Insect abundance and colonization rate in Fontinalis neo-mexicana (Bryophyta) in an Idaho Batholith stream, U.S.A.

Abstract

Insect abundance and colonization rate in Fontinalis neo-mexicana (Bryophyta) in an Idaho Batholith stream, U .S.A .' Abstract Insect colonization rate and abundance in the aquatic moss, Fontinalis neo-mexicana were examined in the South Fork Salmon River, Idaho, June 1978-August 1979 to determine the importance of moss as a habitat for insects . The insect communities in moss as well as in the underlying and adjacent mineral substrates were examined . Insects were sampled with a nylon organdy net in moss and with a Hess bottom sampler in mineral substrate .Insects colonized insect-free moss clumps to carrying capacity within one week . In a man-made stream channel where flow, depth and substrate were controlled, insect densities were 5 to 30 times greater in moss than the mineral substrate ; insect biomass was approximately two times greater. Insect densities in pebble substrates underlying moss and in adjacent mineral substrate were comparable . Moss cover did not appreciably alter insect densities in the underlying hyporheic zone composed of screened pebbles (1-2 cm diameter) . Insect ordinal and functional group composition was greater in moss than in the mineral substrate, however, species richness was similar . Chironomids were the most abundant insects in moss .

Meiofaunal communities associated with bryophytes and gravels in shaded and unshaded alpine streams in New Zealand

“…Overseas investigations of bryofauna have also concentrated on macroinvertebrates (e.g., Percival & Whitehead 1929, 1930Hynes 1961;Thorup & Lindegaard 1977;Maurer & Brusven 1983;Brusven et al 1990), but an overlooked aspect in these communities, however, is the occurrence of the meiofauna (O'Doherty 1985;Meyer et al 1988;Rundle & Hildrew 1990). Although lotic meiofaunal communities have occasionally been examined (e.g., Williams & Hynes 1974;Jones 1986;Shiozawa 1986;Williams 1989;Rundle & Hildrew 1990), only Cox (1988) has investigated the occurrence of meiofauna within aquatic bryophytes.…”

Bionomics of invertebrates within an extensive Potamogeton pectinatus bed of a California marsh

“…When compared with adjacent non-vegetated areas, macrophyte beds contain a greater number of individuals of macroinvertebrates (Maurer & Brusven, 1983;Iversen et al, 1985) and microcrustaceans (Smyly, 1957;Smirnov, 1963). Even the benthos under macrophyte beds may be more diverse than that occurring in bare areas (Schramm & Jirka, 1989), although this is not always the case in rocky streambeds (Rooke, 1984).…”

Bryophytes as a special mesohabitat for meiofauna in a rip‐rapped channel

“…In regulated rip-rapped channels, clumps or carpets of aquatic bryophytes are highly desirable because they increase the instream heterogeneity and biodiversity and support considerably higher numbers of macro-and meiofauna compared to the gravel beds and/or other substrata (Percival and Whitehead, 1929;Hynes, 1961;Maurer and Brusven, 1983;Brusven et al, 1990;Suren, 1991Suren, , 1992Tada and Satake, 1994;Vuori et al, 1999;Chantha et al, 2000). Though the precise role of meiofauna in food chains is currently poorly understood (Robertson et al, 2000b), due to enormous densities and high turnover rates we can expect their role in stream metabolism and self-purification to be significant.…”

“…However, stream bryophytes have been known to harbour enormous numbers of invertebrates (e.g. Percival and Whitehead, 1929;Hynes, 1961;Maurer and Brusven, 1983;Suren, 1991;Brusven et al, 1990;Tada and Satake, 1994;Vuori et al, 1999;Chantha et al, 2000), and therefore the bryorheal should be very attractive to invertebrates in 'rip-rapped' channels. We focused our attention on meiofauna (i.e.…”