Effects of fish predators and litter pack size on leaf breakdown in a subtropical stream

Tsai, Chih‐Wei; Shieh, Sen-Her; Huang, Ya‐Hui; Lai, Ming-Wei

doi:10.1007/s10750-018-3590-3

Cited by 4 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 55 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We found a significant negative effect of leaf pack size on breakdown rate, although the slope of the relation- ship was very low, and only for the first collection date. This pattern of lower decomposition rate as leaf pack size increases has been demonstrated previously Tsai et al 2018). In Reice (1974), decomposition rates pending on season) across a range of pack sizes from 1 to 40 g dry mass.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 79%

“…Abundances of all invertebrates declined as a function of the size of the resource patch (leaf pack) in our experiment. Likewise, Tsai et al (2018) found that invertebrate numbers per gram of leaf litter decreased as pack size increased (all with slope < 1.0 in their figure). We observed that large, cased caddisfly larvae declined most strongly in abundance per unit resource, presumably because they do not have access to the inner leaves in larger leaf packs, whereas smaller shredders do.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 84%

“…In Reice (1974), decomposition rates pending on season) across a range of pack sizes from 1 to 40 g dry mass. Tsai et al (2018) found that decomposition rates declined with a slope approaching -1 across a range from 1 to 8 g dry mass, which would result in rates close to zero in packs slightly larger than 8 g. Likewise, Campbell et al's (1994) relation would have predicted zero decomposition at leaf pack sizes of 8.12 g. Reice (1974) found high rates of decomposition of Fraxinus americanus leaves during summer (breakdown range from smallest to largest packs: k = 0.024 to 0.011 d -1 ) even at 40 g (the largest). Even though the effect of leaf pack size on loss rate in our study was small, we used a small gradient compared to the authors noted above.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Reice 1974). However, most authors have found that decomposition is faster in smaller leaf packs (Reice 1974, Benfield et al 1979, Campbell et al 1994, Tsai et al 2018, but the mechanisms for why decomposition rates vary with leaf pack size have not been tested. Reice (1974) speculated that accessibility to leaves in leaf packs diminished with increased pack size, but did not have data to test that.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Reice (1974) speculated that accessibility to leaves in leaf packs diminished with increased pack size, but did not have data to test that. Nor has the slope of the relationship been estimated in many instances, and some of these studies might predict decomposition rates to reach zero as leaf pack size increases based on their empirical results (e.g., Campbell et al 1994;Tsai et al 2018).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Consumer responses to resource patch size and architecture: leaf packs in streams

Richardson¹,

Chauvet²

2019

fal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Accumulations of leaf litter in freshwaters can vary from individual leaves to large leaf packs. Past studies have demonstrated that decomposition rates decrease as leaf pack size increases. We considered a set of hypotheses that lower breakdown in larger leaf packs occurs as a consequence of diffusion gradients of oxygen and nutrients, or lower accessibility to larger detritivores to leaf tissue in the middle of these leaf packs. We manipulated leaf pack size in a stream to quantify decomposition rates and the abundances of consumers relative to the amount of detrital mass available. Mass loss rates of beech leaves were lower as leaf pack size increased. We found no differences in fungal biomass across our treatment gradients, or when comparing leaves in the middle of the leaf pack versus those on the outside. The lower decomposition of larger leaf packs would thus not result from a lower quality of the resource based on fungal biomass. Invertebrates per unit mass of leaf packs declined exponentially with size of leaf pack. Smaller invertebrates were less abundant per unit of resource as leaf pack size increased, but abundances of larger invertebrates declined even more dramatically than that of smaller ones. The results are consistent with accessibility within leaf packs decreasing as leaf pack size increases, a factor that is important for the estimation of consumer-resource functions for this patchy resource.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 79%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 84%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Consumer responses to resource patch size and architecture: leaf packs in streams

Richardson¹,

Chauvet²

2019

fal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Initial mass of leaf litter influences mass loss and invertebrate assemblages in two mountain streams

González,

Molina,

Mora

2024

Hydrobiologia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Effects of Interspecific Interactions on Aquatic Macrophyte Litter Decomposition and Its Influencing Factors

Bao,

Jin,

et al. 2023

ACS EST Water

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aquatic macrophyte litter decomposition (AMD) is essential for material cycling and energy flow in freshwater ecosystems. This decomposition process encompasses several stages, each demanding the involvement of specific organisms. As interspecific interactions evolve, so does the process of decomposition. However, a comprehensive review specifically highlighting the central roles and intricate dynamics of these interspecific interactions in the decomposition process is notably lacking. Therefore, we herein introduce the stages of AMD and, in conjunction with interspecific relationships, delve into the impact of biotic and abiotic factors and litter quality on AMD. After reviewing the literature, it becomes evident that almost every stage of litter decomposition requires the participation of decomposer organisms. Moreover, the decomposition capabilities vary significantly among different decomposer organisms, with each exhibiting unique sensitivities to environmental shifts. Therefore, understanding these interspecific relationships is pivotal for interpreting the current global shifts in AMD. However, due to monitoring and statistical constraints, previous discussions of AMD have largely focused on a few decomposer organisms with limited exploration of wider decomposer communities. This review emphasizes the need to strengthen research on interspecific relationships within the decomposer community, thereby supporting future investigations into the mechanisms that drive elemental cycling in freshwater ecosystems.

show abstract

Effects of fish predators and litter pack size on leaf breakdown in a subtropical stream

Cited by 4 publications

References 55 publications

Consumer responses to resource patch size and architecture: leaf packs in streams

Consumer responses to resource patch size and architecture: leaf packs in streams

Initial mass of leaf litter influences mass loss and invertebrate assemblages in two mountain streams

Effects of Interspecific Interactions on Aquatic Macrophyte Litter Decomposition and Its Influencing Factors

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About