, Volume 149, Issue 1, pp 107–114 | Cite as

Preferential feeding by an aquatic consumer mediates non-additive decomposition of speciose leaf litter

  • Christopher M. SwanEmail author
  • Margaret A. Palmer
Plant Animal Interactions


Forest soils and streams receive substantial inputs of detritus from deciduous vegetation. Decay of this material is a critical ecosystem process, recycling nutrients and supporting detrital-based food webs, and has been attributed, in part, to leaf litter species composition. However, research on why speciose leaf litter should degrade differently has relied on a bottom-up approach, embracing interspecific variation in litter chemistry. We hypothesized that preferential feeding by an aquatic detritivore interacts with species-specific leaf palatability and slows decay of speciose leaf litter. We addressed this by offering four single- and mixed-species leaf resources to field densities of a leaf-shredding consumer. Mixing leaf species resulted in slower total leaf decomposition. Decreases in mixed-species decomposition was partly explained by preferential feeding by the consumers in one case, but the lack of preferential feeding in other mixtures suggested an interactive effect of feeding and microbial degradation. Loss of riparian tree biodiversity may have implications for in-stream consumer-resource interactions.


Consumers Decomposition Preferential feeding Riparian Species richness 



We thank Robert Denno, Laura Craig, Holly Menninger, Aaron Moore, Dave Richardson, John Richardson, Bob Smith and Gina Wimp for their comments and editing. Comments from Steve Kohler and two anonymous reviewers greatly improved the text. This research was supported by grants awarded to C.M.S. from the Chesapeake Bay Fund (University of Maryland) and to M.A.P. from the National Science Foundation (DEB-9981376).


  1. Bärlocher F (1985) The role of fungi in the nutrition of stream invertebrates. Bot J Linn Soc 91:83–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Benfield EF (1996) Leaf breakdown in stream ecosystems. In: Hauer FR, Lamberti GA (eds) Methods in stream ecology. Academic, San Diego, pp 579–589Google Scholar
  3. Bernays EA, Bright KL, Gonzalez N, Angel J (1994) Dietary mixing in a generalist herbivore: tests of two hypotheses. Ecology 75:1997–2006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bjorndal KA (1991) Diet mixing: nonadditive interactions of diet items in an omnivorous freshwater turtle. Ecology 72:1234–1241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Campbell IC, Fuchshuber L (1995) Polyphenols, condensed tannins, and processing rates of tropical and temperate leaves in an Australian stream. J N Am Benthol Soc 14:174–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cebrian J (1999) Patterns and the fate of production in plant communities. Am Nat 154:449–468PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cuffney TF, Wallace JB, Lugthart GJ (1990) Experimental evidence quantifying the role of benthic invertebrates in organic matter dynamics of headwater streams. Freshwater Biol 23:281–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cummins KW, Klug MJ (1979) Feeding ecology of stream invertebrates. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 10:147–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cummins KW, Wilzbach MA, Gates DM, Perry JB, Taliaferro WB (1989) Shredders and riparian vegetation. BioScience 39:24–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dangles O, Chauvet E (2003) Effects of stream acidification on fungal biomass in decaying beech leaves and leaf palatability. Water Res 37:533–538PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dieterich M, Anderson NH, Anderson TM (1997) Shredder-collector interactions in temporary streams of western Oregon. Freshwater Biol 38:387–393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ellison AM, Bank MS, Barker-Plotkin AA, Clinton BD, Colburn EA, Elliott K, Ford CR, Foster DR, Jefts S, Kloeppel BD, Knoepp JD, Lovett GM, Malloway J, Mathewson B, McDonald R, Mohan J, Orwig DA, Rodenhouse NL, Sobczak WV, Stinson KA, Snow P, Stone JK, Swan CM, Thompson J, Von Holle B, Webster JR (2005) Loss of foundation species: consequences for the structure and dynamics of forested ecosystems. Front Ecol Environ 3:479–486CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Evans EW, Stevenson AT, Richards DR (1999) Essential versus alternative foods of insect predators: benefits of a mixed diet. Oecologia 121:107–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fisher SG, Likens GE (1973) Energy flow in Bear Brook, New Hampshire: an integrative approach to stream ecosystem metabolism. Ecol Monogr 43:421–439CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Freeland WJ, Janzen DH (1974) Strategies in herbivory by mammals: the role of plant secondary compounds. Am Nat 108:269–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gartner TB, Cardon ZG (2004) Decomposition dynamics in mixed-species leaf litter. Oikos 104:230–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Golladay SW , Webster JR, Benfield EF (1983) Factors affecting food utilization by a leaf shredding aquatic insect: leaf species and conditioning time. Holarctic Ecol 6:157–162Google Scholar
  18. Grattan RM, Suberkropp K (2001) Effects of nutrient enrichment on yellow poplar leaf decomposition and fungal activity in streams. J N Am Benthol Soc 20:33–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hagele B, Rowell-Rahier M (1999) Dietary mixing in three generalist herbivores: nutrient complementation or toxin dilution. Oecologia 119:521–533CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hall RO Jr, Likens GE, Malcom HM (2001) Trophic basis of invertebrate production in 2 streams at the Hubbard Brook Experimental Forest. J N Am Benthol Soc 20:432–447CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hättenschwiler S, Gasser P (2005) Soil animals alter plant litter diversity effects on decomposition. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 102:1519–1524PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Herbst GN (1982) Effects of leaf type on the consumption rates of aquatic detritivores. Hydrobiologia 89:77–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hieber M, Gessner MO (2002) Contribution of stream detritivores, fungi, and bacteria to leaf breakdown based on biomass estimates. Ecology 83:1026–1038CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hooper DU, Vitousek PM (1997) The effects of plant composition and diversity on ecosystem processes. Science 277:1302–1305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hoorens B, Aerts R, Stroetenga M (2003) Does initial litter chemistry explain litter mixture effects on decomposition? Oecologia 137:578–586PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Irons JG III, Oswood MW, Bryant JP (1988) Consumption of leaf detritus by a stream shredder: influence of tree species and nutrient status. Hydrobiologia 160:53–61Google Scholar
  27. Iversen TM (1974) Ingestion and growth in Sericosoma personatum (Trichoptera) in relation to the nitrogen content of ingested leaves. Oikos 25:278–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Johnson SL, Covich AP (1997) Scales of observation of riparian forests and distributions of suspended detritus is a prairie river. Freshwater Biol 37:163–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. McNaughton SJ, Osterfield M, Frank DA, Williams KJ (1989) Ecosystem level patterns of primary productivity and herbivory in terrestrial habitats. Nature 341:142–144PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ostrofsky ML (1997) Relationship between chemical characteristics of autumn-shed leaves and aquatic processing rates. J N Am Benthol Soc 16:750–759CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Paul MJ, Meyer JL (2001) Streams in the urban landscape. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 32:333–365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Petersen RC, Cummins KW (1974) Leaf processing in a woodland stream. Freshwater Biol 4:343–368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Pulliam HR (1975) Diet optimization with nutrient constraints. Am Nat 109:765–768CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Rapport DJ (1980) Optimal foraging for complimentary resources. Am Nat 116:324–346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Ribblet SG, Palmer MA, Coats DW (2005) The importance of bacterivorous protists in the decomposition of stream leaf litter. Freshwater Biol 50:516–526CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Shepard RB, Minshall GW (1984) Role of benthic insect feces in a rocky mountain stream: fecal production and support of consumer growth. Holarctic Ecol 7:119–127Google Scholar
  37. Smock LA, MacGregor CM (1988) Impact of the American chestnut blight on aquatic shredding macroinvertebrates. J N Am Benthol Soc 7:212–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Snyder CD, Young JA, Lemarié DP, Smith DR (2002) Influence of eastern hemlock (Tsuga canadensis) forests on aquatic invertebrate assemblages in headwater streams. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 59:232–275Google Scholar
  39. Sokal RR, Rohlf FJ (1981) Biometry, 2nd edn. W.H. Freeman, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  40. Sponseller RA, Benfield EF (2001) Influences of land-use on leaf breakdown in southern Appalachian headwater streams: a multiple-scale analysis. J N Am Benthol Soc 20:44–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Swan CM, Palmer MA (2004) Leaf diversity alters litter breakdown in a Piedmont stream. J N Am Benthol Soc 23:15–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Swan CM, Palmer MA (2005) Leaf litter diversity leads to non-additivity in stream detritivore colonization dynamics. Oceanol Hydrobiol Stud 34:19–38Google Scholar
  43. Swan CM, Palmer MA (2006) Composition of speciose leaf litter alters stream detritivore growth, feeding activity and leaf breakdown. Oecologia 147:469–478PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Sweeney BW (1993) Effects of streamside vegetation on macroinvertebrate communities of White Clay Creek in eastern North America. Proc Acad Natl Sci Philadelphia 144:291–340Google Scholar
  45. Tillman DC, Moerke AH, Ziehl CL, Lamberti GA (2003) Subsurface hydrology and degree of burial affect mass loss and invertebrate colonisation of leaves in a woodland stream. Freshwater Biol 48:98–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Tilman D, Knops D, Wedin J (1996) Productivity and sustainability influenced by biodiversity in grassland systems. Nature 379:718–720CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Tuchman NC, Wetzel RC, Rier ST, Wahtera KA, Teeri JA (2002) Elevated atmospheric CO2 lowers leaf litter nutritional quality for stream ecosystem food webs. Glob Change Biol 8:163–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Wallace JB, Webster JR, Cuffney TF (1982) Stream detritus dynamics: regulation by invertebrate consumers. Oecologia 53:197–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Wallace JB, Eggert SL, Meyer JL, Webster JR (1997) Multiple trophic levels of a forest stream linked to terrestrial litter inputs. Science 277:102–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Wallace JB, Eggert SL, Meyer JL, Webster JR (1999) Effects of resource limitation on a detrital-based ecosystem. Ecol Monogr 69:409–442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Wardle DA, Bonner KI, Nicholson KS (1997) Biodiversity and plant litter: experimental evidence which does not support the view that enhanced species richness improves ecosystem function. Oikos 79:247–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Webster JR, Benfield EF (1986) Vascular plant breakdown in freshwater ecosystems. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 17:567–594CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Westfall PH, Tobias RD, Rom D, Wolfinger RD, Hochberg Y (1999) Concepts and basic methods for multiple comparisons and tests. In: Multiple comparisons and multiple tests using the SAS system. SAS Institute, pp 13–40Google Scholar
  54. Williams WD (1972) Freshwater isopods (Assellidae) of North America. Biota of freshwater ecosystems identification manual no. 7. U.S.E.P.AGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Geography & Environmental SystemsUniversity of Maryland, Baltimore CountyBaltimoreUSA
  2. 2.Chesapeake Biological LaboratoryUniversity of Maryland Center for Environmental ScienceSolomonsUSA

Personalised recommendations