Are biological classifications of headwater streams concordant across multiple taxonomic groups?

• Published in: Freshwater biology Vol. 48; no. 10; pp. 1912 - 1923
• Main Authors: Paavola, Riku, Muotka, Timo, Virtanen, Risto, Heino, Jani, Kreivi, Petri
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Oxford, UK Blackwell Science Ltd 01.10.2003; Blackwell Science; Wiley Subscription Services, Inc
• Subjects: Animal, plant and microbial ecology; Applied ecology; benthic macroinvertebrates; Biological and medical sciences; Bryophyta; bryophytes; community concordance; Ecotoxicology, biological effects of pollution; Finland; fishes; Freshwater; Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology; General aspects. Techniques; Invertebrata; Marine and brackish environment; Methods and techniques (sampling, tagging, trapping, modelling...); Pisces; stream typology; Europe; Finland; Community structure; community concordance; Fauna; Bryophyta; Method; Spatial variation; benthic macroinvertebrates; fishes; Biological monitoring; bryophytes; Freshwater environment; Vertebrata; Macrofauna; Concordance; Pisces; Benthos; Stream; Typology; stream typology; Invertebrata
• ISSN: 0046-5070; 1365-2427
• DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2427.2003.01131.x

Summary 1. Studies assessing human impacts on freshwater ecosystems are typically based on a single taxonomic group, often macroinvertebrates or fish. Unfortunately, the degree to which such macroinvertebrate or fish‐based surveys can be generalised across other taxonomic groups remains largely unknown. A prerequisite for useful generalisations is that different taxonomic groups exhibit concordant patterns of community structure across sites. 2. We examined the concordance among fish, benthic macroinvertebrates and bryophytes in 32 streams in a boreal catchment in Finland. Our goal was to test how consistently different taxonomic groups classify stream sites; for example, can site groupings based on macroinvertebrates be used as a surrogate for bryophyte or fish assemblage classification? 3. Our results show that community classifications in headwater streams are not concordant across taxonomic groups, at least not at the within‐river system scale. The lack of concordance reflected the fact that all three groups responded to different environmental factors. Macroinvertebrate community structure was mainly correlated with stream size and pH, whereas bryophytes were related to water colour, nutrient content and in‐stream habitat variability. Fish community structure was best described by stream depth, substrate size and water oxygen concentration. 4. Our results suggest that great care should be taken when typologies based on benthic macroinvertebrates, or any other taxonomic group, are extrapolated to other groups in creating typologies of lotic environments.