Landscape Ecology

, Volume 33, Issue 12, pp 2239–2252 | Cite as

Scale-specific land cover thresholds for conservation of stream invertebrate communities in agricultural landscapes

  • Jeremy P. Grimstead
  • Edward M. Krynak
  • Adam G. Yates
Research Article



In agricultural landscapes, riparian forests are used as a management tool to protect stream ecosystems from agricultural activities. However, the ability of managers to target stream protection actions is limited by incomplete knowledge of scale-specific effects of agriculture in riparian corridor and catchment areas.


We evaluated scale-specific effects of agricultural cover in riparian corridor and catchment areas on stream benthic macroinvertebrate (BMI) communities to develop cover targets for agricultural landscapes.


Sixty-eight streams assigned to three experimental treatments (Forested Riparian, Agricultural Riparian, Agricultural Catchment) were sampled for BMIs. Ordination and segmented regression were used to assess impacts of agriculture on BMI communities and detect thresholds for BMI community metrics.


BMI communities were not associated with catchment agricultural cover where the riparian corridor was forested, but were associated with variation in catchment agriculture where riparian forests had been converted to agriculture. Trait-based metrics showed threshold responses at greater than 70% agricultural cover in the catchment. Increasing agriculture in the riparian corridor was associated with less diverse and more tolerant BMI communities. Eight metrics exhibited threshold responses ranging from 45 to 75% agriculture in the riparian corridor.


Riparian forest effectively buffered streams from agricultural activity even where catchment agriculture exceeds 80%. We recommend managers prioritize protection of forested riparian corridors and that restore riparian corridors where agricultural cover is near identified thresholds be a secondary priority. Adoption of catchment management actions should be effective where the riparian corridor has been converted to agriculture.


Agriculture Benthic macroinvertebrates Catchment Riparian corridor Scale-specific effects Threshold analysis 



We thank R. Holmes for assistance with fieldwork and N. Pearce for statistical advice. R. Bailey and two anonymous reviewers provided comments on earlier versions of the manuscript. Funding was provided by a Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) of Canada Discovery Grant (AGY) and a Canadian Water Network Watershed Consortia Grant (AGY), as well as NSERC Collaborative Research and Training Experience Program (JPG) and Trillium Foundation (EMK) Scholarships.

Supplementary material

10980_2018_738_MOESM1_ESM.docx (299 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 299 kb)


  1. Allan JD (2004a) Influence of land use and landscape setting on the ecological status of rivers. Limnetica 23(3):187–198Google Scholar
  2. Allan JD (2004b) Landscapes and riverscapes: the influence of land use on stream ecosystems. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 35:257–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Andersen T, Carstensen J, Hernandez-Garcia E, Duarte CM (2009) Ecological thresholds and regime shifts: approaches to identification. Trends Ecol Evol 24(1):49–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barbour MT, Gerritsen J, Snyder BD, Stribling JB (1999) Rapid bioassessment protocols for use in streams and wadeable rivers: periphyton, benthic macroinvertebrates and fish, second edition. EPA 841-B-99-002. Office of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  5. Benfield EF (1997) Comparison of litterfall input to streams. J N Am Benthol Soc 16:104–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dodds WK, Clements WH, Gido K, Hilderbrand RH, King RS (2010) Thresholds, breakpoints, and nonlinearity in freshwaters as related to management. J N Am Benthol Soc 29(3):988–997CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dosskey MG, Bertsch PM (1994) Forest sources and pathways of organic matter transport to a blackwater stream: a hydrologic approach. Biogeochemistry 24(1):1–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Environment Canada and Climate Change, ECCC (2016). Accessed 15 Aug 2016
  9. Feld CK (2013) Response of three lotic assemblages to riparian and catchment-scale land use: implications for designing catchment monitoring programmes. Freshw Biol 58:715–729CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Greenwood MJ, Harding JS, Niyogi DK, McIntosh AR (2012) Improving the effectiveness of riparian management for aquatic invertebrates in a degraded agricultural landscape: stream size and land-use legacies. J Appl Ecol 49(1):213–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gregory SV, Swanson FJ, McKee WA, Cummins KW (1991) An ecosystem perspective of riparian zones: focus on links between land and water. Bioscience 41(8):540–551CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Groffman PM, Baron JS, Blett T, Gold AJ, Goodman I, Gunderson LH, Levinson B, Palmer M, Paerl H, Peterson G, Poff N, Rejeski D, Reynolds J, Turner M, Weathers K, Wiens J (2006) Ecological thresholds: the key to successful environmental management or an important concept with no practical application? Ecosystems 9(1):1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gurnell AM, Gregory KJ, Petts GE (1995) The role of coarse woody debris in forest aquatic habitats: implications for management. Aquat Conserv Mar Freshw Ecosyst 5:143–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hilderbrand RH, Utz RM, Stranko SA, Raesly RL (2010) Applying thresholds to forecast potential biodiversity loss from human development. J N Am Benthol Soc 29(3):1009–1016CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Johnson RK, Angeler DG (2014) Effects of agricultural land use on stream assemblages: taxon-specific responses of alpha and beta diversity. Ecol Indic 45:386–393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. King RS, Baker ME (2010) Considerations for analyzing ecological community thresholds in response to anthropogenic environmental gradients. J N Am Benthol Soc 29(3):998–1008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Krynak EM, Yates AG (2018) Benthic invertebrate taxonomic and trait associations with land use in an intensively managed watershed: implications for indicator identification. Ecol Indic 93:1050–1059CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lau K, Lauer TE, Weinman ML (2006) Impacts of channelization on stream habitats and associated fish assemblages in East Central Indiana. Am Midl Nat 156:319–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lenat DR, Resh VH (2001) Taxonomy and stream ecology—the benefits of genus and species-level identifications. J N Am Benthol Soc 20(2):287–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Marshall DW, Fayram AH, Panuska JC, Baumann J, Hennessy J (2008) Positive effects of agricultural land use changes on coldwater fish communities in southwest Wisconsin streams. N Am J Fish Manag 28(3):944–953CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Marzin A, Verdonschot PFM, Pont D (2013) The relative influence of catchment, riparian corridor and reach-scale anthropogenic pressures on fish and macroinvertebrate assemblages in French rivers. Hydrobiologia 704(1):375–388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Moore R, Spittlehouse DL, Story A (2005) Riparian microclimate and stream temperature response to forest harvesting: a review. J Am Water Resour Assoc 41(4):813–834CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mulholland PJ (1992) Regulation of nutrient concentrations in a temperate forest stream: roles of upland, riparian, and instream processes. Limnol Oceanogr 37(7):1512–1526CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Naiman RJ, Decamps H (1997) The ecology of interfaces: riparian zones. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 28(102):621–658CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Naiman RJ, Decamps H, Pollock M (1993) The role of riparian corridors in maintaining regional biodiversity. Ecol Appl 3(2):209–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Oksanen J, Blanchet FG, Friendly M, Kindt R, Legendre P, McGlinn D, Minchin PR, O’Hara RB, Simpson GL, Solymos P, Henry M, Stevens H, Szoecs E, Wagner H (2017) vegan: community ecology package. R package version 2.4-2.
  27. Oosterbaan RJ (2017) SegReg Segmented linear regression with breakpoint and confidence intervals (software). Accessed 19 March 2017
  28. Osborne LL, Kovacic DA (1993) Riparian vegetation buffer strips in water-quality restoration and stream management. Freshw Biol 29(2):243–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Peterson EE, Sheldon F, Darnell R, Bunn SE, Harch BD (2011) A comparison of spatially explicit landscape representation methods and their relationship to stream condition. Freshw Biol 56(3):590–610CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. R Core Team (2016) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna.
  31. Reynoldson TB, Logan C, Pascoe T, Thompson SP, Strachan S, Mackinlay C, McDermott H, Paull T (2012) Canadian Aquatic Biomonitoring Network field manual wadeable streams 2012. Freshwater Quality Monitoring and Surveillance—Atlantic. Environment Canada, DartmouthGoogle Scholar
  32. Sweeney BW, Newbold JD (2014) Streamside forest buffer width needed to protect stream water quality, habitat, and organisms: a literature review. J Am Water Resour Assoc 50(3):560–584CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. SYSTAT (2015) SYSTAT 13.1. SYSTAT, San JoseGoogle Scholar
  34. Toms JD, Villard M (2015) Threshold detection: matching statistical methodology to ecological questions and conservation planning objectives. Avian Conserv Ecol 10(1):1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Utz RM, Hilderbrand RH, Boward DM (2009) Identifying regional differences in threshold responses of aquatic invertebrates to land cover gradients. Ecol Indic 9(3):556–567CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Van Sickle J, Johnson CB (2008) Parametric distance weighting of landscape influence on streams. Landscape Ecol 23(4):427–438CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Vidon P, Allan C, Burns D, Duval TP, Gurwick N, Inamdar S, Lowrance R, Okay J, Scott D, Sebestyen S (2010) Hot spots and hot moments in riparian zones: potential for improved water quality management. J Am Water Resour Assoc 46:278–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Virtanen R, Oksanen J, Oksanen L, Razzhivin VY (2006) Broad-scale vegetation–environment relationships in Eurasian high-latitude areas. J Veg Sci 17:519–528CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Vlek HE, Verdonschot PFM, Nijboer RC (2004) Towards a multimetric index for the assessment of Dutch streams using benthic macroinvertebrates. Hydrobiologia 516(1):173–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Wagenhoff A, Townsend CR, Matthaei CD (2012) Macroinvertebrate responses along broad stressor gradients of deposited fine sediment and dissolved nutrients: a stream mesocosm experiment. J Appl Ecol 49(4):892–902CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Waite I (2014) Agricultural disturbance response models for invertebrate and algal metrics from streams at two spatial scales within the U.S. Hydrobiologia 726(1):285–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Wang L, Lyons J, Kanehl P, Gatti R (1997) Influence of watershed land use on habitat quality and biotic integrity in Wisconsin streams. Fisheries 22(6):7–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Yates AG, Bailey RC (2010) Improving the description of human activities potential affecting rural stream ecosystems. Landscape Ecol 25(3):371–382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Yates AG, Bailey RC, Schwindt JA (2007) Effectiveness of best management practices in improving stream ecosystem quality. Hydrobiologia 583(1):331–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of GeographyWestern University and Canadian Rivers InstituteLondonCanada
  2. 2.Social Science CentreWestern UniversityLondonCanada

Personalised recommendations