Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Habitat scale and biodiversity: influence of catchment, stream reach and bedform scales on local invertebrate diversity

  • Published:
Biodiversity & Conservation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Although many studies have investigated the influence of environmental patterns on local stream invertebrate diversity, there has been little consistency in reported relationships between diversity and particular environmental variables. Here we test the hypothesis that local stream invertebrate diversity is determined by a combination of factors occurring at multiple spatial scales. We developed predictive models relating invertebrate diversity (species richness and equitability) to environmental variables collected at various spatial scales (bedform, reach and catchment, respectively) using data from 97 sampling sites dispersed throughout the Taieri River drainage in New Zealand. Models based on an individual scale of perception (bedform, reach or catchment) were not able to match predictions to observations (r < 0.26, P > 0.01, between observed and predicted equitability and species richness). In contrast, models incorporating all three scales simultaneously were highly significant (P < 0.01; r = 0.55 and 0.64, between observed and predicted equitability and species richness, respectively). The most influential variables for both richness and equitability were median particle size at the bedform scale, adjacent land use at the reach scale, and relief ratio at the catchment scale. Our findings suggest that patterns observed in local assemblages are not determined solely by local mechanisms acting within assemblages, but also result from processes operating at larger spatial scales. The integration of different spatial scales may be the key to increasing model predictability and our understanding of the factors that determine local biodiversity.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Arbuckle C.J., Huryn A.D. and Israel S.A. 1999. Land-cover classification in the Taieri river catchment, New Zealand: a focus on the riparian zone. Geocarto International 14: 7–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brosse S., Lek S. and Dauba F. 1999a. Predicting fish distribution in a mesotrophic lake by hydroacoustic survey and artificial neural networks. Limnology and Oceanography 44: 1293–1303.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brosse S., Guégan J.F., Tourenq J.N. and Lek S. 1999b. The use of artificial neural networks to assess fish abundance and spatial occupancy in the littoral zone of a mesotrophic lake. Ecological Modelling 120: 299–312.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brosse S., Lek S. and Townsend C.R. 2001. Abundance, diversity, and structure of freshwater invertebrates and fish communities: an artificial neural network approach. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 35: 135–145.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carter J.L., Fend S.V. and Kennelly S.S. 1996. The relationships among three habitat scales and stream benthic invertebrates community structure. Freshwater Biology 35: 109–124.

    Google Scholar 

  • Connell J.H. 1978. Diversity in tropical rainforests and coral reefs. Science 199: 1302–1310.

    Google Scholar 

  • Corkum L.D. 1989. Patterns of benthic invertebrates assemblages in rivers of northwestern North America. Freshwater Biology 21: 191–205.

    Google Scholar 

  • Death R.G. and Winterbourn M.J. 1995. Diversity patterns in stream benthic invertebrate communities: the influence of habitat stability. Ecology 76: 1446–1460.

    Google Scholar 

  • Efron B. 1983. Estimating the error rate of a prediction rule: some improvements on cross-validation. Journal of the American Statistical Association 78: 316–331.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garson G.D. 1991. Interpreting neural network connection weights. Artificial Intelligence Expert 6: 47–51.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geman S., Bienenstock E. and Doursat R. 1992. Neural networks and the bias / variance dilemma. Neural Computation 4: 1–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goh A.T.C. 1995. Back-propagation neural networks for modeling complex systems. Artificial Intelligence Engineering 9: 143–151.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guégan J.F., Lek S. and Oberdorff T. 1998. Energy availability and habitat heterogeneity predict global riverine fish diversity. Nature 391: 382–384.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hastie T.J. and Tibshirani R.J. 1990. Generalized Additive Models. Chapman & Hall, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • James F.C. and McCulloch C.E. 1990. Multivariate analysis in ecology and systematics: panacea or Pandora's box? Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 21: 129–166.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim S.H., Yoon C. and Kim B.J. 2000. Structural monitoring system based on sensitivity analysis and a neural network. Computer Civil Infrastructure Engineering 15: 309–318.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kohavi R. 1995. A study of the cross-validation and bootstrap for accuracy estimation and model selection. Proceedings of the International Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI). Montreal, Canada, pp. 1137–1143.

  • Krug A. 1993. Drainage history and land use pattern of a Swedish river system ¶ their importance for understanding nitrogen and phosphorus load. Hydrobiologia 251: 285–296.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lek S., Delacoste M., Baran P., Dimopoulos I., Lauga J. and Aulagnier S. 1996. Application of neural networks to modeling nonlinear relationships in ecology. Ecological Modelling 90: 39–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lek S. and Guégan J.F. 2000. Artificial Neuronal Networks, Applications to Ecology and Evolution. Springer-Verlag, Berlin and Heidelberg, Germany.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matthaei C.D., Peacock K.A. and Townsend C.R. 1999. Patchy surface stone movement during disturbance in a New Zealand stream and its potential significance for the fauna. Limnology and Oceanography 44: 1091–1102.

