Register      Login
Marine and Freshwater Research Marine and Freshwater Research Society
Advances in the aquatic sciences
Shopping Cart: ( empty )
You are here: Home > Journals > MF > MF06183
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Contents Vol 58(7)

Partitioning the variation in stream fish assemblages within a spatio-temporal hierarchy

Ben Stewart-Koster A C , Mark J. Kennard A , Bronwyn D. Harch B , Fran Sheldon A , Angela H. Arthington A and Bradley J. Pusey A
+ Author Affiliations
- Author Affiliations

A eWater Cooperative Research Centre, Australian Rivers Institute, Griffith University, Nathan, Qld 4111, Australia.

B CSIRO Mathematical and Information Sciences, 120 Meiers Road, Indooroopilly, Qld 4068, Australia.

C Corresponding author. Email: b.stewart-koster@griffith.edu.au

Marine and Freshwater Research 58(7) 675-686 https://doi.org/10.1071/MF06183
Submitted: 4 October 2006  Accepted: 8 May 2007   Published: 31 July 2007

Abstract

This paper describes the relative influence of (i) landscape scale environmental and hydrological factors, (ii) local scale environmental conditions including recent flow history, and (iii) spatial effects (proximity of sites to one another), on the spatial and temporal variation in local freshwater fish assemblages in the Mary River, south-eastern Queensland, Australia. Using canonical correspondence analysis, each of the three sets of variables explained similar amounts of variation in fish assemblages (ranging from 44 to 52%). Variation in fish assemblages was partitioned into eight unique components: pure environmental, pure spatial, pure temporal, spatially structured environmental variation, temporally structured environmental variation, spatially structured temporal variation, the combined spatial/temporal component of environmental variation and unexplained variation. The total variation explained by these components was 65%. The combined spatial/temporal/environmental component explained the largest component (30%) of the total variation in fish assemblages, whereas pure environmental (6%), temporal (9%) and spatial (2%) effects were relatively unimportant. The high degree of intercorrelation between the three different groups of explanatory variables indicates that our understanding of the importance to fish assemblages of hydrological variation (often highlighted as the major structuring force in river systems) is dependent on the environmental context in which this role is examined.

Additional keywords: canonical correspondence analysis, flow regime, habitat, spatial autocorrelation, variance partitioning.


Acknowledgements

The research presented in this paper formed part of an Honours Dissertation by the senior author in the Australian School of Environmental Studies, Griffith University. Funding support was provided by the eWater Cooperative Research Centre, the former CRC for Freshwater Ecology and the former Land and Water Resources Research and Development Corporation (LWRRDC). We thank Steve Mackay for assistance with field sampling and Nick Marsh for advice on hydrological statistics. We also thank Erin Peterson for providing useful comments on an earlier draft of the manuscript.


References

Anderson, M. J. , and Gribble, N. A. (1998). Partitioning the variation among spatial, temporal and environmental components in a multivariate data set. Australian Journal of Ecology 23, 158–167.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | Brizga S. O., Arthington A. H., Choy S., Duivendoorden L., Kennard M. J., Maynard R., and Poplawski W. (2003). Mary Basin Water Resource Plan (WRP) – Environmental Conditions Report. Queensland Department of Natural Resources, Brisbane.

Cottenie, K. (2005). Integrating environmental and spatial processes in ecological community dynamics. Ecology Letters 8, 1175–1182.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | Dale M. R. T. (1999). ‘Spatial Pattern Analysis in Plant Ecology.’ (Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, MA.)

Downes, B. J. , Hindell, J. S. , and Bond, N. R. (2000). What’s in a site? Variation in lotic macroinvertebrate density and diversity in a spatially replicated experiment. Austral Ecology 25, 128–139.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | Growns J., and Marsh N. (2000). ‘Characterisation of flow in regulated and unregulated streams in eastern Australia.’ Report to the Cooperative Research Centre for Freshwater Ecology, Canberra.

Humphries, P. , King, A. J. , and Koehn, J. D. (1999). Fish, flows and flood plains: links between freshwater fishes and their environment in the Murray-Darling River system, Australia. Environmental Biology of Fishes 56, 129–151.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | Kennard M. J. (2005). A quantitative basis for the use of fish as indicators of river health in eastern Australia. Ph.D. Thesis, Griffith University, Gold Coast.

Kennard, M. J. , Pusey, B. J. , Harch, B. H. , Dore, E. , and Arthington, A. H. (2006). Estimating local stream fish assemblage attributes: sampling effort and efficiency at two spatial scales. Marine and Freshwater Research 57, 635–653.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | Legendre P., and Legendre L. (1998). ‘Numerical Ecology.’ (Elsevier Scientific: Amsterdam.)

Lepš J., and Šmilauer P. (2003). ‘Multivariate Analysis of Ecological Data Using CANOCO.’ (Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, MA.)

Lytle, D. A. , and Poff, N. L. (2004). Adaptations to natural flow regimes. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 19, 94–100.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | Newbury R. W., and Gaboury M. C. (1993). ‘Stream Analysis and Fish Habitat Design: A Field Manual.’ (Newbury Hydraulics Ltd.: Gibson.)

Økland, R. H. (1996). Are ordination and constrained ordination alternative or complementary strategies in general ecological studies? Journal of Vegetation Science 7, 289–292.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | Pusey B. J., Kennard M. J., and Arthington A. H. (2004). ‘Freshwater Fishes of North-Eastern Australia.’ (CSIRO Publishing: Melbourne.)

Richards, C. , Johnson, L. B. , and Host, G. E. (1996). Landscape scale influences on stream habitats and biota. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 53(Suppl. 1), 295–311.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | Schlosser, I. J., and Angermeier, P. L. (1995). Spatial variation in demographic processes in lotic fishes: conceptual models, empirical evidence, and implications for conservation. In ‘Evolution and the Aquatic Ecosystem: Defining Unique Units in Population Conservation. Symposium 17’. (Ed. J. L. Nielsen.) pp. 392–401. (American Fisheries Society: Bethesda, MD.)

Simons, M. , Podger, G. , and Cook, R. (1996). IQQM – A hydrologic modelling tool for water resources and salinity management. Environmental Software 11, 185–192.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | ter Braak C. J. F., and Smilauer P. (1998). ‘CANOCO Reference Manual and User’s Guide to CANOCO for Windows: Software for Canonical Community Ordination (Version 4).’ (Microcomputer Power: Ithaca, NY.)

Tonn, W. M. (1990). Climate change and fish communities: a conceptual framework. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 119, 337–352.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |

Tuomisto, H. , and Ruokolainen, K. (2006). Analyzing or explaining beta diversity? Understanding the targets of different methods of analysis. Ecology 87, 2697–2708.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | PubMed |

Walker, K. F. , Sheldon, F. , and Puckridge, J. T. (1995). A perspective on dryland river ecosystems. Regulated Rivers: Research and Management 11, 85–104.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |

Ward, J. V. , Tockner, K. , Arscott, D. B. , and Claret, C. (2002). Riverine landscape diversity. Freshwater Biology 47, 517–539.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |

Wiens, J. A. (2002). Riverine landscapes: taking landscape ecology into the water. Freshwater Biology 47, 501–515.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |

Wiley, M. , Kohler, S. , and Seelbach, P. (1997). Reconciling landscape and local views of aquatic communities: lessons from Michigan trout streams. Freshwater Biology 37, 133–148.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |