DOCSLIB.ORG

Biodiversity and Ecosystem Functioning in Stream Detritivore Systems: Patterns and Mechanisms

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Biodiversity and Ecosystem Functioning in Stream Detritivore Systems: Patterns and Mechanisms Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning in stream detritivore systems: patterns and mechanisms. Cheryl Inglis Thesis submitted to The University of Sheffield for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Animal and Plant Sciences July 2003 Acknowledgements. The research reported in this thesis was funded by the NERC. Facilities for the research were provided by the Department of Animal and Plant Sciences at The University of Sheffield, for which I extend my thanks to the head of department, Malcolm Press. Many thanks go to my supervisors, Lorraine Maltby and Phil Warren for their excellent supervision and support throughout. Thank you also to Andrew MacColl and Owen Petchey for advice on statistics, and to Tony Sugden and Alison Blake for assisting with field work. Special thanks go to Naomi, Paul, Jo, Rob and Jenny for accompanying me on field trips and for their support, and also to Jim, Nick, Isabel, Fiona, Kevin, Andrew and Thibaud for their friendship. Finally, I would like to thank my family for their constant encouragement, and Christophe for his unending support and patience. Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning in stream detritivore systems: patterns and mechanisms. Cheryl Inglis. Summary Global changes in biodiversity have prompted ecologists to examine the relationship between biodiversity and the functioning of ecosystems. The occurrence and form of such a relationship, and the mechanisms driving it, are critical for predicting the effects of biodiversity loss. The aim of this study was to address whether species diversity is important for ecosystem function in streams, focusing on the relationship between the diversity of leaf-shredding macroinvertebrates and detritus processing. An initial field study revealed that there was no simple positive relationship between shredder diversity and leaf processing at a regional scale (i.e. between streams), but when combined with other biotic and abiotic factors did contribute significantly to explaining leaf-processing rate. The presence of particular species also appeared to be important for leaf processing. A second field study tested whether an increased variety of leaf types might lead to increased detritus processing in high, compared to low, diversity shredder communities. Again, particular species, or species combinations, appeared to be important in processing a mixed leaf resource, but shredder diversity was unimportant. Artificial streams were then used to examine experimentally the effects of shredder identity and species number on detritus processing. Once more shredder diversity had little effect on processing rates, while shredder identity was important, on single and mixed leaf resources. A final experiment quantified the extent of resource-use complementarity among a set of shredder species, and then tested whether differences in complementarity among species pairs influenced leaf-processing rates. Although shredders did show differences in their leaf diets, experimental increases in complementarity did not translate into positive effects on leaf processing rates. Both field and experimental studies provided little clear evidence for a positive diversity-function relationship, or the mechanisms proposed to underpin it. Results imply that the consequences of biodiversity loss for stream ecosystem function are dependent on which species are lost. ii Thesis contents Acknowledgements................................................................................................ i Summary.................................................................................................................ii Thesis contents.......................................................................................................iii 1. General introduction......................................................................................... 1 1.1. Introduction................................................................................................. 1 1.1.1. The diversity-ecosystem function issue............................................ 1 1.1.2. The development of hypotheses........................................................2 1.2. Biodiversity-ecosystem functioning experiments......................................... 4 1.2.1. Measures of diversity, response variables and types of system used.................................................................................................4 1.2.2. The general patternsobserved...........................................................5 1.3. Species identity and composition effects on ecosystem function................ 7 1.3.1. Species identity effects......................................................................7 1.3.2. Species composition effects.............................................................. 8 1.4. Mechanisms that drive positive biodiversity-ecosystem function relationships........................................................................................................9 1.4.1. The selection effect........................................................................... 9 1.4.2. 'Complementarity effects’.................................................................. 11 1.4.2.1. The niche-differentiation effect........................................... 11 1.4.2.2. Facilitation.......................................................................... 12 1.4.2.3. Functional groups and complementarity............................ 12 1.4.2.4. Distinguishing between different mechanisms................... 