CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 56Fish Ecology and Management StudiesEcology and Vegetation Dynamics StudiesFreshwater macroinvertebrate diversity and ecology

The application of metacommunity theory to the management of riverine ecosystems

Open access
Patrick, Christopher J., Anderson, Kurt E., Brown, Brown L., Hawkins, Charles P., Metcalfe, Anya, Saffarinia, Parsa, Siqueira, Tadeu, Swan, Christopher M. +2 more·2021·WIREs Water
DOI 10.1002/wat2.1557PMC PMC9301706
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

River managers strive to use the best available science to sustain biodiversity and ecosystem function. To achieve this goal requires consideration of processes at different scales. Metacommunity theory describes how multiple species from different communities potentially interact with local-scale environmental drivers to influence population dynamics and community structure. However, this body of knowledge has only rarely been used to inform management practices for river ecosystems. In this paper, we present a conceptual model outlining how the metacommunity processes of local niche sorting and dispersal can influence the outcomes of management interventions and provide a series of specific recommendations for applying these ideas as well as research needs. In all cases, we identify situations where traditional approaches to riverine management could be enhanced by incorporating an understanding of metacommunity dynamics. A common theme is developing guidelines for assessing the metacommunity context of a site or region, evaluating how that context may affect the desired outcome, and incorporating that understanding into the planning process and methods used. To maximize the effectiveness of management activities, scientists and resource managers should update the toolbox of approaches to riverine management to reflect theoretical advances in metacommunity ecology.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/wat2.1557

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The response lag for biotic indices likely relates to dispersal and establishment limitations.

    “In contrast, the response lag for biotic indices likely relates to dispersal and establish­ ment limitations which are common, and several recent reviews of metacommunity theory and practice in freshwaters have therefore advocated for the potential reintroduction of aquatic assemblages (Cid et al., 2021; Patrick et al., 2021).”

    From A meta-analysis of environmental responses to freshwater ecosystem restoration in China (1987–2018) (2023) · cites this paper as Patrick et al., 2021

    Section 3.2 (Restoration; page unavailable) says dispersal constraints and barriers to recolonization frequently prevent a biological response to habitat restoration, and that reintroducing whole communities has been considered. It does not specifically establish a response lag for biotic indices or identify establishment limitations as its cause. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 84

  1. Albert, C. H., Rayfield, B., Dumitru, M., & Gonzalez, A. (2017). Applying network theory to prioritize multispecies habitat networks that are robust to climate and land-use change. Conservation Biology, 31(6), 1383-1396. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12943 · DOI
  2. Altermatt, F., & Fronhofer, E. A. (2018). Dispersal in dendritic networks: Ecological consequences on the spatial distribution of population densities. Freshwater Biology, 63(1), 22-32.
  3. Altermatt, F., Seymour, M., & Martinez, N. (2013). River network properties shape α-diversity and community similarity patterns of aquatic insect communities across major drainage basins. Journal of Biogeography, 40(12), 2249-2260. https://doi.org/10.1111/jbi.12178 · DOI
  4. Beisner, B. E., Peres-Neto, P. R., Lindström, E. S., Barnett, A., & Longhi, M. L. (2006). The role of environmental and spatial processes in structuring lake communities from bacteria to fish. Ecology, 87(12), 2985-2991. https://doi.org/10.1890/0012-9658(2006)87[2985: TROEAS]2.0.CO;2 · DOI
  5. Blonder, B., Nogués-Bravo, D., Borregaard, M. K., DonoghueIi, J. C., Jørgensen, P. M., Kraft, N. J. B., Lessard, J.-P., Morueta-Holme, N., Sandel, B., Svenning, J.-C., Violle, C., Rahbek, C., & Enquist, B. J. (2015). Linking environmental filtering and disequilibrium to biogeog- raphy with a community climate framework. Ecology, 96(4), 972-985. https://doi.org/10.1890/14-0589. · DOI
  6. Brown, B. L., & Swan, C. M. (2010). Dendritic network structure constrains metacommunity properties in riverine ecosystems. Journal of Animal Ecology, 79(3), 571-580.
  7. Brown, B. L., Swan, C. M., Auerbach, D. A., Grant, E. H. C., Hitt, N. P., Maloney, K. O., & Patrick, C. (2011). Metacommunity theory as a multispecies, multiscale framework for studying the influence of river network structure on riverine communities and ecosystems. Jour- nal of the North American Benthological Society, 30(1), 310-327.
  8. Brown, B. L., Wahl, C., & Swan, C. M. (2018). Experimentally disentangling the influence of dispersal and habitat filtering on benthic inver- tebrate community structure. Freshwater Biology, 63(1), 48-61. https://doi.org/10.1111/fwb.12995 · DOI
  9. Carlisle, D. M., Wolock, D. M., & Meador, M. R. (2010). Alteration of streamflow magnitudes and potential ecological consequences: A multi- regional assessment. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 9(5), 264-270.
  10. Cavallaro, M. C., Vivian, L. A., & Hoback, W. W. (2015). Aquatic vertebrate predation threats to the Platte River caddisfly (Trichoptera: Limnephilidae). Florida Entomologist, 98(1), 152-156.
  11. Chen, W., & Olden, J. D. (2017). Designing flows to resolve human and environmental water needs in a dam-regulated river. Nature Commu- nications, 8(1), 2158. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-017-02226-4 · DOI
  12. Cid, N., Bonada, N., Heino, J., Cañedo-Argüelles, M., Crabot, J., Sarremejane, R., Soininen, J., Stubbington, R., & Datry, T. (2020). A Met- acommunity approach to improve biological assessments in highly dynamic freshwater ecosystems. Bioscience, 70, 427-438. https://doi. org/10.1093/biosci/biaa033 · DOI
  13. Clappe, S., Dray, S., & Peres-Neto, P. R. (2018). Beyond neutrality: Disentangling the effects of species sorting and spurious correlations in community analysis. Ecology, 99(8), 1737-1747. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecy.2376 · DOI
  14. Cloern, J. E. (2007). Habitat connectivity and ecosystem productivity: Implications from a simple model. American Naturalist, 169(1), E21- E33. https://doi.org/10.1086/510258 · DOI
  15. Costello, E. K., Stagaman, K., Dethlefsen, L., Bohannan, B. J. M., & Relman, D. A. (2012). The application of ecological theory toward an understanding of the human microbiome. Science, 336(6086), 1255-1262. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1224203 · DOI · Paper page
  16. Crowely, S., Hinchcliff, S., McDonald, R., & Lee, T. (2017). Invasive species management will benefit from social impact assessment. Journal of Applied Ecology, 54, 351-357.
  17. Davis, W., & Simon, T. (1995). Biological assessment and Critera: Tools for water resource planning and decision making. CRC Press.
  18. Elton, C. S. (1958). The ecology of invasions by animals and plants. The University of Chicago Press.
  19. Estrada, E., & Bodin, Ö. (2008). Using network centrality measures to manage landscape connectivity. Ecological Applications, 18(7), 1810- 1825. https://doi.org/10.1890/07-1419. · DOI
  20. Gellert, G., Behrens, S., & Raschke, M. (2012). The return of degraded stream ecosystems by using positive impacts from near-natural sec- tions: A new practical guide for restorations. Water and Environment Journal, 26(3), 415-421. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-6593.2012. 00307.x · DOI
  21. Gilbert, B., & Bennett, J. R. (2010). Partitioning variation in ecological communities: Do the numbers add up? Journal of Applied Ecology, 47(5), 1071-1082.
  22. Grenouillet, G., Brosse, S., Tudesque, L., Lek, S., Baraillé, Y., & Loot, G. (2008). Concordance among stream assemblages and spatial autocor- relation along a fragmented gradient. Diversity and Distributions, 14(4), 592-603. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1472-4642.2007.00443.x · DOI
  23. Guzman, L. M., Germain, R. M., Forbes, C., Straus, S., O'Connor, M. I., Gravel, D., Srivastava, D. S., & Thompson, P. L. (2019). Towards a multi-trophic extension of metacommunity ecology. Ecology Letters. 22(1), 19-33. https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.13162 · DOI
  24. Hampton, S. E., Holmes, E. E., Scheef, L. P., Scheuerell, M. D., Katz, S. L., Pendleton, D. E., & Ward, E. J. (2013). Quantifying effects of abi- otic and biotic drivers on community dynamics with multivariate autoregressive (MAR) models. Ecology, 94(12), 2663-2669.
  25. Hawkins, B. A. (2012). Eight (and a half) deadly sins of spatial analysis. Journal of Biogeography, 39(1), 1-9.
  26. Hawkins, C. P., Olson, J. R., & Hill, R. A. (2010). The reference condition: Predicting benchmarks for ecological and water-quality assess- ments. Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 29(1), 312-343. https://doi.org/10.1899/09-092. · DOI
  27. Hedrick, R. P., Adkison, M. A., El-Matbouli, M., & MacConnell, E. (1998). Whirling disease: Re-emergence among wild trout. Immunological Reviews, 166(1), 365-376. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-065X.1998.tb01276.x · DOI
  28. Heino, J. (2013). The importance of metacommunity ecology for environmental assessment research in the freshwater realm. Biological Reviews, 88(1), 166-178. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-185X.2012.00244.x · DOI
  29. Hilderbrand, R. H., Watts, A. C., & Randle, A. M. (2005). The myths of restoration ecology. Ecology and Society, 10(1), 19.
  30. Howeth, J. G. (2017). Native species dispersal reduces community invasibility by increasing species richness and biotic resistance. Journal of Animal Ecology, 86(6), 1380-1393. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2656.12733 · DOI
  31. Redlands, CA. Prepared for San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District, San Bernardino, CA Isaac, N. J. B., Brotherton, P. N. M., Bullock, J. M., Gregory, R. D., Boehning-Gaese, K., Connor, B., Crick, H. Q. P., Freckleton, R. P., Gill, J. A., Hails, R. S., Hartikainen, M., Hester, A. J., Milner-Gulland, E. J., Oliver, T. H., Pearson, R. G., Sutherland, W. J., Thomas, C. D., Travis, J. M. J., Turnbull, L. A., … Mace, G. M. (2018). Defining and delivering resilient ecological networks: Nature con- servation in England. Journal of Applied Ecology, 55(6), 2537-2543. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.13196 · DOI
  32. Januchowski-Hartley, S. R., McIntyre, P. B., Diebel, M., Doran, P. J., Infante, D. M., Joseph, C., & Allan, J. D. (2013). Restoring aquatic eco- system connectivity requires expanding inventories of both dams and road crossings. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 11(4), 211-217. https://doi.org/10.1890/120168 · DOI
  33. Jourdan, J., Plath, M., Tonkin, J. D., Ceylan, M., Dumeier, A. C., Gellert, G., Graf, W., Hawkins, C. P., Kiel, E., Lorenz, A. W., Matthaei, C. D., Verdonschot, P. F. M., Verdonschot, R. C. M., & Haase, P. (2019). Reintroduction of freshwater macroinvertebrates: Challenges and opportunities. Biological Reviews. 94(2), 368-387. https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12458 · DOI
  34. Kail, J., & Hering, D. (2009). The influence of adjacent stream reaches on the local ecological status of Central European mountain streams. River Research and Applications, 25(5), 537-550. https://doi.org/10.1002/rra.1238 · DOI
  35. Knopf, F. L., Johnson, R. R., Rich, T., Samson, F. B., & Szaro, R. C. (1988). Conservation of riparian ecosystems in the United States. The Wil- son Bulletin, 100(2), 272-284 Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/4162566
  36. Lake, P. S., Bond, N., & Reich, P. (2007). Linking ecological theory with stream restoration. Freshwater Biology, 52(4), 597-615. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1365-2427.2006.01709.x · DOI
  37. Legendre, P. (1993). Spatial autocorrelation: Trouble or new paradigm? Ecology, 74(6), 1659-1673. https://doi.org/10.2307/1939924 · DOI
  38. Legendre, P., & Legendre, L. F. J. (2012). Numerical ecology (Vol. 24). Elsevier.
  39. Leibold, M. A., & Chase, J. M. (2018). Metacommunity ecology (Vol. 59). Princeton University Press.
  40. Leibold, M. A., Holyoak, M., Mouquet, N., Amarasekare, P., Chase, J. M., Hoopes, M. F., Holt, R. D., Shurin, J. B., Law, R., & Tilman, D. (2004). The metacommunity concept: A framework for multi-scale community ecology. Ecology Letters, 7(7), 601-613.
  41. Leps, M., Sundermann, A., Tonkin, J. D., Lorenz, A. W., & Haase, P. (2016). Time is no healer: Increasing restoration age does not lead to improved benthic invertebrate communities in restored river reaches. Science of the Total Environment, 557-558, 722-732. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.03.120 · DOI
  42. Levine, J., & D'Antonio, C. (1999). Elton revisited: A review of evidence linking diversity and invasibility. Oikos, 87(1), 15-26.
  43. Logue, J. B., Mouquet, N., Peter, H., & Hillebrand, H. (2011). Empirical approaches to metacommunities: A review and comparison with the- ory. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 26(9), 482-491. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2011.04.009 · DOI
  44. Lovell, S., & Stone, S. (2005). The economic impacts of aquatic invasive species: A review of the literature.
  45. MacArthur, R. H., & Levins, R. (1967). Limiting similarity convergence and divergence of coexisting species. American Naturalist, 101(921), 377-385.
  46. Marks, J. C., Haden, G. A., O'Neill, M., & Pace, C. (2010). Effects of flow restoration and exotic species removal on recovery of native fish: Lessons from a dam decommissioning. Restoration Ecology, 18(6), 934-943. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1526-100X.2009.00574.x · DOI
  47. Meurant, M., Gonzalez, A., Doxa, A., & Albert, C. H. (2018). Selecting surrogate species for connectivity conservation. Biological Conserva- tion, 227, 326-334. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2018.09.028 · DOI
  48. Moilanen, A., Franco, A. M. A., Early, R. I., Fox, R., Wintle, B., & Thomas, C. D. (2005). Prioritizing multiple-use landscapes for conserva- tion: Methods for large multi-species planning problems. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 272(1575), 1885-1891. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2005.3164 · DOI
  49. Mouillot, D. (2007). Niche-assembly vs. dispersal-assembly rules in coastal fish metacommunities: implications for management of biodiver- sity in brackish lagoons. Journal of Applied Ecology, 44(4), 760-767.
  50. N'Guyen, A., Hirsch, P. E., Adrian-Kalchhauser, I., & Burkhardt-Holm, P. (2016). Improving invasive species management by integrating pri- orities and contributions of scientists and decision makers. Ambio, 45(3), 280-289. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-015-0723-z · DOI
  51. Noatch, M. R., & Suski, C. D. (2012). Non-physical barriers to deter fish movements. Environmental Reviews, 20(1), 71-82. https://doi.org/10. 1139/a2012-001 · DOI
  52. Palmer, M. A., Ambrose, R. F., & Poff, N. L. (1997). Ecological theory and community restoration ecology. Restoration Ecology, 5(4), 291-300. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1526-100X.1997.00543.x · DOI
  53. Palmer, M. A., Menninger, H. L., & Bernhardt, E. (2010). River restoration, habitat heterogeneity and biodiversity: A failure of theory or prac- tice? Freshwater Biology, 55(s1), 205-222. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2427.2009.02372.x · DOI
  54. Patrick, C. J., & Swan, C. M. (2011). Reconstructing the assembly of a stream-insect metacommunity. Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 30, 259-272.
  55. Patrick, C. J., & Yuan, L. L. (2019). The challenges that spatial context present for synthesizing community ecology across scales. Oikos, 128(3), 297-308. https://doi.org/10.1111/oik.05802 · DOI
  56. Pilotto, F., Tonkin, J. D., Januschke, K., Lorenz, A. W., Jourdan, J., Sundermann, A., Hering, D., Stoll, S., & Haase, P. (2018). Diverging response patterns of terrestrial and aquatic species to hydromorphological restoration. Conservation Biology. 33(1), 132-141. https://doi. org/10.1111/cobi.13176 · DOI
  57. Poff, N. L. (1997). Landscape filters and species traits: towards mechanistic understanding and prediction in stream ecoogy. Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 16, 391-409.
  58. Poff, N. L. (2018). Beyond the natural flow regime? Broadening the hydro-ecological foundation to meet environmental flows challenges in a non-stationary world. Freshwater Biology, 63(8), 1011-1021. https://doi.org/10.1111/fwb.13038 · DOI
  59. Poff, N. L., Olden, J. D., Vieira, N. K. M., Finn, D. S., Simmons, M. P., & Kondratieff, B. C. (2006). Functional trait niches of north American lotic insects: Traits-based ecology applications in light of phylogenetic relationships. Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 25(4), 730-755.
  60. Radinger, J., & Wolter, C. (2014). Patterns and predictors of fish dispersal in rivers. Fish and Fisheries, 15(3), 456-473. https://doi.org/10. 1111/faf.12028 · DOI
  61. Rahel, F. J. (2013). Intentional fragmentation as a management strategy in aquatic systems. Bioscience, 63(5), 362-372. https://doi.org/10. 1525/bio.2013.63.5.9 · DOI
  62. Rinaldo, A., Gatto, M., & Rodriguez-Iturbe, I. (2018). River networks as ecological corridors: A coherent ecohydrological perspective. Advances in Water Resources, 112, 27-58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advwatres.2017.10.005 · DOI
  63. Ron, R., Fragman-Sapir, O., & Kadmon, R. (2018). Dispersal increases ecological selection by increasing effective community size. Proceed- ings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115, 11280-11285. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1812511115 · DOI
  64. Rubin, Z., Rios-Touma, B., Kondolf, G. M., Power, M. E., Saffarinia, P., & Natali, J. (2018). Using prey availability to evaluate lower Colorado River riparian restoration. Restoration Ecology. 83, 311-319. https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.12829 · DOI
  65. Saito, V. S., Soininen, J., Fonseca-Gessner, A. A., & Siqueira, T. (2015). Dispersal traits drive the phylogenetic distance decay of similarity in Neotropical stream metacommunities. Journal of Biogeography, 42(11), 2101-2111. https://doi.org/10.1111/jbi.12577 · DOI
  66. Schiesari, L., Matias, M. G., Prado, P. I., Leibold, M. A., Albert, C. H., Howeth, J. G., Leroux, S. J., Pardini, R., Siqueira, T., Brancalion, P. H. S., Cabeza, M., Coutinho, R. M., Diniz-Filho, J. A. F., Fournier, B., Lahr, D. J. G., Lewinsohn, T. M., Martins, A., Morsello, C., Peres-Neto, P. R., … V azquez, D. P. (2019). Towards an applied metaecology. Perspectives in Ecology and Conservation, 17(4), 172-181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pecon.2019.11.001 · DOI
  67. Shurin, J. B., Havel, J. E., Leibold, M. A., & Pinel-Alloul, B. (2000). Local and regional zooplankton species richness: A scale-independent test for saturation. Ecology, 81(11), 3062-3073. https://doi.org/10.2307/177401 · DOI
  68. Sinclair, J. S., Furlanetto, K. J., & Arnott, S. E. (2015). Dispersal acts as both bane and balm for invaded zooplankton communities. Journal of Plankton Research, 37(2), 462-471. https://doi.org/10.1093/plankt/fbv007 · DOI
  69. Siqueira, T., Duraes, L. D., & Roque, F. D. (2014). Predictive Modelling of insect Metacommunities in biomonitoring of aquatic networks. In Ecological Modelling applied to entomology. Entomology in focus (Vol. 1). Springer.
  70. Stoll, S., Breyer, P., Tonkin, J. D., Früh, D., & Haase, P. (2016). Scale-dependent effects of river habitat quality on benthic invertebrate com- munities -Implications for stream restoration practice. Science of the Total Environment, 553, 495-503. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. scitotenv.2016.02.126 · DOI
  71. Strecker, A. L., & Brittain, J. T. (2017). Increased habitat connectivity homogenizes freshwater communities: Historical and landscape per- spectives. Journal of Applied Ecology, 54(5), 1343-1352. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12882 · DOI
  72. Swan, C. M., & Brown, B. L. (2014). Using rarity to infer how dendritic network structure shapes biodiversity in riverine communities. Ecography, 37(10), 993-1001. https://doi.org/10.1111/ecog.00496 · DOI
  73. Swan, C. M., & Brown, B. L. (2017). Metacommunity theory meets restoration: Isolation may mediate how ecological communities respond to stream restoration. Ecological Applications, 27(7), 2209-2219. https://doi.org/10.1002/eap.1602 · DOI
  74. Taguchi, Y., & Natuhara, Y. (2009). Requirements for small agricultural dams to allow the Japanese giant salamander (Andrias japonicus) to move upstream. Japanese Journal of Conservation Ecology, 14(2), 165-172.
  75. Thomaz, S. M., Kovalenko, K. E., Havel, J. E., & Kats, L. B. (2015). Aquatic invasive species: General trends in the literature and introduction to the special issue. Hydrobiologia, 746(1), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-014-2150-8 · DOI
  76. Tonkin, J. D., Altermatt, F., Finn, D. S., Heino, J., Olden, J. D., Pauls, S. U., & Lytle, D. A. (2018). The role of dispersal in river network meta- communities: Patterns, processes, and pathways. Freshwater Biology, 63(1), 141-163. https://doi.org/10.1111/fwb.13037 · DOI
  77. Tonkin, J. D., Stoll, S., Sundermann, A., & Haase, P. (2014). Dispersal distance and the pool of taxa, but not barriers, determine the colonisa- tion of restored river reaches by benthic invertebrates. Freshwater Biology, 59(9), 1843-1855. https://doi.org/10.1111/fwb.12387 · DOI
  78. Tornwall, B., Sokol, E., Skelton, J., & Brown, B. (2015). Trends in stream biodiversity research since the river continuum concept. Diversity, 7(1), 16. Retrieved from http://www.mdpi.com/1424-2818/7/1/16-35.
  79. Tornwall, B. M., Swan, C. M., & Brown, B. L. (2017). Manipulation of local environment produces different diversity outcomes depending on location within a river network. Oecologia, 184(3), 663-674. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-017-3891-7 · DOI
  80. Twardochleb, L., Hiltner, E., Pyne, M., & Zarnetske, P. (2021). Freshwater insects CONUS: A database of freshwater insect occurrences and traits for the contiguous United States. Global Ecology and Biogeography, 30(4), 826-841. https://doi.org/10.1111/geb.13257 · DOI
  81. Van Allen, B. G., & Rudolf, V. H. W. (2016). Carryover effects drive competitive dominance in spatially structured environments. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(25), 6939-6944. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1520536113 · DOI
  82. Van Looy, K., Tonkin, J. D., Floury, M., Leigh, C., Soininen, J., Larsen, S., Heino, J., LeRoy Poff, N., Delong, M., Jähnig, S. C., Datry, T., Bonada, N., Rosebery, J., Jamoneau, A., Ormerod, S. J., Collier, K. J., & Wolter, C. (2019). The three Rs of river ecosystem resilience: Resources, recruitment, and refugia. River Research and Applications, 35(2), 107-120. https://doi.org/10.1002/rra.3396 · DOI
  83. Vannette, R. L., & Fukami, T. (2017). Dispersal enhances beta diversity in nectar microbes. Ecology Letters, 20(7), 901-910. https://doi.org/10. 1111/ele.12787 · DOI
  84. Xiong, W., Li, J., Chen, Y., Shan, B., Wang, W., & Zhan, A. (2016). Determinants of community structure of zooplankton in heavily polluted river ecosystems. Scientific Reports, 6, 22043. https://doi.org/10.1038/ · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Patrick, C. J., Anderson, K. E., Brown, B. L., Hawkins, C. P., Metcalfe, A., Saffarinia, P., Siqueira, T., Swan, C. M., Tonkin, J. D., & Yuan, L. L.
Affiliations
  • William & Mary (US)
  • University of California, Riverside (US)
  • Department of Biological Sciences Virginia Tech Virginia USA
  • Utah State University (US)
  • United States Geological Survey (US)
  • University of California, Davis (US)
  • Universidade Estadual Paulista (Unesp) (BR)
  • University of Maryland, Baltimore (US)
  • University of Canterbury (NZ)
  • Environmental Protection Agency (US)
Corresponding author
Patrick, Christopher J.
ORCID
Venue
WIREs Water
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2021-09-08
Volume
8
Issue
6
Pages
1-21
ISSN
2049-1948 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1002/wat2.1557
PMC
PMC9301706
OpenAlex
W3197676214
Cited by
56
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 5
FWCI
5.61
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews Water (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • W&M Publish (College of William & Mary) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
  • University of Canterbury Research Repository (University of Canterbury) (submittedVersion)
  • Maryland Shared Open Access Repository (USMAI Consortium) (submittedVersion, public-domain)
  • Digital Repository at the University of Maryland (University of Maryland College Park) (public-domain)
Funders
  • Division of Environmental Biology (1456278, DEB‐1655764, DEB‐1927645)
  • Royal Society of New Zealand (RDF‐18‐UOC‐007)
  • Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (2013/50424‐1)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Nature and Landscape Conservation › Fish Ecology and Management Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Nature and Landscape Conservation › Ecology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Freshwater macroinvertebrate diversity and ecology
Keywords
metacommunity theory, dispersal, biodiversity conservation, ecosystem functioning, management planning, conceptual model

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review