Community Ecology

, Volume 18, Issue 1, pp 109–116 | Cite as

Do different facets of littoral macroinvertebrate diversity show congruent patterns in a large lake system?

  • K. T. TolonenEmail author
  • A. Vilmi
  • S. M. Karjalainen
  • S. Hellsten
  • J. Heino


Modern biodiversity research focuses on multiple diversity facets because different indices may describe different ecological and environmental processes, as well as the effects of varied disturbances of natural and anthropogenic origins. We investigated littoral macroinvertebrate diversity in a large boreal lake system and specifically explored congruence of indices within and between the three diversity facets: species diversity, functional diversity and taxonomic distinctness. First, we found that the indices of taxonomic distinctness were the most sensitive indicators of eutrophication. Second, we observed that most correlations between the indices within the same diversity facet, and between the indices of functional and species diversity, were relatively strong. However, the indices of taxonomic distinctness (Δ+ and Λ+) were weakly associated with other metrics of diversity, emphasising the importance of taxonomic distinctness as a complementary dimension of biodiversity. Therefore, our observations support the importance to examine multiple facets for mapping biodiversity or for assessing the effects of anthropogenic disturbances on biological communities.


Biodiversity Congruence Facets of biodiversity Lake ecosystems Littoral zone 



Total Phosphorus


Species richness




Shannon diversity


taxonomic diversity


taxonomic distinctness


variation in taxonomic distinctness


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Abellán, P., Bilton, D.T., Millán, A., Sánchez-Fernández, D. and Ramsay, P.M. 2006. Can taxonomic distinctness assess anthropogenic impacts in inland waters? A case study from a Mediterranean river basin. Freshwater Biol. 51: 1744–1756.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Akaike, H. 1974. A new look at the statistical model identification. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control 19: 716–723.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bady, P., Dolédec, S., Fesl, C., Gayraud, S., Bacchi, M. and Schöll, F. 2005. Use of invertebrate traits for the biomonitoring of European large rivers: the effects of sampling effort on genus richness and functional diversity. Freshwater Biol. 50: 159–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Benke, A.C., Huryn, A.D., Smock, L.A. and Wallace, J.B. 1999. Length-mass relationships for freshwater macroinvertebrates in North America with particular reference to the southeastern United States. J. North Am. Benthol. Soc. 18: 308–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bonada, N., Prat, N., Resh, V.H. and Statzner, B. 2006. Developments in aquatic insect biomonitoring: a comparative analysis of recent approaches. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 51: 495–523.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. Chase, J.M. and Leibold, M.A. 2002. Spatial scale dictates the productivity-biodiversity relationship. Nature 416: 427–430.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. Chase, J.M. and Ryberg, W.A. 2004. Connectivity, scale-dependence, and the productivity-diversity relationship. Ecol. Lett. 7: 676– 683.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Clarke, K.R. and Warwick, R.M. 1998. A taxonomic distinctness index and its statistical properties. J. Appl. Ecol. 35: 523–531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Clarke, K.R. and Warwick, R.M. 2001. A further biodiversity index applicable to species lists: variation in taxonomic distinctness. Marine Ecology Progress Series 216: 265–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Clarke, K.R. and Gorley, R.N. 2006. Primer v6: User Manual/ Tutorial. Primer-E Ltd. 190 pp.Google Scholar
  11. Devictor, V., Mouillot, D., Meynard, C., Jiquet, F., Thuiller, W. and Mouquet, N. 2010. Spatial mismatch and congruence between taxonomic, phylogenetic and functional diversity: the need for integrative conservation strategies in a changing world. Ecol. Lett. 13: 1030–1040.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. Dodson, S.I., Arnott, S.E. and Cottingham, K.L. 2000. The relationship in lake communities between primary productivity and species richness. Ecology 81: 2662–2679.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Folt, C.L., Chen, C.Y., Moore, M.V. and Burnaford, J. 1999. Synergism and antagonism among multiple stressors. Limnol. Oceanogr. 44: 864–873.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fore, L.S., Karr, J.R. and Wisseman, R.W. 1996. Assessing invertebrate responses to human activities: evaluating alternative approaches. J. North Am. Benthological Soc. 15: 212–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Friberg, N., Bonada, N., Bradley, D.C., Dunbar, M.J., Edwards, F.K., Grey, J., Hayes, R.B., Hildrew, A.G., Lamouroux, N., Trimmer, M. and Woodward, G. 2011. Biomonitoring of human impacts in freshwater ecosystems: the Good, the Bad and the Ugly. Adv. Ecol. Res. 44: 1–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gallardo, B., Gascón, S., Quintana, X. and Comín, F.A. 2011. How to choose a biodiversity indicator - redundancy and complementarity of biodiversity metrics in a freshwater ecosystem. Ecol.Indic. 11: 1177–1184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gascón, S., Boix, D. and Sala, J. 2009. Are different biodiversity metrics related to the same factors? A case study from Mediterranean wetlands. Biol. Conserv. 142: 2602–2612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Guerold, F., Boudot, J-P. Jacquemin, G., Vein, D., Merlet, D. and Rouiller, J. 2000. Macroinvertebrate community loss as a result of headwater stream acidification in the Vosges Mountains (N-E France). Biodivers. Conserv. 9: 767–783.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Heino, J. 2008. Patterns of functional biodiversity and function-environment relationships in lake macroinvertebrates. Limnol. Oceanogr. 53: 1446–1455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Heino, J., Alahuhta, J. and Fattorini, S. 2015. Phylogenetic diversity of regional beetle faunas at high latitudes: patterns, drivers and chance along ecological gradients. Biodivers. Conserv. 24: 2751–2767.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Heino, J., Mykrä, H. and Kotanen, J. 2008. Weak relationships between landscape characteristics and multiple facets of stream macroinvertebrate biodiversity in a boreal drainage basin. Lands. Ecol. 23: 417–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Heino, J., Mykrä, H., Hämäläinen, H., Aroviita, J. and Muotka, T. 2007. Responses of taxonomic distinctness and species diversity indices to anthropogenic impacts and natural environmental gradients in stream macroinvertebrates. Freshwater Biol. 52: 1846–1861.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jeppesen, E., Jensen, J.P., Søndergaard, M., Lauridsen, T. and Landkildehus, F. 2000. Trophic structure, species richness and biodiversity in Danish lakes: changes along a phosphorus gradient. Freshwater Biol. 45: 201–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Johnston, E.L. and Roberts, D.A. 2009. Contaminants reduce the richness and evenness of marine communities: a review and meta-analysis. Environ. Pollution 157: 1745–1752.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kankaala, P., Hellsten S. and Alasaarela, E. 1984. Primary production of phytoplankton in the oligohumic Kitka lakes in northern Finland. Aqua Fennica 14: 65–78.Google Scholar
  26. Klemm, D.J., Blocksom, K.A., Thoeny,W.T., Fulk, F.A., Herlihy, A.T., Kaufmann, P.R. and Cormier, S.M. 2002. Methods development and use of macroinvertebrates as indicators of ecological conditions for streams in the Mid-Atlantic Highlands Region. Environ. Monitor. Assess. 78: 169–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Korhonen, J.J., Wang J. and Soininen, J. 2011. Productivity-diversity relationships in lake plankton communities. PLos ONE 6: e22041.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. Leira, M., Chen, G., Dalton, C. Irvine, K. and Taylor, D. 2009. Patterns in freshwater diatom taxonomic distinctness along an eutrophication gradient. Freshwater Biol. 54: 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Leonard, D.R.P., Clarke, K.R., Somerfield, P.J. and Warwick, R.M. 2006. The application of an indicator based on taxonomic distinctness for UK marine biodiversity assessment. J. Environ. Manage. 78: 52–62.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. Litchman, E. and Klausmeier, C.A. 2008. Trait-based community ecology of phytoplankton. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 39: 615– 639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Ludsin, S.A., Kershner, M.W., Blocksom, K.A., Knight, R.L. and Stein, R.A. 2001. Life after death in Lake Erie: nutrient controls drive fish species richness, rehabilitation. Ecol. Appl. 11: 731–746.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lyashevska, O. and Farnsworth, K.D. 2012. How many dimensions of biodiversity do we need? Ecol. Indic. 18: 485–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Matthaei, C.D., Weller, F., Kelly, D.W. and Townsend, C.R. 2006. Impacts of fine sediment addition to tussock, pasture, dairy and deer farming streams in New Zealand. Freshwater Biol. 51: 2154–2172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mérigot, B., Bertrand, J.A., Gaertner, J-C., Durbec, J-P., Mazouni, N. and Manté, C. 2007. The multi-component structuration of the species diversity of groundfish assemblages of the east coast of Corsica (Mediterranean Sea): variation according to the bathymetric strata. Fish. Res. 88: 120–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Merritt, R.W. and Cummins, K.W. 1996. An introduction to the aquatic insects of North America. Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company. 862 pp.Google Scholar
  36. Meyer, E. 1989. The relationship between body length parameters and dry mass in running water invertebrates. Archiv für. Hydrobiologie 117: 191–203.Google Scholar
  37. Mittelbach, G.G., Steiner, C.F., Scheiner, S.M., Gross, K.L., Reynolds, H.L., Waide, R.B., Willig, M.R., Dodson, S.I. and Gough, L. 2001. What is the observed relationship between species richness and productivity? Ecology 82: 2381–2396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Monnet, A-C., Jiguet, F., Meynard, C.N., Mouillot, D., Mouquet, N., Thuiller, W. and Devictor, V. 2014. Asynchrony of taxonomic, functional and phylogenetic diversity in birds. Global Ecol. Biogeogr. 23: 780–788.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Naeem, S., Duffy, J.E. and Zavaleta, E. 2012. The functions of biological diversity in an age of extinction. Science 336: 1401–1406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Penning, W.E., Dudley, B., Mjelde, M., Hellsten, S., Hanganu, J., Kolada, A., van den Berg, M., Maemets, H., Poikane, S., Phillips, G., Willby, N. and Ecke, F. 2008. Using aquatic macrophyte community indices to define the ecological status of European lakes. Aquat. Ecol. 42: 253–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Pielou, E.C. 1966. Species-diversity and pattern-diversity in the study of ecological succession. J. Theoret. Biol. 10: 370–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Purschke, O., Schmid, B.C., Sykes, M.T., Poschlod, P., Michalski, S.G., Durka, W., Kühn, I., Winter, M. and Prentice, H.C. 2013. Contrasting changes in taxonomic, phylogenetic and functional diversity during a long-term succession: insights into assembly processes. J. Ecol. 101: 857–866.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Rasmussen, J.B. 1993. Patterns in the size structure of littoral zone macroinvertebrate communities. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 50: 2192–2207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Shannon, C.E. 1948. A mathematical theory of communication. The Bell System Technical J. 27: 379–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Smock, L.A. 1980. Relationships between body size and biomass of aquatic insects. Freshwater Biol. 10: 375–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Tachet, H., Richoux, B., Bournaud, M. and Usseglio-Polatera, P. 2010. Invertébrés d’eau douce. CNRS editions.Google Scholar
  47. Tolonen, K.T., Vilmi, A., Karjalainen, S.M., Hellsten, S., Sutela, T. and Heino, J. 2017. Ignoring spatial effects results in inadequate models for variation in littoral macroinvertebrate diversity. Oikos. DOI: 10.1111/oik.03587Google Scholar
  48. Van den Brink, P.J., A.C. Alexander, A.C., Desrosiers, M., Goedkoop, W., Goethals, P.L.M., Liess, M. and Dyer, S.D. 2011. Trait-based approaches in bioassessment and ecological risk assessment: strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats. Integrated Environ. Assess. Manage. 7: 198–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Vilmi, A., Karjalainen, S.M. Landeiro, V.L. and Heino, J. 2015. Freshwater diatoms as environmental indicators: evaluating the effects of eutrophication using species morphology and biological indices. Environ. Monitor. Assess. 187: 243–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Warwick, R.M. and Clarke, K.R. 1995. New ‘biodiversity’ measures reveal a decrease in taxonomic distinctness with increasing stress. Marine Ecology Progress Series 129: 301–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Warwick, R.M. and Clarke, K.R. 1998. Taxonomic distinctness and environmental assessment. J. Appl. Ecol. 35: 532–543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Wilsey, B.J., Chalcraft, D.R., Bowles, C.M. and Willig, M.R. 2005. Relationships among indices suggest that richness is an incomplete surrogate for grassland biodiversity. Ecology 86: 1178– 1184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Winter, M., Devictor V. and Schweiger, O. 2013. Phylogenetic diversity and nature conservation: where are we? Trends Ecol. Evol. 28: 199–204.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  54. Witman, J.D., Cusson, M., Archambault, P., Pershing, A.J. and Mieszkowska, N. 2008. The relation between productivity and species diversity in temperate-arctic marine ecosystems. Ecology 89: S66–S80.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest 2017

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Authors and Affiliations

  • K. T. Tolonen
    • 1
    Email author
  • A. Vilmi
    • 1
  • S. M. Karjalainen
    • 2
  • S. Hellsten
    • 2
  • J. Heino
    • 1
  1. 1.Finnish Environment InstituteNatural Environment CentreOuluFinland
  2. 2.Finnish Environment InstituteFreshwater CentreOuluFinland

Personalised recommendations