Advertisement

Oecologia

, Volume 187, Issue 3, pp 731–744 | Cite as

Determinants of food resource assimilation by stream insects along a tropical elevation gradient

  • Carla L. Atkinson
  • Andrea C. Encalada
  • Amanda T. Rugenski
  • Steve A. Thomas
  • Andrea Landeira-Dabarca
  • N. LeRoy Poff
  • Alexander S. Flecker
Community ecology – original research

Abstract

Food resource availability varies along gradients of elevation where riparian vegetative cover exerts control on the relative availability of allochthonous and autochthonous resources in streams. Still, little is known about how elevation gradients can alter the availability and quality of resources and how stream food webs respond. We sampled habitat characteristics, stable isotope signatures (δ13C, δ15N, δ2Η) and the carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus composition of basal food resources and insects in 11 streams of similar size along an elevation gradient from 1260 to 4045 m on the northeastern slope of the Ecuadorian Andean-Amazon region. Algal-based (autochthonous) food resources primarily supported insects occurring at higher elevations, but at low elevations there was a shift to greater allochthony, corresponding with lower light availability and reduced epilithon resource abundance. Additionally, percent phosphorus (%P) of both autochthonous and allochthonous food resources and of body tissue for some abundant insect taxa (stonefly Anacroneuria and mayfly Andesiops) declined with increasing elevation, despite the greater autochthony at high elevation. Allochthonous food resources were always a lower quality food resource, as indicated by higher C:N, N:P, and lower %P, across elevation in comparison to autochthonous resources, but autochthonous resources had higher %P than allochthonous resources across all elevations and comprised a greater portion of high-elevation insect resource assimilation. Aquatic insects may be able to compensate for the lower quality of both resource types at high elevations through altered body stoichiometry, even though higher quality autochthonous-based foods are in high abundance at high elevations.

Keywords

Autochthony Allochthony Aquatic insects Elevation Stoichiometry Stable isotopes Tropical streams 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work would not have been possible without Daniela Cueva, Marisa Rojas, Will Roberts, and Keith Shane’s hard work in the field and lab. We also thank Kim Sparks at the Cornell Stable Isotope Laboratory for her assistance with sample processing. Collecting permit no. 01-IC-FAU/FLO-DPAN/MA authorized by the Ministerio del Ambiente of Ecuador facilitated this work. This paper was supported by the US National Science Foundation through a collaborative Dimensions of Biodiversity Grant, Awards DEB-1046408, DEB-1045960, and DEB-1045991.

Author contribution statement

CLA and ASF conceived and designed the study. CLA, ACE, ATR, SAT, and ASF conducted the sampling. CLA analyzed the data. CLA wrote the manuscript and all other authors provided editorial advice.

Supplementary material

442_2018_4142_MOESM1_ESM.docx (83 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 82 kb)

References

  1. Anderson DR, Burnham KP, Thompson WL (2000) Null hypothesis testing: problems, prevalence, and an alternative. J Wildl Manag 64:912–923CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Atkinson CL, Opsahl SP, Covich AP, Golladay SW, Conner LM (2010) Stable isotopic signatures, tissue stoichiometry, and nutrient cycling (C and N) of native and invasive freshwater bivalves. J N Am Benthol Soc 29:496–505.  https://doi.org/10.1899/09-083.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Atkinson CL, Capps KA, Rugenski AT, Vanni MJ (2017) Consumer-driven nutrient dynamics in freshwater ecosystems: from individuals to ecosystems. Biol Rev 92:2003–2023CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Bellard C, Bertelsmeier C, Leadley P, Thuiller W, Courchamp F (2012) Impacts of climate change on the future of biodiversity. Ecol Lett 15:365–377CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. Berggren M, Ziegler SE, St-Gelais NF, Beisner BE, del Giorgio PA (2014) Contrasting patterns of allochthony among three major groups of crustacean zooplankton in boreal and temperate lakes. Ecology 95:1947–1959CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Boersma M, Kreutzer C (2002) Life at the edge: is food quality really of minor importance at low quantities? Ecology 83:2552–2561.  https://doi.org/10.2307/3071814 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brito EF, Moulton TP, De Souza ML, Bunn SE (2006) Stable isotope analysis indicates microalgae as the predominant food source of fauna in a coastal forest stream, south-east Brazil. Aust Ecol 31:623–633CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chará-Serna AM, Chará JD, del Carmen Zúñiga M, Pearson RG, Boyero L (2012) Diets of leaf litter-associated invertebrates in three tropical streams. In: Annales de limnologie—international journal of limnology, vol 48. EDP Sciences, pp 139–144Google Scholar
  9. Cole JJ, Carpenter SR, Kitchell J, Pace ML, Solomon CT, Weidel B (2011) Strong evidence for terrestrial support of zooplankton in small lakes based on stable isotopes of carbon, nitrogen, and hydrogen. Proc Natl Acad Sci 108:1975–1980CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. Collins SM, Kohler TJ, Thomas SA, Fetzer WW, Flecker AS (2016) The importance of terrestrial subsidies in stream food webs varies along a stream size gradient. Oikos 125:674–685CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cummins KW (1974) Structure and function of stream ecosystems. Bioscience 24:631–641CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dangles O (2002) Functional plasticity of benthic macroinvertebrates: implications for trophic dynamics in acid streams. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 59:1563–1573.  https://doi.org/10.1139/f02-122 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Deines P, Wooller MJ, Grey J (2009) Unravelling complexities in benthic food webs using a dual stable isotope (hydrogen and carbon) approach. Freshw Biol 54:2243–2251.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2427.2009.02259.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Doucett RR, Marks JC, Blinn DW, Caron M, Hungate BA (2007) Measuring terrestrial subsidies to aquatic food webs using stable isotopes of hydrogen. Ecology 88:1587–1592CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Dudgeon D, Cheung FK, Mantel SK (2010) Foodweb structure in small streams: do we need different models for the tropics? J N Am Benthol Soc 29:395–412CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Finlay JC, Doucett RR, McNeely C (2010) Tracing energy flow in stream food webs using stable isotopes of hydrogen. Freshw Biol 55:941–951CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Finn DS, Poff NL (2005) Variability and convergence in benthic communities along the longitudinal gradients of four physically similar Rocky Mountain streams. Freshw Biol 50:243–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Finn DS, Bonada N, Múrria C, Hughes JM (2011) Small but mighty: headwaters are vital to stream network biodiversity at two levels of organization. J N Am Benthol Soc 30:963–980CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. France R (1996) Ontogenetic shift in crayfish δ13C as a measure of land-water ecotonal coupling. Oecologia 107:239–242CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Frazer GW, Canham CD, Lertzman KP (1999) Gap light analyzer (GLA), version 2.0: imaging software to extract canopy structure and gap light transmission indices from true-colour fisheye photographs, users manual and program documentation. Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia, and the Institute of Ecosystem Studies, Millbrook, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  21. Freeman MC, Pringle CM, Jackson CR (2007) Hydrologic connectivity and the contribution of stream headwaters to ecological integrity at regional scales. J Am Water Res Assoc 43:5–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Frost PC, Elser JJ (2002) Growth responses of littoral mayflies to the phosphorus content of their food. Ecol Lett 5:232–240.  https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1461-0248.2002.00307.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gill B et al (2016) Cryptic species diversity reveals biogeographic support for the ‘mountain passes are higher in the tropics’ hypothesis. Proc R Soc B 283:20160553 (The Royal Society) CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. Gottfried M et al (2012) Continent-wide response of mountain vegetation to climate change. Nat Clim Change 2:111–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Goulden ML, Bales RC (2014) Mountain runoff vulnerability to increased evapotranspiration with vegetation expansion. Proc Natl Acad Sci 111:14071–14075CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. 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
  27. Grubaugh J, Wallace J, Houston E (1996) Longitudinal changes of macroinvertebrate communities along an Appalachian stream continuum. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 53:896–909CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Grubaugh J, Wallace JB, Houston E (1997) Production of benthic macroinvertebrate communities along a southern Appalachian river continuum. Freshw Biol 37:581–596CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Harrington RA, Poff NL, Kondratieff BC (2016) Aquatic insect β-diversity is not dependent on elevation in Southern Rocky Mountain streams. Freshw Biol 61:195–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Harsch MA, Hulme PE, McGlone MS, Duncan RP (2009) Are treelines advancing? A global meta-analysis of treeline response to climate warming. Ecol Lett 12:1040–1049CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Hayden B, McWilliam-Hughes SM, Cunjak RA (2016) Evidence for limited trophic transfer of allochthonous energy in temperate river food webs. Freshw Sci 35:544–558CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hondula K, Pace M, Cole J, Batt R (2014) Hydrogen isotope discrimination in aquatic primary producers: implications for aquatic food web studies. Aquat Sci 76:217–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Huryn AD, Wallace JB (1987) Local geomorphology as a determinant of macrofaunal production in a mountain stream. Ecology 68:1932–1942CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Hynes HBN (1975) The stream and its valley. Verh Int Ver Limnol 19:1–15Google Scholar
  35. Jeyasingh PD, Weider LJ, Sterner RW (2009) Genetically-based trade-offs in response to stoichiometric food quality influence competition in a keystone aquatic herbivore. Ecol Lett 12:1229–1237CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Johnson JB, Omland KS (2004) Model selection in ecology and evolution. Trends Ecol Evol 19:101–108.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2003.10.013 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Jones SE, Lennon JT (2015) A test of the subsidy–stability hypothesis: the effects of terrestrial carbon in aquatic ecosystems. Ecology 96:1550–1560CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Julian JP, Seegert SZ, Powers SM, Stanley EH, Doyle MW (2011) Light as a first-order control on ecosystem structure in a temperate stream. Ecohydrology 4:422–432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lau DC, Leung KM, Dudgeon D (2008) Experimental dietary manipulations for determining the relative importance of allochthonous and autochthonous food resources in tropical streams. Freshw Biol 53:139–147Google Scholar
  40. Lau DC, Leung KM, Dudgeon D (2009) What does stable isotope analysis reveal about trophic relationships and the relative importance of allochthonous and autochthonous resources in tropical streams? A synthetic study from Hong Kong. Freshw Biol 54:127–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Maiolini B, Bruno MC (2007) The river continuum concept revisited: lessons from the Alps. Innsbruck University PressGoogle Scholar
  42. Marcarelli AM, Baxter CV, Mineau MM, Hall RO (2011) Quantity and quality: unifying food web and ecosystem perspectives on the role of resource subsidies in freshwaters. Ecology 92:1215–1225.  https://doi.org/10.1890/10-2240.1 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. March JG, Pringle CM (2003) Food web structure and basal resource utilization along a tropical island stream continuum, Puerto Rico 1. Biotropica 35:84–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Mayer MS, Likens GE (1987) The importance of algae in a shaded headwater stream as food for an abundant caddisfly (Trichoptera). J N Am Benthol Soc 6:262–269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. McCutchan JH, Lewis WM (2002) Relative importance of carbon sources for macroinvertebrates in a Rocky Mountain stream. Limnol Oceanogr 47:742–752CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. McKnight DM, Boyer EW, Westerhoff PK, Doran PT, Kulbe T, Andersen DT (2001) Spectrofluorometric characterization of dissolved organic matter for indication of precursor organic material and aromaticity. Limnol Oceanogr 46:38–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Meyer JL, Strayer DL, Wallace JB, Eggert SL, Helfman GS, Leonard NE (2007) The contribution of headwater streams to biodiversity in river networks. Wiley Online LibraryGoogle Scholar
  48. Mihuc TB (1997) The functional trophic role of lotic primary consumers: generalist versus specialist strategies. Freshw Biol 37:455–462CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Minshall GW (1978) Autotrophy in stream ecosystems. Bioscience 28:767–771CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Minshall GW et al (1992) Stream ecosystem dynamics of the Salmon River, Idaho: an 8th-order system. J N Am Benthol Soc 11:111–137.  https://doi.org/10.2307/1467380 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Parkyn SM, Collier KJ, Hicks BJ (2001) New Zealand stream crayfish: functional omnivores but trophic predators? Freshw Biol 46:641–652.  https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2427.2001.00702.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Pilati A, Vanni MJ (2007) Ontogeny, diet shifts, and nutrient stoichiometry in fish. Oikos 116:1663–1674CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Pires APF, Marino NAC, Srivastava DS, Farjalla VF (2016) Predicted rainfall changes disrupt trophic interactions in a tropical aquatic ecosystem. Ecology 97:2750–2759.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ecy.1501 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Poff NL et al (2018) Extreme streams: species persistence and genomic change in montane insect populations across a flooding gradient. Ecol Lett.  https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.12918 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 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
  56. Post DM (2002) Using stable isotopes to estimate trophic position: models, methods, and assumptions. Ecology 83:703–718CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Pyne MI, Poff NL (2017) Vulnerability of stream community composition and function to projected thermal warming and hydrologic change across ecoregions in the western United States. Glob Change Biol 23:77–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. R Core Team (2014) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. http://www.R-project.org/
  59. Rose KC, Williamson CE, Kissman CE, Saros JE (2015) Does allochthony in lakes change across an elevation gradient? Ecology 96:3281–3291CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. Rosi-Marshall EJ, Wallace JB (2002) Invertebrate food webs along a stream resource gradient. Freshw Biol 47:129–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Sabo JL, Finlay JC, Kennedy T, Post DM (2010) The role of discharge variation in scaling of drainage area and food chain length in rivers. Science 330:965–967CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. Sala OE et al (2000) Biodiversity: global biodiversity scenarios for the year 2100. Science 287:1770–1774.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.287.5459.1770 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. Shah AA et al (2017) Climate variability predicts thermal limits of aquatic insects across elevation and latitude. Funct Ecol 31:2118–2127.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2435.12906 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Sitters J, Atkinson CL, Guelzow N, Kelly P, Sullivan LL (2015) Spatial stoichiometry: cross-ecosystem material flows and their impact on recipient ecosystems and organisms. Oikos 124:920–930CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Smith B, Ziegler H (1990) Isotopic fractionation of hydrogen in plants. Botanica Acta 103:335–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Solorzano L, Sharp JH (1980) Determination of total dissolved phosphorus and particulate phosphorus in natural waters. Limnol Oceanogr 25:754–757CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Sterner RW, Elser JJ (2002) Ecological stoichiometry: the biology of elements from molecules to the biosphere. Princeton University PressGoogle Scholar
  68. Thorp JH, Delong MD (2002) Dominance of autochthonous autotrophic carbon in food webs of heterotrophic rivers. Oikos 96:543–550CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Tomanova S, Goitia E, Helešic J (2006) Trophic levels and functional feeding groups of macroinvertebrates in neotropical streams. Hydrobiologia 556:251–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Tuchman NC, Wetzel RG, 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
  71. Vanni MJ (2002) Nutrient cycling by animals in freshwater ecosystems. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 33:341–370.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ecolysis.33.010802.150519 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Vannote RL, Minshall GW, Cummins KW, Sedell JR, Cushing CE (1980) The river continuum concept. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 37:130–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 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
  74. Walther G-R (2010) Community and ecosystem responses to recent climate change. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 365:2019–2024CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  75. Webster J et al (1999) What happens to allochthonous material that falls into streams? A synthesis of new and published information from Coweeta. Freshw Biol 41:687–705CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Whiles MR et al (2010) Fatty acid analyses reveal high degrees of omnivory and dietary plasticity in pond-dwelling tadpoles. Freshw Biol 55:1533–1547.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2427.2009.02364.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Woodward G, Perkins DM, Brown LE (2010) Climate change and freshwater ecosystems: impacts across multiple levels of organization. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 365:2093–2106.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2010.0055 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  78. Woodward G et al (2016) The effects of climatic fluctuations and extreme events on running water ecosystems. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 371:20150274CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  79. Zandona E et al (2011) Diet quality and prey selectivity correlate with life histories and predation regime in Trinidadian guppies. Funct Ecol 25:964–973.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2435.2011.01865.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Carla L. Atkinson
    • 1
  • Andrea C. Encalada
    • 2
  • Amanda T. Rugenski
    • 3
  • Steve A. Thomas
    • 4
  • Andrea Landeira-Dabarca
    • 2
  • N. LeRoy Poff
    • 5
    • 6
  • Alexander S. Flecker
    • 7
  1. 1.Department of Biological SciencesUniversity of AlabamaTuscaloosaUSA
  2. 2.Laboratorio de Ecología Acuática, Instituto BIOSFERAUniversidad San Francisco de QuitoQuitoEcuador
  3. 3.Odum School of EcologyUniversity of GeorgiaAthensUSA
  4. 4.School of Natural ResourcesUniversity of NebraskaLincolnUSA
  5. 5.Department of Biology and Graduate Degree Program in EcologyColorado State UniversityFort CollinsUSA
  6. 6.Institute for Applied EcologyUniversity of CanberraCanberraAustralia
  7. 7.Department of Ecology and Evolutionary BiologyCornell UniversityIthacaUSA

Personalised recommendations