, Volume 28, Issue 2, pp 378–389 | Cite as

Periphyton mat structure mediates trophic interactions in a subtropical marsh

  • John H. ChickEmail author
  • Pamela Geddes
  • Joel C. Trexler


Freshwater marshes are often subject to severe disturbance from seasonal drying (dry-downs) and frequently have distinct food webs relative to other freshwater systems. Subtropical marshes in the Florida Everglades have a unique trophic structure characterized by low nutrients, high standing stocks of algae in the form of floating and benthic periphyton mats, low standing stocks of primary and secondary consumers (omnivorous small fishes, tadpoles, and large macroinvertebrates), and very low standing stocks of tertiary consumers (large fishes). To account for this trophic structure, two hypotheses have been proposed: 1) high algal standing stocks result from top-down control over omnivores (small fishes, tadpoles, and macroinvertebrates) by large fishes, or 2) that the physical and biotic structure of periphyton mats impedes grazing. We conducted caging experiments before and after the dry season to delineate interactions among species influencing trophic structure in these marshes. Treatments included a refuge cage that was accessible to omnivores but excluded large fishes, an open cage accessible by omnivores and large fishes, and an omnivore exclusion cage designed to exclude fishes, tadpoles, and large macroinvertebrates. The physical and biotic structure of mature periphyton mats mediated direct and indirect interactions of omnivores and large fishes. More omnivores used the refuge treatment compared to the open treatment, likely to avoid large fishes, leading to a trophic cascade where abundance of epiphytic algae was reduced. Reductions in epiphytic algae were especially pronounced after the dry season when neonate sailfin molly were the dominant omnivore. We did not find comparable reductions of periphyton-mat biomass in the refuge treatment, suggesting that edible forms within these mats gain an associative refuge from grazers. Reduced grazing on edible algae in mature periphyton mats may explain the high standing stocks of algae characteristic of Everglades marshes.

Key Words

epiphytic algae Everglades floating mat algae large fishes omnivores trophic structure 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literature Cited

  1. Angeler, D. G., M. A. Rodrigo, S. Sanchez-Carrillo, and M. Alvarez-Cobelas. 2002. Effects of hydrologically confined fishes on bacterioplankton and autotrophic picoplankton in a semiarid marsh. Aquatic Microbial Ecology 29: 307–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Batzer, D. P. 1998. Trophic interactions among detritus, benthic midges, and predatory fish in a freshwater marsh. Ecology 79: 1688–98.Google Scholar
  3. Batzer, D. P., C. R. Pusateri, and R. Vetter. 2000. Impacts of fish predation on marsh invertebrates: direct and indirect effects. Wetlands 20: 307–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Browder, J. A., P. J. Gleason, and D. R. Swift. 1994. Periphyton in the Everglades: spatial variation, environmental correlates, and ecological implications. p. 379–418. In S. M. Davis and J. C. Ogden (eds.) Everglades: The Ecosystem and its Restoration. St. Lucie Press, Boca Raton, FL, USA.Google Scholar
  5. Carpenter, S. R., J. F. Kitchell, and J. R. Hodgson. 1985. Cascading trophic interactions and lake primary productivity. BioScience 35: 634–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Carpenter, S. R., J. F. Kitchell, J. R. Hodgson, P. A. Cochran, J. J. Elser, M. M. Elser, D. M. Lodge, D. Kretchmer, X. He, and C. N. von Ende. 1987. Regulation of lake primary productivity by food web structure. Ecology 68: 1863–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chick, J. H. and C. C. McIvor. 1994. Patterns in the abundance and composition of fishes among beds of different macrophytes: viewing a littoral zone as a landscape. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 51: 2873–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chick, J. H. and C. C. McIvor. 1997. Habitat selection by three littoral zone fishes: effects of predation pressure, plant density and macrophyte type. Ecology of Freshwater Fish 6: 27–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chick, J. H., C. R. Ruetz, and J. C. Trexler. 2004. Spatial scale and abundance patterns of large fish communities in freshwater marshes of the Florida Everglades. Wetlands 24: 652–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chick, J. H. and M. J. Van Den Avyle. 1999. Zooplankton variability and larval striped bass foraging: evaluating potential match/mismatch regulation. Ecological Applications 9: 320–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Clarke, K. R. and R. M. Warwick. 1994. Change in Marine Communities: An Approach to Statistical Analysis and Interpretation. Plymouth Marine Laboratories, Bournemouth, UK.Google Scholar
  12. DeAngelis, D. L., J. C. Trexler, and W. F. Loftus. 2005. Life history trade-offs and community dynamics of small fishes in a seasonally pulsed wetland. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 62: 781–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Donar, C. M., K. W. Condon, M. Gantar, and E. E. Gaiser. 2004. A new technique for examining the physical structure of Everglades floating periphyton mat. Nova Hedwigia 78: 107–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dorn, N. J., J. C. Trexler, and E. E. Gaiser. 2006. Exploring the role of large predators in marsh food webs: evidence for a behaviorally mediated trophic cascade. Hydrobiologia 569: 375–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Eaton, A. D., L. S. Clesceri, and A. E. Greenberg. 1995. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, nineteenth edition. American Public Health Association, Washington DC, USA.Google Scholar
  16. Gaff, H., J. H. Chick, J. C. Trexler, D. DeAngelis, L. Gross, and R. Salinas. 2004. Evaluation of and insights from ALFISH: a spatially explicit, landscape-level simulation of fish populations in the Everglades. Hydrobiologia 520: 73–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gaiser, E. E., J. J. Scinto, J. H. Richards, D. L. Childers, D. L. Childers, J. C. Trexler, and R. D. Jones. 2004. Phosphorus in periphyton mats provides the best metric for detecting low-level P enrichment in an oligotrophic wetland. Water Research 38: 507–16.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Gaiser, E. E., J. C. Trexler, J. H. Richards, D. L. Childers, D. Lee, A. L. Edwards, L. J. Scinto, K. Jayachandran, G. B. Noe, and R. D. Jones. 2005. Cascading ecological effects of low-level phosphorus enrichment in the Florida Everglades. Journal of Environmental Quality 34: 717–23.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Geddes, P. and J. C. Trexler. 2003. Uncoupling of omnivoremediated positive and negative effects on periphyton mats. Oecologia 136: 585–95.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Harvell, C. D. 1990. The ecology and evolution of inducible defenses. Quarterly Review of Biology 65: 323–40.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Heck, K. L. J. and L. B. Crowder. 1991. Habitat structure and predator-prey interactions in vegetated aquatic systems. p. 281–99. In S. S. Bell, E. D. McCoy, and H. R. Mushinsky (eds.) Habitat Structure: The Physical Arrangement of Objects in Space. Chapman and Hall, London, UK.Google Scholar
  22. Hunt, B. P. 1952. Food relationships between Florida spotted gar and other organisms in the Tamiami Canal, Dade County, Florida. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 82: 13–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jordan, F. 1996. Spatial ecology of decapods and fishes in a northern Everglades wetland mosaic. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA.Google Scholar
  24. Kushlan, J. A. 1974. Effects of a natural fish kill on the water quality, plankton, and fish populations of a pond in the Big Cypress Swamp, Florida. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 103: 235–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kushlan, J. A. 1976. Environmental stability and fish community diversity. Ecology 57: 821–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Layman, C. A. and K. O. Winemiller. 2004. Size-based responses of prey to piscivore exclusions in a species-rich neotropical stream. Ecology 85: 1311–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Leibold, M. A., J. M. Chase, J. B. Shurin, and A. L. Downing. 1997. Species turnover and the regulation of trophic structure. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 28: 467–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Light, S. S. and J. W. Dineen. 1994. Water control in the Everglades: a historical perspective. p. 47–84. In S. M. Davis and J. C. Ogden (eds.) Everglades: The Ecosystem and its Restoration. St. Lucie Press, Boca Raton, FL, USA.Google Scholar
  29. Lima, S. L. 1998. Nonlethal effects in the ecology of predatorprey interactions. BioScience 48: 25–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Loftus, W. F. 2000. Accumulation and fate of mercury in an Everglades aquatic food web. Ph.D. Dissertation. Florida International University, Miami, FL, USA.Google Scholar
  31. Loftus, W. F. and A. M. Eklund. 1994. Long-term dynamics of an Everglades small fish assemblage. p. 461–83. In S. M. Davis and J. C. Ogden (eds.) Everglades: The Ecosystem and its Restoration. St. Lucie Press, Boca Raton, FL, USA.Google Scholar
  32. Loftus, W. F. and J. A. Kushlan. 1987. Freshwater fishes of southern Florida. Bulletin of the Florida Museum of Natural History 31: 147–344.Google Scholar
  33. McCormick, P. V., M. B. O’Dell, R. B. E. Shuford, J. G. Backus, and W. C. Kennedy. 2001. Periphyton responses to experimental phosphorus enrichment in a subtropical. Aquatic Botany 71: 119–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Moore, J. C., E. L. Berlow, D. C. Coleman, P. C. de Ruiter, Q. Dong, A. Hastings, N. C. Johnson, K. S. McCann, K. Melville, P. J. Morin, K. Nadelhoffer, A. D. Rosemond, D. M. Post, J. L. Sabo, K. M. Scow, M. J. Vanni, and D. H. Wall. 2004. Detritus, trophic dynamics and biodiversity. Ecology Letters 7: 584–600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Nelson, C. M. and W. F. Loftus. 1996. Fish communities of alligator ponds in the high water period of 1983–1985, and 1994–1996. p. 89–101. In T. V. Armentano (ed.) Proceedings of the Conference: Ecological Asessment of the 1994–1995 High Water Conditions in the Southern Everglades. South Florida Management and Coordination Working Group, West Palm Beach, FL, USA.Google Scholar
  36. Osenberg, C. W. and G. G. Mittelbach. 1996. The relative importance of resource limitation and predator limitation in food chains. p. 134–48. In G. A. Polis and K. O. Winemiller (eds.) Food Webs: Integration of Patterns and Dynamics. Chapman & Hall, London, UK.Google Scholar
  37. Osenberg, C. W., O. Sarnelle, and S. D. Cooper. 1997. Effect size in ecological experiments: the application of biological models in meta-analysis. American Naturalist 150: 798–812.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Polis, G. A. and D. R. Strong. 1996. Food web complexity and community dynamics. American Naturalist 147: 813–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Porter, K. G. 1977. The plant-animal interface in freshwater ecosystems. American Scientist 65: 159–70.Google Scholar
  40. Ruetz, C. R. III, J. C. Trexler, F. Jordan, W. F. Loftus, and S. A. Perry. 2005. Population dynamics of wetland fishes: spatiotemporal patterns shaped by hydrological disturbance? Journal of Animal Ecology 74: 322–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Schmitz, O. J., V. Krivan, and O. Ovadia. 2004. Trophic cascades: the primacy of trait-mediated indirect interactions. Ecology Letters 7: 153–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Sutela, T. and A. Huusko. 2000. Varying resistance of Zooplankton prey to digestion: implications for quantifying larval fish diets. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 129: 545–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Trexler, J. C., W. F. Loftus, F. Jordan, J. H. Chick, K. L. Kandl, T. C. McElroy, and O. L. Bass, Jr. 2002. Ecological scale and its implications for freshwater fishes in the Florida Everglades. p. 153–81. In J. W. Porter and K. G. Porter (eds.) The Florida Everglades, Florida Bay, and Coral Reefs of the Florida Keys: An Ecosystem Sourcebook. CRC Press, New York, NY, USA.Google Scholar
  44. Trexler, J. C., W. F. Loftus, and S. Perry. 2005. Disturbance frequency and community structure in a twenty-five year intervention study. Oecologia 145: 140–52.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Trussell, G. C., P. J. Ewanchuk, and M. D. Bertness. 2002. Field evidence of trait-mediated indirect interactions in a rocky intertidal food web. Ecology Letters 5: 241–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Turner, A. M. and J. C. Trexler. 1997. Sampling aquatic invertebrates from marshes — evaluating the options. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 16: 694–709.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Turner, A. M., J. C. Trexler, C. F. Jordan, S. J. Slack, P. Geddes, J. H. Chick, and W. F. Loftus. 1999. Targeting ecosystem features for conservation: standing crop in the Florida Everglades. Conservation Biology 13: 898–911.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Van Meter-Kasanof, N. 1973. Ecology of the microalgae of the Florida Everglades. Part I. environment and some aspects of freshwater periphyton, 1959 to 1963. Nova Hedwigia 24: 619–64.Google Scholar
  49. Warfe, D. M. and L. A. Barmuta. 2004. Habitat structural complexity mediates the foraging success of multiple predator species. Oecologia 141: 171–78.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Werner, E. E. and S. D. Peacor. 2006. A review of trait-mediated indirect interactions in ecological communities. Ecology 84: 1083–1100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Society of Wetland Scientists 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • John H. Chick
    • 1
    Email author
  • Pamela Geddes
    • 2
  • Joel C. Trexler
    • 3
  1. 1.Great Rivers Field StationIllinois Natural History SurveyBrightonUSA
  2. 2.Biology DepartmentLoyola University ChicagoChicagoUSA
  3. 3.Department of Biological ScienceFlorida International UniversityMiamiUSA

Personalised recommendations