Premium
Identifying the scales of variability in stream macroinvertebrate abundance, functional composition and assemblage structure
Author(s) -
Heino Jani,
Louhi Pauliina,
Muotka Timo
Publication year - 2004
Publication title -
freshwater biology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.297
H-Index - 156
eISSN - 1365-2427
pISSN - 0046-5070
DOI - 10.1111/j.1365-2427.2004.01259.x
Subject(s) - riffle , benthic zone , abundance (ecology) , tributary , ecology , spatial variability , environmental science , streams , cobble , river ecosystem , ecosystem , geography , habitat , biology , computer network , statistics , cartography , mathematics , computer science
Summary 1. Many natural ecosystems are heterogeneous at scales ranging from microhabitats to landscapes. Running waters are no exception in this regard, and their environmental heterogeneity is reflected in the distribution and abundance of stream organisms across multiple spatial scales. 2. We studied patchiness in benthic macroinvertebrate abundance and functional feeding group (FFG) composition at three spatial scales in a boreal river system. Our sampling design incorporated a set of fully nested scales, with three tributaries, two stream sections (orders) within each tributary, three riffles within each section and ten benthic samples in each riffle. 3. According to nested anova s, most of the variation in total macroinvertebrate abundance, abundances of FFGs, and number of taxa was accounted for by the among‐riffle and among‐sample scales. Such small‐scale variability reflected similar patterns of variation in in‐stream variables (moss cover, particle size, current velocity and depth). Scraper abundance, however, varied most at the scale of stream sections, probably mirroring variation in canopy cover. 4. Tributaries and stream sections within tributaries differed significantly in the structure and FFG composition of the macroinvertebrate assemblages. Furthermore, riffles in headwater (second order) sections were more variable than those in higher order (third order) sections. 5. Stream biomonitoring programs should consider this kind of scale‐dependent variability in assemblage characteristics because: (i) small‐scale variability in abundance suggests that a few replicate samples are not enough to capture macroinvertebrate assemblage variability present at a site, and (ii) riffles from the same stream may support widely differing benthic assemblages.