Is the biological classification of benthic diatom communities concordant with ecotypes?

详细信息    查看全文

• 作者：Elisabet Torn茅s (12) etornes@icra.cat
  Manel Leira (3)
  Sergi Sabater (12)
• 关键词：Diatoms &#8211 ; Classification &#8211 ; Reference conditions &#8211 ; Water framework directive
• 刊名：Hydrobiologia
• 出版年：2012
• 出版时间：October 2012
• 年：2012
• 卷：695
• 期：1
• 页码：43-55
• 全文大小：2.1 MB
• 参考文献：1. Ag猫ncia Catalana de l’Aigua, 2005. Caracteritzaci贸 de masses d’aigua i an脿lisi del risc d’imcompliment dels objectius de la Directiva Marc de l’Aigua (2000/60/CE) a Catalunya (conques intra i intercomunit脿ries). Document de s铆ntesi. En compliment als articles 5, 6 i 7 de la Directiva. Generalitat de Catalunya. Departament de Medi Ambient i Habitatge. Available from http://aca-web.gencat.cat/aca/appmanager/aca/aca?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=P1206154461208200586461.
  2. Clarke, R. T., J. F. Wright & M. T. Furse, 2003. RIVPACS models for predicting the expected macroinvertebrate fauna and assessing the ecological quality of rivers. Ecological Modelling 160: 219–233.
  3. Davy-Bowker, J., R. T. Clarke, R. K. Johnson, J. Kokes, J. F. Murphy & S. Zahr谩dkov谩, 2006. A comparison of the European Water Framework Directive physical typology and RIVPACS-type models as alternative methods of establishing reference conditions for benthic macroinvertebrates. Hydrobiologia 566: 91–105.
  4. Dufr锚ne, M. & P. Legendre, 1997. Species assemblages and indicator species: the need for a flexible asymmetrical approach. Ecological Monographs 67: 345–366.
  5. European Committee for Standardization, 2003. European Standard. EN 13946. Water Quality – Guidance Standard for the Routine Sampling and Pretreatment of Benthic Diatoms from Rivers. CEN, Brussels: 14 pp.
  6. European Committee for Standardization, 2004. European Standard. EN 14407. Water Quality – Guidance Standard for the Identification, Enumeration and Interpretation of Benthic Diatom Samples from Running Waters. CEN, Brussels: 12 pp.
  7. Gasith, A. & V. H. Resh, 1999. Streams in Mediterranean climate regions: abiotic influences and biotic responses to predictable seasonal events. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 30: 51–81.
  8. Goebel, P. C. & D. M. Hix, 1996. Development of mixed-oak forests in southeastern Ohio: a comparison of second-growth and old-growth forests. Forest Ecology and Management 84: 1–21.
  9. Goebel, P. C. & D. M. Hix, 1997. Changes in the composition and structure of mixed-oak, second-growth forest ecosystems during the understory reinitiation stage of stand development. Ecoscience 4: 327–339.
  10. Hawkins, C. P. & D. M. Carlisle, 2001. Use of predictive models for assessing the biological integrity of wetlands and other aquatic habitats. In Rader, R. B., D. P. Batzer & S. A. Wissinger (eds), Bioassessment and Management of North American Freshwater Wetlands. Wiley, New York: 59–83.
  11. Hawkins, C. P. & R. H. Norris, 2000. Performance of different landscape classifications for aquatic bioassessments: introduction to the series. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 19: 367–369.
  12. Hawkins, C. P., R. H. Norris, J. Gerritsen, R. M. Hughes, S. K. Jackson, R. K. Johnson & R. J. Stevenson, 2000. Evaluation of the use of landscape classifications for the prediction of freshwater biota: synthesis and recommendations. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 19: 541–556.
  13. Heino, J. & H. Mykr盲, 2006. Assessing physical surrogates for biodiversity: do tributary and stream type classifications reflect macroinvertebrate assemblage diversity in running waters? Biological Conservation 129: 418–426.
