, Volume 16, Issue 4, pp 639–651 | Cite as

Spatial Subsidies, Trophic State, and Community Structure: Examining the Effects of Leaf Litter Input on Ponds

  • Julia E. EarlEmail author
  • Raymond D. Semlitsch


In aquatic systems, light and subsidy input often co-vary along a canopy cover gradient. This creates systems where subsidies are more prevalent in areas with low primary productivity and less prevalent in areas with high primary productivity. We expect ecosystem processes and community structure to respond to these changes in resources. We examined the effects of light and subsidy input (leaf litter) on ponds by placing pond mesocosms along a canopy gradient and manipulating litter input. We then sampled mesocosms for ecosystem and community parameters for 2 years during April (pre-leaf out), July (full canopy), and November (start of leaf fall). Neither canopy cover nor litter input tended to dominate effects overall, highlighting the importance of the light-subsidy gradient combination that is frequently encountered in temperate aquatic systems. Ponds shifted from an autotrophy/heterotrophy balance to net heterotrophy with increasing canopy cover in concordance with our predictions. Although litter input affected dissolved oxygen, we did not detect an effect of litter on trophic state, primary production, or community respiration. We additionally found effects of both canopy cover and litter input on community composition, but very differently than that found in streams. In general, the grazer and shredder macroinvertebrate functional feeding groups were rare in the pond mesocosms, and thus did not respond to treatments. The collector proportion of the community, mainly chironomids, increased with canopy cover and was higher in mesocosms with litter input than those without. Contrary to predictions, there were few differences between subsidy input type (leaves or grass) despite differences in litter quality. This study, along with many others, highlights the importance of canopy gradients in determining ecosystem function and community composition.


leaf litter canopy cover primary production community respiration nutrients macroinvertebrates zooplankton 



We would like to thank M. Osbourn, K. Cohagen, K. Malone, D. Leach, N. Woodburn, and E. McDonald for help in the field, P. Castello, D. Drake, J. Fairchild, S. Olson, and L. Johnson for help in the laboratory, and C. Galen, C. Rabeni and two anonymous reviewers for comments on previous versions of this manuscript. Financial support was provided by the National Science Foundation (DEB-0239943). JEE was supported by a Life Sciences Fellowship, TWA Scholarship, and Conservation Biology Fellowship through the University of Missouri and an Environmental Protection Agency STAR Fellowship.

Supplementary material

10021_2013_9639_MOESM1_ESM.docx (115 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 115 kb)


