Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-9pm4c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T09:42:49.539Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

5 - Body size in streams: macroinvertebrate community size composition along natural and human-induced environmental gradients

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 December 2009

Colin R. Townsend
Affiliation:
University of Otago New Zealand
Ross M. Thompson
Affiliation:
Monash University Australia
Alan G. Hildrew
Affiliation:
Queen Mary University of London
David G. Raffaelli
Affiliation:
University of York
Ronni Edmonds-Brown
Affiliation:
University of Hertfordshire
Get access

Summary

Introduction

Communities contain a diversity of species and a spectrum of life forms. A consequence of evolutionary processes is that lists of species from different communities tell us almost nothing about how similar they are ecologically. On the other hand, by quantifying the life-history traits represented, we can discern similarities and differences among communities and gain an understanding of the functional relationships between traits and habitats. In response to Southwood's (1977) contention that habitat provides the templet upon which evolution forges characteristic life-history strategies, we are interested in the extent to which life-history traits of macroinvertebrates can be directly mapped onto stream habitat axes. More recently, stream researchers have used the metaphor of environmental filters (Poff, 1997) that can eliminate certain traits and produce similar trait compositions in similar habitats (Statzner, Dolédec & Hugueny, 2004). Trait-specific selective forces along environmental gradients may act over evolutionary time, as Southwood (1977) contended, or over an ecological time scale, selecting for successful strategists from the potential pool of colonists.

The earliest categorization of species traits in stream ecology related to trophic role. Cummins (1974) identified grazer-scrapers, fine particle collectors (gatherers or filterers), large particle shredders and predators. Stream ecologists now use this trophic categorization to focus on the similarities and differences of communities in different parts of the world (e.g. Winterbourn, Rounick & Cowie, 1981; Thompson & Townsend, 2000; Fenoglio, Bo & Cucco, 2004), in different parts of the river continuum (e.g. Vannote et al. 1980; Grubaugh, Wallace & Houston, 1996) and in different kinds of terrestrial setting (e.g. Thompson & Townsend, 2000; Woodward & Hildrew, 2002).

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2007

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bourassa, N. & Morin, A. (1995). Relationships between size structure of invertebrate assemblages and trophy and substrate composition in streams. Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 14, 393–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buchwalter, D. B. & Luoma, S. N. (2005). Differences in dissolve cadmium and zinc uptake among stream insects: mechanistic explanations. Environmental Science and Technology, 39, 498–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buchwalter, D. B., Jenkins, J. J. & Curtis, L. R. (2002). Respiratory strategy is a major determinant of [3H] water and [14C] chlorpyfiros uptake in aquatic insects. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science, 59, 1315–1322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Camargo, J. A., Alonso, A. & Salamanca, A. (2005). Nitrate toxicity to aquatic animals: a review with new data for freshwater invertebrates. Chemosphere, 58, 1255–1267.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Charvet, S., Kosmala, A. & Statzner, B. (1998). Biomonitoring through biological traits of benthic macroinvertebrates: perspectives for a general tool in stream management. Archives für Hydrobiologie, 142, 415–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cummins, K. W. (1974). Structure and function of stream ecosystems. BioScience, 24, 631–641.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dolédec, S., Phillips, N., Scarsbrook, M., Riley, R. H. & Townsend, C. R. (2006). A comparison of structural and functional approaches to determining landuse effects on grassland stream communities. Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 25, 44–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Downes, B. J., Lake, P. S., Schreiber, E. S. G. & Glaister, A. (1998). Habitat structure and regulation of local species diversity in a stony, upland stream. Ecological Monographs, 68, 237–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fenchel, T. M. (1978). The ecology of micro and meiobenthos. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 9, 9–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fenoglio, S., Bo, T. & Cucco, M. (2004). Small-scale macroinvertebrate distribution in a riffle of a neotropical rainforest stream (Rio Bartola, Nicaragua). Caribbean Journal of Science, 40, 253–257.Google Scholar
Flecker, A. S. & Townsend, C. R. (1994). Community-wide consequences of trout introduction in New Zealand streams. Ecology Applications, 4, 798–807.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fuller, R. L. & Bucher, J. B. (1991). A portable chamber for measuring algal primary production in streams. Hydrobiologia, 209, 155–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gayraud, S. & Philippe, M. (2001). Does subsurface interstitial space influence general features and morphological traits of the benthic macroinvertebrate community in streams? Archives für Hydrobiologie, 151, 667–686.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gayraud, S., Statzner, B., Bady, P.et al. (2003). Invertebrate traits for the biomonitoring of large European Rivers: an initial assessment of alternative metrics. Freshwater Biology, 48, 2045–2064.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grubaugh, J. W., Wallace, J. B. & Houston, E. S. (1996). Longitudinal changes of macroinvertebrate communities along an Appalachian stream continuum. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 53, 896–909.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hart, D. D. & Finelli, C. (1999). Physical-biological coupling in streams: the pervasive effects of flow on benthic organisms. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 30, 363–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hendriks, A. J. & Heikens, A. (2001). The power of size: 2. Rate constants and equilibrium ratios for accumulation of inorganic substances related to species weight. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 20, 1421–1437.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hildrew, A. G. & Townsend, C. R. (1977). The influence of substrate on the functional response of Plectrocnemia conspersa (Curtis) larvae (Trichoptera: Polycentropodidae). Oecologia, 31, 21–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huryn, A. D. (1998). Ecosystem-level evidence for top-down and bottom-up control of production in a grassland stream system. Oecologia, 115, 173–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, L. B., Breneman, D. H. & Richards, C. (2003). Macroinvertebrate community structure and function associated with large wood in low gradient streams. River Research and Applications, 19, 199–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiffney, P. M. & Clements, W. H. (1996). Size-dependent response of macroinvertebrates to metals in experimental streams. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 15, 1352–1356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kohler, S. L. & McPeek, M. A. (1989). Predation risk and the foraging behaviour of competing stream insects. Ecology, 70, 1811–1825.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lytle, D. A. (2001). Disturbance regimes and life history evolution. American Naturalist, 157, 525–536.Google ScholarPubMed
Lytle, D. A. (2002). Flash floods and aquatic insect life-history evolution: evaluation of multiple models. Ecology, 83, 370–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matthaei, C. D. & Townsend, C. R. (2000). Long-term effects of local disturbance history on mobile stream invertebrates. Oecologia, 125, 119–126.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Matthaei, C. D., Peacock, K. A. & Townsend, C. R. (1999). Scour and fill patterns in a New Zealand stream and potential implications for invertebrate refugia. Freshwater Biology, 42, 41–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McIntosh, A. R. & Townsend, C. R. (1994). Interpopulation variation in mayfly anti-predator tactics: differential effects of contrasting predatory fish. Ecology, 75, 2078–2090.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mérigoux, S. & Dolédec, S. (2004). Hydraulic requirements of stream communities: a case study of invertebrates. Freshwater Biology, 49, 600–613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poff, N. L. (1997). Landscape filters and species traits: towards mechanistic understanding and prediction in stream ecology. Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 16, 391–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Power, M. E. (1992). Habitat heterogeneity and the functional significance of fish in river food webs. Ecology, 73, 1675–1688.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Resh, V. H., Hildrew, A. G., Statzner, B. & Townsend, C. R. (1994). Theoretical habitat templets, species traits, and species richness: a synthesis of long-term ecological research on the Upper Rhone River in the context of concurrently developed ecological theory. Freshwater Biology, 31, 539–554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richards, C., Haro, R. J., Johnson, L. B. & Host, G. E. (1997). Catchment and reach-scale properties as indicators of macroinvertebrate species traits. Freshwater Biology, 37, 219–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robson, B. J., Barmuta, L. A. & Fairweather, P. G. (2005). Methodological and conceptual issues in the search for a relationship between animal body-size distributions and habitat architecture. Marine and Freshwater Research, 56, 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scarsbrook, M. R. & Townsend, C. R. (1993). Stream community structure in relation to spatial and temporal variation: a habitat templet study of two contrasting New Zealand streams. Freshwater Biology, 29, 395–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmid, P. E., Tokeshi, M. & Schmid-Araya, J. M. (2002). Scaling in stream communities. Proceedings of the Royal Society London, Series B, 269, 2587–2594.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Southwood, T. R. E. (1977). Habitat, the templet for ecological strategies. Journal of Animal Ecology, 46, 337–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snook, D. L. & Milner, A. M. (2002). Biological traits of invertebrates and hydraulic conditions in a glacier-fed catchment (French Pyrénées). Archives für Hydrobiologie, 153, 245–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Statzner, B., Gore, J. A. & Resh, V. H. (1988). Hydraulic stream ecology: observed patterns and potential applications. Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 7, 307–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Statzner, B., Dolédec, S. & Hugueny, B. (2004). Biological trait composition of European stream invertebrate communities: assessing the effects of various trait filter types. Ecography, 27, 470–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taniguchi, H. & Tokeshi, M. (2004). Effects of habitat complexity on benthic assemblages in a variable environment. Freshwater Biology, 49, 1164–1178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomson, J. R. (2002). The effects of hydrological disturbance on the densities of macroinvertebrate predators and their prey in a coastal stream. Freshwater Biology, 47, 1333–1351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, R. M. & Townsend, C. R. (1999). The effect of seasonal variation on the community structure and food-web attributes of two streams: implications for food-web science. Oikos, 87, 75–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, R. M. & Townsend, C. R. (2000). New Zealand's stream invertebrate communities: an international perspective. In New Zealand Stream Invertebrates: Ecology and Implications for Management, ed. Collier, K. and Winterbourn, M.. Christchurch, New Zealand: New Zealand Limnological Society, pp. 53–74.Google Scholar
Thompson, R. M. & Townsend, C. R. (2004). Land-use influences on New Zealand stream communities: effects on species composition, functional organization, and food-web structure. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research, 38, 595–608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, R. M. & Townsend, C. R. (2005). Energy availability, spatial heterogeneity and ecosystem size predict food-web structure in streams. Oikos, 108, 137–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Townsend, C. R. (2003). Individual, population, community and ecosystem consequences of a fish invader in New Zealand streams. Conservation Biology, 17, 38–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Townsend, C. R. & Hildrew, A. G. (1994). Species traits in relation to a habitat templet for river systems. Freshwater Biology, 31, 265–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Townsend, C. R., Dolédec, S. & Scarsbrook, M. R. (1997). Species traits in relation to temporal and spatial heterogeneity in streams: a test of habitat templet theory. Freshwater Biology, 37, 367–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Townsend, C. R., Thompson, R. M., McIntosh, A. R.et al. (1998). Disturbance, resource supply and food-web architecture in streams. Ecology Letters, 1, 200–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Usio, N. & Townsend, C. R. (2000). Distribution of the New Zealand crayfish Paranephrops zealandicus in relation to stream physicochemistry, predatory fish and invertebrate prey. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Science, 34, 557–567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Usio, N. & Townsend, C. R. (2004). Roles of crayfish: consequences of predation and bioturbation for stream invertebrates. Ecology, 85, 807–822.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vannote, R. L., Minshall, G. W., Cummins, K. W., Sedell, J. R. & Cushing, C. E. (1980). The river continuum concept. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 37, 130–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winterbourn, M. J. & Gregson, K. L. D. (1989). Guide to the aquatic insects of New Zealand. Bulletin of the Entomological Society of New Zealand, 9.Google Scholar
Winterbourn, M. J., Rounick, J. S. & Cowie, B. (1981). Are New Zealand stream ecosystems really different? New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research, 15, 321–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woodward, G. & Hildrew, A. G. (2002). Food web structure in riverine landscape. Freshwater Biology, 47, 777–798.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×