Western Cape River and Catchment
Signatures
REPORT NO 1303/1/05
October 2005
Executive Summary:
Introduction
In a previous Water Research Commission Project (final
report 754/1/01 “Assessing the ecological relevance of a
spatially-nested geomorphological hierarchy for river
management”: King & Schael 2001) invertebrate data
were collected from headwater reaches (mountain streams and foothills)
of 17 relatively undisturbed (here called Least Disturbed or LD) sites
and 11 disturbed (D) sites in the Western Cape, all sites being located
within the Fynbos bioregion. In each site up to 12
invertebrate samples were taken from the full available range of
hydraulic conditions (substratum-flow combinations), with ancillary
physico-chemical data taken at the level of sampling area or
site. A species list was compiled for each of the LD sites,
from its set of invertebrate samples. These lists were used
in multivariate similarity analyses to search for sites that were
similar in terms of their invertebrate assemblages. The
hypothesis put forward was that the sites would cluster by
geomorphological/biological zones, that is, into a mountain-stream
group of invertebrates and a foothill group. Instead, the
sites clustered by catchment, with a second division by channel bed
form (bedrock or alluvial). River zone only appeared at the
third level of division. Within any one catchment, with the
invertebrate samples dealt with individually instead of pooled, each
sample clustered with others from its site and separate from those of
other sites. These distinctions have been termed catchment
and river signatures.
The possible implications of such signatures are wide: traditional
management of South African rivers recognises all headwater systems
within any one biome as being essentially the same. With this
reasoning, some rivers could potentially be sacrificed to land and
water developments with the knowledge that other similar rivers
remained. The data from King & Schael (2001),
however, suggested that this assumption may not be true and that all
rivers may be different, in ways as yet not understood. The
small follow-up project reported on here was thus designed to
investigate the nature and causes of the river/catchment signatures,
and to assess if there were management implications.
The study was a desktop one, confined to additional analyses of the
database compiled in the original project (King & Schael
2001). A number of univariate and multivariate analyses were
done to address the project objectives as listed below, investigating
the nature of the species assemblages, their secondary environmental
causes, and the effect of disturbance on catchment signatures as noted
in King and Schael (2001).
Project Objectives
The project objectives, as agreed in the original contract
between the University of Cape Town and the Water Research Commission
are summarised below.
- Explain the nature and proximal causes of catchment and
river signatures.
- Identify, if possible, the underlying causes of the
catchment and river signatures.
- Describe the link between various kinds of disturbance and
the progressive loss of catchment and river signatures.
- Reach consensus with other researchers on the management
implications of the finding of Objectives 1 – 3, and transfer
the conclusions to the management arena.
- Assess the influence (if any) of the selection of sampling
points within a site on SASS scores. Validate the present
biomonitoring techniques, or suggest modifications if necessary to
enhance standardised sampling.
- Refine the database framework (MS Access program interface)
for wide user-ship in scientific and technical management arenas;
complete user interface for easy data access and additions.
These objectives have been addressed in full and are reported on in
this document. Chapter 1 provides the background and impetus
for the research. Objectives 1 – 3 are addressed in
Chapters 2 – 5, and objective 5 in Chapter 6.
Improvements to the database are reported in Chapter 7.
Objective 4 was addressed through a workshop at the University of Cape
Town attended by a select group of research scientists, which is
reported in Chapter 8. Conclusions and recommendations appear
in Chapter 9.
Are catchment signatures
real or an artefact of the research? (Chapter 2)
The main objective of this chapter was to investigate
whether the catchment signatures described by King & Schael
(2001) were an artefact created either by the sampling regime or by the
process used for identifying the invertebrates to species
level. It was deemed possible that a bias in the results
could have been brought about by the combinations of habitats sampled
in each site: sites within any one catchment could have had a similar
suite of available habitats and this could have resulted in their
invertebrate samples grouping together. Alternatively,
sites/catchments could have appeared more similar or dissimilar than
they really were because their invertebrates had been identified by
different staff. Several permutations of the data set were,
therefore, analysed in an attempt to detect any possible
bias. First, the habitat types were standardised for all LD
sites by selecting only those habitats that were common to all
sites. The invertebrate assemblages of these habitat types
were re-analysed using hierarchical clustering, multi-dimensional
scaling (MDS) plots and analysis of similarity (ANOSIM).
Second, the same set of habitat-types was used, but their invertebrate
samples were analysed using different combinations of taxonomic levels
(species to family) and groups (e.g. only the mayflies), to detect any
possible bias in the data. Through all these permutations of
the data, the catchment signatures persisted. Only the
Chironomidae (midges) displayed a weak catchment signature, reflecting
their good dispersal abilities and their ubiquitous presence across the
landscape. In summary, the catchment was shown to be the
landscape feature that best explained invertebrate species
distributions.
This conclusion supports the findings of Wishart et al. (2002), who
reported that the genetic structure and flow of selected invertebrates
and fish revealed that catchments in the Fynbos bioregions of the
Western Cape were unique entities.
That study and this one identify catchment as an important large-scale
unit with biological and ecological significance and, in fact, Wishart
et al. (2002) regarded catchments as the best functional unit for
conservation of instream biota.
What characteristics of
the data set cause the catchment signatures (Chapter 3)
Investigation of the characteristics of the invertebrate
data that produced catchment signatures revealed that there was no one
over-riding cause. It was concluded that the signatures were
not caused by unique species within each catchment, nor by a unique mix
of taxa in each catchment, nor by unique proportions of the same set of
taxa within each catchment. Instead, the signatures were
caused by subtle changes of species within each major taxon group from
catchment to catchment. As an example, of the 11 stonefly
species collected in the study, three occurred only in the
Eerste-Molenaars catchment group, one only in the Olifants-Berg group,
and the Breede had a mixture of these species. Those stonefly
species in the Eerste-Molenaars group were shredders, whilst those in
the other two catchment groups were deposit feeders, suggesting
fundamental differences in the ecological functioning of the
sites. Of interest was the maintenance of the basic
proportional presence of each major taxon group through all the species
changes: in comparisons of the major catchment groups, for instance,
the percentage of the taxa that were true flies held at 29-44%, whilst
stoneflies always contributed 4-9%.
Of all the analyses, the only one that eradicated the catchment
signatures was that using functional feeding groups (FFGs).
In this analysis, species and morph species of each invertebrate taxon
is replaced by the manner of feeding it employs. This
resulted in the samples re-grouping in a way that coarsely reflected a
split between mountain and foothill sites and thus reflected the more
commonly held view that the main division of invertebrate assemblages
is between the various longitudinal zones of the river. The
two sets of results described above suggest that sites in each of the
river zones (mountain or foothill) were functioning in a similar way,
with the same proportions of the major invertebrate groups, even though
the actual mix of species differed.
What effect does
disturbance have on catchment signatures? (Chapter 4)
Although the original similarity analyses (King &
Schael 2001) revealed that most disturbed (D) sites were distinctly
different from the least-disturbed (LD) sites, the subsequent analyses
in this project did not reveal a clear picture of what caused
this. Most D sites had similar invertebrate densities, levels
of diversity and species richness to the LD sites. Standard
measures used to detect differences between reference (LD) sites and D
sites, such as % ephemeropterans, plecopterans and trichopterans (EPT),
number of families, % dipterans and % non-insects, also did not
demonstrate statistical differences, although box plots did show small
differences between the two.
Once again, subtle changes of species, rather than shifts in major
taxonomic groups, distinguished D from LD sites, and the overall
impression was that even though the D sites were showing visual signs
of disturbance, this was not sufficiently intense, except for one or
two sites, to cause major changes in invertebrate
assemblages. Thus, an array of disturbances, such as a picnic
area, a dam with downstream water loss, agricultural land and a
bull-dozed riverbed (Table 4.1), did not appear to be having a major
affect on ecosystem functioning (as judged by invertebrate
assemblages), whilst a dam with a bottom release of very cold water
(Holsloot), and an infestation of grey poplar (Cecilia) appeared to be
more intense disturbances causing the early stages of more substantial
ecosystem change.
What are the underlying
environmental factors causing the catchment signatures? (Chapter 5)
The shifts in species in LD sites from catchment to
catchment must be caused by underlying environmental
conditions. Possible environmental candidates are water
chemistry, the presence or absence of fish, biogeographical influences
such as temperature, topography and rainfall, or paleogeographical
influences such as past drainage networks. These were
assessed in terms of their possible contributions to catchment
signatures. The main catchment signatures were caused by: 1)
the Olifants and Berg River sites, which clustered together; 2) the
Eerste and Molenaars Rivers sites, which clustered together; 3) the
Breede River sites; 4) the Palmiet River site; and 5) the Table
Mountain sites, which were in different small catchments but clustered
together.
Water chemistry data from DWAF gauging weirs in all the studied
catchments for which it was available revealed that regional water
chemistry differences did not appear to be a possible cause of the
catchment signatures.
Fish can have significant effects on invertebrate population structure
and so data from CapeNature were used to search for possible
correlations between the presence of native and alien fish and the
catchment signatures. The tentative conclusions, based on few
data, suggest that the presence of both native and alien fish plays
some role in the catchment signatures, but other environmental
variables are also implicated.
One such variable could be the geographical location of
sites. The catchments stretch from the Olifants in the north,
to the Palmiet in the south, and to the Table Mountain group in the
south-west (Figure 5.3). The MDS plot of invertebrate
assemblages from LD sites can be re-orientated to coincide with this
geographical layout (Figure 5.4), suggesting that the catchment
signatures may be at least partly attributable to biogeographical
distribution patterns. Knowing that the signatures are caused
by species replacing species within each major taxonomic group (Chapter
3), these replacements could be a result of some species reaching the
edge of their distributional ranges and being replaced by
others. On assessing individual taxa, however, some were
shown to be confined to the north or south, or absent from Table
Mountain, but the majority were either wide-spread across the region or
scattered, and so again there was no clear picture of species
distributions causing the catchment signatures.
Paleogeographically, the Olifants and Berg systems are thought to have
once had a common estuary, and this may have caused their grouping
together to provide one catchment signature. Table Mountain
was once an isolated island off mainland Africa, which may account for
its studied rivers – though in different small catchments -
sharing a common catchment signature. At present no
suggestion can be made as to why the Molenaars sites clustered with the
Eerste sites rather than with those from the Breede, which is its
parent river. Much remains unknown and unexplained about the
causes of the signatures and an exploration of “river
capture” and past drainage networks is just one avenue of
research that could be followed to shed further light on them.
In conclusion, despite some positive correlations and avenues revealed
for further research, none of the analyses reported here provide proof
of a single environmental driver for the catchment
signatures. Rather, the signatures appear to be the result of
complex interactions of many variables over long geological time.
The effect of sampling
point selection and identification on SASS scores (Chapter 6)
The data used in this study were not collected using SASS
techniques. They were used, however, to assess if the choice
of sampling points for a SASS collection could affect the resulting
SASS score. Different permutations of sampling points had
little impact on the outcome in terms of computed scores, producing
essentially the same results as those of Dallas (2001) and fairly
similar to Dickens & Graham (2002).
A further outcome of this analysis was the demonstration that a SASS
score does not detect physical degradation of a river, and indeed was
not designed to do so, being designed to assess pollution
levels. Researchers should therefore avoid using SASS as an
index of river health in terms of physical disturbance.
Catchment and river
signatures workshop (Chapter 8)
A workshop was held at the University of Cape Town with
the delegates being a mix of scientists and managers. The
presenters represented different disciplines in river science:
invertebrates, fish, riparian vegetation and conservation
planning. Each came with their own data sets and suggestions
on the nature of catchment and/or river signatures, resulting in a
range of ideas on what caused them. The invertebrate and fish
specialists found signatures in biotic data, the vegetation specialists
in a combination of biotic and physical data (species, geology, soils)
and the conservation specialist in purely physical data. It
was concluded that biotic river and catchment signatures do exist and
reflect biodiversity at the landscape level, but there was no clarity
on how they form and what they indicate about the functioning of
individual catchments.
It was agreed that catchment/river signatures do have management
implications, especially in the Reserve Determination process within
South Africa’s current water law. Managers need
further clarity, however, on the validity of these signatures across
disciplines and for the rest of South Africa. Although it is
recognised that further research is needed to confirm the nature,
validity and importance of signatures, it was recommended that
catchments be better integrated into classifications of rivers at the
second hierarchical level, after ecoregions but before longitudinal
zones.
