Advertisement

Aquatic Ecology

, Volume 53, Issue 2, pp 151–162 | Cite as

Differential resource consumption in leaf litter mixtures by native and non-native amphipods

  • Chelsea J. LittleEmail author
  • Florian Altermatt
Article

Abstract

Leaf litter processing is an essential ecosystem function in freshwater systems, since much of the carbon and nutrients moving through freshwater food webs come from the surrounding terrestrial ecosystems. Thus, it is important to understand how the species performing this function differ, especially because many native species are being replaced by non-native species in aquatic ecosystems. We used a field experiment to examine leaf consumption rates of two common shredding macroinvertebrates (the native Gammarus fossarum and the non-native Gammarus roeselii). Leaves from three species, varying in resource quality, were added both in leaf monocultures and as a three-species mixture. Biomass-adjusted daily consumption rates were similar between the two amphipod species, and each consumed nitrogen-rich alder leaves faster than oak or beech leaves. However, because adult G. roeselii are approximately twice the size of G. fossarum, this led to systematic, though nonsignificant, differences in consumption rates at the per-capita or population level. Furthermore, we found nuanced effects of decomposer identity on leaf decomposition in mixtures. Only G. roeselii showed increased consumption of the preferred resource (alder) in the mixture, while G. fossarum consumed all leaves at the same proportional rates as in monocultures. This is an important distinction, as most measures of macroinvertebrate leaf shredding are made in the laboratory with only a single leaf resource available. Our results, based on a field experiment which could control the presence of dominant macroinvertebrates while still providing natural, biologically realistic context, suggest that even functionally similar species may subtly shift ecosystem processes.

Keywords

Biodiversity Decomposition Headwater streams Ecosystem function Meta-ecosystem Preferential feeding 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Elvira Mächler, Sereina Gut, Simon Flückiger, Denis Lasic, and Marcel Preisig for help in the field and the laboratory. We thank Elvira Mächler, Moritz Lürig, and two anonymous reviewers for critical comments on the manuscript. Funding is from the Swiss National Science Foundation Grants No. PP00P3_150698 and PP00P3_179089 and the University of Zurich Research Priority Programme URPP Global Change and Biodiversity (to F.A.).

Data availability

Data are available from the Dryad Digital Repository at http://dx.doi.org/10.5061/dryad.v22901d (Little and Altermatt 2019). The R code used for analyses and to make figures is available at http://github.com/chelseajlittle/CAGE2.

References

  1. Altermatt F, Alther R, Fišer C, Jokela J, Konec M, Küry D et al (2014) Diversity and distribution of freshwater amphipod species in Switzerland (Crustacea: Amphipoda). PLoS One 9:e110328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Altermatt F, Alther R, Mächler E (2016) Spatial patterns of genetic diversity, community composition and occurrence of native and non-native amphipods in naturally replicated tributary streams. BMC Ecol 16:23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Becker J, Ortmann C, Wetzel MA, Koop JHE (2016) Metabolic activity and behavior of the invasive amphipod Dikerogammarus villosus and two common Central European gammarid species (Gammarus fossarum, Gammarus roeselii): low metabolic rates may favor the invader. Comp Biochem Physiol-Part A: Mol Integr Physiol 191:119–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Blackman RC, Constable D, Hahn C, Sheard AM, Durkota J, Hänfling B et al (2017) Detection of a new non-native freshwater species by DNA metabarcoding of environmental samples—first record of Gammarus fossarum in the UK. Aquat Invasions 12:177–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brown JH, Gillooly JF, Allen AP, Savage VM, West GB (2004) Toward a metabolic theory of ecology. Ecology 85:1771–1789CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bruder A, Schindler MH, Moretti MS, Gessner MO (2014) Litter decomposition in a temperate and a tropical stream: the effects of species mixing, litter quality and shredders. Freshw Biol 59:438–449CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cardinale BJ, Matulich KL, Hooper DU, Byrnes JE, Duffy E, Gamfeldt L et al (2011) The functional role of producer diversity in ecosystems. Am J Bot 98:572–592CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cardinale BJ, Duffy JE, Gonzalez A, Hooper DU, Perrings C, Venail P et al (2012) Biodiversity loss and its impact on humanity. Nature 486:59–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Carpenter SR, Stanley EH, Vander Zanden MJ (2011) State of the world’s freshwater ecosystems: physical, chemical, and biological changes. Annu Rev Environ Resour 36:75–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Creed RP, Cherry RP, Pflaum JR, Wood CJ (2009) Dominant species can produce a negative relationship between species diversity and ecosystem function. Oikos 118:723–732CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dangles O, Malmqvist B (2004) Species richness-decomposition relationships depend on species dominance. Ecol Lett 7:395–402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Darwall W, Bremerich V, De Wever A, Dell AI, Freyhof J, Gessner MO et al (2018) The alliance for freshwater life: a global call to unite efforts for freshwater biodiversity science and conservation. Aquat Conserv: Mar Freshw Ecosyst 28:1015–1022CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Duffy JE, Cardinale BJ, France KE, McIntyre PB, Thébault E, Loreau M (2007) The functional role of biodiversity in ecosystems: incorporating trophic complexity. Ecol Lett 10:522–538CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Foucreau N, Puijalon S, Hervant F, Piscart C (2013) Effect of leaf litter characteristics on leaf conditioning and on consumption by Gammarus pulex. Freshw Biol 58:1672–1681CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Frainer A, Moretti MS, Xu W, Gessner MO (2015) No evidence for leaf trait dissimilarity effects on litter decomposition fungal decomposers and nutrient dynamics. Ecology 96:550–561CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gounand I, Little CJ, Harvey E, Altermatt F (2018) Cross-ecosystem carbon flows connecting ecosystems worldwide. Nat Commun 9:4825CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Halvorson HM, Fuller CL, Entrekin SA, Scott JT, Evans-White MA (2018) Detrital nutrient content and leaf species differentially affect growth and nutritional regulation of detritivores. Oikos 127:1471–1481CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Handa IT, Aerts R, Berendse F, Berg MP, Bruder A, Butenschoen O et al (2014) Consequences of biodiversity loss for litter decomposition across biomes. Nature 509:218–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hood JM, Mcneely C, Finlay JC, Sterner RW (2014) Selective feeding determines patterns of nutrient release by stream invertebrates. Freshw Sci 33:1093–1107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hooper D, Chapin FS, Ewel J, Hector A, Inchausti P, Lavorel S et al (2005) Effects of biodiversity on ecosystem functioning: a consensus of current knowledge. Ecology 75:3–35Google Scholar
  21. Hothorn T, Bretz F, Westfall P (2008) Simultaneous inference in general parametric models. Biom J 50:346–363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Jabiol J, Chauvet E (2012) Fungi are involved in the effects of litter mixtures on consumption by shredders. Freshw Biol 57:1667–1677CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jourdan J, Westerwald B, Kiechle A, Chen W, Streit B, Klaus S et al (2016) Pronounced species turnover, but no functional equivalence in leaf consumption of invasive amphipods in the river Rhine. Biol Invasions 18:763–774CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Jucker T, Wintle B, Shackelford G, Bocquillon P, Geffert JL, Kasoar T et al (2018) Ten-year assessment of the 100 priority questions for global biodiversity conservation. Conserv Biol 32:1457–1463CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lecerf A, Marie G, Kominoski JS, Leroy CJ, Bernadet C, Swan CM (2011) Incubation time, functional litter diversity, and habitat characteristics predict litter-mixing effects on decomposition. Ecology 92:160–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Liess A (2014) Compensatory feeding and low nutrient assimilation efficiencies lead to high nutrient turnover in nitrogen-limited snails. Freshw Sci 33:425–434CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Little CJ, Altermatt F (2018a) Do priority effects outweigh environmental filtering in a guild of dominant freshwater macroinvertebrates? Proc R Soc B: Biol Sci 285:20180205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Little CJ, Altermatt F (2018b) Species turnover and invasion of dominant freshwater invertebrates alter biodiversity-ecosystem-function relationship. Ecol Monogr 88:461–480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Little CJ, Altermatt F (2019) Data from: differential resource consumption in leaf litter mixtures by native and non-native amphipods. Dryad Digit Repos.  https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.v22901d Google Scholar
  30. Martínez A, Larrañaga A, Pérez J, Basaguren A, Pozo J (2013) Leaf-litter quality effects on stream ecosystem functioning: a comparison among five species. Fundam Appl Limnol/Archiv für Hydrobiol 183:239–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. McKie BG, Woodward G, Hladyz S, Nistorescu M, Preda E, Popescu C et al (2008) Ecosystem functioning in stream assemblages from different regions: contrasting responses to variation in detritivore richness, evenness and density. J Anim Ecol 77:495–504CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Nery T, Schmera D (2015) The effects of top–down and bottom–up controls on macroinvertebrate assemblages in headwater streams. Hydrobiologia 763:173–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Ogle DH (2018) FSA: fisheries stock analysis. https://cran.r-project.org/package=FSA
  34. Ohta T, Matsunaga S, Niwa S, Kawamura K, Hiura T (2016) Detritivore stoichiometric diversity alters litter processing efficiency in a freshwater ecosystem. Oikos 125:1162–1172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Paganelli D, Gazzola A, Marchini A, Sconfietti R (2015) The increasing distribution of Gammarus roeselii Gervais, 1835: first record of the non-indigenous freshwater amphipod in the sub-lacustrine Ticino River basin (Lombardy, Italy). BioInvasions Rec 4:37–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Piscart C, Mermillod-Blondin F, Maazouzi C, Merigoux S, Marmonier P (2011) Potential impact of invasive amphipods on leaf litter recycling in aquatic ecosystems. Biol Invasions 13:2861–2868CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Reiss J, Bailey RA, Perkins DM, Pluchinotta A, Woodward G (2011) Testing effects of consumer richness, evenness and body size on ecosystem functioning. J Anim Ecol 80:1145–1154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Rey P, Mürle U, Ortlepp J, Mörtl M, Schleifhacken N, Werner S et al (2005) Wirbellose Neozoen im Bodensee. Landesanstalt für Umweltschutz Baden-Württemberg, KarlsruheGoogle Scholar
  39. Ricciardi A, MacIsaac HJ (2000) Recent mass invasion of the North American great lakes by Ponto-Caspian species. Trends Ecol Evol 15:62–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Santonja M, Pellan L, Piscart C (2018) Macroinvertebrate identity mediates the effects of litter quality and microbial conditioning on leaf litter recycling in temperate streams. Ecol Evolution 8:2542–2553CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Santschi F, Gounand I, Harvey E, Altermatt F (2018) Leaf litter diversity and structure of microbial decomposer communities modulate litter decomposition in aquatic systems. Funct Ecol 32:522–553CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Srivastava DS, Cardinale BJ, Downing AL, Duffy JE, Jouseau C, Sankaran M et al (2009) Diversity has stronger top–down than bottom–up effects on decomposition. Ecology 90:1073–1083CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Strayer DL (2006) Challenges for freshwater invertebrate conservation. J North Am Benthol Soc 25:271–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Strayer DL (2010) Alien species in fresh waters: ecological effects, interactions with other stressors, and prospects for the future. Freshw Biol 55:152–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Strayer DL (2012) Eight questions about invasions and ecosystem functioning. Ecol Lett 15:1199–1210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Strayer DL, Dudgeon D (2010) Freshwater biodiversity conservation: recent progress and future challenges. J North Am Benthol Soc 29:344–358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Swan CM (2011) Consumer presence and resource diversity independently induce stability of ecosystem function in a Piedmont stream. Ecosphere 2:136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 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 29:118–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Tolkkinen M, Mykrä H, Markkola AM, Aisala H, Vuori KM, Lumme J et al (2013) Decomposer communities in human-impacted streams: species dominance rather than richness affects leaf decomposition. J Appl Ecol 50:1142–1151Google Scholar
  50. Tonin AM, Pozo J, Monroy S, Basaguren A, Pérez J, Gonçalves JF et al (2018) Interactions between large and small detritivores influence how biodiversity impacts litter decomposition. J Anim Ecol 87:1465–1474CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Vörösmarty CJ, McIntyre PB, Gessner MO, Dudgeon D, Prusevich A, Green P et al (2010) Global threats to human water security and river biodiversity. Nature 467:555–561CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Wallace JB, Webster JR (1996) The role of macroinvertebrates in stream ecosystem function. Annu Rev Entomol 41:115–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Webster JR, Benfield EF (1986) Vascular plant breakdown in freshwater ecosystems. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 17:567–594CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. WWAP (United Nations World Water Assessment Programme)/UN-Water (2018) The united nations world water development report 2018: nature-based solutions for water. UNESCO, ParisGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Aquatic EcologyEawag: Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and TechnologyDübendorfSwitzerland
  2. 2.Department of Evolutionary Biology and Environmental StudiesUniversity of ZürichZurichSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations