1. ,One of two things can happen to allochthonous material once it enters a stream: it can be broken down or it can be transported downstream. The efficiency with which allochthonous material is used is the result of these two opposing factors: breakdown and transport. 2. ,The present synthesis of new and published studies at Coweeta Hydrologic Laboratory compares biological use versus transport for four categories of particulate organic material: (1) large wood (logs); (2) small wood (sticks); (3) leaves; and (4) fine particulate organic matter (FPOM). 3. ,Over 8_years, logs showed no breakdown or movement. 4. ,The breakdown rate of sticks (≤3_cm diameter) ranged from 0.00017 to 0.00103_day−1, while their rate of transport, although varying considerably with discharge, ranged from 0 to 0.1_m_day−1. 5. ,Based on 40 published measurements, the average rate of leaf breakdown was 0.0098_day−1. The leaf transport rate depended on stream size and discharge. 6. ,The average respiration rate of FPOM was 1.4_mg_O2_g_AFDM−1_day−1 over a temperature range of 6–22_°C, which implies a decomposition rate of 0.00104_day−1. Transport distances of both corn pollen and glass beads, surrogates of natural FPOM, were short (<_10_m) except during high discharge. 7. , Estimates of transport rate were substantially larger than the breakdown rates for sticks, leaves and FPOM. Thus, an organic particle on the stream bottom is more likely to be transported than broken down by biological processes, although estimates of turnover length suggest that sticks and leaves do not travel far. However, once these larger particles are converted to refractory FPOM, either by physical or biological processes, they may be transported long distances before being metabolized.

The watershed of Big Hurricane Branch, Coweeta Hydrologic Laboratory, North Carolina, USA, was logged in 1976. We measured breakdown rates of experimental leaf packs in this second‐order stream prior to logging, during logging, soon after logging, and 3 additional times since then. Leaf breakdown was slow just after logging, apparently due to leaf burial by sediments. Thereafter, leaf breakdown rates have been consistently faster than before logging and faster than in a reference stream. These differences may be related to 3 factors. First, the post‐logging nitrate concentration has been about 3–10 times higher than pre‐logging values in Big Hurricane Branch and 5 times higher than in a reference stream. The high nutrient concentration may be stimulating microbial decomposition processes in leaf packs. Second, dominance of litterfall by “medium” and “fast” processing leaves from the recovering forest coupled with relatively high sediment loads during storms may hasten breakdown through physical abrasion. Third, the interaction of high nutrients and high quality leaves may be attractive to leaf‐shredding invertebrates whose feeding activities may also hasten the breakdown rates.

No abstract

1. We characterised aquatic and terrestrial invertebrate drift in six south-western North Carolina streams and their implications for trout production. Streams of this region typically have low standing stock and production of trout because of low benthic productivity. However, little is known about the contribution of terrestrial invertebrates entering drift, the factors that affect these inputs (including season, diel period and riparian cover type), or the energetic contribution of drift to trout. 2. Eight sites were sampled in streams with four riparian cover types. Drift samples were collected at sunrise, midday and sunset; and in spring, early summer, late summer and autumn. The importance of drift for trout production was assessed using literature estimates of annual benthic production in the southern Appalachians, ecotrophic coefficients and food conversion efficiencies. 3. Abundance and biomass of terrestrial invertebrate inputs and drifting aquatic larvae were typically highest in spring and early summer. Aquatic larval abundances were greater than terrestrial invertebrates during these seasons and terrestrial invertebrate biomass was greater than aquatic larval biomass in the autumn. Drift rates of aquatic larval abundance and biomass were greatest at sunset. Inputs of terrestrial invertebrate biomass were greater than aquatic larvae at midday. Terrestrial invertebrate abundances were highest in streams with open canopies and streams adjacent to pasture with limited forest canopy. 4. We estimate the combination of benthic invertebrate production and terrestrial invertebrate inputs can support 3.3-18.2 g (wet weight) m )2 year )1 of trout, which is generally lower than values considered productive [10.0-30.0 g (wet weight) m )2 year )1 ]. 5. Our results indicate terrestrial invertebrates can be an important energy source for trout in these streams, but trout production is still low. Any management activities that attempt to increase trout production should assess trout food resources and ensure their availability.

No abstract