  14. Heino, J. & J. Soininen, 2005. Assembly rules and community models for unicellular organisms: patterns in diatoms of boreal streams. Freshwater Biology 50: 567–577.
  15. Heino, J., L. M. Bini, S. M. Karjalainen, H. Mykr盲, J. Soininen, L. C. G. Vieira & J. A. F. Diniz-Filho, 2010. Geographical patterns of micro-organismal community structure: are diatoms ubiquitously distributed across boreal streams? Oikos 119: 129–137.
  16. Hughes, R. M. & J. R. Gammon, 1987. Longitudinal changes in fish assemblages and water quality in the Willamette River, Oregon. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 116: 196–209.
  17. Hughes, R. M., E. Rexstad & C. E. Bond, 1987. The relationship of aquatic ecoregions, river basins and physiographic provinces to the ichthyogeographic regions of Oregon. Copeia 2: 423–432.
  18. Jenkins, M. A. & G. R. Parker, 1998. Composition and diversity of woody vegetation in silvicultural openings of southern Indiana forests. Forest Ecology and Management 109: 57–74.
  19. Krammer, K. & H. Lange-Bertalot, 1991a. Bacillariophyceae 3. Teil: Centrales, Fragilariaceae, Eunotiaceae. In Ettl, H., J. Gerloff, H. Heynig & D. Mollenhauer (eds), S眉sswasserflora von Mitteleuropa. Band 2/3. Gustav Fischer Verlag, Stuttgart: 576 pp.
  20. Krammer, K. & H. Lange-Bertalot, 1991b. Bacillariophyceae 4. Teil: Achnanthaceae, Kritische Erg盲nzungen zu Navicula (Lineolatae) und Gomphonema. Gesamtliteraturverzeichnis Teil 1-4. In Ettl, H., G. G盲rtner, J. Gerloff, H. Heynig & D. Mollenhauer (eds), S眉sswasserflora von Mitteleuropa. Band 2/4. Gustav Fischer Verlag, Stuttgart: 437 pp.
  21. Krammer, K. & H. Lange-Bertalot, 1997a. Bacillariophyceae 1. Teil: Naviculaceae. In Ettl, H., J. Gerloff, H. Heynig & D. Mollenhauer (eds), S眉sswasserflora von Mitteleuropa. Band 2/1. Gustav Fischer Verlag, Jena: 876 pp.
  22. Krammer, K. & H. Lange-Bertalot, 1997b. Bacillariophyceae 2. Teil: Bacillariaceae, Epithemiaceae, Surirellaceae. In Ettl, H., J. Gerloff, H. Heynig & D. Mollenhauer (eds), S眉sswasserflora von Mitteleuropa. Band 2/2. Gustav Fischer Verlag, Jena: 611 pp.
  23. Lange-Bertalot, H., 2001. Navicula sensu stricto, 10 genera separated from Navicula sensu lato, Frustulia. In Lange-Bertalot, H. (ed.), Diatoms of Europe, 2. A. R. G. Gantner Verlag K. G., Ruggell, Liechtenstein: 526 pp.
  24. Legendre, P. & L. Legendre, 1998. Numerical ecology. Developments in Environmental Modelling, Vol. 20. Elsevier, Amsterdam: 853 pp.
  25. Leira, M. & S. Sabater, 2005. Diatom assemblages distribution in catalan rivers, NE Spain, in relation to chemical and physiographical factors. Water Research 39: 73–82.
  26. McCune, B. & M. J. Mefford, 2006. PC-ORD. Multivariate Analysis of Ecological Data. Version 5.32. MjM Software, Gleneden Beach, Oregon.
  27. McDonough, T. A. & W. C. Barr, 1977. An analysis of fish associations in Tennessee and Cumberland drainage impoundments. Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Southeast Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 31: 555–563.
  28. MED GIG Rivers, 2010. Establishment of common reference thresholds and a common intercalibration data base of reference sites for Mediterranean countries. Report of the Mediterranean Intercalibration Group in Rivers, Lisboa.
  29. Moss, B., D. Stephen, C. Alvarez, E. Becares, W. Van de Bund, S. E. Collings, E. Van Donk, E. De Eyto, T. Feldmann, C. Fern谩ndez-Al谩ez, M. Fern谩ndez-Al谩ez, R. J. M. Franken, F. Garc铆a-Criado, E. M. Gross, M. Gyllstr枚m, L.-A. Hansson, K. Irvine, A. J盲rvalt, J.-P. Jensen, E. Jeppesen, T. Kairesalo, R. Kornij贸w, T. Krause, H. K眉nnap, A. Laas, E. Lill, B. Lorens, H. Luup, M. R. Miracle, P. N玫ges, T. N玫ges, M. Nyk盲nen, I. Ott, W. Peczula, E. T. H. M. Peeters, G. Phillips, S. Romo, V. Russell, J. Saluj玫e, M. Scheffer, K. Siewertsen, H. Smal, C. Tesch, H. Timm, L. Tuvikene, I. Tonno, T. Virro, E. Vicente & D. Wilson, 2003. The determination of ecological status in shallow lakes – a tested system (ECOFRAME) for implementation of the European Water Framework Directive. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 13: 507–549.
  30. Moss, D., M. T. Furse, J. F. Wright & P. D. Armitage, 1987. The prediction of the macro-invertebrate fauna of unpolluted running-water sites in Great Britain using environmental data. Freshwater Biology 17: 41–52.
  31. Munn茅, A. & N. Prat, 2004. Defining river types in a Mediterranean area: a methodology for the implementation of the EU Water Framework Directive. Environmental Management 34: 711–729.
  32. Nijboer, R. C., R. K. Johnson, P. F. M. Verdonschot, M. Sommerh盲user & A. Buffagni, 2004. Establishing reference conditions for European streams. Hydrobiologia 516: 91–105.
  33. Oksanen, J., R. Kindt, P. Legendre, B. O’Hara, G. L. Simpson, M. H. H. Stevens & H. Wagner, 2008. Vegan: Community Ecology Package. R package version 1.13-2 (Internet). Available from http://vegan.r-forge.r-project.org/.
  34. Omernik, J. M. & G. E. Griffith, 1991. Ecological regions versus hydrologic units: frameworks for managing water quality. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 46: 334–340.
  35. Palik, B. J., P. C. Goebel, L. K. Kirkman & L. West, 2000. Using landscape hierarchies to guide restoration of disturbed ecosystems. Ecological Applications 10: 189–202.
  36. Passy, S. I., Y. Pan & R. L. Lowe, 1999. Ecology of the major periphytic diatom communities from the Mesta River, Bulgaria. International Review of Hydrobiology 84: 129–174.
  37. Pollard, P. & M. Huxham, 1998. The European Water Framework Directive: a new era in the management of aquatic ecosystem health? Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 8: 773–792.
  38. Potapova, M. G. & D. F. Charles, 2002. Benthic diatoms in USA rivers: distributions along spatial and environmental gradients. Journal of Biogeography 29: 167–187.
  39. Pyne, M. I., R. B. Rader & W. F. Christensen, 2007. Predicting local biological characteristics in streams: a comparison of landscape classifications. Freshwater Biology 52: 1302–1321.
  40. R Development Core Team, 2004. R: A language and environment for statistical computing, R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Vienna. ISBN 3-900051-00-3, http://www.r-project.org.
  41. Reynoldson, T. B., R. C. Bailey, K. E. Day & R. H. Norris, 1995. Biological guidelines for freshwater sediment based on BEnthic Assessment of SedimenT (the BEAST) using a multivariate approach for predicting biological state. Australian Journal of Ecology 20: 198–219.
  42. Reynoldson, T. B., R. H. Norris, V. H. Resh, K. E. Day & D. M. Rosenberg, 1997. The reference condition: a comparison of multimetric and multivariate approaches to assess water-quality impairment using benthic macroinvertebrates. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 16: 833–852.
  43. Rott, E., H. C. Duthie & E. Pipp, 1998. Monitoring organic pollution and eutrophication in the Grand River, Ontario, by means of diatoms. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 55: 1443–1453.
  44. Sabater, S. & W. Admiraal, 2005. Periphyton as biological indicators in managed aquatic ecosystems. In Azim, M. E., M. C. J. Verdegem, A. A. van Dam & M. C. M. Beveridge (eds), Periphyton: Ecology, Exploitation and Management. CABI Publishing/CAB International, Wallingford, UK/Cambridge, USA: 159–177.
  45. Simpson, J. C. & R. H. Norris, 2000. Biological assessment of river quality: development of AUSRIVAS models and outputs. In Wright, J. F., D. W. Sutcliffe & M. T. Furse (eds), Assessing the biological quality of fresh waters: RIVPACS and other techniques. Proceedings of an international workshop held in Oxford, UK, on 16–18 Sept 1997. Freshwater Biological Association and Environment Agency, Ambleside: 125–142.
  46. Soininen, J. & J. Heino, 2007. Variation in niche parameters along the diversity gradient of unicellular eukaryote assemblages. Protist 158: 181–191.
  47. Soininen, J., R. McDonald & H. Hillebrand, 2007. The distance decay of similarity in ecological communities. Ecography 30: 3–12.
  48. Stoermer, E. F. & J. P. Smol, 1999. The Diatoms: Application for the Environmental and Earth Sciences. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge: 469 pp.
  49. The European Parliament and the Council of the European Union, 2000. Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy. Official Journal of the European Communities L327: 1–72.
  50. Torn茅s, E., J. Cambra, J. Gom脿, M. Leira, R. Ortiz & S. Sabater, 2007. Indicator taxa of benthic diatom communities: a case study in Mediterranean streams. Annales de Limnologie - International Journal of Limnology 43: 1–11.
  51. Van Sickle, J. & R. M. Hughes, 2000. Classification strengths of ecoregions, catchments, and geographic clusters for aquatic vertebrates in Oregon. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 19: 370–384.
  52. Verdonschot, P. F. M., 2006. Evaluation of the use of Water Framework Directive typology descriptors, reference sites and spatial scale in macroinvertebrate stream typology. Hydrobiologia 566: 39–58.
  53. Vyverman, W., E. Verleyen, K. Sabbe, K. Vanhoutte, M. Sterken, D. A. Hodgson, D. G. Mann, S. Juggins, B. Van de Vijver, V. Jones, R. Flower, D. Roberts, V. A. Chepurnov, C. Kilroy, P. Vanormelingen & A. De Wever, 2007. Historical processes constrain patterns in global diatom diversity. Ecology 88: 1924–1931.
  54. Winter, J. G. & H. C. Duthie, 2000. Epilithic diatoms as indicators of stream total N and total P concentration. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 19: 32–49.
• 作者单位：1. Catalan Institute for Water Research (ICRA), H2O Building, Scientific and Technologic Park of the University of Girona, Emili Grahit 101, 17003 Girona, Spain2. Institute of Aquatic Ecology, Faculty of Sciences, University of Girona, Campus Montilivi, 17071 Girona, Spain3. Faculty of Sciences, University of A Coru帽a, Campus da Zapateira, 15071 A Coru帽a, Spain
• ISSN：1573-5117

文摘

In this study a biological classification based on diatom communities (a posteriori classification) was used to search for the most appropriate a priori classification in reference conditions, on the basis of 31 reference sites encompassing eight watersheds in the NE Iberian Peninsula. We considered three different a priori systems for comparison: (i) a typological classification (ecotypes and subecotypes) based on geomorphology and water flow; (ii) the watershed as a unit, irrespective of its size; and (iii) a classification based on the geographical distance between sites under the assumption that biological characteristics are increasingly similar in geographically closer sites. Classification in ecotypes and subecotypes was the most robust with minor differences between them. The watershed (hydrological units) classification was significant though weaker than the typological classification and there was a larger environmental variation within watersheds than within ecotypes. Finally, results showed that geographically closer sites were not more biologically similar in terms of diatom community composition. We can conclude that the ecotypological environmental-based classifications developed by the local water agency did adequately describe the biological classification based on epilithic diatoms.