, Volume 168, Issue 1, pp 175–186 | Cite as

Invasion by mobile aquatic consumers enhances secondary production and increases top-down control of lower trophic levels

  • Sofia A. Wikström
  • Helmut Hillebrand
Community Ecology - Original Paper


Increased biological diversity due to invasion by non-indigenous species (NIS) is a global phenomenon with potential effects on trophic interactions and ecosystem processes in the invaded habitat. We assessed the effects of resource availability and invasion of three non-indigenous invertebrate grazers (two crustaceans and a snail) on secondary production, relative dominance of NIS grazers and resource depletion in experimental freshwater mesocosms. The relative dominance of NIS grazers increased with increasing initial resource availability, although the effect was largest for one of the three species. The effect was due to the fact that all the included non-indigenous grazers were able to expand their populations quickly in response to resource addition. For the most dominating species, the increased grazer diversity due to invasion in turn resulted in higher production of grazer biomass and a more efficient depletion of the periphyton resource. The effect was largest at high initial resource availability, where NIS dominance was most pronounced. Our results show that an invasion-induced increase in species diversity can increase resource depletion and consequently production, but that the effect depends on identity of the introduced species. The results also suggest that properties of the recipient system, such as resource availability, can modulate ecosystem effects of NIS by affecting invader success and dominance.


Grazer Resource depletion Gammarus tigrinus Limnomysis benedeni Physella acuta 



We thank Cordula Krücken, Melinda Molnar and Viola Lehmpfuhl for field and laboratory assistance and the staff and colleagues at the Institute for Botany (University of Cologne) and the Grietherbusch field station for advice and logistical support. Jost Borcherding, Andreas Scharbert and Ulrich Werneke shared their knowledge on the Rhine floodplain ecosystem and provided fruitful discussions in the planning of the study. Thanks also to Jost Borcherding and Peter Hambäck for discussions and helpful comments on earlier versions of the manuscript and to Sarah C. Lee and one anonymous referee for constructive reviews. The project was financed by the Swedish Research Council Formas (post-doc grant to S.A.W.) and additional funding was provided by C.F. Lundströms foundation and the Royal Swedish Academy of Science.


  1. Alonso A, Castro-Díez P (2008) What explains the invading success of the aquatic mud snail Potamopyrgus antipodarum (Hydrobiidae, Mollusca)? Hydrobiologia 614:107–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baker HG (1965) Characteristics and modes of origin of weeds. In: Baker HG, Stebbins GL (eds) The genetics of colonizing species. Academic, New York, pp 147–168Google Scholar
  3. Beisner BE, Hovius J, Hayward A, Kolasa J, Romanuk TN (2006) Environmental productivity and biodiversity effects on invertebrate community invasibility. Biol Invasions 8:655–664CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bernauer D, Jansen D (2006) Recent invasions of alien macroinvertebrates and loss of native species in the upper Rhine River, Germany. Aquat Invasions 1:55–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. bij de Vaate A, Breukel R, van der Velde G (2006) Long-term developments in ecological rehabilitation of the main distributaries in the Rhine delta: fish and macroinvertebrates. Hydrobiologia 565:229–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Borcherding J, Sturm W (2002) The seasonal succession of macroinvertebrates, in particular the zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha), in the River Rhine and two neighbouring gravel-pit lakes monitored using artificial substrates. Int Rev Hydrobiol 87:165–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brendelberger H, Jürgens S (1993) Suspension feeding in Bithynia tentaculata (Prosobranchia, Bithyniidae), as affected by body size, food and temperature. Oecologia 94:36–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Burkepile DE, Hay ME (2006) Herbivore vs. nutrient control of marine primary producers: context-dependent effects. Ecology 87:3128–3139PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Caraco NF, Cole JJ, Raymond PA, Strayer DL, Pace ML, Findlay SEG, Fischer DT (1997) Zebra mussel invasion in a large, turbid river: phytoplankton response to increased grazing. Ecology 78:588–602CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cardinale BJ, Srivastava DS, Duffy JE, Wright JT, Downing AL, Sankaran M, Joseau C (2006) Effects of biodiversity on the functioning of trophic groups and ecosystems. Nature 443:989–992PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cardinale BJ, Wright JP, Cadotte MW, Carroll IT, Hector A, Srivastava DS, Loreau M, Weis JJ (2007) Impacts of plant diversity on biomass production increase through time because of species complementarity. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 104:18123–18128PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chambers MR (1977a) A comparison of the population ecology of Asellus aquaticus (L.) and Asellus meridianus Rac. in the reed beds of Tjeukemeer. Hydrobiologia 53:147–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chambers MR (1977b) The population ecology of Gammarus tigrinus (Sexton) in the reed beds of Tjeukemeer. Hydrobiologia 53:155–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Davis MA (2003) Biotic globalization: does competition from introduced species threaten biodiversity? Bioscience 53:481CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Davis MA (2009) Invasion biology. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  16. Davis MA, Grime JP, Thompson K (2000) Fluctuating resources in plant communities: a general theory of invasibility. J Ecol 88:528–534CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Duffy JE, Macdonald KS, Rhode JM, Parker JD (2001) Grazer diversity, functional redundancy, and productivity in seagrass beds: an experimental test. Ecology 82:2417–2434CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Duffy JE, Richardson JP, Canuel EA (2003) Grazer diversity effects on ecosystem functioning in seagrass beds. Ecol Lett 6:637–645CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fox JW (2005) Interpreting the ‘selection effect’ of biodiversity on ecosystem function. Ecol Lett 8:846–856Google Scholar
  20. Gergs R, Hanselmann AJ, Eisele I, Rothhaupt K-O (2008) Autecology of Limnomysis benedeni Czerniavsky, 1882 (Crustacea: Mysida) in Lake Constance, Southwestern Germany. Limnol Ecol Manag Inland Waters 38:139–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hall RO, Tank JL, Dybdahl MF (2003) Exotic snails dominate nitrogen and carbon cycling in a highly productive stream. Front Ecol Environ 1:407–411CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hall RO, Dybdahl MF, VanderLoop MC (2006) Extremely high secondary production of introduced snails in rivers. Ecol Appl 16:1121–1131PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Huston MA (1997) Hidden treatments in ecological experiments: re-evaluating the ecosystem function of biodiversity. Oecologia 110:449–460CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Idrisi N, Mills EL, Rudstam LG, Stewart DJ (2001) Impact of zebra mussels (Dreissena polymorpha) on the pelagic lower trophic levels of Oneida Lake, New York. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 58:1430–1441CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kolar CS, Lodge DM (2001) Progress in invasion biology: predicting invaders. Trends Ecol Evol 16:199–204PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kureck A (1992) Neue Tiere im Rhein—Die Wiederbesiedlung des Stroms und die Ausbreitung der Neozoen. Naturwissenschaft 79:533–540CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lodge DM, Kelly P (1985) Habitat disturbance and the stability of freshwater gastropod populations. Oecologia 68:111–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Long ZT, Bruno JF, Duffy JE (2007) Biodiversity mediates productivity through different mechanisms at adjacent trophic levels. Ecology 88:2821–2829PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lonsdale WM (1999) Global patterns of plant invasions and the concept of invasibility. Ecology 80:1522–1536CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Loreau M, Hector A (2001) Partitioning selection and complementarity in biodiversity experiments. Nature 412:72–76Google Scholar
  31. Lundholm JT, Larson DW (2004) Dominance as an overlooked measure of invader success. Biol Invasions 6:505–510CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. MacIsaac HJ (1996) Potential abiotic and biotic impacts of Zebra mussels on the inland waters of North America. Am Zool 36:287–299Google Scholar
  33. Mack RN, Simberloff D, Lonsdale WM, Evans H, Clout M, Bazzaz FA (2000) Biotic invasions: causes, epidemiology, global conequences, and control. Ecol Appl 10:689–710CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Marcus J, Sutcliffe D, Willoughby L (1978) Feeding and growth of Asellus aquaticus, Isopoda, on food items from the littoral of Windermere, England UK, including green leaves of Elodea canadensis. Freshw Biol 8:505–520CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Matthiessen B, Gamfeldt L, Jonsson PR, Hillebrand H (2007) Effects of grazer richness and composition on algal biomass in a closed and open marine system. Ecology 88:178–187PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Miller TE, Kneitel JM, Burns JH (2002) Effect of community structure on invasion success and rate. Ecology 83:898–905CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. O’Connor NE, Crowe TP (2005) Biodiversity loss and ecosystem functioning: distinguishing between number and identity of species. Ecology 86:1783–1796CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Rejmánek M, Richardson DM (1996) What attributes make some plant species more invasive? Ecology 77:1655–1661CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Ricciardi A (2007) Are modern biological invasions an unprecedented form of global change? Conserv Biol 21:329–336PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Romanuk TN, Kolasa J (2005) Resource limitation, biodiversity, and competitive effects interact to determine the invasibility of rock pool microcosms. Biol Invasions 7:711–722CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Rosenzweig M (2001) The four questions: what does the introduction of exotic species do to diversity? Evol Ecol Res 3:361–367Google Scholar
  42. Savage AA (2000) Community structure during a 27-year study of the macroinvertebrate fauna of a chemically unstable lake. Hydrobiologia 421:115–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Sax DF, Brown JH (2001) The paradox of invasion. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 9:363–371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Sax DF, Gaines SD (2003) Species diversity: from global decreases to local increases. Trends Ecol Evol 18:561–566CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Schreiber ESG, Quinn GP, Lake PS (2003) Distribution of an alien aquatic snail in relation to flow variability, human activities and water quality. Freshw Biol 48:951–961CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Smith SA, Shurin JB (2006) Room for one more? Evidence for invasibility and saturation in community ecology. In: Cadotte MW, McMahon SM, Fukami T (eds) Conceptual ecology and invasion biology. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 423–447Google Scholar
  47. Strayer DL, Caraco NF, Cole JJ, Findlay S, Pace ML (1999) Transformation of freshwater ecosystems by bivalves. Bioscience 49:19–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Strickland JDH, Parsons TR (1972) A practical handbook of sea-water analysis. J Fish Res Bd Can 167:1–311Google Scholar
  49. Tilman D (2004) Niche tradeoffs, neutrality, and community structure: a stochastic theory of resource competition, invasion, and community assembly. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 101:10854–10861PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Tilman D, Lehman CL, Thomson KT (1997) Plant diversity and ecosystem productivity: theoretical considerations. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 94:1857–1861PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Tittizer T, Schöll F, Dommermuth M (1994) The development of the macrooobenthos in the river Rhine in Germany during the 20th century. Wat Sci Tech 29:21–28Google Scholar
  52. van den Brink FWB, van der Velde G (1991) Macrozoobenthos of floodplain waters of the rivers Rhine and Meuse in the Netherlands: a structural and functional analysis in relation to hydrology. Regul Rivers Res Manag 6:265–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Vitousek PM, D’Antonio CM, Loope LL, Westbrooks R (1996) Biological invasions as global environmental change. Am Sci 84:468–478Google Scholar
  54. Wethington AR, Dillon RT (1993) Reproductive development in the hermaphroditic freshwater snail, Physa, monitored with complementing albino lines. Proc R Soc Lond B 252:109–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Williamson M, Fitter A (1996) The varying success of invaders. Ecology 77:1661–1666CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Wojdak JM (2005) Relative strength of top-down, bottom-up, and consumer species richness effects on pond ecosystems. Ecol Monogr 75:489–504CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Wojdak JM, Mittelbach GG (2007) Consequences of niche overlap for ecosystem functioning: an experimental test with grazers. Ecology 88:2072–2083PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Worm B, Reusch TBH, Lotze HK (2000) In situ nutrient enrichment: methods for marine benthic ecology. Int Rev Hydrobiol 85:359–375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Worm B, Lotze HK, Hillebrand H, Sommer U (2002) Consumer versus resource control of species diversity and ecosystem functioning. Nature 417:848–851PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for BotanyUniversity of CologneKölnGermany
  2. 2.AquaBiota Water ResearchStockholmSweden
  3. 3.Institute for Chemistry and Biology of the Marine Environment (ICBM)Carl-von-Ossietzky University OldenburgWilhelmshavenGermany
  4. 4.Department of Systems EcologyStockholm UniversityStockholmSweden

Personalised recommendations