Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Macroinvertebrate richness on flood defence walls of the tidal River Thames

  • Published:
Urban Ecosystems Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The River Thames through central London has seen significant environmental recovery, particularly in regard to water quality, but a substantial barrier to further ecological improvement is the spatial restriction of riparian areas. Flood defence walls represent a potential habitat for ecological improvements to benefit biodiversity. However before restoration actions are considered, an understanding of the current biodiversity and ecological status of these structures is necessary. Physical habitat and macroinvertebrate richness of flood defence walls at 15, evenly spaced sites along a 32 Km reach in central London were evaluated. We found no longitudinal patterns in total macroinvertebrate richness among our 15 sites, but did find that richness was influenced by wall type. Specifically, we found the highest richness on brick walls and lowest richness on concrete walls. Further, wall sections with algal cover supported significantly higher numbers of macroinvertebrates than sections lacking algal cover. However, reaches of the river where the channel was constricted had fewer macroinvertebrates likely due to scouring flows. These results show that macroinvertebrates of the river walls are influenced by habitat availability (i.e., wall type) and localised river flows. This work suggests that appropriate management of river wall habitats has the potential to enhance the biodiversity of highly modified, urban rivers.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alberti M, Booth D, Hill K, Coburn B, Avolio C, Coe S, Spirandelli D (2007) The impact of urban patterns on aquatic ecosystems: an empirical analysis in Puget lowland sub-basins. Landsc Urban Plann 40:345–361

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Araujo FG, Bailey RG, Williams WP (1999) Spatial and temporal variations in fish populations in the upper Thames estuary. J Fish Biol 55:836–853

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Attrill MJ, Rundle SD (2002) Ecotone or ecocline: ecological boundaries in estuaries. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci 55:929–936

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Attrill MJ, Bilton DT, Rowden AA, Rundle SD, Thomas RM (1999) The impact of encroachment and bankside development on the habitat complexity and supralittoral invertebrate communities of the Thames Estuary foreshore. Aquat Conserv Mar Freshwat Ecosyst 9:237–247

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baxter CV, Fausch KD, Saunders WC (2005) Tangled webs: reciprocal flows of invertebrate prey link streams and riparian zones. Freshwat Biol 50:201–220

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boitsidis AJ, Gurnell AM, Scott M, Petts GE, Armitage PD (2006) A decision support system for identifying the habitat quality and rehabilitation potential of urban rivers. Water Environ 20:130–140

    Google Scholar 

  • Brenneisen S (2006) Space for urban wildlife: designing green roofs as habitats in Switzerland. Urban Habitats 4:27–36

    Google Scholar 

  • Browne MA, Chapman MG (2011) Ecologically informed engineering reduces loss of intertidal biodiversity on artificial shorelines. Environ Sci Tech 45:8204–8207

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Burtt ET, Perry RJO, McLachlan AJ (1986) Feeding and sexual dimorphism in adult midges (Diptera: Chironomidae). Holarctic Ecol 9:27–32

    Google Scholar 

  • Chapman MG, Blockley DJ (2009) Engineering novel habitats on urban infrastructure to increase intertidal biodiversity. Oecologia 161:625–635

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Charbonneau R, Resh VH (1992) Strawberry Creek on the University of California, Berkeley campus - a case-history of urban stream restoration. Aquat Conserv Mar Freshwat Ecosyst 2:293–307

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Colclough SR, Gray G, Bark A, Knights B (2002) Fish and fisheries of the tidal Thames: management of the modern resource, research aims and future pressures. J Fish Biol 61:64–73

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Colclough S, Fonseca L, Astley T, Thomas K, Watts W (2005) Fish utilisation of managed realignments. Fish Manag Ecol 12:351–360

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cramer MJ, Willig MR (2005) Habitat heterogeneity, species diversity and null models. Oikos 108:209–218

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Curtin F, Schulz P (1998) Multiple correlations and Bonferroni’s correction. Biol Psychiatry 44:775–777

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Darlington A (1981) Ecology of walls. Heinemann Educational Books, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Davenport AJ, Gurnell AM, Armitage PD (2004) Habitat survey and classification of urban rivers. River Res Appl 20:687–704

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Downes JA (1958) The feeding habits of biting flies and their significance in classification. Annu Rev Entomol 3:249–266

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duchoslav M (2002) Flora and vegetation of stony walls in East Bohemia (Czech Republic). Preslia (Prague) 74:1–25

    Google Scholar 

  • Environment Agency (2009) Estuary edges: ecological design guidance (available online at http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/business/sectors/100745.aspx)