In summary, the main conclusions and recommendations from the workshop
are as follows.
- River and catchment signatures appear to reflect
biodiversity at the catchment/landscape level.
- Catchments should be represented in river classification
systems at a high level – after ecoregion but before
longitudinal zone.
- Conservation targets need to be addressed per catchment,
with more than one river conserved per catchment.
- Integration of investigations on signatures should occur
across disciplines. This could be done via a collaborative
proposal that used both historical and new field data for a series of
common study sites.
- Catchment and river signatures need to be validated for
other parts of the country and for lower rivers. This may
require collection of new data combined with analysis of historical
species data.
General conclusions
(Chapter 9)
River and catchment signatures are real. As
shown in this project, they are biotic fingerprints of upper rivers and
catchments in the Western Cape, distinguishing each from the
others. There is no reason to believe they do not exist in
other parts of South Africa and, indeed, elsewhere although this
remains to be shown. Lower rivers may also have biotic
signatures, but as a majority of lower rivers are considerably degraded
the data of natural conditions needed to detect the signatures may be
largely missing.
We now know that the signatures are due to unique mixes of species per
river and catchment from a regional pool of mostly common species, but
still have very little understanding of what caused the specific mixes
and what their significance is. The signatures do not appear
to be strongly correlated with water chemistry, the presence or absence
of native or alien fish, systematic biogeographic species changes
across the region or paleogeographic influences, although all of these
seem to play some role. Rather the signatures are probably
the result of complex interactions of the above and other variables
over many millions of years.
Many questions thus remain unanswered to a large degree because we do
not have sufficient understanding of the biology and habitat
requirements of riverine species to attempt further interpretation of
the signatures data set. Some additional insights have
emerged however.
- Perennial rivers have more stable aquatic communities than
non-perennial ones and therefore may be expected to have much clearer
signatures. This would make them more amenable to assessment
of whether or not human disturbance is affecting them.
- Alien fauna and flora appear to be breaking down the biotic
signatures, homogenising at least fish and plant communities and
presumably reducing biodiversity.
- Rivers appear to have abiotic signatures too: their complex
mix of geomorphological, hydrological, chemical and thermal attributes
may be of use to distinguish them from each other. The
question of whether or not these abiotic signatures are good surrogates
for the biotic ones lies at the heart of the national planning to
conserve freshwater biodiversity.
The main management implications of river and catchment signatures are
as follows.
- It cannot be assumed that all rivers within an ecoregion
are much the same and thus that a random selection of them can be
sacrificed to development with no implications for
biodiversity. Biodiversity could be being reduced at the
community/landscape level through catchments not being recognised as
unique entities.
- More than one river within each catchment needs to be
conserved at a very low level of disturbance so that further research
on signatures and its links to biodiversity has access to replicate
study sites.
- The signatures could be used to detect very early levels of
degradation of sensitive or important river systems, as it will detect
change earlier than standard techniques such as %EPT or SASS scores.
- With further data collection, the signatures could be used
to grade and compare different kinds of disturbance on a scale from
negligible impact to very severe impact.
Recommendations (Chapter
9)
Recommendations for future work and consideration are as
follows.
- The catchment should be high in the hierarchical levels of
river classification for biodiversity management – higher
than longitudinal zone – because rivers within one bioregion
or ecoregion are not all the same. Individual catchments
within any one ecoregion, bioregion, geomorphological region or
hydrological region (whichever is being used to partition the country)
need to be represented in any system of conserved rivers.
- There should be more than one completely undisturbed river
in each catchment so that biodiversity is conserved at the
community/landscape level and so that future research on signatures and
its links to biodiversity has access to replicate sites per catchment.
- Historical records of biotic distributions (such as those
at the Albany Museum) should be used to confirm that river and
catchment signatures exist in other parts of the country.
- The validity of signatures across disciplines should be
researched through a multidisciplinary research programme.
The catchment should be high in the hierarchical levels of river
classification for biodiversity using shared study sites.
This would strengthen understanding of their nature and possibly their
causes.
- Full understanding of why catchments and rivers are
biologically distinct will not be possible without a deeper
understanding of the biology of riverine species. Such
research should become an essential component of all relevant research
and consultancy work at an appropriate level of commitment.