Advertisement

Aquatic Sciences

, 81:39 | Cite as

Sediment size influences habitat selection and use by groundwater macrofauna and meiofauna

  • Kathryn L. KorbelEmail author
  • Sarah Stephenson
  • Grant C. Hose
Research Article

Abstract

Understanding environmental factors that influence obligate groundwater dwelling (stygobiotic) fauna is crucial for groundwater ecosystem monitoring and management. Field studies have indicated geological factors are a major influence on the abundance and richness of stygofauna, however the precise mechanisms and true influence of the aquifer sediment matrix on biota is unclear. In this study we examined the habitat use and preferences, in terms of sediment particle sizes, of stygobiotic meiofauna (Harpacticoida and Cyclopoida Copepoda), and macroinvertebrates (Amphipoda and Syncarida) using laboratory microcosms. We first tested the ability of each taxon to use (move into) clay (< 0.06 mm), sand (0.3–0.7 mm) and gravel sediments (2–4 mm). Subsequently, the preference for each sediment was compared by examining the distribution of animals in microcosms containing two different sediment types. Both the harpacticoids and cyclopoids were able to use clay, whereas larger amphipods and syncarids mostly remained on the sediment surface. All taxa were able to use sand and gravel substrates. Amphipods preferred gravel over sand and clay. Both copepods and syncarids preferred sand and gravel over clay, but showed no preference between gravel and sand. This study demonstrates the general inability of some stygobiotic macroinvertebrates to use clay sediments and overall differences in sediment use among stygobiotic meio- and macrofauna. From these findings, the typically heterogenous distributions and diversity of stygofauna observed in field studies may be related to variability in sediment composition.

Keywords

Stygofauna Habitat preference Groundwater ecology Aquifer 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was funded by the Cotton Research and Development Corporation project MQ1501 and Australian Research Council project LP130100508. We are grateful for the thoughtful and constructive comments provided by three anonymous reviewers.

Supplementary material

27_2019_636_MOESM1_ESM.docx (14 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 13 kb)

References

  1. Asmyhr MG (2013) Biodiversity assessment and conservation of groundwater ecosystems. PhD Thesis. Macquarie University, Sydney, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  2. Asmyhr MG, Hose G, Graham P, Stow AJ (2014) Fine-scale genetics of subterranean syncarids. Freshwat Biol 59:1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Belanger J (2013) Appendage diversity and modes of locomotion: walking. In: Watling L, Theil M (eds) The natural history of crustacea; functional morphology and diversity. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 262–275Google Scholar
  4. Bork J, Berkhoff SE, Bork S, Hahn HJ (2008) Using subsurface metazoan fauna to indicate groundwater–surface water interactions in the Nakdong River floodplain, South Korea. Hydrogeol J 17:61–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boulton A, Humphreys W, Eberhard S (2003) Imperilled subsurface waters in Australia: biodiversity, threatening processes and conservation. Aquat Ecosyst Health Manag 6:41–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brown A, Trueman E (1996) Burrowing behaviour and cost in the sandy-beach oniscid isopod Tylos granulatus Krauss, 1843. Crustaceana 69:425–437CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Che J, Dorgan KM (2010) It’s tough to be small: dependence of burrowing kinematics on body size. J Exp Biol 213:1241–1250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Datry T, Malard F, Gibert J (2005) Response of invertebrate assemblages to increased groundwater recharge rates in a phreatic aquifer. J Nth Am Benthol Soc 24:461–477CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Descloux S, Datry T, Marmonier P (2013) Benthic and hyporheic invertebrate assemblages along a gradient of increasing streambed colmation by fine sediment. Aquat Sci 75:493–507.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00027-013-0295-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Descloux S, Datry T, Usseglio-Polatera P (2014) Trait-based structure of invertebrates along a gradient of sediment colmation: benthos versus hyporheos responses. Sci Total Environ 466–467:265–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Di Marzio W, Castaldo D, Pantani C, Di Cioccio A, Di Lorenzo T, Sáenz M, Galassi D (2009) Relative sensitivity of hyporheic copepods to chemicals. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 82:488–491CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dole-Olivier MJ, Galassi D, Marmonier P, Creuzé Des Châtelliers M (2000) The biology and ecology of lotic microcrustaceans. Freshwat Biol 44:63–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dorgan KM (2015) The biomechanics of burrowing and boring. J Exp Biol 218:176–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dorgan KM, Jumars PA, Johnson B, Boudreau B, Landis E (2005) Burrowing mechanics: burrow extension by crack propagation. Nature 433:475CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dorgan K, Jumars PA, Johnson B, Boudreau B (2006) Macrofaunal burrowing: the medium is the message. Oceanogr Mar Biol Ann Rev 48:85–121Google Scholar
  16. Extence CA (1981) The effect of drought on benthic invertebrate communities in a lowland river. Hydrobiologia 83:217–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fattorini S, Borges PAV, Fiasca B, Galassi DMP (2016) Trapped in the web of water: groundwater-fed springs are island-like ecosystems for the meiofauna. Ecol Evol 6:8389–8401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Faulkes Z (2013) Morphological adaptations for digging and burrowing. In: Watling L, Theil M (eds) The natural history of crustacea; functional morphology and diversity. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 276–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fetter CW (2001) Applied hydrogeology. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle RiverGoogle Scholar
  20. Fiasca B, Stoch F, Olivier MJ, Maazouzi C, Petitta M, Di Cioccio A, Galassi DMP (2014) The dark side of springs: what drives small-scale spatial patterns of subsurface meiofaunal assemblages? J Limnol 73:71–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Galassi DM, Huys R, Reid JW (2009) Diversity, ecology and evolution of groundwater copepods. Freshwat Biol 54:691–708CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gibert J, Deharveng L (2002) Subterranean ecosystems: a truncated functional biodiversity. Bioscience 52:473–481CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Glanville K, Schulz C, Tomlinson M, Butler D (2016) Biodiversity and biogeography of groundwater invertebrates in Queensland, Australia. Subterr Biol 17:55–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hahn HJ (2005) Unbaited phreatic traps: a new method of sampling stygofauna. Limnologica 35:248–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hahn HJ (2006) The GW-Fauna-Index: a first approach to a quantitative ecological assessment of groundwater habitats. Limnologica 36:119–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hahn HJ, Matzke D (2005) A comparison of stygofauna communities inside and outside groundwater bores. Limnologica 35:31–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hancock PJ, Boulton AJ (2008) Stygofauna biodiversity and endemism in four alluvial aquifers in eastern Australia. Invert Syst 22:117–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hervant F, Mathieu J, Barre H, Simon K, Pinon C (1997) Comparative study on the behavioral, ventilatory, and respiratory responses of hypogean and epigean crustaceans to long-term starvation and subsequent feeding. Comp Biochem Physiol A Physiol 118:1277–1283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hervant F, Mathieu J, Messana G (1998) Oxygen consumption and ventilation in declining oxygen tension and posthypoxic recovery in epigean and hypogean crustaceans. J Crustac Biol 18:717–727CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hose GC, Stumpp C (2019) Architects of the underworld: bioturbation by groundwater invertebrates influences aquifer hydraulic properties. Aquat Sci 81:20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hose GC, Jones P, Lim RP (2005) Hyporheic macroinvertebrates in riffle and pool areas of temporary streams in south-eastern Australia. Hydrobiologia 532:81–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hose GC, Asmyhr MG, Cooper SJB, Humphreys WF (2015a) Down under down under: austral groundwater life. In: Stow A, Maclean N, Holwell GI (eds) Austral ark. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 512–536Google Scholar
  33. Hose GC, Sreekanth J, Barron O, Pollino C (2015) Stygofauna in Australian Groundwater Systems: Extent of knowledge. In: Report to Australian Coal Association Research Program. Macquarie University and CSIROGoogle Scholar
  34. Hose GC, Symington K, Lott MJ, Lategan MJ (2016) The toxicity of arsenic (III), chromium (VI) and zinc to groundwater copepods. Environ Sci Pollut Res 23:18704–18713CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hose GC, Fryirs KA, Bailey J, Ashby N, White T, Stumpp C (2017) Different depths, different fauna: habitat influences on the distribution of groundwater invertebrates. Hydrobiologia 797:145–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Humphreys WF (2006) Aquifers: the ultimate groundwater-dependent ecosystems. Aust J Bot 54:115–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Johns T, Jones JI, Knight L, Maurice L, Wood P, Robertson A (2015) Regional-scale drivers of groundwater faunal distributions. Freshwat Sci 34:316–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Korbel KL, Hose GC (2015) Habitat, water quality, seasonality, or site? Identifying environmental correlates of the distribution of groundwater biota. Freshwat Sci 34:329–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Korbel KL, Hose GC (2017) The weighted groundwater health index: improving the monitoring and management of groundwater resources. Ecol Ind 75:164–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Korbel KL, Hancock PJ, Serov P, Lim RP, Hose GC (2013a) Groundwater ecosystems vary with land use across a mixed agricultural landscape. J Environ Qual 42:380–390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Korbel KL, Lim RP, Hose GC (2013b) An inter-catchment comparison of groundwater biota in the cotton-growing region of north-western New South Wales. Crop Pasture Sci 64:1195–1208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Korbel K, Chariton A, Stephenson S, Greenfield P, Hose GC (2017) Wells provide a distorted view of life in the aquifer: implications for sampling, monitoring and assessment of groundwater ecosystems. Sci Rep 7:40702CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Mathers KL, Millett J, Robertson AL, Stubbington R, Wood PJ (2014) Faunal response to benthic and hyporheic sedimentation varies with direction of vertical hydrological exchange. Freshwat Biol 59:2278–2289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Mathers KL, Hill MJ, Wood PJ (2017) Benthic and hyporheic macroinvertebrate distribution within the heads and tails of riffles during baseflow conditions. Hydrobiologia 794:17–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Mermillod-Blondin F, Winiarski T, Foulquier A, Perrissin A, Marmonier P (2015) Links between sediment structures and ecological processes in the hyporheic zone: ground-penetrating radar as a non-invasive tool to detect subsurface biologically active zones. Ecohydrology 8:626–641CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Rau GC, Halloran LJ, Cuthber MO, Andersen MS, Acworth RI, Tellam JH (2017) Characterising the dynamics of surface water–groundwater interactions in intermittent and ephemeral streams using streambed thermal signatures. Adv Water Res 107:354–369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Schmidt SI, Hellweg J, Hahn HJ, Hatton TJ, Humphreys WF (2007) Does groundwater influence the sediment fauna beneath a small, sandy stream? Limnologica 37:208–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Sket B (2008) Can we agree on an ecological classification of subterranean animals? J Nat Hist 42:1549–1566CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Sorensen JPR, Maurice L, Edwards FK, Lapworth DJ, Read DS, Allen D, Butcher AS, Newbold LK, Townsend BR, Williams PJ (2013) Using boreholes as windows into groundwater ecosystems. PLoS One 8:e70264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Stakman W (1966) The relation between particle size, pore size and hydraulic conductivity of sand separates. In: Proceedings of the Wageningen Symposium. Water in the unsaturated zone. International Association of Scientific Hydrology, The Netherlands, pp 373–384Google Scholar
  51. Stanford JA, Ward J (1993) An ecosystem perspective of alluvial rivers: connectivity and the hyporheic corridor. J N Am Benthol Soc 12:48–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Stoch F, Artheau M, Brancelj A, Galassi DM, Malard F (2009) Biodiversity indicators in European ground waters: towards a predictive model of stygobiotic species richness. Freshwat Biol 4:745–755CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Stubbington R, Greenwood AM, Wood PJ, Armitage PD, Gunn J, Robertson AL (2009) The response of perennial and temporary headwater stream invertebrate communities to hydrological extremes. Hydrobiologia 630:299–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Stubbington R, Wood PJ, Reid I, Gunn J (2011) Benthic and hyporheic invertebrate community responses to seasonal flow recession in a groundwater-dominated stream. Ecohydrology 4:500–511CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Stubbington R, Boulton AJ, Little S, Wood PJ (2015) Changes in invertebrate assemblage composition in benthic and hyporheic zones during a severe supraseasonal drought. Freshwat Sci 34:344–354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Stumpp C, Hose GC (2013) The impact of water table drawdown and drying on subterranean aquatic fauna in in vitro experiments. PLoS One 8:e78502CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Stumpp C, Hose GC (2017) Groundwater amphipods alter aquifer sediment structure. Hydrolog Proc 31:3452–3454CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Tomlinson M (2008) A framework for determining environmental water requirements for alluvial aquifer ecosystems. PhD Thesis. University of New England, Armidale, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  59. Vadher AN, Stubbington R, Wood PJ (2015) Fine sediment reduces vertical migrations of Gammarus pulex (Crustacea: Amphipoda) in response to surface water loss. Hydrobiologia 753:61–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Vadher AN, Leigh C, Millett J, Stubbington R, Wood PJ (2017) Vertical movements through subsurface stream sediments by benthic macroinvertebrates during experimental drying are influenced by sediment characteristics and species traits. Freshwat Biol 62:1730–1740CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Vander Vorste R, Malard F, Datry T (2016) Is drift the primary process promoting the resilience of river invertebrate communities? A manipulative field experiment in an intermittent alluvial river. Freshwat Biol 61:1276–1292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Viola SM, Hubbard DM, Dugan JE, Schooler NK (2014) Burrowing inhibition by fine textured beach fill: implications for recovery of beach ecosystems. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci 150:142–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Wentworth CK (1922) A scale of grade and class terms for clastic sediments. J Geol 30:377–392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. White T (2018) The effect of drawdown on the movement of groundwater invertebrates. In: Unpublished Maters thesis. Macquarie University, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  65. Wood P, Armitage PD (1997) Biological effects of fine sediment in the lotic environment. Environ Manag 21:203–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Biological SciencesMacquarie UniversitySydneyAustralia
  2. 2.CSIRO, Oceans and Atmosphere DivisionSydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations