The role of life history traits and habitat characteristics in the colonisation of a secondary floodplain by neobiota and indigenous macroinvertebrate species
- 265 Downloads
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.
KeywordsDispersal 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.
- 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
- Bayerisches Landesamt für Umwelt, 2015. http://www.lfu.bayern.de/wasser/wrrl/kartendienst/index.htm. Accessed 07 Feb 2015.
- Clarke, R. K. & R. M. Warwick, 2001. Change in Marine Communities: An Approach to Statistical Analysis and Interpretation. PRIMER-E Ltd, Plymouth.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
- European Water Framework Directive, 2015. Bayerisches Landesamt für Umwelt. Available at http://www.lfu.bayern.de/wasser/wrrl/kartendienst/index.htm. Accessed 07 Feb 2015.
- Haase P. & A. Sundermann, 2004. Standardisierung der Erfassungs- und Auswertungs-methoden von Makrozoobenthosuntersuchungen in Fließgewässern. Abschlussbericht 2. Projektjahr. Forschungsinstitut Senckenberg, Biebergemünd.Google Scholar
- Hauer, F. R. & G. A. Lamberti, 2007. Methods in Stream Ecology, 2nd ed. Academic Press, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
- Kohler, A., 1978. Methoden der kartierung von flora und vegetation von süßwasserbiotopen. Landschaft and Stadt 10: 23–85.Google Scholar
- Moog, O., 2002. Fauna Aquatica Austriaca, Lieferung 2002. Wasserwirtschaftskataster, Bundesministerium für Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft, Wien.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Tittizer, T., 2001. Neozoen in mitteleuropäischen Gewässern. Rundgespräche der Kommission für Ökologie 22: 59–74.Google Scholar