, Volume 149, Issue 4, pp 709–717 | Cite as

Do small-scale exclosure/enclosure experiments predict the effects of large-scale extirpation of freshwater migratory fauna?

  • Effie A. GreathouseEmail author
  • Catherine M. Pringle
  • William H. McDowell
Community Ecology


A variety of theoretical and empirical studies indicate that the abilities of small-scale experiments to predict responses to large-scale perturbations vary. Small-scale experiments often do not predict the directions of large-scale responses, and relatively few empirical studies have examined whether small-scale experiments predict the magnitudes of large-scale responses. Here we present an empirical example of small-scale manipulations predicting not only the directions but also the magnitudes of the effects of whole-catchment, decades-long decimation of migratory freshwater shrimp populations. In streams of Puerto Rico (USA), we used arena sizes of < 2 m2 in 1- to 4-week exclosure/enclosure experiments. Effects of small-scale experiments largely matched those of large-scale shrimp loss above dams for a variety of response variables (abiotic and biotic factors including epilithic fine sediments, algae and organic matter, and invertebrate grazers, detritivores, and predators). The results of our extrapolation contrast with studies of small- versus large-scale perturbations in the temperate zone. Our findings are likely explained by: a set of response variables that are more dominated by within-patch processes than exchange processes, an experimental manipulation that encompassed the characteristic scales of response variables, our use of open arenas lacking cage artifacts, and/or our combination of two distinct experimental approaches (exclosures and enclosures). Based on our study design, we suggest that extrapolation across experimental scales can be greatly enhanced by embedding open arenas within large-scale conditions that represent all treatment levels.


Freshwater shrimps Puerto Rico Spatial scales Temporal scales Tropical stream 



We thank G. Benison, J. Chastant, A. Covich, L. Erickson, M. Freeman, A. Garman, S. Greenstone, R. Hardy, M. Hunter, J. Merriam, J. Meyer, O. Sarnelle, K. Smith, B. Wallace, and anonymous reviewers for assistance and manuscript comments. Support came from the National Science Foundation (NSF) Luquillo LTER (BSR 8811902, DEB9411973, DEB0080538, DEB0218039), a NSF Doctoral Dissertation Improvement Grant (DEB 0308543), the US Department of Agriculture (grants 10-21-RR551-141, 10-21-RR250-109); and the NSF Graduate Fellowship program (fellowship to EAG). Experiments complied with current US law.

