Herbivory effects on the periphytic algal functional diversity in lake ecosystems: an experimental approach

Dunck, Bárbara; Amaral, Diogo Castanho; Fernandes, Ubirajara Lima; Santana, Natália Fernanda; Lopes, Taise Miranda; Rodrigues, Liliana

doi:10.1007/s10750-018-3587-y

Cited by 11 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 67 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Studies have confirmed that herbivores and their distinct ways of feeding and foraging can change far beyond the structure of periphytic algal communities, changing composition and richness (Cattaneo & Kalff, 1986;McCormick & Stevenson, 1991), densities and even predominance of functional characteristics, life forms and species size (Nicola et al, 1990;Steinman et al, 1992;Hillebrand et al, 2000;Dunck et al, 2018). In our study, we demonstrated that the feeding habit of M. sanctaefilomenae altered the periphytic algal community of artificial substrates, since it consumed a higher proportion of medium-profile algae than low and high-profile species.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 68%

“…The zooplankton abundances in each microcosm were quantified according to Bottrell et al (1976), at the beginning (T1 -mean 85.7 ind.L -1 ± SD 61.8; T2 -mean 139.0 ind.L -1 ± SD 116.9) and end (T1 -mean 1,257.1 ind.L -1 ± SD 505.4; T2 -mean 1,985.8 ind.L -1 ± SD 1,783.5) of the experiment (for details see Dunck et al, 2018).…”

Section: Experimental Designmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Herbivores have direct (by consumption) and indirect effects (excretion of nutrients, removal of senescent cells, or increased uptake of nutrients by the remaining cells) in structuring periphytic algae (Hillebrand & Cardinale, 2004;Liess & Hillebrand, 2004;Hillebrand, 2009). Their effects can lead to positive (growth and reproduction) or negative (death or loss) responses of periphytic algae (Dunck et al, 2018). One indirect positive effect is known as keystone predation in which consumption can lead to the further development of uneaten algal species (Hillebrand et al, 2000;Duffy, 2002), after excluding others by consumer ingestion (Kupferberg, 1997), and then leads to an increase of algal biomass of some or all periphytic algal species (Liess & Hillebrand, 2004).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Algae can occur close to the substrate (lowprofile), as well as at more intermediate (medium) or more external layers in the biofilm (high-profile) (Steinman, 1996;Passy, 2007). For this reason, the individual ways in which herbivores feed can also alter the structure and physiognomy of algal communities (Steinman, 1996;Yang & Dudgeon, 2010;Dunck et al, 2018).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For this, we conducted an experiment in which fish individuals were subjected to treatments with and without zooplankton, and inserted in aquariums with periphyton as available food. A previous study showed that periphyton as food source was effective for fish and zooplankton, and algal densities decreased at the end of the experiment (Dunck et al, 2018). We evaluated the abundance and composition of periphytic algae consumed by fish with and without the presence of potential intermediate consumers (zooplankton).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Eating at the edges: the feeding mode and the individual-resource networks of a characid fish in the periphyton

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim We evaluated the predation interactions between Moenkhausia sanctaefilomenae and periphytic algae, in the presence or absence of an intermediate consumer (zooplankton). We tested the following hypotheses using a microcosms experiment: 1) fish consume zooplankton when available, therefore reducing algae consumption and increasing algal biomass; 2) fish consume the same algal species in the presence or absence of zooplankton; 3) species from the low-profile of the periphytic algal matrix are less consumed; 4) there is no difference in the nestedness of the networks between treatments, but the network in the treatment with zooplankton is modular; 5) the treatment with zooplankton shows higher interaction diversity, evenness and specialization degree. Methods The microcosms were separated in three treatments, control (no herbivores), T1 with periphytic algae and fish, and T2 with periphytic algae, fish and zooplankton. After seven days of experiment, the stomach contents were analyzed and quantified according to the algal profiles of the periphytic matrix. We also used the individual-resource network to investigate the differences in the individuals’ diet preferences between treatments. Results The fish diet did not differ between food webs with zooplankton presence or absence. They fed more on the algal medium profile, which also predominated in the control. The main food items were the diatoms Ulnaria ulna and Achnanthidium minutissimum. The interaction network results showed that the two treatments presented network modularity, and T2 (with zooplankton) presented nested network, in addition to showing greater interaction diversity and evenness, and less specialization of interactions. Conclusions Moenkhausia sanctaefilomenae can take advantage of a more abundant resource, and the presence or not of zooplankton did not alter the herbivory interaction. Considering the individual-resource network patterns, individuals of fish showed differences in how they share resources between treatments, with presence of opportunistic and selective individuals, and distinct distribution and diversity of interactions in the presence of zooplankton.

show abstract