Abstract
Context
Freshwater ecosystems depend on surrounding terrestrial landscape for resources. Most important are terrestrial leaf litter subsidies, which differ depending on land use. We lack a good understanding of the variation of these inputs across spatial scales.
Objectives
We sought to determine: (1) the relative importance of local versus catchment-level forestation for benthic leaf litter biomass in streams, (2) how landscape configuration alters these relationships, and (3) how land use affects the quality and diversity of leaf litter subsidies.
Methods
We measured biomass and identity of benthic leaf litter in 121 reaches in 10 independent catchments seasonally over the course of a year. We assessed direct and indirect effects of forestation, reach position, and seasonality on leaf litter biomass using structural equation models, and assessed how leaf litter diversity varied with land use.
Results
In catchments with forested headwaters, the degree of forestation and reach position in the catchment influenced benthic leaf litter biomass indirectly through local reach-scale forestation. In catchments where forest was only located downstream, or with minimal forest, none of these factors influenced reach-level benthic leaf litter. Leaf litter diversity peaked in fall in all land use types, but was generally lowest in forested reaches.
Conclusions
Not only habitat amount, but its location relative to other habitats is important for ecosystem function in the context of cross-ecosystem material flows. Here, lack of upstream forest altered spatial patterns of leaf litter storage. Studies with high spatiotemporal resolution may further reveal effects of landscape configuration on other ecosystems.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data availability statement
The data are available from the Dryad Digital Repository: https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.j675k0j (Little and Altermatt 2018c).
References
Abbott BW, Gruau G, Zarnetske JP, Moatar F, Barbe L, Thomas Z, Fovet O, Kolbe T, Gu S, Pierson-Wickmann AC, Davy P, Pinay G (2018) Unexpected spatial stability of water chemistry in headwater stream networks. Ecol Lett 21:296–308
Aguiar FC, Segurado P, Martins MJ, Bejarano MD, Nilsson C, Portela MM, Merritt DM (2018) The abundance and distribution of guilds of riparian woody plants change in response to land use and flow regulation. J Appl Ecol. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.13110
Allan JD (2004) Influence of land use and landscape setting on the ecological status of rivers. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 35:257–284
Altermatt F (2013) Diversity in riverine metacommunities: a network perspective. Aquat Ecol 47:365–377
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 16:23
Argerich A, Haggerty R, Johnson SL, Wondzell SM, Dosch N, Corson-Rikert H, Ashkenas LR, Pennington R, Thomas CK (2016) Comprehensive multiyear carbon budget of a temperate headwater stream. J Geophys Res 121:1306–1315
Bossard M, Feranec J, Otahel J (2000) The revised and supplemented Corine land cover nomenclature. European environment agency, Copenhagen
Chapin FS, Woodwell GM, Randerson JT, Rastetter EB, Lovett GM, Baldocchi DD, Clark DA, Harmon ME, Schimel DS, Valentini R, Wirth C, Aber JD, Cole JJ, Goulden ML, Harden JW, Heimann M, Howarth RW, Matson PA, McGuire AD, Melillo JM, Mooney HA, Neff JC, Houghton RA, Pace ML, Ryan MG, Running SW, Sala OE, Schlesinger WH, Schulze ED (2006) Reconciling carbon-cycle concepts, terminology, and methods. Ecosystems 9:1041–1050
Clarke A, MacNally R, Bond N, Lake PS (2008) Macroinvertebrate diversity in headwater streams: a review. Freshw Biol 53:1707–1721
Collins SM, Kohler TJ, Thomas SA, Fetzer WW, Flecker AS (2016) The importance of terrestrial subsidies in stream food webs varies along a stream size gradient. Oikos 125:674–685
Downing JA, Cole JJ, Duarte CM, Middelburg JJ, Melack JM, Prairie YT, Kortelainen P, Striegl RG, McDowell WH, Tranvik LJ (2012) Global abundance and size distribution of streams and rivers. Inl Waters 2:229–236
Elosegi A, Diez J, Pozo J (2007) Contribution of dead wood to the carbon flux in forested streams. Earth Surf Process Landforms 32:1219–1228
England LE, Rosemond AD (2004) Small reductions in forest cover weaken terrestrial-aquatic linkages in headwater streams. Freshw Biol 49:721–734
Faith DP, Minchin PR, Belbin L (1987) Compositional dissimilarity as a robust measure of ecological distance. Vegetatio 69:57–68
Fisher SG, Likens GE (1973) Energy flow in Bear Brook, New Hampshire: an integrative approach to stream ecosystem metabolism. Ecol Monogr 43:421–439
Fuß T, Behounek B, Ulseth AJ, Singer GA (2017) Land use controls stream ecosystem metabolism by shifting dissolved organic matter and nutrient regimes. Freshw Biol 62:582–599
Gounand I, Little CJ, Harvey E, Altermatt F (2018) Worldwide cross-ecosystem carbon subsidies and their contribution to ecosystem functioning. bioRxiv. https://doi.org/10.1101/271809
Hagen EM, McTammany ME, Webster JR, Benfield EF (2010) Shifts in allochthonous input and autochthonous production in streams along an agricultural land-use gradient. Hydrobiologia 655:61–77
Hagen EM, Webster JR, Benfield EF (2006) Are leaf breakdown rates a useful measure of stream integrity along an agricultural landuse gradient? J North Am Benthol Soc 25:330–343
Harvey E, Gounand I, Little CJ, Fronhofer EA, Altermatt F (2017) Upstream trophic structure modulates downstream community dynamics via resource subsidies. Ecol Evol 7:5724–5731
Heiri AC, Wolf A, Rohrer L, Bugmann H (2009) Forty years of natural dynamics in Swiss beech forests: structure, composition, and the influence of former management. Ecol Appl 19:1920–1934
Johnson S, Covich A (1997) Scales of observation of riparian forests and distributions of suspended detritus in a prairie river. Freshw Biol 37:163–175
Kaelin K, Altermatt F (2016) Landscape-level predictions of diversity in river networks reveal opposing patterns for different groups of macroinvertebrates. Aquat Ecol 50:283–295
Kominoski JS, Pringle CM, Ball BA, Bradford MA, Coleman DC, Hall DB, Hunter MD (2007) Nonadditive effects of leaf litter species diversity on breakdown dynamics in a detritus-based stream. Ecology 88:1167–1176
Kominoski JS, Rosemond AD (2012) Conservation from the bottom up: forecasting effects of global change on dynamics of organic matter and management needs for river networks. Freshw Sci 31:51–68
Kuglerová L, Jansson R, Sponseller R, Laudon H, Malm-Renofalt B (2016) Local and regional processes determine plant species richness in a river-network metacommunity. Ecology 2:381–391
Lecerf A, Dobson M, Dang CK, Chauvet E (2005) Riparian plant species loss alters trophic dynamics in detritus-based stream ecosystems. Oecologia 146:432–442
Lecerf A, Richardson JS (2010) Litter decomposition can detect effects of high and moderate levels of forest disturbance on stream condition. For Ecol Manag 259:2433–2443
Legendre P, Anderson M (1999) Distance-based redundancy analysis: testing multispecies responses in multifactorial ecological experiments. Ecol Monogr 69:1–24
LeRoy CJ, Marks JC (2006) Litter quality, stream characteristics and litter diversity influence decomposition rates and macroinvertebrates. Freshw Biol 51:605–617
Little CJ, Altermatt F (2018a) Species turnover and invasion of dominant freshwater invertebrates alter biodiversity-ecosystem function relationship. Ecol Monogr. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecm.1299
Little CJ, Altermatt F (2018b) Do priority effects outweigh environmental filtering in a guild of dominant freshwater macroinvertebrates? Proc R Soc B 285:20180205
Little CJ, Altermatt F (2018c) Data from: Landscape configuration alters spatial arrangement of terrestrial-aquatic subsidies in headwater streams. Dryad Digit Repository. https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.j675k0j
Marcarelli AM, Baxter CV, Mineau MM, Hall RO (2011) Quantity and quality: unifying food web and ecosystem perspectives on the role of resource subsidies in freshwaters. Ecology 92:1215–1225
Meyer JL, Wallace JB, Eggert SL (1998) Leaf litter as a source of dissolved organic carbon in streams. Ecosystems 1:240–249
Miltner RJ, White D, Yoder C (2004) The biotic integrity of streams in urban and suburbanizing landscapes. Landsc Urban Plan 69:87–100
Mitchell MGE, Bennett EM, Gonzalez A (2015) Strong and nonlinear effects of fragmentation on ecosystem service provision at multiple scales. Environ Res Lett 10:94014
Naiman RJ, Decamps H, Pollock M (1993) The role of riparian corridors in maintaining regional biodiversity. Ecol Appl 3:209–212
Niyogi DK, Koren M, Arbuckle CJ, Townsend CR (2007) Longitudinal changes in biota along four New Zealand streams: declines and improvements in stream health related to land use. New Zeal J Mar Freshw Res 41:63–75
Oksanen J, Blanchet FG, Kindt R, Legendre P, Minchin PR, O’Hara RB, Simpson GL, Solymos P, Stevens MHM, Wagner H (2012) vegan: Community Ecology Package
Orlinskiy P, Münze R, Beketov M, Gunold R, Paschke A, Knillmann S, Liess M (2015) Forested headwaters mitigate pesticide effects on macroinvertebrate communities in streams: mechanisms and quantification. Sci Total Environ 524–525:115–123
Peterman WE, Crawford JA, Semlitsch RD (2008) Productivity and significance of headwater streams: population structure and biomass of the black-bellied salamander (Desmognathus quadramaculatus). Freshw Biol 53:347–357
Price B, Kienast F, Seidl I, Ginzler C, Verburg PH, Bolliger J (2015) Future landscapes of Switzerland: risk areas for urbanisation and land abandonment. Appl Geogr 57:32–41
Rios SL, Bailey RC (2006) Relationship between riparian vegetation and stream benthic communities at three spatial scales. Hydrobiologia 553:153–160
Rosseel Y (2012) lavaan: an R package for structural equation modeling. J Stat Softw 48:1–36
Ryo M, Harvey E, Robinson CT, Altermatt F (2018) Nonlinear higher order abiotic interactions explain riverine biodiversity. J Biogeogr. https://doi.org/10.1111/jbi.13164
Schmieder K (2004) European lake shores in danger- Concepts for a sustainable development. Limnologica 34:3–14
Snyder CD, Young JA, Villella R, Lemarié DP (2003) Influences of upland and riparian land use patterns on stream biotic integrity. Landscape Ecol 18:647–664
Sponseller R, Benfield E, Valett M (2001) Relationships between land use, spatial scale and stream macroinvertebrate communities. Freshw Biol 46:1409–1424
Swan CM, Gluth MA, Horne CL (2009) Leaf litter species evenness influences nonadditive breakdown in a headwater stream. Ecology 90:1650–1658
Swan CM, Palmer MA (2006) Preferential feeding by an aquatic consumer mediates non-additive decomposition of speciose leaf litter. Oecologia 149:107–114
Sweeney BW, Newbold JD (2014) Streamside forest buffer width needed to protect stream water quality, habitat, and organisms: a literature review. J Am Water Resour Assoc 50:560–584
Swisstopo (2003) DHM 25. 5704 000 000, reproduced by permission of swisstopo/JA100119, Bundesamt für Landestopographie (Art.30 Geo IV)
Swisstopo (2007) Vector 25 Gewässernetz. 5704 000 000, reproduced by permission of swisstopo/JA100119, Bundesamt für Landestopographie (Art.30 Geo IV)
Swisstopo (2010) Vector 25. 5704 000 000, reproduced by permission of swisstopo/JA100119, Bundesamt für Landestopographie (Art.30 Geo IV)
Vannote RL, Minshall GW, Cummins KW, Sedell JR, Cushing CE (1980) The river continuum concept. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 37:130–137
Wallace JB, Eggert SL, Meyer JL, Webster JR (1997) Multiple trophic levels of a forest stream linked to terrestrial litter inputs. Science 277:102–104
Webster JR, Covich A, Tank JL, Crockett TV (1994) Retention of coarse organic particles in Streams in the southern Appalachian mountains. J North Am Benthol Soc 13:140–150
Webster JR, Golladay SW, Benfield EF, D’Angelo DJ, Peters GT (1990) Effects of forest disturbance on particulate organic matter budgets of small streams. J North Am Benthol Soc 9:120–140
Whiting DP, Whiles MR, Stone ML (2011) Patterns of macroinvertebrate production, trophic structure, and energy flow along a tallgrass prairie stream continuum. Limnol Oceanogr 56:887–898
Wipfli MS, Musslewhite J (2004) Density of red alder (Alnus rubra) in headwaters influences invertebrate and detritus subsidies to downstream fish habitats in Alaska. Hydrobiologia 520:153–163
Wipfli MS, Richardson JS, Naiman RJ (2007) Ecological linkages between headwaters and downstream ecosystems: transport of organic matter, invertebrates, and wood down headwater channels. J Am Water Resour Assoc 43:72–85
Young RG, Huryn AD (1999) Effects of land use on stream metabolism and organic matter turnover. Ecol Appl 9:1359–1376
Acknowledgements
The authors sincerely thank the Kanton Thurgau Office of the Environment facilitating access to sampling sites, and all landowners whose property we crossed. We are also grateful to Pravin Ganesanandamoorthy, Elvira Mächler, and Simon Flückiger for help with fieldwork and laboratory work, and Katharina Kaelin and Rosi Sieber for assistance with parts of the GIS analysis. We thank two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments. This project was funded by Swiss National Science Foundation Grants PP00P3_150698 and PP00P3_179089.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Little, C.J., Altermatt, F. Landscape configuration alters spatial arrangement of terrestrial-aquatic subsidies in headwater streams. Landscape Ecol 33, 1519–1531 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-018-0678-0
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-018-0678-0