Seasonal Analysis of Aquatic and Terrestrial Invertebrate Supply to Streams With Grassland and Deciduous Riparian Vegetation

Dineen, Gerard; Harrison, Simon; Giller, Paul S.

doi:10.3318/bioe.2007.107.3.167

Cited by 9 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 54 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Dietary studies of salmonids have revealed that during summer, terrestrial invertebrates may exceed 50% of the total diet biomass (Zadorina 1988;Bridcut & Giller 1995;Wipfli 1997;Nakano et al 1999a,b;Webster & Hartman 2005). The terrestrial resource is presumably quite important for salmonids as the seasonal peak in invertebrate input often corresponds with a parallel decrease in benthic invertebrate abundance (Hynes 1970;Cloe & Garman 1996;Dineen et al 2007b;Er} os et al 2008). Moreover, this peak occurs at a time when stream temperatures are high, thereby corresponding to a period when metabolic costs are high.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Functional response and size‐dependent foraging on aquatic and terrestrial prey by brown trout (Salmo trutta L.)

Gustafsson

Bergman

Greenberg

2010

Ecology of Freshwater Fish

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Terrestrial invertebrate subsidies are believed to be important energy sources for drift-feeding salmonids. Despite this, size-specific use of and efficiency in procuring this resource have not been studied to any great extent. Therefore, we measured the functional responses of three size classes of wild brown trout Salmo trutta (0+, 1+ and ‡2+) when fed either benthic-(Gammarus sp.) or surface-drifting prey (Musca domestica) in laboratory experiments. To test for size-specific prey preferences, both benthic and surface prey were presented simultaneously by presenting the fish with a constant density of benthic prey and a variable density of surface prey. The results showed that the functional response of 0+ trout differed significantly from the larger size classes, with 0+ fish having the lowest capture rates. Capture rates did not differ significantly between prey types. In experiments when both prey items were presented simultaneously, capture rate differed significantly between size classes, with larger trout having higher capture rates than smaller trout. However, capture rates within each size class did not change with prey density or prey composition. The two-prey experiments also showed that 1+ trout ate significantly more surface-drifting prey than 0+ trout. In contrast, there was no difference between 0+ and ‡2+ trout. Analyses of the vertical position of the fish in the water column corroborated size-specific foraging results: larger trout remained in the upper part of the water column between attacks on surface prey more often than smaller trout, which tended to seek refuge at the bottom between attacks. These size-specific differences in foraging and vertical position suggest that larger trout may be able to use surface-drifting prey to a greater extent than smaller conspecifics.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Functional response and size‐dependent foraging on aquatic and terrestrial prey by brown trout (Salmo trutta L.)

Gustafsson

Bergman

Greenberg

2010

Ecology of Freshwater Fish

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Baetidae were consistently present in greater numbers in unshaded sites regardless of stream size. Densities of other common macroinvertebrates present in the benthos remained quite constant across all sites within each sampling season, except for the predominately shredder stoneflies (Graf et al 2009;Feeley et al 2016) Leuctridae and Nemouridae, which as expected (Dineen et al 2007), were more common within shaded sites. This was possibly because of lower densities recorded in the autumn sampling period.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 58%

“…It is thought that drift density is also dependent on season. By contrast, the highest input of terrestrial invertebrates was found to be in early summer when there was also a high abundance of aquatic invertebrates (Romero et al 2005;Romaniszyn et al 2007), although season had a minimal effect on terrestrial-derived drift (Dineen et al 2007). By contrast, the highest input of terrestrial invertebrates was found to be in early summer when there was also a high abundance of aquatic invertebrates (Romero et al 2005;Romaniszyn et al 2007), although season had a minimal effect on terrestrial-derived drift (Dineen et al 2007).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 87%

Riparian vegetation management for water temperature regulation: implications for the production of macroinvertebrate prey of salmonids

Ryan

Kelly‐Quinn

2016

Fisheries Management Eco

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The effect of riparian vegetation on the seasonal availability of macroinvertebrate prey for salmonids was examined. Although prey composition changed significantly between sampling seasons, overall prey density remained similar. It is often assumed that there is greater benthic production within streams without riparian vegetation, but this assumption was found to be dependent on stream size. The presence of riparian vegetation increased benthic macroinvertebrate density, but only in larger streams. Greater densities of prey of terrestrial origin were found in the drift of streams with riparian cover but only in spring. An unforeseen contributor to potential prey items for salmonids in streams with riparian vegetation was the increased presence of drifting prey of aquatic origin. The results further support riparian management as a viable tool for regulating instream temperatures without impacting on macroinvertebrate density. The presence of riparian vegetation can even increase salmonid prey availability in some instances.

show abstract

“…Parallel with studies reporting that forested riparian zones generally have higher inputs of falling terrestrial invertebrates than unforested riparian zones [21],[22], other descriptive studies have reported that during some parts of the year terrestrial invertebrates are frequently consumed by salmonids and may contribute >50% of total food intake [13]–[20],[23]. Terrestrial invertebrates may be beneficial for stream fish for several reasons.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 96%

Forest-Stream Linkages: Effects of Terrestrial Invertebrate Input and Light on Diet and Growth of Brown Trout (Salmo trutta) in a Boreal Forest Stream

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Subsidies of energy and material from the riparian zone have large impacts on recipient stream habitats. Human-induced changes, such as deforestation, may profoundly affect these pathways. However, the strength of individual factors on stream ecosystems is poorly understood since the factors involved often interact in complex ways. We isolated two of these factors, manipulating the flux of terrestrial input and the intensity of light in a 2×2 factorial design, where we followed the growth and diet of two size-classes of brown trout (Salmo trutta) and the development of periphyton, grazer macroinvertebrates, terrestrial invertebrate inputs, and drift in twelve 20 m long enclosed stream reaches in a five-month-long experiment in a boreal coniferous forest stream. We found that light intensity, which was artificially increased 2.5 times above ambient levels, had an effect on grazer density, but no detectable effect on chlorophyll a biomass. We also found a seasonal effect on the amount of drift and that the reduction of terrestrial prey input, accomplished by covering enclosures with transparent plastic, had a negative impact on the amount of terrestrial invertebrates in the drift. Further, trout growth was strongly seasonal and followed the same pattern as drift biomass, and the reduction of terrestrial prey input had a negative effect on trout growth. Diet analysis was consistent with growth differences, showing that trout in open enclosures consumed relatively more terrestrial prey in summer than trout living in covered enclosures. We also predicted ontogenetic differences in the diet and growth of old and young trout, where we expected old fish to be more affected by the terrestrial prey reduction, but we found little evidence of ontogenetic differences. Overall, our results showed that reduced terrestrial prey inputs, as would be expected from forest harvesting, shaped differences in the growth and diet of the top predator, brown trout.

show abstract

Seasonal Analysis of Aquatic and Terrestrial Invertebrate Supply to Streams With Grassland and Deciduous Riparian Vegetation

Cited by 9 publications

References 54 publications

Functional response and size‐dependent foraging on aquatic and terrestrial prey by brown trout (Salmo trutta L.)

Functional response and size‐dependent foraging on aquatic and terrestrial prey by brown trout (Salmo trutta L.)

Riparian vegetation management for water temperature regulation: implications for the production of macroinvertebrate prey of salmonids

Forest-Stream Linkages: Effects of Terrestrial Invertebrate Input and Light on Diet and Growth of Brown Trout (Salmo trutta) in a Boreal Forest Stream

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About