  1. Anderson DH, Darring S, Benke AC. 1998. Growth of crustacean meiofauna in a forested floodplain swamp: implications for biomass turnover. J N Am Benthol Soc 17:21–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bärlocher F. 2005. Leaf mass loss estimated by litter bag technique. In: Graça MAS, Bärlocher F, Gessner M, Eds. Methods to study litter decomposition: a practical guide. New York: Springer. p 37–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Battle JM, Golladay SW. 2001. Hydroperiod influence on breakdown of leaf litter in cypress-gum wetlands. Am Midl Nat 146:128–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Batzer DP, Palik BJ. 2007. Variable response by aquatic invertebrates to experimental manipulations of leaf litter input into seasonal woodland ponds. Fundam Appl Limnol 168:155–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Batzer DP, Wissinger SA. 1996. Ecology of insect communities in nontidal wetlands. Annu Rev Entomol 41:75–100.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Batzer DP, Palik BJ, Buech R. 2004. Relationships between environmental characteristics and macroinvertebrate communities in seasonal woodland ponds of Minnesota. J N Am Benthol Soc 23:50–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Benke AC, Huryn AD, Smock LA, Wallace JB. 1999. Length–mass relationships for freshwater macroinvertebrates in North America with particular reference to the southeastern United States. J N Am Benthol Soc 18:308–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Binckley CA, Resetarits WJ Jr. 2007. Effects of forest canopy on habitat selection in treefrogs and aquatic insects: implications for communities and metacommunities. Oecologia 153:951–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Boone MD, Semlitsch RD, Little EE, Doyle MC. 2007. Multiple stressors in amphibian communities: Effects of chemical contamination, bullfrogs, and fish. Ecol Appl 17:291–301.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brinson MM, Lugo AE, Brown S. 1981. Primary productivity, decomposition and consumer activity in freshwater wetlands. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 12:123–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Burdett AS, Watts RJ. 2009. Modifying living space: an experimental study of the influences of vegetation on aquatic invertebrate community structure. Hydrobiologia 618:161–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Clesceri LS, Greenberg AE, Trussell RR, Eds. 1989. Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater. Washington, DC: American Public Health Association.Google Scholar
  13. Cohen JS, Maerz JC, Blossey B. 2012a. Traits, not origin, explain impacts of plants on larval amphibians. Ecol Appl 22:218–28.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cohen JS, Ng S, Blossey B. 2012b. Quantity counts: amount of litter determines tadpole performance in experimental microcosms. J Herpetol 46:85–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dodds WK, Cole JJ. 2007. Expanding the concept of trophic state in aquatic ecosystems: it’s not just the autotrophs. Aquat Sci 69:427–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Earl JE. 2012. Effects of spatial subsidies and canopy cover on pond communities and multiple life stages in amphibians. Dissertation, University of MissouriGoogle Scholar
  17. Earl JE, Semlitsch RD. 2012. Reciprocal subsidies in ponds: does leaf input increase frog biomass export? Oecologia 170:1077–87.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Earl JE, Luhring TM, Williams BK, Semlitsch RD. 2011. Biomass export of salamanders and anurans from ponds is affected differentially by changes in canopy cover. Freshw Biol 56:2473–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Edwards FK, Lauridsen RB, Armand L, Vincent HM, Jones JI. 2009. The relationship between length, mass and preservation time for three species of freshwater leeches (Hirundinea). Fundam Appl Limnol 173:321–7.Google Scholar
  20. Fontaine TDIII, Ewel KC. 1981. Metabolism of a Florida lake ecosystem. Limnol Oceanogr 26:754–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gee JHR, Smith BD, Lee KM, Griffiths SW. 1997. The ecological basis of freshwater pond management for biodiversity. Aquat Conserv 7:91–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Graça MAS. 2001. The role of invertebrates on leaf litter decomposition in streams—a review. Int Rev Hydrobiol 86:383–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hanson MA, Bowe SE, Ossman FG, Fieberg J, Butler MG, Koch R. 2009. Influence of forest harvest and environmental gradients on aquatic invertebrate communities of seasonal ponds. Wetlands 29:884–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hocking DJ, Semlitsch RD. 2007. Effects of timber harvest on breeding-site selection by gray treefrogs (Hyla versicolor). Biol Conserv 138:506–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hocking DJ, Semlitsch RD. 2008. Effects of experimental clearcut logging on gray treefrog (Hyla versicolor) tadpole performance. J Herpetol 42:689–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kato C, Iwata T, Nakano S, Kishi D. 2003. Dynamics of aquatic insect flux affects distribution of riparian web-building spiders. Oikos 103:113–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Loreau M, Holt RD. 2004. Spatial flows and the regulation of ecosystems. Am Nat 163:606–15.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Magnusson AK, Williams DD. 2006. The roles of natural temporal and spatial variation versus biotic influences in shaping the physicochemical environment of intermittent ponds: a case study. Archiv für Hydrobiologie 165:537–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Marczak LB, Richardson JS. 2007. Spiders and subsidies: results from the riparian zone of a coastal temperate rainforest. J Anim Ecol 76:687–94.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. McCauley E. 1984. The estimation of the abundance and biomass of zooplankton in samples. In: Downing JA, Rigler FH, Eds. Secondary productivity in fresh waters. Blackwood (NJ): Blackwell. p 228–65.Google Scholar
  31. Merritt RW, Cummins KW, Eds. 1996. An introduction to the aquatic insects of north america. Dubuque (IA): Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  32. Mokany A, Wood JT, Cunningham SA. 2008. Effect of shade and shading history on species abundances and ecosystem processes in temporary ponds. Freshw Biol 53:1917–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Myer E. 1989. The relationship between body length parameters and dry mass in running water invertebrates. Archiv für Hydrobiologie 117:443–51.Google Scholar
  34. Nakano S, Miyasaka H, Kuhara N. 1999. Terrestrial-aquatic linkages: Riparian arthropod inputs alter trophic cascades in a stream food web. Ecology 80:2435–41.Google Scholar
  35. Nyström P, Pérez JR. 1998. Crayfish predation on the common pond snail (Lymnaea stagnalis): the effect of habitat complexity and snail size on foraging efficiency. Hydrobiologia 368:201–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Palik B, Batzer D, Kern C. 2006. Upland forest linkages to seasonal wetlands: litter flux, processing, and food quality. Ecosystems 9:142–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Palik B, Batzer DP, Buech R, Nichols D, Cease K, Egeland L, Streblow DE. 2001. Seasonal pond characteristics across a chronosequence of adjacent forest ages in northern Minnesota, USA. Wetlands 21:532–42.CrossRefGoogle 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 28:289–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Rubbo MJ, Cole JJ, Kiesecker JM. 2006. Terrestrial subsidies of organic carbon support net ecosystem production in temporary forest ponds: evidence from an ecosystem experiment. Ecosystems 9:1170–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Rubbo MJ, Belden LK, Kiesecker JM. 2008. Differential responses of aquatic consumers to variations in leaf-litter inputs. Hydrobiologia 605:37–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Sand-Jensen K, Staehr PA. 2007. Scaling of pelagic metabolism to size, trophy and forest cover in small Danish lakes. Ecosystems 10:127–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. SAS. 2004. SAS/STAT user’s guide. Cary, NC: SAS Institute.Google Scholar
  43. Semlitsch RD, Conner CA, Hocking DJ, Rittenhouse TAG, Harper EB. 2008. Effects of timber harvesting on pond-breeding amphibian persistence: testing the evacuation hypothesis. Ecol Appl 18:283–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Semlitsch RD, Todd BD, Blomquist SM, Calhoun AJK, Gibbons JW, Gibbs JP, Graeter GJ, Harper EB, Hocking DJ, Hunter ML Jr, Patrick DA, Rittenhouse TAG, Rothermel BB. 2009. Effects of timber harvest on amphibian populations: understanding mechanisms from forest experiments. Bioscience 59:853–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Skelly DK, Freidenburg LK, Kiesecker JM. 2002. Forest canopy and the performance of larval amphibians. Ecology 83:983–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Smyers SD, Trowbridge BA, Butler BO. 2011. Leaf diet affects growth of a shredder, Limnephilus indivisus, from a seasonal New England Pond. Northeast Natur 18:27–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Søndergaard M, Jeppsesen E, Jensen JP. 2005. Pond or lake: does it make any difference? Archiv fuer Hydrobiologie 162:143–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Staehr PA, Baastrup-Spohr L, Sand-Jensen K, Stedmon C. 2012. Lake metabolism scales with lake morphometry and catchment conditions. Aquat Sci 74:155–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Stoler AB, Relyea RA. 2011. Living in the litter: the influence of tree leaf litter on wetland communities. Oikos 120:862–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Taylor AN, Batzer DP. 2010. Spatial and temporal variation in invertebrate consumer diets in forested and herbaceous wetlands. Hydrobiologia 651:145–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Thorp JH, Covich AP, Eds. 2009. Ecology and classification of North American freshwater invertebrates. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  52. Tylianakis JM, Didham RK, Wratten SD. 2004. Improved fitness of aphid parasitoids receiving resource subsidies. Ecology 85:658–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. USDA, NRCS. 2010. The PLANTS database. Baton Rouge (LA): National Plant Data Center.
  54. Vannote RL, Minshall GW, Cummins KW, Sedell JR, Cushing CE. 1980. The river continuum concept. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 37:130–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Wellborn GA, Skelly DK, Werner EE. 1996. Mechanisms creating community structure across a freshwater habitat gradient. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 27:337–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Werner EE, Glennemeier KS. 1999. Influence of forest canopy cover on the breeding pond distributions of several amphibian species. Copeia 1999:1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Wetzel RG, Likens GE. 2000. Limnological analysis. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  58. Williams BK, Rittenhouse TAG, Semlitsch RD. 2008. Leaf litter input mediates tadpole performance across forest canopy treatments. Oecologia 155:377–84.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division of Biological SciencesUniversity of MissouriColumbiaUSA
  2. 2.National Institute for Mathematical and Biological Synthesis University of TennesseeKnoxvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations