Controlling for hydrologic connectivity to assess the importance of catchment- and reach-scale factors on macroinvertebrate community structure
- 337 Downloads
Understanding landscape influences on stream ecosystems is a challenging task due to the spatial complexity and connectedness of stream networks. Here, we control for longitudinal connectivity to provide a robust test of the relative importance of reach- and catchment-scale factors in determining macroinvertebrate community structure in southwestern Pennsylvania streams. We determined that sites separated by ≤510 m along the stream network had significantly correlated macroinvertebrate community scores. After controlling for this spatial autocorrelation, a partial least squares regression identified two factors that together accounted for 32% of the variation in community scores. In this model, two reach-scale factors—habitat assessment score and stream pH—were the most important factors for predicting a stream’s macroinvertebrate community score. However, landscape diversity was also important. Landscape diversity is a catchment-scale factor that was highly correlated with percent pasture/hay and measures of habitat fragmentation. Our results provide support for the idea that stream communities in undisturbed areas are heavily influenced by reach-scale characteristics. Furthermore, our results indicate that Pennsylvania natural resource managers should consider habitat score and stream pH after accounting for spatial autocorrelation when identifying restoration targets for impacted streams.
KeywordsLand use Hydrologic connectivity Spatial autocorrelation Benthic macroinvertebrates Pennsylvania Total Biological Score
We thank the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection for funding this research (Disclaimer: The views expressed in this manuscript do not necessarily reflect the views of this agency). We thank Tom Hann and Lucy Powell for their help in delineating watersheds, calculating catchment land use, and for assistance with preliminary analyses. We also thank Anthony Iannacchione and Erin Pfeil-McCullough for their assistance with data interpretation. Lastly, we thank Dan Bain for assistance with data analysis, interpretation, and for his comments on draft versions of this manuscript.
- Barbour, M. T., Gerritsen, J., Snyder, B. D., & Stribling, J. B., 1999. Rapid bioassessment protocols for use in streams and wadeable rivers: periphyton, benthic macroinvertebrates and fish. 2nd edition. EPA 841-B-99-002. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
- Bernot, M. J., D. J. Sobota, R. O. Hall Jr, P. J. Mulholland, W. K. Dodds, J. R. Webster, J. L. Tank, L. R. Ashkenas, L. W. Cooper, C. N. Dahm, S. V. Gregory, N. B. Grimm, S. K. Hamilton, S. L. Johnson, W. H. McDowell, J. L. Meyer, B. Peterson, G. C. Poole, H. M. Valett, C. Arango, J. J. Beaulieu, A. J. Burgin, C. Crenshaw, A. M. Helton, L. Johnson, J. Merriam, B. R. Niederlehner, J. M. O’Brien, J. D. Potter, R. W. Sheibley, S. M. Thomas & K. Wilson, 2010. Inter-regional comparison of land-use effects on stream metabolism. Freshwater Biology 55: 1874–1890.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Braun, E. L., 1950. Deciduous forests of eastern North America. Hafner Press, New York.Google Scholar
- Burton, J. & J. Gerritsen, 2003. A stream condition index for Virginia non-coastal streams. Tetra Tech Inc, Owings Mills, Maryland.Google Scholar
- Dudgeon, D., A. H. Arthington, M. O. Gessner, Z.-I. Kawabata, D. J. Knowler, C. Lévêque, R. J. Naiman, A.-H. Prieur-Richard, D. Soto, M. L. J. Stiassny & C. A. Sullivan, 2006. Freshwater biodiversity: importance, threats, status and conservation challenges. Biological Reviews 81: 163–182.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Foley, J. A., R. DeFries, G. P. Asner, C. Barford, G. Bonan, S. R. Carpenter, F. S. Chapin, M. T. Coe, G. C. Daily, H. K. Gibbs, J. H. Helkowski, T. Holloway, E. A. Howard, C. J. Kucharik, C. Monfreda, J. A. Patz, I. C. Prentice, N. Ramankutty & P. K. Snyder, 2005. Global consequences of land use. Science 309: 570–574.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Fry, J., G. Xian, S. Jin, J. Dewitz, C. Homer, L. Yang, C. Barnes, N. Herold & J. Wickham, 2011. Completion of the 2006 National Land Cover Database for the conterminous United States. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing 77: 858–864.Google Scholar
