See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/265144112

Stream ecology: concepts and case study of macroinvertebrates in the Skeena

River Watershed, British Columbia

Article

CITATIONS READS

2 11,084

1 author:

Alexander Fremier
Washington State University
98 PUBLICATIONS 3,646 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Alexander Fremier on 20 November 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Stream ecology: concepts and case study of macroinvertebrates in the
Skeena River Watershed, British Columbia

by Alexander K. Fremier

INTRODUCTION
When hiking, it’s hard for me not to ponder the abundance of species and their apparent
organization over the landscape. So, when swimming in a stream would one see similar patterns
of species diversity? Species distributions are seemingly as well organized in flowing water as on
land; yet, the processes controlling the patterns are quite unique to the aquatic environment. It is
not hard to imagine that ecological patterns are dynamic in four dimensions, the usual three
spatial ones and time. The spatial distribution of terrestrial plant species is limited by large
physical processes such as temperature and precipitation as well as small factors, say proximity
to a stream or topographic position. Time also plays a key role in distributions from seasonal to
geologic time scales. This seems like a rather straight forward summary, however researchers
have not always found linking pattern to process to be this simple.
Physical processes driving species distributions in space and time tend to vary in
importance from place to place and vary with the scale of inquiry; and, species respond to these
factors in a range of ways. Stream systems provide a particularly complex web to untangle
considering the dynamic ways in which it flows over and alters the landscape. Flow
characteristics (such as velocity) change over small spatial scales, e.g. from the side of a channel
to the main channel; they can change upstream to downstream and over many scales of time
including seasonal flooding and glacial periods. Stream ecologists have aimed to describe these
general patterns in various ways using a holistic approach infusing knowledge of hydrology and
geomorphology to explain energy flows and ecological patterns. A few main concepts formed
the structure with which investigators started to grapple with stream complexity, including the
river continuum concept (Vannote et al. 1980), resource-spiraling concept (Elwood et al. 1983),
serial discontinuity concept (Ward and Stanford 1983), flood-pulse concept (Junk et al. 1989),
and hyporheic corridor concept (Stanford and Ward 1993). The scientific community continues
to debate the merits and limitations of these concepts. More recent discussions have moved away

Page 1 of 21
A.K. Fremier May 26, 2004

from a linear concept of stream systems and tend to emphasize scalar hierarchies and
discontinuity concepts (Petts and Amoros 1996; Montgomery 1999; Rice et al. 2001). This paper
aims to flesh out the insights of these early approaches and present them as sub-concepts in the
overreaching framework that is more closely aligned with current scientific thought on issues in
stream ecology. The latter section of the paper focuses on applying these concepts to the Skeena
River watershed in British Columbia, Canada.

CONCEPTS IN RIVER ECOLOGY

River Continuum Concept

The river continuum concept (RCC) posited that the physical variables in river systems,
from headwaters to mouth, presented a continuous gradient of physical conditions that drive the
biological strategies and river system dynamics (Vannote et al. 1980). This was largely argued
from the standpoint that energy input, organic matter transport, storage, and use by
macroinvertebrates functional feeding groups (i.e. how an organism retrieves its food), may be
regulated largely by fluvial geomorphic processes.
The continuum is described in the longitudinal direction using stream order where a first
order stream has no tributaries and, depending on the system, the last order (usually > 6) runs
into estuaries or the ocean directly. It states that the energy in the system for biological
production at a given site is derived from three sources: local inputs or organic matter from
terrestrial vegetation (allochthonous), primary production within the stream (autochthonous
production), and transport of organic material from upstream. The proportion of these energy
sources changes along the length of the stream (figure 1). The headwaters are dominated by
terrestrial inputs or coarse particulate matter (e.g. leaf litter) with periphyton (algae attached to
stream bed) also present. Middle reaches are mixed with coarse particulate matter, periphyton
and vascular hydrophytes (aquatic plants) as well as the fine particulate matter lost from
upstream communities. Further downstream receive less terrestrial inputs due to the increase area
to perimeter ratio of the river channel. Lower reach energy sources are dominated by phyto- and
zooplankton as well as the upstream fine particulate input. Periphyton and hydrophytes are not
abundant at the lower reaches because high turbidity reduces penetration of sunlight. Plankton
communities can persist in these waters due to the decreased slope and increased discharge. In

Page 2 of 21
A.K. Fremier May 26, 2004

general, the RCC describes a gradient of energy inputs upstream to downstream of terrestrial
inputs to in-stream production and associated downstream transport.

Figure 1: The river continuum concept by Vannote et al. 1980. The proportion of invertebrate
feed groups corresponds to changes in the physical factors in the longitudinal direction (Figure
taken from USDA 2001).

Page 3 of 21
A.K. Fremier May 26, 2004

Reflecting this gradient, macroinvertebrates populations are predicted to show a pattern

relating to how they capture these energy sources. The right side of Figure 1 details how the
proportion of feeding functional groups changes with stream order. The upper reaches are
dominated by shredders and collectors, mid-reaches collectors and grazers, and low reaches by
collectors. Collectors are species adapted to amassing fine particulate matter out of the water and
therefore are predicted to increase downstream. Shedders in the upper reaches represent more of
the macroinvertebrate species because of the increased allochthonous input, while grazers
dominate the middle reaches due to the presence of in-stream production.

Resource-Spiraling Concept

A related concept in stream ecology is the resource-spiraling concept (RSC) (Elwood et

al. 1983). It sets forth the concept that resources do not flow continuously downstream like the
RCC suggests but are stored periodically in biological packages (e.g. organisms, detritus and
waste products). Resources are released after decomposition and then can be recycled into new
biological production. This does not entirely change the RCC but adds to the dialogue the spatial
and temporal fluxes of resources. For example, Minshall et al. (Minshall et al. 1983) suggested
that upper basin streams tend to conserve or store resources through high biological activity and
physical barriers to organic matter. Conversely, large streams have lower rates of biological
activity and retention. In addition, as discussed the next section, there is a lateral pattern to
resource dynamics (Junk et al. 1989). Namely, flooding adds a significant supply of resources
into the stream system by bringing about interactions with the floodplain. Resource spiraling in
this context adds a larger spatial and temporal dynamic by proposing that resource inputs into the
stream system are not limited to leaf litter and upstream particulate matter. The stream system
includes the adjacent riparian lands. In this context, resource spiraling can incorporate resources
that are stored in the surrounding floodplains over longer temporal scales.

Serial-Discontinuity Concept

The RCC and RSC assume little to no human involvement on the river system. The lack
the structure to adequately deal with developed systems became a sticking point for opponents of
the RCC (Johnson et al. 1995). They are argued that many, if not all, rivers have some level of
human impact such as dam construction, channelization or riparian forest clearing, and therefore
the RCC has little applied value on these rivers, the exact rivers that are trying to be restored. In

Page 4 of 21
A.K. Fremier May 26, 2004

response, the serial-discontinuity concept (SDC) (Ward and Stanford 1983; Stanford and Ward
2001) was formulated and tried to incorporate impoundment into RCC. The SDC conjectured
that even though dams were discontinuities in the river continuum, the RCC should still correctly
predict the biophysical responses as a function of ‘discontinuity distance’ – upstream or
downstream impact by dam. This concept, as well as the RCC, has been criticized by more
recent studies because it lacks the construct to deal with the lateral and vertical dimensions of
river systems. Recently, Stanford and Ward (Lamouroux et al. 1995) incorporated floodplains
into the SDC and continue to maintain its efficacy as a predictive tool.

Flood-Pulse Concept

In contrast to the RCC, the flood-pulse concept (FPC) was derived on large floodplain
rivers in temperate and tropical areas that caused investigators to consider the role of seasonal
flooding in lotic systems (Junk et al. 1989). The RCC could be acceptably modified to account
for brief and unpredictable floods in low-order streams; however, researchers recognized that as
the size of a floodplain increased, the frequency of floods decreased, yet their predictability
increased. This suggests that larger streams have a more stable flood regime. This predictability,
they hypothesized, of the stream/floodplain exchange should result in adaptation of biota distinct
from those species in streams dominated by stable lotic or lentic habitats. Therefore, the FPC
states that the most important hydrologic feature of large rivers is the annual flood pulse. Junk et
al. (Junk et al. 1989) postulate that in unaltered large river systems with floodplains in the
temperate, subtropical, or tropical belt, “the overwhelming bulk of the riverine animal biomass
derives directly or indirectly from production within the floodplains and not from downstream
transport of organic matter produced elsewhere in the basin” (1989 page 112). In general, the
main difference between the two concepts is the process of how resources are input into the
system in large rivers.
From the aquatic standpoint, the FPC recognizes that the predictable advance and
retraction of water on the floodplain is the principal agent controlling the adaptation of most of
the biota. Flooding, therefore, is not a disturbance, but a natural property on which the system
depends. The FPC postulates that the flood pulse enhances biological productivity and maintains
diversity in the system through the seasonal interactions between plants, nutrients, detritus and
sediments in the floodplain. Junk et al. (1989) describe the aquatic/terrestrial transition zone

