Advertisement

Aquatic Sciences

, 80:18 | Cite as

Beta-diversity partitioning and drivers of variations in tropical fish community structure in central India

  • Rohitashva Shukla
  • Anuradha Bhat
Research Article

Abstract

Flow regulations, human activities and drying events have been shown to drive diversity patterns of stream fish communities globally. Along with alpha-diversity distributions across space and time, study of beta-diversity patterns provides a deeper understanding of the mechanisms and processes of overall diversity distributions. It has been shown that water flow conditions can determine the beta-diversity patterns in stream fish communities: in general, perennial habitats are more similar, while intermittent and regulated conditions tend to increase dissimilarities among sites. However, it is not clear whether these patterns result from changes in abundance replacement or from differences in species abundance. Here, we investigated beta-diversity patterns in tropical fish communities of central India and their relation to habitat structural properties and water conditions. We performed our analysis for the overall region (18 sites) and also across three distinct flow conditions (6 sites for each flow regime). We used a partitioning framework to uncover the contribution of abundance replacement and abundance difference to beta-diversity patterns for the overall region and for three flow conditions separately. Our results suggest that at a regional scale all the sites show an equal contribution of replacement and abundance difference components, while seasonal samples were homogeneous. Our results confirmed that intermittent and regulated sites are more heterogeneous than perennial sites. The observed changes in beta-diversity in intermittent and regulated sites were related to both abundance difference and replacement components. Dissimilarities between sites were explained by physicochemical (temperature, pH, dissolved oxygen) parameters but not by habitat structural (stream width, depth) parameters.

Keywords

Community structure Spatio-temporal patterns Perennial flow Intermittent streams Fish diversity 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Durlabh Shukla for field assistance and local fish collectors for help with collections of fish and data on environmental parameters at the study sites. The authors also wish to thank the Indian Institute of Science Education and Research Kolkata (IISER-Kolkata, India) for financial support during this study. RS was supported through Institutional Junior and Senior Research Fellowships provided by IISER Kolkata. We thank Dr. Florian Altermatt for very helpful and constructive suggestions.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors have no conflict of interest to declare.

Ethical approval

No animals were harmed during this study and all individuals were returned to their natural habitats in the field. The study protocol carried out were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institution (Institutional Animal Ethics Committee’s (IAEC)), IISER Kolkata and adhered to the guidelines of the Committee for the Purpose of Control and Supervision of Experiments on Animals (CPCSEA), Government of India.

Supplementary material

27_2018_568_MOESM1_ESM.docx (56 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 55 KB)

