Literature DB >> 28308490

The impact of vertebrate and invertebrate predators on a stream benthic community.

Jonas Dahl1.   

Abstract

I assessed the impact of both vertebrate and invertebrate predators on a lotic benthic community in a 1-month-long experiment, using enclosures containing cobble/gravel bottoms, with large-mesh netting that allowed invertebrates to drift freely. Brown trout (Salmo trutta) and leeches (Erpobdella octoculata) were used as predators and four treatments were tested: a predator-free control, leeches only, trout only, and leeches and trout together. A density of 26.7 leeches/m2 (20 leeches/enclosure) and 1.3 trout/m2 (one trout per enclosure) was stocked into the enclosures. The total biomass of invertebrate prey was significantly lower in the trout and trout plus leech treatments than in the leech and control treatments, which were due to strong negative effects of trout on Gammarus. On the individual prey taxon level, both trout and leeches affected the abundance of Asellus , Baetis and Ephemerella, whereas the abundance of Gammarus was only affected by trout, and the abundance of Orthocladiinae and Limnephilidae was only affected by leeches. In the treatment with trout and leeches together, the abundance of Ephemerella and Baetis was higher than when trout or leeches were alone, which was probably due to predator interactions. Leeches and trout had no effects on prey immigration but did affect per capita emigration rates. Both trout and leeches indirectly increased periphyton biomass in enclosures, probably due to their strong effects on grazers. Both trout and leeches were size-selective predators, with trout selecting large prey, and leeches selecting small prey. Size-selective predation by trout and leeches affected the size structure of five commonly consumed prey taxa. Trout produced prey populations of small sizes owing to consumption of large prey as well as increased emigration out of enclosures by these large prey. Leech predation produced prey assemblages of larger size owing to consumption and increased emigration of small prey. These results suggest that in lotic habits, predatory invertebrates can be as strong interactors as vertebrate predators.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Keywords Predation ;   Fish ;  Food web ;  Interaction ;  Invertebrates

Year:  1998        PMID: 28308490     DOI: 10.1007/s004420050651

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Oecologia        ISSN: 0029-8549            Impact factor:   3.225


  6 in total

1.  Is prey predation risk influenced more by increasing predator density or predator species richness in stream enclosures?

Authors:  Heather D Vance-Chalcraft; Daniel A Soluk; Nicholas Ozburn
Journal:  Oecologia       Date:  2004-01-15       Impact factor: 3.225

2.  Avoidance of conspecific injury-released chemical cues by free-ranging Gammarus lacustris (Crustacea:Amphipoda).

Authors:  B D Wisenden; S G Pohlman; E E Watkin
Journal:  J Chem Ecol       Date:  2001-06       Impact factor: 2.626

3.  Developmental responses to predation risk in morphologically defended mayflies.

Authors:  Jonas Dahl; Barbara L Peckarsky
Journal:  Oecologia       Date:  2003-07-08       Impact factor: 3.225

4.  Top-down and bottom-up processes in grassland and forested streams.

Authors:  Per Nyström; Angus R McIntosh; Michael J Winterbourn
Journal:  Oecologia       Date:  2003-06-07       Impact factor: 3.225

5.  Predators and resources influence phosphorus transfer along an invertebrate food web through changes in prey behaviour.

Authors:  Edoardo Calizza; Loreto Rossi; Maria Letizia Costantini
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-06-04       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  Platypus predation has differential effects on aquatic invertebrates in contrasting stream and lake ecosystems.

Authors:  Tanya A McLachlan-Troup; Stewart C Nicol; Christopher R Dickman
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2020-08-03       Impact factor: 4.379

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.