, Volume 21, Issue 8, pp 1676–1691 | Cite as

Variation in Detrital Resource Stoichiometry Signals Differential Carbon to Nutrient Limitation for Stream Consumers Across Biomes

  • Kaitlin J. FarrellEmail author
  • Amy D. Rosemond
  • John S. Kominoski
  • Sophia M. Bonjour
  • Janine Rüegg
  • Lauren E. Koenig
  • Christina L. Baker
  • Matt T. Trentman
  • Tamara K. Harms
  • William H. McDowell


Stoichiometric ratios of resources and consumers have been used to predict nutrient limitation across diverse terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. In forested headwater streams, coarse and fine benthic organic matter (CBOM, FBOM) are primary basal resources for the food web, and the distribution and quality of these organic matter resources may therefore influence patterns of secondary production and nutrient cycling within stream networks or among biomes. We measured carbon (C), nitrogen (N), and phosphorus (P) content of CBOM and FBOM and calculated their stoichiometric ratios (C/N, C/P, N/P) from first- to fourth-order streams from tropical montane, temperate deciduous, and boreal forests, and tallgrass prairie, to compare the magnitude and variability of these resource types among biomes. We then used the ratios to predict nutritional limitations for consumers of each resource type. Across biomes, CBOM had consistently higher %C and %N, and higher and more variable C/N and C/P than FBOM, suggesting that microbial processing results in more tightly constrained elemental composition in FBOM than in CBOM. Biome-specific differences were observed in %P and N/P between the two resource pools; CBOM was lower in %P but higher in N/P than FBOM in the tropical montane and temperate deciduous forest biomes, while CBOM was higher in %P but similar in N/P than FBOM in the grassland and boreal forest biomes. Stable 13C isotopes suggest that FBOM likely derives from CBOM in tropical and temperate deciduous forest, but that additional non-detrital components may contribute to FBOM in boreal forests and grasslands. Comparisons of stoichiometric ratios of CBOM and FBOM to estimated needs of aquatic detritivores suggest that shredders feeding on CBOM are more likely to experience nutrient (N and/or P) than C limitation, whereas collector–gatherers consuming FBOM are more likely to experience C than N and/or P limitation. Our results suggest that differences in basal resource elemental content and stoichiometric ratios have the potential to affect consumer production and ecosystem rates of C, N, and P cycling in relatively consistent ways across diverse biomes.


nitrogen phosphorus benthic organic matter elemental ratios macroinvertebrate lotic aquatic ecosystem threshold elemental ratio 



We appreciate the help of Matthew Bosiak, John Brant, Walter Dodds, Claire Ruffing, Geoffrey Schwaner, and Katherine Swan in the collection of field samples, and thank Jason Coombs, along with Tom Maddox and Emmy Deng of the University of Georgia Analytical Chemistry Lab for assistance in sample processing. Chao Song, Ford Ballantyne, and Mary Freeman provided guidance on statistical analyses. Logistical support was provided by the US Forest Service Coweeta Hydrologic Laboratory and Luquillo Experimental Forests and LTER sites, and the Konza Prairie and Bonanza Creek LTER sites. Members of SCALER, Dr. Stuart Bunn, and two anonymous reviewers provided constructive comments that greatly improved this manuscript. Funding was provided by a National Science Foundation (NSF) Grant (EF-1064998) to ADR and JSK and an NSF Research Experiences for Undergraduates supplement to ADR and JSK. Field collections were also supported by NSF Grants EF-1065286 (LUQ), EF-1065255 (KNZ), and EF-1065055 (CPC). Partial support during manuscript preparation was provided to KJF from EF-1702506 and ICER-1517823.


