, Volume 586, Issue 1, pp 93–106 | Cite as

Habitat heterogeneity and disturbance influence patterns of community temporal variability in a small temperate stream

  • Bryan L. Brown
Primary Research Paper


Both habitat heterogeneity and disturbance can profoundly influence ecological systems at many levels of biological and ecological organization. However, the joint influences of heterogeneity and disturbance on temporal variability in communities have received little attention despite the intense homogenizing influence of human activity. I performed a field manipulation of substrate heterogeneity in a small New England stream, and measured changes in benthic macroinvertebrate communities for 100 days—a period that included both a severe drought and a flood. Generally, community variability decreased with increasing substrate heterogeneity. However, within sampling intervals, this relationship tended to fluctuate through time, apparently tracking changes in hydrology. At the beginning of the experiment, community temporal variability clearly decreased along a gradient of increasing substrate heterogeneity—a result consistent with an observational study performed the previous year. During the subsequent weeks, droughts and flooding created exceptionally high variability in both hydrology and benthic macroinvertebrate community structure resulting in the disappearance of this relationship. However, during the last weeks of the experiment when hydrologic conditions were relatively more stable, the negatively sloped relationship between community temporal variability and habitat heterogeneity reemerged and mimicked relationships observed both early in the experiment and in the previous year’s study. High habitat heterogeneity may promote temporal stability through several mechanisms including stabilization of resources and increased refugia from minor disturbances or predation. However, the results of this experiment suggest that severe disturbance events can create large-scale environmental variability that effectively swamps the influence of habitat heterogeneity, illustrating that a thorough understanding of community temporal variability in natural systems will necessarily consider sources of environmental variability at multiple spatial and temporal scales.


Community temporal variability Habitat heterogeneity Disturbance Benthic macroinvertebrates Drought Flood Temperate streams 



This work was supported in part by NSF grant DEB-0108474 and the Cramer fund of the Department of Biological Sciences at Dartmouth College. Thanks to Kathy Cottingham, Joe Holomuzki, Matt Ayres, Mark McPeek, Jay Lennon, Ryan Thum, Mathew Leibold, The Scientist Formerly Known as Rob Creed., and Nicolas Louille for advice and assistance during the course of this work. L. M. Bini, and three anonymous reviewers provided valuable comments on earlier versions of the manuscript. Special thanks to Laura Ammons for devoted help in all aspects of this research.


  1. Barnes, B. & M. L. Roderick, 2004. An ecological framework linking scales across space and time based on self-thinning. Theoretical Population Biology 66: 113–128.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beisel, J. -N., P. Usseglio-Polatera, S. Thomas & J. -C. Morteteau, 1998. Stream community structure in relation to spatial variation: the influence of mesohabitat characteristics. Hydrobiologia 389: 73–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Benton, T. G., J. A. Vickery & J. D. Wilson, 2003. Farmland biodiversity: is habitat heterogeneity the key? Trends in Ecology and Evolution 18: 182–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bergey, E. A., 1999. Crevices as refugia for stream diatoms: effect of crevice size on abraded substrates. Limnology and Oceanography 44: 1522–1529.Google Scholar
  5. Biggs, B. J. F. & R. A. Smith, 2002. Taxonomic richness of stream benthic algae: effects of flood disturbance and nutrients. Limnology and Oceanography 47: 1175–1186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brown, B. L., 2003. Spatial heterogeneity reduces temporal variability in stream insect communities. Ecology Letters 6: 316–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Caley, M. J. & J. StJohn, 1996. Refuge availability structures assemblages of tropical reef fishes. Journal of Animal Ecology 65: 414–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cardinale, B. J, M. A. Palmer, C. M. Swan, S. S. Brooks & N. L. Poff, 2002. The influence of substrate heterogeneity on biofilm metabolism in a stream ecosystem. Ecology 83: 412–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Carey, A. B., 2003. Biocomplexity and restoration of biodiversity in temperate coniferous forest: inducing spatial heterogeneity with variable-density thinning. Forestry 76: 127–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Caswell, H., J. E. Cohen, 1991. Communities in patchy environments: a model of disturbance, competition, and heterogeneity. In Kolasa, J. & S. T. A. Pickett (eds), Ecological Heterogeneity. Springer-Verlag, New York.Google Scholar
  11. Collins, S. L., F. Micheli & L. Hartt, 2000. A method to determine rates and patterns of variability in ecological communities. Oikos 91: 285–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cottingham, K. L., B. L. Brown & J. T. Lennon, 2001. Biodiversity may regulate the temporal variability of ecological systems. Ecology Letters 4: 72–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cramer, M. J. & M. R. Willig, 2005. Habitat heterogeneity, species diversity and null models. Oikos 108: 209–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Crowder, L. B. & W. E. Cooper, 1982. Habitat structural complexity and the interaction between bluegills and their prey. Ecology 63: 1802–1813.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dobson, A. P., A. D. Bradshaw & A. J. M. Baker, 1997. Hopes for the future: restoration ecology and conservation biology. Science 277: 515–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Finke, D. L. & R. F. Denno, 2002. Intraguild predation diminished in complex-structured vegetation: implications for prey suppression. Ecology 83: 643–652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Friedenberg, N. A., 2003. Determinism in a transient assemblage: the roles of dispersal and local competition. American Naturalist 162: 586–596.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gotelli, N. J. & R. K. Colwell, 2001. Quantifying biodiversity: procedures and pitfalls in the measurement and comparison of species richness. Ecology Letters 4: 379–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Grimm, V., E. Schmidt & C. Wissel, 1992. On the application of stability concepts in ecology. Ecological Modelling 63: 143–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Halaj, J., A. B. Cady & G. W. Uetz, 2000. Modular habitat refugia enhance generalist predators and lower plant damage in soybeans. Environmental Entomology 29: 383–393.Google Scholar
  21. Hansen, R. A., 2000. Effects of habitat complexity and composition on a diverse litter microarthropod assemblage. Ecology 81: 1120–1132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Herrnkind, W. F., M. J. Butler IV, J. H. Hunt & M. Childress, 1997. Role of physical refugia: implications from a mass sponge die-off in a lobster nursery in Florida. Marine and Freshwater Research 48: 759–769.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hildrew, A. G. & C. R. Townsend, 1977. The influence of substrate on the functional response of Plectrocnemia conspersa (Curtis) larvae (Trichoptera: Polycentropodidae). Oecologia 31: 21–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Holomuzki, J. R. & B. J. F. Biggs, 1999. Distributional responses to flow disturbance by a stream-dwelling snail. Oikos 87: 36–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Holomuzki, J. R. & B. J. F. Biggs, 2000. Taxon-specific responses to high-flow disturbances in streams: implications for population persistence. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 19: 670–679.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Holomuzki, J. R. & B. J. F. Biggs, 2003. Sediment texture mediates high-flow effects on lotic macroinvertebrates. Journal of the North Amercian Benthological Society 22: 542–553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Holt, R. D., 1984. Spatial heterogeneity, indirect interactions, and the coexistence of prey species. The American Naturalist 124: 37–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Holt, R. D. & M. P. Hassell, 1993. Environmental heterogeneity and the stability of host-parasitoid interactions. Journal of Animal Ecology 62: 89–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Holyoak, M., M. A. Leibold & R. D. Holt, 2005. Metacommunities: Spatial Dynamics and Ecological Communities. University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London, 513pp.Google Scholar
