The spatial heterogeneity of a river bottom: a key factor determining macroinvertebrate communities

  • Jean-Nicolas Beisel
  • Philippe Usseglio-Polatera
  • Jean-Claude Moreteau
Conference paper
Part of the Developments in Hydrobiology book series (DIHY, volume 149)


We examined the relationships between mesohabitat heterogeneity and benthic macroinvertebrate assemblages in a fourth-order stream (Mortagne, North-Eastern France). The heterogeneity of the mesohabitat mosaic was described around each sampling point for eight different surfaces from 0.5 to 4 m radius. Environmental descriptors integrated both the composition and configuration heterogeneity of the substrate mosaic. Faunal data were analysed in terms of biocenotic indices and taxonomic composition. The maximum number of significant Spearman correlations was obtained for a mosaic with a diameter of 2 m around the sampling point and significant correlations were both the highest and the most numerous for this surface. Relationships were established between community structure and substrate heterogeneity. The faunal richness was higher in a heterogeneous environment composed of numerous substrates, an elevated patchiness and with high perimeters. Such a mosaic potentially offers a great number of niches for invertebrates. A reduced distance between two types of substrate favours exchange of species. At the opposite, a very homogeneous mosaic offers a low variety of niches and shelters fewer taxa. Furthermore, in a homogeneous environment we observed that one or two particular taxa dominated the community, probably because competition with taxa coming from neighbouring patches was reduced. The community composition mainly depended on the characteristics of the mesohabitat sampled. Our results showed that the neighbouring environment around such mesohabitats also had a significant influence. Further research must be conducted to specify the influence of the mosaic heterogeneity on biological and ecological traits of invertebrates.

Key words

mesohabitats macroinvertebrate communities spatial heterogeneity running waters 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Armitage, P. D. & C. E. Cannan, 1998. Nested multi-scale surveys in lotic systems — tools for management. In: Bretschko, G. & J. Helesic (eds), Advances in River Bottom Ecology. Backhuys Publishers, Leiden, The Netherlands: 293-314.Google Scholar
  2. Armitage, P. D. & I. Pardo, 1995. Impact assessment of regulation at the reach level using macroinvertebrate information from mesohabitats. Reg. Riv. 10: 147–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Armitage, P. D., I. Pardo & A. Brown, 1995. Temporal constancy of faunal assemblages in ‘mesohabitats’ — application to management? Arch. Hydrobiol. 133: 367–383.Google Scholar
  4. Beisel, J. N., 1996. Microrépartition des invertébrés benthicues en eau courante: caractéristiques des microhabitats et organisation de leurs peuplements. Ph.D. Thesis, Univ. Metz: 259 pp.Google Scholar
  5. Beisel, J.-N., P. Usseglio-Polatera, S. Thomas, S. & J. C. Moeteau, 1998a. A method to describe substrate heterogeneity at a microhabitat scale. First results on relationships with the macroinvertebrate community structure. In: Bretschko, G. & J. Helesic (eds), Advances in River Bottom Ecology. Backhuys Publishers, Leiden, The Netherlands: 39-46.Google Scholar
  6. Beisel, J.-N., P. Usseglio-Polatera, S. Thomas & J. C. Moreteau, 1998b. Stream community structure in relation to spatia variation: the influence of mesohabitat characteristics. Hydrobiologia 389: 73–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chutter, F. M., 1969. The distribution of some stream invertebrates in relation to current speed. Int. Rev. ges Hydrobiol. 54: 413–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dobson, M. & A. G. Hildrew, 1992. A test of resource limitation among shredding detritivores in low order streams in southern England. J. anim. Ecol. 61: 69–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Doeg, T. J., R. Marchant, M. Douglas & P. S. Lake, 1989. Experimental colonization of sand, gravel and stones by macroinvertebrates in the Acheron River, southeastern Australia. Freshwat. Biol. 22: 57–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Drake, J. A., 1984. Species aggregation: the influence of detritus in a benthic invertebrate community. Hydrobiologia 112: 109–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Harper, D. M. & M. Everard, in press. Why should the habitatlevel approach underpin holistic river survey and management? Aquatic Conservation.Google Scholar
  12. Harper, D. M., C. D. Smith & P. J. Barham, 1992. Habitats as the building blocks for river conservation assessment. In: Boon, P. J., P. Calow & G. E. Petts (eds), River Conservation and Management. John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Chichester: 311-319.Google Scholar
  13. Hildrew, A. G., 1998. Physical habitat and the benthic ecology of streams and rivers. In: Bretschko, G. & J. Helesic (eds), Advances in River Bottom Ecology. Backhuys Publishers, Leiden, The Netherlands: 13-22.Google Scholar
  14. Li, H. & J. F. Reynolds, 1994. A simulation experiment to quantify spatial heterogeneity in categorical maps. Ecology 75: 2446–2455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Li, H. & J. F. Reynolds, 1995. On definition and quantification of heterogeneity. Oikos 73: 280–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Minshall, G. W., 1988. Stream ecosystem theory: a global perspective. J. n. am. Benthol. Soc. 7: 263–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Minshall, G. W. & J. N. Minshall, 1977. Microdistribution of benthic invertebrates in a rocky mountain (U. S.A:) stream. Hydrobiologia 55: 231–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Minshall, G. W. & C. T. Robinson, 1998. Macroinvertebrate community structure in relation to measures of lotic habitat heterogeneity. Arch. Hydrobiol. 141: 129–151.Google Scholar
  19. Oertli, B., 1992. L’influence de trois substrats (Typha, Chara, feuilles mortes) d’un étang forestier sur la densité, la biomasse et la production des macroinvertébrés aquatiques. Dissertation No. 2557. Université de Genève, Genève, 283 pp.Google Scholar
  20. Reice, S. R., 1980. The role of substratum in benthic macroinvertebrate microdistribution and litter decomposition in a woodland stream. Ecology 61: 580–590.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Statzner, B., J. A. Gore & V. H. Resh, 1988. Hydraulic stream ecology: observed patterns and potential applications. J. n. am. Benthol. Soc. 7: 307–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Wood, P., 1998. Reach-scale mesohabitat variations in a small chalk stream under low flow conditions. In: Bretschko, G. & J. Helesic (eds), Advances in River Bottom Ecology. Backhuys Publishers, Leiden, The Netherlands: 31-38.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jean-Nicolas Beisel
    • 1
  • Philippe Usseglio-Polatera
    • 1
    • 2
  • Jean-Claude Moreteau
    • 1
  1. 1.UPRES Ecotoxicité, Biodiversité et Santé Environnementale (EBSE)Université de Metz,Metz Cedex 01France
  2. 2.UPRESA CNRS 5023, ‘Ecologie des Eaux Douces et des Grands Fleuves’Université Lyon IVilleurbanne CedexFrance

Personalised recommendations