Advertisement

Urban Ecosystems

, Volume 22, Issue 6, pp 1173–1186 | Cite as

Effects of variations in water quantity and quality in the structure and functions of invertebrates’ community of a Mediterranean urban stream

  • Sónia R. Q. SerraEmail author
  • Ana Raquel Calapez
  • Nuno Eduardo Simões
  • José A. A. Sá Marques
  • Maria Laranjo
  • Maria João Feio
Article
  • 87 Downloads

Abstract

Urban streams provide important ecosystem services to cities’ population, from the maintenance of urban biodiversity, temperature, humidity and air quality to improving aesthetics and provision of natural areas for recreation. However, these streams are under multiple-stressors, including artificialization of the channel and flow, poor water quality and cut of riparian vegetation which puts in risk their ecological integrity and consequently their services. In this study, we aimed to understand variations in macroinvertebrate communities and in biological condition as a response to flow and water quality, by following a Mediterranean urban stream over 8 months (December–July). With a monthly periodicity, we sampled invertebrate communities and characterized in situ water physicochemical parameters. The urban stream studied showed a high variation of environmental factors over time. Invertebrate communities were generally poor, with some Ephemeroptera (Baetis sp.) but was dominated by Chironomidae and Oligochaeta that changed over time alongside with environmental conditions. Biological quality based on the Portuguese Invertebrates Index (IPtIS) varied between poor and bad. Multivariate community patterns (at genus level) showed variations in communities over time, as well as in their biological trait patterns (invertebrates’ maximal size, reproduction mode, resistance form, feeding habits and locomotion mode). Periods displaying worse biological quality, less diverse communities and lower functional richness corresponded to peaks of discharge, higher conductivity and hardness while the best quality communities were found under lower nitrate concentrations. Our study points out that the detection of impacts or recovery in urban streams through invertebrate communities might require at least the use of genus level as family level does not detect smoother changes. Communities reflect the complex interplay of environmental variables affecting structural and functional natural patterns and ultimately the biological condition of this urban stream. Rehabilitation measures should carefully consider this complex interplay of variables to enhance quality and ecosystem services.

Keywords

Urbanization Multiple stressors Stream flow Contamination Biological quality Traits 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors are thankful to the Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (FCT, Portugal) for financial support through: the strategic project UID/MAR/04292/2013 granted to MARE; and the grant from FLUVIO PhD programme (PD\BD\52510\2014) attributed to Ana Raquel Calapez.

Supplementary material

11252_2019_892_MOESM1_ESM.docx (24 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 23 kb)

References

  1. Alba-Tercedor J, Sánchez-Ortega A (1988) Un método rápido y simple para evaluar la calidad biológica de las águas corriente basado en el de Hellawell (1978). Limnetica 4:51–56Google Scholar
  2. Alberts JM, Fritz KM, Buffam I (2018) Response to basal resources by stream macroinvertebrates is shaped by watershed urbanization, riparian canopy cover, and season. Freshwater Science. 37:640–652PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Álvarez-Cabria M, Barquím J, Juanes JA (2010) Spatial and seasonal variability of macroinvertebrate metrics: Do macroinvertebrate communities track river health? Ecol Ind. 10:370–379Google Scholar
  4. AMIIB@ (n.d.) Application for the computation of biological metrics and national indexes based on Stream Macroinvertebrate Communities, made available at: https://www.apambiente.pt/dqa/amiib@.html Accessed 20 July 2018
  5. Andersen T, Cranston PS, Epler JH (eds.) (2013) Chironomidae of the Holartic Region. Keys and diagnoses, Larvae. Insect Systematics and Evolution, Supplement 66. LundGoogle Scholar
  6. Barnum TR, Wller DE, Williams M (2017) Urbanization reduces and homogenizes trait diversity in stream macroinvertebrate communities. Ecol Indic. 27:2428–2442Google Scholar
  7. Benke AC (2001) Importance of flood regime to invertebrate habitat in an unregulated river-floodplain ecosystem. J N Am Benthol Soc. 20:225–240Google Scholar
  8. Bennett EM, Peterson GD, Gordon LJ (2009) Understanding relationships among multiple ecosystem services. Ecol Lett. 12:1394–1404PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Booth DB, Henshaw PC (2001) Rates of channel erosion in small urban streams. In: Wigmosta M, Burges S (eds) Land use and Watersheds Human influence on Hydrology and Geomorphology in urban and forested areas. Water Science and Application, American Geophysical Union Monograph series. 2:17–38Google Scholar
  10. Booth DB, Roy AR, Smith B, Capps KA (2016) Global perspectives on the urban stream syndrome. Freshw Sci. 35:412–420Google Scholar
  11. Büchi L, Vuilleumier S (2014) Coexistence of specialist and generalist species is shaped by dispersal and environmental factors. Am Nat. 183:612–624PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Calapez AR, Branco P, Santos JM, Ferreira T, Hein T, Brito AG, Feio MJ (2017) Macroinvertebrate short-term responses to flow variation and oxygen depletion: A mesocosm approach. Sci Total Environ. 599–600:1202–1212PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Calapez AR, Serra SRQ, Santos JM, Branco P, Ferreira T, Hein T, Brito AG, Feio MJ (2018) The effect of hypoxia and flow decrease in macroinvertebrate functional responses: A trait-based approach to multiple-stressors in mesocosms. Sci Total Environ. 637–638:647–656PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Calapez AR, Elias CL, Almeida SFP, Brito AG, Feio MJ (2019) Sewage contamination under water scarcity effects on stream biota: biofilm, grazers and their interaction. Environ Sci Pollut R.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-019-05876-7 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Calle-Martínez D, Casas JJ (2006) Chironomid species, stream classification, and water-quality assessment: the case of 2 Iberian Mediterranean mountain regions. J N Am Benthol Soc. 25:465–476Google Scholar
  16. Carew ME, Hoffmann AA (2015) Delineating closely related species with DNA barcodes for routine biological monitoring. Freshwater Biol. 60:1545–1560Google Scholar
  17. Casas JJ, Langton PH (2008) Chironomid species richness of a permanent and a temporary Mediterranean stream: a long-term comparative study. J N Am Benthol Soc. 27:746–759Google Scholar
  18. Čerba D, Mihaljević Z, Vidaković J (2011) Colonisation trends, community and trophic structure of chironomid larvae (Chironomidae: Diptera) in a temporal phytophylous assemblage. Fund Appl Limnol. 179:203–214Google Scholar
  19. Chevenet F, Dolédec S, Chessel D (1994) A fuzzy coding approach for the analysis of long-term ecological data. Freshw Biol. 31:295–309Google Scholar
  20. Clavel J, Julliard R, Devictor V (2011) Worldwide decline of specialist species: toward a global functional homogenization? Front Ecol Environ. 9:222–228Google Scholar
  21. Cooper SD, Lake PS, Sabater S, Melack JM, Sabo JL (2013) The effects of land use changes on streams and rivers in Mediterranean climates. Hydrobiologia 719:383–425Google Scholar
  22. Crain CM, Kroeker K, Halpern BS (2008) Interactions and cumulative impacts of multiple stressors in marine ecosystems. Ecol Lett. 11:1304–1315PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Cranston PS (1982) A key to the larvae of the British Orthocladiinae (Chironomidae). Freshwater Biological Associations Scientific Publication n°45, AmblesideGoogle Scholar
  24. Dodds WK (2006) Eutrophication and trophic state in rivers and streams. Limnol Oceanogr. 51:671–680Google Scholar
  25. EEA (2016) Rivers and lakes in European cities. Past and future challenges. European Environmental Agency Report.:26/2016Google Scholar
  26. Elmqvist T, Setälä H, Handel SN, van der Ploeg S, Aronson J, Blignaut JN, Gómez-Baggethun E, Nowak DJ, Kronenberg J, de Groot R (2015) Benefits of restoring ecosystem services in urban areas. Curr Opin Env Sust. 14:101–108Google Scholar
  27. Everard M, Moggridge HL (2011) Rediscovering the value of urban rivers. Urban Ecosyst. 15:293–314Google Scholar
  28. Feio MJ, Dolédec S, Graça MAS (2015a) Human disturbance affects the long-term spatial synchrony of freshwater invertebrate communities. Environ Pollut. 196:300–308PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Feio MJ, Ferreira WR, Macedo DR, Eller AP, Alves CBM, França JS, Callisto M (2015b) Defining and testing targets for the recovery of tropical streams based on macroinvertebrate communities and abiotic conditions. River Res Appl. 31:70–84Google Scholar
  30. Ferreira J, Bernardo JM, Alves MH (2008) Exercício de Intercalibração em rios no âmbito da Directiva Quadro da Água. 9° Congresso da Água: desafios de hoje, exigências de amanhã. Associação Portuguesa de Recursos Hídricos. EstorilGoogle Scholar
  31. Gasith A, Resh VH (1999) Streams in mediterranean climate regions: abiotic influences and biotic responses to predictable seasonal events. Annu Rev Ecol Syst. 30:51–81Google Scholar
  32. Gurnell A, Lee M, Souch C (2007) Urban Rivers: Hydrology, Geomorphology, Ecology and Opportunities for Change. Geogr Compass. 1(5):1118–1137Google Scholar
  33. Hawkins CP, Norris RH (2000) Effects of taxonomic resolution and use of subsets of fauna on the performance of RIVPACS-type models. In: Wright JF, Sutcliffe DW, Furse MT (eds) Assessing the biological quality of freshwaters RIVPACS and other techniques, Freshwater Biological Association, Ambleside, pp 217–228Google Scholar
  34. Helms BS, Schoonover JE, Feminella JW (2009) Seasonal variability of landuse impacts on macroinvertebrate assemblages in streams of western Georgia, USA. J N Am Benthol Soc. 28:991–1006Google Scholar
  35. INAG (2008) Manual para a avaliação biológica da qualidade da água em sistemas fluviais segundo a directiva quadro da água. Protocolo de amostragem e análise para os macroinvertebrados bentónicos. Ministério do Ambiente, do Ordenamento do Território e do Desenvolvimento Regional, Instituto da Água, I. P. PortugalGoogle Scholar
  36. IPCC (2012) Managing the risks of extreme events and disasters to advance climate change adaptation. A special report of working groups I and II of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. In: Field CB, Barros V, Stocker TF, Qin D, Dokken DJ, Ebi KL, Mastrandrea MD, Mach KJ, Plattner GK, Allen SK, Tignor M, Midgley PM (eds) . Cambridge University Press, Cambridge and New YorkGoogle Scholar
  37. IPCC AR5 (2014) Fifth Assessment Report. Technical Summary THE.7 Carbon Cycle Perturbation and UncertaintiesGoogle Scholar
  38. Jackson MC, Loewen CJG, Vinebrooke RD, Chimimba CT (2016) Net effects of multiple stressors in freshwater ecosystems: a meta-analysis. Glob Chang Biol. 22:180–189PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Jones EL, Leather SR (2012) Invertebrates in urban areas: A review. Eur. J. Entomol. 109:463–478Google Scholar
  40. Kaushal SS, Likens GE, Jaworski NA, Pace ML, Sides M, Seekell D, Belt KT, Secor DH, Wingate RL (2010) Rising stream and river temperatures in the United States. Front Ecol Environ. 8:461–466Google Scholar
  41. King RS, Richardson CJ (2002) Evaluating subsampling approaches and macroinvertebrate taxonomic resolution for wetland bioassessment. J N Am Benthol Soc. 21:150–171Google Scholar
  42. Konrad CP, Booth DB (2005) Hydrologic Changes in Urban Streams and Their Ecological Significance. Am Fish S S. 47:157–177Google Scholar
  43. Kuzmanovic M, Dolédec S, de Castro-Catalad N, Ginebreda A, Sabater S, Muñoz I, Barceló D (2017) Environmental stressors as a driver of the trait composition of benthic macroinvertebrate assemblages in polluted Iberian rivers. Environ Res. 156:485–493PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Laliberté E, Legendre P (2010) A distance-based framework for measuring functional diversity from multiple traits. Ecology. 91:299–305PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Laliberté E, Legendre P, Shipley B (2014) FD: measuring functional diversity from multiple traits, and other tools for functional ecology. R package version 1:0–12Google Scholar
  46. Larson ER, Magoulick DD, Turner C, Laycock KH (2009) Disturbance and species displacement: different tolerances to stream drying and desiccation in a native and an invasive crayfish. Freshwater Biol. 54:1899–1908Google Scholar
  47. Ledford SH, Lautz LK, Vidon PG, Stella JC (2017) Impact of seasonal changes in stream metabolism on nitrate concentrations in an urban stream. Biogeochemistry. 133:317–331Google Scholar
  48. Lencioni V, Marziali L, Rossaro B (2007) I Ditteri Chironomidi. Morfologia, tassonomia, ecologia, fisiologia e zoogeografia. Quaderni del Museu Tridentino di Scienze Naturali, 1. Museo Tridentino di Scienze Naturali, TrentoGoogle Scholar
  49. Lencioni V, Marziali L, Rossaro B (2012) Chironomids as bioindicators of environmental quality in mountain springs. Freshw Sci. 31:525–541Google Scholar
  50. Lepori F, Palm D, Brannas E, Malmqvist B (2005) Does restoration of structural heterogeneity in streams enhance fish and macroinvertebrate diversity? Ecol Appl. 15:2060–2071Google Scholar
  51. Lepori F, Gaul D, Palm D, Malmqvist B (2006) Food-web responses to restoration of channel heterogeneity in boreal streams. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 63:2478–2486Google Scholar
  52. Louhi P, Mykrä H, Paavola R, Huusko A, Vehanen T, Mäki-Petäys A, Muotka T (2011) Twenty years of stream restoration in Finland: little response by benthic macroinvertebrate communities. Ecol Appl. 21:1950–1961PubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Marques PS, Manna LR, Mazzoni R, El-Sabaawi R (2019) Intraspecific trait variation in urban stream ecosystems: toward understanding the mechanisms shaping urban stream communities. Freshwater Sci. 38:1–11Google Scholar
  54. Marziali L, Rossaro B (2013) Response of chironomid species (Diptera, Chironomidae) to water temperature: effects on species distribution in specific habitats. J Entomol Acarol Res. 45:73–89Google Scholar
  55. Marziali L, Armanini DG, Cazzola M, Erba S, Toppi E, Buffagni A, Rossaro B (2010) Responses of chironomid larvae (Insecta Diptera) to ecological quality in mediterranean river mesohabitats (South Italy). River Res Appl. 26:1036–1051Google Scholar
  56. Mason NWH, Mouillot D, Lee WG, Wilson JB (2005) Functional richness, functional evenness and functional divergence: the primary components of functional diversity. Oikos. 111:112–118Google Scholar
  57. McKinney ML (2006) Urbanization as a major cause of biotic homogenization. Biol Conserv. 127:247–260Google Scholar
  58. Milošević D, Mančev D, Čerba D, Piperac MS, Popović N, Atanacković A, Đuknić J, Simić V, Paunović M (2018) The potential of chironomid larvae-based metrics in the bioassessment of non-wadeable rivers. Sci Total Environ. 616–617:472–479PubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. Mouchet MA, Villéger S, Mason NWH, Mouillot D (2010) Functional diversity measures: an overview of their redundancy and their ability to discriminate community assembly rules. Funct Ecol. 24:867–876Google Scholar
  60. Musolff A, Leschik S, Reinstorf F, Strauch G, Schirmer M (2010) Micropollutant loads in the urban water cycle. Environ Sci Technol 44:4877–4883PubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. Nakano D, Nakamura F (2006) Response of macroinvertebrate communities to river restoration in a channelized segment of the Shibetsu River, Nothern Japan. River Res. Applic. 22:681–689Google Scholar
  62. Ogden FL, Pradhan NR, Downer CW, Zahner JA (2011) Relative importance of impervious area, drainage density, width function, and subsurface storm drainage on flood runoff from an urbanized catchment. Water Resour Res. 47:W12503Google Scholar
  63. 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 (2018) vegan: Community Ecology Package. R package version 2:4–6Google Scholar
  64. Orendt C (2018) Results of 10 years sampling of Chironomidae from German lowland running waters differing in degradation. J Limnol. 77:169–176Google Scholar
  65. Palmer MA, Bernhardt ES, Allan JD, Lake PS, Alexander G, Brooks S, Carr J, Clayton S, Dahm CN, Shah JF, Galat DL, Loss G, Goodwin P, Hart DD, Hassett B, Jenkinson R, Kondolf GM, Lave R, Meyer JL, O’Donnell TK, Pagano L, Sudduth E (2005) Standards for ecologically successful river restoration. J Appl Ecol. 42:208–217Google Scholar
  66. Palmer MA, Menninger HL, Bernhardt E (2010) River restoration, habitat heterogeneity and biodiversity: a failure of theory or practice? Freshwater Biol. 55:205–222Google Scholar
  67. Paul MJ, Meyer JL (2001) Streams in the Urban Landscape. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syste. 32:333–365Google Scholar
  68. Petrovic M, Ginebreda A, Acuña V, Batalla RJ, Elosegi A, Guasch H, de Alda ML, Marcé R, Muñoz I, Navarro-Ortega A (2011) Combined scenarios of chemical and ecological quality under water scarcity in Mediterranean rivers. TrAC Trends Anal Chem 30:1269–1278Google Scholar
  69. Poff NL, Allan JD (1995) Functional organization of stream fish assembleges in relation to hydrological variability. Ecology. 76:606–627Google Scholar
  70. Prat N, Rieradevall M (2014). Guia para el reconocimiento de las larvas de Chironomidae (DIPTERA) de los ríos mediterráneos. Version 1. URL: http://hdl.handle.net/2445/60584 (last accessed June 2019)
  71. Prather CM, Pelini SL, Laws A, Rivest E, Woltz M, Bloch CP, Del Toro I, Ho C-K, Kominoski J, Newbold TAS, Parsons S, Joern A (2013) Invertebrates, ecosystem servivices and climate change. Bio Rev. 88:327–348Google Scholar
  72. Program ADAPT (2015). Climate Change in Portugal ‘Alterações Climáticas em Portugal’. Instituto Português do Mar e da Atmosfera. URL: http://portaldoclima.pt/pt/ (last accessed June 2019)
  73. Pyne MI, Poff NL (2017) Vulnerability of stream community composition and function to projected thermal warming and hydrologic change across ecoregions in the western United States. Glob Change Biol. 23:77–93Google Scholar
  74. R Core Team (2019). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. URL: https://www.R-project.org/
  75. Rabeni CF, Wang N (2001) Bioassessment of streams using macroinvertebrates: are the Chironomidae necessary? Environ Monit Assess. 71:177–185PubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. Raunio J, Heino J, Paasivirta L (2011) Non-biting midges in biodiversity conservation and’environmental assessment: Findings from boreal freshwater ecosystems. Ecol Indic. 11:1057–1064Google Scholar
  77. Rieradevall M, Brooks SJ (2001) An identification guide to subfossil Tanypodinae larvae (Insecta: Diptera: Chironomidae) based on cephalic setation. J Paleolimnol. 25:81–99Google Scholar
  78. Rosa BJFV, Rodrigues LFT, de Oliveira GS, da Gama Alves R (2014) Chironomidae and Oligochaeta for water quality evaluation in an urban river in southeastern Brazil. Environ Monit Assess. 186:7771–7779PubMedGoogle Scholar
  79. Sabater S, Elosegi A, Ludwig R (2019) Defining Multiple Stressor Implications. In: Sabater S, Elosegi A, Ludwig R (eds) Multiple Stressors in River Ecosystems. Status, Impacts and Prospects, pp 1–22Google Scholar
  80. Sánchez-Morales M, Sabater F, Muñoz I (2018) Effects of urban wastewater on hyporheic habitat and invertebrates in Mediterranean streams. Sci Total Environ. 642:937–945PubMedGoogle Scholar
  81. Selvakumar A, O’Connor TP, Struck SD (2010) Role of Stream Restoration on Improving Benthic Macroinvertebrates and In-Stream Water Quality in an Urban Watershed: Case Study. J Environ Eng. 136:127–139Google Scholar
  82. Serra SRQ, Cobo F, Graca MAS, Doledec S, Feio MJ (2016) Synthesising the trait information of European Chironomidae (Insecta: Diptera): Towards a new database. Ecol Indic. 61:282–292Google Scholar
  83. Serra SRQ, Graça MAS, Dolédec S, Feio MJ (2017) Chironomidae traits and life history strategies as indicators of anthropogenic disturbance. Environ Monit Assess. 189:326PubMedGoogle Scholar
  84. Solecki W, Marcotullio PJ (2013) Climate change and urban biodiversity vulnerability. In: Elmqvist T, Fragkias M, Goodness J, Güneralp B, Marcotullio PJ, RI MD, Parnell S, Schewenius M, Sendstad M, Seto KC, Wilkinson C (eds) Urbanization, Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services: Challenges and Opportunities. Springer, Netherlands, pp 485–504Google Scholar
  85. Sundermann A, Antons C, Cron N, Lorenz AW, Hering D, Haase P (2011) Hydromorphological restoration of running waters: effects on benthic invertebrate assemblages. 56:1689–1702Google Scholar
  86. Suren AM, McMurtrie S (2005) Assessing the effectiveness of enhancement activities in urban streams: II. Responses of invertebrate communities. River Res Appl. 21:439–453Google Scholar
  87. Tachet H, Richoux P, Bournaud M, Usseglio-Polatera P (2010) Invertébrés d’eau douce, Nouvelle Edition. Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique Press, ParisGoogle Scholar
  88. Verberk WCEP, van der Velde G, Esselink H (2010) Explaining abundance–occupancy relationships in specialists and generalists: a case study on aquatic macroinvertebrates in standing waters. J Anim Ecol. 79:589–601PubMedGoogle Scholar
  89. Vermonden K, Leuven RSEW, van der Velde G, van Katwijk MM, Roelofs JGM, Hendriks AJ (2009) Urban drainage systems: An undervalued habitat for aquatic macroinvertebrates. Biol Conserv. 142:1105–1115Google Scholar
  90. Vietz GJ, Hawley RJ. (2019) Protecting and Managing Stream Morphology in Urban Catchments Using WSUD. In: Sharma AK, Gardner T, Begbie D (eds) Approaches to Water Sensitive Urban Design Potential, Design, Ecological Health, Urban Greening, Economics, Policies, and Community Perceptions. Chapter 12. pp:249–267Google Scholar
  91. Villéger S, Mason WN, Mouillot D (2008) New multidimensional functional diversity indices for a multifaceted framework in functional ecology. Ecology. 89:2290–2301PubMedGoogle Scholar
  92. Vörösmarty CJ, McIntyre PB, Gessner MO, Dudgeon D, Prusevich A, Green P, Glidden S, Bunn SE, Sullivan CA, Reidy Liermann C, Davies PM (2010) Global threats to human water security and river biodiversity. Nature. 467:555–561PubMedGoogle Scholar
  93. Walsh CJ, Sharpe AK, Breen PF, Sonneman JA (2001) Effects of urbanization on streams of the Melbourne region, Victoria, Australia. I. Benthic macroinvertebrate communities. Freshwater Biol. 46:535–551Google Scholar
  94. Walsh CJ, Roy AH, Feminella JW, Cottingham PD, Groffman PM, Morgan RP II (2005) The urban stream syndrome: current knowledge and the search for a cure. J N Am Benthol Soc. 24:706–723Google Scholar
  95. Wenger SJ, Roy AH, Jackson CR, Bernhardt ES, Carter TL, Filoso S, Gibson CA, Hession WC, Kaushal SS, Mart E, Meyer JL, Palmer MA, Paul MJ, Purcell AH, Ramírez A, Rosemond AD, Schofield KA, Sudduth EB, Walsh CJ (2009) Twenty-six key research questions in urban stream ecology: an assessment of the state of the science. J N Am Benthol Soc. 28:1080–1098Google Scholar
  96. White JC, Hannah DM, House A, Beatson SJV, Martin A, Wood PJ (2017a) Macroinvertebrate responses to flow and stream temperature variability across regulated and non-regulated rivers. Ecohydrology. 10:e1773Google Scholar
  97. White JC, Hill MJ, Bickerton MA, Wood PJ (2017b) Macroinvertebrate Taxonomic and Functional Trait Compositions within Lotic Habitats Affected By River Restoration Practices. Environ Manage. 60:513–525PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  98. Wickham H (2009) ggplot2: Elegant graphics for data analysis. Springer-Verlag, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  99. Wymer DA, Cook SB (2003) Effects of Chironomidae (Diptera) taxonomic resolution on multivariate analyses of aquatic insect communities. J Freshw Ecol. 18:179–186Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.MARE, Marine and Environmental Sciences Centre & Department of Life Sciences, Faculty of Sciences and TechnologyUniversity of CoimbraCoimbraPortugal
  2. 2.LEAF, Linking Landscape, Environment, Agriculture and Food, School of AgricultureUniversity of LisbonLisbonPortugal
  3. 3.INESCC, Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Sciences and TechnologyUniversity of CoimbraCoimbraPortugal

Personalised recommendations