, Volume 568, Issue 1, pp 391–402 | Cite as

Can forest fragments reset physical and water quality conditions in agricultural catchments and act as refugia for forest stream invertebrates?

  • Jon S. Harding
  • Koen Claassen
  • Niels Evers
Primary Research Paper


Forest fragments embedded within agricultural landscapes have the potential to provide a “forest reset effect” by mitigating agricultural effects on water quality, and acting as refugia and conservation reserves for aquatic species. We investigated the ability of forest fragments to reset agricultural effects using four catchments in the South Island, New Zealand. Two catchments were dominated by agricultural activities, but each had an isolated forest fragment in the lower valley, and two catchments had continuous riparian forest along the valley floor. Riffles sampled in continuous forest were generally deeper than those in agricultural and forest fragments, and not surprisingly streams in forest fragments and continuous forest received less light than those in agricultural land. All sites had circum-neutral pH, but both conductivity and temperature were significantly lower at continuous forest sites than agricultural and forest fragment sites. Taxonomic richness, Margalef’s index and numbers of Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera and Trichoptera (EPT) taxa were significantly higher in continuous forest than at forest fragment sites, but overall invertebrate densities did not differ between fragments and continuous forest. Several taxa were abundant at agricultural and forest fragment sites, but absent or at low densities in continuous forest. They included the blackfly Austrosimulium spp. and two caddisflies Pycnocentrodes sp. and Hydrobiosis parumbripennis. Conversely, the mayflies Austroclima sp. and Coloburiscus humeralis and the blepharicerid Neocurupira chiltoni were either restricted to continuous forest, or abundant in continuous forest but rare in agricultural and forest fragments. An ordination of communities separated those in agricultural and continuous forest sites, but communities at forest fragment sites were clustered among the agricultural sites. In this study forest fragments of 5–7 ha, located in the lower reaches of the catchment did not mitigate the negative upstream effects of agriculture on stream functioning. Fragment size (or riparian forest length), riparian forest width and vegetation type, and fragment location in the catchment may have critical roles in enabling forest fragments to reset the negative impacts of agriculture. Determining these characteristics of fragments has important consequences for stream remediation.


streams diversity forest fragmentation reserves species richness refugia 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Allan J. D. and Flecker A. S. (1993). Biodiversity conservation in running waters. Bioscience 43: 32–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andrén H. (1994). Effects of habitat fragmentation on birds and mammals in landscapes with different proportions of suitable habitat: a review. Oikos 71: 355–366Google Scholar
  3. Benstead J. P., Douglas M. M. and Pringle C. M. (2003). Relationships of stream invertebrate communities to deforestation in eastern Madagascar. Ecological Applications 13: 1473–1490Google Scholar
  4. Bojsen B. H. and Jacobsen D. (2003). Effects of deforestation on macroinvertebrate diversity and assemblage structure in Ecuadorian Amazon streams. Archiv für Hydrobiologie 158: 317–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Clarke K. R. and Gorley R. N. (2001). Primer v5. Primer-E Ltd, Plymouth, U.KGoogle Scholar
  6. Collier K. J., Cooper A. B., Davies-Colley R. J., Rutherford J. C., Smith C. M. and Williamson R. B. (1995). Managing Riparian Zones: A Contribution to Protecting New Zealand’s Rivers and Streams. Department of Conservation, Wellington, New ZealandGoogle Scholar
  7. Diamond J. M. (1984). Distributions of New Zealand birds on real and virtual islands. New Zealand Journal of Ecology 7: 37–55Google Scholar
  8. Didham R. K. (1997). An overview of invertebrate responses to forest fragmentation. In: Watt, A. D., Stork, N. E. and Hunter, M. D. (eds) Forests and Insects, pp 304–320. Chapman & Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  9. Fahrig L. (1997). Relative effects of habitat loss and fragmentation on population extinction. Journal of Wildlife Management 61: 603–610Google Scholar
  10. Fisher S. G. and Likens G. E. (1973). Energy flow in Bear Brook, New Hampshire: an integrative approach to stream ecosystem metabolism. Ecological Monographs 43: 421–439CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Flaspohler D. J., Temple S. A. and Rosenfield R. N. (2001). Species-specific edge effects on nest success and breeding bird density in a forested landscape. Ecological Applications 11: 32–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. (1990). Procedures Manual DR/200 Spectrophotometer. Loveland, USAGoogle Scholar
  13. Harding J. S. (2003). Historic deforestation and the fate of endemic invertebrate species in streams. New Zealand Journal of Marine & Freshwater Research 37: 333–345Google Scholar
  14. Harding J. S. and Winterbourn M. J. (1995). Effects of contrasting land use on physico-chemical conditions and benthic assemblages of streams in Canterbury (South Island) river systems. New Zealand Journal of Marine & Freshwater Research 29: 479–492CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Harrington G. N., Freeman A. N. and Crome F. H. (2001). The effects of fragmentation of an Australian tropical rain forest on populations and assemblages of small mammals. Journal of Tropical Ecology 17: 225–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Heartsill-Scalley T. and Aide T. M. (2003). Riparian vegetation and stream condition in a tropical agriculture-secondary forest mosaic. Ecological Applications 13(1): 225–234Google Scholar
  17. Kiffney P. M., Richardson J. S. and Bull J. P. (2004). Establishing light as a causal mechanism structuring stream communities in response to experimental manipulation of riparian buffer width. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 23(3): 542–555CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. (1967). The Theory of Island Biogeography. Monographs in Population Biology, Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, USAGoogle Scholar
  19. Norton D. A. and Fuller P. F. (1994). Restoration of lowland forest in Canterbury. New Zealand Forestry 39: 21–22Google Scholar
  20. Osborne L. L. and Kovacic D. A. (1993). Riparian vegetated buffer strips in water-quality restoration and stream management. Freshwater Biology 29: 243–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Pfankuch D. J. (1975). Stream Reach Inventory and Channel Stability Evaluation. USDA Forest Service Northern region. Missoula, Montana, USAGoogle Scholar
  22. Quinn J. M., Cooper A. B. and Williamson R. B. (1993). Riparian zones as buffer strips: a New Zealand perspective. In: Bunn, S. E., Pusey, B. J., and Price, P. (eds) Ecology and Management Needs for Riparian Zones in Australia, pp 53–58. 32nd Annual Congress of Australian Limnological Society, MarcoolaGoogle Scholar
  23. Quinn J. M., Cooper A. B., Davies-Colley R. J., Rutherford J. C. and Williamson R. B. (1997). Land use effects on habitat, water quality, periphyton, and benthic invertebrates in Waikato, New Zealand hill-country streams. New Zealand Journal of Marine & Freshwater Research 31: 579–598Google Scholar
  24. Scarsbrook M. R. and Halliday J. (1999). Transition from pasture to native forest land-use along stream continua: effects on stream ecosystems and implications for restoration. New Zealand Journal of Marine & Freshwater Research 33: 293–310Google Scholar
  25. Storey R. G. and Cowley D. R. (1997). Recovery of three New Zealand rural streams as they pass through native forest remnants. Hydrobiologia 353: 63–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Townsend C. R., Arbuckle C. J., Crowl T. A. and Scarsbrook M. R. (1997). The relationship between land use and physicochemistry, food resources and macroinvertebrate communities in tributaries of the Taieri River, New Zealand: a hierarchically scaled approach. Freshwater Biology 37: 177–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Vannote R. L., Minshall G. W., Cummins K. W., Sedell J. R. and Cushing C. E. (1980). The river continuum concept. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 37: 130–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Wallace J. B., Eggert S. L., Meyer J. L. and Webster J. R. (1997). Multiple trophic levels of a forest stream linked to terrestrial litter inputs. Science 277: 102–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Winterbourn M. J. (1973). A guide to the freshwater Mollusca of New Zealand. Tuatara 20: 141–159Google Scholar
  30. Winterbourn M. J., Gregson K. L. D. and Dolphin C. H. (2000). Guide to the aquatic insects of New Zealand. Bulletin of the␣New Zealand Entomological Society of New Zealand 13: 102Google Scholar
  31. Wohl N. E. and Carline R. F. (1996). Relations among riparian grazing, sediment loads, macroinvertebrates and fishes in three central Pennsylvania streams. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 53(Suppl. 1): 260–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Biological SciencesUniversity of CanterburyChristchurchNew Zealand
  2. 2.Department of Aquatic EcotechnologyUniversity of ZeelandVlissingenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations