Journal of the North American Benthological Society

Published by: North American Benthological Society

« previous article : next article »


Journal of the North American Benthological Society 24(4):832-844. 2005
doi: 10.1899/04-067.1

Spatiotemporal patterns in community structure of macroinvertebrates inhabiting calcareous periphyton mats

Shawn E. Liston1 and Joel C. Trexler2

Department of Biological Sciences, Florida International University, Miami, Florida 33199 USA

1Present address: US Geological Survey, Florida Integrated Science Center, Water and Restoration Studies, Everglades National Park Field Station, 40001 State Road 9336, Homestead, Florida 33034 USA.

2

Abstract

Calcareous floating periphyton mats in the southern Everglades provide habitat for a diverse macroinvertebrate community that has not been well characterized. Our study described this community in an oligotrophic marsh, compared it with the macroinvertebrate community associated with adjacent epiphytic algae attached to macrophytes in the water column, and detected spatial patterns in density and community structure. The floating periphyton mat (floating mat) and epiphytic algae in the water column (submerged epiphyton) were sampled at 4 sites (1 km apart) in northern Shark River Slough, Everglades National Park (ENP), in the early (July) and late (November) wet season. Two perpendicular 90-m transects were established at each site and 100 samples were taken in a nested design. Sites were located in wet-prairie spikerush-dominated sloughs with similar water depths and emergent macrophyte communities. Floating mats were sampled by taking cores (6-cm diameter) that were sorted under magnification to enumerate infauna retained on a 250-μm-mesh sieve and with a maximum dimension >1 mm. Our results showed that floating mats provide habitat for a macroinvertebrate community with higher densities (no. animals/g ash-free dry mass) of Hyalella azteca, Dasyhelea spp., and Cladocera, and lower densities of Chironomidae and Planorbella spp. than communities associated with submerged epiphyton. Densities of the most common taxa increased 3× to 15× from early to late wet season, and community differences between the 2 habitat types became more pronounced. Floating-mat coverage and estimated floating-mat biomass increased 20 to 30% and 30 to 110%, respectively, at most sites in the late wet season. Some intersite variation was observed in individual taxa, but no consistent spatial pattern in any taxon was detected at any scale (from 0.2 m to 3 km). Floating mats and their resident macroinvertebrate communities are important components in the Everglades food web. This community should be included in environmental monitoring programs because degradation and eventual loss of the calcareous periphyton mat is associated with P enrichment in this ecosystem.

Received: July 8, 2004; Accepted: July 18, 2005

Keywords: epiphyton, eutrophication, Everglades, habitat structure, infauna, microhabitat, power analysis, refuge, spatial autocorrelation, wetland monitoring



Literature Cited

Benke, A. C., R. L I. Henry, D. M. Gillespie, and R. J. Hunter. 1985. Importance of snag habitat for animal production in southeastern streams. Fisheries 10/5:8–13. CrossRef, CSA
Bland, J. M. and D. G. Altman. 1996. Statistics notes: transformations, means, and confidence intervals. British Medical Journal 312:1079. PubMed, CSA
Browder, J. A., P. J. Gleason, and D. R. Swift. 1994. Periphyton in the Everglades: spatial variation, environmental correlates, and ecological implications. Pages 379–416 in S. M. Davis and J. C. Ogden (editors). Everglades: the ecosystem and its restoration. St. Lucie Press, Boca Raton, Florida.
Clarke, K. R. 1993. Non-parametric multivariate analyses of change in community structure. Australian Journal of Ecology 18:117–143. CrossRef
Clarke, K. R. and R. M. Warwick. 1994. Change in marine communities: an approach to statistical analyses and interpretation. Natural Environmental Research Council, Plymouth Marine Laboratory, Plymouth, UK.
Clements, W. H. 1987. The effect of rock surface area on distribution and abundance of stream insects. Journal of Freshwater Ecology 4:83–91. CSA
Cummins, K. W. and R. W. Merritt. 1984. Ecology and distribution of aquatic insects. Pages 59–65 in R. W. Merritt and K. W. Cummins (editors). An introduction to the aquatic insects of North America. 2nd edition. Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company, Dubuque, Iowa.
Cyr, H. and J. A. Downing. 1988. Empirical relationships of phytomacrofaunal abundance to plant biomass and macrophyte bed characteristics. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 45:976–984. CrossRef, CSA
Dobson, M. 1994. Microhabitat as a determinant of diversity: stream invertebrates colonizing leaf packs. Freshwater Biology 32:565–572. CrossRef, CSA
Donar, C. M., K. W. Condon, M. Gantar, and E. E. Gaiser. 2004. A new technique for examining the physical structure of Everglades floating periphyton mat. Nova Hedwigia 78:107–119. CrossRef
Downing, J. A. 1991. The effect of habitat structure on the spatial distribution of freshwater invertebrate populations. Pages 87–106 in S. S. Bell, E. D. McCoy, and H. R. Mushinsky (editors). Habitat structure: the physical arrangement of objects in space. Chapman and Hall, New York.
Freeman, B. J., H. S. Greening, and J. D. Oliver. 1984. Comparison of three methods for sampling fishes and macroinvertebrates in a vegetated freshwater wetland. Journal of Freshwater Ecology 2:603–609. CSA
Geddes, P. and J. C. Trexler. 2003. Uncoupling of omnivore-mediated positive and negative effects on periphyton mats. Oecologia (Berlin) 136:585–595. CrossRef, PubMed, CSA
Gleason, P. J. and W. Spackman. 1974. Calcareous periphyton and water chemistry in the Everglades. Pages 146–181 in P. J. Gleason (editor). Environments of South Florida: present and past. Miami Geological Society, Miami, Florida.
Goldsborough, L. G. and G. G C. Robinson. 1996. Pattern in wetlands. Pages 78–117 in R. J. Stevenson, M. L. Bothwell, and R. L. Lowe (editors). Algal ecology, freshwater benthic ecosystems. Academic Press, New York.
Hampton, S. E. 2004. Habitat overlap of enemies: temporal patterns and the role of spatial complexity. Oecologia (Berlin) 138:475–484. CrossRef, PubMed
Holomuzki, J. R. and S. H. Messier. 1993. Habitat selection by the stream mayfly Paraleptophlebia guttata. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 12:126–135. CrossRef, CSA
Legendre, L. and P. Legendre. 1983. Numerical ecology. Elsevier Science, New York.
Littell, R. C., G. A. Milliken, W. W. Stroup, and R. D. Wolfinger. 1996. SAS system for mixed models. SAS Institute, Cary, North Carolina.
McCormick, P. V., R. B E. Shuford, J. G. Backus, and W. C. Kennedy. 1998. Spatial and seasonal patterns of periphyton biomass and productivity in the northern Everglades, Florida, USA. Hydrobiologia 362:185–208. CrossRef, CSA
McCormick, P. V., R. B E. Shuford, and P. S. Rawlik. 2004. Changes in macroinvertebrate community structure and function along a phosphorus gradient in the Florida Everglades. Hydrobiologia 529:113–132. CrossRef
Moss, B. 1998. Ecology of fresh waters. 3rd edition. Blackwell Science, Oxford, UK.
O'Connor, N. A. 1991. The effects of habitat complexity on the macroinvertebrates colonising wood substrates in a lowland stream. Oecologia (Berlin) 85:504–512. CrossRef, CSA
Peckarsky, B. L. 1991. Habitat selection by stream-dwelling predatory stoneflies. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 48:1069–1076. CSA
Pielou, E. C. 1974. Populations and community ecology: principles and methods. Gordon and Breach Science Publishers, New York.
Rader, R. B. 1999. The Florida Everglades: natural variability, invertebrate diversity, and foodweb stability. Pages 25–54 in D. P. Batzer, R. B. Rader, and S. A. Wissinger (editors). Invertebrates in freshwater wetlands of North America: ecology and management. John Wiley and Sons, New York.
Rader, R. B. 2001. An introduction to wetland bioassessment and management. Pages 1–9 in R. B. Rader, D. P. Batzer, and S. A. Wissinger (editors). Bioassessment and management of North American freshwater wetlands. John Wiley and Sons, New York.
Sharitz, R. R. and D. P. Batzer. 1999. An introduction to freshwater wetlands in North America and their invertebrates. Pages 1–24 in D. P. Batzer and S. A. Wissinger (editors). Invertebrates in freshwater wetlands of North America: ecology and management. John Wiley and Sons, New York.
Smock, L. A., G. M. Metzler, and J. E. Gladden. 1989. Role of debris dams in the structure and functioning of low-gradient headwater streams. Ecology 70:764–775. CrossRef, CSA
Soszka, G. J. 1975. The invertebrates on submerged macrophytes in three Masurian Lakes. Ekologia Polska 23:371–391.
Trexler, J. C., W. F. Loftus, C. F. Jordan, J. Chick, K. L. Kandl, T. C. McElroy, and O. L. Bass. 2001. Ecological scale and its implications for freshwater fishes in the Florida Everglades. Pages 153–181 in J. W. Porter and K. G. Porter (editors). The Everglades, Florida Bay, and coral reefs of the Florida Keys: an ecosystem sourcebook. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida.
Turner, A. M., J. C. Trexler, C. F. Jordan, S. J. Slack, P. Geddes, J. H. Chick, and W. F. Loftus. 1999. Targeting ecosystem features for conservation: standing crops in the Florida Everglades. Conservation Biology 13:898–911. CrossRef

Fig. 1. Location of study sites in northern Shark River Slough, Everglades National Park, South Florida.