  • Field A (2005) Discovering statistics using SPSS. Sage Publications, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Forman RTT (2008) Urban regions: ecology and planning beyond the city. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Francis RA (2009) Perspectives on the potential for reconciliation ecology in urban riverscapes. CAB Reviews: Perspect Agr Vet Sci Nutr Nat Resour 4:1–20

    Google Scholar 

  • Francis RA, Hoggart SPG (2008) Waste not, want not: the need to utilise existing artificial structures for habitat improvement along urban rivers. Restor Ecol 16:373–381

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Francis RA, Hoggart SPG (2009) Urban river wall habitat and vegetation: observations from the River Thames through central London. Urban Ecosyst 12:468–485

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Francis RA, Hoggart SPG (2011) The flora of urban river wallscapes. River Res Appl. doi:10.1002/rra.1497

  • Francis RA, Lorimer J (2011) Urban reconciliation ecology: the potential of living roofs and walls. J Environ Manag 92:1429–1437

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Francis RA, Hoggart SPG, Gurnell AM, Coode C (2008) Meeting the challenges of urban river habitat restoration: developing a methodology for the River Thames through central London. Area 40:435–445

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Franco AMA, Marques JT, Sutherland WJ (2005) Is nest-site availability limiting Lesser Kestrel populations? A multiple scale approach. Ibis 147:657–666

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grant G (2006) Extensive green roofs in London. Urban Habitats 4:51–65

    Google Scholar 

  • Gregory KJ (2002) Urban channel adjustments in a management context: An Australian example. Environ Manag 29:620–633

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haas F (1996) Dermaptera. Earwigs. Version 18 July 1996 (under construction). (available online at http://tolweb.org/Dermaptera/8254/1996.07.18)

  • Hall C, Hoff WD (2002) Water Transport in Brick, Stone and Concrete. London: Taylor and Francis

  • Harris RJ (1991) Diet of the wasps Vespula vulgaris and Vespula germanica in honeydew beech forest of the South Island, New Zealand. N Z J Zool 18:159–169

    Google Scholar 

  • Hopkin S (1991) A key to the woodlice of Britain and Ireland. Field Studies 7:599–650

    Google Scholar 

  • Jennings V, Stewart D (2000) Ecology and evolution of wall-dwelling organisms. Am Biol Teach 62:429–435

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kadas G (2006) Rare invertebrates colonizing green roofs in London. Urban Habitats 4:66–86

    Google Scholar 

  • Kent M, Coker P (1992) Vegetation description and analysis: A practical approach. Wiley, New York

  • Kondolf GM (2006) River restoration and meanders. Ecol Soc 11(2):42

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis JGE (2007) The biology of centipedes. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Lundholm JT, Marlin A (2006) Habitat origins and microhabitat preferences of urban plant species. Urban Ecosyst 9:139–159

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malmqvist B, Rundle S (2002) Threats to running water ecosystems of the world. Environ Conserv 29:134–153

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin J, Webb M (2010) Hemiptera…it’s a bug’s life. (available online at http://www.nhm.ac.uk/resources-rx/files/26feat_its_a_bugs_life-3013.pdf)

  • Morin PJ (1999) Community ecology. Blackwell, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Nakano S, Murakami M (2001) Reciprocal subsidies: dynamic interdependence between terrestrial and aquatic food webs. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 98:166–170

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Paetzold A, Schubert CJ, Tockner K (2005) Aquatic terrestrial linkages along a braided-river: riparian arthropods feeding on aquatic insects. Ecosystems 8:748–759

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palmer MA, Bernhardt ES, Allan JD, Lake PS, Alexander G, Brooks S, Carr J, Clayton S, Dahm CN, Shah F, Galat DL, Loss SG, Goodwin P, Hart DD, Hassett B, Jenkinson R, Kondolf GM, Lave R, Meyer JL, O’Donnell TK, Pagano L, Sudduth E (2005) Standards for ecologically successful river restoration. J Appl Ecol 42:208–217

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palmer MA, Menninger HL, Bernhardt E (2010) River restoration, habitat heterogeneity and biodiversity: a failure of theory or practice? Freshwat Biol 55:205–222

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paul MJ, Meyer JL (2001) Streams in the urban landscape. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 32:333–365

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petts GE, Heathcote J, Martin D (2002) Urban rivers: our inheritance and future. IWA Publishing, London, UK

    Google Scholar 

  • Port of London Authority (2010) Tidal Levels - Definitions and Notes (available online at http://www.pla.co.uk/display_fixedpage.cfm/id/265)

  • Power M, Attrill MJ, Thomas RM (2000) Temporal abundance patterns and growth of juvenile herring and sprat from the Thames estuary 1977–1992. J Fish Biol 56:1408–1426

    Google Scholar 

  • Proctor H, Harvey M (1998) Hydracarina. Water mites. Version 09 August 1998. (available online at http://tolweb.org/Hydracarina/2606/1998.08.09)

  • Roberts MJ (1996) Collins field guide: spiders of Britain and Northern Europe. Collins, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Robinson WH (2005) Urban insects and arachnids: a handbook of urban entomology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Robles CD, Cubit J (1981) Influence of biotic factors in an upper inter-tidal community - dipteran larvae grazing on algae. Ecology 62:1536–1547

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenzweig ML (2003) Reconciliation ecology and the future of species diversity. Oryx 37:194–205

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schweizer S, Borsuk ME, Jowett I, Reichert P (2007) Predicting joint frequency distributions of depth and velocity for instream habitat assessment. River Res Appl 23:287–302

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sear DA (1994) River restoration and geomorphology. Aquat Conserv Mar Freshwat Ecosyst 4:169–177

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Segal S (1969) Ecological notes on wall vegetation. Dr W Junk NV, The Hague, Netherlands

    Google Scholar 

  • Silfverberg H (2001) Changes 1996–2000 in the list of Finnish insects. Entomologica Fennica 12:227–243

    Google Scholar 

  • Skevington J (2008) Pipunculidae. Big-headed flies. (available online at http://tolweb.org/Pipunculidae/10524/2008.08.07)

  • Steele J (1999) Deptford Creek: surviving regeneration. Deptford Forum Publishing, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Sudduth EB, Meyer JL (2006) Effects of bioengineered streambank stabilization on bank habitat and macroinvertebrates in urban streams. Environ Manag 38:218–226

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tachet H, Bournaud M, Richoux P, Usseglio-Polatera P (2000) Invertébrés d’eau douce: systématique, biologie, écologie. CNRS Editions, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Tilling SM (1987) A key to the major groups of British terrestrial invertebrates. Field Stud 6:695–766

    Google Scholar 

  • Tinsley D (1998) The Thames estuary: a history of the impact of humans on the environment and a description of the current approach to environmental management. In: Attrill MJ (ed) A rehabilitated estuarine ecosystem: the environment and ecology of the Thames. Kluwer, London, pp 5–26

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Trujillo-Cenoz O, Bernard GD (1972) Some aspects of the retinal organization of Sympycnus lineatus Loew (Diptera, dolichopodidae). J Ultra Mol Struct R 38:149–160

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Voss SC, Main BY, Dadour IR (2007) Habitat preferences of the urban wall spider Oecobius navus (Araneae, Oecobiidae). Aust J Entomol 46:261–268

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walsh CJ, Fletcher TD, Ladson AR (2005) Stream restoration in urban catchments through re-designing stormwater systems: looking to the catchment to save the stream. J N Am Bentholl Soc 24:690–705

    Google Scholar 

  • Walsh CJ, Waller KA, Gehling J, Mac Nally R (2007) Riverine invertebrate assemblages are degraded more by catchment urbanisation than by riparian deforestation. Freshwat Biol 52:574–587

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walton BM, Salling M, Wyles J, Wolin J (2007) Biological integrity in urban streams: toward resolving multiple dimensions of urbanization. Landsc Urban Plann 79:110–123

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Watson L, Dallwitz MJ (2003) British insects: the families of Diptera. Version: 28th August 2009 (available online at http://delta-intkey.com)

  • Wheaton JM, Darby SE, Sear D (2008) The scope of uncertainties in river restoration. In: Sear D (ed) River restoration: managing the uncertainty in restoring physical habitat Darby SE. John Wiley and Sons, Chichester, U.K., pp 21–39

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson E, Hölldobler B (2005) The rise of the ants: a phylogenetic and ecological explanation. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 102:7411–7414

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Wolff C, Scholtz G (2002) Cell lineage, axis formation, and the origin of germ layers in the amphipod crustacean Orchestia cavimana Carsten. Dev Biol 250:44–58

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The research reported here was conducted as part of Project Habitat, funded by Thames21 and the Esmeé Fairbairn Foundation. Trevor Blackall is gratefully acknowledged for help provided with lab identification and discussions that fed into an early version of the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Marine Biology and Ecology Research Centre, University of Plymouth, Plymouth, PL4 8AA, UK

    Simon P. G. Hoggart

  2. Department of Geography, King’s College London, Strand, London, WC2R 2LS, UK

    Robert A. Francis & Michael A. Chadwick

Authors
  1. Simon P. G. Hoggart
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Robert A. Francis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Michael A. Chadwick
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Simon P. G. Hoggart.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hoggart, S.P.G., Francis, R.A. & Chadwick, M.A. Macroinvertebrate richness on flood defence walls of the tidal River Thames. Urban Ecosyst 15, 327–346 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-011-0221-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-011-0221-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation