Journal of Ecology and Environment

The Ecological Society of Korea (한국생태학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Evaluation of Environmental Factors to Determine the Distribution of Functional Feeding Groups of Benthic Macroinvertebrates Using an Artificial Neural Network

  • Park, Young-Seuk (Department of Biology and Institute of Global Environment, Kyung Hee University) ;
  • Lek, Sovan (EDB (Laboratoire Evolution Diversite Biologique), UMR 5174, CNRS - Universite Paul Sabatier) ;
  • Chon, Tae-Soo (Department of Biology, Pusan National University) ;
  • Verdonschot, Piet F.M. (Alterra, Green World Research, Department of Freshwater Ecosystems)
  • Published : 2008.08.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Functional feeding groups (FFGs) of benthic macroinvertebrates are guilds of invertebrate taxa that obtain food in similar ways, regardless of their taxonomic affinities. They can represent a heterogeneous assemblage of benthic fauna and may indicate disturbances of their habitats. The proportion of different groups can change in response to disturbances that affect the food base of the system, thereby offering a means of assessing disruption of ecosystem functioning. In this study, we used benthic macroinvertebrate communities collected at 650 sites of 23 different water types in the province of Overijssel, The Netherlands. Physical and chemical environmental factors were measured at each sampling site. Each taxon was assigned to its corresponding FFG based on its food resources. A multilayer perceptron (MLP) using a backpropagation algorithm, a supervised artificial neural network, was applied to evaluate the influence of environmental variables to the FFGs of benthic macroinvertebrates through a sensitivity analysis. In the evaluation of input variables, the sensitivity analysis with partial derivatives demonstrates the relative importance of influential environmental variables on the FFG, showing that different variables influence the FFG in various ways. Collector-filterers and shredders were mainly influenced by $Ca^{2+}$ and width of the streams, and scrapers were influenced mostly with $Ca^{2+}$ and depth, and predators were by depth and pH. $Ca^{2+}$ and depth displayed relatively high influence on all four FFGs, while some variables such as pH, %gravel, %silt, and %bank affected specific groups. This approach can help to characterize community structure and to ecologically assess target ecosystems.

Keywords

References

  1. Allan JD, Castillo MM. 2007. Stream Ecology: Structure and Function of Running Waters. Springer, Dordrecht, the Netherlands
  2. Allan JD. 1982. Feeding habits and prey consumption of three setipalpian stoneflies (Plecoptera) in a mountain stream. Ecology 63: 26-34 https://doi.org/10.2307/1937027
  3. Balls G-R, Palmer Brown D, Sanders G-E. 1996. Investigating microclimatic influences on ozone injury in clover (Trifolium subterraneum) using artificial neural networks. New Phytologist 132: 271- 280 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.1996.tb01846.x
  4. Barbour MT, Gerritsen J, Snyder BD, Stribling JB. 1999. Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Streams and Wadeable Rivers: Periphyton, Benthic Macroinvertebrates and Fish, Second Edition. EPA 841-B-99-002. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Office of Water; Washington, D.C
  5. Brittain JE, Saltveit SJ. 1989. A review of the effect of river regulation on mayflies (Ephemeroptera). Reg Riv Res Manage 3: 191-204 https://doi.org/10.1002/rrr.3450030119
  6. Callisto M, Esteves FA. 1998. Categorização funcional dos macroinvertebrados bentônicos em quarto ecossistemas lóticos sob influência das atividades de umamineração de bauxita na amazônia central (Brasil). Oecologia Brasiliensis 5: 223-234 https://doi.org/10.4257/oeco.1998.0501.16
  7. Callisto M, Moreno P, Barbosa FAR. 2001. Habitat diversity and benthic functional trophic groups at Serra Do Cipo, Southeast Brazil. Rev Brasil Biol 61(2): 259-266 https://doi.org/10.1590/S0034-71082001000200008
  8. Chon T-S, Park Y-S, Kim J-M, Lee B-Y, Chung Y-J, Kim Y. 2000. Use of an artificial neural network to predict population dynamics of the forest-pest pine needle gall midge (Diptera: Cecidomyiida). Environ Entomol 29: 1208-1215 https://doi.org/10.1603/0046-225X-29.6.1208
  9. Cummins KW, Klug MJ. 1979. Feeding ecology of stream invertebrates. Ann Rev Ecol Syst 10: 147-172 https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.es.10.110179.001051
  10. Cummins KW. 1979. The natural stream ecosystem. In: The Ecology of Regulated Streams (Ward JV, Stanford JA, eds). Plenum Press, New York. pp 7-24
  11. Dimopoulos I, Chronopoulos J, Chronopoulos-Sereli A, Lek S. 1999. Neural network models to study relationships between lead concentration in grasses and permanent urban descriptors in Athens city (Greece). Ecol Model 120: 157-165 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-3800(99)00099-X
  12. Dimopoulos Y, Bourret P, Lek S. 1995. Use of some sensitivity criteria for choosing networks with good generalisation ability. Neural Process Lett 2: 1-4
  13. Feminella JW, Resh VH. 1990. Hydrologic influences, disturbance, and intraspecific competition in a stream caddisfly population. Ecology 71: 2083-2094 https://doi.org/10.2307/1938622
  14. Furse MT, Moss D, Wright JF, Armitage P. 1984. The influence of seasonal and taxonomic factors on the ordination and classification of running water sites in Great Britain, and on the prediction of their macroinvertebrate communities. Freshwat Biol 14: 257-280 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2427.1984.tb00040.x
  15. Garson GD. 1991. Interpreting neural network connection weights. Artificial Intel Expert 6: 47-51
  16. Gevrey M, Dimopoulos I, Lek S. 2003. Review and comparison of methods to study the contribution of variables in artificial neural network models. Ecol Model 160: 249-264 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-3800(02)00257-0
  17. Gevrey M, Park Y-S, Verdonschot P, Lek S. 2005. Predicting Dutch macroinvertebrate species richness and functional feeding groups using five modelling techniques. In: Modelling Community Structure in Freshwater Ecosystems (Lek S, Scardi M, Verdonschot P, Descy J, Park Y-S, eds). Springer, Berlin, pp 158-166
  18. Goh ATC. 1995. Back-propagation neural networks for modelling complex systems. Artificial Intel Eng 9: 143-151 https://doi.org/10.1016/0954-1810(94)00011-S
  19. Hart DD, Robinson CT. 1990. Resource limitation in a stream community: Phosphorous enrichment effects on periphyton and grazers. Ecology 71: 1494-1502 https://doi.org/10.2307/1938286
  20. Hawkins CP, Norris RH, Gerritsen J, Hughes RM, Jackson SK, Johnson RK, Stevenson RJ. 2000. Evaluation of the use of landscape classifications for the prediction of freshwater biota: synthesis and recommendations. J N Am Benthol Soc 19: 541-556 https://doi.org/10.2307/1468113
  21. Haykin S. 1994. Neural Networks. MacMillian College Publishing Company, New York
  22. Hellawell JM. 1978. Biological Surveillance of Rivers. Water Research Center. Stevenage Laboratory, England
  23. Hershey AE, Hitner AL, Hullar MAJ, Miller MC, Vestal JR, Lock MA, Rundle S, Peterson BJ. 1988. Nutrient influence on a stream grazer: orthocladius microcommunities respond to nutrient input. Ecology 69: 1383-1392 https://doi.org/10.2307/1941635
  24. Jorgensen SE, Verdonschot P, Lek S. 2002. Explanation of the observed structure of functional feeding groups of aquatic macro-invertebrates by an ecological and the maximum exergy principle. Ecol Model 158: 223-231 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-3800(02)00233-8
  25. Kung SY. 1993. Digital Neural Networks. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey
  26. Legendre P, Legendre L. 1998. Numerical Ecology. Elsevier, Amsterdam
  27. Lek S, Delacoste M, Baran P, Dimopoulos I, Lauga J, Aulagnier S. 1996. Application of neural networks to modelling nonlinear relationships in ecology. Ecol Model 90: 39-52 https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3800(95)00142-5
  28. Lek S, Guégan JF (eds). 2000. Artificial Neuronal Networks: Application to Ecology and Evolution. Springer-Verlag, Berlin
  29. Lek S, Guégan JF. 1999. Artificial neural networks as a tool in ecological modelling an introduction. Ecol Model 120: 65-73 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-3800(99)00092-7
  30. Lek S, Scardi M, Verdonschot P, Descy J, Park Y-S (eds). 2005. Modelling Community Structure in Freshwater Ecosystems. Springer, Berlin
  31. Lek S, Delacoste M, Baran P, Dimopoulos I, Lauga J, Aulagnier S. 1996. Application of neural networks to modelling nonlinear relationships in ecology. Ecol Model 90: 39-52 https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3800(95)00142-5
  32. Lenat DR. 1988. Water quality assessment of streams using a qualitative collection method for benthic macroinvertebrates. J N Am Benthol Soc 7: 222-233 https://doi.org/10.2307/1467422
  33. Levin SA. 1992. The problem of pattern and scale in ecology. Ecology 73: 1943-1967 https://doi.org/10.2307/1941447
  34. Liong SY, Lim WH, Paudyal GN. 2000. River stage forecasting in Bangladesh: neural network approach. J. Comput. Civil Eng 14: 1-8 https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0887-3801(2000)14:1(1)
  35. MacArthur RH. 1965. Patterns of species diversity. Biol Rev 40: 510- 533 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-185X.1965.tb00815.x
  36. Maier HR, Dandy GC. 1996. The use of artificial neural networks for the prediction of water quality parameters. Water Resour Res 32: 1013-1022 https://doi.org/10.1029/96WR03529
  37. Malmqvist B, Otto C. 1987. The influence of substrate stability on the composition of stream benthos: an experimental study. Oikos 48: 33-38 https://doi.org/10.2307/3565685
  38. McCallum H. 2000. Population Parameters. Estimation for Ecological Models. Blackwell Science, Oxford
  39. Mihuc TB. 1997. The functional trophic role of lotic primary consumers: generalist versus specialist strategier. Freshwater Biol 37: 455-462 https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2427.1997.00175.x
  40. Olden JD, Jackson DA. 2002. Illuminating the 'black box': understanding variable contributions in artificial neural networks. Ecol Model 154: 135-150 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-3800(02)00064-9
  41. Olden JD, Joy MK, Death RG. 2004. An accurate comparison of methods for quantifying variable importance in artificial neural networks using simulated data. Ecol Model 178: 389-397 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2004.03.013
  42. Olden JD. 2003. A species-specific approach to modelling biological communities and its potential for conservation. Conserv Biol 17: 854-863 https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1739.2003.01280.x
  43. Park Y-S, Chon T-S. 2007. Biologically-inspired machine learning implemented to ecological informatics. Ecol Model 203: 1-7 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2006.05.039
  44. Park Y-S, Rabinovich J, Lek S. 2007. Sensitivity analysis and stability patterns of two-species pest models using artificial neural networks. Ecol Model 204: 427-438 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2007.01.021
  45. Paruelo JM, Tomasel F. 1997. Prediction of functional characteristics of ecosystems: a comparison of artificial neural networks and regression models. Ecol Model 98: 173-186 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-3800(96)01913-8
  46. Recknagel F, French M, Harkonen P, Yabunaka K-L. 1997. Artificial neural network approach for modelling and prediction of algal blooms. Ecol Model 96: 11-28 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-3800(96)00049-X
  47. Resh VH, Jackson JK. 1993. Rapid assessment approaches to biomonitoring using benthic macroinvertebrates. In: Freshwater Biomonitoring and Benthic Macroinvertebrates (Rosenberg DM, Resh VH, eds). Chapman & Hall, New York. pp 195-233
  48. Rosenberg DM, Resh VH (eds). 1993. Freshwater Biomonitoring and Benthic Invertebrates. Chapman and Hall, New York
  49. Rumelhart DE, Hinton GE, Williams RJ. 1986. Learning internal representations by error propagation. In: Parallel Distributed Processing: Explorations in the Microstructure of Cognition, Vol. I. Foundations (Rumelhart DE, McCelland JL, eds). MIT Press, Cambridge pp 318-362
  50. Scardi M, Harding LW. 1999. Developing an empirical model of phytoplankton primary production: a neural network case study. Ecol Model 120: 213-223 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-3800(99)00103-9
  51. Skelton PH, Cambray JA, Lombard A, Benn GA. 1995. Patterns of distribution and conservation status of freshwater fishes in South Africa. South Africa J Zool 30: 71-81 https://doi.org/10.1080/02541858.1995.11448375
  52. Smith MJ, Kay WR, Edward DHD, Papas PJ, Richardson KSJ, Simpson JS. 1999. AusRivAs: using macroinvertevrates to assess ecological conditions of rivers in Western Australia. Fresh Biol 41: 269-282 https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2427.1999.00430.x
  53. TNRCC 1999. Receiving Water Assessment Procedures Manual. Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission, Austin TX
  54. Turner MG, Gardner RH. 1991. Quantitative Methods in Landscape Ecology: The Analysis and Interpretation of Landscape Heterogeneity. Springer-Verlag, New York
  55. Vannote RL, Minshall GW, Cummins KW, Sedell JR, Cushing CE. 1980. The river continuum concept. Can J Fish Aqua Sci 37: 130- 137 https://doi.org/10.1139/f80-017
  56. Verdonschot PFM, Nijboer RC. 2000. Typology of macrofaunal assemblages applied to water and nature management: a Dutch approach. In: Assessing the Biological Quality of Fresh Waters (Wright JF, Sutcliffe DW, Furse MT, eds). RIVPACS and other techniques. Freshwater Biological Association, Ambleside, Cumbria, UK. pp 241-262
  57. Wallace JB, Webster JR, Woodall WR. 1977. The role of filter feeders in flowing waters
  58. Ward JV, Stanford JA. 1979. Ecological factors controlling stream zoobenthos with emphasis on thermal modification of regulated streams. In: The Ecology of Regulated Streams (Ward JV, Stanford JA, eds). Plenum Press, New York, pp 35-55
  59. Ward JV, Stanford JA. 1983. The serial discontinuity concept of lotic ecosystems. In: Dynamics of Lotic Ecosystems (Fontaine TD, Bartell SM, eds). Ann Arbor Sci, Michigan, pp 29-42
  60. Wiggins GB, Mackay RJ. 1978. Some relationships between systematic and trophic ecology in Nearctic aquatic insects, with special reference to Trichoptera. Ecology 59: 1211-1220 https://doi.org/10.2307/1938234

Cited by

  1. Changes in the functional feeding groups of macrobenthic fauna during mangrove forest succession in Zhanjiang, China vol.33, pp.5, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11284-018-1603-3