Page 5 of 21
A.K. Fremier May 26, 2004

(ATTZ), or moving littoral zone (area between low and high flooding) as the major zone of
activity (figure 2). Flood waters pick-up nutrients from the floodplain that have been mineralized
on land and redistribute them through the system. Fish respond to the rising waters by spawning
before or during the water’s rise. While the stream water is rising, fish and invertebrate
production is high due to the release of nutrients from newly inundated soil (figure 2). Increased
floodplain inundation also creates new nursery habitat for fish and optimal environments for
many invertebrate especially those allied with macrophytes.

Figure 2: The flood pulse concept (Junk et al. 1989) argued that the effect of the complex
interaction between floodplain and lotic system was not taken into account in the RCC (Figure
taken from USDA 2001).

Page 6 of 21
A.K. Fremier May 26, 2004

Hyporheic Corridor Concept

The hyporheic corridor concept (HCC) added to riverine ecology the pattern and
importance of groundwater interactions in understanding biological patterns (Stanford and Ward
1993). The hyporheic zone is the area below the contact point of water and the stream bed where
water percolates through spaces between the rocks and cobbles, i.e. the interstitial space. The
strength and direction of interaction between surface and groundwater transpires at multiple
spatial scales (figure 3).

Figure 3: This diagram shows the hyporheic zones in the lateral dimension at multiple scales. (a)
the HCC predicts gradients in relative size of the HZ, water retention and sediment size, (b) at
the reach scale, upwelling and downwelling zone alternate, generating gradients in nutrients,
dissolved gases and subsurface fauna, and (c) at the sediment scale microbial and chemical
processes occur on particle surfaces, creating microscale gradients (Boulton et al. 1998).

This physical pattern drives the biotic response. The hyporheic zone is home to copepods,
aquatic earthworms, rotifers, midges, and early instars of other aquatic insects; they are mostly

Page 7 of 21
A.K. Fremier May 26, 2004

collector-gatherers or predators. Many stoneflies (Order Plecoptera) live their entire aquatic life
in this zone. The importance of this concept to stream ecology is that it emphasizes the vertical
dimension on streams at both the lateral and longitudinal dimension and through time. Moreover,
it is an example of the development in thought that recognizes a discontinuous pattern in the
longitudinal direction; in addition it directly includes the lateral and temporal components of the
fluvial process and biotic patterns.

Shortcomings of Traditional Concepts

Increased habitat heterogeneity and high productivity in larger rivers is thought to be the
main cause of the high species diversity in larger river systems according to the FPC. The RCC,
however, does not predict this pattern. It argues that the highest species diversity occurs in mid-
order streams excluding higher order stream species that do not dwell in the active channel. The
FPC argues that backwater habitats and species affected by the ATTZ should be included into
diversity indices. Inclusion would make lower reaches extremely diverse and productive.
Regardless of how the RCC and FPC measure diversity, the addition of flood pulsing into stream
ecology is an important contribution.
Empirical tests of the RCC and subsequent conceptual arguments quickly showed that it
may not apply to large rivers, particularly with extensive floodplains (Bayley and Li 1992) and in
arid regions (Davies et al. 1994). However, other reports on the Amazon River (FPC) and the
Salmon River in Idaho (RCC) showed that predictions of both concepts are upheld when
floodplains are considered a significant variable. That is, the RCC did not function well on a
floodplain river, but did on the Salmon River due to the fact that it is a constrained river with no
lateral interaction with a floodplain. Analogously, the river areas on the Amazon River with the
most interaction with floodplain were the most productive as concordant with the FPC.
In general, these concepts are not mutually exclusive. They emphasize two main points in
stream ecology: 1) the lateral and longitudinal dimensions of streams, and 2) the importance of
geographic setting (geomorphology and hydrology). The RCC described the longitudinal
dimension of river systems while the FPC emphasizes the lateral dimension in floodplain rivers.
The nature of large river flooding encourages biota to adapt to the flood pulse while the
stochastic and flashy nature of mid-to-headwater stream systems does not allow for this
transformation. The hydrologic and geomorphic setting of a river constrains the universality of

Page 8 of 21
A.K. Fremier May 26, 2004

each concept. The FPC argued that the RCC was inaccurate in larger river systems due to
increase floodplain interaction including side channels and oxbow lakes, yet is confined itself to
only those rivers with an ATTZ. The question remains whether if both concepts can be
incorporated into one.
As was noted when contrasting the RCC and the FPC, river systems vary due to the
geographic setting, e.g. with a floodplain versus without. So what other system properties have
the potential to alter river processes and patterns? The RCC and FPC are principally linear
concepts. They assume that processes essentially function in the longitudinal and lateral
dimension. Linear models in ecology have largely been thrown out because they rarely fit
empirical data. More recent approaches emphasize patch mosaic dynamics and nested hierarchies
(Pringle et al. 1988; Petts and Amoros 1996; Poole 2002). That is, riverine systems should be
view as a mosaic of patches rather than a continuum and/or as higher levels of organization that
change more slowly and provide the context within which lower levels function. For example,
sediment particle size is a small scale pattern governed by a small scale process, i.e. flow
characteristics. Smaller scale processes are contained with larger processes, such as a particular
climate or geology.
The present hypotheses largely assume that the physical characteristics drive the
biological. On small scales this might not always be true. Local abundances of species and
resource use can be controlled by community interactions such as predation (Power et al. 1995).
In a given river profile the channel biota might be dominated by physical forces while in
backwaters, community dynamics might control species interactions. Both the RCC and the FPC
assume a dynamic equilibrium between the biological and physical features. Equilibrium theory
focuses attention on the properties of the system at an equilibrium point, to which the community
tends to return after a disturbance (Begon et al. 1996). This assumption has been difficult to
accept in river systems that are dynamic and highly altered by humans (i.e. the serial-
discontinuity concept). Current hypotheses for lotic systems are essentially descriptive and do
not isolate the mechanism directing the pattern. Better methods and tools are needed, not only to
guide management, but also to predict a river’s physical and biological characteristics along its
length (Gore and Shields 1995; Power et al. 1995). More recent concepts are stronger than
traditional approaches as they isolate the process driving the pattern (Benda et al. 2004); but,
they are more limited in their scope.

Page 9 of 21
A.K. Fremier May 26, 2004

Contemporary Concepts

The concepts discussed thus far have shown to be too simplistic for predicting the true
pattern and process of stream systems worldwide. Although they have not been thrown out
completely, they are still useful on a single river depending upon the geographic setting and the
temporal and spatial scale of the analysis (Schiemer and Zalewski 1992). Moreover, they have a
significant heuristic value for studies in stream macroinvertebrate ecology. One useful concept
for understanding the stream systems is the fluvial hydrosystems approach (FHA). It is based on
the idea that limiting analyses to the longitudinal and temporal dimensions is too simplistic to
understand the true complexity of river systems. The FHA suggests that rivers should be viewed
as three-dimensional systems (figure 4) over time (the 4th dimension) dependant on longitudinal,
lateral and vertical transfers of energy, material and biota (Petts and Amoros 1996). Upstream to
downstream fluxes (e.g. RCC, RSC, SDC), lateral interactions with the riparian area (e.g. FPC),
and vertical exchanges with the groundwater of the alluvial aquifer (e.g. HCC) are all important.

Figure 4: The Fluvial Hydrosystem approach to understanding river systems emphasizes the
lateral, longitudinal, and vertical dimensions (Petts and Amoros 1996).

The approach relates the variability of hydrological and geomorphological processes that
determine the types of habitat patches present and the strength, duration, and frequency of their
connectivity. It emphasizes bidirectional interactions between environmental variables and
biological populations over a range of spatial and temporal scales. Another key interpretation of
this approach is to look at the systems as a nested hierarchy of subsystems. Meaning, various
processes act on various levels, which in turn create patterns of diversity at various levels. As

Page 10 of 21
A.K. Fremier May 26, 2004

described in the RCC and FPC, macroinvertebrate distributions are principally controlled by
fluxes of resources acting along longitudinal and lateral gradients. However, at a meso-scale
groups of taxa tend to arrange in pools and adjacent riffles (HCC). At smaller scales, such as the
microscale, species within a pool organize laterally within the channel primarily due to the shear
stress of water flow. The scale of interest determines the scale of inquiry. Furthermore, the
variables controlling species distributions most likely vary between stream systems and location
along the stream network (Poole 2002; Benda et al. 2004).
The recent emphasis of stream ecology away from continuous concepts into
discontinuous has further joined the disciplines of stream ecology and geomorphology (Poole
2002). The patch or hierarchy approach now recognized acknowledges the intermittent nature of
hydro-geomorphic processes in the longitudinal dimension. Analysis of the physical processes is
used to classify rivers into smaller units (Montgomery and Buffington 1997). See Figure 5 for an
example. Using a well-defined river classification schema, ecologists compare biota within and
between nested channel reaches to construct a more accurate and predictive model. In addition,
reaches have been broken down further into smaller units incorporating tributary effects (Rice et
al. 2001; Benda et al. 2004). This recent concept acknowledges the importance of tributary
inputs (namely sediment and large woody debris) that result in discontinuous downstream
patterns.

Figure 5. This is an example of how stream reaches are dissected by geomorphologists. It is a

schematic of longitudinal profiles of alluvial channel profiles at low flow: (A) cascade, (B) step
pool, (C) plane bed, (D) pool riffle, and (E) dune ripple.

Page 11 of 21
A.K. Fremier May 26, 2004

These concepts represent a fundamental shift in perception in stream ecology. They

emphasize the relationship between pattern and process at multiple scales. The approach is
multidimensional in that it melds patterns observed at three spatial dimensions through time.
However, it is important to notice that the antecedent concepts have not been wholly thrown out,
but have been refined and united into a more overarching framework. To illustrate this idea the
next section details a specific application of these concepts to the Skeena River and its
tributaries.

APPLICATION IN THE SKEENA WATERSHED

This section examines the ways in which the heterogeneity of aquatic habitats influences
the distribution of invertebrate communities at multiple spatial scales. A few basic questions will
be addressed: how do we begin to analyze the distribution patterns related to the degree of
connectivity with the river system at the macro-, meso- and micro-scales? What might be the
distribution of macroinvertebrates between tributaries that are glacial, or bog feed or clear water
streams? And, how do channel networks and confluences affect the ecological patterns? In
general, the analysis here will focus on how the theoretical concepts might predict
macroinvertebrate population distributions throughout the system.

Geographic Setting

The Skeena River is the largest river in North America unaffected by human alteration
(Dynesius and Nilsson 1994). It flows 570 kilometers out of the Canadian Rocky Mountains
through mixed mountain and highland system with complex zonation into the Pacific Ocean
(figure 6). It drains a total area of 54,400km2. The geomorphic pattern of the river conforms to
that of a typical stream to river system - steeper head water streams that flow into progressively
larger valley, flat bottom rivers. The Skeena is best known for the anadromous fish runs it
supports. There has been only minimal human influence in the watershed – mining, timber
harvest and commercial fishing – making the watershed a particularly unique location to study
natural and non-impacted macroinvertebrate population dynamics.

Page 12 of 21
A.K. Fremier May 26, 2004

Figure 6: Location map of the Skeena River

The Skeena River hydrology is strongly seasonal. Unlike most temperate rivers the
Skeena River has a flood-pulse that comes twice a year (figures 7-9). The initial pulse comes as
temperatures rise (April-October), peaking in June. In the late fall months of September and
October a second, smaller peak appears with the return of the winter storms. The winter months
on the Skeena see lower flows due to the fact that most precipitation falls as snow. Figure 7
shows flows on the Skeena near Usk, BC and Figure 8 shows a smaller but similar pattern of
flow upstream of the confluence with the Babine River. There is a clear patterned flood pulse
(figure 9).

Figure 7: Mean daily discharge for the Skeena River at USK. Note the patterned flood pulse in
both the spring and fall. Water Resource Branch of Canada, 2004.

Page 13 of 21
A.K. Fremier May 26, 2004

Figure 8: Mean daily discharge for the Skeena River above the Babine River. Note the patterned
flood pulse, both in spring and fall (Water Resource Branch of Canada, 2004).

4,500

4,000

3,500
Average Discharge (cms)

3,000

2,500

2,000

1,500

1,000

500

-
ov

ov

b
ar

ec
ug

ep
pr
n

Fe
Ja

Ju
M

A
N

D
A

Calender Day

Figure 9: Average of all mean flow per calendar day on the Skeena River at Usk. Plotted with 1
standard deviation from the mean to show that flooding is a highly regular pattern (Water
Resource Branch of Canada, 2004).

Page 14 of 21
A.K. Fremier May 26, 2004

Stream Macroinvertebrates

A logical way to organize the stream macroinvertebrates of the Skeena is by scale. At the
macro- or catchment scale, the headwater communities are compared to lowland, i.e. a similar
concept described in the RCC. The headwater sections of high altitude, high slope, turbulence
and low temperatures change in the downstream direction into depositional, warmer, lowland
reaches. Figure 10 shows an example of how the organisms might be organized. Depending on
the source, most upstream habitats (namely springs) have a typical fauna (A) and give way to an
assemblage of species adapted to fast flowing water (B). As the river enters the floodplain a new
assemblage can be identified with species adapted to the slow moving, depositional zone (C),
which leads to estuarine assemblages tolerant of saline conditions (D). At the transition point
between each section of the river there is an overlap of taxa, with some species unique to each
transition zone (T) (Greenwood and Richardot-Coulet 1996). An example of this transition
occurs between the mayflies and stoneflies. In BC mayflies (Order Ephemeroptera) live in
flowing or still water. The nymph feeds on algae, diatoms, and organic matter. Mayflies are
characteristic of lower, warmer sectors of stream. The stoneflies (Order Plecoptera) are regarded
as cold-water species. Stonefly nymphs require well oxygenated water so are consequently found
in rivers and streams amongst the rocks and bottom debris; however, a few species can be found
in the rocky shoals of cold lakes. It is important to know however that these are the characteristic
locations of the immature stages of these insects and that since the adult stages are mostly aerial,
the system should be considered open.

Page 15 of 21
A.K. Fremier May 26, 2004

Figure 10: Diagram of the longitudinal dimension of river systems proposed by the FHA. (Petts
and Amoros 1996)

At the mesoscale, riffle-pool sequences create divergent habitats characteristics.

Examples of taxa strongly tied to riffles are Ephmeroptera, Tricoptera (Caddisflies), Plecoptera,
and Simuliidae (Order Diptera, Blackflies). These groups are adapted to the high velocities of the
channel (riffles compared to pools). Many take on the flows by anchoring themselves to the
stream bed using a range of mechanisms (figure 11). In Figure 11, the mollusk has a stream lined
shell designed to reduce shear stress and sticks to the bottom of the stream by ‘sucking’ on to the
irregular surfaces. Likewise the blackfly larvae attaches itself to the stream bed and raises
filaments to catch passing detritus. Alternatively, members of the orders of Odonata, Diptera,
Coleoptera (Dytiscidae, diving beetles) and some Tricoptera are abundant in neighboring pools.
In larger meandering streams species are distributed over the diverse habitats provided by the
hydro-geomorphic dynamics of the river, such as cutoffs, braided stream beds, and meander
bends.

Page 16 of 21
A.K. Fremier May 26, 2004

Figure 11: Adaptations by macroinvertebrates to live in flowing water. See text for details. (Petts
and Amoros 1996)

Analysis at a microscale shows a variable environment which creates a mosaic of

microhabitats for the macroinvertebrates. The specific characteristics of the mosaic depend on
the characteristics of the catchment at a specific time. Within a riffle or a pool species are
adapted to the transient nature of the mosaic. Some species take up positions in areas where there
is a stable food supply such as the head of the riffle. Certain species may move from patch to
patch as their life cycle progresses. Along the banks and margins, the water level and shape of
the channel section creates a variety of habitats as well.
The tributaries of the Skeena have varied characteristics. Three main types exist: clear
water, glacial feed, and peatland drain streams (pers. comm. J. Mount). Each has their unique
physical characteristics, including the water chemistry and amount of fine particulate matter.
Each of these will play a significant role in macroinvertebrate patterns. The tributaries would