References

  1. Alexandre CM, Ferreira TF, Almeida PR (2013) Fish assemblages in non-regulated and regulated rivers from permanent and temporary Iberian systems. River Res Appl 29:1042–1058.  https://doi.org/10.1002/rra.2591 Google Scholar
  2. Alexandre CM, Ferreira MT, Almeida PR (2015) Life history of a cyprinid species in non-regulated and regulated rivers from permanent and temporary Mediterranean basins. Ecohydrology 8:1137–1153.  https://doi.org/10.1002/eco.1572 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Altermatt F (2013) Diversity in riverine metacommunities: a network perspective. Aquat Ecol 47:365–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Altermatt F, Seymour M, Martinez N (2013) River network properties shape α-diversity and community similarity patterns of aquatic insect communities across major drainage basins. J Biogeogr 40:2249–2260.  https://doi.org/10.1111/jbi.12178 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Anderson MJ (2006) Distance-based tests for homogeneity of multivariate dispersions. Biometrics 62:245–253.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0420.2005.00440.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Anderson MJ, Crist TO, Chase JM et al (2011) Navigating the multiple meanings of β diversity: a roadmap for the practicing ecologist. Ecol Lett 14:19–28.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2010.01552.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Astorga A, Oksanen J, Luoto M et al (2012) Distance decay of similarity in freshwater communities: do macro- and microorganisms follow the same rules? Glob Ecol Biogeogr 21:365–375.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1466-8238.2011.00681.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bain MB, Finn JT, Booke HE (1988) Streamflow regulation and fish community structure. Ecology 69:382–392.  https://doi.org/10.2307/1940436 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Balcombe SR, Arthington AH (2009) Temporal changes in fish abundance in response to hydrological variability in a dryland floodplain river. Mar Freshw Res 60:146.  https://doi.org/10.1071/MF08118 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bhat A (2004) Patterns in the distribution of freshwater fishes in rivers of Central Western Ghats, India and their associations with environmental gradients. Hydrobiologia 529:83–97.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-004-4949-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Boschilia SM, de Oliveira EF, Schwarzbold A (2016) Partitioning beta diversity of aquatic macrophyte assemblages in a large subtropical reservoir: prevalence of turnover or nestedness? Aquat Sci 78:615–625.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00027-015-0450-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bunn SE, Arthington AH (2002) Basic principles and ecological consequences of altered flow regimes for aquatic biodiversity. Environ Manage 30:492–507.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-002-2737-0 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Butler MJ, Stein AR (1985) An analysis of the mechanisms governing species replacement in crayfish. Oecologia 66:168–177CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Cañedo-Argüelles M, Boersma KS, Bogan MT et al (2015) Dispersal strength determines meta-community structure in a dendritic riverine network. J Biogeogr 42:778–790.  https://doi.org/10.1111/jbi.12457 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Daniels RJR (2002) Freshwater fishes of peninsular India. University Press, IndiaGoogle Scholar
  16. Datry T, Larned ST, Fritz KM et al (2014a) Broad-scale patterns of invertebrate richness and community composition in temporary rivers: effects of flow intermittence. Ecography 37:94–104.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0587.2013.00287.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Datry T, Larned ST, Tockner K (2014b) Intermittent rivers: a challenge for freshwater ecology. Bioscience 64:229–235.  https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/bit027 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Datry T, Moya N, Zubieta J, Oberdorff T (2016a) Determinants of local and regional communities in intermittent and perennial headwaters of the Bolivian Amazon. Freshw Biol 61:1335–1349.  https://doi.org/10.1111/fwb.12706 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Datry T, Melo AS, Moya N et al (2016b) Metacommunity patterns across three Neotropical catchments with varying environmental harshness. Freshw Biol 61:277–292.  https://doi.org/10.1111/fwb.12702 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Davey AJH, Kelly DJ (2007) Fish community responses to drying disturbances in an intermittent stream: a landscape perspective. Freshw Biol 52:1719–1733.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2427.2007.01800.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Dudgeon D (2008) Tropical streams ecology. Elsevier, USAGoogle Scholar
  22. Dufrêne M, Legendre P (1997) Species assemblages and indicator species: the need for a flexible asymmetrical approach. Ecol Monogr 67:345–366.  https://doi.org/10.2307/2963459 Google Scholar
  23. Fischer S, Kummer H (2000) Effects of residual flow and habitat fragmentation on distribution and movement of bullhead (Cottus gobio L.) in an alpine stream. Hydrobiologia 422/423:305–317.  https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1017083714513 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Freeman MC, Bowen ZH, Bovee KD, Irwin ER (2001) Flow and habitat effects on juvenile fish abundance in natural and altered flow regimes. Ecol Appl 11:179–190. https://doi.org/10.1890/1051-0761(2001)011[0179:FAHEOJ]2.0.CO;2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gehrke PC, Brown P, Schiller CB et al (1995) River regulation and fish communities in the Murray-Darling River system, Australia. Regul Rivers Res Manag 11:363–375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Guégan J-F, Lek S, Oberdorff T (1998) Energy availability and habitat heterogeneity predict global riverine fish diversity. Nature 391:382–384.  https://doi.org/10.1038/34899 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Heino J (2013) The importance of metacommunity ecology for environmental assessment research in the freshwater realm. Biol Rev 88:166–178.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-185X.2012.00244.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Heino J, Melo AS, Bini LM, Altermatt F et al (2015) A comparative analysis reveals weak relationships between ecological factors and beta diversity of stream insect metacommunities at two spatial levels. Ecol Evol 5(6):1235–1248CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. Hill AM, Lodge DM (1994) Diel changes in resource demand: competition and predation in species replacement among Crayfishes. Ecology 75:2118–2126.  https://doi.org/10.2307/1941615 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hoeinghaus DJ, Layman CA, Arrington DA, Winemiller KO (2003) Spatiotemporal variation in fish assemblage structure in tropical floodplain creeks. Environ Biol Fishes 67:379–387.  https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025818721158 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Horwitz RJ (1978) Temporal variability patterns and the distributional patterns of stream fishes. Ecol Monogr 48:307–321.  https://doi.org/10.2307/2937233 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Jackson DA, Peres-Neto PR, Olden JD (2001) What controls who is where in freshwater fish communities; the roles of biotic, abiotic, and spatial factors. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 58:157–170.  https://doi.org/10.1139/f00-239 Google Scholar
  33. Jayaram KC (2012) The freshwater fishes of the indian region, second. Narendra Publishing House, New DelhiGoogle Scholar
  34. Kornis MS, Weidel BC, Powers SM et al (2015) Fish community dynamics following dam removal in a fragmented agricultural stream. Aquat Sci 77:465–480.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00027-014-0391-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kougioumoutzis K, Simaiakis SM, Tiniakou A (2014) Network biogeographical analysis of the central Aegean archipelago. J Biogeogr 41:1848–1858.  https://doi.org/10.1111/jbi.12342 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Labbe TR, Fausch KD (2000) Dynamics of intermittent stream habitat regulate persistence of a threatened fish at multiple scales. Ecol Appl 10:1774–1791. https://doi.org/10.1890/1051-0761(2000)010[1774:DOISHR]2.0.CO;2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lake PS (2003) Ecological effects of perturbation by drought in flowing waters. Freshw Biol 48:1161–1172.  https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2427.2003.01086.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Legendre P (2014) Interpreting the replacement and richness difference components of beta diversity. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 23:1324–1334.  https://doi.org/10.1111/geb.12207 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Legendre P, Legendre L (1998) Numerical ecology, second. Elsevier Science BV, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  40. Leprieur F, Tedesco PA, Hugueny B et al (2011) Partitioning global patterns of freshwater fish beta diversity reveals contrasting signatures of past climate changes. Ecol Lett 14:325–334.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2011.01589.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. MacArthur RH, Wilson EO (1967) The theory of island biogeography. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  42. Magurran AE, Dornelas M, Moyes F et al (2015) Rapid biotic homogenization of marine fish assemblages. Nat Commun 6:8405.  https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms9405 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  43. Marshall JC, Menke N, Crook DA et al (2016) Go with the flow: the movement behaviour of fish from isolated waterhole refugia during connecting flow events in an intermittent dryland river. Freshw Biol 61:1242–1258.  https://doi.org/10.1111/fwb.12707 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Matthews WJ, Marsh-Matthews E (2003) Effects of drought on fish across axes of space, time and ecological complexity. Freshw Biol 48:1232–1253.  https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2427.2003.01087.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Matthews WJ, Hough DJ, Robison HW (1992) Similarities in fish distribution and water quality patterns in streams of Arkansas: congruence of multivariate analyses. Copeia 1992:296.  https://doi.org/10.2307/1446191 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. McClure MM, McIntyre PB, McCune AR (2006) Notes on the natural diet and habitat of eight danionin fishes, including the zebrafish Danio rerio. J Fish Biol 69:553–570.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8649.2006.01125.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Mims MC, Olden JD (2012) Life history theory predicts fish assemblage response to hydrologic regimes. Ecology 93:35–45.  https://doi.org/10.1890/11-0370.1 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Miyazono S, Taylor CM (2013) Effects of habitat size and isolation on species immigration-extinction dynamics and community nestedness in a desert river system. Freshw Biol 58:1303–1312.  https://doi.org/10.1111/fwb.12127 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Muneepeerakul R, Bertuzzo E, Lynch HJ et al (2008) Neutral metacommunity models predict fish diversity patterns in Mississippi-Missouri basin. Nature 453:220–222CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Oksanen J, Blanchet FG, Friendly M et al (2015) vegan: community ecology package. R package version 2.2-1Google Scholar
  51. Perkin JS, Gido KB, Cooper AR et al (2015) Fragmentation and dewatering transform Great Plains stream fish communities. Ecol Monogr 85:73–92.  https://doi.org/10.1890/14-0121.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Podani J, Schmera D (2011) A new conceptual and methodological framework for exploring and explaining pattern in presence - absence data. Oikos 120:1625–1638.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0706.2011.19451.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Podani J, Ricotta C, Schmera D (2013) A general framework for analyzing beta diversity, nestedness and related community-level phenomena based on abundance data. Ecol Complex 15:52–61.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecocom.2013.03.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Poff NL, Zimmerman JKH (2010) Ecological responses to altered flow regimes: a literature review to inform the science and management of environmental flows. Freshw Biol 55:194–205.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2427.2009.02272.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Power ME, Stewart AJ (1987) Disturbance and recovery of an algal assemblage following flooding in an Oklahoma Stream. Am Midl Nat 117:333.  https://doi.org/10.2307/2425975 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. QGIS Development Team (2016) QGIS geographic information system. Open source geospatial foundation. http://qgis.osgeo.org. Accessed 19 Sept 2017
  57. R Core Team (2015). R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  58. Rodriguez MA (2010) A modeling framework for assessing long-distance dispersal and loss of connectivity in stream fish. In: Gido KB, Jackson DA (eds) Community ecology of stream fishes: concepts, approaches, and techniques. American Fisheries Society Symposium, BethesdaGoogle Scholar
  59. Schlosser IJ (1991) Stream fish ecology: a landscape perspective. Bioscience 41:704–712.  https://doi.org/10.2307/1311765 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Schlosser IJ (1995) Critical landscape attributes that influence fish population dynamics in headwater streams. Hydrobiologia 303:71–81.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00034045 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Shukla R, Bhat A (2017a) Environmental drivers of α-diversity patterns in monsoonal tropical stream fish assemblages: a case study from tributaries of Narmada basin, India. Environ Biol Fish 7:749–761CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Shukla R, Bhat A (2017b) Morphological divergences and ecological correlates among wild populations of zebrafish (Danio rerio). Environ Biol Fish 1 100(3):251–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Socolar JB, Gilroy JJ, Kunin WE, Edwards DP (2016) How should beta-diversity inform biodiversity conservation? Trends Ecol Evol 31:67–80.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2015.11.005 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. Strayer D, Dudgeon D (2010) Freshwater biodiversity conservation: recent progress and future challenges. J N Am Benthol Soc 29:344–358.  https://doi.org/10.1899/08-171.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Suriyampola PS, Shelton DS, Shukla R et al (2016) Zebrafish social behavior in the wild. Zebrafish 13:1–8.  https://doi.org/10.1089/zeb.2015.1159 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. Taylor CM (1997) Fish species richness and incidence patterns in isolated and connected stream pools: effects of pool volume and spatial position. Oecologia 110:560–566.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s004420050196 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. Taylor CM, Holder TL, Fiorillo RA et al (2006) Distribution, abundance, and diversity of stream fishes under variable environmental conditions. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 63:43–54.  https://doi.org/10.1139/f05-203 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Tyers MB (2017) riverdist: river network distance computation and applications. R package version 0.15.0Google Scholar
  69. Unni KS (1996) Ecology of river Narmada. APH, OntarioGoogle Scholar
  70. Webb JA, Miller KA, King EL et al (2013) Squeezing the most out of existing literature: a systematic re-analysis of published evidence on ecological responses to altered flows. Freshw Biol 58:2439–2451.  https://doi.org/10.1111/fwb.12234 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Weihs C, Ligges U, Luebke K, Raabe N (2005) klaR analyzing German business cycles. In: Baier D, Decker R, Schmidt-Thieme L (eds) Data analysis and decision support. Springer, Berlin, pp 335–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Whittaker RH (1952) A study of summer foliage insect communities in the Great Smoky Mountains. Ecol Monogr 22:1–44.  https://doi.org/10.2307/1948527 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Wikramanayake ED (1990) Ecomorphology and biogeography of a tropical stream fish assemblage: evolution of assemblage structure. Ecology 71:1756.  https://doi.org/10.2307/1937583 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Winemiller KO (1989) Patterns of variation in life history among South American fishes in seasonal environments. Oecologia 81:225–241.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00379810 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  75. Winemiller KO, Jepsen DB (1998) Effects of seasonality and fish movement on tropical river food webs. J Fish Biol 53:267–296.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8649.1998.tb01032.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Biological SciencesIndian Institute of Science Education and Research KolkataMohanpurIndia

Personalised recommendations