, Volume 175, Issue 1, pp 209–218 | Cite as

Effects of subsidy quality on reciprocal subsidies: how leaf litter species changes frog biomass export

  • Julia E. EarlEmail author
  • Paula O. Castello
  • Kara E. Cohagen
  • Raymond D. Semlitsch
Community ecology - Original research


Spatial subsidies are resources transferred from one ecosystem to another and which can greatly affect recipient systems. Increased subsidy quantity is known to increase these effects, but subsidy quality is likely also important. We examined the effects of leaf litter quality (varying in nutrient and tannin content) in pond mesocosms on gray treefrog (Hyla versicolor) biomass export, as well as water quality and ecosystem processes. We used litter from three different tree species native to Missouri [white oak (Quercus alba), northern red oak (Quercus rubra), and sugar maple (Acer saccharum)], one non-native tree [white pine (Pinus strobus)], and a common aquatic grass [prairie cordgrass (Spartina pectinata)]. We found that leaf litter species affected almost every variable we measured. Gray treefrog biomass export was greatest in mesocosms with grass litter and lowest with white oak litter. Differences in biomass export were affected by high tannin concentrations (or possibly the correlated variable, dissolved oxygen) via their effects on survival, and by primary production, which altered mean body mass. Effects of litter species could often be traced back to the characteristics of the litter itself: leaf nitrogen, phosphorus, and tannin content, which highlights the importance of plant functional traits in affecting aquatic ecosystems. This work and others stress that changes in forest species composition could greatly influence aquatic systems and aquatic–terrestrial linkages.


Leaf litter Tannins Allochthonous Detritus Amphibian larvae 



We thank B. Sonderman for help at research park, J. Fairchild, S. Olson, and L. Johnson for assistance with chemical analyses. Funding was provided by the Life Sciences Fellowship (J.E. Earl), the TWA Scholarship (J.E. Earl), the MU Conservation Biology Fellowship (J.E. Earl), an US EPA STAR Fellowship (J.E. Earl) and the National Science Foundation Undergraduate Mentoring in Environmental Biology program (C. Galen, C. Nilon). This work was partially conducted while a Postdoctoral Fellow (J.E. Earl) at the National Institute for Mathematical and Biological Synthesis, an Institute sponsored by the National Science Foundation, the US Department of Homeland Security, and the US Department of Agriculture through NSF Award #EF-0832858, with additional support from The University of Tennessee, Knoxville. Research was conducted using Missouri Department of Conservation Wildlife Collecting Permit #13759 and under MU Animal Care Protocol #3368.

Supplementary material

442_2013_2870_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (84 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 83 kb)
442_2013_2870_MOESM2_ESM.pdf (135 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (PDF 134 kb)
442_2013_2870_MOESM3_ESM.pdf (93 kb)
Supplementary material 3 (PDF 93 kb)


  1. Abrams MD (1998) The red maple paradox: what explains the widespread expansion of red maple in eastern forests? Bioscience 48:355–364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baxter CV, Fausch KD, Murakami M, Chapman PL (2004) Fish invasion restructures stream and forest food webs by interrupting reciprocal prey subsidies. Ecology 85:2656–2663CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baxter CV, Fausch KD, Saunders WC (2005) Tangled webs: reciprocal flows of invertebrate prey link streams and riparian zones. Freshw Biol 50:201–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brown CJ, Blossey B, Maerz JC, Joule SJ (2006) Invasive plant and experimental venue affect tadpole performance. Biol Invasions 8:327–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Clesceri LS, Greenberg AE, Trussell RR (eds) (1989) Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater, 17th edn. American Public Health Association, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  6. Cohen JS, Maerz JC, Blossey B (2012) Traits, not origin, explain impacts of plants on larval amphibians. Ecol Appl 22:218–228PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cotten TB, Kwiatkowski MA, Saenz D, Collyer M (2012) Effects of an invasive plant, Chinese tallow (Triadica sebifera), on development and survival of anuran larvae. J Herpetol 46:186–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Earl JE, Semlitsch RD (2012) Reciprocal subsidies in ponds: does leaf input increase frog biomass export? Oecologia 170:1077–1087PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Earl JE, Semlitsch RD (2013) Spatial subsidies, trophic state, and community structure: examining effects of leaf litter on ponds. Ecosystems 16:639–651CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Earl JE, Luhring TM, Williams BK, Semlitsch RD (2011) Biomass export of salamanders and anurans from ponds is affected differentially by changes in canopy cover. Freshw Biol 56:2473–2482CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Earl JE, Cohagen KE, Semlitsch RD (2012) Effects of leachate from tree leaves and grass litter on tadpoles. Environ Toxicol Chem 31:1511–1517PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Elias TS (1980) The complete trees of North America: field guide and natural history. Outdoor Life/Nature Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  13. Fontaine TD III, Ewel KC (1981) Metabolism of a Florida lake ecosystem. Limnol Oceanogr 26:754–763CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fukui D, Murakami M, Nakano S, Aoi T (2006) Effect of emergent aquatic insects on bat foraging in a riparian forest. J Anim Ecol 75:1252–1258PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gibbons JW, Winne CT, Scott DE, Willson JD, Glaudas X, Andrews KM, Todd BD, Fedewa LA, Wilkinson L, Tsaliagos RN, Harper SJ, Greene JL, Tuberville TD, Metts BS, Dorcas ME, Nestor JP, Young CA, Arkre T, Reed RN, Buhlmann KA, Norman J, Croshaw DA, Hagen C, Rothermel BB (2006) Remarkable amphibian biomass and abundance in an isolated wetland: implications for wetland conservation. Conserv Biol 20:1457–1465PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gosner KL (1960) A simplified table for staging anuran embryos and larvae. Herpetologica 16:183–190Google Scholar
  17. Herrera-Silveira JA, Ramírez-Ramírez J (1996) Effects of natural phenolic material (tannin) on phytoplankton growth. Limnol Oceanogr 41:1018–1023CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hocking DJ, Semlitsch RD (2008) Effects of experimental clearcut logging on gray treefrog (Hyla versicolor) tadpole performance. J Herpetol 42:689–698CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Iverson L, Prasad A, Matthews S (2008a) Modeling potential climate change impacts on the trees of the northeastern United States. Mitig Adapt Strat Glob Change 13:487–516CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Iverson LR, Prasad AM, Matthews SN, Peters M (2008b) Estimating potential habitat for 134 eastern US tree species under six climate scenarios. For Ecol Manag 254:390–406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kupferberg S (1997) Faciliation of periphyton production by tadpole grazing: functional differences between species. Freshw Biol 37:427–439CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kupferberg SJ, Marks JC, Power ME (1994) Effects of variation in natural algal and detrital diets on larval anuran (Hyla regilla) life history traits. Copeia 1994:446–457CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Larcher W (2001) Physiological plant ecology: ecophysiology and stress physiology of functional groups, 4th edn. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  24. Leonard NE (2008) The effects of the invasive exotic Chinese tallow tree (Triadica sebifera) on amphibians and aquatic invertebrates. PhD thesis, University of New Orleans, New OrleansGoogle Scholar
  25. Leroy CJ, Marks JC (2006) Litter quality, stream characteristics and litter diversity influence decomposition rates and macroinvertebrates. Freshw Biol 51:605–617CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Maerz JC, Brown CJ, Chapin CT, Blossey B (2005) Can secondary compounds of an invasive plant affect larval amphibians? Funct Ecol 19:970–975CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Maerz JC, Cohen JS, Blossey B (2010) Does detritus quality predict the effect of native and nonnative plants on the performance of larval amphibians? Freshw Biol 55:1694–1704Google Scholar
  28. Marczak LB, Richardson JS (2007) Spiders and subsidies: results from the riparian zone of a coastal temperate rainforest. J Anim Ecol 76:687–694PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mitchell RJ (2001) Path analysis: pollination. In: Scheiner SM, Gurevitch J (eds) Design and analysis of ecological experiments, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  30. Murakami M, Nakano S (2002) Indirect effect of aquatic insect emergence on a terrestrial insect population through by birds predation. Ecol Lett 5:333–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Nakano S, Murakami M (2001) Reciprocal subsidies: dynamic interdependence between terrestrial and aquatic food webs. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 98:166–170PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Nowlin WH, González MJ, Vanni MJ, Stevens MHH, Fields MW, Valente JJ (2007) Allochthonous subsidy of periodical cicadas affects the dynamics and stability of pond communities. Ecology 88:2174–2186PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Pallardy SG, Nigh TA, Garrett HE (1988) Changes in forest composition in central Missouri: 1968–1982. Am Midl Nat 120:380–390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Polis GA, Anderson WB, Holt RD (1997) Toward an integration of landscape and food web ecology: the dynamics of spatially subsidized food webs. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 28:289–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Redfield AC (1958) The biological control of chemical factors in the environment. Am Sci 46:205–221Google Scholar
  36. Regester KJ, Lips KR, Whiles MR (2006) Energy flow and subsidies associated with the complex life cycle of ambystomatid salamanders in ponds and adjacent forest in southern Illinois. Oecologia 147:303–314PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Richardson DM (1998) Forestry trees as invasive aliens. Conserv Biol 12:18–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Richardson JS, Shaughnessy CR, Harrison PG (2004) Litter breakdown and invertebrate association with three types of leaves in a temperate rainforest stream. Arch Hydrobiol 159:309–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Rubbo MJ, Kiesecker JM (2004) Leaf litter composition and community structure: translating regional species changes into local dynamics. Ecology 85:2519–2525CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Rubbo MJ, Belden LK, Kiesecker JM (2008) Differential responses of aquatic consumers to variations in leaf-litter inputs. Hydrobiologia 605:37–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. SAS (2004) SAS/STAT User’s Guide. SAS Institute, CaryGoogle Scholar
  42. Schädler M, Brandl R (2005) Do invertebrate decomposers affect the disappearance rate of litter mixtures. Soil Biol Biochem 37:329–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Semlitsch RD, Boone MD (2009) Using aquatic mesocosms in amphibian ecology and conservation. In: Dodd K (ed) Amphibian ecology and conservation: a handbook of techniques. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 87–104Google Scholar
  44. Stoler AB, Relyea RA (2011) Living in the litter: the influence of tree leaf litter on wetland communities. Oikos 120:862–872CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Temmink JHM, Field JA, Van Haastrecht JC, Merkelbach RCM (1989) Acute and sub-acute toxicity of bark tannins in carp (Cyprinus carpio L.). Water Res 23:341–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Tremolieres M (1988) Deoxygenating effect and toxicity of ground-up dried coniferous needles and leaves of Canadian trees in water: a preliminary study in comparison with litter of European trees. Water Res 22:21–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 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
  48. Wassersug RJ, Seibert EA (1975) Behavioral repsonses of amphibian larvae to variation in dissolved oxygen. Copeia 1975:86–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Watling JI, Hickman CR, Lee E, Wang K, Orrock JL (2011a) Extracts of the invasive shrub Lonicera maackii increase mortality and alter behavior of amphibian larvae. Oecologia 165:153–159PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Watling JI, Hickman CR, Orrock JL (2011b) Predators and invasive plants affect performance of amphibian larvae. Oikos 120:735–739CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Wetzel RG (2001) Limnology: lake and river ecosystems, 3rd edn. Academic, San DiegoGoogle Scholar
  52. Wetzel RG, Likens GE (2000) Limnological analysis, 3rd edn. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Whiles MR, Gladyshev MI, Sushchik NN, Makhutova N, Kalachova GS, Peterson SD, Regester KJ (2010) Fatty acid analyses reveal high degrees of omnivory and dietary plasticity in pond-dwelling tadpoles. Freshw Biol 55:1533–1547CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Williams BK, Rittenhouse TAG, Semlitsch RD (2008) Leaf litter input mediates tadpole performance across forest canopy treatments. Oecologia 155:377–384PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Zhou L, Bi Y, Jiang L, Wang Z, Chen W (2012) Effect of black wattle (Acacia mearnsii) extract on blue–green algal bloom control and plankton structure optimization: a field mesocosm experiment. Water Environ Res 84:2133–2142PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Julia E. Earl
    • 1
    Email author
  • Paula O. Castello
    • 2
  • Kara E. Cohagen
    • 2
  • Raymond D. Semlitsch
    • 2
  1. 1.National Institute for Mathematical and Biological SynthesisUniversity of TennesseeKnoxvilleUSA
  2. 2.Division of Biological SciencesUniversity of MissouriColumbiaUSA

Personalised recommendations