- Gerritsen, J., J. Burton & M. T. Barbour, 2000. A stream condition index for West Virginia wadeable streams. Tetra Tech Inc, Owings Mills, Maryland.Google Scholar
- Klemm, D. J., K. A. Blocksom, F. A. Fulk, A. T. Herlihy, R. M. Hughes, P. R. Kaufmann, D. V. Peck, J. L. Stoddard, W. T. Thoeny & M. B. Griffith, 2003. Development and evaluation of a macroinvertebrate biotic integrity index (MBII) for regionally assessing mid-Atlantic Highlands streams. Environmental Management 31: 656–669.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Legendre, P. & L. Legendre, 2012. Numerical Ecology. 3rd edition. Elsevier, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
- Malmqvist, B., 2002. Aquatic macroinvertebrates in riverine landscapes. Freshwater Biology 47: 679–694. Google Scholar
- PADEP (Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection), 2005. Surface water protection—underground bituminous coal mining operations. Technical Guidance Document 563-2000-655. Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Mining and Reclamation, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. http://www.elibrary.dep.state.pa.us/dsweb/Get/Document-100633/563-2000-655.pdf.
- Poff, N. L., 1997. Landscape filters and species traits: towards mechanistic understanding and prediction in stream ecology. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 16: 391–409.Google Scholar
- SAS Institute Inc., 2008. The PLS procedure. In SAS/STAT® 9.2 User’s Guide. SAS Institute In, Cary, NC: 4760–4807.Google Scholar
- Stoddard, J. L., D. P. Larsen, C. P. Hawkins, R. K. Johnson & R. H. Norris, 2006. Setting expectations for the ecological condition of streams: the concept of the reference condition. Ecological Applications 16: 1267–1276.Google Scholar
- Tonsor, S. J., Hale, A. N., Iannacchione, A., Bain, D. J., Keener, M., Pfeil-McCullough, E., & Garmire, K., 2014. The effects of subsidence resulting from underground bituminous coal mining, 2008–2013. http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt?open=514&objID=1149978&mode=2.
- U. S. Geological Survey, 2000. 7.5 minute digital elevation models (DEM) for Pennsylvania 10 meter. U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA.Google Scholar
- Wagner, W. R., Heyman, L., Gray, R. E., Belz, D. J., Lund, R., Cate, A. S., & Edgerton, C. D., 1970. Geology of the Pittsburgh area. General Geology Report 59, Pennsylvania Geological Survey, Fourth Series. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Harrisburg, PA.Google Scholar
- Walsh, C. J., A. H. Roy, J. W. Feminella, P. D. Cottingham, P. M. Groffman & R. P. Morgan II, 2005. The urban stream syndrome: current knowledge and the search for a cure. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 14: 706–723.Google Scholar
- Wang, L., J. Lyons, P. Rasmussen, P. Seelbach, T. Simon, M. Wiley, P. Kanehl, E. Baker, S. Niemela & P. M. Stewart, 2003. Watershed, reach, and riparian influences on stream fish assemblages in the Northern Lakes and Forest Ecoregion, U.S.A. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 60: 491–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Wang, L., P. W. Seelbach & J. Lyons, 2006. Effects of levels of human disturbance on the influence of catchment, riparian, and reach-scale factors on fish assemblages. In Hughes, R. M., L. Wang & P. Sellbach (eds), Landscape Influences on Stream Habitats and Biological Assemblages. Symposium 48. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD: 199–219.Google Scholar