Feeding preferences of native terrestrial isopod species (Oniscoidea, Isopoda) for native and introduced leaf litter

Gerlach, A.; Russell, David J.; Jaeschke, B.; Römbke, Jörg

doi:10.1016/j.apsoil.2014.02.006

Cited by 23 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 40 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…One can notice, however, that the range of the C:N ratios is more extended in David et al (2001) than in our study. For non-herbaceous litter, C:N ratios and N content are often invoked to explain feeding behaviours of terrestrial isopods (Abelho and Molles, 2009;Gerlach et al, 2014). In addition, chemical feeding deterrents such as secondary compounds (e.g.…”

Section: Experimental Designmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In addition, chemical feeding deterrents such as secondary compounds (e.g. tannins, alkaloids, glycosides) and structural compounds such as lignin also influence feeding performances on non-herbaceous litter (David, 2014;Gerlach et al, 2014;Wood et al, 2012). For grass litters, feeding deterrents could a priori be chemical deterrents (e.g.…”

Section: Experimental Designmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Nutritive value and physical and chemical deterrents of forage grass litter explain feeding performances of two soil macrodetritivores

Pey

Trân

Cruz

et al. 2019

Applied Soil Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A B S T R A C TMillipedes (Diplopoda) and terrestrial isopods (Isopoda) may play a significant role in soil decomposition. The present study aimed to contribute to the general understanding of feeding performances of macrodetritivores consuming grass litter by answering two questions. Q1: Are grass litter traits indicating nutritive value (i.e. chemical) and traits indicating feeding deterrents (i.e. mainly physical but not necessarily) both necessary to explain individual feeding performances of soil invertebrates consuming grass litter? Q2: Do grass physical traits indicating physical deterrents (e.g. WHC for mechanical aspects) provide more than, less than or the same amount of information about invertebrate individual performances as grass chemical traits indicating mainly chemical but also physical deterrents (e.g. lignin content directly for digestibility and indirectly for mechanical aspects)? We thus designed a laboratory experiment to assess individual feeding performances of two common macrodetritivores (Armadillidium vulgare (Latreille, 1804) and Glomeris marginata (Villiers, 1789)) in four monospecific treatments of litter from perennial forage grasses (Brachypodium pinnatum P. Beauv., Bromus erectus Huds., Festuca rubra L. and Holcus lanatus L.). A. vulgare feeding performances were correlated with nutritive values (litter N and P contents) and plant mechanical aspects (LDMC: leaf dry matter content). G. marginata performances were correlated with chemical deterrents (cellulose and lignin contents). Thus, (Q1) for grass litters, both traits indicating nutritive value (e.g. N, P) and feeding deterrents (e.g. LDMC, lignin content) are necessary to explain macroinvertebrates feeding performances. We also demonstrated the results depend on the invertebrate species considered. Also, (Q2) chemical deterrents may influence feeding performances of G. marginata the most, while physical deterrents related to mechanical aspects may influence those of A. vulgare the most. Our study shows that using grass chemical and physical traits that indicate both nutritive value and feeding deterrents can help explain feeding performances of macrodetritivores.

show abstract

Section: Experimental Designmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Experimental Designmentioning

confidence: 99%

Nutritive value and physical and chemical deterrents of forage grass litter explain feeding performances of two soil macrodetritivores

Pey

Trân

Cruz

et al. 2019

Applied Soil Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Zooplankton acquire allochthonous organic carbon either through the consumption of bacteria or bacterial grazers, or by directly feeding on allochthonous particles (Cole et al, 2006). Although there is still considerable debate as to the importance of these two pathways (Pace et al, 2004;Cole et al, 2006), the current evidence would suggest that the latter is generally minor for zooplankton (Jansson et al, 2007;Berggren et al, 2010;Mehner et al, 2015), although it may be significant for benthic macroinvertebrates (Gerlach et al, 2014). The autochthonous signature of zooplankton, on the other hand, is acquired through direct feeding on phytoplankton cells, or POC that contains either live or detrital algal C. Benthic algae and associated microbial material and detritus are not available as POC for pelagic suspension feeder zooplankton (Paffenh€ ofer, Strickler & Alcaraz, 1982), although some cladocerans may feed directly on benthic mats (Cazzanelli et al, 2012;Mariash et al, 2014).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Zooplankton allochthony is spatially heterogeneous in a boreal lake

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary The proportion of consumer biomass from terrestrial origin (i.e. allochthony) has been shown to vary greatly among lakes and also seasonally, but has been assumed to be spatially homogeneous within a lake. Given that the distribution of different organic carbon (C) sources tends to be spatially patchy in most lakes, this assumption may not be warranted. We tested this hypothesis using a spatially intensive sampling designed to capture the in‐lake heterogeneity in terrestrial inputs, phytoplankton, benthic algae and a dominant aquatic macrophyte (Brasenia schreberi: Cabombaceae) in a medium‐sized boreal lake, and used a dual‐isotope Bayesian mixing approach (δ13C, δ2H) to establish the degree of allochthony of the dominant copepod Leptodiaptomus minutus (Diaptomididae) across these sites. Samples were collected in spring when tributaries had high flow rates and aquatic primary producers (phytoplankton, macrophytes) had rapid growth rates, and in mid‐summer when tributary flows were at the lowest. There was substantial spatial variability in the stable‐isotope composition of the copepod and consequently in its levels of allochthony in both seasons. Allochthony in L. minutus varied from 34 to 50% in spring and from 45 to 65% in summer, and this range was linked to the spatial variability in the main sources of organic C (terrestrial inputs via tributaries, B. schreberi and phytoplankton). Allochthony in L. minutus was lowest in areas dominated by macrophytes, and further influenced by the distribution of tributary‐derived terrestrial C across the lake. Macrophyte and phytoplankton carbon contributed, respectively, up to 28 and 38% during growing season (spring) to the diet of the L. minutus, while benthic algae contribution was negligible. Our results clearly show that the reliance of zooplankton on terrestrial C may be spatially heterogeneous even in a relatively small lake and, in particular, that macrophytes, whose distribution is typically patchier than that of phytoplankton, may play a major role in shaping the spatial patterns of zooplankton allochthony in lakes.

show abstract

“…In cold and/or dry months, T. rathkii inhabits deeper soil layers and shelters. Trachelipus rathkii is a typical alien species as demonstrated by its populations found in plantations of non-native trees (Farkas et al, 2013) and its indiscriminative feeding on native as well as non-native leaf litter (Gerlach et al, 2014). Another typical character of such an expansive species lies in its high fecundity and the capability of females for storing sperm and utilizing its stock in repeated brood production (Suzuki, Ziegler, 2005 ; also introduced to northern Africa, as far as St. Helena Island in the Atlantic, the Americas (Canada, USA, Mexico and Argentina), also Australia (Vandel, 1962;Karaman, 1966;Leistikow, Wägele, 1999;Schmalfuss, 2003;Khisametdinova, 2011;Kuznetsova, Gongalsky, 2012;Boxshall, 2013).…”

Section: Family Trachelipodidaementioning

confidence: 99%

New records of woodlice in the south of western Siberia, Russia (Isopoda: Oniscidea)

Khisametdinova¹,

Nefediev

Tuf

2016

Invertzool

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Feeding preferences of native terrestrial isopod species (Oniscoidea, Isopoda) for native and introduced leaf litter

Cited by 23 publications

References 40 publications

Nutritive value and physical and chemical deterrents of forage grass litter explain feeding performances of two soil macrodetritivores

Nutritive value and physical and chemical deterrents of forage grass litter explain feeding performances of two soil macrodetritivores

Zooplankton allochthony is spatially heterogeneous in a boreal lake

New records of woodlice in the south of western Siberia, Russia (Isopoda: Oniscidea)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About