Classification of macroinvertebrate communities across drainage basins in Victoria, Australia: consequences of sampling on a broad spatial scale for predictive modelling

1. Spatial scale may influence the interpretation of environmental gradients that underlie classification and ordination;analyses of lotic macroinvertebrate communities. This could have important consequences for the spatial scale over which predictive models derived from these multivariate analyses can be applied. 2. Macroinvertebrate community data (identified to genus or species) from edge and main-channel habitats were obtained for sites on rivers from 25 of the 29 drainage basins in Victoria. Trends in community similarity were analysed by carrying out separate multivariate analyses on data from the edge habitats (199 sites) and the main-channel habitats (163 sites). 3. Hierarchical classification (UPGMA) showed that the edge data could be placed into 11 site groups and the main-channel data into 12 site groups. 4. Ordination analysis (hybrid multidimensional scaling) showed no sharp disjunctions between site groups in either habitat; overlap was frequent. Correlation of the ordination patterns with environmental variables showed that edge communities varied longitudinally within a drainage basin and from the east to the west of Victoria. These two trends were superimposed on one another to form a single gradient on the ordination. The taxon richness of edge communities was also related to the species richness of macrophytes at a site. Main-channel communities also displayed a longitudinal and a geographic gradient, but these two gradients were uncorrelated on the ordination. 5. Community similarity only weakly reflected geographic proximity in either habitat. A preliminary subdivision of Victoria into a series of biogeographic regions did not match the pattern of distribution of site groups for the edge habitat, illustrating the difficulties of applying to lotic communities a priori regionalizations based on terrestrial features of the landscape. 6. The longitudinal gradients in the two data sets were commonly observed in data gathered at smaller spatial scales in Victoria. The other gradients (geographic, macrophyte), however, were either not consistently repeated or not evident at smaller spatial scales. At small spatial scales (i.e. within a single drainage basin) gradients were related to variables that varied over restricted ranges, e.g. mean particle size of the substratum. 7. Species richness was very variable when plotted against river slope or distance of site from source; both of these are measures of position on the longitudinal gradients. In contrast to suggestions in the literature, species richness did not show a unimodal trend on these gradients, or any other trend. 8. Environmental gradients (apart from longitudinal gradients) that underlie predictive models of macroinvertebrate distribution are reflections of the spatial scale on which the model has been constructed and cannot be extrapolated to different scales. Models must be suited to the spatial scale over which predictions are required.