14 1.5. Limitations of the current evidence..............................................................16 1.5.1. The mechanisms...............................................................................16 1.5.2. Relevance of experiments to natural systems.................................. 18 1.5.2.1. Relevance of the selection effect in natural communities... 18 1.5.2.2. Scale of experiments......................................................... 19 1.5.3. Generalising across ecosystem types.............................................. 21 1.6. Biodiversity and ecosystem function in streams......................................... 23 1.6.1. Detritus processing in streams..........................................................23 1.6.2. Relationship between shredders and detritus processing................. 25 1.7. Aims............................................................................................................ 29 iii 2. The importance of macroinvertebrate species richness, identity and community composition for detritus processing in natural streams........................ 33 2.1. Introduction................................................................................................. 33 2.1.1. Factors that influence detritus processing in streams......................34 2.1.1.1. Environmental factors........................................................ 34 2.1.1.2. Biotic factors...................................................................... 35 2.1.2. Influence of individual species on detritusprocessing ...................... 36 2.1.3. Influence of community composition on detritus processing............ 37 2.1.4. Aims..................................................................................................38 2.2. Methods....................................................................................................... 39 2.2.1. Study sites........................................................................................ 39 2.2.2. Quantifying leaf decomposition........................................................ 44 2.2.3. Physico-chemical measurements.....................................................46 2.2.4. Quantifying biotic variables...............................................................46 2.2.5. Statistical analyses...........................................................................47 2.3. Results.........................................................................................................49 2.3.1. Variation in environmental and biotic factors.................................... 49 2.3.2. Factors influencing leaf mass loss.....................................................51 2.3.2.1. Whole macroinvertebrate community.................................51 2.3.2.2. Shredder community.......................................................... 54 2.3.2.3. Non-shredder community...................................................55 2.3.2.4. All components of the macroinvertebrate community........ 55 2.3.2.5. General patterns................................................................ 56 2.3.3. Influence of individual shredder species on leaf mass loss............... 56 2.3.3.1. Species presence/absence................................................56 2.3.3.2. Biomass............................................................................. 56 2.3.3.3. Abundance.........................................................................58 2.3.4. Influence of community composition on leaf mass loss................... 62 2.3.4.1. Whole community.............................................................. 62 2.3.4.2. Shredder community..........................................................64 2.4. Discussion...................................................................................................66 2.4.1. Influence of species richness on leaf processing..............................66 2.4.2. Influenceof individual species on leaf processing...........................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Dipterists Forum
    BULLETIN OF THE Dipterists Forum Bulletin No. 76 Autumn 2013 Affiliated to the British Entomological and Natural History Society Bulletin No. 76 Autumn 2013 ISSN 1358-5029 Editorial panel Bulletin Editor Darwyn Sumner Assistant Editor Judy Webb Dipterists Forum Officers Chairman Martin Drake Vice Chairman Stuart Ball Secretary John Kramer Meetings Treasurer Howard Bentley Please use the Booking Form included in this Bulletin or downloaded from our Membership Sec. John Showers website Field Meetings Sec. Roger Morris Field Meetings Indoor Meetings Sec. Duncan Sivell Roger Morris 7 Vine Street, Stamford, Lincolnshire PE9 1QE Publicity Officer Erica McAlister [email protected] Conservation Officer Rob Wolton Workshops & Indoor Meetings Organiser Duncan Sivell Ordinary Members Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London, SW7 5BD [email protected] Chris Spilling, Malcolm Smart, Mick Parker Nathan Medd, John Ismay, vacancy Bulletin contributions Unelected Members Please refer to guide notes in this Bulletin for details of how to contribute and send your material to both of the following: Dipterists Digest Editor Peter Chandler Dipterists Bulletin Editor Darwyn Sumner Secretary 122, Link Road, Anstey, Charnwood, Leicestershire LE7 7BX. John Kramer Tel. 0116 212 5075 31 Ash Tree Road, Oadby, Leicester, Leicestershire, LE2 5TE. [email protected] [email protected] Assistant Editor Treasurer Judy Webb Howard Bentley 2 Dorchester Court, Blenheim Road, Kidlington, Oxon. OX5 2JT. 37, Biddenden Close, Bearsted, Maidstone, Kent. ME15 8JP Tel. 01865 377487 Tel. 01622 739452 [email protected] [email protected] Conservation Dipterists Digest contributions Robert Wolton Locks Park Farm, Hatherleigh, Oakhampton, Devon EX20 3LZ Dipterists Digest Editor Tel.
