Oecologia

, Volume 167, Issue 3, pp 821–834 | Cite as

Increasing donor ecosystem productivity decreases terrestrial consumer reliance on a stream resource subsidy

  • John M. Davis
  • Amy D. Rosemond
  • Gaston E. Small
Ecosystem ecology - Original Paper

Abstract

Because nutrient enrichment can increase ecosystem productivity, it may enhance resource flows to adjacent ecosystems as organisms cross ecosystem boundaries and subsidize predators in recipient ecosystems. Here, we quantified the biomass and abundance of aquatic emergence and terrestrial spiders in a reference and treatment stream that had been continuously enriched with nitrogen and phosphorus for 5 years. Because we previously showed that enrichment increased secondary production of stream consumers, we predicted that aquatic emergence flux would be higher in the treatment stream, subsequently increasing the biomass and abundance of terrestrial spiders. Those increases were predicted to be greatest for spiders specializing on aquatic emergence subsidies (e.g., Tetragnathidae). By adding a 15N stable isotope tracer to both streams, we also quantified nitrogen flow from the stream into the riparian community. Emergence biomass, but not abundance, was higher in the treatment stream. The average body size of emerging adult insects and the relative dominance of Trichoptera adults were also greater in the treatment stream. However, spider biomass did not differ between streams. Spiders also exhibited substantially lower reliance on aquatic emergence nitrogen in the treatment stream. This reduced reliance likely resulted from shifts in the body size distributions and community composition of insect emergence that may have altered predator consumption efficiency in the treatment stream. Despite nutrient enrichment approximately doubling stream productivity and associated cross-ecosystem resource flows, the response of terrestrial predators depended more on the resource subsidy’s characteristics that affected the predator’s ability to capitalize on such increases.

Keywords

Emergence Nutrient enrichment Food web subsidy Predator resistance 

References

  1. Abrams PA (1993) Effect of increased productivity on the abundances of trophic levels. Am Nat 141:351–371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alexander RB, Smith RA (2006) Trends in the nutrient enrichment of US rivers during the late 20th century and their relation to changes in probable stream trophic conditions. Limnol Oceanogr 51:639–654CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. APHA (1998) Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater, 20th edn. American Public Health Association, Washington D.CGoogle Scholar
  4. 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
  5. Baxter CV, Fausch KD, Saunders WC (2005) Tangled webs: reciprocal flows of invertebrate prey link streams and riparian zone. Freshwat Biol 50:201–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Benke AC (1993) Concepts and patterns of invertebrate production in running waters. Verh Internat Verein Limnol 25:15–38Google Scholar
  7. Clarke K, Gorley R (2006) PRIMER v6: user manual/tutorial. PRIMER-E, PlymouthGoogle Scholar
  8. Cross WF, Wallace JB, Rosemond AD, Eggert SL (2006) Whole-system nutrient enrichment increases secondary production in a detrital-based ecosystem. Ecology 87:1556–1565PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cross WF, Wallace JB, Rosemond AD (2007) Nutrient enrichment reduces constraints on material flows in a detritus-based food web. Ecology 88:2563–2575PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Davis JM (2009) Food web response to long-term experimental enrichment of a detritus-based stream ecosystem. PhD dissertation, University of Georgia, AthensGoogle Scholar
  11. Davis JM, Rosemond AD, Eggert SL, Cross WF, Wallace JB (2010a) Long-term nutrient enrichment decouples predator and prey production. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 107:121–126PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Davis JM, Rosemond AD, Eggert SL, Cross WF, Wallace JB (2010b) Nutrient enrichment differentially affects body sizes of primary consumers and predators in a detritus-based stream. Limnol Oceanogr 55:2305–2316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Francis TB, Schindler DE, Moore JW (2006) Aquatic insects play a minor role in dispersing salmon-derived nutrients into riparian forests in southwestern Alaska. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 63:2543–2552CrossRefGoogle 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. Gratton C, Donaldson J, vander Zanden MJ (2008) Ecosystem linkages between lakes and the surrounding terrestrial landscape in northeast Iceland. Ecosystems 11:764–774CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Griffith MB, Barrows EM, Perry SA (1998) Lateral dispersal of adult aquatic insects (Plecoptera, Trichoptera) following emergence from headwater streams in forested Appalachian catchments. Ann Entomol Soc Am 91:195–201Google Scholar
  17. Hall RO, Peterson BJ, Meyer JL (1998) Testing a nitrogen-cycling model of a forest stream by using a nitrogen-15 tracer addition. Ecosystems 1:283–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Henschel JR, Mahsberg D, Stumpf H (2001) Allochthonous aquatic insects increase predation and decrease herbivory in river shore food webs. Oikos 93:429–438CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hurlbert SH (1984) Pseudreplication and the design of ecological field experiments. Ecol Monogr 54:187–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hynes HBN (1975) The stream and its valley. Verh Internat Verein Limnol 19:1–15Google Scholar
  21. Jackson JK, Fisher SG (1986) Secondary production, emergence, and export of aquatic insects of a sonoran desert stream. Ecology 67:629–638CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kato C, Iwata T, Nakano S, Kishi D (2003) Dynamics of aquatic insect flux affects distribution of riparian web-building spiders. Oikos 103:113–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kato C, Iwata T, Wada E (2004) Prey use by web-building spiders: stable isotope analyses of trophic flow at a forest-stream ecotone. Ecol Res 19:633–643CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lugthart GJ, Wallace JB (1992) Effects of disturbance on benthic functional structure and production in mountain streams. J North Am Benthol Soc 11:138–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. MacNeale KH, Peckarsksy BL, Likens GE (2005) Stable isotopes identify dispersal patterns of stonefly populations living along stream corridors. Freshwat Biol 50:1117–1130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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
  27. Marczak LB, Hoover TM, Richardson JS (2007a) Trophic interception: how a boundary-foraging organism influences cross-ecosystem fluxes. Oikos 116:1651–1662CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Marczak LB, Thompson RM, Richardson JS (2007b) Meta-analysis: trophic level, habitat, and productivity shape the food web effects of resource subsidies. Ecology 88:140–148PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Moulder BC, Reichle DE (1972) Significance of spider predation in energy dynamics of forest floor arthropod communities. Ecol Monogr 42:473–498CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Nakano S, Murakami M (2001) Reciprocal subsidies: dynamic interdependence between terrestrial and aquatic food webs. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 98:166–170PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Nentwig W, Wissel C (1986) A comparison of prey lengths among spiders. Oecologia 68:595–600CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Olive CW (1980) Foraging specialization in orb-weaving spiders. Ecology 61:1133–1144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Pace ML, Cole JJ, Carpenter SR, Kitchell JF, Hodgson JR, Van de Bogert MC, Bade DL, Kritzberg ES, Bastviken D (2004) Whole-lake carbon-13 additions reveal terrestrial support of aquatic food webs. Nature 427:240–243PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Paetzold A, Tockner K (2005) Effects of riparian arthropod predation on the biomass and abundance of aquatic insect emergence. J North Am Benthol Soc 24:395–402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Peterson I, Winterbottom JH, Orton S, Friberg N, Hildrew AG, Spiers DC, Gurney WSC (1999) Emergence and lateral dispersal of adult Plecoptera and Trichoptera from Broadstone Stream, UK. Freshwat Biol 42:401–416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Phillips DL, Gregg JW (2003) Source partitioning using stable isotopes: coping with too many sources. Oecologia 136:261–269PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Polis GA, Hurd SD (1995) Extraordinarily high spider densities on islands: flow of energy from the marine to terrestrial food webs and the absence of predation. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 92:4382–4386PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 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
  39. Power ME, Rainey WE, Parker MS, Sabo JL, Smyth A, Khandwala S, Finlay JC, McNeely FC, Marsee K, Anderson C (2004) River-to-watershed subsidies in an old-growth conifer forest. In: Polis GA, Power ME, Huxel GR (eds) Food webs at the landscape level. University of Chicago, Chicago, pp 217–240Google Scholar
  40. Sanzone DM, Meyer JL, Marti E, Gardiner EP, Tank JL, Grimm NB (2003) Carbon and nitrogen transfer from a desert stream to riparian predators. Oecologia 134:238–250PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Slavik J, Peterson BJ, Deegan LA, Bowden WB, Hershey AE, Hobbie JE (2004) Long-term responses of the Kuparuk River ecosystem to phosphorus fertilization. Ecology 85:939–954CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Smith CM (2011) Biochemical plant defenses against herbivores. In: Dubinsky Z, Seckbach J (eds) All flesh is grass: plant-animal interrelationships. Springer, Netherlands, pp 287–310Google Scholar
  43. Tanaka K (1991) Food consumption and diet composition of the web-building spider Agelena limbata in two habitats. Oecologia 86:8–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Ubick D, Paquin P, Cushing PE, Roth V (eds) (2005) Spiders of North America: an identification manual. American Arachnological Society, USAGoogle Scholar
  45. Verhoeven KJF, Simonsen KL, McIntyre LM (2005) Implementing false discovery rate control: increasing your power. Oikos 108:643–647CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 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
  47. Werneke U, Zwick P (1992) Mortality of the terrestrial adult and aquatic nymphal life stages of Baetis vernus and Baetis rhodani in the Breitenbach, Germany (Insecta: Ephemeroptera). Freshwat Biol 28:249–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Williams DD, Ambrose LG, Browning LN (1995) Trophic dynamics of two sympatric species of riparian spider (Araneae, Tetragnathidae). Can J Zool 73:1545–1553CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Witman JD, Ellis JC, Anderson WB (2004) The influence of physical processes, organisms, and permeability on cross-ecosystem fluxes. In: Polis GA, Power ME, Huxel GR (eds) Food webs at the landscape level. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 335–358Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • John M. Davis
    • 1
    • 2
  • Amy D. Rosemond
    • 1
  • Gaston E. Small
    • 1
    • 3
  1. 1.Odum School of EcologyUniversity of GeorgiaAthensUSA
  2. 2.Stream Ecology Center, Department of Biological SciencesIdaho State UniversityPocatelloUSA
  3. 3.Department of Ecology, Evolution, and BehaviorUniversity of MinnesotaSt. PaulUSA

Personalised recommendations