Hydrologic Variability Affects Invertebrate Grazing on Phototrophic Biofilms in Stream Microcosms

The temporal variability of streamflow is known to be a key feature structuring and controlling fluvial ecological communities and ecosystem processes. Although alterations of streamflow regime due to habitat fragmentation or other anthropogenic factors are ubiquitous, a quantitative understanding of their implications on ecosystem structure and function is far from complete. Here, by experimenting with two contrasting flow regimes in stream microcosms, we provide a novel mechanistic explanation for how fluctuating flow regimes may affect grazing of phototrophic biofilms (i.e., periphyton) by an invertebrate species (Ecdyonurus sp.). In both flow regimes light availability was manipulated as a control on autotroph biofilm productivity and grazer activity, thereby allowing the test of flow regime effects across various ratios of biofilm biomass to grazing activity. Average grazing rates were significantly enhanced under variable flow conditions and this effect was highest at intermediate light availability. Our results suggest that stochastic flow regimes, characterised by suitable fluctuations and temporal persistence, may offer increased windows of opportunity for grazing under favourable shear stress conditions. This bears important implications for the development of comprehensive schemes for water resources management and for the understanding of trophic carbon transfer in stream food webs.

[1]  John H. Steele,et al.  ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL OF PHOTOSYNTHESIS IN THE SEA , 1962 .

[2]  B. Malmqvist,et al.  Changing risk of predation for a filter-feeding insect along a current velocity gradient , 1996, Oecologia.

[3]  A. Rinaldo,et al.  Signatures of large‐scale soil moisture dynamics on streamflow statistics across U.S. climate regimes , 2007 .

[4]  G. Velde Methods in Stream Ecology, Second edition, F. Richard Hauer, G.A. Lamberti (Eds.). Academic Press (2006), 877 pp., Hardcover and paperback: alk. Paper Price €41.95, US$ 49.95, GB£ 28.99, ISBN-13: 978-0-12-332907-3, ISBN-10: 0-12-332907-8 , 2008 .

[5]  N. Poff,et al.  Current velocity and spatial scale as determinants of the distribution and abundance of two rheophilic herbivorous insects , 2001, Landscape Ecology.

[6]  B. Statzner,et al.  Standard hemispheres as indicators of flow characteristics in lotic benthos research , 1989 .

[7]  D. Hart,et al.  PHYSICAL-BIOLOGICAL COUPLING IN STREAMS: The Pervasive Effects of Flow on Benthic Organisms , 1999 .

[8]  M. Power,et al.  Effects of Disturbance on River Food Webs , 1996, Science.

[9]  D. Post,et al.  Food Chains in Freshwaters , 2009, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.

[10]  D. Post,et al.  The Role of Discharge Variation in Scaling of Drainage Area and Food Chain Length in Rivers , 2010, Science.

[11]  J. Newbold,et al.  Contributions of microbial biofilms to ecosystem processes in stream mesocosms , 2003, Nature.

[12]  C. Hawkins,et al.  Interactions between Stream Herbivores and Periphyton: A Quantitative Analysis of past Experiments , 1995, Journal of the North American Benthological Society.

[13]  J. Steele,et al.  FURTHER RELATIONS BETWEEN PRIMARY PRODUCTION, CHLOROPHYLL, AND PARTICULATE CARBON , 1962 .

[14]  W. Cross,et al.  Toward Quantifying the Relative Importance of Invertebrate Consumption and Bioturbation in Puerto Rican Streams , 2008 .

[15]  Jill Lancaster,et al.  Flow Refugia and the Microdistribution of Lotic Macroinvertebrates , 1993, Journal of the North American Benthological Society.

[16]  J. Ward,et al.  Herbivory and irradiance shape periphytic architecture in a Swiss alpine stream , 2000 .

[17]  Miki Hondzo,et al.  Effects of turbulence on growth and metabolism of periphyton in a laboratory flume , 2002 .

[18]  N. LeRoy Poff,et al.  Heterogeneous currents and algal resources mediate in situ foraging activity of a mobile stream grazer , 1992 .

[19]  T. Benton,et al.  Microcosm experiments can inform global ecological problems. , 2007, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[20]  M. Gordon Wolman,et al.  Fluvial Processes in Geomorphology , 1965 .

[21]  U. Sommer The impact of herbivore type and grazing pressure on benthic microalgal diversity , 1999 .

[22]  J. Newbold,et al.  Effects of Current Velocity on the Nascent Architecture of Stream Microbial Biofilms , 2003, Applied and Environmental Microbiology.

[23]  R. J. Stevenson,et al.  Algal ecology: freshwater benthic ecosystems , 1996 .

[24]  H. Utermöhl Zur Vervollkommnung der quantitativen Phytoplankton-Methodik , 1958 .

[25]  G. Minshall,et al.  The River Continuum Concept , 1980 .

[26]  A. Steinman,et al.  Productive Capacity of Periphyton as a Determinant of Plant‐Herbivore Interactions in Streams , 1989 .

[27]  I. Rodríguez‐Iturbe,et al.  Ecohydrology of Water-Controlled Ecosystems: Soil Moisture and Plant Dynamics , 2005 .

[28]  V. Isham,et al.  Probabilistic modelling of water balance at a point: the role of climate, soil and vegetation , 1999, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences.

[29]  R. Muneepeerakul,et al.  Neutral metacommunity models predict fish diversity patterns in Mississippi–Missouri basin , 2008, Nature.

[30]  Andrea Rinaldo,et al.  Natural streamflow regime alterations: Damming of the Piave river basin (Italy) , 2010 .

[31]  Marti J. Anderson,et al.  CANONICAL ANALYSIS OF PRINCIPAL COORDINATES: A USEFUL METHOD OF CONSTRAINED ORDINATION FOR ECOLOGY , 2003 .

[32]  A. Hildrew,et al.  ‘House and garden’: larval galleries enhance resource availability for a sedentary caddisfly , 2012 .

[33]  J. E. Harker The Diurnal Rhythm of Activity of Mayfly Nymphs , 1953 .

[34]  M. G. Ryon,et al.  Light limitation in a stream ecosystem: responses by primary producers and consumers , 1995 .

[35]  G. Zolezzi,et al.  Thermal wave dynamics in rivers affected by hydropeaking , 2010 .

[36]  N. LeRoy Poff,et al.  Hydrologic variation with land use across the contiguous United States: Geomorphic and ecological consequences for stream ecosystems , 2006 .

[37]  N. Poff,et al.  Herbivory, current velocity and algal regrowth: how does periphyton grow when the grazers have gone? , 2006 .

[38]  B. Malmqvist,et al.  Predator—Prey Interactions in a Variable Environment: Responses of a Caddis Larva and Its Blackfly Prey to Variations in Stream Flow , 2009 .

[39]  J. Lawrence,et al.  Microscale Evaluation of the Effects of Grazing by Invertebrates with Contrasting Feeding Modes on River Biofilm Architecture and Composition , 2002, Microbial Ecology.

[40]  Enrico Bertuzzo,et al.  River networks as ecological corridors: A complex systems perspective for integrating hydrologic, geomorphologic, and ecologic dynamics , 2009 .

[41]  Joe Drennan,et al.  Effects of Flow Regimes Altered by Dams on Survival, Population Declines, and Range‐Wide Losses of California River‐Breeding Frogs , 2012, Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology.

[42]  U. Sommer,et al.  Positive effects of mesograzers on epiphytes in an eelgrass system. , 2010 .

[43]  D. Lytle,et al.  Adaptation to natural flow regimes. , 2004, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[44]  N. Poff,et al.  Herbivory under different flow regimes: a field experiment and test of a model with a benthic stream insect , 1995 .

[45]  M. Chadwick Stream Ecology: Structure and Function of Running Waters , 2008 .

[46]  J. Ackerman,et al.  Microdistribution of a torrential stream invertebrate: Are bottom‐up, top‐down, or hydrodynamic controls most important? , 2011 .

[47]  Andrea Rinaldo,et al.  Basin‐scale soil moisture dynamics and the probabilistic characterization of carrier hydrologic flows: Slow, leaching‐prone components of the hydrologic response , 2007 .

[48]  William E. Dietrich,et al.  How does floodplain width affect floodplain river ecology? A preliminary exploration using simulations , 1995 .

[49]  R. Sparks,et al.  THE NATURAL FLOW REGIME. A PARADIGM FOR RIVER CONSERVATION AND RESTORATION , 1997 .

[50]  W. Dietrich,et al.  SEASONAL REASSEMBLY OF A RIVER FOOD WEB: FLOODS, DROUGHTS, AND IMPACTS OF FISH , 2008 .

[51]  A. Rinaldo,et al.  Probabilistic characterization of base flows in river basins: Roles of soil, vegetation, and geomorphology , 2007 .

[52]  J. Ward,et al.  Does light intensity modify the effect mayfly grazers have on periphyton , 1998 .

[53]  A. Rinaldo,et al.  Fractal River Basins: Chance and Self-Organization , 1997 .

[54]  J. Olden,et al.  Homogenization of regional river dynamics by dams and global biodiversity implications , 2007, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[55]  Aaron I. Packman,et al.  Biophysical controls on organic carbon fluxes in fluvial networks , 2008 .

[56]  A. Rinaldo,et al.  Comparative study of ecohydrological streamflow probability distributions , 2010 .

[57]  V. Resh,et al.  Comparability of introduced tiles and natural substrates for sampling lotic bacteria, algae and macro invertebrates , 1985 .

[58]  R. Naiman,et al.  The challenge of providing environmental flow rules to sustain river ecosystems. , 2006, Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America.

[59]  William E. Dietrich,et al.  Hydraulic Food-Chain ModelsAn approach to the study of food-web dynamics in large rivers , 1995 .

[60]  Cajo J. F. ter Braak,et al.  Testing the significance of canonical axes in redundancy analysis , 2011 .

[61]  R. Sparks,et al.  The Natural Flow Regime , 2006 .

[62]  Stephen P. Rice,et al.  Flow‐ and substratum‐mediated movement by a stream insect , 2006 .

[63]  G. Zolezzi,et al.  Thermopeaking in Alpine streams: event characterization and time scales , 2010 .