Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Published:
Ecosystems Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

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.

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

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Battle JM, Golladay SW. 2001. Hydroperiod influence on breakdown of leaf litter in cypress-gum wetlands. Am Midl Nat 146:128–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Batzer DP, Wissinger SA. 1996. Ecology of insect communities in nontidal wetlands. Annu Rev Entomol 41:75–100.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Brinson MM, Lugo AE, Brown S. 1981. Primary productivity, decomposition and consumer activity in freshwater wetlands. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 12:123–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Cohen JS, Maerz JC, Blossey B. 2012a. Traits, not origin, explain impacts of plants on larval amphibians. Ecol Appl 22:218–28.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen JS, Ng S, Blossey B. 2012b. Quantity counts: amount of litter determines tadpole performance in experimental microcosms. J Herpetol 46:85–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Earl JE. 2012. Effects of spatial subsidies and canopy cover on pond communities and multiple life stages in amphibians. Dissertation, University of Missouri

  • Earl JE, Semlitsch RD. 2012. Reciprocal subsidies in ponds: does leaf input increase frog biomass export? Oecologia 170:1077–87.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Fontaine TDIII, Ewel KC. 1981. Metabolism of a Florida lake ecosystem. Limnol Oceanogr 26:754–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gee JHR, Smith BD, Lee KM, Griffiths SW. 1997. The ecological basis of freshwater pond management for biodiversity. Aquat Conserv 7:91–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graça MAS. 2001. The role of invertebrates on leaf litter decomposition in streams—a review. Int Rev Hydrobiol 86:383–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hocking DJ, Semlitsch RD. 2007. Effects of timber harvest on breeding-site selection by gray treefrogs (Hyla versicolor). Biol Conserv 138:506–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hocking DJ, Semlitsch RD. 2008. Effects of experimental clearcut logging on gray treefrog (Hyla versicolor) tadpole performance. J Herpetol 42:689–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loreau M, Holt RD. 2004. Spatial flows and the regulation of ecosystems. Am Nat 163:606–15.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Marczak LB, Richardson JS. 2007. Spiders and subsidies: results from the riparian zone of a coastal temperate rainforest. J Anim Ecol 76:687–94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Merritt RW, Cummins KW, Eds. 1996. An introduction to the aquatic insects of north america. Dubuque (IA): Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Myer E. 1989. The relationship between body length parameters and dry mass in running water invertebrates. Archiv für Hydrobiologie 117:443–51.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nakano S, Miyasaka H, Kuhara N. 1999. Terrestrial-aquatic linkages: Riparian arthropod inputs alter trophic cascades in a stream food web. Ecology 80:2435–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palik B, Batzer D, Kern C. 2006. Upland forest linkages to seasonal wetlands: litter flux, processing, and food quality. Ecosystems 9:142–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Rubbo MJ, Belden LK, Kiesecker JM. 2008. Differential responses of aquatic consumers to variations in leaf-litter inputs. Hydrobiologia 605:37–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sand-Jensen K, Staehr PA. 2007. Scaling of pelagic metabolism to size, trophy and forest cover in small Danish lakes. Ecosystems 10:127–41.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • SAS. 2004. SAS/STAT user’s guide. Cary, NC: SAS Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Skelly DK, Freidenburg LK, Kiesecker JM. 2002. Forest canopy and the performance of larval amphibians. Ecology 83:983–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Søndergaard M, Jeppsesen E, Jensen JP. 2005. Pond or lake: does it make any difference? Archiv fuer Hydrobiologie 162:143–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Stoler AB, Relyea RA. 2011. Living in the litter: the influence of tree leaf litter on wetland communities. Oikos 120:862–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor AN, Batzer DP. 2010. Spatial and temporal variation in invertebrate consumer diets in forested and herbaceous wetlands. Hydrobiologia 651:145–59.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Thorp JH, Covich AP, Eds. 2009. Ecology and classification of North American freshwater invertebrates. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tylianakis JM, Didham RK, Wratten SD. 2004. Improved fitness of aphid parasitoids receiving resource subsidies. Ecology 85:658–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • USDA, NRCS. 2010. The PLANTS database. Baton Rouge (LA): National Plant Data Center. http://plants.usda.gov.

  • Vannote RL, Minshall GW, Cummins KW, Sedell JR, Cushing CE. 1980. The river continuum concept. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 37:130–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wellborn GA, Skelly DK, Werner EE. 1996. Mechanisms creating community structure across a freshwater habitat gradient. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 27:337–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Werner EE, Glennemeier KS. 1999. Influence of forest canopy cover on the breeding pond distributions of several amphibian species. Copeia 1999:1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wetzel RG, Likens GE. 2000. Limnological analysis. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams BK, Rittenhouse TAG, Semlitsch RD. 2008. Leaf litter input mediates tadpole performance across forest canopy treatments. Oecologia 155:377–84.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

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.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Julia E. Earl

    Present address: National Institute for Mathematical and Biological Synthesis, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennesse, 37996, USA

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Biological Sciences, University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri, 65211, USA

    Julia E. Earl & Raymond D. Semlitsch

Authors
  1. Julia E. Earl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Raymond D. Semlitsch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Julia E. Earl.

Additional information

Author Contributions: Julia E. Earl formulated the original research idea, designed the study, collected and analyzed the data, and wrote the text. Raymond D. Semlitsch contributed to the study design, data analysis decisions, and editing the text.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 115 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Earl, J.E., Semlitsch, R.D. Spatial Subsidies, Trophic State, and Community Structure: Examining the Effects of Leaf Litter Input on Ponds. Ecosystems 16, 639–651 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-013-9639-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-013-9639-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation