Within a metacommunity, both environmental and spatial processes regulate variation in local community structure. The strength of these processes may vary depending on species traits (e.g., dispersal mode) or the characteristics of the regions studied (e.g., spatial extent, environmental heterogeneity). We studied the metacommunity structuring of three groups of stream macroinvertebrates differing in their overland dispersal mode (passive dispersers with aquatic adults; passive dispersers with terrestrial adults; active dispersers with terrestrial adults). We predicted that environmental structuring should be more important for active dispersers, because of their better ability to track environmental variability, and that spatial structuring should be more important for species with aquatic adults, because of stronger dispersal limitation. We sampled a total of 70 stream riffle sites in three drainage basins. Environmental heterogeneity was unrelated to spatial extent among our study regions, allowing us to examine the effects of these two factors on metacommunity structuring. We used partial redundancy analysis and Moran's eigenvector maps based on overland and watercourse distances to study the relative importance of environmental control and spatial structuring. We found that, compared with environmental control, spatial structuring was generally negligible, and it did not vary according to our predictions. In general, active dispersers with terrestrial adults showed stronger environmental control than the two passively dispersing groups, suggesting that the species dispersing actively are better able to track environmental variability. There were no clear differences in the results based on watercourse and overland distances. The variability in metacommunity structuring among basins was not related to the differences in the environmental heterogeneity and spatial extent. Our study emphasized that (1) environmental control is prevailing in stream metacommunities, (2) dispersal mode may have an important effect on metacommunity structuring, and (3) some factors other than spatial extent or environmental heterogeneity contributed to the differences among the basins.

No abstract

We examined the community-environment relationships of lotic macroinvertebrates in near-pristine headwater streams, and the correlation between patterns in taxonomic and functional structure at two regional extents. The across-ecoregion scale comprised five ecoregions spanning all of Finland, while the within-ecoregion scale comprised of north boreal and middle boreal ecoregions. We expected that taxonomic structure should exhibit stronger relationships than functional structure to spatial gradients, while the reverse should be true for local environmental factors. We found some support for this notion, because spatial variables were marginally more important for taxonomic than functional structure. Furthermore, within the two ecoregions, local environmental variables were slightly more important for functional than taxonomic structure. Geographical location (i.e. spatial variables) was more influential at the across-ecoregions extent than within the two ecoregions.

The rapid decrease of biodiversity and limited resources for surveying it have forced researchers to devise short-cuts for biodiversity surveys and conservation planning. These short-cuts include environmental surrogates, higher taxon surrogates, indicator species and indicator groups. We considered indicator groups as surrogates for wholesale biodiversity and cross-taxon congruence in biodiversity patterns in littoral macroinvertebrates of boreal lakes. Despite the fact that we considered indicator groups amongst a wide variety of taxa, such as two-winged flies, mayflies, caddisflies, beetles, bugs and molluscs, none of the proposed groups possessed all of the qualities of a good indicator taxon for biodiversity surveys and conservation planning. We found generally weak, yet typically significant, relationships between the proposed indicator groups and remaining taxa in both species richness and assemblage similarity. Low congruence was paralleled by somewhat differing relationships of the taxonomic groups to various environmental features of lakes. Furthermore, the relationships of most indicator groups to the environmental features of lakes were not particularly strong. The present findings are unfortunate, because indicator groups did not perform well in predicting the wholesale biodiversity of littoral macroinvertebrates. Thus, there appears to be no short-cut for considering all groups of J. Heino (macroinvertebrates in biodiversity surveys, conservation planning and characterisation of environmental relationships of lake littoral assemblages.

No abstract