Size distribution of aquatic invertebrates in two prairie wetlands, with and without fish, with implications for community production

Abstract

1. We compared the size distribution of aquatic invertebrates in two prairie wetlands, one supporting a population of fathead minnows and the other fishless. Both wetlands were sampled in three depth zones on three dates, allowing assessment of temporal and spatial variation. 2. We determined biomass of aquatic invertebrates in 17 log2 size classes, and used these data to develop normalized size spectra. We also coupled size distributions with an allometric model to estimate relative production at the community level. 3. The composition of the invertebrate communities differed greatly between sites, and invertebrate biomass was higher in nearly all size classes in the fishless wetland. Intercepts of normalized size spectra were significantly different between wetlands, but slopes generally were not, indicating differences in standing‐stock biomass but similar size structures between the two invertebrate communities. Higher standing‐stock biomass in the fishless wetland resulted in higher relative production per unit area, but similar size distributions resulted in similar mass‐specific production (P/B) between wetlands. 4. Our results indicate that invertebrate communities in prairie wetlands may have relatively consistent size structures in spite of large differences in community composition and standing‐stock biomass. We hypothesize that the observed differences are because of predation by the minnow population and/or differences in the macrophyte communities between the two sites. However, the relative importance of macrophytes and fish predation in structuring invertebrate communities in prairie wetlands is poorly known.

Richness of littoral macroinvertebrate communities in mountain ponds from NW Spain: what factors does it depend on?

“…The habitat heterogeneity classic hypothesis proposes that an increase in the number of habitats leads to an increase in species diversity in a landscape (MacArthur, and MacArthur 1961) because of an expansion in the number of partitionable niche dimensions (Willig 2000). On the other hand, several researches in Europe, North America and Oceania have reported negative consequences of fish introductions on macroinver- tebrate communities, whether on their composition or on richness (Crowder, and Cooper 1982;Carlisle, and Hawkins 1998;Oertli et al 2001;Knapp et al 2001;Zimmer et al 2001;Tate, and Hershey 2003). Similar results have been reported in Spanish lakes and ponds after the introduction of lake trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) in Peñalara Lake (Toro et al 2006) or of rainbow trout (Onchorhynchus mykiss) in mountain ponds of the Iberian System (Martínez-Sanz et al 2010).…”

“…Several studies document clear relationships between composition or richness of macroinvertebrate communities and a variety of ecologically relevant gradients in ponds, such as hydroperiod (Collinson et al 1995), surface area (Céréghino et al 2008), water chemistry (Friday 1987;Boix et al 2008), pond connectivity Oertli et al 2008), habitat heterogeneity (Della Bella et al 2005), presence of large predators (Zimmer et al 2001) and altitude (Lin et al 2006). However, only a few of them have specifically addressed the issue of which of a large set of factors really determine richness of ponds (see Rundle et al 2002), and only rarely in alpine systems (Hinden et al 2005;Füreder et al 2006;Collado, and De Mendoza 2009).…”

Effects of hydrologic connectivity on aquatic macroinvertebrate assemblages in different marsh types

“…fish, dragonfly) occur. Odonata may require a relatively long hydroperiod for the full development of nymphs even though they appear in shallow water (Wissinger 1988, Zimmer et al 2001.…”

Habitat selection and sampling design for ecological assessment of heterogeneous ponds using macroinvertebrates

“…Fish, for example, may exert a strong predation pressure on macroinvertebrates (Bennet and Streams, 1986;Zimmer et al, 2001). However, in the study ponds the harsh environmental conditions (e.g.…”

“…The importance of vegetation is connected to its role as food, substrate and refuge for organisms (Crowder and Cooper, 1982;Persson and Eklov, 1995;Cattaneo et al, 1998;Jones et al, 2000;Zimmer et al, 2001). For macroinvertebrates, for example, abundance, biomass and body size may be driven by vegetation structure and availability (van den Berg et al, 1997;Diehl and Kornijo´w, 1998;Cheruvelil et al, 2002;McAbendroth et al, 2005).…”