Supplementary material

442_2006_472_MOESM1_ESM.doc (7.2 mb)
Supplementary material


  1. Bergstrom U, Englund G (2004) Spatial scale, heterogeneity and functional responses. J Animal Ecol 73:487–493CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Brown JH, Munger JC (1985) Experimental manipulation of a desert rodent community: food addition and species removal. Ecology 65:1545–1563CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brown GG, Norris RH, Maher WA, Thomas K (2000) Use of electricity to inhibit macroinvertebrate grazing of epilithon in experimental treatments in flowing waters. J North Am Bentholog Soc 19:176–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Buzby K (1998) The effect of disturbance on the ecological efficiency of a small tropical stream. Ph.D dissertation, College of Environmental Science and Forestry. State University of New York, Syracuse, New York, p 130Google Scholar
  5. Carpenter SR (1996) Microcosm experiments have limited relevance for community and ecosystem ecology. Ecology 77:677–680CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cooper SD, Walde SJ, Peckarsky BL (1990) Prey exchange rates and the impact of predators on prey populations in streams. Ecology 71:1503–1514CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cooper SD, Diehl S, Kratz K, Sarnelle O (1998) Implications of scale for patterns and processes in stream ecology. Aust J Ecol 23:27–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Covich AP, McDowell WH (1996) The stream community. In: Reagan DP, Waide RB (eds) The food web of a tropical rain forest. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 433–460Google Scholar
  9. Englund G (1997) Importance of spatial scale and prey movements in predator caging experiments. Ecology 78:2316–2325Google Scholar
  10. Englund G (1999) Effects of fish on the local abundance of crayfish in stream pools. Oikos 87:48–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Englund G, Cooper SD (2003) Scale effects and extrapolation in ecological experiments. Adv Ecol Res 33:161–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Englund G, Hambäck PA (2004) Scale-dependence of movement rates in stream invertebrates. Oikos 105:31–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Englund G, Cooper SD, Sarnelle O (2001) Application of a model of scale dependence to quantify scale domains in open predation experiments. Oikos 92:501–514CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Flecker AS (1996) Ecosystem engineering by a dominant detritivore in a diverse tropical stream. Ecology 77:1845–1854CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gardner RH, Kemp WM, Kennedy VS, Petersen JE (2001) Scaling relations in experimental ecology. Columbia University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  16. Gotelli NJ, Ellison AM (2004) A primer of ecological statistics. Sinauer, SunderlandGoogle Scholar
  17. Greathouse EA (2005) Large dams and migratory biota affect tropical stream ecosystems at different scales in Puerto Rico. Ph.D dissertation, Institute of Ecology. University of Georgia, AthensGoogle Scholar
  18. Greathouse EA, Pringle CM (2005) A sampler for stream macroinvertebrates and organic matter occurring on boulders and bedrock in pools. Verh Int Ver Theor Angew Limnol 29:975–978Google Scholar
  19. Greathouse EA, Pringle CM (2006) Does the river continuum concept apply on a tropical island? Longitudinal variation in a Puerto Rican stream. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 63:134–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Greathouse EA, Pringle CM, McDowell WH, Holmquist JG (2006) Indirect upstream effects of dams: consequences of migratory consumer extirpation in Puerto Rico. Ecol Appl 16:339–352PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Holmquist JG, Schmidt-Gengenbach JM, Yoshioka BB (1998) High dams and marine-freshwater linkages: effects on native and introduced fauna in the Caribbean. Conserv Biol 12:621–630CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Huryn AD, Wallace JB (2000) Life history and production of stream insects. Annu Rev Entomol 45:83–110PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Huston MA (1999) Microcosm experiments have limited relevance for community and ecosystem ecology: synthesis of comments. Ecology 80:1088–1089Google Scholar
  24. Kemp WM, Petersen JE, Gardner RH (2001) Scale-dependence and the problem of extrapolation. In: Gardner RH, Kemp WM, Kennedy VS, Petersen JE (eds) Scaling relations in experimental ecology. Columbia University Press, New York, pp 3–57Google Scholar
  25. Kohler SL, Wiley MJ (1997) Pathogen outbreaks reveal large-scale effects of competition in stream communities. Ecology 78:2164–2176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Loeb SL (1981) An in situ method for measuring the primary productivity and standing crop of the epilithic periphyton community in lentic systems. Limnol Oceanogr 26:394–399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. March JG, Pringle CM, Townsend MJ, Wilson AI (2002) Effects of freshwater shrimp assemblages on benthic communities along an altitudinal gradient of a tropical island stream. Freshw Biol 47:377–390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Melbourne BA, Chesson P (2005) Scaling up population dynamics: integrating theory and data. Oecologia 145:178–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Peckarsky BL, Cooper SD, McIntosh AR (1997) Extrapolating from individual behavior to populations and communities in streams. J North Am Bentholog Soc 16:375–390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Petersen JE et al (2003) Multiscale experiments in coastal ecology: improving realism and advancing theory. BioScience 53:1181–1197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Pringle CM, Blake GA (1994) Quantitative effects of atyid shrimp (Decapoda: Atyidae) on the depositional environment in a tropical stream: use of electricity for experimental exclusion. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 51:1443–1450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Pringle CM, Hemphill N, McDowell WH, Bednarek A, March JG (1999) Linking species and ecosystems: different biotic assemblages cause interstream differences in organic matter. Ecology 80:1860–1872Google Scholar
  33. Rastetter EB, King AW, Cosby BJ, Hornberger GM, Oneill RV, Hobbie JE (1992) Aggregating fine-scale ecological knowledge to model coarser-scale attributes of ecosystems. Ecol Appl 2:55–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Sarnelle O (1997) Daphnia effects on microzooplankton: comparisons of enclosure and whole-lake responses. Ecology 78:913–928Google Scholar
  35. Schindler DW (1998) Replication versus realism: the need for ecosystem-scale experiments. Ecosystems 1:323–334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Schmitz OJ (2005) Scaling from plot experiments to landscapes: studying grasshoppers to inform forest ecosystem management. Oecologia 145:224–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Slavik K, Peterson BJ, Deegan LA, Bowden WB, Hershey AE, Hobbie JE (2004) Long-term responses of the Kuparuk River ecosystem to phosphorus fertilization. Ecology 85:939–954CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Taylor BW, McIntosh AR, Peckarsky BL (2002) Reach-scale manipulations show invertebrate grazers depress algal resources in streams. Limnol Oceanogr 47:893–899CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Tilman D (1989) Ecological experimentation: strengths and conceptual problems. In: Likens GE (ed) Long-term studies in ecology: approaches and alternatives. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 136–157Google Scholar
  40. Wiseman SW, Cooper SD, Dudley TL (1993) The effects of trout on epibenthic odonate naiads in stream pools. Freshw Biol 30:133–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Effie A. Greathouse
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Catherine M. Pringle
    • 1
  • William H. McDowell
    • 3
  1. 1.Institute of EcologyUniversity of GeorgiaAthensUSA
  2. 2.Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Nash Hall Room #104Oregon State UniversityCorvalisUSA
  3. 3.Department of Natural ResourcesUniversity of New HampshireDurhamUSA

Personalised recommendations