, Volume 772, Issue 1, pp 229–245 | Cite as

The role of life history traits and habitat characteristics in the colonisation of a secondary floodplain by neobiota and indigenous macroinvertebrate species

  • Joachim Pander
  • Melanie Mueller
  • Marita Sacher
  • Juergen Geist
Primary Research Paper


Modification of streams and rivers has mediated range expansions of several species into areas beyond their natural distribution. In this study, a newly created secondary floodplain channel (SFC), with three connections to the Danube, was used as a model system to compare colonisation by indigenous versus non-indigenous species of macroinvertebrates. Three years after the opening of the channel, it was colonised by 210 taxa. Indigenous species were more abundant than non-indigenous ones, both in the channel as well as in the Danube, and colonisation was mostly determined by habitat characteristics. In non-indigenous species, proximity to the source habitat was the main explanatory variable. Non-indigenous colonisers mostly had indifferent functional traits, in contrast to indigenous macroinvertebrates. These differences were particularly pronounced in amphipods where an equal number of five species per group occurred. The results of this study suggest that the factors determining colonisation patterns of indigenous versus non-indigenous species with similar dispersal abilities can strongly differ. Consequently, the creation of specific habitat structures (gravel-dominated, high current flow, bank vegetation) in restoration of floodplain channels can increase competitiveness of native species valued in conservation, particularly if sufficiently long channels with limited edge effects to the source habitat are built.


Dispersal Biological invasion Functional traits Drift Stream restoration Ecological niche 



We are grateful to the “Bundesamt für Naturschutz” for financial support of this study and to B. Cyffka for the coordination of the monitoring project (MONDAU) which provided the framework for this study. We also thank H. Textor from the “Wittelsbacher Ausgleichsfonds” for the permission to work within the study area. This study would not have been possible without the support of the local authorities and owners of the fisheries rights. In particular, we would like to thank B. Kügel (WWA Ingolstadt), U. Wunner and B. Gum (FFB Oberbayern), J. Kolb (Umweltamt Neuburg) and T. Schneider (Umweltamt Ingolstadt). We are also grateful to M. Walter-Rückel, J. Knott and all other volunteers for supporting the field samplings.

Supplementary material

10750_2016_2667_MOESM1_ESM.doc (516 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOC 516 kb)


  1. Alonso, Á. & P. Castro-Díez, 2008. What explains the invading success of the aquatic mud snail Potamopyrgus antipodarum (Hydrobiidae, Mollusca)? Hydrobiologia 614: 107–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alonso, Á. & P. Castro-Díez, 2012. The exotic aquatic mud snail Potamopyrgus antipodarum (Hydrobiidae, Mollusca): state of the art of a worldwide invasion. Aquatic Sciences 74: 375–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Altermatt, F., M. Seymour & N. Martinez, 2013. River network properties shape α-diversity and community similarity patterns of aquatic insect communities across major drainage basins. Journal of Biogeography 40: 2249–2260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Anderson, M. J., R. N. Gorley & K. R. Clarke, 2008. PERMANOVA+ for PRIMER: Guide to Software and Statistical Methods. PRIMER-E Ltd, Plymouth.Google Scholar
  5. Astorga, A., J. Oksanen, M. Luoto, J. Soininen, R. Virtanen & T. Muotka, 2012. Distance decay of similarity in freshwater communities: do macro- and microorganisms follow the same rules? Global Ecology and Biogeography 21: 365–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bayerisches Landesamt für Umwelt, 2015. Accessed 07 Feb 2015.
  7. Bernauer, D. & W. Jansen, 2006. Recent invasions of alien macroinvertebrates and loss of native species in the upper Rhine River, Germany. Aquatic Invasions 1: 55–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bij de Vaate, A., K. Jazdzewski, H. A. M. Ketelaars, S. Gollasch & G. Van der Velde, 2002. Geographical patterns in range extension of Ponto-Caspian macroinvertebrate species in Europe. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 59: 1159–1174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bilton, D. T., J. R. Freeland & B. Okamura, 2001. Dispersal in freshwater invertebrates. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 32: 159–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bonada, N., S. Dolédec & B. Statzner, 2012. Spatial autocorrelation patterns of stream invertebrates: exogenous and endogenous factors. Journal of Biogeography 39: 56–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Brandner, J., K. Auerswald, A. F. Cerwenka, U. K. Schliewen & J. Geist, 2013. Comparative feeding ecology of invasive Ponto-Caspian gobies. Hydrobiologia 703: 113–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Brandner, J., K. Auerswald, R. Schäufele, A. F. Cerwenka & J. Geist, 2015. Isotope evidence for preferential dispersal of fast-spreading invasive gobies along man-made river bank structures. Isotopes in Environmental and Health Studies. doi: 10.1080/10256016.2014.993978.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Chivers, C. & B. Leung, 2012. Predicting invasions: alternative models of human-mediated dispersal and interactions between dispersal network structure and Allee effects. Journal of Applied Ecology 49: 1113–1123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Clarke, R. K. & R. M. Warwick, 2001. Change in Marine Communities: An Approach to Statistical Analysis and Interpretation. PRIMER-E Ltd, Plymouth.Google Scholar
  15. 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
  16. European Water Framework Directive, 2015. Bayerisches Landesamt für Umwelt. Available at Accessed 07 Feb 2015.
  17. Früh, D., S. Stoll & P. Haase, 2012. Physicochemical and morphological degradation of stream and river habitats increases invasion risk. Biological Invasions 14: 2243–2253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Geist, J., 2014. Trends and directions in water quality and habitat management in the context of the European Water Framework Directive. Fisheries 39: 219–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Geist, J., 2015. Seven steps towards improving freshwater conservation. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 25: 447–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Grönroos, M., J. Heino, T. Siqueira, V. L. Landeiro, J. Kotanen & L. M. Bini, 2013. Metacommunity structuring in stream networks: roles of dispersal mode, distance type, and regional environmental context. Ecology and Evolution 3: 4473–4487.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. Gustafsson, S., M. Österling, J. Skurdal, L. D. Schneider & O. Calles, 2013. Macroinvertebrate colonization of a nature-like fishway: the effects of adding habitat heterogeneity. Ecological Engineering 61: 345–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Haase P. & A. Sundermann, 2004. Standardisierung der Erfassungs- und Auswertungs-methoden von Makrozoobenthosuntersuchungen in Fließgewässern. Abschlussbericht 2. Projektjahr. Forschungsinstitut Senckenberg, Biebergemünd.Google Scholar
  23. Haase, P., D. Hering, S. C. Jähnig, A. W. Lorenz & A. Sundermann, 2013. The impact of hydromorphological restoration on river ecological status: a comparison of fish, benthic invertebrates, and macrophytes. Hydrobiologia 704: 475–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hauer, F. R. & G. A. Lamberti, 2007. Methods in Stream Ecology, 2nd ed. Academic Press, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  25. Johnson, S. L. & C. C. Vaughn, 1995. A hierarchical study of macroinvertebrate recolonization of disturbed patches along a longitudinal gradient in a prairie river. Freshwater Biology 34: 531–540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Keller, R. P., J. Geist, J. M. Jeschke & I. Kühn, 2011. Invasive species in Europe: ecology, status and policy. Environmental Sciences Europe 23: 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kinzler, W. & G. Maier, 2006. Selective predation by fish: a further reason for the decline of native gammarids in the presence of invaders? Journal of Limnology 65: 27–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kley, A. & G. Maier, 2005. An example of niche partitioning between Dikerogammarus villosus and other invasive and native gammarids: a field study. Journal of Limnology 64: 85–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kley, A., W. Kinzler, Y. Schank, G. Mayer, D. Waloszek & G. Maier, 2009. Influence of substrate preference and complexity on co-existence of two non-native gammarideans (Crustacea: Amphipoda). Aquatic Ecology 43: 1047–1059.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kohler, A., 1978. Methoden der kartierung von flora und vegetation von süßwasserbiotopen. Landschaft and Stadt 10: 23–85.Google Scholar
  31. Li, H. & J. F. Reynolds, 1995. On definition and quantification of heterogeneity. Oikos 73: 280–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Moog, O., 2002. Fauna Aquatica Austriaca, Lieferung 2002. Wasserwirtschaftskataster, Bundesministerium für Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft, Wien.Google Scholar
  33. Mueller, M., J. Pander & J. Geist, 2011. The effects of weirs on structural stream habitat and biological communities. Journal of Applied Ecology 48: 1450–1461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mueller, M., J. Pander & J. Geist, 2013. Taxonomic sufficiency in freshwater ecosystems: effects of taxonomic resolution, functional traits, and data transformation. Freshwater Science 32: 762–778.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Mueller, M., J. Pander & J. Geist, 2014. The ecological value of stream restoration measures: an evaluation on ecosystem and target species scales. Ecological Engineering 62: 129–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Palmer, M. A., E. S. Bernhardt, J. D. Allan, P. S. Lake, G. Alexander, S. Brooks, J. Carr, S. Clayton, C. N. Dahm, Shah J. Follstad, D. L. Galat, S. G. Loss, P. Goodwin, D. D. Hart, B. Hassett, R. Jenkinson, G. M. Kondolf, R. Lave, J. L. Meyer, T. K. O´Donnell, L. Pagano & E. Sudduth, 2005. Standards for ecologically successful river restoration. Journal of Applied Ecology 42: 208–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Pander, J. & J. Geist, 2013. Ecological indicators for stream restoration success. Ecological Indicators 30: 106–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Pander, J., M. Mueller & J. Geist, 2015. Succession of fish diversity after reconnecting a large floodplain to the upper Danube River. Ecological Engineering 75: 41–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Piscart, C., B. Bergerot, P. Laffaille & P. Marmonier, 2010. Are amphipod invaders a threat to regional biodiversity? Biological Invasions 12: 853–863.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Poff, N. L., J. D. Olden, N. K. M. Vieira, D. S. Finn, M. P. Simmons & B. C. Kondratieff, 2006. Functional trait niches of North American lotic insects: traits-based ecological applications in light of phylogenetic relationships. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 25: 730–755.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Schindler, S., Z. Sebesvari, C. Damm, K. Euller, V. Mauerhofer, A. Schneidergruber, M. Biró, F. Essl, R. Kanka, S. G. Lauwaars, C. Schulz-Zunkel, T. van der Sluis, M. Kropik, V. Gasso, A. Krug, M. T. Pusch, K. P. Zulka, W. Lazowski, C. Hainz-Renetzeder, K. Henle & T. Wrbka, 2014. Multifunctionality of floodplain landscapes: relating management options to ecosystem services. Landscape Ecology 29: 229–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Somerfield, P. J. & K. R. Clarke, 1995. Taxonomic levels, in marine community studies, revisited. Marine Ecology Progress Series 127: 113–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Sondermann, M., M. Gies, D. Hering, M. Schroeder & C. K. Feld, 2015. Modelling the effect of in-stream and terrestrial barriers on the dispersal of aquatic insect species: a case study from a Central European mountain catchment. Fundamental and Applied Limnology 186: 99–115.Google Scholar
  44. Stammel, B., B. Cyffka, J. Geist, M. Mueller, J. Pander, G. Blasch, P. Fischer, A. Gruppe, F. Haas, M. Kilg, P. Lang, R. Schopf, A. Schwab, H. Utschick & M. Weißbrod, 2012. Floodplain restoration on the Upper Danube (Germany) by re-establishing water and sediment dynamics: a scientific monitoring as part of the implementation. River Systems 20: 55–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Statzner, B., N. Bonada & S. Dolédec, 2008. Biological attributes discriminating invasive from native European stream macroinvertebrates. Biological Invasions 10: 517–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Stoll, S., J. Kail, A. W. Lorenz, A. Sundermann & P. Haase, 2014. The importance of the regional species pool, ecological species traits and local habitat conditions for the colonization of restored river reaches by fish. PLoS ONE 9: e84741.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  47. Strayer, D. L., 2010. Alien species in fresh waters: ecological effects, interactions with other stressors, and prospects for the future. Freshwater Biology 55: 152–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Thompson, R. & C. Townsend, 2006. A truce with neutral theory: local deterministic factors, species traits and dispersal limitation together determine patterns of diversity in stream invertebrates. Journal of Animal Ecology 75: 476–484.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Tittizer, T., 2001. Neozoen in mitteleuropäischen Gewässern. Rundgespräche der Kommission für Ökologie 22: 59–74.Google Scholar
  50. Tonkin, J. D., S. Stoll, A. Sundermann & P. Haase, 2014. Dispersal distance and the pool of taxa, but not barriers, determine the colonisation of restored river reaches by benthic invertebrates. Freshwater Biology 59: 1843–1855.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Van Riel, M. C., G. Van der Velde & A. Bij de Vaate, 2011. Dispersal of invasive species by drifting. Current Zoology 57: 818–827.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Winking, C., A. W. Lorenz, B. Sures & D. Hering, 2014. Recolonisation patterns of benthic invertebrates: a field investigation of restored former sewage channels. Freshwater Biology 59: 1932–1944.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Wutz, S. & J. Geist, 2013. Sex- and size-specific migration patterns and habitat preferences of invasive signal crayfish (Pacifastacus leniusculus Dana). Limnologica 43: 59–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Joachim Pander
    • 1
  • Melanie Mueller
    • 1
  • Marita Sacher
    • 1
  • Juergen Geist
    • 1
  1. 1.Aquatic Systems Biology Unit, Department of Ecology and Ecosystem ManagementTechnische Universität MünchenFreisingGermany

Personalised recommendations