Ecosystems

, Volume 16, Issue 7, pp 1353–1363 | Cite as

Regional-Level Inputs of Emergent Aquatic Insects from Water to Land

  • Mireia Bartrons
  • Monica Papeş
  • Matthew W. Diebel
  • Claudio Gratton
  • M. Jake Vander Zanden
Article

Abstract

Emergent aquatic insects can provide inputs to terrestrial ecosystems near lentic and lotic waterbodies, producing ecosystem linkages at the aquatic–terrestrial interface. Although aquatic insect emergence has been examined for individual sites, the magnitude and spatial distribution of this phenomenon has not been examined at regional spatial scales. Here, we characterize this cross-habitat linkage for the state of Wisconsin, USA (169,639 km2). We combined GIS hydrological data with empirical data and predictive models of aquatic insect production to estimate annual aquatic emergence for the state of Wisconsin. Total emergence (lentic + lotic) was estimated to be about 6,800 metric tons of C y−1. Lentic systems comprised 79% of total estimated insect emergence, primarily due to the large amount of lake surface area relative to streams. This is due to both basic ecosystem geometry and the overall abundance of lakes in Wisconsin. Spatial variation was high: insect emergence in southwestern Wisconsin was dominated by streams, whereas for most of the rest of the state insect emergence was dominated by lakes. Lentic inputs to land were highly concentrated (relative to lotic inputs) because lakes have a high ratio of surface area to buffer area. Although less concentrated, the spatial extent of lotic influence was greater: statewide, four times more land area fell within the 100 m buffer zones of streams compared to lakes. Large waterbodies (almost all of which were lakes) were hotspots of insect emergence and input to land. Aquatic insect inputs exceed estimated terrestrial secondary production in 13% of buffer area, and by a factor of 100 or more adjacent to large lakes (>50,000 ha). The model sensitivity analysis showed that the simplifying assumptions and sources of potential error in the input variables had a minor impact on the overall results.

Keywords

aquatic insects emergence lentic lotic lakes streams landscape terrestrial–aquatic linkages food webs Wisconsin 

Supplementary material

10021_2013_9688_MOESM1_ESM.docx (59 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 58 kb)
10021_2013_9688_MOESM2_ESM.pdf (760 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (PDF 761 kb)

References

  1. Ballinger A, Lake PS. 2006. Energy and nutrient fluxes from rivers and streams into terrestrial food webs. Mar Freshwater Res 57:15–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baxter CV, Fausch KD, Saunders WC. 2005. Tangled webs: reciprocal flows of invertebrate prey link streams and riparian zones. Freshw Biol 50:201–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Benjamin JR, Fausch KD, Baxter CV. 2011. Species replacement by a nonnative salmonid alters ecosystem function by reducing prey subsidies that support riparian spiders. Oecologia 167:503–12.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brenden TO, Clark RD, Cooper AR, Seelbach PW, Wang L, Aichele SS, Bissell EG, Stewart JS. 2006. A GIS framework for collecting, managing, and analyzing multiscale landscape variables across large regions for river conservation and management. In: Hughes RM, Wang L, Seelbach PW (eds.) Influences of landscapes on stream habitats and biological assemblages. American Fisheries Society, Symposium 48, Bethesda, Maryland, p. 49–74.Google Scholar
  5. Carpenter SR, Caraco NF, Correll DL, Howarth RW, Sharpley AN, Smith VH. 1998. Nonpoint pollution of surface waters with phosphorus and nitrogen. Ecol Appl 8:559–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chipman JW, Lillesand TM, Schmaltz JE, Leale JE, Nordheim MJ. 2004. Mapping lake water clarity with Landsat images in Wisconsin, USA. Can J Remote Sens 30:1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dreyer J, Hoekman D, Gratton C. 2012. Lake-derived midges increase abundance of shoreline terrestrial arthropods. Oikos 121:252–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Epanchin PN, Knapp RA, Lawler SP. 2010. Nonnative trout impact an alpine-nesting bird by altering aquatic-insect subsidies. Ecology 91:2406–15.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. ESRI. 2011. ArcGIS Desktop: Release 10. Redlands, CA: Environmental Systems Research Institute.Google Scholar
  10. Finlay JC, Vredenburg VT. 2007. Introduced trout sever trophic connections in watersheds: consequences for a declining amphibian. Ecology 88:2187–98.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gladyshev MI, Arts MT, Sushchik NN. 2009. Preliminary estimates of the export of omega-3 highly unsaturated fatty acids (EPA + DHA) from aquatic to terrestrial ecosystems. In: Kainz M, Brett MT, Arts MT, Eds. Lipids in aquatic ecosystems. New York: Springer. p. 179–210.Google Scholar
  12. Gratton C, Donaldson J, Vander Zanden MJ. 2008. Ecosystem linkages between lakes and the surrounding terrestrial landscape in northeast Iceland. Ecosystems 11:764–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gratton C, Vander Zanden MJ. 2009. Flux of aquatic insect productivity to land: comparison of lentic and lotic ecosystems. Ecology 90:2689–99.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Greig HS, Kratina P, Thompson PL, Palen WJ, Richardson JS, Shurin JB. 2012. Warming, eutrophication, and predator loss amplify subsidies between aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. Glob Chang Biol 18:504–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hoekman D, Bartrons M, Gratton C. 2012. Ecosystem linkages revealed by experimental lake-derived isotope signal in heathland food webs. Oecologia 170:735–43.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hoekman D, Dreyer J, Jackson RD, Townsend PA, Gratton C. 2011. Lake to land subsidies: experimental addition of aquatic insects increases terrestrial arthropod densities. Ecology 92:2063–72.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hynes HBN. 1975. The stream and its valley. Verhandlungen Int Verein Limnol 19:1–15.Google Scholar
  18. Jonsson M, Wardle DA. 2009. The influence of freshwater-lake subsidies on invertebrates occupying terrestrial vegetation. Acta Oecol 35:698–704.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Leroux S, Loreau M. 2012. Dynamics of reciprocal pulsed subsidies in local and meta-ecosystems. Ecosystems 15:48–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lyons J, Zorn T, Stewart J, Seelbach P, Wehrly K, Wang L. 2009. Defining and characterizing cool water streams and their fish assemblages in Michigan and Wisconsin, USA. N Am J Fish Manage 29:1130–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Macdade LS, Rodewald PG, Hatch KA. 2011. Contribution of emergent aquatic insects to refueling in spring migrant songbirds. Auk 128:127–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Magnuson JK, Kratz K, Benson BJ. 2006. Long-term dynamics of lakes in the landscape: long-term ecological research on North temperate lakes. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  23. McNaughton SJ, Oesterheld M, Frank DA, Williams KJ. 1989. Ecosystem-level patterns of primary productivity and herbivory in terrestrial habitats. Nature 341:142–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Milner AM, Fastie CL, Chapin FS, Engstrom DR, Sharman LC. 2007. Interactions and linkages among ecosystems during landscape evolution. Bioscience 57:237–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Nakano S, Murakami M. 2001. Reciprocal subsidies: dynamic interdependence between terrestrial and aquatic food webs. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 98:166–70.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Newman MC. 1993. Regression analysis of log-transformed data: statistical bias and its correction. Environ Toxicol Chem 12:1129–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Omernik JM. 1987. Ecoregions of the conterminous United States. Map (scale 1:7,500,000). Ann Assoc Am Geogr 77:118–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ormerod SJ, Tyler SJ. 1991. Exploitation of prey by a river bird, the dipper Cinclus cinclus (L.), along acidic and circumneutral streams in upland Wales. Freshwater Biol 25:105–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Pace ML. 2004. Whole-lake carbon-13 additions reveal terrestrial support of aquatic food webs. Nature 427:240–3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Paetzold A, Smith M, Warren PH, Maltby L. 2011. Environmental impact propagated by cross-system subsidy: chronic stream pollution controls riparian spider populations. Ecology 92:1711–16.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Petersen I, Masters Z, Hildrew AG, Ormerod SJ. 2004. Dispersal of adult aquatic insects in catchments of differing land use. J Appl Ecol 41:934–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 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
  33. Polis GA, Power ME, Huxel GR. 2004. Food webs at the landscape scale. Chicago, IL, USA: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  34. R Development Core Team. 2013. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.Google Scholar
  35. Robertson DM, Graczyk DJ, Garrison PJ, Wang L, LaLiberte G, Bannerman R. 2006. Nutrient concentrations and their relations to the biotic integrity of wadeable streams in Wisconsin. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1722, Middleton, Wisconsin, USA.Google Scholar
  36. Rothery P. 1988. A cautionary note on data transformation: bias in back-transformed means. Bird Study 35:219–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Running SW, Nemani RR, Heinsch FA, Zhao MS, Reeves M, Hashimoto H. 2004. A continuous satellite-derived measure of global terrestrial primary production. Bioscience 54:547–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Takimoto G, Iwata T, Murakami M. 2002. Seasonal subsidy stabilizes food web dynamics: balance in a heterogeneous landscape. Ecol Res 17:433–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Vander Zanden M, Gratton C. 2011. Blowin in the wind: reciprocal airborne carbon fluxes between lakes and land. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 68:170–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. WDNR. 2011. Online document. http://dnr.wi.gov/maps/gis/datahydro.html. Madison, WI, USA.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mireia Bartrons
    • 1
  • Monica Papeş
    • 1
    • 2
  • Matthew W. Diebel
    • 3
  • Claudio Gratton
    • 4
  • M. Jake Vander Zanden
    • 1
  1. 1.Center for LimnologyUniversity of WisconsinMadisonUSA
  2. 2.Department of ZoologyOklahoma State UniversityStillwaterUSA
  3. 3.Wisconsin DNR Bureau of Science ServicesMadisonUSA
  4. 4.Department of EntomologyUniversity of WisconsinMadisonUSA

Personalised recommendations