    [Show full text]
  • Description of the Larva of Philopotamus Achemenus Schmid 1959 (Trichoptera: Philopotamidae) and a Larval Key for Species of Philopotamus in Greece
    Zootaxa 3815 (3): 428–434 ISSN 1175-5326 (print edition) www.mapress.com/zootaxa/ Article ZOOTAXA Copyright © 2014 Magnolia Press ISSN 1175-5334 (online edition) http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.3815.3.8 http://zoobank.org/urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:7F045CE9-D24B-4AB8-ACA1-234C380A6FCE Description of the larva of Philopotamus achemenus Schmid 1959 (Trichoptera: Philopotamidae) and a larval key for species of Philopotamus in Greece IOANNIS KARAOUZAS Institute of Marine Biological Resources and Inland Waters, Hellenic Centre for Marine Research, 46.7km Athens-Sounio Av., Anavis- sos 19013, Greece. E-mail: [email protected]; Phone number: +30 22910 76391; Fax: +30 22910 76419 Abstract The larva of Philopotamus achemenus is described for the first time. The diagnostic features of the species are described and illustrated and some information regarding its ecology and world distribution is included. Furthermore, its morpho- logical characters are compared and contrasted in an identification key for larvae of the Greek species of Philopotamus. Key words: Caddisfly, taxonomy, identification, larva, distribution Introduction The family Philopotamidae in Greece is represented by the genera Chimarra Stephens 1829, Philopotamus Stephens 1829, and Wormaldia McLachlan 1865. The genus Philopotamus in Greece is represented by 3 species (Malicky 1993, 2005): P. montanus (Donovan 1813), P. variegatus (Scopoli 1763) and P. achemenus Schmid 1959. Philopotamus montanus is commonly distributed throughout Europe, extending to northwestern Russia (Malicky 1974, 2004; Pitsch 1987), while P. variegatus is widely distributed in central and southern Europe and the Anatolian Peninsula (Gonzalez et al. 1992; Sipahiler & Malicky 1987; Sipahiler 2012). Both species can be found in Greek mountainous running waters and their distribution extends throughout the country, including several islands (i.e., Euboea, Crete, Samos; Malicky 2005).
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Newsletter and Bibliography of the International Society of Plecopterologists PERLA NO. 28, 2010
    PERLA Annual Newsletter and Bibliography of The International Society of Plecopterologists Pteronarcella regularis (Hagen), Mt. Shasta City Park, California, USA. Photograph by Bill P. Stark PERLA NO. 28, 2010 Department of Bioagricultural Sciences and Pest Management Colorado State University Fort Collins, Colorado 80523 USA PERLA Annual Newsletter and Bibliography of the International Society of Plecopterologists Available on Request to the Managing Editor MANAGING EDITOR: Boris C. Kondratieff Department of Bioagricultural Sciences And Pest Management Colorado State University Fort Collins, Colorado 80523 USA E-mail: [email protected] EDITORIAL BOARD: Richard W. Baumann Department of Biology and Monte L. Bean Life Science Museum Brigham Young University Provo, Utah 84602 USA E-mail: [email protected] J. Manuel Tierno de Figueroa Dpto. de Biología Animal Facultad de Ciencias Universidad de Granada 18071 Granada, SPAIN E-mail: [email protected] Kenneth W. Stewart Department of Biological Sciences University of North Texas Denton, Texas 76203, USA E-mail: [email protected] Shigekazu Uchida Aichi Institute of Technology 1247 Yagusa Toyota 470-0392, JAPAN E-mail: [email protected] Peter Zwick Schwarzer Stock 9 D-36110 Schlitz, GERMANY E-mail: [email protected] 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Subscription policy……………………………………………………………………….4 Publication of the Proceedings of the International Joint Meeting on Ephemeroptera and Plecoptera 2008…………………………………….………………….………….…5 Ninth North American Plecoptera Symposium………………………………………….6
