Impact of Hydromorphology and Spatial Scale on Macroinvertebrate Assemblage Composition in Streams
Impact of Hydromorphology and Spatial Scale on Macroinvertebrate Assemblage Composition in Streams
复制标题
水貌和空间尺度对溪流中大型无脊椎动物组合组成的影响
DOI：
10.1897/ieam_2008-028.1
复制
发表时间：
2009
影响因子：
2.7
通讯作者：
P. Verdonschot
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
P. Verdonschot
摘要编者按：本文是参加2007年11月12-14日在德国列普齐格举行的“欧洲流域风险评估--最新进展和未来挑战”研讨会的与会者准备的12篇论文中的一篇。这次会议是在欧盟委员会协调行动RISKBASE计划的框架内组织的。RISKBASE的目标是审查和综合欧盟委员会FP4-FP6项目的成果，以及与基于风险评估的江河流域水/沉积物/土壤环境综合管理相关的其他主要举措。河流风险评估和恢复需要了解控制因素及其作用范围。长期以来，水形态和物理化学的作用一直被忽视，尺度问题几乎没有得到解决。在这项研究中，既研究了水地貌的作用，也研究了尺度的相关性。为此，河流的大型无脊椎动物群落被用作目标生物群的规模。接下来，我们将讨论以下研究问题：水文学、形态和物理化学在多大程度上解释了河流大型无脊椎动物的分布？使用了三个数据集：欧洲AQEM研究、荷兰STREAMS研究和广泛的栖息地偏好研究。对于欧洲研究和荷兰STREAM研究数据，使用排序将大型无脊椎动物的物种组成与(水形态)环境联系起来。为了探索一个或多个变量在解释大型无脊椎动物在采样点上分布的强度，使用典型特征值之和的分数作为衡量标准。为了在栖息地偏好研究中确定每个大型无脊椎动物物种对特定栖息地类型的偏好，计算了代表性指数。欧洲的这项研究表明，在更有限的地理区域内的溪流倾向于携带大型无脊椎动物，其分布可以更好地用溪流延伸和溪流中的变量来解释。然而，即使在溪流类型的集水区和溪谷，变量几乎同样有助于解释大型无脊椎动物的分布。水文和物理化学变量的解释力随着尺度的增大而增大，形态变量在不同尺度上的解释力是相同的。在荷兰的STREAMS研究中，与栖息地水平相比，溪流水平得到了更好的解释。地理、形态和物理化学变量是很强的解释变量。对于栖息地和河流，河流伸展变量对大型无脊椎动物分布的解释作用最大，而微生境变量的解释作用较小。栖息地偏好研究支持这样的观察，即栖息地提供的解释比溪流延伸提供的解释更少。只有15%的大型无脊椎动物表现出明显的栖息地偏好；没有一种表现出强制性的栖息地偏好。总而言之，河流大型无脊椎动物的分布可以用局部河流伸展变量来最好地解释，只要这些变量包含在流域和河谷环境中。大型无脊椎动物物种之间脆弱性和生物能力的差异决定了存在的组合。将这一知识应用于水管理意味着任何风险评估和恢复工作都需要水文地貌背景。
Abstract EDITOR'S NOTE: This is 1 of 12 papers prepared by participants attending the workshop “Risk Assessment in European River Basins–State of the Art and Future Challenges” held in Liepzig, Germany on 12–14 November 2007. The meeting was organized within the framework of the European Commission's Coordination Action RISKBASE program. The objective of RISKBASE is to review and synthesize the outcome of European Commission FP4–FP6 projects, and other major initiatives, related to integrated risk assessment–based management of the water/sediment/soil environment at the river basin scale. Stream risk assessment and restoration requires understanding of the controlling factors and the scale at which they act. The role of hydromorphology, along with physicochemistry, was for a long time neglected, and scale issues were barely tackled. In this study, both the role of hydromorphology and the relevance of scale are studied. For this purpose, the macroinvertebrate community of the stream is used as the scale of the target biota. Next, the following research question is dealt with: At which scale, and to what extent, do hydrology and morphology along with physicochemistry explain stream macroinvertebrate distribution? Three data sets were used: The European AQEM study, the Dutch streams study, and an extensive habitat-preference study. Ordination was used to relate the macroinvertebrate species composition to the (hydromorphological) environment for both the European study and the Dutch stream study data. To explore the strength of one or more variables in explaining the macroinvertebrate distribution over the sampling sites, the fraction of the sum of canonical eigenvalues was used as a measure. To determine the preference for a specific habitat type of each macroinvertebrate species in the habitat preference study, the index of representation was calculated. The European study showed that streams within a more limited geographic area tend to carry macroinvertebrates whose distribution is better explained by stream stretch and in-stream variables. However, even within stream type catchment and stream valley, variables almost equally add to the explanation of the macroinvertebrates distribution. The explanatory power of hydrological and physicochemical variables increased toward smaller scales, and morphological variables showed an equal explanatory power over the different scales. In the Dutch streams study, stream level was much better explained in comparison to the habitat level. Geographical, morphological, and physicochemical variables were strong explanatory variables. For both habitat and stream, the stream stretch variables contributed most to the explanation of macroinvertebrate distribution, whereas microhabitat variables were less explanatory. The habitat preference study supported the observation that habitat provided less explanation than stream stretch. Only 15% of the macroinvertebrate species showed a clear habitat preference; none showed an obligatory one. In conclusion, stream macroinvertebrates distribution is best explained by local stream–stretch variables, provided those variables are contained within a catchment and stream valley context. Differences in vulnerability and biotic capacity between macroinvertebrate species determine the assemblage present. Applying this knowledge in water management means that any risk assessment and restoration effort needs a hydromorphological context.