Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Top-down and bottom-up processes in grassland and forested streams

  • Community Ecology
  • Published:
Oecologia Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The influence of predatory fish on the structure of stream food webs may be altered by the presence of forest canopy cover, and consequent differences in allochthonous inputs and primary production. Eight sites containing introduced brown trout (Salmo trutta) and eight sites that did not were sampled in the Cass region, South Island, New Zealand. For each predator category, half the sites were located in southern beech (Nothofagus) forest patches (range of canopy cover, 65–90%) and the other half were in tussock grassland. Food resources used by two dominant herbivores-detritivores were assessed using stable isotopes. 13C/12C ratios were obtained for coarse particulate organic matter (CPOM), fine particulate organic matter (FPOM), algal dominated biofilm from rocks, and larvae of Deleatidium (Ephemeroptera) and Olinga (Trichoptera). Total abundance and biomass of macroinvertebrates did not differ between streams with and without trout, but were significantly higher at grassland sites than forested sites. However, taxon richness and species composition differed substantially between trout and no-trout sites, irrespective of whether streams were located in forest or not. Trout streams typically contained more taxa, had low biomass of predatory invertebrates and large shredders, but a high proportion of consumers with cases or shells. The standing stock of CPOM was higher at forested sites, but there was less FPOM and more algae at sites with trout, regardless of the presence or absence of forest cover. The stable carbon isotope range for biofilm on rocks was broad and encompassed the narrow CPOM and FPOM ranges. At trout sites, carbon isotope ratios of Deleatidium, the most abundant invertebrate primary consumer, were closely related to biofilm values, but no relationship was found at no-trout sites where algal biomass was much lower. These results support a role for both bottom-up and top-down processes in controlling the structure of the stream communities studied, but indicate that predatory fish and forest cover had largely independent effects.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1.
Fig. 2.
Fig. 3.
Fig. 4.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Allan JD (1983) Predator-prey relationships in streams. In: Barnes JR, Minshall GW (eds) Stream ecology: application and testing of general ecological theory. Plenum, New York, pp 191–229

  • Allan JD (1995) Stream ecology. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht

  • Bechara JA, Moreau G, Planas D (1992) Top-down effects of brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) in a boreal stream. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 49:2093–2103

    Google Scholar 

  • Biggs BJF (1996) Patterns in benthic algae in streams. In: Stevenson JR, Bothwell ML, Lowe RL (eds) Algal ecology. Academic Press, San Diego, pp 31–56

  • Biggs BJF, Francoeur SN, Huryn AD, Young R, Arbuckle CJ, Townsend CR (2000) Trophic cascades in streams: effects of nutrient enrichment on autotrophic and consumer benthic communities under two different fish predation regimes. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 57:1380–1394

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brönmark C, Weisner SEB (1996) Decoupling of cascading trophic interactions in a freshwater, benthic food chain. Oecologia 108:534–541

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowlby JN, Roff JC (1986) Trophic structure in southern Ontario streams. Ecology 67:1670–1679

    Google Scholar 

  • Collier KJ, Winterbourn MJ (1990) Population dynamics and feeding of mayfly larvae in some acid and alkaline New Zealand streams. Freshw Biol 23:181–189

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooper SD (1988) The responses of aquatic insects and tadpoles to trout. Verh Int Verein Limnol 23:1698–1703

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooper SD, Walde SD, Peckarsky BL (1990) Prey exchange rates and the impact of predators on prey populations in streams. Ecology 71:1503–1514

    Google Scholar 

  • Cowx IG (1983) Review of the methods for estimating fish population size from survey removal data. Fish Manage 14:67–82

    Google Scholar 

  • Dahl J (1998) The impact of vertebrate and invertebrate predators on a stream benthic community. Oecologia 117:217–226

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dahl J, Greenberg L (1996) Impact on stream benthic prey by benthic vs. drift feeding predators: a meta-analysis. Oikos 77:177–181

    Google Scholar 

  • Death RG, Winterbourn MJ (1994) The measurement of environmental stability in streams: a multivariate approach. J N Am Benthol Soc 13:125–139

    Google Scholar 

  • Diehl S (1993) relative consumer sizes and the strengths of direct and indirect interactions in omnivorous feeding relationships. Oikos 68:151–157

    Google Scholar 

  • Diehl S, Cooper SD, Kratz KW, Nisbet RM, Roll, SK, Wiseman SW, Jenkins TM Jr (2000) Effects of multiple predator-induced behaviors on short-term producer-grazer dynamics in open systems. Am Nat 156:293-313

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dillon WR, Goldstein M (1984) Multivariate analysis methods and applications. Wiley, New York

  • Dobson M, Hildrew AG, Orton SS, Ormerod SJ (1995) Increasing litter retention in moorland streams—ecological and management aspects of a field experiment. Freshw Biol 33:325–337

    Google Scholar 

  • Englund G (1997) Importance of spatial scale and prey movements in predator caging experiments. Ecology 78:2316–2325

    Google Scholar 

  • Ernest SKM, Brown JH (2001) Homeostasis and compensation: The role of species and resources in ecosystem stability. Ecology 82:2118–2132

    Google Scholar 

  • Flecker AS, Townsend CR (1994) Community-wide consequences of trout introduction in New Zealand streams. Ecol Appl 4:798–807

    Google Scholar 

  • Forrester GE, Dudley TL, Grimm NB (1999) Trophic interactions in open systems: effects of predators and nutrients on stream food chains. Limnol Oceanogr 44:1187–1197

    Google Scholar 

  • Friberg N, Winterbourn MJ, Shearer KA, Larsen SE (1997) Benthic communities of forest streams in the South Island, New Zealand: effects of forest type and location. Arch Hydrobiol 138:289–306

    Google Scholar 

  • Glova GJ, Sagar PM, Näslund I (1992) Interaction for food and space between populations of Galaxias vulgaris Stokell and juvenile Salmo trutta L. in a New Zealand stream. J Fish Biol 41:909–925

    Google Scholar 

  • Gupta S, Michael RG, Gupta A (1993) Influence of diet on growth, food retention time, and gill ventilation rate of nymphs of Cloeon sp. (Ephemeroptera: Baetidae). Hydrobiologia 271:41–44

    Google Scholar 

  • Hansson L-A, Brönmark C, Nyström P, Greenberg L, Lundberg P, Nilsson A, Persson A, Petterson LB, Romare P, Tranvik L (1998) Consumption patterns, complexity and enrichment in aquatic food chains. Proc R Soc Lond 265:901–906

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hildrew AG (1996) Food webs and species interactions. In: Petts G, Calow P (eds) River biota, diversity and dynamics. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 123–144

  • Hill WR (1996) Effects of light. In: Stevenson JR, Bothwell ML, Lowe RL (eds) Algal ecology. Academic Press, San Diego, pp 121–148

  • Hill WR, Ryon MG, Schilling EM (1995) Light limitation in a stream ecosystem: responses by primary producers and consumers. Ecology 76:1297–1309

    Google Scholar 

  • Holt RD, Lawton JH (1994) The ecological consequences of shared natural enemies. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 25:495-520

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holt RD, Grover J, Tilman D (1994) Simple rules for interspecific dominance in systems with exploitative and apparent competition. Am Nat 144:741–771

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hunter MD, Price PW (1992) Playing chutes and ladders: heterogeneity and the relative roles of bottom-up and top-down forces in natural communities. Ecology 73:724–732

    Google Scholar 

  • Huryn AD (1996) An appraisal of the Allen paradox in a New Zealand trout stream. Limnol Oceanogr 41:243–252

    Google Scholar 

  • Huryn AD (1998) Ecosystem-level evidence for top-down and bottom-up control of production in a grassland stream system. Oecologia 115:173–183

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jefferies RL (2000) Allochthonous inputs: integrating population changes and food-web dynamics. Trends Ecol Evol 15:19–22

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kohler SL, McPeek MA (1989) Predation risk and the foraging behavior of competing stream insects. Ecology 70:1811–1825

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhara N, Nakano S, Miyasaka H (1999) Interspecific competition between two stream insect grazers mediated by non-feeding predatory fish. Oikos 87:27–35

    Google Scholar 

  • Lamberti GA, Resh VH (1983) Stream periphyton and insect herbivores: an experimental study of grazing by a caddisfly population. Ecology 64:1124–1135

    Google Scholar 

  • Ledger ME, Winterbourn MJ (2000) Growth of New Zealand stream insect larvae in relation to food type. Arch Hydrobiol 149:353–364

    Google Scholar 

  • Leibold MA (1996) A graphical model of keystone predators in food webs: trophic regulation of abundance, incidence, and diversity patterns in communities. Am Nat 147:784–812

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lester PJ, Mitchell SF, Scott D (1994) Willow leaf and periphyton chemical composition, and the feeding preferences of Olinga feredayi (Trichoptera: Conoesucidae). N Z J Mar Freshw Res 28:13–18

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • McCune B, Mefford MJ (1999) PC-ORD. Multivariate analysis of ecological data. MjM Software Design, Gleneden Beach, Oregon

  • McIntosh AR (2000a) Aquatic predator-prey interactions. In: Collier KJ, Winterbourn MJ (eds) New Zealand stream invertebrates: ecology and implications for management. New Zealand Limnological Society, Christchurch, pp 125–156

  • McIntosh AR (2000b) Habitat- and size-related variations in exotic trout impacts on native galaxiid fishes in New Zealand. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 57:2140–2151

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McIntosh AR, Townsend CR (1995) Impacts of an introduced predatory fish on mayfly grazing in New Zealand streams. Limnol Oceanogr 40:1508–1512

    Google Scholar 

  • McIntosh AR, Townsend CR (1996) Interactions between fish, grazing invertebrates and algae in a New Zealand stream: a trophic cascade mediated by fish-induced changes to grazer behaviour? Oecologia 108:174–181

    Google Scholar 

  • McMurtrie SA (2000) Interactive effects of disturbance, food supply and predators on Zelandopsyche ingens (Trichoptera). MSc thesis, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand

  • McQueen DJ, Johannes MRS, Post JR (1989) Bottom-up and top-down impacts on freshwater pelagic community structure. Ecol Monogr 59:289–309

    Google Scholar 

  • Murakami M, Nakano S (2002) Indirect effect of aquatic insect emergence on a terrestrial insect population through predation by birds. Ecol Lett 5:333–337

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nakano S, Miyasaka H, Kuhara N (1999) Terrestrial-aquatic linkages: riparian arthropod inputs alter trophic cascades in a stream food web. Ecology 80:2435–2411

    Google Scholar 

  • Nisbet RM, Diehl S, Wilson WG, Cooper SD, Donaldson DD, Kratz K (1997) Primary-productivity gradients and short-term population dynamics in open systems. Ecol Monogr 67:535-553

    Google Scholar 

  • Oksanen L, Fretwell S, Arruda J, Niemela P (1981) Exploitation of ecosystems in gradients of primary productivity. Am Nat 118:240–261

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Osenberg CW, Mittelbach GG (1996) The relative importance of resource limitation and predator limitation in food chains. In: Polis GA, Winemiller KO (eds) Food webs: integration of patterns and dynamics. Chapman and Hall, New York, pp 134–148

  • Peacor SD (2002) Positive effects of predators on prey growth rate through induced modifications of prey behavior. Ecol Lett 5:77–85

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peacor SD, Werner EE (1997) Trait-mediated indirect interactions in a simple aquatic food web. Ecology 78:1146–1156

    Google Scholar 

  • Peacor SD, Werner EE (2000) Predator effects on an assemblage of consumers through induced changes in consumer foraging behavior. Ecology 81:1998–2010

    Google Scholar 

  • Peterson BJ, Fry BF (1987) Stable isotopes in ecosystem studies. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 18:293–320

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Polis GA, Strong DR (1996) Food web complexity and community dynamics. Am Nat 147:813–846

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Polis GA, Winemiller KO (1996) Food webs: integration of patterns and dynamics. Chapman and Hall, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Power ME (1990) Effects of fish on river food webs. Science 250:411–415

    Google Scholar 

  • Power ME (1992) Top-down and bottom-up forces in food webs: do plants have primacy? Ecology 73:733–746

    Google Scholar 

  • Quinn JM, Smith BJ, Burrell GP, Parkyn SM (2000) Leaf litter characteristics affect colonisation by stream invertebrates and growth of Olinga feredayi (Trichoptera: Conoesucidae). N Z J Mar Freshw Res 34:273–287

    Google Scholar 

  • Richardson JS (1991) Seasonal food limitation of detritivores in a montane stream: an experimental test. Ecology 72:873–887

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruetz et al (2002) Top-down control in a detritus-based food web: fish, shredders, and leaf breakdown. Oecologia 132:307–315

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rounick JS, Winterbourn MJ, Lyon GL (1982) Differential utilization of allochthonous and autochthonous inputs by aquatic invertebrates in some New Zealand streams: a stable carbon isotope study. Oikos 39:191–198

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Sabo JL, Power ME (2002) River-watershed exchange: effects of riverine subsidies on riparian lizards and their terrestrial prey. Ecology 83:1860–1869

    Google Scholar 

  • Scarsbrook M (2000) Life-histories. In: Collier KJ, Winterbourn MJ (eds) New Zealand stream invertebrates: ecology and implications for management. New Zealand Limnological Society, Christchurch, pp 76–99

  • Schmitz OJ, Beckerman AP, O`Brien KM (1997) Behaviorally mediated trophic cascades: effects of predation risk on food web interactions. Ecology 78:1388–1399

    Google Scholar 

  • Thorp JH (1986) Two distinct roles for predators in freshwater assemblages. Oikos 47:75–82

    Google Scholar 

  • Trussel GC, Ewanchuk PJ, Bertness MD (2002) Field evidence of trait-mediated indirect interactions in a rocky intertidal food web. Ecol Lett 5:241–245

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wallace JB, Gurtz ME (1986) Response of Baetis mayflies (Ephemeroptera) to catchment logging. Am Midl Nat 115:25–41

    Google Scholar 

  • Wallace JB, Eggert SL, Meyer JL, Webster JR (1997) Multiple trophic levels of a forest stream linked to terrestrial litter inputs. Science 277:102–104

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Werner EE, Anholt BR (1996) Predator-induced behavioral indirect effects: consequences to competitive interactions in anuran larvae. Ecology 77:157–169

    Google Scholar 

  • Winterbourn MJ (2000) Feeding ecology. In: Collier KJ, Winterbourn MJ (eds) New Zealand stream invertebrates: ecology and implications for management. New Zealand Limnological Society, Christchurch, pp 100–124

  • Winterbourn MJ, Davis SF (1976) Ecological role of Zelandopsyche ingens (Trichoptera: Oeconesidae) in a beech forest stream ecosystem. Aust J Mar Freshw Res 27:197–215

    Google Scholar 

  • Winterbourn MJ, Cowie B, Rounick JS (1984) Food resources and ingestion patterns of insects along a West Coast, South Island, river system. N Z J Mar Freshw Res 18:379–388

    Google Scholar 

  • Winterbourn MJ, Gregson KLD, Dolphin CH (2000) Guide to the aquatic insects of New Zealand. Bull Entomol Soc N Z 13

  • Wooster DE, Sih A, Englund G (1997) Prey dispersal and predator impacts on stream benthic prey. In: Streit B, Städler T, Lively CM (eds) Evolutionary ecology of freshwater animals. Birkhäuser, Basel, pp 89–116

  • Wootton JT, Power ME (1993) Productivity, consumers, and the structure of a river food chain. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 90:1384–1387

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Rennie Bishop for assistance with the field work. Lars-Anders Hansson, Anders Nilsson, Sebastian Diehl and an anonymous reviewer gave valuable comments on an earlier version of the manuscript. This study was financed by a post doctoral fellowship from Wenner-Gren foundations to P.N. and research grants from the University of Canterbury. Tracey Robinson helped prepare the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Zoology, University of Canterbury, Private Bag 4800, Christchurch, New Zealand

    Per Nyström, Angus R. McIntosh & Michael J. Winterbourn

  2. Department of Ecology, Ecology Building, Lund University, 223 62, Lund, Sweden

    Per Nyström

Authors
  1. Per Nyström
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Angus R. McIntosh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Michael J. Winterbourn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Per Nyström.

Appendix

Appendix

Abundance

Mean invertebrate abundance (individuals per m2 ±1 SE, n=4) of 58 aquatic taxa found at open and forested sites with and without trout (P predator, G grazer, F filter feeder, S shredder, N non-feeder of aquatic food sources.

Taxa

Functional Group

No trout

Trout

Open

Forest

Open

Forest

Megaloptera

Archichauliodes

P

42±25

1±1

6±4

9±5

Ephemeroptera

Austroclima

G

38±27

19±19

14±10

36±27

Coloburiscus

F

140±140

1±1

98±72

127±76

Deleatidium

G

1,107±264

646±177

1,358±261

650±77

Neozephlebia

G

0

1±1

0

1±1

Nesameletus

G

22±9

151±114

7.2±6.2

9±5

Oniscigaster

G

2±2

0

1±1

0

Plecoptera

Austroperla

S

5±5

15±13

0

5±5

Cristaperla

G

1±1

0

0

1±1

Halticoperla

G

0

0

0

1±1

Spaniocerca

G

51±50

56±32

7±6

20±6

Stenoperla

P

3±3

22±7

10±7

8±5

Taraperla

G

0

6±6

0

0

Zelandobius

G

13±5

27±16

6±2

9±3

Zelandoperla

G

1±1

5±2

0

1± 1

Trichoptera

Aoteapsyche

F

10±7

1±1

50±26

17±7

Beraeoptera

G

15±10

0

385±136

113±60

Costachorema

P

24±20

2±2

10±2

0

Edpercivalia

P

2±2

2±2

0

0

Helicopsyche

G

170±170

0

0

0

Hudsonema

G

1±1

0

0

0

Hydrobiosella

F

8±5

0

32±31

47±29

Hydrobiosis

P

3±3

11±6

8±5

8±3

Hydrochorema

P

1±1

0

2±1

4±2

Neurochorema

P

0

42±42

0

26±24

Oeconesus

S

2±2

0

0

1±1

Olinga

G

70±31

35±8

138±61

106±16

Philorheithrus

P

5±4

6±3

5±3

6±5

Polyplectropus

P

0

0

2±2

0

Psilochorema

P

3±3

0

7±5

5±4

Pycnocentria

G

0

1±1

45±43

0

Pycnocentrodes

G

0

1±1

26±13

46±28

Triplectides

S

0

0

2±2

0

Zelandopsyche

S

3±3

6±3

6±6

3±0

Zelolessica

G

1±1

0

43±21

17±7

Coleoptera

Elmidae

G

1±1

44±41

40±21

238±67

Hydraenidae

G

3±1

5±2

6±5

6±3

Hydrophilidae

G

2±2

17±7

10±7

10±4

Ptilodactylidae

G

6±6

0

0

0

Scirtidae

G

96±72

10±6

2±2

1±1

Diptera

Aphrophila

G

10±6

0

86±47

10±6

Austrosimulium

F

18±12

134±127

250±85

60±35

Chironomidae

G

172±93

34±5

377±295

73±16

Empididae

G

2±2

2±1

1±1

1±1

Eriopterini

G

2±1

2±2

3±2

4±2

Hexatomini

G

3±1

1±1

2±1

0

Muscidae

P

13±13

0

5±5

0

Nothodixa

G

0

1±1

0

0

Pelecorhynchidae

P

0

2±2

0

3±3

Tanyderidae

G

0

0

1±1

0

Mollusca

Potamopyrgus

G

146±81

10±10

64±41

55±38

Sphaerium

F

0

0

1±1

0

Platyhelminthes

Neppia

P

314±161

41±16

13±5

50±42

Nematoda

P

0

0

1±1

0

Nematomorpha

N

1±1

0

1

0

Annelida

Oligochaeta

G

46±26

38±22

58±42

29±22

Amphipoda

Paraleptamphopus

G

0

0

1±1

5±5

Acari

P

0

0

1±1

0

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Nyström, P., McIntosh, A.R. & Winterbourn, M.J. Top-down and bottom-up processes in grassland and forested streams. Oecologia 136, 596–608 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-003-1297-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-003-1297-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation