Comparison of macroinvertebrate communities of intermittent and perennial streams in the dry forest of Guanacaste, Costa Rica

Szoeke, Suzanne M. de; Crisman, Thomas L.; Thurman, Paul E.

doi:10.1002/eco.1665

Cited by 7 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 65 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Even within single river systems from different climatic zones, sites experiencing drying have, on average, less diverse invertebrate communities than those of nearby perennial sites (e.g. Datry et al, 2014a;Szoeke, Crisman & Thurman, 2015), although they can sometimes be very resilient to drying and recover within a few weeks or months (Rincon & Cressa, 2000;Fritz & Dodds, 2004;Vander Vorste et al, 2015a). Additionally, most studies have found high taxonomic overlap between the communities of perennial and intermittent sites, so that few or no specialists of IRES have been described (Delucchi, 1988;Grubbs, 2011;Datry et al, 2014a).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Determinants of local and regional communities in intermittent and perennial headwaters of the Bolivian Amazon

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary The effect of drying events on aquatic biodiversity is still overlooked in wet Neotropical systems. Yet, the responses of local communities and metacommunities in these biodiversity hotspots may differ from what is reported in other areas. We addressed the effect of drying events on local and regional fish and macroinvertebrate communities in the headwaters of the Chipiriri River basin, in the wet Neotropical piedmont of Bolivia. According to current knowledge in intermittent rivers and ephemeral streams (IRES) ecology, we predicted that intermittent (INT) sites would harbour lower α‐diversity, but higher β‐diversity, than perennial (PER) sites, due to local, negative effect of drying combined with the existence of multiple recovery stages at the network scale. Although habitat variables were similar between INT and PER sites, local and regional diversity patterns differed. Local invertebrate communities were not different between site types as soon as 4–6 weeks after flow resumption. The proximity of colonist sources and frequent rainfall probably enhanced persistence through dry periods and high resilience. In contrast, fish communities were still poorer at INT than PER sites, indicating they were still in the process of recolonising upstream INT reaches. β‐diversity analyses confirmed that invertebrate and fish metacommunities were not at the same recovery stage because (i) β‐diversity of invertebrates was best explained by physical and environmental distances at both INT and PER sites, whereas that of fish was explained only by physical distances at INT sites; (ii) fish β‐diversity was higher at INT than at PER sites, but invertebrate β‐diversity was similar; and (iii) physical distances were correlated with the turnover component of invertebrate β‐diversity but with the nestedness component for fish. Exploring regional community patterns in IRES and across biota with different dispersal abilities and modes can advance metacommunity theory and improve our ability to predict local community composition in dynamic ecosystems.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Determinants of local and regional communities in intermittent and perennial headwaters of the Bolivian Amazon

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The rapidly developing interest in using traits to understand ecological responses to disturbances (Schmera, Podani, Heino, Erős, & Poff, 2015) could be extended to GDEs. In more hydrologically dynamic GDEs, species with traits such as sensitivity to desiccation or poor dispersal ability may be vulnerable to groundwater regime alteration and therefore make especially effective ecological indicators (Brunke, Hoehn, & Gonser, 2003;de Szoeke, Crisman, & Thurman, 2016;Stumpp & Hose, 2013). Poor dispersers may lack the mobility to track favourable hydrological conditions and be restricted to hydrologically stable streams with groundwater regimes that buffer against precipitation variability (Kath et al, 2016).…”

Section: Step 2: Quantifying Changes In the Groundwater Regime And mentioning

confidence: 99%

A conceptual framework for ecological responses to groundwater regime alteration (FERGRA)

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Globally, the provision of groundwater‐supported ecosystem services is threatened by climate change, water extraction, and other activities that alter groundwater regimes (defined as temporal dynamics in groundwater pressures, storage, and levels). Research on how altered groundwater regimes affect the ecology and ecosystem services of diverse groundwater‐dependent ecosystems (GDEs) is currently fragmented with little integration across different GDEs, hampering our ability to understand and manage ecological responses to anthropogenic changes to groundwater regimes. To address this, we present a framework for assessing ecological responses to groundwater regime alteration (FERGRA). FERGRA is a logical approach to investigating how alterations to groundwater regimes change the timing, variability, duration, frequency, and magnitude of groundwater connections to different GDEs, in turn affecting their ecological processes and ecosystem service provision. Using FERGRA, multiple GDEs can be assessed concurrently, optimizing their integrated management. Unifying the concepts of ecological responses to altered groundwater regimes and groundwater connections of different GDEs across the landscape, FERGRA provides a framework for (a) organizing the currently fragmented research on GDEs to better identify commonalities and knowledge gaps, (b) formulating and testing hypotheses for quantifying ecological responses to groundwater regime alteration in GDEs to derive general principles to guide research and management, and (c) facilitating assessments of the trade‐offs between the benefits of groundwater extraction (e.g., to support mining and agriculture) versus conservation of GDEs to protect other ecosystem services.

show abstract

“…During this establishment period, taxa richness increases in intermittent reaches. For example, taxa richness in intermittent headwater streams in Costa Rica increased through the wet season, becoming similar to the richness in nearby perennial streams in ~5 months (de Szoeke, Crisman, & Thurman, ). In addition, as the establishment period progresses, β‐diversity among intermittent reaches should decline and approach that of perennial reaches as taxa mix among sites (Datry, Moya, Zubieta, & Oberdorff, ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 95%

The importance of scale in understanding the effect of stream intermittence on aquatic macroinvertebrate diversity

Wooster

DeBano

2018

River Research & Apps

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Biotic richness in intermittent reaches (α-diversity) is generally lower than in perennial reaches. However, variability among intermittent reaches (β-diversity) is predicted to be higher. Yet how patterns in αand β-diversity scale up to influence stream network diversity is unclear and has received little attention. In addition, the timing of sampling relative to the resumption of flow in intermittent reaches should influence patterns in diversity. We predicted that early in the wet season, assemblages in intermittent reaches would be recovering from drying and have lower α-diversity and higher βdiversity relative to perennial reaches but that these patterns might not be reflected at the stream network scale. In contrast, we predicted that late in the wet season, assemblages in intermittent reaches would recover and α, β, and network diversity would be similar between intermittent and perennial reaches. These predictions were tested with macroinvertebrate assemblages in an eastern Oregon stream network.Early in the wet season, α-diversity and network diversity were lower in intermittent than perennial reaches; however, β-diversity was similar between the two types of reaches. Late in the wet season, both α-diversity and β-diversity were similar between intermittent and perennial reaches, suggesting recovery of intermittent reaches from drying. However, at the network scale, intermittent reaches continued to have lower diversity indicating a lack of recovery. Rare taxa were particularly vulnerable to flow intermittency. Our results indicate that a consideration of spatial scale, taxa abundance/rarity, and timing of sampling will improve our understanding of the effect of flow intermittence on diversity.

show abstract

Comparison of macroinvertebrate communities of intermittent and perennial streams in the dry forest of Guanacaste, Costa Rica

Cited by 7 publications

References 65 publications

Determinants of local and regional communities in intermittent and perennial headwaters of the Bolivian Amazon

Determinants of local and regional communities in intermittent and perennial headwaters of the Bolivian Amazon

A conceptual framework for ecological responses to groundwater regime alteration (FERGRA)

The importance of scale in understanding the effect of stream intermittence on aquatic macroinvertebrate diversity

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About