| Literature DB >> 30540796 |
Rebeca Arias-Real1, Margarita Menéndez1, Meritxell Abril2, Francesc Oliva3, Isabel Muñoz1.
Abstract
The study of leaf litter as a resource for shredders has emerged as a key topic in trophic links in ecology. However, thus far, most studies have emphasized the leaf quality as one of the main determinants of shredder behaviour and growth without simultaneously considering the leaf quantity availability. Nevertheless, the combined effects of leaf quantity and quality on shredder behaviour and growth is particularly crucial to further understand how ecosystem functioning may respond to the increasing flow intermittency due to climate change. In this study, we explore how changes in the leaf litter quality and quantity influence the feeding preferences and growth of an invertebrate shredder (Potamophylax latipennis). To do so, we used black poplar leaves conditioned in two streams with different flow regimens as a food resource. Afterwards, using a microcosm approach, we offered leaf discs that varied in terms of leaf quantity and quality to P. latipennis. Our results showed that flow intermittency had a negative effect on the quality of the food resource, and a lower quality had a negative effect on the consumption and growth rates of P. latipennis. Furthermore, we found that P. latipennis fed selectively on higher quality leaves even though the availability (quantity) of this resource was lower. In the context of climate change, with higher aridity/drier conditions/scenarios, our findings suggest that a decrease in the availability (quantity) of high-quality resources could potentially threaten links in global fluvial food webs and thus threaten ecosystem functioning.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30540796 PMCID: PMC6291097 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0208272
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1Experimental design.
A and B refer to the leaf discs from the permanent and intermittent streams, respectively. Each microcosm contained individual shredders and 12 leaf discs. Ten microcosms were used per treatment.
Means ± SEM of the initial chemical leaf litter composition (n = 5) and aquatic hyphomycetes richness (n = 6) and t-tests results for the quality of the leaves in both treatments (A and B).
| Mean (± SEM) | Statistics | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variable | Permanent (A) | Intermittent (B) | t8 | p-value |
| Total lipid (%) | 4.13 (± 0.07) | 3.36 (± 0.02) | 9.45 | |
| C:N | 63.5 (± 2.9) | 51.2 (± 1.5) | 2.42 | 0.051 |
| Fungal Biomass (mg FB/g DM) | 33.71 (± 4.02) | 17.68 (± 5.09) | 4.30 | |
| Aquatic hyphomycetes richness | 12 (± 0.4) | 5 (± 0.6) | 8.87 | |
Results of the indicator species analysis (IndVal), maximum IV significance (IV is the individual value), associated stream class for each species and the frequency of appearance (A and B, permanent and intermittent streams).
| Species | Class | IV | p-value | A | B |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 0.500 | 1 | 100 | 100 | |
| 1 | 0.600 | 0.461 | 100 | 66.7 | |
| 1 | 0.750 | 100 | 16.6 | ||
| 1 | 0.857 | 100 | 16.67 | ||
| 2 | 0.694 | 0.062 | 16.6 | 83.3 | |
| 1 | 0.667 | 0.075 | 66.6 | 0 | |
| 1 | 1.000 | 100 | 0 | ||
| 1 | 0.694 | 0.074 | 83.3 | 16.6 | |
| 1 | 0.521 | 0.567 | 83.3 | 50 | |
| 1 | 0.667 | 66.6 | 0 | ||
| 2 | 0.167 | 1 | 0 | 16.6 | |
| 1 | 0.167 | 1 | 16.6 | 0 | |
| 1 | 0.500 | 0.205 | 50 | 0 | |
| 1 | 0.333 | 0.453 | 33.3 | 0 | |
| 1 | 0.167 | 1 | 16.6 | 0 | |
| 1 | 0.333 | 0.446 | 33.3 | 0 |
Results of one-way ANOVA (factor treatment) of the effects of leaf quality on consumer consumption and growth.
| Variable | Treatment | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| df | F | P | |
| Total Consumption (mg leaf DM) | 4 | 4.481 | |
| RCR (mg leaf DM mg larval DM -1 day -1) | 4 | 4.317 | |
| IGR (mm d-1) | 4 | 5.622 | |
| RGR (mm mm-1 d-1) | 4 | 5.074 | |
| Total Lipids (%) | 4 | 2.877 | |
| Oxygen Consumption (mg L-1 mgDM-1 s-1) | 4 | 3.926 | |
N = 50 (10 replicates per treatment) except for oxygen consumption, where n = 15 (three replicates per treatment).
Fig 2Shredder consumption and growth.
Total consumption (A), relative consumption rate (RCR) (B); instantaneous growth rate of the head width (IGR) (C); relative growth rate of the head width (RGR) (D); total lipid content (E) and, oxygen consumption (F) of P. latipennis, where t1 = 100% A, t2 = 100% B, t3 = 50% A and 50% B, t4 = 75% A and 25% B and t5 = 25% A and 75% B. The different letters indicate significant differences (Tukey HSD post hoc test, p< 0.05) among treatments for each variable.
Fig 3The observed consumption (black bars) of A leaf discs compared with the expected consumption (grey bars).
The expected A leaf discs as the initial proportion of A discs at each treatment: t3 = 50%, t4 = 75% and t5 = 25%). N = 5 (t3, t4) and N = 4 (t5).