Biotic and Abiotic Controls in River and Stream Communities

Power, Mary E.; Stout, R. Jean; Cushing, Colbert E.; Harper, P. P.; Hauer, F. Richard; Matthews, William J.; Moyle, Peter B.; Statzner, Bernhard

doi:10.2307/1467301

Cited by 293 publications

(167 citation statements)

References 123 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

159

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Abiotic conditions are nested in a hierarchy from small to large spatial and temporal scales, where microhabitat physical characteristics such as velocity, depth and substrate are nested within larger scale features such as mesohabitat morphology (tens of meters in river length), channel slope and reach morphology (hundreds of meters) and proximity to floodplain or tributary habitats (thousands of meters) (Frissell et al 1986;Imhof et al 1996). Biotic factors such as abundance of resources (algae for tadpoles, insects for adult frogs), density of competitors and distribution of predators similarly vary at fine and broad spatial scales (Power et al 1988;Poff 1997). Figure 5.5 shows a conceptual framework for the relationship between abiotic and biotic environmental factors and R. boylii egg and larval habitat suitability.…”

Section: Defining Habitat Suitability In the Context Of Model Errormentioning

confidence: 99%

Water Velocity Tolerance in Tadpoles of the Foothill Yellow-legged Frog (Rana boylii): Swimming Performance, Growth, and Survival

Kupferberg¹,

Lind²,

Thill³

et al. 2011

Copeia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Defining Habitat Suitability In the Context Of Model Errormentioning

confidence: 99%

Water Velocity Tolerance in Tadpoles of the Foothill Yellow-legged Frog (Rana boylii): Swimming Performance, Growth, and Survival

Kupferberg¹,

Lind²,

Thill³

et al. 2011

Copeia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…), but evidence for benthic grazers is still scarce. Mulholland et al (1991) and Power et al (1988) reported an avoidance of benthic cyanobacteria by insect larvae in streams, and Neckles et al (1994) Except for the five cases of a linear response, the algae were strongly nutrient limited in most cases. The y-axis intercept of the regressions in Table 2 can be interpreted as gross growth rates (p) in the absence of grazing and nutrient excretion by I. chelipes if grazing by micrograzers is negligible, as argued above.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Selectivity of Idothea chelipes (Crustacea: Isopoda) grazing on benthic microalgae

Sommer¹

1997

Limnology & Oceanography

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Periphyton grazing by the marine isopod Idothea chelipes was studied by exposing periphyton grown on glass slides to a gradient of grazer densities. An analysis of the algal growth rates and their relationships to grazer density revealed two groups of algae. The unicellular diatoms Licmophora ehrenbergii, Fragilaria tabulata, Navicula spp., Cocconeis costata, and the green alga Ulothrix implexa had high maximal gl'owth rates (0.90-1.47 d-l) and suffered high grazing losses (0.41-0.68 d--l per grazer ind.). The tube dwelling diatc,m Amphipleura rutilans and the cyanobacteria Lyngbya confervoides and Spirulina subsalsa had low maximal growth rates (0.38-0.81 d-l) and suffered only moderate grazing losses (0.10-0.27 d-l per grazer ind.). The species of the first group seemed to be less strongly resource limited than did the species of the second group. Grazing by I. chelipes has the potential to drive succession from the well-edible to the less edible periphyton species.Grazing on marine benthic microalgae has received much less attention than has grazing on phytoplankton. Most studies have concentrated on bulk effects on biomass, but not on selectivity, between algal species. Most selectivity studies in marine benthic herbivory have concentrated on selectivity between macrophytes and microalgae (Hawkins and Hartnoll 1983;Peduzzi 1987), cleaning of macrophytes from their microalgal epiphytes (Neckles et al. 1993), or selectivity between macrophytes (Schaffelke et al. 1995). Herein, I present results of in situ experiments where periphyton grown on artificial substrates have been exposed to gradients of Idothea chelipes densities. Its congener Idiothea baltica is an omnivore with a broad food spectrum that includes benthic microalgae, filamentous algae, macroalgae, detritus, animals, and even occasional cannibalism. Despite its omnivory, I. baltica is quite selective within food categories. Among macroalgae there is a clear preference of Fucus vesiculosus over Fucus evanescens (Schaffelke et al. 1995); within filamentous algae, germlings of the green alga Enteromorpha spp. are preferred over germlings of the brown alga Pilayella litoralis while adult P. litoralis are preferred over adult Enteromorpha (Schramm et al. 1996). In the western Baltic Sea, Zdiothea spp. are among the most important benthic herbivores. TheoryIn the absence of guts analysis or direct observations of ingestion, feeding selectivity can best be analyzed by comparing mortality rates due to grazing (grazing rate, 7) between food species (Sterner 1989). When ignoring other sources of mortality, y can be calculated from the gross growth rate (p) and the net growth rate (r) in the presence of a grazer (y = p -r). However, ~1 could increase in the grazer treatment compared to the grazer-free control. This effect is usually ascribed to nutrient excretion (Sterner 1985;Elser et al. 1988), but other explanations are also possible, especially in dense biofilms as studied here. Such explanaAcknowledgments

show abstract

“…This does not, however, necessarily "validate" the results (or invalidate if there are differences) (Chapman, 1995b). Natural temporal changes in aquatic populations at different sites within a study system need not be the same (Power et al, 1988;Resh et al, 1988;Underwood, 1993); therefore, predictions of effect or no-effect from WET testing of reference sites may be in error. Each monitoring tool (i.e., chemical, physical and indigenous biota characterizations, laboratory and field toxicity, and bioaccumulation) provides unique and often essential information (Burton, 1995b;Chapman et al, 1992).…”

Section: Pgsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Indirect effects of toxicity on species, population, and community interactions can be important (Clements et al, 1989;Clements and Kiffney, 1996;Day et al, 1995;Fairchild et al, 1992;Giesey et al, 1979;Gonzalez 1994;Hulbert 1975;La Point et al, 2000;Schindler, 1987;Wipfli and Merritt, 1994), and may not be detected by WET testing. A huge ecological database exists showing the importance of species interactions in structuring communities (e.g., Dayton, 1971;Power et al, 1988;Pratt et al, 1981).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Role of Traditional and Novel Toxicity Test Methods in Assessing Stormwater and Sediment Contamination

Burton

Pitt

Clark

2000

Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:Traditional effluent and ambient water column toxicity tests have been used widely for evaluating the contamination of stormwaters and sediments. These assays consist of a routine bioassay exposure design of 1 to 9 days using freshwater and marine/estuarine species known to be sensitive to a wide range of toxicants. While effluent toxicity may be indicative of sediment or stormwater toxicity in the receiving system, the exposure is different, and therefore toxicity cannot be readily predicted. Traditional, standardized, whole effluent toxicity (WET) test methods have been used effectively and also misused in evaluations of whole sediments, pore (interstitial) water, elutriates (extracts), and stormwaters. Results show these methods to be very sensitive to sediment and stormwater toxicity. These traditional toxicity tests are predictive of instream sediment or stormwater effects where significant contamination exists or where exposure concentrations are similar. Modifications of these standardized test methods to include sediments or pore waters have been shown to be as sensitive as short-term, whole sediment toxicity tests using benthic species. However, the added complexity of sediments and stormwaters (e.g., partitioning, high Kow compound bioavailability, suspended solids, sporadic exposures, multiple exposure pathways) dictates that traditional toxicity test applications be integrated into a more comprehensive assessment of ecologically significant stressors. The limitations of the WET testing approach and optimized sample collection and exposure alternatives are frequently ignored when implemented. Exposure to sporadic pulses of contaminants (such as in stormwaters) often produce greater toxicity than exposure to constant concentrations. Lethality from short-term pulse exposures may not occur for weeks after the high flow event due to uptake dynamics. Pore water and elutriate exposures remove sediment ingestion routes of exposure and alter natural sorption/desorption dynamics. Traditional toxicity tests may not produce reliable conclusions when used to detect the adverse effects of: fluctuating stressor exposures, nutrients, suspended solids, temperature, UV light, flow, mutagenicity, carcinogenicity, teratogenicity, endocrine disruption, or other important subcellular responses. This reality and the fact that ecologically significant levels of high K ow compounds may not produce short-term responses in exposures dictates that additional and novel assessment tools be utilized in order to protect aquatic ecosystems. This inablilty to predict effects is largely a result of the complex biological response patterns that result from various combinations of stressor magnitudes, duration, and frequency between exposures and also the interactions of stressor mixtures, such as syngergistic effects of certain pesticides, metals, and temperature. In watersheds receiving multiple sources of stressors, accurate assessments should define spatial-temporal profiles of exposure and effects using a range * Correspon...

show abstract

Biotic and Abiotic Controls in River and Stream Communities

Cited by 293 publications

References 123 publications

Water Velocity Tolerance in Tadpoles of the Foothill Yellow-legged Frog (Rana boylii): Swimming Performance, Growth, and Survival

Water Velocity Tolerance in Tadpoles of the Foothill Yellow-legged Frog (Rana boylii): Swimming Performance, Growth, and Survival

Selectivity of Idothea chelipes (Crustacea: Isopoda) grazing on benthic microalgae

The Role of Traditional and Novel Toxicity Test Methods in Assessing Stormwater and Sediment Contamination

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About