    [Show full text]
  • New Species and Records of Balkan Trichoptera III
    097_132_Balkan_Trichoptera_III_Olah.qxd 1/29/2015 12:22 PM Page 97 FOLIA HISTORICO-NATURALIA MUSEI MATRAENSIS 2014 38: 97–131 New species and records of Balkan Trichoptera III. JÁNOS OLÁH & TIBOR KOVÁCS ABSTRACT: We report 113 caddisfly species from Albania, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Greece, Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia, and Slovenia. Ten new species are described: Wormaldia busa Oláh sp. n., W. daga Oláh sp. n., W. graeca Oláh sp. n., W. homora Oláh sp. n., Tinodes karpathos Oláh sp. n., Hydropsyche sarnas Oláh sp. n., Annitella jablanicensis Oláh sp. n., Allogamus zugor Oláh sp. n., Potamophylax alsos Oláh sp. n., and Beraea gurba Oláh sp. n. Two unknown females are described: Potamophylax kesken Oláh, 2012, and P. tagas Oláh et Kovács, 2012. The Potamophylax tagas species cluster is revised by fine structure analysis of the cluster divergence, including cluster history, probable speciation, divergence between sibling pairs, as well as gonopod, paramer, aedeagus, and vaginal sclerite divergences. Introduction Data and information on the Balkan Trichoptera, especially from Albania, Macedonia Monte- negro and Serbia is still very limited in spite of the very high diversity in these countries. High elevation habitats in several mountain ranges are significant endemic hotspots. Our annual field work, although very limited, is producing every year new distributional data and new species (OLÁH 2010, 2011; OLÁH & KOVÁCS 2012a,b, 2013; OLÁH et al. 2012, 2013a,b, 2014). Both spring and autumnal collecting trips were financed by The Sakertour Eastern Europe, the Birdwatching and Hide Photography Company of the Carpathian Basin and Danube Delta. We have applied the collecting, processing, clearing, cleaning and drawing methods described by OLÁH (2011).
    [Show full text]
  • The Diptera of Lancashire and Cheshire: Craneflies and Winter Gnats
    The Diptera of Lancashire and Cheshire: Craneflies and Winter Gnats by Phil Brighton 32, Wadeson Way, Croft, Warrington WA3 7JS [email protected] Version 1.1 26 November 2017 1 Summary This document provides a new checklist for the craneflies and winter gnats (Tipuloidea, Ptychopteridae and Trichoceridae) to extend the lists of the diptera of Lancashire and Cheshire first published by Kidd and Bindle in 1959. Overall statistics on recording activity are given by decade and hectad. Checklists are presented for each of the three Watsonian vice-counties 58, 59, and 60 detailing for each species the number of records, year of earliest and most recent record, and the number of hectads with records. A combined checklist showing distribution by the three vice-counties is also included, covering a total of 264 species, amounting to 75% of the current British checklist. Introduction This report is the third in a series to update and extend the partial checklist of the diptera of Lancashire and Cheshire published in 1959 by Leonard Kidd and Alan Brindle1. There were two previous updates, in 19642 and 19713. The previous reports in this series cover the soldierflies and allies4 and the Sepsidae5, the latter family not having been covered in Ref 1. The reader is referred to the first two reports for the background and rationale of these checklists, as well as the history of diptera recording and available data sources. The description of methodology is also kept to a minimum in the present report: only significant differences from the previous publications will be outlined.
    [Show full text]
  • Trichoptera) from Finnmark, Northern Norway
    © Norwegian Journal of Entomology. 5 December 2012 Caddisflies (Trichoptera) from Finnmark, northern Norway TROND ANDERSEN & LINN KATRINE HAGENLUND Andersen, T. & Hagenlund, L.K. 2012. Caddisflies (Trichoptera) from Finnmark, northern Norway. Norwegian Journal of Entomology 59, 133–154. Records of 108 species of Trichoptera from Finnmark, northern Norway, are presented based partly on material collected in 2010 and partly on older material housed in the entomological collection at the University Museum of Bergen. Rhyacophila obliterata McLachlan, 1863, must be regarded as new to Norway and Rhyacophila fasciata Hagen, 1859; Glossosoma nylanderi McLachlan, 1879; Agapetus ochripes Curtis, 1834; Agraylea cognatella McLachlan, 1880; Ithytrichia lamellaris Eaton, 1873; Oxyethira falcata Morton, 1893; O. sagittifera Ris, 1897; Wormaldia subnigra McLachlan, 1865; Hydropsyche newae Kolenati, 1858; H. saxonica McLachlan, 1884; Brachycentrus subnubilis Curtis, 1834; Apatania auricula (Forsslund, 1930); A. dalecarlica Forsslund, 1934; Annitella obscurata (McLachlan, 1876); Limnephilus decipiens (Kolenati, 1848); L. externus Hagen, 1865; L. femoratus (Zetterstedt, 1840); L. politus McLachlan, 1865; L. sparsus Curtis, 1834; L. stigma Curtis, 1834; L. subnitidus McLachlan, 1875; L. vittatus (Fabricius, 1798); Phacopteryx brevipennis (Curtis, 1834); Halesus tesselatus (Rambur, 1842); Stenophylax sequax (McLachlan, 1875); Beraea pullata (Curtis, 1834); Beraeodes minutus (Linnaeus, 1761); Athripsodes commutatus (Rostock, 1874); Ceraclea fulva (Rambur,
    [Show full text]
  • In Baltic Amber 85
    Overview and descriptions of fossil stoneflies (Plecoptera) in Baltic amber 85 Entomologie heute 22 (2010): 85-97 Overview and Descriptions of Fossil Stoneflies (Plecoptera) in Baltic Amber Übersicht und Beschreibungen von fossilen Steinfliegen (Plecoptera) im Baltischen Bernstein CELESTINE CARUSO & WILFRIED WICHARD Summary: Three new fossil species of stoneflies (Plecoptera: Nemouridae and Leuctridae) from Eocene Baltic amber are being described: Zealeuctra cornuta n. sp., Lednia zilli n. sp., and Podmosta attenuata n. sp.. Extant species of these three genera are found in Eastern Asia and in the Nearctic region. It is very probably that the genera must have been widely spread across the northern hemisphere in the Cretaceous period, before Europe was an archipelago in Eocene. The current state of knowledge about the seventeen Plecoptera species of Baltic amber is shortly presented. Due to discovered homonymies, the following nomenclatural corrections are proposed: Leuctra fusca Pictet, 1856 in Leuctra electrofusca Caruso & Wichard, 2010 and Nemoura affinis Berendt, 1856 in Nemoura electroaffinis Caruso & Wichard, 2010. Keywords: Fossil insects, fossil Plecoptera, Eocene, paleobiogeography Zusammenfassung: In dieser Arbeit werden drei neue fossile Steinfliegen-Arten (Plecoptera: Nemouridae und Leuctridae) des Baltischen Bernsteins beschrieben: Zealeuctra cornuta n. sp., Lednia zilli n. sp., Podmosta attenuata n. sp.. Rezente Arten der drei Gattungen sind in Ostasien und in der nearktischen Region nachgewiesen. Sehr wahrscheinlich breiteten sich die Gattungen in der Krei- dezeit über die nördliche Hemisphäre aus, noch bevor Europa im Eozän ein Archipel war. Der gegenwärtige Kenntnisstand über die siebzehn Plecoptera Arten des Baltischen Bernsteins wird kurz dargelegt. Wegen bestehender Homonymien werden folgende nomenklatorische Korrekturen vorgenommen: Leuctra fusca Pictet, 1856 in Leuctra electrofusca Caruso & Wichard, 2010 und Nemoura affinis Berendt, 1856 in Nemoura electroaffinis Caruso & Wichard, 2010.
    [Show full text]
  • Ref: SCBD /ITS/DC/MC/54802, Letter from SCBD 24Th of May 2006
    Memorandum 27 November 2006 Ministry of Sustainable Development Secretariat of CBD 413 St-Jacques Street West, Suit 800 Division for Natural Resources Montreal, Quebec Senior Adviser Jan Terstad Canada H2Y 1N9 Telephone +46 (0)8 4052079 Fax +46 (0)8 4052079 E-mail [email protected] Information on the Swedish national biodiversity strategies and action plans (ref: SCBD /ITS/DC/MC/54802, letter from SCBD 24 th of May 2006) I have the pleasure to hereby provide the Secretariat with some information on the development, status and implementation of our Swedish strategies and action plans (NBSAP) regarding biodiversity. General background The Swedish government and Parliament have during the years since Sweden in 1994 ratified the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) taken decisions at several occasions regarding biodiversity. The earliest decisions after the ratification are the following: - Bill to Parliament 1993/94:30: A Strategy for Biological Diversity (enclosed) - Bills to Parliament in 1996 (1996/97:75) and 1997 (1997/98:2) on action plans for biodiversity. These two Bills were based on four sectoral action plans produced in 1995 by the National Board of Forestry, the Swedish Board of Agriculture, the National Board of Housing, Building and Planning, and the National Board of Fisheries (enclosed), plus an action plan also from 1995 produced by the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA) (attached). The biodiversity strategy and action plans from the 90:ies have been, in several but not all parts, superseded by the system of sixteen environmental quality objectives, adopted by Government and Parliament. These objectives express the environmental quality that should be reached within a generation (ca 25 years from 1999).
    [Show full text]
  • Structure of the Coxa and Homeosis of Legs in Nematocera (Insecta: Diptera)
    Acta Zoologica (Stockholm) 85: 131–148 (April 2004) StructureBlackwell Publishing, Ltd. of the coxa and homeosis of legs in Nematocera (Insecta: Diptera) Leonid Frantsevich Abstract Schmalhausen-Institute of Zoology, Frantsevich L. 2004. Structure of the coxa and homeosis of legs in Nematocera Kiev-30, Ukraine 01601 (Insecta: Diptera). — Acta Zoologica (Stockholm) 85: 131–148 Construction of the middle and hind coxae was investigated in 95 species of Keywords: 30 nematoceran families. As a rule, the middle coxa contains a separate coxite, Insect locomotion – Homeotic mutations the mediocoxite, articulated to the sternal process. In most families, this coxite – Diptera – Nematocera is movably articulated to the eucoxite and to the distocoxite area; the coxa is Accepted for publication: radially split twice. Some groups are characterized by a single split. 1 July 2004 The coxa in flies is restricted in its rotation owing to a partial junction either between the meron and the pleurite or between the eucoxite and the meropleurite. Hence the coxa is fastened to the thorax not only by two pivots (to the pleural ridge and the sternal process), but at the junction named above. Rotation is impossible without deformations; the role of hinges between coxites is to absorb deformations. This adaptive principle is confirmed by physical modelling. Middle coxae of limoniid tribes Eriopterini and Molophilini are compact, constructed by the template of hind coxae. On the contrary, hind coxae in all families of Mycetophiloidea and in Psychodidae s.l. are constructed like middle ones, with the separate mediocoxite, centrally suspended at the sternal process. These cases are considered as homeotic mutations, substituting one structure with a no less efficient one.
    [Show full text]
  • Spatial and Phylogenetic Structure of DNA-Species of Alpine Stonefly
    bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/765578; this version posted September 11, 2019. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under aCC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license. 1 Spatial and phylogenetic structure of DNA-species of Alpine stonefly community 2 assemblages across seven habitats 3 4 Maribet Gamboa1, Joeselle Serrana1, Yasuhiro Takemon2, Michael T. Monaghan3, Kozo 5 Watanabe1 6 7 8 1Ehime University, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Matsuyama, Japan 9 10 2Water Resources Research Center, Disaster Prevention Research Institute, Kyoto University, 11 6110011 Gokasho, Uji, Japan 12 13 3Leibniz-Institute of Freshwater Ecology and Inland Fisheries (IGB), Mueggelseedamm 301, 14 12587 Berlin, Germany 15 16 17 18 19 Correspondence 20 Kozo Watanabe, Ehime University, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, 21 Matsuyama, Japan. E-mail: [email protected] 22 bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/765578; this version posted September 11, 2019. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under aCC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license. 23 Abstract 24 1. Stream ecosystems are spatially heterogeneous environments due to the habitat diversity 25 that define different microhabitat patches within a single area. Despite the influence of 26 habitat heterogeneity on the biodiversity of insect community, little is known about how 27 habitat heterogeneity governs species coexistence and community assembly.
    [Show full text]
  • Refining Biological Monitoring of Hydromorphological Change in River Channels Using Benthic Riverfly Larvae (Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera and Trichoptera)
    Refining biological monitoring of hydromorphological change in river channels using benthic riverfly larvae (Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera and Trichoptera). Anna Doeser November 2016 Submitted to Biological and Environmental Sciences School of Natural Sciences University of Stirling Scotland. For the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Supervisor: Prof. Nigel Willby 1 Statement of Originality I hereby confirm that this PhD thesis is an original piece of work conducted independently by the undersigned and all work contained herein has not been submitted for any other degree. All research material has been duly acknowledged and cited. Signature of Candidate: Anna Doeser Date 2 General Abstract Rivers and their catchments are under mounting pressure from direct channel modification, intensification of land use, and from a legacy of decades of channelisation. Recent legislation, in the form of the EU Water Framework Directive, places a greater emphasis on the management of water bodies as holistic systems, and includes the explicit consideration of hydromorphological quality, which describes the hydrologic and geomorphic elements of river habitats. These are defined specifically as hydrological regime, river continuity and river morphology. This appreciates that sediment and flow regimes, along with the channel structure, provides the 'template' on which stream ecological structure and function is built. Invertebrate fauna contribute significantly to the biodiversity of rivers, and often form the basis of monitoring river health. However much of the fundamental ecological knowledge base on the response of invertebrates to hydromorphological change needed to make informed decisions and accurate predictions, is either lacking, inadequate or contradictory. This thesis addresses some of the key potential shortcomings in recent bio-assessment that others have alluded to, but which have rarely been explored in the context of direct channel manipulations.
    [Show full text]
  • Bibliographia Trichopterorum
    Entry numbers checked/adjusted: 23/10/12 Bibliographia Trichopterorum Volume 4 1991-2000 (Preliminary) ©Andrew P.Nimmo 106-29 Ave NW, EDMONTON, Alberta, Canada T6J 4H6 e-mail: [email protected] [As at 25/3/14] 2 LITERATURE CITATIONS [*indicates that I have a copy of the paper in question] 0001 Anon. 1993. Studies on the structure and function of river ecosystems of the Far East, 2. Rep. on work supported by Japan Soc. Promot. Sci. 1992. 82 pp. TN. 0002 * . 1994. Gunter Brückerman. 19.12.1960 12.2.1994. Braueria 21:7. [Photo only]. 0003 . 1994. New kind of fly discovered in Man.[itoba]. Eco Briefs, Edmonton Journal. Sept. 4. 0004 . 1997. Caddis biodiversity. Weta 20:40-41. ZRan 134-03000625 & 00002404. 0005 . 1997. Rote Liste gefahrdeter Tiere und Pflanzen des Burgenlandes. BFB-Ber. 87: 1-33. ZRan 135-02001470. 0006 1998. Floods have their benefits. Current Sci., Weekly Reader Corp. 84(1):12. 0007 . 1999. Short reports. Taxa new to Finland, new provincial records and deletions from the fauna of Finland. Ent. Fenn. 10:1-5. ZRan 136-02000496. 0008 . 2000. Entomology report. Sandnats 22(3):10-12, 20. ZRan 137-09000211. 0009 . 2000. Short reports. Ent. Fenn. 11:1-4. ZRan 136-03000823. 0010 * . 2000. Nattsländor - Trichoptera. pp 285-296. In: Rödlistade arter i Sverige 2000. The 2000 Red List of Swedish species. ed. U.Gärdenfors. ArtDatabanken, SLU, Uppsala. ISBN 91 88506 23 1 0011 Aagaard, K., J.O.Solem, T.Nost, & O.Hanssen. 1997. The macrobenthos of the pristine stre- am, Skiftesaa, Haeylandet, Norway. Hydrobiologia 348:81-94.
    [Show full text]