  1. Aldridge KT, Brookes JD, Ganf GG. 2009. Rehabilitation of stream ecosystem functions through the reintroduction of coarse particulate organic matter. Restor Ecol 17:97–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. APHA (American Public Health). 2005. Standard methods for examination of water and wastewater. 21st edn. Washington, DC: American Public Health Association.Google Scholar
  3. Ardón M, Pringle CM, Eggert SL. 2009. Does leaf chemistry differentially affect breakdown in tropical vs temperate streams? Importance of standardized analytical techniques to measure leaf chemistry. J N Am Benthol Soc 28:440–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bates D, Mächler M, Bolker BM, Walker SC. 2015. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J Stat Softw 67:1–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Benfield EF, Webster JR, Hutchens JR, Tank JL, Turner P. 2000. Organic matter dynamics along a stream-order and elevational gradient in a southern Appalachian stream. Verhandlungen des Int Verein Limnol 27:1–5.Google Scholar
  6. Benstead JP, Cross WF, March JG, McDowell WH, Ramírez A, Covich AP. 2010. Biotic and abiotic controls on the ecosystem significance of consumer excretion in two contrasting tropical streams. Freshw Biol 55:2047–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Boersma M, Elser JJ. 2006. Too much of a good thing: on stoichiometrically balanced diets and maximal growth. Ecology 87:1325–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Boyero L, Graça MAS, Tonin AM, Pérez J, Swafford A, Ferreira V, Landeira-Dabarca A, Alexandrou M, Gessner MO, McKie BG, Albariño RJ, Barmuta LA, Callisto M, Chará J, Chauvet E, Colón-Gaud C, Dudgeon D, Encalada AC, Figueroa R, Flecker AS, Fleituch T, Frainer A, Gonçalves JF, Helson JE, Iwata T, Mathooko J, M’Erimba C, Pringle CM, Ramírez A, Swan CM, Yule CM, Pearson RG. 2017. Riparian plant litter quality increases with latitude. Sci Rep 7:10562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brett MT, Bunn SE, Chandra S, Galloway AWE, Guo F, Kainz MJ, Kankaala P, Lau DCP, Moulton TP, Power ME, Rasmussen JB, Taipale SJ, Thorp JH, Wehr JD. 2017. How important are terrestrial organic carbon inputs for secondary production in freshwater ecosystems? Freshw Biol 62:1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cebrian J, Williams M, McClelland J, Valiela I. 1998. The dependence of heterotrophic consumption and C accumulation on autotrophic nutrient content in ecosystems. Ecol Lett 1:165–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cebrian J, Shurin JB, Borer ET, Cardinale BJ, Ngai JT, Smith MD, Fagan WF. 2009. Producer nutritional quality controls ecosystem trophic structure. PLoS ONE 4:e4929. Scholar
  12. Cheever BM, Webster JR, Bilger EE, Thomas SA. 2013. The relative importance of exogenous and substrate derived nitrogen for microbial growth during leaf decomposition. Ecology 94:1614–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Clapcott JE, Bunn SE. 2003. Can C4 plants contribute to aquatic food webs of subtropical streams? Freshw Biol 48:1105–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cleveland CC, Liptzin D. 2007. C:N:P stoichiometry in soil: is there a ‘Redfield ratio’ for the microbial biomass? Biogeochemistry 85:235–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cross WF, Benstead JP, Rosemond AD, Wallace JB. 2003. Consumer-resource stoichiometry in detritus-based streams. Ecol Lett 6:721–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cross WF, Benstead JP, Frost PC, Thomas SA. 2005. Ecological stoichiometry in freshwater benthic systems: recent progress and perspectives. Freshw Biol 50:1895–912.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cusack DF, Silver W, McDowell WH. 2009. Biological nitrogen fixation in two tropical forests: ecosystem-level patterns and effects of nitrogen fertilization. Ecosystems 12:1299–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Danger M, Arce Funck J, Devin S, Heberle J, Felten V. 2013. Phosphorus content in detritus controls life-history traits of a detritivore. Funct Ecol 27:807–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Danger M, Gessner MO, Bärlocher F. 2016. Ecological stoichiometry of aquatic fungi: current knowledge and perspectives. Fungal Ecol 19:100–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dodds WK, Tank JL, Pontius J, Hamilton SK, Grimm NB, Bowden WB, McDowell WH, Peterson BJ, Valett HM, Webster JR, Gregory S. 2004. Carbon and nitrogen stoichiometry and nitrogen cycling rates in streams. Oecologia 140:458–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Dodds WK, Collins SM, Hamilton SK, Tank JL, Johnson S, Webster JR, Simon KS, Whiles MR, Rantala HM, McDowell WH, Peterson SD, Riis T, Crenshaw CL, Thomas SA, Kristensen PB, Cheever BM, Flecker AS, Griffiths NA, Crowl T, Rosi-Marshall EJ, El-Sabaawi R, Marti E. 2014. You are not always what we think you eat: selective assimilation across multiple whole-stream isotopic tracer studies. Ecology 95:2757–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Elser JJ, Urabe J. 1999. The stoichiometry of consumer-driven nutrient recycling: theory, observations, and consequences. Ecology 80:735–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Elser JJ, Fagan WF, Denno RF, Dobberfuhl DR, Folarin A, Huberty A, Interlandi S, Kilham SS, McCauley E, Schulz KL, Siemann EH, Sterner RW. 2000. Nutritional constraints in terrestrial and freshwater food webs. Nature 408:578–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Elser JJ, Bracken MES, Cleland EE, Gruner DS, Harpole WS, Hillebrand H, Ngai JT, Seabloom EW, Shurin JB, Smith JE. 2007. Global analysis of nitrogen and phosphorus limitation of primary producers in freshwater, marine and terrestrial ecosystems. Ecol Lett 10:1135–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Evans-White MA, Stelzer RS, Lamberti GA. 2005. Taxonomic and regional patterns in benthic macroinvertebrate elemental composition in streams. Freshw Biol 50:1786–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Evans-White MA, Dodds WK, Huggins DG, Baker DS. 2009. Thresholds in macroinvertebrate biodiversity and stoichiometry across water-quality gradients in Central Plains (USA) streams. J N Am Benthol Soc 28:855–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Finlay JC. 2001. Stable-carbon-isotope ratios of river biota: implications for energy flow in lotic food webs. Ecology 82:1052–64.Google Scholar
  28. Findlay S, Tank JL, Dye S, Valett HM, Mulholland PJ, McDowell WH, Johnson SL, Hamilton S, Edmonds J, Dodds WK, Bowden W. 2002. A cross-system comparison of bacterial and fungal biomass in detritus pools of headwater streams. Microb Ecol 43:55–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Frost PC, Cross WF, Benstead JP. 2005. Ecological stoichiometry in freshwater benthic ecosystems: an introduction. Freshw Biol 50:1781–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Frost PC, Benstead JP, Cross WF, Hillebrand H, Larson JH, Xenopoulos MA, Yoshida T. 2006. Threshold elemental ratios of carbon and phosphorus in aquatic consumers. Ecol Lett 9:774–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Golladay S, Webster JR, Benfield EF. 1983. Factors affecting food utilization by a leaf shredding aquatic insect: leaf species and conditioning time. Holarct Ecol 6:157–62.Google Scholar
  32. Gray LJ. 1997. Organic matter dynamics in Kings Creek, Konza Prairie, Kansas, USA. J N Am Benthol Soc 16:50–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Gulis V, Kuehn KA, Schoettle LN, Leach D, Benstead JP, Rosemond AD. 2017. Changes in nutrient stoichiometry, elemental homeostasis and growth rate of aquatic litter-associated fungi in response to inorganic nutrient supply. ISME J 11:2729–39. Scholar
  34. Hall RO. 1995. Use of a stable carbon isotope addition to trace bacterial carbon through a stream food web. J N Am Benthol Soc 14:269–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Halvorson HM, Scott JT, Sanders AJ, Evans-White MA. 2015. A stream insect detritivore violates common assumptions of threshold elemental ratio bioenergetics models. Freshw Sci 34:508–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hamilton SK, Lewis WM Jr, Sippel SJ. 1992. Energy sources for aquatic animals in the Orinoco River floodplain: evidence from stable isotopes. Oecologia 89:324–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Haugen RK, Slaughter CW, Howe KE, Dingman SL. 1982. Hydrology and climatology of the Caribou-Poker Creeks Research Watershed, Alaska. No. CRREL-82-26.Google Scholar
  38. Helton AM, Ardón M, Bernhardt ES. 2015. Thermodynamic constraints on the utility of ecological stoichiometry for explaining global biogeochemical patterns. Ecol Lett 18:1049–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Hessen DO, Elser JJ, Sterner RW, Urabe J. 2013. Ecological stoichiometry: an elementary approach using basic principles. Limnol Oceanogr 58:2219–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Hladyz S, Gessner MO, Giller PS, Pozo J, Woodward G. 2009. Resource quality and stoichiometric constraints on stream ecosystem functioning. Freshw Biol 54:957–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Hood JM, McNeely C, Finlay JC, Sterner RW. 2014. Selective feeding determines patterns of nutrient release by stream invertebrates. Freshw Sci 33:1093–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Jochum M, Barnes AD, Ott D, Lang B, Klarner B, Farajallah A, Scheu S, Brose U. 2017. Decreasing stoichiometric resource quality drives compensatory feeding across trophic levels in tropical litter invertebrate communities. Am Nat 190:131–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Kilpatrick FA, Cobb ED. 1985. Measurement of discharge using tracers. In: Techniques of water-resources investigations of the United States Geological Survey Book 3: Applications of Hydraulics. Department of the Interior, US Geological Survey.Google Scholar
  44. Kominoski JS, Rosemond AD. 2012. Conservation from the bottom up: forecasting effects of global change on dynamics of organic matter and management needs for river networks. Freshw Sci 31:51–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Kominoski JS, Rosemond AD, Benstead JP, Gulis V, Maerz JC, Manning DWP. 2015. Low-to-moderate nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations accelerate microbially driven litter breakdown rates. Ecol Appl 25:856–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Kuznetsova A, Brokhoff PB, Christensen RHB. 2016. lmerTest: tests in linear mixed effects models. R Packag version 20-33. Accessed 1 Mar 2018.
  47. Lenth RV. 2016. Least-squares means: the R package lsmeans. J Stat Softw 69:1–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Manning DWP, Rosemond AD, Kominoski JS, Gulis V, Benstead JP, Maerz JC. 2015. Detrital stoichiometry as a critical nexus for the effects of streamwater nutrients on leaf litter breakdown rates. Ecology 96:2214–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Manning DWP, Rosemond AD, Gulis V, Benstead JP, Kominoski JS, Maerz JC. 2016. Convergence of detrital stoichiometry predicts thresholds of nutrient-stimulated breakdown in streams. Ecol Appl 26:1745–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. McGroddy ME, Daufresne T, Hedin OL. 2004. Scaling of C:N:P stoichiometry in forests worldwide: implications of terrestrial Redfield-type ratios. Ecology 85:2390–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Mulholland PJ, Tank JL, Sanzone DM, Wollheim WM, Peterson BJ, Webster JR, Meyer JL. 2000. Food resources of stream macroinvertebrates determined by natural-abundance stable C and N isotopes and a 15N tracer addition. J N Am Benthol Soc 19:145–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Natelhoffer KJ, Fry B. 1988. Controls on natural nitrogen-15 and carbon-13 abundances in forest soil organic matter. Soil Sci Soc Am J 52:1633–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Peterson BJ. 1999. Stable isotopes as tracers of organic matter input and transfer in benthic food webs: a review. Acta Oecologica 20:479–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Peterson BJ, Wollheim WM, Mulholland PJ, Webster JR, Meyer JL, Tank JL, Marti E, Bowden WB, Valett HM, Hershey AE, McDowell WH, Dodds WK, Hamilton SK, Gregory S, Morrall DD. 2001. Control of nitrogen export from watersheds by headwater streams. Science 292:86–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Petrone KC, Jones JB, Hinzman LD, Boone RD. 2006. Seasonal export of carbon, nitrogen, and major solutes from Alaskan catchments with discontinuous permafrost. J Geophys Res Biogeosci 111:1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. R Core Team. 2018. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Accessed 1 Mar 2018.
  57. Rosemond AD, Swan CM, Kominoski JS, Dye SE. 2010. Non-additive effects of litter mixing are suppressed in a nutrient-enriched stream. Oikos 119:326–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Rüegg J, Dodds WK, Daniels MD, Sheehan KR, Baker CL, Bowden WB, Farrell KJ, Flinn MB, Harms TK, Jones JB, Koenig LE, Kominoski JS, McDowell WH, Parker SP, Rosemond AD, Trentman MT, Whiles MR, Wollheim WM. 2015. Baseflow physical characteristics differ at multiple spatial scales in stream networks across diverse biomes. Landsc Ecol 31:119–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Schreeg LA, Mack MC, Turner BL. 2013. Nutrient-specific solubility patterns of leaf litter across 41 lowland tropical woody species. Ecology 94:94–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Silver WL, Hall SJ, González G. 2014. Differential effects of canopy trimming and litter deposition on litterfall and nutrient dynamics in a wet subtropical forest. For Ecol Manag 332:47–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Small GE, Helton AM, Kazanci C. 2009. Can consumer stoichiometric regulation control nutrient spiraling in streams? J N Am Benthol Soc 28:747–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Sterner RW, Elser JJ. 2002. Ecological stoichiometry. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  63. Still CJ, Berry JA, Ribas-Carbo M, Helliker BR. 2003. The contribution of C3 and C4 plants to the carbon cycle of a tallgrass prairie: an isotopic approach. Oecologia 136:347–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Swank WT, Crossley DA. 1988. Forest hydrology and ecology at Coweeta. New York, NY: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Tant CJ, Rosemond AD, First MR. 2013. Stream nutrient enrichment has a greater effect on coarse than on fine benthic organic matter. Freshw Sci 32:1111–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Tant CJ, Rosemond AD, Mehring AS, Kuehn KA, Davis JM. 2015. The role of aquatic fungi in transformations of organic matter mediated by nutrients. Freshw Biol 60:1354–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Taylor PG, Townsend AR. 2010. Stoichiometric control of organic carbon–nitrate relationships from soils to the sea. Nature 464:1178–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Thorp JH, Delong MD, Greenwood KS, Casper AF. 1998. Isotopic analysis of three food web theories in constricted and floodplain regions of a large river. Oecologia 117:551–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Tomanova S, Goitia E, Helešic J. 2006. Trophic levels and functional feeding groups of macroinvertebrates in neotropical streams. Hydrobiologia 556:251–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Trentman MT. 2015. Biotic and abiotic effects on biogeochemical fluxes across multiple spatial scales in a prairie stream network. Master’s Thesis, Division of Biology, Kansas State University.Google Scholar
  71. Veach AM, Dodds WK, Skibbe A. 2014. Fire and grazing influences on rates of riparian woody plant expansion along grassland streams. PLoS ONE 9:e106922. Scholar
  72. Vitousek PM. 1984. Litterfall, nutrient cycling, and nutrient limitation in tropical forests. Ecology 65:285–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Wickham H. 2017. tidyverse: easily install and load the ‘Tidyverse’. R package version 1.2.1. Accessed 1 Mar 2018.
  74. Woodward G, Gessner MO, Giller PS, Gulis V, Hladyz S, Lecerf A, Malmqvist B, McKie BG, Tiegs SD, Cariss H, Dobson M, Elosegi A, Ferreira V, Graça MAS, Fleituch T, Lacoursière JO, Nistorescu M, Pozo J, Risnoveanu G, Schindler M, Vadineanu A, Vought LB-M, Chauvet E. 2012. Continental-scale effects of nutrient pollution on stream ecosystem functioning. Science 336:1438–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Zou X, Zucca CP, Waide RB, McDowell WH. 1995. Long-term influence of deforestation on tree species composition and litter dynamics of a tropical rain forest in Puerto Rico. For Ecol Manag 78:147–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kaitlin J. Farrell
    • 1
    • 8
    Email author
  • Amy D. Rosemond
    • 1
  • John S. Kominoski
    • 2
  • Sophia M. Bonjour
    • 3
  • Janine Rüegg
    • 4
    • 9
  • Lauren E. Koenig
    • 5
  • Christina L. Baker
    • 6
  • Matt T. Trentman
    • 4
    • 10
  • Tamara K. Harms
    • 6
    • 7
  • William H. McDowell
    • 5
  1. 1.Odum School of EcologyUniversity of GeorgiaAthensUSA
  2. 2.Department of Biological SciencesFlorida International UniversityMiamiUSA
  3. 3.Department of ZoologySouthern Illinois UniversityCarbondaleUSA
  4. 4.Division of BiologyKansas State UniversityManhattanUSA
  5. 5.Department of Natural Resources and the EnvironmentUniversity of New HampshireDurhamUSA
  6. 6.Department of Biology and WildlifeUniversity of Alaska FairbanksFairbanksUSA
  7. 7.Institute of Arctic BiologyUniversity of Alaska FairbanksFairbanksUSA
  8. 8.Department of Biological SciencesVirginia TechBlacksburgUSA
  9. 9.Stream Biofilm and Ecosystem ResearchÉcole Polytechnique Fédérale de LausanneLausanneSwitzerland
  10. 10.Department of Biological SciencesUniversity of Notre DameNotre DameUSA

Personalised recommendations