Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Abstract
The role of geomorphic structure, referred to as physical heterogeneity, and its influence upon the
colonization of habitat by macroinvertebrates was analysed in the peri-urban, Twin Streams Catchment,
in West Auckland, New Zealand. Using a cross-scalar approach, 4 riffle-run assemblages were analysed
in each of 2 River Styles (a confined, low sinuosity, gravel bed river and a partly confined, low sinuosity,
bedrock, cobble, and gravel bed river). Each of these 8 locations comprised 2 distinct sampling areas; the
upstream zone had a more heterogeneous river bed with a high diversity of physical features and flow,
whilst the downstream area had a more homogeneous structure. Microhabitat features sampled at each
site included streambed material, bank margins, fine grained organic debris, wood, and boulders. Habitat
mosaics and their associated macroinvertebrate relationships followed a semi-predictable but interrupted
pattern, supporting the view that river systems are a patchy discontinuum. Homogeneous zones were
more frequently characterised by higher proportions of Trichoptera than heterogeneous zones, whilst
heterogeneous zones were frequently characterised by Plecoptera and Ephemeroptera. Diversity was
maximised when the species pools from heterogeneous and homogeneous sites were combined for any
given site. Functional habitats influenced macroinvertebrate assemblages in non-linear and complex
ways. Wood and organic debris habitats were associated with high diversity, abundance, and sensitive
species whereas streambed habitat was usually associated with low diversity. A diverse range of physical
zones that approximates the ‘natural range of behaviour’ for the given type of stream was considered to
provide a more effective platform for rehabilitation planning than emphasising heterogeneity of physical
structure in its own right.
1 Introduction
Biophysical templates can be used to contextualise and explain patterns in ecological data (Clarke et al.,
2003; Montgomery, 2001). As noted by Harper and Everard (1998): “…the dynamic physical processes
occurring within a river create the physical (habitat) structure of the river: the diversity and dynamics of
this habitat structure is the basis for river biodiversity…”. Although retention of physical integrity does
not guarantee that ecological integrity will be maintained (Hilderbrand et al., 2005), a system with poor
physical structure is almost certain to have a highly disturbed ecosystem (Cullum et al., 2008). Restoring
ecological integrity to systems that retain their physical integrity is far easier and less expensive than
trying to restore ecosystems once abiotic thresholds have been crossed (Fryirs et al., 2008; Hobbs and
Harris, 2001).
Various frameworks have been developed to characterize the spatial organization of river systems
(Cullum et al., 2008). The Process Zone Concept separates rivers into different geomorphic process zones
1
Doctoral student, School of Environment, University of Auckland, 10 Symonds St, Auckland, New Zealand,
E-mail:h.reid@auckland.ac.nz
2
Prof., School of Environment, University of Auckland, 10 Symonds St, Auckland, New Zealand
3
Dr., Research Scientist, Golder Associates LtD, PO Box 33-849, Takapuna 0622, Auckland New Zealand
Note: The original manuscript of this paper was received in March, 2010. The revised version was received in May
2010. Discussion open until Sept. 2011.
International Journal of Sediment Research, Vol. 25, No. 3, 2010, pp. 203–220 - 203 -
with differing disturbance regimes which influence ecosystem structure and dynamics (Montgomery,
1999). Poole (2002) used this idea to develop the “hierarchical patch dynamics”-model, in which
processes operating over multiple scales create, destroy, or alter patch characteristics and their ecosystems.
Patches are distributed as a discontinuum across the catchment, forming a mosaic of river character, with
one patch not necessarily more related to its neighboring patch than other patches in the system. Similarly,
the Riverine Ecosystem Synthesis (Thorp et al., 2006, 2008) combined eco-geomorphology with the
hierarchical patch dynamics model, viewing river systems as complex arrays of hydrogeomorphic patches
largely influenced by climate and vegetation zonation. These patches have unique ‘functional process
zones’ reflecting differences in ecological and geomorphological character, rather than progressive
downstream changes (cf., Vannote et al., 1980).
Heterogeneity, defined as “variability in a process or pattern over space and time” (Palmer and Poff,
1997), provides a basis to interpret rivers as dynamic and complex systems. Physical heterogeneity of a
river is a product of geomorphic processes such as sediment sorting, erosion, deposition, and hydraulic
variability along with vegetation interactions (Allan, 2004). Townsend (1989) developed a conceptual
framework that links the heterogeneity of functional habitat patches to community structure and dynamics.
Ward et al. (2002) postulated that a wide range of habitats provides capacity to support a variety of
different species. Poff and Ward (1990) identified heterogeneity as being a key component of the physical
template that acts to increase the recovery of biota to anthropogenic and natural disturbance. Hence,
finding ways to analyse and reinstigate heterogeneity could aid river rehabilitation (e.g., Tullos et al.,
2009). Numerous studies have indicated that the functional habitat scale is the most appropriate scale at
which to apply such thinking.
Functional habitats have been defined as “…structural components of the substrate and the vegetation,
objectively identified as distinct by the assemblage of invertebrates which they hold” (Kemp et al., 1999).
This micro-scale concept, also referred to as biotypes or habitat patches, combines geomorphic,
hydrologic, and ecological processes, thereby linking biodiversity to geomorphic processes (e.g., Wohl et
al., 1995, Harper and Everard, 1998; Kemp et al., 1999; Newson and Newson, 2000; Buffagni et al.,
2002; Thomson et al., 2004; Storey and Lynas, 2007). Local scale macroinvertebrate communities have
been found to be influenced by many variables including velocity, Froude number, and Reynolds number
(Brooks et al., 2005; Clifford et al., 2006); habitat types such as organic debris and leaf litter (Mackay and
Kalff, 1969; Dobson et al., 1992); riparian vegetation type (Death, 2000); wood (Scealy et al., 2007;
Collier et al., 2000); depth, percent sand, and percent silt (Collier et al., 2000); substrate size (Quinn and
Hickey, 1990; Jowett and Richardson, 1990); periphyton abundance (Jowett and Richardson, 1990); bank
morphology (Armitage et al., 2001); organic composition (Sudduth and Meyer, 2006); and the degree of
bank modification (Erba et al., 2006). In addition, Lamouroux et al. (2004) found that macroinvertebrate
traits including maximum size, body form, mode of attachment to substrate, feeding habitats,
reproduction, lifespan, and strategies of dissemination were significantly correlated to microhabitat
variables that described either flow, substrate, or trophic condition. Hence, while biotic factors such as
competition and predation are key determinates of macroinvertebrate assemblages, the physical integrity
of the river exerts a primary role in its own right.
