TY - JOUR
T1 - Interactions among stressors may be weak
T2 - Implications for management of freshwater macroinvertebrate communities
AU - Kath, Jarrod
AU - Thomson, James R.
AU - Thompson, Ross M.
AU - Kefford, Ben J.
AU - Dyer, Fiona J.
AU - Mac Nally, Ralph
N1 - Funding Information:
This research was supported by the MDBFutures-Collaborative Research Network (CRN) and the Institute for Applied Ecology (IAE), University of Canberra. Many thanks to Bernd Gruber and Jane Elith for assistance with constructing 95% confidence intervals for boosted regression tree models. RMT was funded by an ARC Future Fellowship, FT110100957.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2018 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
Copyright:
Copyright 2018 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.
PY - 2018/7
Y1 - 2018/7
N2 - Aim: Ecological models that do not account for interactions among stressors, if interactions are important, could be inaccurate and lead to inefficient conservation strategies. Conversely, if interactions are not important (i.e., stressors operate largely independently), then actions concentrating on a stressor-by-stressor basis would be warranted. Here, we investigated whether interactions among multiple stressors affected widely used indices of freshwater macroinvertebrate biodiversity, which are sensitive to environmental change at management-relevant scales (i.e., reaches and catchments). Location: State of Victoria, south-eastern Australia. Methods: We used a 7,418-sample dataset for stream macroinvertebrates from 2,165 sites distributed over 237,630 km2 for 20 years. We calculated the interactive effects on stream macroinvertebrates of stressors operating at different scales, namely vegetation loss at the catchment and reach scales and hydrological change and salinization at the local scale. The importance of interactions among multiple stressors was assessed by comparing the cross-validated predictive performance of models with and without multiple stressor interaction terms. Results: Cross-validated models explained 31%-63% of the variation in the macroinvertebrate responses. The most important stressors were catchment vegetation loss (the proportion of remaining native vegetation cover) and salinity. The inclusion of interaction terms did not increase cross-validated predictive performance, which indicates that there was little evidence that interactions among stressors were important for explaining variation in commonly used freshwater macroinvertebrate condition indices. Main conclusions: Interactions among vegetation, salinity and hydrological change stressors may not always be of importance for determining patterns of stream macroinvertebrate biodiversity, so that such interactions may not necessarily be critical considerations for catchment and reach scale management, at least if based on these or comparable condition indices. The mitigation of the impacts of vegetation loss, salinization and hydrological change stressors one-by-one probably is sufficient to guide conservation activities and might be advantageous if socio-political contexts make it difficult to address interactions among stressors.
AB - Aim: Ecological models that do not account for interactions among stressors, if interactions are important, could be inaccurate and lead to inefficient conservation strategies. Conversely, if interactions are not important (i.e., stressors operate largely independently), then actions concentrating on a stressor-by-stressor basis would be warranted. Here, we investigated whether interactions among multiple stressors affected widely used indices of freshwater macroinvertebrate biodiversity, which are sensitive to environmental change at management-relevant scales (i.e., reaches and catchments). Location: State of Victoria, south-eastern Australia. Methods: We used a 7,418-sample dataset for stream macroinvertebrates from 2,165 sites distributed over 237,630 km2 for 20 years. We calculated the interactive effects on stream macroinvertebrates of stressors operating at different scales, namely vegetation loss at the catchment and reach scales and hydrological change and salinization at the local scale. The importance of interactions among multiple stressors was assessed by comparing the cross-validated predictive performance of models with and without multiple stressor interaction terms. Results: Cross-validated models explained 31%-63% of the variation in the macroinvertebrate responses. The most important stressors were catchment vegetation loss (the proportion of remaining native vegetation cover) and salinity. The inclusion of interaction terms did not increase cross-validated predictive performance, which indicates that there was little evidence that interactions among stressors were important for explaining variation in commonly used freshwater macroinvertebrate condition indices. Main conclusions: Interactions among vegetation, salinity and hydrological change stressors may not always be of importance for determining patterns of stream macroinvertebrate biodiversity, so that such interactions may not necessarily be critical considerations for catchment and reach scale management, at least if based on these or comparable condition indices. The mitigation of the impacts of vegetation loss, salinization and hydrological change stressors one-by-one probably is sufficient to guide conservation activities and might be advantageous if socio-political contexts make it difficult to address interactions among stressors.
KW - additive
KW - antagonistic
KW - freshwater communities
KW - multiple pressures
KW - non-additive
KW - synergistic
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85044365084&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - https://www.mendeley.com/catalogue/50044001-9fb0-372d-95dc-aad2403dcdb7/
U2 - 10.1111/ddi.12737
DO - 10.1111/ddi.12737
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85044365084
SN - 0967-9952
VL - 24
SP - 939
EP - 950
JO - Diversity and Distributions
JF - Diversity and Distributions
IS - 7
ER -