Fig. 2. Schematic diagram of nested sampling design. A.—Locations of plots within sites. Each site was constructed from nine 100-m2 plots spaced 10 m apart and arranged in an L- (sites A, B, and D) or T-design (site C). B.—Location of quadrats within plots. Dots represent core samples, and end plots were sampled more intensively, repeating the L-pattern. C.—Locations of core samples within quadrats. Three cores were taken from each 1-m2 quadrat. Plots alternated large-L and small-L quadrat designs (see Methods for details)

Fig. 3. Estimated sample size (n) necessary to detect effect size (f) at 80% power based on differences between sites (A) and between seasons (B). Arrows indicate effect size observed in most commonly encountered taxa (heavy arrows indicate cases where p ≤ 0.05). AM = Hyalella azteca, BE = Bezzia spp., CD = Cladocera, CH = Chironomidae, CL = Coleoptera (adult), CN = Coenagrionidae, CP = Copepoda, DA = Dasyhelea spp., HE = Heteroptera, NE = Nematoda, OS = Ostracoda, PE = Pelocoris femoratus, PH = Physella spp., PL = Planorbella spp., PU = Diptera pupae, TOT = total invertebrates

Fig. 4. Nonmetric Multidimensional scaling plot of macroinvertebrate communities in floating-mat and submerged-epiphyton microhabitats in the early and late wet season (stress = 0.14)

Fig. 5. Mean (+1 SE) densities of invertebrate taxa with significant microhabitat preference in July (A) and November (B). * indicates significant difference (p ≤ 0.05) for a pair of bars. Taxon abbreviations as in Fig. 3

table

Table 1. Means of physical and environmental variables from the 4 study sites. Means with the same superscripts across rows do not differ significantly between sites (p > 0.05). DM = dry mass

table

Table 2. Relative abundance (RA), incidence (I), and total number (n) of individual macroinvertebrates collected from floating periphyton mats and submerged epiphyton in the Florida Everglades in late July and early November 2000 (sites and sampling seasons were pooled). Subscripts on insect taxa indicate adult (A), larval (L), and pupal (P) life stages. – indicates taxon not collected in the microhabitat

table

Table 3. Mean density (no./g ash-free dry mass periphyton) of floating-mat infauna across 4 sites in July and November. Means with the same superscripts across rows do not differ between sites. Only taxa and taxon/sampling season combinations with significant variation (p < 0.05) are shown

table

Table 4. Magnitudes of mean density (no./g ash-free dry mass) increases at each site (A, B, C, D) from July to November in floating-mat and submerged-epiphyton microhabitats (e.g., 2.0 = 2× or 100% increase). Submerged epiphyton was not sampled at site B in November. Only taxa with significant seasonal variation in at least one microhabitat (p < 0.05) are shown. – indicates no seasonal variation.

table

Table 5. Mean density, number of samples (n), and R2 values for hierarchical ANOVA for the most commonly encountered floating-mat taxa at 3 spatial scales in each sampling season. Only taxa that showed significant effects are shown. Subscripts on insect taxa indicate adult (A), larval (L), and pupal (P) life stages. AFDM = periphyton ash-free dry mass

Cited by

Shawn E. Liston, Susan Newman, Joel C. Trexler. (2008) Macroinvertebrate Community Response to Eutrophication in an Oligotrophic Wetland: An in situ Mesocosm Experiment. Wetlands 28:3, 686-694
Online publication date: 1-Sep-2008.

Abstract & References : Full Text : PDF (435 KB) : Rights & Permissions 

Ryan S. King, Curtis J. Richardson. (2007) Subsidy–stress response of macroinvertebrate community biomass to a phosphorus gradient in an oligotrophic wetland ecosystem. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 26:3, 491-508
Online publication date: 1-Sep-2007.

Abstract & References : Full Text : PDF (461 KB) : Rights & Permissions 

Shawn E. Liston. (2006) Interactions between nutrient availability and hydroperiod shape macroinvertebrate communities in Florida Everglades marshes. Hydrobiologia 569:1, 343-357
Online publication date: 1-Nov-2006.
CrossRef
Nathan J. Dorn, Joel C. Trexler, Evelyn E. Gaiser. (2006) Exploring the role of large predators in marsh food webs: evidence for a behaviorally-mediated trophic cascade. Hydrobiologia 569:1, 375-386
Online publication date: 1-Nov-2006.
CrossRef
 
BioOne is the product of innovative collaboration between scientific societies, libraries, academe and the private sector.
 
21 Dupont Circle NW, Suite 800, Washington, DC 20036 • Phone 202.296.2296 • Fax 202.872.0884
 
Copyright © 2009 BioOne All rights reserved