. Palmer, M.A., Arensburger, P., Martin, A.P. and Denman, D.W. 1996b. Disturbance and patch-specific responses: the interactive effects of woody debris and floods on lotic invertebrates. Oecologia 105: 247–257.Google Scholar
  44. Palmer, T.M. 1995. The influence of spatial heterogeneity on the behavior and growth of two herbivorous stream insects. Oecologia 104: 476–486.Google Scholar
  45. Peckarsky, B.L. and Dodson, S.I. 1980. An experimental analysis of biological factors contributing to stream community structure. Ecology 61: 1283–1291.Google Scholar
  46. Perlmutter, D.G. and Meyer, J.L. 1991. The impact of a streamswelling harpacticoid copepod upon detritally associated bacteria. Ecology 72: 2170–2180.Google Scholar
  47. Petersen, R.C. and Cummins, K.W. 1974. Leaf processing in a woodland stream. Freshw. Biol. 4: 343–368.Google Scholar
  48. Poff, N.L. and Ward, J.V. 1991. Drift responses of benthic invertebrates to experimental streamflow variation in a hydrologically stable stream. Can. J. Fish. Aq. Sci. 48: 1926–1936.Google Scholar
  49. Poff, N.L., Palmer, M.A., Angermeier, P.L., Vadas, Jr., R.L., Hakenkamp, C.C., Bely, A., Arensburger, P. and Martin, A.P. 1993. Size structure of the metazoan community in a Piedmont stream. Oecologia 95: 202–209.Google Scholar
  50. Pringle, C.M., Naiman, R.J., Bretschko, G., Karr, J. R., Oswood, M.W., Webster, J.R., Welcomme, R.L. and Winterbourn, M.J. 1988. Patch dynamics in lotic systems: the stream as a mosaic. J. N. Amer. Benthol. Soc. 7: 503–524.Google Scholar
  51. Robertson, A.L., Lancaster, J. and Hildrew, A.G. 1995. Stream hydraulics and the distribution of microcrustacea: a role for refugia? Freshw. Biol. 33: 469–484.Google Scholar
  52. Roth, N.E., Allan, J.D. and Erickson, D.E. 1996. Landscape influences on stream biotic integrity assessed at multiple spatial scales. Landscape Ecol. 11: 141–156.Google Scholar
  53. Sarnelle, O., Kratz, K.W. and Cooper, S.D. 1993. Effects of an invertebrate grazer on the spatial arrangement of a benthic microhabitat. Oecologia 96: 208–218.Google Scholar
  54. SAS Institute Inc. 1989. SAS/STAT User's Guide, Version 6, Fourth Edition. SAS Institute Inc., Cary North Carolina, U.S.A.Google Scholar
  55. Schumaker, N.H. 1996. Using landscape indices to predict habitat connectivity. Ecology 77: 1210–1225.Google Scholar
  56. Sedell, J.R., Reeves, G.H., Hauer, F.R., Stanford, J. A. and Hawkins, C.P. 1990. Role of refugia in recovery from disturbances: modern fragmented and disconnected river systems. Enviorn. Managem. 14: 711–724.Google Scholar
  57. Shofner, M.A. 1999. Predation, habitat patchiness and prey exchange: interactions between stream meiofauna and juvenile fish. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland.Google Scholar
  58. Sih, A. and Wooster, D.E.. 1994. Prey behavior, prey dispersal, and predator impacts on stream prey. Ecology 75: 1199–1206.Google Scholar
  59. Silver, P., Cooper, J.K., Palmer, M.A. and Nelson, K. 2000. Densityindependent influence of the spatial arrangement of resource patches on chironomid life history traits.Google Scholar
  60. Sokal, R.R. and Rohlf, F.J. 1981. Biometry, Second edition. Oecologia, in press. W.H. Freeman, San Francisco.Google Scholar
  61. Southwood, T.R.E. 1977. Habitat, the templet for ecological strategies? J. Anim. Ecol. 46: 337–365.Google Scholar
  62. Stanko-Mishic, S.S., Silver-Botts, P., and Cooper, J. K. 1999. Manipulation of habitat quality: effects on chironomid life history traits. Fresh. Biol. in press.Google Scholar
  63. Suberkropp, K. and Weyers, H. 1996. Application of fungal and bacterial production methods to decomposing leaves in streams. Appl. Environ. Microbial 62: 1610–1615.Google Scholar
  64. Swan, C.M. 1997. Heterogeneity in patch quality: microbialinvertebrate dynamics in a sandy bottom stream. M.S. Thesis. University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland.Google Scholar
  65. Swan, C.M. and Palmer, M.A. 2000. Small scale spatial patterns in lotic meiofauna communities. Freshw. Biol. in press.Google Scholar
  66. Thomson, J.D., Weiblen, G., Thomson, B.A., Alfaro, S. and Legendre. P. 1996. Untangling multiple factors in spatial distributions: lilies, gophers, and rocks. Ecology 77: 1698–1715.Google Scholar
  67. Townsend, C.R. 1989. The patch dynamics concept of stream community ecology. J. N. Amer. Benthol. Soc. 8: 36–50.Google Scholar
  68. Turner, M.G. 1989. Landscape ecology: the effect of pattern on process. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 20: 171–197.Google Scholar
  69. Ward, A.K. and Johnson, M.D. 1996. Heterotrophic microorganisms In Methods in stream ecology pp. 233–268. Edited by Hauer, F.R. and Lamberti, G.A. Academic Press, San Diego.Google Scholar
  70. Webster, J.R. and Benfield, E.F. 1986. Vascular plant breakdown in freshwater ecosystems. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 17: 567–594.Google Scholar
  71. Wiens, J.A., Stenseth, N.C., Van Horne, B. and Ims, R.A. 1993. Ecological mechanisms and landscape ecology. Oikos 66: 369–380.Google Scholar
  72. With, K.A., Gardner, R.H., and Turner, M.G. 1997. Landscape connectivity and population distributions in heterogeneous environments. Oikos 78: 151–169.Google Scholar
  73. Wu, J. and Loucks, O.L. 1995. From balance of nature to hierarchical patch dynamics: a paradigm shift in ecology. Quart. Rev. Biol. 70: 439–466.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Margaret A. Palmer
    • 1
  • Christopher M. Swan
    • 1
  • Karen Nelson
    • 1
  • Pamela Silver
    • 2
  • Rachel Alvestad
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of BiologyUniversity of MarylandCollege ParkUSA
  2. 2.School of Science and Center for Biomathematics, Penn State ErieThe Behrend CollegeErieUSA

Personalised recommendations