Regional-scale patterns in community concordance: testing the roles of historical biogeography versus contemporary abiotic controls in determining stream community composition

Abstract

The determinants of a local-scale biological community can include both abiotic and biotic factors acting at a variety of spatial and temporal scales. Previous studies have shown that the Precambrian Shield, a broad-scale geological feature, has distinct abiotic conditions and aquatic communities in lotic systems as compared with systems off-Shield. The relative importance of historical biogeography and postglacial colonization in Ontario versus the role of contemporary abiotic conditions has been debated in determining fish community composition. In this study, we sampled fish and macroinvertebrate community data from south-central Ontario streams to examine the degree of community concordance between fishes and macroinvertebrates and to determine the main abiotic drivers for this biological distinction between Shield and off-Shield areas. This study shows that low-order lotic systems on the Shield differ both abiotically and biotically from adjacent off-Shield systems and that similar abiotic drivers are responsible for structuring both groups of taxa. However, water chemistry and land-use variables are the most important in structuring macroinvertebrate communities, whereas physical habitat plays a larger role for fish communities.

Assessment of the Huntai River in China using a multimetric index based on fish and macroinvertebrate assemblages

“…Can fish or macroinvertebrate assemblages individually sufficiently represent the effects of anthropogenic stressors on river communities alone? Several studies (Griffith et al 2005;Paavola et al 2006;Flinders et al 2008;Infante et al 2009;Walters et al 2009;Bedoya et al 2011;Marzin et al 2012;Neff & Jackson 2013;Johnson & Ringler 2014;Pili ere et al 2014) that have compared the sensitivity of fish-and macroinvertebrate-specific indices in identifying main stressors suggest that two assemblages should be used simultaneously in bioassessment. Our analysis suggested that the screened metrics for fish and macroinvertebrates responded differently to the various environmental stressors.…”

“…Despite the recommendations for assessments using fish and macroinvertebrate assemblages, less than a dozen studies (Griffith et al 2005;Paavola et al 2006;Flinders et al 2008;Infante et al 2009;Walters et al 2009;Bedoya et al 2011;Marzin et al 2012;Neff & Jackson 2013;Johnson & Ringler 2014;Pili ere et al 2014) have compared the responses of fish and macroinvertebrate assemblage-specific indices to stressors and suggested two taxonomic assemblages together are needed to determine streams and rivers condition. For example, Johnson and Ringler (2014) suggested that the major environmental variables affecting fish and macroinvertebrate assemblages differed, macroinvertebrate metrics better responded to substrate composition and land use, whereas stream morphometry and water chemistry were important variables for fish metrics, which was consistent with Walters et al (2009).…”

Scale dependent biodiversity patterns in Mediterranean river catchments: a multi taxa approach

“…Research on cross-taxon concordance and indicator groups is well developed in lotic systems (Heino et al 2009;Neff and Jackson 2013), especially in EU Countries where the classification of rivers' ecological status officially requires a multi-assemblage approach (Water Framework Directive;European Commission 2000). This approach, in turn, is needed to reach a synergy among the Water Framework Directive and the EU Habitat and Bird Directives (EC 1992(EC , 2009).…”

Complementary responses of stream fish and benthic macroinvertebrate assemblages to environmental drivers in a shale-gas development area

“…One way to assess the differences and similarities in the responses of groups of organisms is to evaluate community concordance, which measures the extent to which there is coherence or consistency among biotic assemblages, i.e., similarity in the characterization of stations based on the community structure of different groups of organisms (Jackson and Harvey 1993). Significant levels of community concordance have been found in assessments of BMI, fish, and other freshwater organism groups (e.g., diatoms, bryophytes, plankton, macrophytes) in both lakes and rivers (Kilgour and Barton 1999;Johnson and Hering 2010;Neff and Jackson 2013), though in some cases the strength of concordance was dependent on spatial or temporal scale of assessment (Allen et al 1999;Heino 2002;Paavola et al 2006;Bowman et al 2008). At small spatial scales, researchers have noted a lack of concordance among communities where local-scale drivers dominate and have suggested that each organism group responded to different environmental and anthropogenic pressures (Paavola et al 2003;Heino et al 2005;Infante et al 2009;Larsen et al 2012).…”