    Google Scholar 

  • Minshall G.W. 1988. Stream ecosystem theory: a global perspective. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 7: 263–288.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moss D., Furse M.T., Wright J.F. and Armitage P.D. 1987. The prediction of the macro-invertebrate fauna of unpolluted running-water sites in Great Britain using environmental data. Freshwater Biology 17: 41–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Palmer M.A., Allan J.D. and Butman C.A. 1996. Dispersal as a regional process affecting the local dynamics of marine and stream benthic invertebrates. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 11: 322–326.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quinn J.M. and Hickey C.W. 1990. Characterisation and classification of benthic invertebrates communities in 88 New Zealand rivers in relation to environmental factors. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 24: 387–409.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rumelhart D.E., Hinton G.E. and Williams R.J. 1986. Learning representations by back-propagating error. Nature 323: 533–536.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scardi M. 1996. Artificial neural networks as empirical models for estimating phytoplankton production. Marine Ecology Progress Series 139: 289–299.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scarsbrook M.R. and Halliday J. 1999. Transition from pasture to native forest land use along stream continua: effects on stream ecosystems and implications for restoration. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 33: 293–310.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith M.J., Kay W.R., Edward D.H.D., Papas P.J., Richardson K.J., Simpson J.C. et al. 1999. AusRivAS: using macroinvertebrates to assess the ecological condition of rivers inWestern Australia. Freshwater Biology 41: 269–282.

    Google Scholar 

  • Southwood T.R.E. 1977. Habitat, the templet for ecological strategies? Journal of Animal Ecology 46: 337–365.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sweeny B.W. 1993. Effects of streamside vegetation on macroinvertebrate communities of white clay creek in eastern North America. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia 144: 291–340.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thienemann A. 1954. Ein drittes biozonotisches Grundprinzip. Archiv fur Hydrobiologie 49: 421–422.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas D.L. and Taylor E.J. 1990. Study designs and tests for comparing resource use and availability. Journal of Wildlife Management 54: 322–330.

    Google Scholar 

  • Townsend C.R. and Hildrew A.G. 1976. Field experiments on the drifting, colonisation and continuous redistribution of stream benthos. Journal of Animal Ecology 45: 759–772.

    Google Scholar 

  • Townsend C.R. and Hildrew A.G. 1994. Species traits in relation to a habitat templet for river systems. Freshwater Biology 31: 265–275.

    Google Scholar 

  • Townsend C.R. and Riley R.H. 1999. Assessment of river health: accounting for perturbation pathways in physical and ecological space. Freshwater Biology 41: 393–405.

    Google Scholar 

  • Townsend C.R., Scarsbrook M.R. and Doledec S. 1997a. The intermediate disturbance hypothesis, refugia and biodiversity in streams. Limnology and Oceanography 42: 938–949.

    Google Scholar 

  • Townsend C.R., Arbuckle C.J., Crowl T.A. and Scarsbrook M.R. 1997b. The relationship between land use and physicochemistry, food resources and macroinvertebrates communities in tributaries of the Taieri River, New Zealand: a hierarchically scaled approach. Freshwater Biology 37: 177–191.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trexler J.C. and Travis J. 1993. Nontraditional regression analyses. Ecology 74: 1629–1637.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vannote R.L., Minshall G.W., Cummins K.W., Sedell J.R. and Cushing C.E. 1980. The river continuum concept. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 37: 130–137.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vinson M.R. and Hawkins C.P. 1998. Biodiversity of stream insects: variations at local, basin and regional scales. Annual Review of Entomology 43: 271–293.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walley W.J. and Fontama V.N. 1998. Neural network predictors of average score per taxon and number of famillies at unpolluted river sites in Great Britain. Water Research 32: 613–622.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waters T.F. 1972. The drift of stream insects. Annual Review of Entomology 17: 253–272.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiens J.A., Rotenberry J.T. and VanHorne B. 1987. Habitat occupancy patterns of North American shrubsteppe birds: the effect of spatial scale. Oikos 48: 132–147.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams D.D. 1980. Some relationships between stream benthos and substrate heterogeneity. Limnology and Oceanography 25: 166–172.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winterbourn M.J. and Greston K.L.D. 1989. Guide to the aquatic insects of New Zealand. Bulletin of the New Zealand Entomological Society 9: 1–97.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winterbourn M.J., Rounick J.S. and Cowie B. 1981. Are New Zealand stream ecosystems really different? New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 15: 321–328.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wohl D.L., Wallace J.B. and Meyer J.L. 1995. Benthic macroinvertebrate community structure, function and production with respect to habitat type, reach and drainage basin in the southern Appalachians (USA). Freshwater Biology 34: 447–464.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolman M.G. 1954. A method of sampling coarse river-bed material. Transactions of the American Geophysical Union 35: 951–956.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wright J.F., Sutcliffe D.W. and Furse M.T. 2000. Assessing the biological quality of fresh waters: RIVPACS and other techniques. Freshwater Biological Association, Ambleside, UK.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. Sebastien Brosse
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Chris J. Arbuckle
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Colin R. Townsend
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Brosse, S., Arbuckle, C.J. & Townsend, C.R. Habitat scale and biodiversity: influence of catchment, stream reach and bedform scales on local invertebrate diversity. Biodiversity and Conservation 12, 2057–2075 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024107915183

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024107915183

Search

Navigation