The influence of flow permanence and drying pattern on macroinvertebrate biomonitoring tools used in the assessment of riverine ecosystems

N.A Wilding,J.C White,R.P Chadd,A House,P.J Wood

doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.10.059

N.A Wilding, J.C White + Show 3 more

Open Access

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.10.059

Copy DOI

Abstract

Temporary rivers comprise a significant proportion of river networks globally and their prevalence is expected to increase as a result of future climate change and anthropogenic water resource pressures. Despite this, the influence of drying events on freshwater biomonitoring tools within temporary rivers has received limited research attention within temperate environments. This study examines the effects of flow permanence and longitudinal drying patterns on selected biomonitoring indices used within the United Kingdom to assess the ecological status of waterbodies within the context of the Water Framework Directive. These indices are based on faunal tolerances and preferences to nutrient enrichment (BMWP, ASPT and Ntaxa) and flow velocity (Family LIFE). Long-term biomonitoring data from four rivers within southern England were examined, two of which dry longitudinally from the headwaters and two that dry within the mid-reaches. The results demonstrate that all of the biomonitoring indices examined differed significantly between each ‘hydrological class’ (i.e. temporary versus perennial reaches), with those based on absolute scores (BMWP and Ntaxa) displaying greater differences compared to those derived using scores standardized by the number of taxa recorded (ASPT and Family LIFE). The individual influence of drying pattern did not have a significant effect on any biomonitoring index. However, the interaction between the hydrological class and drying pattern significantly influenced all biomonitoring indices, indicating that the effect of flow intermittency on the metrics examined differed between drying patterns. Flow permanence explained a greater amount of statistical variation compared to the hydrological class and highlights the importance of the duration of flowing conditions on biomonitoring indices. The results indicate that flow intermittency has a significant effect on freshwater biomonitoring tools and highlights the need to incorporate this knowledge into existing management and environmental policy frameworks to prevent the misclassification of the ecological status of temporary streams.

Highlights

Temporary rivers, referred to as intermittent, non-perennial, or ephemeral, are lotic ecosystems that experience the cessation of surface flows partially or completely for a period of time (Leigh et al, 2016)
All biomonitoring indices were significantly influenced by the hydrological class (HC – i.e. ‘temporary’ or ‘perennial’) and its interaction with the drying pattern (DP)
Perennial sites typically obtained higher Biological Monitoring Working Party’ (BMWP) scores and number of taxa (Ntaxa) values compared with temporary reaches along rivers which dried longitudinally from the headwaters, but overlapped more so within rivers that dried from the mid-reaches

Summary

Introduction

Referred to as intermittent, non-perennial, or ephemeral, are lotic ecosystems that experience the cessation of surface flows partially or completely for a period of time (Leigh et al, 2016). The total channel length of temporary streams within river networks is predicted to increase in response to rising volumes of water abstraction and future climate change, resulting in a greater frequency and duration of channel drying events (Palmer et al, 2008; Acuña et al, 2014). Rivers that dry within the mid-reaches possess upstream and downstream perennial sources from which taxa can migrate (aquatically or aerially) into temporary reaches once flows resume (Storey and Quinn, 2008; Arscott et al, 2010). The (re)colonization of taxa from permanent waterbodies may require longer periods of time within rivers that dry from the headwaters as fauna are forced to migrate aquatically upstream or aerially disperse (Wright et al, 1984; Wood et al, 2005; White et al, 2018)

Methods

Results

Conclusion