, Volume 173, Issue 2, pp 507–519 | Cite as

Leaf litter quality affects aquatic insect emergence: contrasting patterns from two foundation trees

  • Zacchaeus G. CompsonEmail author
  • Kenneth J. Adams
  • Joeseph A. Edwards
  • Jesse M. Maestas
  • Thomas G. Whitham
  • Jane C. Marks
Plant-animal interactions - Original research


Reciprocal subsidies between rivers and terrestrial habitats are common where terrestrial leaf litter provides energy to aquatic invertebrates while emerging aquatic insects provide energy to terrestrial predators (e.g., birds, lizards, spiders). We examined how aquatic insect emergence changed seasonally with litter from two foundation riparian trees, whose litter often dominates riparian streams of the southwestern United States: Fremont (Populus fremontii) and narrowleaf (Populus angustifolia) cottonwood. P. fremontii litter is fast-decomposing and lower in defensive phytochemicals (i.e., condensed tannins, lignin) relative to P. angustifolia. We experimentally manipulated leaf litter from these two species by placing them in leaf enclosures with emergence traps attached in order to determine how leaf type influenced insect emergence. Contrary to our initial predictions, we found that packs with slow-decomposing leaves tended to support more emergent insects relative to packs with fast-decomposing leaves. Three findings emerged. Firstly, abundance (number of emerging insects m−2 day−1) was 25 % higher on narrowleaf compared to Fremont leaves for the spring but did not differ in the fall, demonstrating that leaf quality from two dominant trees of the same genus yielded different emergence patterns and that these patterns changed seasonally. Secondly, functional feeding groups of emerging insects differed between treatments and seasons. Specifically, in the spring collector-gatherer abundance and biomass were higher on narrowleaf leaves, whereas collector-filterer abundance and biomass were higher on Fremont leaves. Shredder abundance and biomass were higher on narrowleaf leaves in the fall. Thirdly, diversity (Shannon’s H′) was higher on Fremont leaves in the spring, but no differences were found in the fall, showing that fast-decomposing leaves can support a more diverse, complex emergent insect assemblage during certain times of the year. Collectively, these results challenge the notion that leaf quality is a simple function of decomposition, suggesting instead that aquatic insects benefit differentially from different leaf types, such that some use slow-decomposing litter for habitat and its temporal longevity and others utilize fast-decomposing litter with more immediate nutrient release.


Aquatic insects Emergence Leaf litter quality Foundation species 



We thank Greg Florian of the Northern Arizona University (NAU) Machine Shop for help with designing and constructing leaf enclosures and emergent insect collectors. The Coconino Forest Service provided us with access to our sites on Wet Beaver Creek. The manuscript benefitted greatly from the feedback of the Oecologia editorial staff, two anonymous reviewers, the Cottonwood Ecology Lab Group, and the Merriam-Powell Seminar for Research Design at NAU. Funding was provided by NSF through the FIBR (DEB-0425908), IGERT (DGE-0549505), and Ecosystem Studies (DEB-1120343) research programs.

Supplementary material

442_2013_2643_MOESM1_ESM.doc (268 kb)
Appendix 1 (DOC 268 kb)


  1. Barclay RMR (1991) Population-structure of temperate zone insectivorous bats in relation to foraging behavior and energy demand. J Anim Ecol 60:165–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Basaguren A, Pozo J (1994) Leaf litter processing of alder and eucalyptus in the Agêera stream system (Northern Spain). II. Macroinvertebrates associated. Arch Hydrobiol 132:57–68Google Scholar
  3. 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
  4. Baxter CV, Fausch KD, Saunders WC (2005) Tangled webs: reciprocal flows of invertebrate prey link streams and riparian zones. Freshwater Biol 50:201–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Benfield EF (2006) Decomposition of leaf material. In: Hauer FR, Lamberti GA (eds) Methods in stream ecology, 2nd edn. Academic Press, Burlington, pp 125–155Google Scholar
  6. Bernhardt ES, Palmer MA, Allan JD, Alexander G, Barnas K, Brooks S, Carr J, Clayton S, Dahm C, Follstad-Shah J, Galat D, Gloss S, Goodwin P, Hart D, Hassett B, Jenkinson R, Katz S, Kondolf GM, Lake PS, Lave R, Meyer JL, O'Donnell, Pagano L, Powell B, Sudduth E (2005) Synthesizing US river restoration efforts. Science 308:636–637Google Scholar
  7. Ciborowski JJH, Craig DA, Fry KM (1997) Dissolved organic matter as food for black fly larvae (Diptera: Simuliidae). J N Am Benthol Soc 16:771–780CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cooper SD, Walde SJ, Peckarsky BL (1990) Prey exchange rates and the impact of predators on prey populations in streams. Ecology 71:1503–1514CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Couch CA, Meyer JL, Hall RO (1996) Incorporation of bacterial extracellular polysaccharide by black fly larvae (Simuliidae). J N Am Benthol Soc 15:289–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Crutsinger GM, Reynolds WN, Classen AT, Sanders NJ (2008) Disparate effects of plant genotypic diversity on foliage and litter arthropod communities. Oecologia 158:65–75PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cummins KW, Wiltzbach MA, Gates DM, Perry JB, Taliaferro WB (1989) Shredders and riparian vegetation: leaf letter that falls into streams influences communities of stream invertebrates. BioScience 39:24–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Davies JN, Boulton AJ (2009) Great house, poor food: effects of exotic leaf litter on shredder densities and caddisfly growth in 6 subtropical Australian streams. J North Am Benthol Soc 28:491–503CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. de Boer W, Folman LB, Summerbell RC, Boddy L (2005) Living in a fungal world: impact of fungi on soil bacterial niche development. FEMS Microbiol Rev 29:795–811PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. de Jong J, Ahlén I (1991) Factors affecting the distribution pattern of bats in Uppland, Central Sweden. Holarct Ecol 14:92–96Google Scholar
  15. Findlay S, Meyer JL, Smith PJ (1986) Incorporation of microbial biomass by Peltoperla sp. (Plecoptera) and Tipula sp. (Diptera). J North Am Benthol Soc 5:306–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fogel R, Cromack K Jr (1977) The effect of habitat and substrate quality on Douglas-fir litter decomposition in western Oregon. Can J Bot 55:1632–1640CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gotelli NJ, Ellison AM (2004) A primer of ecological statistics. Sinauer, SunderlandGoogle Scholar
  18. Graça MA (2001) The role of invertebrates on leaf litter decomposition in streams—a review. Int Rev Hydrobiol 86:383–393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gray LJ (1989) Emergence production and export of aquatic insects from a tallgrass prairie stream. Southwest Nat 34:313–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gray LJ (1993) Response of insectivorous birds to emerging aquatic insects in riparian habitats of a tallgrass prairie stream. Am Midl Nat 129:288–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Grimm NB (1987) Nitrogen dynamics during succession in a desert stream. Ecology 68:1157–1170Google Scholar
  22. Grubbs SA, Cummins KW (1994) Processing and macroinvertebrate colonization of black cherry (Prunus serotina) leaves in two streams differing in summer biota, thermal regime and riparian vegetation. Am Midl Nat 132:284–293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hendrix PF, Parmelee RW, Crossley DA, Coleman DC, Odum EP, Groffman PM (1986) Detritus food webs in conventional and no-tillage agroecosystems. Bioscience 36:374–380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hieber M, Gessner MO (2002) Contribution of stream detritivores, fungi, and bacteria to leaf breakdown based on biomass estimates. Ecology 83:1026–1038CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Holland EA, Coleman DC (1987) Litter placement effects on microbial and organic matter dynamics in an agroecosystem. Ecol 68:425–433CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Huryn AD, Wallace JB (1987) Local geomorphology as a determinant of macrofaunal production in a mountain stream. Ecol 68:1932–1942CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Irons JG III, Oswood MW, Bryant JP (1988) Consumption of leaf detritus by a stream shredder: influence of tree species and nutrient status. Hydrobiol 160:53–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Iwata T (2007) Linking stream habitats and spider distribution: spatial variations in trophic transfer across a forest-stream boundary. Ecol Res 22:619–628CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Jackson JK, Fisher SG (1986) Secondary production, emergence, and export of aquatic insects of a Sonoran Desert stream. Ecol 67:629–638CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Keith AR, Bailey JK, Whitham TG (2010) A genetic basis to community repeatability and stability. Ecol 91:3398–3406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Knight TM, McCoy MW, Chase JM, McCoy KA, Holt RD (2005) Trophic cascades across ecosystems. Nat 437:880–883Google Scholar
  32. Kohler SL, Wiley MJ (1997) Pathogen outbreaks reveal large-scale effects of competition in stream communities. Ecol 78:2164–2176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kominoski JS, Larrañaga S, Richardson JS (2012) Invertebrate feeding and emergence timing vary among streams along a gradient of riparian forest composition. Freshwater Biol 57:759–772CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. LeRoy CJ, Marks JC (2006) Litter quality, stream characteristics, and litter diversity influence decomposition rates and macroinvertebrates. Freshwater Biol 51:605–617CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. LeRoy CJ, Whitham TG, Keim P, Marks JC (2006) Plant genes link forests and streams. Ecology 87:255–261PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. LeRoy CJ, Whitham TG, Wooley SC, Marks JC (2007) Within-species variation in foliar chemistry influences leaf-litter decomposition in a Utah river. J North Am Benthol Soc 26:426–438CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lynch RJ, Bunn SE, Catterall CP (2002) Adult aquatic insects: potential contributors to riparian food webs in Australia’s wet-dry tropics. Austral Ecol 27:515–526Google Scholar
  38. Malmqvist B, Oberle D (1995) Macroinvertebrate effects on leaf pack decomposition in a lake outlet stream in Northern Sweden. Nord J Freshw Res 70:12–20Google Scholar
  39. 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
  40. Marks JC, Haden GA, Harrop BL, Reese EG, Keams JL, Watwood ME, Whitham TG (2009) Genetic and environmental controls of microbial communities on leaf litter in streams. Freshwater Biol 54:2616–2627CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. McCune B, Grace JB (2002) Analysis of ecological communities. MjM Software, Gleneden BeachGoogle Scholar
  42. McIntosh AR (2000) 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 125–155Google Scholar
  43. Melillo JM, Aber JD, Muratore JF (1982) Nitrogen and lignin control of hardwood leaf litter decomposition dynamics. Ecology 63:621–626CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Merritt RW, Cummins KW (1996) An introduction to the aquatic insects of North America, 3rd edn. Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company, DubuqueGoogle Scholar
  45. Nakano S, Murakami M (2001) Reciprocal subsidies: dynamic interdependence between terrestrial and aquatic food webs. Proc Natl Acad Sci 98:166–170PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Paetzold A, Schubert CJ, Tockner K (2005) Aquatic–terrestrial linkages along a braided river: riparian arthropods feeding on aquatic insects. Ecosystem 8:748–759CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Petersen RC, Cummins KW (1974) Leaf processing in a woodland stream. Freshwater Biol 4:343–368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Power ME, Rainey WE (2000) Food webs and resource sheds: towards spatially delimiting trophic interactions. In: Hutchings MJ, John EA, Stewart AJA (eds) Ecological consequences of habitat heterogeneity. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 291–314Google Scholar
  49. 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 G (eds) Food webs at the landscape level. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 217–240Google Scholar
  50. Rehill BJ, Whitham TG, Martinsen GD, Schweitzer JA, Bailey JK, Lindroth RL (2006) Developmental trajectories in cottonwood phytochemistry. J Chem Ecol 32:2269–2285PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Rincón J, Martínez I (2006) Food quality and feeding preferences of Phylloicus sp. (Trichoptera: Calamoceratidae). J North Am Benthol Soc 25:209–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Sabo JL, Power ME (2002) River-watershed exchange: effects of riverine subsidies on riparian lizards and their terrestrial prey. Ecology 83:1860–1869Google Scholar
  53. Sabo JL, Bastow JL, Power ME (2002) Length-mass relationships for adult aquatic and terrestrial invertebrates in a California watershed. J North Am Benthol Soc 21:336–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Sample BE, Cooper RJ, Greer RD, Whitmore RC (1993) Estimation of insect biomass by length and width. Am Midl Nat 129:234–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 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
  56. Schweitzer JA, Bailey JK, Rehill RJ, Martinsen GD, Hart SC, Lindroth RL, Keim P, Whitham TG (2004) Genetically based trait in a dominant tree affects ecosystem processes. Ecol Lett 7:127–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Sokal RR, Rohlf FJ (1995) Biometry, 3rd edn. Freeman, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  58. Stagliano DM, Benke AC, Anderson DH (1998) Emergence of aquatic insects from 2 habitats in a small wetland of the southeastern USA: temporal patterns of numbers and biomass. J N Am Benthol Soc 17:37–53Google Scholar
  59. Stout BM III, Benfield EF, Webster JR (1993) Effects of a forest disturbance on shredder production in a southern Appalachian stream. Freshwater Biol 29:59–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Sullivan CM, Shiel CB, McAney CM, Fairley JS (1993) Analysis of the diets of Leisler’s Nyctalus leisleri, Daubenton’s Myotis daubentoni, and Pipistrelle Pipistrellus pipistrellus bats in Ireland. J Zool 231:656–663CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. van der Heijden MGA, Bardgett RD, van Straalen NM (2008) The unseen majority: soil microbes as drivers of plant diversity and productivity in terrestrial ecosystems. Ecol Lett 11:296–310PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Vannote RL, Minshall GW, Cummins KW, Sedell JR, Cushing CE (1980) The river continuum concept. Can J Fish Aquatic Sci 37:130–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Weber CI (1973) Biological field and laboratory methods for measuring the quality of surface waters and effluents. EPA-670/4-73-001. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OHGoogle Scholar
  64. Webster JR, Benfield EF (1986) Vascular plant breakdown in freshwater ecosystems. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 17:567–594CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Whitham TG, Bailey JK, Schweitzer JA, Shuster SM, Bangert RK, LeRoy CJ, Lonsdorf EV, Allan GJ, DiFazio SP, Potts BM, Fischer DG, Gehring CA, Lindroth RL, Marks JC, Hart SC, Wimp GM, Wooley SC (2006) A framework for community and ecosystem genetics: from genes to ecosystems. Nat Rev Genet 7:510–523PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Wimp GM, Young WP, Woolbright SA, Martinsen GD, Keim P, Whitham TG (2004) Conserving plant genetic diversity for dependent animal communities. Ecol Lett 7:776–780CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Yanoviak SP (1999) Effects of leaf litter species on macroinvertebrate community properties and mosquito yield in Neotropical tree hole microcosms. Oecologia 120:147–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Zacchaeus G. Compson
    • 1
    Email author
  • Kenneth J. Adams
    • 1
  • Joeseph A. Edwards
    • 1
  • Jesse M. Maestas
    • 1
  • Thomas G. Whitham
    • 1
  • Jane C. Marks
    • 1
  1. 1.Merriam-Powell Center for Environmental Research, Department of Biological SciencesNorthern Arizona UniversityFlagstaffUSA

Personalised recommendations