Advertisement

Aquatic Ecology

, Volume 53, Issue 4, pp 607–628 | Cite as

Mesohabitat current velocity effects on Didymosphenia geminata and macroinvertebrates in a SE USA hypolimnetic tailwater

  • Matthew W. GreenEmail author
  • Peter W. BlumIV
  • Stephanie C. Sellers
  • Michael M. Gangloff
  • Luke M. Jacobus
  • Shea R. Tuberty
Article

Abstract

The diatom Didymosphenia geminata is known to alter benthic habitat and macroinvertebrate diversity and community structure. Associations between macroinvertebrate communities and D. geminata biomass in riffle and run mesohabitats were investigated in the South Fork Holston River in Tennessee and Virginia, USA. We found that low current velocity, low turbidity, and high dissolved oxygen (DO) were strong predictors of D. geminata mat presence. Didymosphenia geminata ash-free dry mass was significantly higher in run mesohabitats with low current velocity (CV) than in riffle mesohabitats with higher CV. Macroinvertebrate alpha diversity (Shannon Diversity H’) was only marginally significantly different between riffle and runs, while beta diversity (community composition) was highly significantly different between these mesohabitats. NMDS analyses found that D. geminata was a relatively unimportant predictor of changes in community structure relative to specific conductance, CV, DO, and turbidity. However, effects of D. geminata on macroinvertebrates appear to be very taxon specific with effects on individual taxa potentially masked by tailwater effects on general macroinvertebrate diversity in global analyses. We observed that taxon-specific effects include, but are not limited to, (1) reduction of bryophyte microhabitat utilized by dominant ephemeropterans, trichopterans, amphipods, coleopterans, and some chironomid genera in run mesohabitats from competition with D. geminata for substrate attachment space; and (2) differences in utilization of D. geminata mat biomass as a food resource and microhabitat for chironomids. Our insights into taxon-specific effects of D. geminata on macroinvertebrates open up multiple avenues for experimentation in which to validate our observational findings.

Keywords

Didymo Aquatic bryophytes Dolomitic rivers CV South Fork Holston River Upper Tennessee River Valley Nuisance algae 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank Frank Smith of Hunter Banks Fly Fishing Company (Grant Nos. #A14-0089-001, #A14-0147-001), Sigma Xi, The International Federation of Fly Fishers (Grant No. #A14-0148-001), The Edgemont Club, LLC. (Grant No. #A15-0094-001), Indiana University Purdue University Columbus, and the Office of Student Research at Appalachian State University for funding various aspects of this project. Megan Maloney assisted with the creation of study site maps; Carmen Blubaugh and Kyle Brumm provided statistical assistance; and Michael Hambourger provided technical assistance in the determination of water nutrient levels. Microscopic examination of algae was performed at the Dewel Microscopy Facility at Appalachian State University. We also thank the following private landowners who kindly granted access to our study sites in the tailwater section: Joe Wilkinson, Kenneth Lasley, Ed Redman, and Victoria Mottern.

Supplementary material

10452_2019_9712_MOESM1_ESM.docx (50 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 51 kb)

References

  1. Arbizu PM (2019) pairwiseAdonis: pairwise multilevel comparison using adonis. R package version 0.3Google Scholar
  2. Barton K (2014) MuMIn: multi-model inference. R Package Version 1.10.0Google Scholar
  3. Bednarek AT, Hart DD (2005) Modifying dam operations to restore rivers: ecological response to Tennessee River Dam mitigation. Ecol Appl 15:997–1008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bergey EA, Cooper JT, Phillips BC (2010) Substrate characteristics affect colonization by the bloom-forming diatom Didymosphenia geminata. Aquat Ecol 44:33–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blinn DW, Cole GA (1991) Algae and in vertebrate biota in the Colorado River: comparison of pre- and post-dam conditions. In: Marzolf GR (ed) Colorado River ecology and dam management. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C, pp 85–104Google Scholar
  6. Bothwell ML, Taylor BW (2017) Blooms of benthic diatoms in phosphorus-poor streams. Front Ecol Environ 15:110–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bothwell ML, Lynch DR, Wright H, Deniseger J (2009) On the boots of fishermen: the history of didymo mats on Vancouver Island, British Columbia. Fisheries 34:382–388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bray J, Harding JS, Kilroy C, Broady P, Gerbeaux P (2016) Physicochemical predictors of the invasive diatom Didymosphenia geminata at multiple spatial scales in New Zealand rivers. Aquat Ecol 50:1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bunn SE, Arthington AH (2002) Basic principles and ecological consequences of altered flow regimes for aquatic biodiversity. Environ Manage 30:492–507PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Burnham KP, Anderson DR (2004) Multimodel inference. Sociol Methods Res 33:261–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chapin JW (1978) Systematics of nearctic Micrasema (Trichoptera: Brachycentridae). Ph.D. dissertation, Clemson UniversityGoogle Scholar
  12. Cullis J, Gillis C, Bothwell ML Bothwell, Kilroy C (2012) A conceptual model for the bloom forming behavior and persistence of the benthic mat-forming diatom Didymosphenia geminata in oligotrophic streams. J Geophys Res 117:1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cullis J, Crimaldi J, McKnight M (2013) Hydrodynamic shear removal of the nuisance stalk-forming diatom Didymosphenia geminata. Limnol Oceanogr Fluids Environ 3:256–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Davis HC (1990) Soil survey of Sullivan County, Tennessee. United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, pp 1–133Google Scholar
  15. Everitt D, Burkholder JM (1991) Seasonal dynamics of macrophyte communities from a stream flowing over granite flatrock in North Carolina, USA. Hydrobiologia 222:159–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gillis C, Chalifour M (2010) Changes in the macrobenthic community structure following the introduction of the invasive algae Didymosphenia geminata in the Matapedia River (Quebec, Canada). Hydrobiologia 647:63–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gillis C, Dugdale S, Bergeron NE (2017) Effect of discharge and habitat type on the occurrence and severity of Didymosphenia geminta mats in the Restigouche River, eastern Canada. Ecohydrology 11:e1959CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Glime JM, Clemons RM (1972) Species diversity of stream insects on Fontinalis spp. compared to diversity on artificial substrates. Ecology 53:458–464CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Habera JW, Bivens RD, Carter BD (2009) Management plan for the South Holston Tailwater trout Fishery 2009–2014. Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency, NashvilleGoogle Scholar
  20. Hix LA, Murdock JN (2018) Didymosphenia geminata habitat requirements are unique and variable for cell establishment and mat accumulation. Hydrobiologia 828:147–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hynes HBN (1971) Benthos of flowing water. In: Edmondson WT, Winberg GC (eds) A manual on methods for the assessment of secondary productivity in fresh waters. IBP Handbook No. 17. Oxford, Blackwell, p 588Google Scholar
  22. Jackson LJ, Corbett L, Scrimgeour G (2016) Environmental constraints on Didymosphenia geminata occurrence and bloom formation in Canadian Rocky Mountain lotic systems. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 73:964–972CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. James DA, Ranney SH, Chipps SR, Spindler BD (2010) Invertebrate composition and abundance associated with Didymosphenia geminata in a montane stream. J Freshw Ecol 25:235–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. James DA, Mosel K, Chipps SR (2014) The influence of light, stream gradient, and iron on Didymosphenia geminata bloom development in the Black Hills, South Dakota. Hydrobiologia 721:117–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. James DA, Bothwell ML, Chipps SR, Carreiro J (2015) Use of phosphorus to reduce mats of the benthic diatom Didymosphenia geminata in an oligotrophic stream. Freshw Sci 34:1272–1281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Jones JI, Murphy JF, Collins AL, Sear DA, Naden PS, Armitage PD (2012) The impact of fine sediment on macroinvertebrates. River Res Appl 28:1055–1071CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kawecka B, Sanecki J (2003) Didymosphenia geminata in running waters of southern Poland—symptoms of change in water quality? Hydrobiologia 495:193–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Keller SR, Hilderbrand RH, Shank MK, Potapova M (2017) Environmental DNA genetic monitoring of the nuisance freshwater diatom, Didymosphenia geminiata, in eastern North American streams. Divers Distrib 23:381–393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kilroy C, Bothwell M (2011) Environmental control of stalk length in the bloom-forming, freshwater benthic diatom Didymosphenia geminata (Bacillariophyceae). J Phycol 47:981–989PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kilroy C, Bothwell ML (2012) Didymosphenia geminata growth rates and bloom formation in relation to ambient dissolved phosphorus concentration. Freshw Biol 57:641–653CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kilroy C, Larned S (2016) Contrasting effects of low-level phosphorus and nitrogen enrichment on growth of the mat-forming alga Didymosphenia geminata in an oligotrophic river. Freshw Biol 61:1550–1567CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kilroy C, Larned ST, Biggs BJF (2009) The non-indigenous diatom Didymosphenia geminata alter benthic communities in New Zealand rivers. Freshw Biol 24:1990–2002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kirkwood AE, Shea T, Jackson LJ, McCauley E (2007) Didymosphenia geminata in two Alberta headwater rivers: an emerging invasive species that challenges conventional view on algal bloom development. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 64:1703–1709CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kirkwood AE, Jackson LJ, McCauley E (2009) Are dams hotspots for Didymosphenia geminata mats? Freshw Biol 54:1856–1863CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kumar S, Spaulding SA, Stohlgren TJ, Hermann KA, Schmidt TS, Bahls LL (2009) Potential habitat distribution for the freshwater diatom Didymosphenia geminata in the continental US. Front Ecol Environ 7:415–420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kunza LA, Gillis C, Haueter JZ, Murdock JN, O’Brien JM (2018) Declining phosphorus as a potential driver for the onset of Didymosphenia geminata mats in North American rivers. River Res Appl 34:1105–1110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Ladrera R, Rieradevall M, Prat N (2015) Massive growth of the invasive algae Didymosphenia geminata Associated with discharges from a mountain reservoir alters the taxonomic and functional structure of macroinvertebrate community. River Res Appl 31:216–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Ladrera R, Goma J, Prat N (2018) Effects of Didymosphenia geminata massive growth on stream communities: smaller organisms and simplified food web structure. PLoS ONE 13:e0193545PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Larned ST, Packman AI, Plew DR (2011) Interactions between the mat-forming alga Didymosphenia geminata and its hydrodynamic environment. Limnol Oceanogr Fluids Environ 1:4–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Larson AM (2007) Interim Report: Effects of the nuisance mats Didymosphenia geminata on benthic community composition in Rapid Creek. South Dakota Department of the Environment and Natural Resources, Pierre, pp 1–30Google Scholar
  41. Lefcheck JS (2016) piecewiseSEM: piecewise structural equation modeling in R for ecology, evolution, and systematics. Methods Ecol Evol 7:573–579CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lessard J, Hicks DM, Snelder TH, Arscott DB, Larned ST, Booker D, Suren AM (2013) Dam design can impede adaptive management of environmental flows: a case study from the Opuha Dam, New Zealand. Environ Manag 51:459–473CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. McLaughlin A (2009) Investigating the growth of Didymosphenia geminata and the impact on benthic macroinvertebrate communities in Boulder creek, a regulated mountain stream, in the summer of 2008. Thesis, University of Colorado, Master of Science Department of Environmental StudiesGoogle Scholar
  44. Merritt RW, Cummins KW, Berg MB (2008) An introduction to the aquatic insects of North America. Kendall and Hunt Publishing Company, DubuqueGoogle Scholar
  45. Miller MP, McKnight DM, Cullis JD, Greene A, Vietti K, Liptzin D (2009) Factors controlling streambed coverage of Didymosphenia geminata in two regulated streams in the Colorado Front Range. Hydrobiologia 630:207–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Murphy J, Riley J (1962) A modified single solution method for the determination of phosphate in natural waters. Anal Chim Acta 27:31–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Oder CRL (1934) Preliminary subdivision of the Knox Dolomite in East Tennessee. J Geol 42:469–497CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Oksanen J, Guillaume Blanchet F, Friendly M, Kindt R, Legendre P, McGlinn D, Minchin PR, O’Hara RB, Simpson GL, Solymos P, Stevens MH, Szoecs E, Wagner H (2015) vegan: community ecology package. R package version 3.5.1Google Scholar
  49. Pinheiro J, Bates, D, DebRoy, S, Sarkar D (2014) Nlme: linear and nonlinear mixed effects models. R Package Version 3.1-117Google Scholar
  50. R Core Team (2018) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. http://www.R-project.org/. Accessed 7 June 2019
  51. Rantz SE et al (1982) Measurement and computation of streamflow vol 1: measurement of stage and discharge. U. S. Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 2175, p 284Google Scholar
  52. Reid B, Torres R (2014) Didymosphenia geminata invasion in South America: ecosystem impacts and potential biogeochemical state change in Patagonian rivers. Acta Oecol 54:101–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Richardson DC, Oleksy IA, Hoellein TJ, Arscott DB, Gibson CA, Root SM (2014) Habitat characteristics, temporal variability, and macroinvertebrate communities associated with a mat-forming nuisance diatom (Didymosphenia geminata) in Catskill mountain streams, New York. Aquat Sci 76:553–564CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Sanmiguel A, Blanco S, Alvarez-Blanco I, Cejudo-Figueiras C, Escudero A, Perez ME, Noyon G, Becares E (2016) Recovery of the algae and macroinvertebrate benthic community after Didymosphenia geminata mass growths in Spanish rivers. Biol Invasions 18:1467–1484CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Segura C, McCutchan JH, Lewis WM, Pitlick J (2010) The influence of channel bed disturbance on algal biomass in a Colorado mountain stream. Ecohydrology 4:411–421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Smayda TJ (1978) From phytoplankton to biomass. In: Sournia A (ed) Phytoplankton manual. Monographs on Oceanographic Methodology 6, UNESCO, Paris, pp 273–279Google Scholar
  57. Spaulding SA, Elwell L (2007) Increase in nuisance mats and geographic expansion of the freshwater diatom Didymosphenia geminata. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2007-1425, p 38Google Scholar
  58. Stainton MJ, Capel MJ, Armstrong FAJ (1974) The chemical analysis of freshwater. Environment Canada. Fisheries and Marine Service, Miscellaneous Special Publication No. 25, pp 67–69Google Scholar
  59. Steinman AD, Lamberti GA (1996) Biomass and pigments of benthic algae. In: Hauer FR, Lamberti GA (eds) Methods in stream ecology. Academic Press, San Diego, p 297Google Scholar
  60. Taylor BW, Bothwell ML (2014) The origin of invasive microorganisms matters for science, policy, and management: the case of Didymosphenia geminata. Bioscience 64:531–538PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Wellard Kelly HA, Rosi-Marshall EJ, Kennedy TA, Hall RO, Cross WF, Baxter CV (2013) Macroinvertebrate diets reflect tributary inputs and turbidity-driven changes in food availability in the Colorado River downstream of Glen Canyon Dam. Freshw Sci 32:397–410CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Whitton BA, Ellwood NTW, Kawecka B (2009) Biology of the freshwater diatom Didymosphenia: a review. Hydrobiologia 630:1–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Wiggins G (1996) Larvae of the North American Caddisfly Genera (Trichoptera). University of Toronto Press, Toronto, p 472CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Clemson University Arthropod CollectionClemson UniversityClemsonUSA
  2. 2.Department of Forestry and Environmental ConservationClemson UniversityClemsonUSA
  3. 3.School of Environmental StudiesTennessee Technological UniversityCookevilleUSA
  4. 4.Department of BiologyAppalachian State UniversityBooneUSA
  5. 5.Division of ScienceIndiana University Purdue University ColumbusColumbusUSA

Personalised recommendations