Advertisement

Ecosystems

, Volume 19, Issue 3, pp 396–410 | Cite as

Increased Light Availability Reduces the Importance of Bacterial Carbon in Headwater Stream Food Webs

  • Sarah M. Collins
  • Jed P. Sparks
  • Steven A. Thomas
  • Sarah A. Wheatley
  • Alexander S. Flecker
Article

Abstract

Many ecosystems rely on subsidies of carbon and nutrients from surrounding environments. In headwater streams that are heavily shaded by riparian forests, allochthonous inputs from terrestrial systems often comprise a major part of the organic matter budget. Bacteria play a key role in organic matter cycling in streams, but there is limited evidence about how much bacterial carbon is actually assimilated by invertebrate and fish consumers, and how bacterial carbon assimilation varies among streams. We conducted stable isotope tracer additions of 13C-acetate, that is assimilated only by bacteria, and 15N-ammonium, that is assimilated by both bacteria and algae, in two small, shaded streams in the Adirondack region of New York State, USA. Our goal was to determine whether there is an important trophic link between bacteria and macroconsumers, and whether the link changes when the light environment is experimentally altered. In 2009, we evaluated bacterial carbon use in both streams with natural canopy cover using 10-day dual-isotope tracer releases. The canopy was then thinned in one stream to increase light availability and primary production and tracer experiments were repeated in 2010. As part of the tracer experiments, we developed a respiration assay to measure the δ 13C content of live bacteria, which provided critical information for determining how much of the carbon assimilated by invertebrate consumers is from bacterial sources. Some invertebrate taxa, including scraper mayflies (Heptagenia spp.) that feed largely on biofilms assimilated over 70% of their carbon from bacterial sources, whereas shredder caddisflies (Pycnopsyche spp.) that feed on decomposing leaves assimilated less than 1% of their carbon from bacteria. Increased light availability led to strong declines in the magnitude of bacterial carbon fluxes to different consumers (varying from −17 to −91% decrease across invertebrate taxa), suggesting that bacterial energy assimilation differs not only among consumer taxa but also within the same consumer taxa in streams with different ecological contexts. Our results demonstrate that fluxes of bacterial carbon to higher trophic levels in streams can be substantial, that is over 70% for some taxa, but that invertebrate taxa vary considerably in their reliance on bacterial carbon, and that local variation in carbon sources controls how much bacterial carbon invertebrates use.

Keywords

microbial loop stream ecology bacteria food web light availability stable isotope tracer 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by funding from the Cornell Biogeochemistry and Environmental Bioxomplexity IGERT program and the Kieckhefer Adirondack Fellowships program. Fumika Takahashi assisted with sample collection in the field and Kim Sparks assisted with preparing equipment for gas sampling. Dan Josephson, Cliff Kraft, the Adirondack League Club, and the Little Moose Field Station provided access to field sites and logistical support. Walter Dodds developed the dynamic compartment model used to calculate turnover time. This manuscript was improved by suggestions from Nelson Hairston Jr., Stuart Findlay, Cliff Kraft, and two anonymous reviewers.

Supplementary material

10021_2015_9940_MOESM_ESM.docx (1.9 mb)
Supplementary material 1 (Docx 1908 kb)

References

  1. Allan JD. 2004. Landscapes and riverscapes: the influence of land use on stream ecosystems. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 35:257–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ambrose HE, Wilzbach MA, Cummins KW. 2004. Periphyton response to increased light and salmon carcass introduction in northern California streams. J North Am Benthol Soc 23:701–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arsuffi TL, Suberkropp K. 1989. Selective feeding by shredders on leaf-colonizing stream fungi: comparison of macroinvertebrate taxa. Oecologia 79:30–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Azam F, Fenchel T, Field JG, Gray JS, Meyer-Reil LA, Thingstad F. 1983. The ecological role of water-column microbes in the sea. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 10:257–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barbour MT, Gerritsen J, Snyder BD, Stribling JB. Rapid bioassessment protocols for use in streams and wadeable rivers: periphyton, benthic macroinvertebrates and fish, 2nd ed. EPA 841-B-99-002. Washington DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Office of Water; 1999.Google Scholar
  6. Bartels P, Cucherousset J, Steger K, Eklov P, Tranvik LJ, Hillebrand H. 2012. Reciprocal subsidies between freshwater and terrestrial ecosystems structure consumer resource dynamics. Ecology 93:1173–82.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 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
  8. Cole JJ, Findlay S, Pace ML. 1988. Bacterial production in fresh and saltwater ecosystems: a cross-system overview. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 43:1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Collins SM, Kohler TJ, Thomas SA, Fetzer WW, Flecker AS. 2015. The importance of terrestrial subsidies in stream food webs varies along a stream size gradient. Oikos . doi: 10.1111/oik.07213.Google Scholar
  10. Cummins KW. 1974. Structure and function of stream ecosystems. Bioscience 24:631–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Das M, Royer TV, Leff LG. 2007. Diversity of fungi, bacteria and actinomycetes on leaves decomposing in a stream. Appl Environ Microbiol 73:756–67.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. Davis JM, Rosemond AD, Eggert SL, Cross WF, Wallace JB. 2010. Long-term nutrient enrichment decouples predator and prey production. Proc Natl Acad Sci 107:121–6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. Dodds WK, Evans-White MA, Gerlanc NM, Gray L, Gudder DA, Kemp MJ, Lopez AL, Stagliano D, Strauss EA, Tank JL, Whiles MR, Wollheim WM. 2000. Quantification of the nitrogen cycle in a prairie stream. Ecosystems 3:574–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dodds WK, Collins SM, Hamilton SK, Tank JL, Johnson S, Webster JR, Simon KS, Whiles MR, Rantala HM, McDowell WH, Peterson SD, Riis T, Crenshaw CL, Thomas SA, Kristensen PB, Cheever BM, Flecker AS, Griffiths NA, Crowl T, Rosi-Marshall EJ, El-Sabaawi R, Marti E. 2014. You are not always what we think you eat: selective assimilation across multiple whole-stream isotopic tracer studies. Ecology 95:2757–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ducklow HW, Purdie DA, Williams PJL, Davies JM. 1986. Bacterioplankton: a sink for carbon in a coastal marine plankton community. Science 232:865–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Edwards RT, Meyer JL. 1987. Bacteria as a food source for black fly larvae in a blackwater river. J North Am Benthol Soc 6:241–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Edwards RT, Meyer JL. 1990. Bacterivory by deposit-feeding mayfly larvae (Stenonema spp.). Freshw Biol 24:453–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. England LE, Rosemond AD. 2004. Small reductions in forest cover weaken terrestrial-aquatic linkages in headwater systems. Freshw Biol 49:721–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fenchel T. 2008. The microbial loop: 25 years later. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 366:99–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Findlay S. 2010. Stream microbial ecology. J North Am Benthol Soc 29:170–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Findlay S, Howe K, Fontvieille D. 1993. Bacterial-algal relationships in streams of the Hubbard Brook Experimental Forest. Ecology 74:2326–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Findlay S, Meyer JL, Smith PJ. 1986. Incorporation of microbial biomass by Peltoperla sp. (Plecoptera) and Tipula sp. (Diptera). J North Am Benthol Soc 5:306–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Findlay S, Pace ML, Fischer DT. 1998. Response of heterotrophic planktonic bacteria to the zebra mussel invasion of the tidal freshwater Hudson river. Microb Ecol 36:131–40.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Findlay S, Pace ML, Lints D, Cole JJ, Caraco NF, Peierls B. 1991. Weak coupling of bacterial and algal production in a heterotrophic ecosystem: the Hudson River estuary. Limnol Oceanogr 36:268–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Findlay S, Tank J, Dye S, Valett HM, Mulholland PJ, McDowell WH, Johnson SL, Hamilton SK, Edmonds J, Dodds WK, Bowden WB. 2002. A cross-system comparison of bacterial and fungal biomass in detritus pools of headwater streams. Microb Ecol 43:55–66.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Giling D, Reich P, Thompson RM. 2009. Loss of riparian vegetation alters the ecosystem role of a freshwater crayfish (Cherax destructor) in an Australian intermittent lowland stream. J North Am Benthol Soc 28:626–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Haack SK, Burton T, Ulrich K. 1988. Effects of whole-tree harvest on epilithic bacterial populations in headwater streams. Microb Ecol 16:165–81.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Haack TK, McFeters GA. 1982. Nutritional relationships among microorganisms in an epilithic biofilm community. Microb Ecol 8:115–26.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Hairston NG Jr, Hairston NG Sr. 1993. Cause-effect relationships in energy flow, trophic structure and interspecific interactions. Am Nat 142:379–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hall RO, Meyer JL. 1998. The trophic significance of bacteria in a detritus-based stream food web. Ecology 79:1995–2012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hall RO, Wallace JB, Eggert SL. 2000. Organic matter flow in stream food webs with reduced detrital resource base. Ecology 81:3445–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hamilton SK, Tank JL, Raikow DF, Wollheim WM, Peterson BJ, Webster JR. 2001. Nitrogen uptake and transformation in a Midwestern U.S. stream: a stable isotope enrichment study. Biogeochemistry 54:297–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hill WR, Dimick SM. 2002. Effects of riparian leaf dynamics on periphyton photosynthesis and light utilization efficiency. Freshw Biol 47:1245–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hill WR, Ryon MG, Schilling EM. 1995. Light limitation in a stream ecosystem: responses by primary producers and consumers. Ecology 76:1297–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Holmes RM, McClelland JW, Sigman DM, Fry B, Peterson BJ. 1998. Measuring N-15-NH4+ in marine, estuarine and fresh waters: an adaptation of the ammonia diffusion method for samples with low ammonium concentrations. Mar Chem 60:235–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hotchkiss ER, Hall RO Jr. 2015. Whole-stream 13C tracer addition reveals distinct fate of newly fixed carbon. Ecology 96:403–16.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Hynes HBN. 1975. The stream and its valley. Int Verein Theor Angew Limnol Verh 19:1–15.Google Scholar
  38. Jespersen AM, Christoffersen K. 1987. Measurements of chlorophyll-a from phytoplankton using ethanol as extraction solvent. Arch Hydrobiol 109:445–54.Google Scholar
  39. Lagrue C, Kominoski JS, Danger M, Baudoin J, Lamothe S, Lambrigot D, Lecerf A. 2011. Experimental shading alters leaf litter breakdown in streams of contrasting riparian canopy cover. Freshw Biol 56:2059–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Likens GE, Bormann FH, Johnson NM, Fisher DW, Pierce RS. 1970. Effects of forest cutting and herbicide treatment on nutrient budgets in the Hubbard Brook watershed-ecosystem. Ecol Monogr 40:23–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Loeb SL. 1981. An in situ method for measuring the primary productivity and standing crop of the epilithic periphyton community in lentic systems. Limnol Oceanogr 26:394–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Meyer JL. 1994. The microbial loop in flowing waters. Microb Ecol 28:195–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Mille-Lindblom C, Tranvik LJ. 2003. Antagonism between bacteria and fungi on decomposing aquatic plant litter. Microb Ecol 45:173–82.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Moore JC, Berlow EL, Coleman DC, de Ruiter PC, Dong Q, Hastings A, Johnson NC, McCann KS, Melville K, Morin PJ, Nadelhoffer K, Rosemond AD, Post DM, Sabo JL, Scow KM, Vanni MJ, Wall DH. 2004. Detritus, trophic dynamics and biodiversity. Ecol Lett 7:584–600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Motomori K, Mitsuhashi H, Nakano S. 2001. Influence of leaf litter quality on the colonization and consumption of stream invertebrate shredders. Ecol Res 16:173–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Mulholland PJ, Helton AM, Poole GC, Hall RO Jr, Hamilton SK, Peterson BJ, Tank JL, Ashkenas LR, Cooper LW, Dahm CN, Dodds WK, Findlay SEG, Gregory SV, Grimm NB, Johnson SL, McDowell WH, Meyer JL, Valett HM, Webster JR, Arango CP, Beaulieu JJ, Bernot MJ, Burgin AJ, Crenshaw CL, Johnson LT, Niederlehner BR, O’Brien JM, Potter JD, Sheibley RW, Sobota DJ, Thomas SM. 2008. Stream denitification across biomes and its response to anthropogenic nitrate loading. Nature 452:202–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Mulholland PJ, Tank JL, Sanzone DM, Wollheim WM, Peterson BJ, Webster JR, Meyer JL. 2000. Nitrogen cycling in a forest stream determined by a N15 tracer addition. Ecol Monogr 70:471–93.Google Scholar
  48. Nakano S, Murakami M. 2001. Dynamic interdependence between terrestrial and aquatic food webs. Proc Natl Acad Sci 98:166–70.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  49. Newell SY. 1984. Bacterial and fungal productivity in the marine environment: a contrastive overview. Colloq Int Cent Natl Rech Sci 331:133–9.Google Scholar
  50. Nusch EA. 1980. Comparison of different methods for chlorophyll and pheopigment determination. Arch Hydrobiol Bull 14:14–36.Google Scholar
  51. Parkyn SM, Quinn JM, Cox TJ, Broekhuizen N. 2005. Pathways of N and C uptake and transfer in stream food webs: an isotope enrichment experiment. J North Am Benthol Soc 24:955–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Pace ML, McManus GB, Findlay SEG. 1990. Planktonic community structure determines the fate of bacterial production in a temperate lake. Limnol Oceanogr 35:795–808.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Peterson BJ et al. 2001. Control of nitrogen export from watersheds by headwater streams. Science 292:86–90.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. R Core Team. 2013. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.Google Scholar
  55. Rong Q, Sridhar KR, Barlocher F. 1995. Food selection in three leaf-shredding stream invertebrates. Hydrobiologia 316:173–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Rounick JS, Winterborn MJ. 1983. The formation, structure and utilization of stone surface organic layers in two New Zealand streams. Freshw Biol 13:57–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Sabater F, Butturini A, Marti E, Munoz I, Romani A, Wray J, Sabater S. 2000. Effects of riparian vegetation removal on nutrient retention in a Mediterranean stream. J North Am Benthol Soc 19:609–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Simon KS, Benfield EF, Macko SA. 2003. Food web structure of epilithic biofilms in cave streams. Ecology 84:2395–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Sobczak WV, Burton TM. 1996. Epilithic bacterial and algal colonization in a stream run, riffle and pool: a test of biomass covariation. Hydrobiologia 332:159–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Suberkropp K, Chauvet E. 1995. Regulation of leaf breakdown by fungi in streams: influences of water chemistry. Ecology 76:1433–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Tank JL, Bernot MJ, Rosi-Marshall EJ. 2007. Nitrogen limitation and uptake. In: Hauer FR, Lamberti GR, Eds. Methods in stream ecology. San Diego: Academic Press. Google Scholar
  62. Tank JL, Rosi-Marshall EJ, Griffiths NA, Entrekin SA, Stephen ML. 2010. A review of allochthonous organic matter dynamics and metabolism in streams. J North Am Benthol Soc 29:118–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Thimijan RW, Heins RD. 1983. Photometric, radiometric and quantum light units of measure: a review of procedures for interconversion. Hortic Sci 18:818–22.Google Scholar
  64. Tiegs SD, Peter FD, Robinson CT, Uehlinger U, Gessner MO. 2008. Leaf decomposition and invertebrate colonization responses to manipulated litter quality in streams. J North Am Benthol Soc 27:321–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 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
  66. Wallace JB, Eggert SL, Meyer JL, Webster JR. 1999. Effects of resource limitation on a detrital-based ecosystem. Ecol Monogr 69:409–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Webster JR, Benfield EF. 1986. Vascular plant breakdown in freshwater ecosystems. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 17:567–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Webster JR, Benfield EF, Ehrman TP, Schaffer MA, Tank JL, Hutchens JJ, D’Angelo DJ. 1999. What happens to allochthonous material that falls into streams? A synthesis of new and published information from Coweeta. Freshw Biol 41:687–705.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Weyers HS, Suberkropp K. 1996. Fungal and bacterial production during the breakdown of yellow poplar leaves in two streams. J North Am Benthol Soc 15:408–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Whiles MR, Hall RO Jr, Dodds WK, Verburg P, Huryn AD, Pringle CM, Lips KR, Kilham SS, Colon-Gaud C, Rugenski AT, Peterson S, Connelly S. 2013. Disease-driven amphibian declines alter ecosystem processes in a tropical stream. Ecosystems 16:146–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Wiegner TN, Kaplan LA, Newbold JD, Ostrom PH. 2005. Contribution of dissolved organic C to stream metabolism: a mesocosm study using 13C-enriched tree-tissue leachate. J North Am Benthol Soc 24:48–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Wright RT, Hobbie JE. 1966. Use of glucose and acetate by bacteria and algae in aquatic ecosystems. Ecology 47:447–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Ecology and Evolutionary BiologyCornell UniversityIthacaUSA
  2. 2.School of Natural ResourcesUniversity of Nebraska-LincolnLincolnUSA
  3. 3.Department of Environmental StudiesUniversity of California Santa CruzSanta CruzUSA
  4. 4.Department of Fisheries and WildlifeMichigan State UniversityEast LansingUSA

Personalised recommendations