  30. Horner-Devine, M. C. & K. M. Carney & B. J. M. Bohannan, 2004. An ecological perspective on bacterial biodiversity. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B-Biological Sciences 271: 113–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Horvath, T. G., 2004. Retention of particulate matter by macrophytes in a first-order stream. Aquatic Botany 78: 27–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hutchinson, G. E., 1961. The paradox of the plankton. The American Naturalist 95: 137–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Jakalaniemi, A., J. Tuomi, P. Siikamaki & A. Kilpia, 2005. Colonization-extinction and patch dynamics of the perennial riparian plant Silene tatarica. Journal of Ecology 93: 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kie, J. G., T. Bowyer, M. C. Nicholson, B. B. Boroski & E. R. Loft, 2002. Landscape heterogeneity at differing scales: Effects on spatial distribution of mule deer. Ecology 83: 530–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lake, P. S., 2003. Ecological effects of perturbation by drought in flowing waters. Freshwater Biology 48: 1161–1172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lancaster, J., 1999. Small scale movements of lotic macroinvertebrates with variations in flow. Freshwater Biology 41: 605–619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lancaster, J. & L. R. Belyea, 1997. Nested hierarchies and scale-dependence of mechanisms of flow refugium use. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 16: 221–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lester, P. J., H. M. A. Thistlewood & R. Harmsen, 1998. The effects of refuge size and number on acarine predator-prey dynamics in a pesticide-disturbed apple orchard. Journal of Applied Ecology 35: 323–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lewis, D. B. & L. A. Eby, 2002. Spatially heterogeneous refugia and predation risk in intertidal salt marshes. Oikos 96: 119–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Li, H. & J. F. Reynolds, 1994. A simulation experiment to quantify spatial heterogeneity in categorical maps. Ecology 75: 2446–2455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Matthaei, C. D., K. A. Peacock & C. R. Townsend, 1999. Patchy surface stone movement during disturbance in a New Zealand stream and its potential significance for the fauna. Limnology and Oceanography 44: 1091–1102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Micheli, F., K. L. Cottingham, J. Bascompte, O. N. Bjornstad, G. L. Eckert, J. M. Fischer, T. H. Keitt, B. E. Kendall, J. L. Klug & J. A. Rusak, 1999. The dual nature of community variability. Oikos 85: 161–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Minshall, G. W., 1984. Aquatic insect-substratum relationships. In Resh, V. H. & D. M. Rosenberg (eds), The Ecology of Aquatic Insects. CBS Educational and Professional Publishing, New York, 358–400.Google Scholar
  44. Naeem, S. & S. Li, 1997. Biodiversity enhances ecosystem reliability. Nature 390: 507–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Neter, J., M. H. Kutner, C. J. Nachtsheim & W. Wasserman, 1996, Applied Linear Statistical Models. McGraw-Hill, Boston, 1408 pp.Google Scholar
  46. Odum, E. P., J. T. Finn & E. H. Franz, 1979. Perturbation theory and the subsidy-stress gradient. Bioscience 29: 349–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Palmer, M. A., R. F. Ambrose & N. L. Poff, 1997. Ecological theory and community restoration ecology. Restoration Ecology 5: 291–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Pianka, E. R., 1966. Latitudinal gradients in species diversity: a review of concepts. The American Naturalist 100: 33–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Pickett, S. T. A. & P. S. White, 1985. The Ecology of Natural Disturbance and Patch Dynamics. Academic Press, Inc., Orlando.Google Scholar
  50. Poff, N. L. & J. V. Ward, 1990. Physical habitat template of lotic systems: recovery in the context of historical pattern of spatiotemporal heterogeneity. Environmental Management 14: 629–645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Resh, V. H., A. V. Brown, A. P. Covich, M. E. Gurtz, H. W. Li, G. W. Minshall, S. R. Reice, A. L. Sheldon, J. B. Wallace & R. C. Wissmaar, 1988. The role of disturbance in stream ecology. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 7: 433–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Scognamillo, D., I. E. Maxit, M. Sunquist & J. Polisar, 2003. Coexistence of jaguar (Panthera onca) and puma (Puma concolor) in a mosaic landscape in the Venezuelan llanos. Journal of Zoology, London 259: 269–279.Google Scholar
  53. Silver, P., J. K. Cooper, M. A. Palmer & E. J. Davis, 2000. The arrangement of resources in patchy landscapes: effects on distribution, survival, and resource acquisition of chironomids. Oecologia 124: 216–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Stewart, T. W., T. L. Shumaker & T. A. Radzio, 2003. Linear and nonlinear effects of habitat structure on composition and abundances in the macroinvertebrate community of a large river. American Midlands Naturalist 149: 293–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Suren, A. M., 1992. Enhancement of invertebrate food resources by bryophytes in New Zealand alpine headwater streams. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Biology 26: 229–239.Google Scholar
  56. Tews, J., U. Brose, V. Grimm, K. Tielborger, M. C. Wichmann, M. Schwager & F. Jeltsch, 2004. Animal species diversity driven by habitat heterogeneity/diversity: the importance of keystone structures. Journal of Biogeography 31: 79–92.Google Scholar
  57. Wallace, J. B. & J. W. Grubaugh, 1996. Transport and storage of FPOM. In Hauer, F. R. & G. A. Lamberti (eds), Methods in Stream Ecology. Academic Press, San Diego, 191–215.Google Scholar
  58. Warfe, D. M. & L. A. Barmuta, 2004. Habitat structural complexity mediates the foraging success of multiple predator species. Oecologia 141: 171–178.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Wolman, M. G., 1954. A method of sampling coarse river-bed material. Transactions of the American Geophysical Union 35: 951–956.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Dartmouth CollegeHanoverUSA
  2. 2.Department of Forestry and Natural ResourcesClemson UniversityClemsonUSA

Personalised recommendations