Various studies have analysed macroinvertebrate assemblages in relation to the physical heterogeneity of
a river. Townsend et al. (1997) noted that generalist species tended to be correlated with unstable sites,
while specialist species favoured more stable sites. This highlights how species traits have adapted to
physical heterogeneity in an effort to survive disturbance events. Beisel et al. (2000) established that
heterogeneous river beds have a higher number of species than homogeneous beds, which are dominated
by only one or two species. Species richness is highest in patchy and heterogeneous environments that
contain a diversity in substrate sizes and hence a greater number of niches. Brooks et al. (2002)
manipulated stream bed variability to represent high and low levels of heterogeneity and measured the
impact upon macroinvertebrate community characteristics. They concluded that conditions at each site
affected the viability of each bed variability treatment group. However, further replication with sites of a
different character is required to derive statistically significant results. Sullivan et al. (2004) found that the
percentage of macroinvertebrate community comprising the sensitive Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and
Trichoptera taxa (%EPT) was significantly correlated with more stable habitats that exhibit better
geomorphic condition and better quality habitats. However, some studies have found little correlation
between physical heterogeneity and biotic assemblages. Lepori et al. (2005) found that restored reaches
- 204 - International Journal of Sediment Research, Vol. 25, No. 3, 2010, pp. 203–220
with greater heterogeneity had minimally different fish and macroinvertebrate communities compared to
the unrestored disturbed homogeneous reaches at the reach and patch scale. They concluded that “habitat
changes caused by channelization and restoration have no substantial consequence for the structure of fish
and invertebrate assemblages in the study area” (Lepori et al., 2005) and suggested that restoration at a
scale relevant to humans may not be relevant to biological assemblages. Brown (2007) found that areas
with higher habitat heterogeneity had lower temporal community variability, from which it was inferred
that stability and refugia are increased in more heterogeneous environments. Although large storms
diminished this trend, it reappeared soon after disturbance.
These findings indicate that increasing physical integrity in the hope that improved ecological
functioning will follow, also referred to as the “field of dreams” hypothesis, does not always work. As
noted by Hilderbrand et al. (2005): “effective restoration of the physical variables will create the template
for biotic recovery, but physical structure does not always beget biotic structure, and biotic structure does
not necessarily result in similar ecosystem functions across sites”. Tullos et al. (2009) found that taxa
sensitive to disturbance were characteristic of upstream control reaches (‘natural’ streams), whereas
insensitive taxa were characteristic of restored streams (reconfigured, previously channelized reaches). As
restoring physical structure has become a major technique to improve ecosystem health, analysis of
physical and biotic interactions in different settings is required to appraise the likely successes of different
restoration techniques.
This study investigates the response of macroinvertebrate communities to different physical habitat
attributes along river courses. Macroinvertebrate samples are compared from heterogeneous and
homogeneous zones as well as different functional habitats: wood, organic debris, streambed material
(excluding boulders), boulders, and bank margins were compared. The study is performed in a peri-urban
setting, incorporating sites in native forest, pasture, and urban land uses, which enabled interpretation of
the importance of the natural range of geomorphic diversity and functional habitat types upon
macroinvertebrate communities along a continuum of increasingly degradational land use. This differed
from other studies in that it used natural diversity, not created diversity, and looked at the how habitat
diversity interacted with streambed diversity to influence communities. In addition, the influence of land
use intensity was implicitly considered, and sites were characterised using % land use, water quality,
periphyton abundance, geomorphic habitat assessment and the abundance of functional habitats. This
allowed the intensity and effects of land use at a site to be understood, so that the relationship between
macroinvertebrate assemblage and habitat could be seen, even in degraded sites. Rehabilitation is
unnecessary in pristine locations, therefore understanding how physical habitat can influence ecology in
areas with differing intensity of land use, is important for understanding the success rehabilitation of
habitat may have at different points in the catchment. This also investigates the role different types of
habitat may have in rehabilitation in areas of differing intensity of land use.
2 Study area
The Twin Streams Catchment consists of the Oratia, Opanuku, and Waikumete trunk streams, which is
located in Waitakere City, Auckland, New Zealand (Fig. 1). Most catchments in the Auckland Region are
small (less than 100 ha) resulting in relatively short (first or second order) and narrow (< 2 m wide)
streams. The catchment drains approximately 61 km², divided among three subcatchments, which drain
into Henderson Creek and out into Waitemata Harbour. The Opanuku drains a catchment area of 27 km²
and has a channel length of 15.5 km compared to the Oratia’s smaller area of 17 km² and length of 9.7 km.
The Waikumete was not included in this study.
The headwater reaches of the Oratia and Opanuku Streams are confined, low sinuosity, gravel bed rivers
comprised of riffles, runs, pools, steps, and bedrock outcrops. Bed material consists of a mix of gravels,
boulders, cobbles, bedrock, and sand. As gradient decreases downstream, floodplain pockets are evident
along partly confined, low sinuosity, bedrock, gravel and cobble bed rivers. Single channels locally split
around bars. Geomorphic units include pools, runs, riffles, and lateral and mid-channel bars. Bedrock
outcrops are common on both the bed and the banks, locally forcing pool and riffle sequences.
Upstream areas of the Opanuku and Oratia catchments are comprised of fine grained volcanistic bedded
sandstone or siltstone with localised areas of lava and stratified andesitic boulder and cobble-pebble
conglomerate. Middle sections contain bedded, graded sandstones and laminated mudstones with patches
of alluvium. The lower reaches of the streams flow through pumiceous and gravely sandstone (Edbrook,
International Journal of Sediment Research, Vol. 25, No. 3, 2010, pp. 203–220 - 205 -
2001).
Fig. 1 Location of the Twin Streams catchment and surveyed sites in this study
The headwaters areas in the Waitakere Ranges retain native vegetation with low density housing. The
middle region of the catchment is characterised by rolling foothills which are now mainly pasture and
orchards. The lowland alluvial floodplain is urban. The catchment has experienced rapid and sustained
land use change since the time of European settlement in the 1840s (Gregory et al., 2008). Today, there is
a continuum in the intensity of land use from low in the forested headwaters, medium in the light pastoral
area of the rolling foothills, and high in the urbanised area of the lower catchment. Despite the various
land use impacts, streams retain a relatively good geomorphic structure and function across most of the
catchment (Reid et al., 2008).
The climate in Auckland is temperate. Mean temperatures fluctuate between 11oC and 20oC, with
extremes of -2.5oC and 30oC (NIWA, 2006). Annual average rainfall is 1,240 mm, increasing to 2,000
mm in headwater areas. Other than in a few ephemeral sections in the headwaters, streams flow all year.
Mean monthly flow for Oratia and Opanuku streams in the winter is up to 1.3 m3/s and summer monthly
flows are between 0.3 and 0.4 m3/s (ARC, 2006).
Table 1 Site characterisation. US (short for upstream) refers to the Heterogeneous sites
and DS (short for downstream) to the Homogeneous sites
Grass- Driving Candia Border Millbrook
Site Locations Pipeline Otimai Cochrane
mere stream Rd Rd Rd
1- Land Use (%)
Native forest 98.6 95.5 91 56.5 75 78 65 53
Exotic forest 0 0 1 3 0.5 0.25 2 2
Pasture/Agriculture/
Horticulture 1.3 4.5 4 38.5 23 20 28 19
Urban 0.1 0 4 2 1.5 1.75 5 26
2- Water Quality
Temperature (°C) 16.1- 21.5 15.5 17.0 16.5 16.4 16.4 16.5 17.4 17.7
pH 7.2-7.8 7.4 7.6 7.9 7.4 7.5 7.4 7.3 7.4
Conductivity (ȝs)
129.6 162.2 212.0 181.8 158.5 140.6 145.9 195.2
> 175*
Turbidity (NTU) 5.6 2.3 3.7 1.8 2.0 4.2 3.4 6.5 14.3
Dissolved oxygen
96.8 89.7 115.2 92.8 88.3 90.5 88.6 88.8
(%) 98-105
NOx (ug/L) 444 1366.7 866.7 1066.7 700.0 600.0 733.3 900.0 400.0
FRP (ug/L) 33 189.2 134.2 203.5 331.1 907.5 888.8 112.2 262.9
Dissolved Copper
0.87 0.79 2.38 1.13 1.07 1 1.39 1.51
(ppb) 1.4
Dissolved Zinc
3.17 3.46 8.05 6.4 5.36 4 6.06 10.99
(ppb) 8
Periphyton
3.7 8.8 3.3 25.8 9.9 1.5 102.8 13.3
(AFDW- g/m2) 35*
US DS US DS US DS US DS US DS US DS US DS US DS
3- Geomorphic
Habitat Assessment
Channel geometry 9 9 9 9 O 8 9 8 9 O 9 9 8 8 9 8
Geo-diversity O 8 9 8 9 8 O 8 9 8 9 O O 8 O 8
Riparian vegetation 9 9 8 O 9 O 8 O 9 8 9 9 8 8 8 8
Urban modification 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 O 9 9 O O O 8
Total 9 9 9 O 9 O O O 9 8 9 9 8 8 O 8
4- Functional
habitat
Boulders 4 3 5 3 2 2 4 2 2 3 1 1
Cobbles 5 4 4 4 2 2 3 2 5 3 4 3 2 1 3 3
Gravel 3 5 3 4 5 5 5 4 4 5 4 4 4 3 4 3
Sand 3 4 4 1 3 3 3 3 4 4 3 4
Silt 2 2 2 3
Marginal plants 2 4 2 1
Floating plants 2
Mosses 2 3 1 2 2 2 2 3 2
Filamentous algae 2 3 2 3 3 3 2
Leaf litter 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 1 3 5 2 2 4 1 2 2
Woody debris 2 1 3 3 1 1 1 2 2 5 4 2 4
Tree roots 2 2 2 2 3 4 3 2 1 5 1 2 2 3 1
Undercut banks 3 3 1 2 1 3 3 2 1 3 3 2
Total 24 22 23 21 19 24 26 20 24 23 22 22 28 24 28 25
1- Percent land use values sourced from Terralink International Limited (2001).
2- Bold refers to ANZECC (2000) guidelines for ecosystem function other then periphyton (Biggs, 2000).
Bold italics refer to the sites that exceed the ANZECC/Biggs guideline.
3- 9indicates good, O moderate and 8 poor condition.
4- 1- rare, 2-few, 3- common, 4- very common, and 5- abundant. Blank spaces indicate that habitat was absent.
International Journal of Sediment Research, Vol. 25, No. 3, 2010, pp. 203–220 - 207 -
Water quality was analysed at all sites over two days at ‘normal’ flows using the ANZECC guidelines
(2000; see Table 1). Some water quality variables (Dissolved Oxygen (DO) and phosphate) were outside
ANZECC (2000) guidelines for all sites. Pipeline and Grassmere Stream were upstream sites with
minimal water quality degradation. Water quality at Otimai was relatively poor, with high conductivity,
pH, DO, and dissolved zinc. Cochrane Stream had slightly high conductivity and low DO. Driving Stream
and Candia Road had below guideline levels for DO and much higher filtered reactive phosphate than
other sites. Water quality was most degraded at the two urban sites, Border Road and Millbrook Road,
where DO was low and turbidity was high. Millbrook Road had high dissolved copper and zinc and
conductivity, while Border Road had very high periphyton growth.
3 Methods
Table 2 Brief overview of the variables analysed in each of the habitat assessment techniques. Geomorphic habitat
assessment is derived from Brierley and Fryirs (2005) and Reid et al. (2008). In this assessment, points are
awarded based on qualitative assessment where descriptions are provided for different scores for each
variable. The list of Functional Habitats was sourced from Newson et al. (1998). Each habitat type was
awarded a score out of 5 with the following interpretations: 1- rare, 2-few, 3- common, 4- very common,
and 5- abundant.
Geomorphic habitat assessment Functional habitats
Bed level stability Boulders
Largest clast size Cobbles
Bank erosion Gravel
Channel geometry Sand
Diversity of geomorphic units Silt
Diversity of flow Marginal plants
Wood Emergent plants
Floodplain diversity Floating leaved plants; submerged broadleaved plants
Natives vs. exotic riparian vegetation Submerged, fine leaved plants
Continuous strip of riparian vegetation Mosses
In-stream vegetation Filamentous algae
Landuse- impervious surfaces Leaf litter
Direct urban effects Wood
Rehabilitation efforts Tree roots, trailing vege
Undercut banks
International Journal of Sediment Research, Vol. 25, No. 3, 2010, pp. 203–220 - 211 -
Fig. 3 The number of species for the heterogeneous and homogeneous sites and then combined. The dotted
line indicates the highest species pool that was present when only one site was looked at
Table 3 Summary of relationships between macroinvertebrate samples and the descriptors with which
they were correlated on the MDS diagrams. The hetero and homo columns refer to the
percentage of heterogeneous and homogeneous sites at which the variable was found to be
positively correlated to the heterogeneous and homogeneous samples. Black blocks indicate
positive correlation at heterogeneous sampling sites, grey positive correlation at the
homogeneous sampling site and white indicates no positive correlation.
Hetero Homo Pipe Grass Otim Coch Driv Cand Bord Mill
Diversity 50 50
MCI 100 0
% EPT 50 50
# EPT 100 0
# organisms 100 0
% Ephemeroptera 60 40
% Plecoptera 100 0
% Trichoptera 33 66
% Mollusca 66 33
% Diptera 66 33
% Oligochaete 20 80
% Crustacea 25 75
variable 100% of the time, showing higher variation in the macroinvertebrate community characteristics
at a site. Weaker positive relationships were seen with more robust species Oligochaete (80%) and
Crustacea (75%) and more sensitive Trichoptera (66%). Weaker positive relationships were seen for %
Ephemeroptera (40%) and Mollusca and Diptera (33%). In summary, samples from the heterogeneous
sites were characterised by higher numbers of EPT, MCI, abundance, and Plecoptera, while
homogeneous sites had more robust species (Oligochaete and Crustacea) but importantly more of the
sensitive Trichoptera.
- 212 - International Journal of Sediment Research, Vol. 25, No. 3, 2010, pp. 203–220
Fig. 4 Ordination diagrams of macroinvertebrate samples taken from different habitat types by non-metric
Multidimensional scaling (MDS). Axis arrows contain the macroinvertebrate community descriptors that were
correlated to the axis and the direction of this correlation. Dotted lines indicate separation between
heterogeneous (US) and homogeneous (DS) samples. Sites are A- Pipeline, B- Grassmere Stream, C- Otimai,
D- Cochrane Stream, E- Driving Stream, F- Candia Road, G- Border Road and H- Millbrook Road
International Journal of Sediment Research, Vol. 25, No. 3, 2010, pp. 203–220 - 213 -
Relationships between habitat type and macroinvertebrate communities are summarised in Table 4.
Samples at sites with wood and organic debris were characterised by high diversity, organism abundance,
and number of sensitive species at between 80% and 100% of sites. Macroinvertebrate communities on
wood commonly consisted of Oligochaete, Mollusca, and to a lesser extent Ephemeroptera, and Diptera
and were not characterised by Plecoptera. Communities on organic debris commonly had Diptera,
Crustacea, Mollusca, and again to a lesser extent Ephemeroptera. Plecoptera were more common on
organic debris than wood, with a positive correlation 66% of the time.
Table 4 Summary of functional habitat associations from the correlations shown in the MDS diagrams
Functional Macroinvertebrate associations
habitat
Correlated with high abundance and MCI scores at all sites, high diversity at 80% of sites, and
Wood %EPT at 67% of sites. Taxa commonly found on wood include Oligochaete, Mollusca (100% of
sites), Ephemeroptera (83% of sites), and Diptera (80% of sites). LWD was positively correlated
with Trichoptera at only 50% of sites, Crustacea at 40% of sites, and Plecoptera at no sites.
Positively correlated with diversity, abundance, and MCI scores at all sites. At no sites was it
Organic correlated with %EPT. Macroinvertebrate communities were found to consist of Diptera,
debris Crustacea, and Mollusca at all sites and Ephemeroptera (80% of sites) and Plecoptera (66% of
sites). Both Trichoptera and Oligochaete were positively correlated with organic debris only 25%
of the time.
Positively correlated at 50% or more of sites for just 4 variables: %EPT (100%), Crustacea (100%),
Bank Trichoptera (75%), and Oligochaete (66%). However, negative correlations at 100% of the sites
margins were common, including diversity, abundance, and the percent of Plecoptera. Positive correlations
at only some sites were seen for Mollusca (33%), Ephemeroptera (33%), Diptera (20%), and 50%
of the sites were correlated with high MCI scores.
Streambed Positively correlated with abundance (88% of sites), percent of Oligochaete (70%), Trichoptera
(excluding (60%) and EPT taxa (57%), diversity (30%), MCI scores (30%), and proportions of Ephemeroptera
boulders) (42% sites), Plecoptera (33%), Diptera (25%), Crustacea (13%) and Mollusca (33%).
Positively correlated to the percent of Crustacea (at 100% of sites), percent Trichoptera (77%); and
diversity, abundance, and Mollusca (all 66%). 50% of the sites were positively correlated with the
Boulders percent of Oligochaete. Boulder samples were only positively correlated with EPT taxa at 30% of
sites, Ephemeroptera at 42% of sites, Diptera at 36% of sites, MCI scores at 25% of sites, and
Plecoptera at no sites.
Bank margins had low diversity, abundance, and Plecoptera, but high proportions of Trichoptera,
Oligochaete, and Crustacea. Samples taken from the streambed had a positive relationship with
abundance and a weaker relationship with Oligochaete, Trichoptera, and EPT taxa. Macroinvertebrate
communities taken from the streambed were strongly influenced by the relative diversity of geomorphic
structure and flow in the heterogeneous and homogenous zones. Streambed samples had a high number of
organisms, but a low diversity of species and a limited proportion of sensitive species. Communities in
this habitat type appeared to be more easily altered by differences in velocity and habitat heterogeneity in
a way that was not apparent for more organic habitats. Boulder samples were positively associated with
Crustacea, Trichoptera, diversity, abundance, and Molluscs. Boulders supported communities that were
productive and had a high diversity of species. However, few of the sensitive families were associated
with this habitat, other than Trichoptera.
Extra interest was paid to the types of communities associated with streambed samples, as these are
most commonly used for monitoring (Carter and Resh, 2001). In this study streambed samples were
found to have a high abundance of organisms but usually a low diversity. Figure 5 shows the portion of
the species pool that was found on streambed samples, related to the total number of species found across
all habitat types. As noted on MDS diagrams, streambed samples only covered a portion of the area
covered by samples from other habitats. Wood and organic debris were the habitat type that is most likely
to be outside of the area covered by streambed samples.
- 214 - International Journal of Sediment Research, Vol. 25, No. 3, 2010, pp. 203–220
Fig. 5 The number of species at a site found in the streambed samples compared with the total found
from sampling all habitat types. US refers to the heterogeneous site and DS to the homogeneous site
5 Discussion
5.1 Heterogeneity
Although heterogeneity influences macroinvertebrate communities, relationships vary in a non-linear
and complex way at different locations in Twin Streams catchment. Samples from the homogeneous
zones were more frequently characterised by higher proportions of Trichoptera than the heterogeneous
zones, whilst heterogeneous zones were frequently characterised by Plecoptera and Ephemeroptera. This
suggests that homogeneous zones support different types of species that have less complex habitat
requirements. Ecologically this makes sense. Heterogeneous environments may be colonised by habitat
specialist species whilst homogenous environments may be preferentially selected by general species that
can out-compete the specialist species (Townsend et al., 1997). Heterogeneous and homogeneous sites
may also have different macroinvertebrate disturbance histories, as heterogeneity may increase prospects
for macroinvertebrate recovery (Poff and Ward, 1990).
Findings from this study convey a more complex relationship between physical heterogeneity and
macroinvertebrate communities to that noted by Beisel et al. (2000), Sullivan et al. (2004), and Brown
(2007). In this instance, homogenous zones were found to contribute significantly to the overall diversity
of macroinvertebrate assemblages at any given site. As noted by Muhar et al. (1995), in their comments
on restoration programs that increased riffle habitat, little is to be gained in creating uniformly
heterogeneous reaches. A diverse range of physical zones that approximates the ‘natural range of
behaviour’ for the given type of stream is the key platform for rehabilitation planning. Just as ‘natural’
rivers have a mix of heterogeneous and homogeneous zones, so too should rehabilitation programmes that
target biotic diversity.
6 Conclusion
Findings from this study indicate that the heterogeneity of the physical template of a river system
influences macroinvertebrate communities in non-linear, unpredictable ways. As differing functional
habitats, especially organic units, are able to support a greater range of species than single habitat systems,
the more heterogeneous the units, the greater the prospective range of macroinvertebrates. However,
heterogeneous and homogeneous reaches support different types of macroinvertebrates, making them
both essential components of riverine systems. In addition, the ecological functioning and habitat quality
of a site must be assessed in relation to the surrounding land use. The influence of physical structure on
macroinvertebrate distributions has been shown to be very complex and patchy. Multiple processes
operating at multiple scales result in a mosaic of patches that may display different relationships to a
seemingly similar neighbouring patch. Heterogeneity can provide a useful concept in rehabilitation
planning so long as procedures value uniqueness and difference within a river system, rather than
generalising and simplifying river character and behaviour (Simon et al., 2008).
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Waitakere City Council, in particular Anil Karan and Graham Leonard for their
support and funding of the project. Funding was also provided by the School of Environment at the
University of Auckland. Technical staff including David Jenkinson, Peter Crossley, Rebecca Bibby,
Sandra Anderson, and Nevil Hudson are thanked for field support. Thanks are given to Liza Inglis, Nick
Carter, Robin Gardner-Gee, and Kohmei Kadowaki for helping with statistics, macroinvertebrate
identification, and providing the software necessary for this work. Thanks are given to Robyn Reid for
proof reading. This work would not have been possible without the many people who helped in the field
including Nadine Trahan, Ethel-Mae Seaman, Claire Gregory, Richard Mairs, Hiroki Ogawa, James
Waugh, Petra Vanlimburg, Robyn Reid, Suzy Reid, Michaela Cowie, Rebecca Bibby, Zac Brierley, and
Charis Wong, and last but by no means least special thanks are given to Iain McGillvary.
References
Allan J. D. 2004, Landscapes and Riverscapes: The influence of land use on stream ecosystems. Annual Review of
Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, Vol. 35, pp. 257–284.
ANZECC. 2000. Australian and New Zealand guidelines for fresh and marine water quality. In Ministry for the
Environment, http://www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/water/ anzecc-water-quality-guide-02/index.html, New Zealand.
Armitage P. D., Lattmann K., Kneebone N., and Harris I. 2001, Bank profile and structure as determinants of
macroinvertebrate assemblages- Seasonal changes and management. Regulated Rivers: Research and Management,
International Journal of Sediment Research, Vol. 25, No. 3, 2010, pp. 203–220 - 217 -
Vol. 17, pp. 543–556.
ARC (Auckland Regional Council). 2006, ArcIMS HydroTel Interface http://maps.arc.govt.nz/website/maps/
map_hydrotel.htm.
Beisel J. N., Usseglio-Polatera P., and Moreteau J. C. 2000, The spatial heterogeneity of a river bottom: A key factor
determining macroinvertebrate communities. Hydrobiologia, Vol. 422/423, pp. 163–171.
Bernhardt E. S., Palmer M. A., Allan J. D., Alexander G., Barnas K., Brooks S., Carr J., Clayton S., Dahm C.,
Follstad-Shah J., Galat D., Gloss S., Goodwin P., Hart D., Hassett B., Jenkinson R., Katz S., Kondolf G. M., Lake P.
S., Lave R., Meyer J. L., O'Donnell T. K., Pagano L., Powell B., and Sudduth E. 2005, Ecology: Synthesizing U.S.
river restoration efforts. Science, Vol. 308, pp. 636–637.
Biggs B. J. F. 2000, New Zealand Periphyton Guideline: Detecting, Monitoring and Managing the Enrichment of
Streams, Prepared for the Ministry of the Environment (MfE), Christchurch, New Zealand.
Brierley G. J. and Fryirs K. A. 2005, Geomorphology and River Management: Applications of the River Styles
Framework, Blackwell Pub, Malden, M. A.
Brooks S. S., Palmer M. A., Cardinale B. J., Swan C. M., and Ribblett S. 2002, Assessing stream ecosystem
rehabilitation: limitations of community structure data. Restoration Ecology, Vol. 10, pp. 156–168.
Brooks A. P., Gehrke P. C., Jansen J. D., and Abbe T. B. 2004, Experimental reintroduction of woody debris on the
Williams River, NSW: Geomorphic and ecological responses. River Research and Applications, Vol. 20, pp.
513–536.
Brooks A. J., Haeusler T. I. M., Reinfelds I., and Williams, S. 2005, Hydraulic microhabitats and the distribution of
macroinvertebrate assemblages in riffles. Freshwater Biology, Vol. 50, pp. 331–344.
Brown B. 2007, Habitat heterogeneity and disturbance influence patterns of community temporal variability in a
small temperate stream. Hydrobiologia, Vol. 586, pp. 93–106.
Buffagni A., Crosa G. A., Harper D. M., and Kemp J. L. 2000, Using macroinvertebrate species assemblages to
identify river channel habitat units: An application of the functional habitats concept to a large, unpolluted Italian
river (River Ticino, northern Italy). Hydrobiologia, Vol. 435, pp. 213–225.
Carter J. L. and Resh V. H. 2001, After site selection and before data analysis: Sampling, sorting, and laboratory
procedures used in stream benthic macroinvertebrate monitoring programs by USA state agencies. Journal of the
North American Benthological Society, Vol. 20, pp. 658–682.
Clarke K. R. and Gorley R. N. 2001, Primer V5 (&V6): User Manual and Tutorial, PRIMER-E Ltd., Plymoth, U. K.
Clarke K. R. 1993. Non-parametric multivariate analysis of changes in community structure. Australian Journal of
Ecology, Vol. 18, pp. 117–143.
Clarke S. J., Bruce-Burgess L., and Wharton G. 2003, Linking form and function: Towards an eco-hydromorphic
approach to sustainable river restoration. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, Vol. 13, pp.
439–450.
Clifford N. J., Harmar O. P., Harvey G., and Petts G. E. 2006, Physical habitat, eco-hydraulics and river design: A
review and re-evaluation of some popular concepts and methods. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater
Ecosystems, Vol. 16, pp. 389–408.
Collier K. J., Winterbourn M. J., New Zealand Limological Society and National Institute of Water and Atmospheric
Research (N. Z.). 2000, New Zealand Stream Invertebrates: Ecology and Implications for Management, New
Zealand Limnological Society, NIWA, Hamilton, N. Z.
Corenblit D., Tabacchi E., Steiger J., and Gurnell A. M. 2007, Reciprocal interactions and adjustments between
fluvial landforms and vegetation dynamics in river corridors: A review of complementary approaches.
Earth-Science Reviews, Vol. 84, pp. 56–86.
Cullum C., Brierley G. J., and Thoms M. C. 2008, The spatial organisation of river sections. River Futures: An
Integrative Scientific Approach to River Repair. In Brierley G. J. and Fryirs K. A., eds., Island Press, Washington
D.C., US, pp.43–64.
Darby S. and Sear D. 2008, River Restoration; Managing the Uncertainty in Restoring Physical Habitat, Wiley,
Chichester, U. K.
Death R. G. 2000, Invertebrate-substratum relationships. New Zealand Stream Invertebrates: Ecology and
Implications for Management. Collier K. J. and Winterbourn M. J., eds., New Zealand Limnological Society,
Christchurch, New Zealand, pp. 157–178.
Dobson M., Hildrew A. G., Ibbotson A., and Garthwaite J. 1992, Enhancing litter retention in streams. Do altered
hydraulics and habitat area confound field experiments? Freshwater Biology, Vol. 28, pp. 71–79.
Edbrook S. W. 2001, Geology of the Auckland Area Institute of Geological and Nuclear Sciences: Scale 1:250 000
Geological Map 3. Institute of Geological and Nuclear Sciences Limited, Lower Hutt, New Zealand
Erba S., Buffagni A., Holmes N., O’Hare M., Scarlett P. and Stemico A. 2006, Preliminary testing of river habitat
survey features for the aims of the WFD hydro-morphological assessment: An overview from the STAR Project.
Hydrobiologia, Vol. 566, pp. 281–296.
Fryirs K. A. and Brierley G. J. 2009, Naturalness and place in river rehabilitation. Ecology and Society, Vol. 14, No. 1,
p. 20.
- 218 - International Journal of Sediment Research, Vol. 25, No. 3, 2010, pp. 203–220
Fryirs K. A. Arthington A., and Grove J. 2008, Principles of river condition assessment. River Futures: An Integrative
Scientific Approach to River Repair. In Brierley G. J. and Fryirs K. A., eds., Island Press, Washington D. C., US,
pp.100–124.
Gorecki V. I., Fryirs K. A., and Brierley G. J. 2006, The relationship between geomorphic river structure and coarse
particulate (CPOM) storage along the Kangaroo River, New South Wales, Australia. Australian Geographer, Vol. 37,
No. 3, pp. 285–311.
Gregory G. E., Reid H. E., and Brierley G. J. 2008, Geomorphic river recovery in an urban catchment: Twin Streams
catchment, Auckland, New Zealand. Physical Geography, Vol. 29, No. 3, pp. 222–246.
Harper D. and Everard M. 1998, Why should the habitat-level approach underpin holistic river survey and
management? Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, Vol. 8, pp. 395–413.
Hax C. L. and Golladay S. W. 1993. Macroinvertebrate colonization and biofilm development on leaves and wood in
a boreal river. Freshwater Biology, Vol. 29, pp. 79–87.
Hilderband R. H., Watts A. C., and Randle A. M. 2005, The myths of restoration ecology. Ecology and Society, Vol.
10, pp. 1–11.
Hobbs R. J. and Harris J. A. 2001, Restoration ecology: Repairing the earth's ecosystems in the new millennium.
Restoration Ecology, Vol. 9, pp. 239–246.
Jansson R., Backx H., Boulton A. J., Dixon M., Dudgeon D., Hughes F. M. R., Nakamura K., Stanley E. H., and
Tockner K. 2005, Stating mechanisms and refining criteria for ecologically successful river restoration: A comment
on Palmer et al. Journal of Applied Ecology, Vol. 42, pp. 218–222.
Jowett I. G. and Richardson J. 1990, Microhabitat preferences of benthic invertebrates in a New Zealand river and the
development of in-stream flow-habitat models for Deleatidium spp. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater
Research, Vol. 24, pp. 19–30.
Kemp J. L., Harper D. M., and Crosa G. A. 1999, Use of 'functional habitats' to link ecology with morphology and
hydrology in river rehabilitation. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, Vol. 9, pp. 159–178.
Lamouroux N., Doledec S., and Gayraud S. 2004, Biological traits of stream macroinvertebrate communities: effects
of microhabitat, reach, and basin filters. Journal of the North American Benthological Society, Vol. 23, No. 3, pp.
449–466.
Lemons J. and Victor R. 2008, uncertainty in river restoration. River Restoration; Managing the Uncertainty in
Restoring Physical Habitat. In Darby S. and Sear D., eds., Wiley, Chichester, UK, pp. 3–14.
Lepori F., Palm D., Brannas, E., and Malmqvist B. 2005, Does restoration of structural heterogeneity in streams
enhance fish and macroinvertebrate diversity? Ecological Applications, Vol. 15, pp. 2060–2071.
Mackay R. J. and Kalff J. 1969, Seasonal variation in standing crop and species diversity of insect communities in a
small Quebec stream. Ecology, Vol. 50, pp. 101–109
Montgomery D. R. 1999, Process domains and the river continuum. Journal of the American Water Resources
Association, Vol. 35, pp. 397–410.
Montgomery D. R. 2001, Geomorphology, river ecology and ecosystem management. Geomorphic Processes and
Riverine Habitat: Water Science and Application, In Dorava J. M., ed., American Geophysical Union, Washington,
D. C., U.S., pp. 247–253.
Muhar S., Schmutz S., and Jungwirth M. 1995, River restoration concepts — goals and perspectives. Hydrobiologia,
Vol. 303, pp. 183–194.
Muotka T., Paavola R., Haapala A., Novikmec M., and Laasonen P. 2002, Long-term recovery of stream habitat
structure and benthic invertebrate communities from in-stream restoration. Biological Conservation, Vol. 105, pp.
243–253.
Newson M. D. and Newson C. L. 2000, Geomorphology, ecology and river channel habitat: mesoscale approaches to
basin-scale challenges. Progress in Physical Geography, Vol. 24, pp. 195–217.
Newson M. D., Harper D. M., Padmore C. L., Kemp J. L., and Vogel B. 1998, A cost-effective approach for linking
habitats, flow types and species requirements. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, Vol. 8, pp.
431–446.
NIWA (National Institute of water and Atmospheric Research). 2006, Climate summary data.
http://www.niwascience.co.nz/edu/resources/climate/sum mary/summary.xls.
Palmer M. A. and Poff N. L. 1997, The influence of environmental heterogeneity on patterns and processes in streams.
Journal of the North American Benthological Society, Vol. 16, pp. 169–173.
Parkyn S. M. and Winterbourn M. J. 1997, Leaf breakdown and colonisation by invertebrates in a headwater stream:
comparisons of native and introduced tree species. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research, Vol.
31, pp. 301–312.
Petersen R. C., Petersen L B-M., and Lacoursiere J. 1992, A building block model for stream restoration. River
Conservation and Management. In Boon P. J., Calow P. and Petts G. E., eds., John Wiley, Chichester, U.K., pp.
293–309.
Poff N. L. and Ward J. V. 1990, Physical habitat template of lotic systems: Recovery in the context of historical
pattern of spatiotemporal heterogeneity. Environmental Management, Vol. 14, No. 5, pp. 629–645.
International Journal of Sediment Research, Vol. 25, No. 3, 2010, pp. 203–220 - 219 -
Poole G. C. 2002, Fluvial landscape ecology: addressing uniqueness within the river discontinuum. Freshwater
Biology, Vol. 47, pp. 641–660.
Quinn J. M. and Hickey C. W. 1990, Magnitude of effects of substrate particle size, recent flooding, and catchment
development on benthic invertebrates in 88 New Zealand rivers. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater
Research, Vol. 24, pp. 411–427.
Reid H. E., Gregory G. E., and Brierley G. J. 2008, Measures of physical heterogeneity in appraisal of geomorphic
river condition for urban streams: Twin Streams Catchment, Auckland, New Zealand. Physical Geography, Vol. 29,
No.3, pp. 247–274.
Roy A. H., Rosemond A. D., Leigh D. S., Paul M. J., and Wallace J. B. 2003, Habitat-specific responses of stream
insects to land cover disturbance: biological consequences and monitoring implications. Journal of the North
American Benthological Society, Vol. 22, pp. 292–307.
Scealy J. A., Mika S. J., and Boulton A. J. 2007, Aquatic macroinvertebrate communities on wood in an Australian
lowland river: Experimental assessment of the interactions of habitat, substrate complexity and retained organic
matter. Marine and Freshwater Research, Vol. 58, pp. 153–165.
Simon A., Doyle M., Kondolf M., Shields F. D., Rhoads J. B., and McPhillips M. 2008, Critical evaluation of how the
Rosgen classification and associated 'Natural Channel Design' methods fail to integrate and quantify fluvial
processes and channel responses. Journal of the American Water Resources Association, Vol. 44, No. 3, pp.
793–802.
Stark J. D., Boothroyd I. K. G., Harding J. S., Maxted J. R., and Scarsbrook M. R. 2001, Protocols for Sampling
Macroinvertebrates in Wadeable Streams, New Zealand Macroinvertebrate Working Group Report No. 1., Prepared
for the Ministry for the Environment, Wellington, New Zealand.
Stark J. D. and Maxted J. R. 2007, A user guide for the macroinvertebrate community index, Prepared for the
Ministry for the Environment, Cawthron report, Nelson, New Zealand, No. 1166, 1–58.
Storey A. and Lynas J. 2007, Application of the functional habitat concept to the regulated Lower Ord River, Western
Australia, Part I, macroinvertebrate assemblages. Hydrobiologia, Vol. 592, pp. 499–512.
Sudduth E. and Meyer J. 2006, Effects of bioengineered streambank stabilization on bank habitat and
macroinvertebrates in urban streams. Environmental Management, Vol. 38, pp. 218–226.
Sullivan P., Watzin M. C. and Hession W. C. 2004, Understanding stream geomorphic state in relation to ecological
integrity: Evidence using habitat assessments and macroinvertebrates. Environmental Management, Vol. 34, pp.
669–683.
Terralink International Limited. 2001, New Zealand Landcover Database (LCDB2). Wellington, New Zealand.
Thorp J. H., Thoms M. C., and Delong M. D. 2006, The riverine ecosystem synthesis: biocomplexity in river
networks across space and time. River Research and Applications, Vol 22, pp. 123–147.
Thorp J. H., Thoms M. C., and Delong M. D. 2008, The Riverine Ecosystem Synthesis: Toward Conceptual
Cohesiveness in River Science. Academic Press, London, U. K.
Thomson J. R., Taylor, M. P., and Brierley, G. J. 2004, Are River Styles ecological meaningful? A test of ecological
significance of a geomorphic river characterization scheme. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater
Ecosystems, Vol. 14, pp. 25–48.
Townsend C. 1989, The patch dynamics concept of stream community ecology. Journal of the North American
Benthological Society, Vol. 8, pp. 36–50.
Townsend C., Doledec S., and Scarsbrook M. 1997, Species traits in relation to temporal and spatial heterogeneity in
streams: a test of habitat template theory. Freshwater Biology, Vol. 37, pp. 367–387.
Tullos D. D., Penrose D. L., Jennings G. D., and Cope W. G. 2009, Analysis of functional traits in reconfigured
channels: implications for the bioassessment and disturbance of river restoration. Journal of the North American
Benthological Society, Vol. 28, No.1, pp. 80–92.
Vannote R. L., Minshall G. W., Cummins K. W., Sedell J. R., and Cushing C. E. 1980, The River Continuum Concept.
Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, Vol. 37, pp. 130–137.
Ward J. V., Tockner K., Arscott D. B., and Claret C. 2002, Riverine landscape diversity. Freshwater Biology, Vol. 47,
pp. 517–539.
Webster J. R. and Benfield E. F. 1986, Vascular Plant Breakdown in Freshwater Ecosystems. Annual Review of
Ecology and Systematics, Vol. 17, pp. 567–594.
Wohl D. L., Wallace J. B., and Meyer J. L. 1995, Benthic macroinvertebrate community structure, function and
production with respect to habitat type, reach and drainage basin in the southern Appalachians (U.S.A.). Freshwater
Biology, Vol. 34, pp. 447–464.
Wohl E., Angermier P. L., Bledsoe B., Kondolf G. M., MacDonnell L., Merritt D. M. Palmer M. A., Poff N. L., and
Taraboton D. 2005, River restoration. Water Resources Research, Vol. 41, No. W10301, pp. 1–13.
- 220 - International Journal of Sediment Research, Vol. 25, No. 3, 2010, pp. 203–220