Page 17 of 21
A.K. Fremier May 26, 2004

probably have few species in common, the chironomids excepted; yet, they should have similar
distribution of functional groups. Glacial fed streams tend to be primarily diatom based with very
little primary production due to low light availability; while peatland feed streams have mostly
fine particulate organic matter of low energetic value that is hard to break down. Glacial stream
communities tend to have a Diamesanae based chironomid community, whereas peatland acid-
based drainage communities are acid tolerant, low oxygen species such as Chironomus and
Paratendipes (Erman 2004). Clear waters stream will have bit of everything with a high diversity.
The organization of biota within these streams between reach lengths will differ due to
the immediate hydrology. One can imagine that the cascade reach offers a vastly different set of
physical parameters than does a dune-ripple reach (Refer back to Figure 5). Sediment supply and
transport capacity should affect macroinvertebrate distributions in unique ways between the
tributaries; yet, theory predicts that patterns should arise due to similar geomorphic and
geographic conditions.
Two interesting, and largely unexplored, questions come to mind regarding the
distribution of macroinvertebrates on the Skeena River. The first is to analyze the three types of
tributaries for patterns in species and functional group distributions. On the tributaries to the
Skeena testing the predictability of the RCC might be the most appropriate. Here there are three
types of rivers varying in physical conditions; yet, there are similar is many respects as well,
including connectivity to the Skeena and climatic factors. From the head of each stream to where
it meets the Skeena, do these streams conform to a pattern predicted by the RCC? Knowledge of
similar systems informs us that clear water streams have the most promise, but if the theory is
correct, it should hold true in more extreme less diverse communities such as glacial and
peatland feed streams as well. The second is to look at the effect of tributaries on the
geomorphology and biotic distribution. Rice et al. (Rice et al. 2001) empirically tested a
discontinuity concept (Link Discontinuity Concept) by completing a longitudinal profile of a set
of streams recording both the physical conditions, such as sediment size, water temperature, pH
and width, and macroinvertebrate species abundances. The pattern of biota could be attributed to
the character of the input source. A similar analysis could be completed at the geomorphic scale
(e.g. riffle or pool) or at a channel cross section to look at the lateral dimension of tributary
influence.

Page 18 of 21
A.K. Fremier May 26, 2004

The Skeena watershed offers a unique example of a near pristine system with an
interesting array of streams to study macroinvertebrates, and in particular, the effects of
tributaries and source waters on stream biota. For the purposes here, application of conceptual
models provided a glimpse into how investigators view the biological diversity in streams.

CONCLUSION
Stream ecology research has largely focused on describing processes that effect biotic
distributions. Research has identified the merits and limitations of proposed conceptual models.
The objective of this paper was to review the predominate concepts of stream ecology and try to
synthesize the main themes. It is clear that the waters are still muddy. However, of the concepts
examined few were contradictory; in fact, they were quite the opposite. Arguably the first large
scale concept in stream ecology (the RCC) is still incorporated into contemporary conceptual
models, albeit in a more restricted version. The RCC emphasized the longitudinal dimension, the
FPC the lateral, and the HCC the vertical. They were fastened together in the FHA for largely
heuristic value.
Research has shown that the RCC tends to be inaccurate in large floodplain river systems
due to the great influx of material brought into the system by seasonal flood inundation patterns.
The RSC offered a structure with which to understand resource fluxes in lotic waters both
downstream and through floodplain features. The RCC was further refined when human
influence was factored in. The SDC argued that impoundment affected the longitudinal
continuum described in the RCC. The concept of discontinuity is being activity researched today.
This research has benefited from integration with landscape ecology and again from
geomorphology. Landscape ecology offered the view of system patterns acting in a nested
hierarchy while geomorphology describes process-based stream classifications schemes as well
as the effects of tributaries.
Application of these concepts in the Skeena River was for the most part conceptual, although it
offered a tangible approach to understand and formulate research questions in the area of stream
ecology. This connection between concepts and application will help those interested in
understanding the environment around them, allowing even the most casual observer to interlink
process and pattern as they go for a dip in their favorite swimming hole.

Page 19 of 21
A.K. Fremier May 26, 2004

WORKS CITED

Bayley, P. B. and H. W. Li. 1992. Riverine fishes. Pages 251-281 in P. Calow and G. E. Petts, editors.
The Rivers Handbook. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford, UK.

Begon, M., J. L. Harper, and C. R. Townsend. 1996. Ecology: Individuals, populations and communities.
3rd edition. Blackwell Science, Malden, MA.

Benda, L. N., L. N. Poff, D. Miller, T. Dunne, G. Reeves, G. Pess, and M. Pollock. 2004. The network
dynamics hypothesis: how channel networks structure riverine habitats. BioScience 54: 413-427.

Boulton, A. J., S. Findley, P. Marmonier, E. H. Stanley, and H. M. Valett. 1998. The functional
significance of the hyporheic zone in streams and rivers. Annual Review of Ecological Systems
29: 59-81.

Davies, B. R., M. C. Thoms, K. F. Walker, J. H. O'Keefe, and J. A. Gore. 1994. Dry-land rivers: their
ecology, conservation, and management. Pages 484-511 in P. Calow and G. E. Petts, editors. The
Rivers Handbook. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford, UK.

Dynesius, M., and C. Nilsson. 1994. Fragmentation and flow regulation for river systems in the Northern
Third of the World. Science 266: 753-762.

Elwood, J. W., J. D. Newbold, R. V. O'Neill, and W. Van Winkle. 1983. Resource spiraling: an
operational paradigm for analyzing lotic ecosystems. Pages 3-27 in T. D. Fontaine and S. M.
Bartell, editors. Dynamics of lotic ecosystems. Ann Arbor Science, MI.

Erman, D. 2004. Personal communication. Davis, CA.

Gore, J. A., and F. D. Shields. 1995. Can large rivers be restored? BioScience 45:142-152.

Greenwood, M. T., and M. Richardot-Coulet. 1996. Aquatic invertebrates. in G. E. Petts and C. Amoros,
editors. Fluvial Hydrosytems. Chapman & Hall, New York, US.

Johnson, J. L., W. B. Richardson, and T. J. Naimo. 1995. Past, present and future concepts in large river
ecology. BioScience 45: 134-141.

Junk, W. J., P. B. Bayley, and R. E. Sparks. 1989. The flood pulse concept in river-floodplain systems. in
D. P. Dodge, editor. Proceeding of the International large river symposium (LARS). Department
of Fisheries and Oceans, Honey Harbour, Ontario, Canada.

Minshall, G. W., R. C. Peterson, K. W. Cummins, T. L. Bott, J. R. Sedell, C. E. Cushing, and R. L.

Vannote. 1983. Interbiome comparison of stream ecosystem dynamics. Ecological Monographs
53: 1-25.

Montgomery, D. R. 1999. Process domains and the river continuum. Journal of American Water
Resources Association 35: 397-306.

Montgomery, D. R., and J. M. Buffington. 1997. Channel-reach morphology in mountain drainage basins.
GSA Bulletin 109: 596-611.

Page 20 of 21
 A.K. Fremier May 26, 2004

Petts, G. E., and C. Amoros, editors. 1996. Fluvial Hydrosystems. Chapman & Hall, New York, US.

Poole, G. 2002. Fluvial landscape ecology: addressing uniqueness within the river discontinuum.
Freshwater Biology 47: 641-660.

Power, M. E., A. Sun, G. Parker, D. W.E., and W. J.T. 1995. Hydraulic food-chain models. BioScience
45: 159-167.

Pringle, C. M., R. J. Naiman, G. Bretchko, J. R. Karr, M. W. Oswood, J. R. Webster, R. L. Welcomme,

and M. J. Winterbourn. 1988. Patch dynamics in the lotic systems: the stream as a mosaic.
Journal of the North American Benthological Society 7: 503-524.

Rice, S. P., M. T. Greenwood, and C. B. Joyce. 2001. Tributaries, sediment sources, and the longitudinal
organization of macroinvertebrate fauna along river systems. Canadian Journal of Aquatic
Sciences 58: 824-840.

Schiemer, F., and M. Zalewski. 1992. The importance of riparian ecotones for diversity and productivity
of riverine fish communities. Netherlands Journal of Zoology 42: 323-335.

Stanford, J. A., and J. V. Ward. 1993. An ecosystem perspective of alluvial rivers: connectivity and the
hyporheic corridor. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 12: 48-60.

Stanford, J. A., and J. V. Ward. 2001. Revisiting the serial-discontinuity concept. Regulated Rivers:
Research & Management 17: 303-310.

USDA. 2001. Stream Corridor Restoration: Principles, Process and Practices. The Federal Interagency
Stream Restoration Working Group, USDA, http://www.usda.gov/stream_restoration.

Vannote, R. L., G. W. Minshall, K. W. Cummins, J. R. Sedell, and C. E. Cushing. 1980. The river
continuum concept. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 37: 130-137.

Ward, J. V., and J. A. Stanford. 1983. The serial discontinuity concept of lotic ecosystems. Pages 29-42 in
T. D. Fontaine and S. M. Bartell, editors. Dynamics of lotic ecosytems. Ann Arbor Sciences, Ann
Arbor, MI.

Ward, J. V., and J. A. Stanford. 1995. The serial discontinuity concept: extending the model to floodplain
rivers. Regulated Rivers: Research & Management 10: 159-168.

Page 21 of 21

View publication stats