Insights into the importance of nematode prey for chironomid larvae

Ptatscheck, Christoph; Kreuzinger‐Janik, Bianca; Putzki, Henrike; Traunspurger, Walter

doi:10.1007/s10750-015-2246-9

Cited by 20 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 52 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In this study, we showed that most nematode species were tolerant to concentrations of imidacloprid at least 60 times higher than 5.75 µg/L, the 96‐hr LC50 value for chironomids exposed to imidacloprid. Thus, we might reasonably expect the effect of imidacloprid on a typical freshwater benthic community to be an increase in nematode numbers, since chironomids are notorious competitors and predators of nematodes (Ptatscheck, Kreuzinger‐Janik, Putzki, & Traunspurger, ). In this study, we compared sensitivities with mortality as the end‐point criterion.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Tolerance of free‐living nematode species to imidacloprid and diuron

Neury‐Ormanni

Doose

Majdi

et al. 2019

Invertebrate Biology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The neonicotinoid imidacloprid and the herbicide diuron are long‐lived pesticides commonly detected in European rivers. Both have lethal as well as sublethal effects on aquatic invertebrates dwelling in streambeds. Here, we performed lethality tests of imidacloprid and diuron on seven species of widespread, free‐living nematodes and the model organism Caenorhabditis elegans. Our results indicated that nematodes were relatively tolerant to both pesticides, and only two species (Diploscapter coronatus and Plectus opisthocirculus) showed mortality at high nominal concentrations of imidacloprid (119 mg/L) and diuron (33 mg/L). The changes observed in nematode community structure after imidacloprid and diuron exposure may have been related to trade‐offs between sensitivity to toxicants and changes in competitive abilities of the species. While the former can be tested using single‐species tests, we recommend that the latter be tested in further experiments using multispecies communities. Our results suggest that the presence of these pesticides could favor nematodes over other meiofaunal groups found in freshwater sediments.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Tolerance of free‐living nematode species to imidacloprid and diuron

Neury‐Ormanni

Doose

Majdi

et al. 2019

Invertebrate Biology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For instance, meiofaunal prey are much more ingested by flatworm and chironomids, in experiments using no sediment in comparison to experiments using complex substrates where meiofauna could seek refuge (Beier et al, 2004;Hohberg & Traunspurger, 2005;Ptatscheck et al, 2015;Kreuzinger-Janik et al, 2018, 2019. Nevertheless, some predators can followup with their prey as Kreuzinger-Janik et al (2019) showed; the addition of moss did not affect the food intake of predatory, moss-dwelling nematodes.…”

Section: Analyzed Thementioning

confidence: 98%

“…Therefore, smaller flatworm species showed higher nematode feeding rates on sediments than larger species. By contrast, for chironomids, which are endobenthic organisms, feeding on nematodes is more efficient in sandy than in coarse-grained substrates (Ptatscheck et al, 2015).…”

Section: Analyzed Thementioning

confidence: 99%

“…For juvenile nematodes as prey, the maximum ingestion was by Polycelis tenuis, which consumed 927 C. elegans in 3 h (Kreuzinger-Janik et al, 2018). Ptatscheck et al (2015) FR functional response, FS field study in natural environments, FE field enclosures, LE laboratory experiment, GA gut analysis, MG investigations on the mortality and growth of the fish, n.i. not investigated Santiago et al (2003) feeding behavior of the chironomid larvae Chironomus riparius on nematode prey.…”

Section: Quantification Of Ingested Meiofaunamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In addition to the vertical distribution of meiofauna and differences in the feeding mechanisms of their consumers, the relative absence of soft-bodied taxa may be due to their fast digestion. Indeed, studies have shown that soft-bodied meiofauna such as nematodes are quickly (20 min up to hours) ingested beyond recognition by fish and invertebrates (Alheit & Scheibel, 1982;Hofsten et al, 1983;Scholz et al, 1991;Muschiol et al, 2008a;Ptatscheck et al, 2015). Consequently, studies that have focused only on data from the digestive tracts of larger organisms have probably underestimated the amount of meiofauna in their diet, and other potential consumers may not have been recognized (Schückel et al, 2012;Weber & Traunspurger, 2014a;Weber et al, 2018).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Are meiofauna a standard meal for macroinvertebrates and juvenile fish?

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Due to the lack of empirical data, meiofauna are often underestimated as prey for freshwater animals and are commonly regarded as trophic dead ends. Here we present a synthesis of recent evidence showing that meiofauna are significant as prey, not only for many benthic macroinvertebrates (chironomids, shrimps, and flatworms) but also for juveniles of widespread freshwater bottom-feeding fish species (e.g., carps, gudgeons, catfish). In this review, we focus on the following questions: (1) Which groups consume meiofauna? (2) In what amounts are meiofauna ingested? (3) Does predatory feeding behavior influence natural meiofaunal communities? (4) Are meiofauna organisms actively ingested or are they bycatch? To answer these questions, we focused on studies that included gut/feces analyses of potential predators and empirical investigations conducted in the laboratory (e.g., functional response experiments and microcosm studies) and in the field (enclosure/ exclosure settings). We were able to demonstrate that meiofauna taxa are consumed in high numbers by a wide range of larger organisms. This predation can significantly shape meiofaunal communities, by reducing the abundance, biomass, and production of certain members of the investigated assemblages. However, in most cases, it remains unclear if there is an active predation of meiofauna or a passive ingestion by unselective feeding.

show abstract

Meiofauna in stream habitats: temporal dynamics of abundance, biomass and secondary production in different substrate microhabitats in a first-order stream

2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Meiofaunal abundance, biomass and secondary production were investigated over 13 months in an unpolluted first-order stream. Four microhabitats were considered: sediment and the biofilms on dead wood, macrophytes and leaf litter. The relative contribution of the microhabitats to secondary production and the influence of environmental factors on meiofaunal density distribution were estimated. We expected (1) meiofaunal abundance and biomass to exhibit seasonal patterns, with more pronounced seasonal fluctuations on macrophytes and leaf litter than in the other microhabitats, (2) annual secondary production to be highest in sediment; however, the relative contribution of the microhabitats to monthly secondary production would change during the year, and (3) a bottom-up driven influence on meiofaunal density distribution in the microhabitats. Meiofaunal annual mean abundance, biomass and secondary production were 7–14 times higher in sediment and on dead wood than on macrophytes and leaf litter. Significant seasonal patterns described the meiofaunal abundance in sediment and on leaf litter as well as the biomass in sediment, on macrophytes and leaf litter. Organisms in sediment and on dead wood contributed 48 and 43%, respectively, to secondary production m−2, but in regard to the stream area covered by the microhabitats, sediment had the highest share (80%). Significant determinants of the density distribution were AFDM, protozoans, bacteria and Chl-a, which influenced all meiofaunal groups. Our study clearly indicates that meiofaunal organisms in sediment and on dead wood have a remarkable share on total secondary production of lotic systems which is especially relevant for forested low-order streams.

show abstract

Insights into the importance of nematode prey for chironomid larvae

Cited by 20 publications

References 52 publications

Tolerance of free‐living nematode species to imidacloprid and diuron

Tolerance of free‐living nematode species to imidacloprid and diuron

Are meiofauna a standard meal for macroinvertebrates and juvenile fish?

Meiofauna in stream habitats: temporal dynamics of abundance, biomass and secondary production in different substrate microhabitats in a first-order stream

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About