, Volume 151, Issue 1, pp 69–81 | Cite as

Effects of the herbivorous minnow, southern redbelly dace (Phoxinus erythrogaster), on stream productivity and ecosystem structure

  • Katie N. BertrandEmail author
  • Keith B. Gido
Ecosystem Ecology


We used field and mesocosm experiments to measure effects of southern redbelly dace (Phoxinus erythrogaster), a grazing minnow, on stream ecosystem structure and function. Ecosystem structure was quantified as algal filament length, algal biomass, size distribution of particulate organic matter (POM), algal assemblage structure, and invertebrate assemblage structure, whereas ecosystem function was based on gross and net primary productivity. Our experiments showed that moderate densities of Phoxinus temporarily reduced mean algal filament length and mean size of POM relative to fishless controls. However, there was no detectable effect on algal biomass or ecosystem primary productivity. Several factors could explain the lack of effect of Phoxinus on primary productivity including increased algal production efficiency in grazed treatments or increased grazing by other organisms in fishless treatments. The inability of Phoxinus to reduce algal biomass and system productivity contrasts with experimental results based on other grazing minnows, such as the central stoneroller (Campostoma anomalum), and questions the generality of grazer effects in stream ecosystems. However, environmental venue and the spatial and temporal scale of ecosystem measurements can greatly influence the outcome of these experiments.


Grazers Prairie streams Stream metabolism 



Angie Lickteig, Nate Franssen, and Mike Peterson assisted in the field and laboratory on all three of the experiments. Jeff Falke, Layne Knight, and Nate Franssen helped maintain experimental streams and conduct experiments. This manuscript was greatly improved by the comments and suggestions of Walter Dodds, Nate Franssen, Joel Trexler, and two anonymous reviewers. Jackie Howe assisted with the summer 2003 experiment and data entry. Funding was provided by Konza Prairie Long-Term Ecological Research Program, Kansas Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research, and the National Science Foundation, (DEB-0416126).

Supplementary material

442_2006_569_MOESM1_ESM.doc (56 kb)
Supplementary material


  1. Akaike H (1974) A new look at the statistical model identification. IEEE Trans Autom Control AC-19:716–723CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alvarez M, Peckarsky BL (2005) How do grazers affect periphyton heterogeneity in streams? Oecologia 142:576–587PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bott TL (1996) Primary productivity and community respiration. In: Hauer FR, Lamberti GA (eds) Methods in stream ecology. Academic Press, New York, pp 533–556Google Scholar
  4. Bott TL, Brock JT, Baatrup-Pedersen A, Chambers PA, Dodds WK, Himbeault KT, Lawrence JR, Planas D, Snyder E, Wolfaardt GM (1997) An evaluation of techniques for measuring periphyton metabolism in chambers. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 54:715–725CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. ter Braak CJ, Simlauer P (2002) Canoco for Windows version 4.5. Biometris–Plant Research International, WageningenGoogle Scholar
  6. Cardinale BJ, Palmer MA, Collins SL (2002) Species diversity enhances ecosystem functioning through interspecific facilitation. Nature 415:426–429PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Carpenter SR (1996) Microcosm experiments have limited relevance for community and ecosystem ecology. Ecology 77:677–680CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Carpenter SR, Kitchell JF (1984) Plankton community structure and limnetic primary production. Am Nat 124:159–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cooper DC (1973) Enhancement of net primary productivity by herbivore grazing in aquatic laboratory microcosms. Limnol Oceanogr 18:31–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cummins KW (1962) An evaluation of some techniques for the collection and analysis of benthic samples with special emphasis on lotic waters. Am Mid Nat 67:477–504CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Evans-White MA, Dodds WK (2001) A comparison of the trophic ecology of the crayfishes [Orconectes nais (Faxon) and Orconectes neglectus (Faxon)] and the central stoneroller minnow [Campostoma anomalum (Rafinesque)]: omnivory in a tallgrass prairie stream. Hydrobiologia 462:131–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Evans-White MA, Dodds WK (2003) Ecosystem significance of crayfishes and stonerollers in a prairie stream: functional differences between co-occurring omnivores. J N Am Benthol Soc 22:423–441CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Felley JD, Hill LG (1983) Multivariate assessment of environmental preferences of cyprinid fishes of the Illinois river, oklahoma. Am Midl Nat 109:209–221 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Flecker AS, Taylor BW, Bernhardt ES, Hood JM, Cornwell WK, Cassatt SR, Vanni MJ, Altman NS (2002) Interactions between herbivorous fishes and limiting nutrients in a tropical stream ecosystem. Ecology 83:1831–1844Google Scholar
  15. Forbes SA, Richardson RE (1920) The fishes of illinois. Illinois Department of Registration and Education, Division of Natural History Survey, Champaign, Ill.Google Scholar
  16. Gelwick FP (2000) Grazer identity changes the spatial distribution of cascading trophic effects in stream pools. Oecologia 125:573–583CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gelwick FP, Matthews WJ (1992) Effects of an algivorous minnow on temperate stream ecosystem properties. Ecology 73:1630–1645CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ghilarov AM (2000) Ecosystem functioning and intrinsic value of biodiversity. Oikos 90:408–412CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gido KB, Matthews WJ (2001) Ecosystem effects of water column minnows in experimental streams. Oecologia 126:247–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gray LJ, Dodds WK (1998) Structure and dynamics of aquatic communities. In: Knapp AK, Briggs JM, Hartnett DC, Collins SL (eds) Grassland dynamics: long-term ecological research in tallgrass prairie. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 177–189Google Scholar
  21. Gray LJ, Macpherson GL, Koelliker JK, Dodds WK (1998) Hydrology and aquatic chemistry. In: Knapp AK, Briggs JM, Hartnett DC, Collins SL (eds) Grassland dynamics: long-term ecological research in tallgrass prairie. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 159–176Google Scholar
  22. Hill LG, Jenssen TA (1968) A meristic study of the redbelly dace, Chrosomus erythrogaster (cyprinidae), from a stream in southern Oklahoma. Southwest Nat 13:55–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hill WR, Boston HL, Steinman AD (1992) Grazers and nutrients simultaneously limit lotic primary productivity. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 49:504–512Google Scholar
  24. Hillebrand H (2002) Top–down versus bottom–up control of autotrophic biomass–a meta-analysis on experiments with periphyton. J North Am Benthol Soc 21:349–369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Krebs CJ (2001) Ecology: the experimental analysis of distribution and abundance. Cummings, San Francisco, Calif.Google Scholar
  26. Lawton JH (1994) What do species do in ecosystems? Oikos 71:367–374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lawton JH, May RM (1995) Extinction rates. Oxford University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  28. Lennon RE, Parker PS (1960) The stoneroller, Campostoma anomalum (rafinesque), in great smoky mountains national park. Trans Am Fish Soc 89:263–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Liess A, Hillebrand H (2004) Invited review: direct and indirect effects in herbivore–periphyton interactions. Arch Hydrobiol 159:433–453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Matthews WJ (1998) Patterns in freshwater fish ecology. Chapman & Hall, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  31. Matthews WJ, Power ME, Stewart AJ (1986) Depth distribution of grazing scars in an ozark stream. Environ Biol Fish 17:291–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. McKee PM, Parker BJ (1982) The distribution, biology, and status of the fishes Campostoma anomalum, Clinostomus elongatus, Notropis photogenis (cyprinidae), and Fundulus notatus (cyprinodontidae) in Canada. Can J Zool 60:1347–1358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Miller RJ, Robinson HW (2004) Fishes of Oklahoma. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, Okla.Google Scholar
  34. Milliken GA, DE Johnson (2002) Analysis of messy data, vol III. Analysis of covariance. Chapman & Hall LondonGoogle Scholar
  35. Mulholland PJ, Steinman AD, Palumbo AV, Elwood JW, Kirschtel DB (1991) Role of nutrient cycling and herbivory in regulating periphyton communities in laboratory streams. Ecology 72:966–982CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Napolitano GE, Shantha NC, Hill WR, Luttrell AE (1996) Lipid and fatty acid compositions of stream periphyton and stoneroller minnows (Campostoma anomalum): trophic and environmental implications. Arch Hydrobiol 137:211–225Google Scholar
  37. Newbold JD, O’Neill RV, Elwood JW, Van Winkle W (1982) Nutrient spiralling in streams: implications for nutrient limitation and invertebrate activity. Am Nat 120:628–652CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Nystrom P, Abjornsson K (2000) Effects of fish chemical cues on the interactions between tadpoles and crayfish. Oikos 88:181–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. O’Brien J (2006) Controls of nitrogen spiraling in Kansas streams. PhD dissertation, Kansas State University, Kan.Google Scholar
  40. Owens M (1974) Measurements on non-isolated natural communities in running waters. In: Vollenweider RA (ed) A manual on methods for measuring primary production in aquatic environments. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 111–119Google Scholar
  41. Peckarsky BL, Taylor BW, McIntosh AR, McPeek MA, Lytle DA (2001) Variation in mayfly size at metamorphosis as a developmental response to risk of predation. Ecology 82:740–757CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Phillips GL (1969) Diet of minnow Chosomus erythrogaster (Cyprinidae) in a Minnesota stream. Am Midl Nat 82:99–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Pimm SL, Russell GJ, Gittleman JL, Brooks TM (1995) The future of biodiversity. Science 269:347–350PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Power ME (1990) Resource enhancement by indirect effects of grazers: armored catfish, algae, and sediment. Ecology 71:897–904CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Power ME, Matthews WJ (1983) Algae-grazing minnows (Campostoma anomalum), piscivorous bass (micropterus sp.), and the distribution of attached algae in a small prairie-margin stream. Oecologia 60:328–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Power ME, Matthews WJ, Stewart AJ (1985) Grazing minnows, piscivorous bass, and stream algae: dynamics of a strong interaction. Ecology 66:1448–1456CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Power ME, Stewart AJ, Matthews WJ (1988) Grazer control of algae in an Ozark mountain stream: effects of short-term exclusion. Ecology 69:1894–1898CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Rosenfeld JS (2002) Logical fallacies in the assessment of functional redundancy. Conserv Biol 16:837–839CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Rosenzweig ML (1999) Heeding the warning in biodiversity’s basic law. Science 284:276–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Sala OE, Chapin III FS, Armesto JJ, Berlow EL, Bloomfield J, Dirzo R, Huber-Sanwald E, Huenneke LF, Jackson RB, Kinzig A, Leemans R, Lodge DM, Mooney HA, Oesterheld M, Poff NL, Sykes MT, Walker BH, Walker M, Wall DH (2000) Global biodiversity scenarios for the year 2100. Science 287:1770–1774PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Sarnelle O, Kratz KW, Cooper SD (1993) Effects of an invertebrate grazer on the spatial arrangement of a benthic microhabitat. Oecologia 96:208–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Sartory DP, Grobbelaar JE (1984) Extraction of chlorophyll a from freshwater phytoplankton for spectrophotometric analysis. Hydrobiologia 114:177–187Google Scholar
  53. SAS (2003) SAS for Windows. Version 9.1Google Scholar
  54. Schwartz MW, Brigham CA, Hoeksema JD, Lyons KG, Mills MH, van Mantgem PJ (2000) Linking biodiversity to ecosystem function: implications for conservation ecology. Oecologia 122:297–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Settles WH, Hoyt RD (1976) Age structure, growth patterns, and food habits of the southern redbelly dace Chrosomus erythrogaster in Kentucky. Trans Ky Acad Sci 37:1–10Google Scholar
  56. Slack WT, O’Connell MT, Peterson TL, Ewing JA, III, Ross ST (1997) Ichthyofaunal and habitat associations of disjunct populations of southern redbelly dace. phoxinus erythrogaster (teleostei: Cyprinidae) in mississippi. Am Midl Nat 137:251–265Google Scholar
  57. SPSS (2001) SPSS for Windows: standard version. Release 11.0.1Google Scholar
  58. Stewart AJ (1987) Responses of stream algae to grazing minnows and nutrients: a field test for interactions. Oecologia 72:1–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Turner AM (1997) Contrasting short-term and long-term effects of predation risk on consumer habitat use and resources. Behav Ecol 8:120–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Uehlinger U, Brock JT (1991) The assessment of river periphyton metabolism; a method and some problems. In: Whitton BA, Rott E, Friedrich G (eds) Use of algae for monitoring rivers. Institut for Botanik, Universität Innsbruck, Innsbruck, pp 175–181Google Scholar
  61. Van Deventer JA, Platts WS (1989) Microcomputer software system for generating population statistics from electrofishing data-user’s guide for MicroFish 3.0. U.S. Forest Service general technical report INT-254. U.S. Forest ServiceGoogle Scholar
  62. Vanni MJ (2002) Nutrient cycling by animals in freshwater ecosystems. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 33:341–370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Vaughn CC, Gelwick FP, Matthews WJ (1993) Effects of algivorous minnows on production of grazing stream invertebrates. Oikos 66:119–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Vitousek PM, Mooney HA, Lubchenco J, Melillo JM (1997) Human domination of Earth’s ecosystems. Science 277:494–499CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Wallace BJ, Webster JR (1996) The role of macroinvertebrates in stream ecosystem function. Annu Rev Entomol 41:115–139PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Webster JR, Mulholland PJ, Tank JL, Valett HM, Dodds WK, Peterson BJ, Bowden WB, Dahm CN, Findlay S, Gregory SV, Grimm NB, Hamilton SK, Johnson SL, Marti E, McDowell WH, Meyer JL, Morrall DD, Thomas SA,Wollheim WM (2003) Factors affecting ammonium uptake in streams—an inter-biome perspective. Freshwater Biol 48:1329–1352CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division of BiologyKansas State UniversityManhattanUSA

Personalised recommendations