An Energy Budget for the Zoobenthos of Mirror Lake, New Hampshire

Strayer, David L.; Likens, Gene E.

doi:10.2307/1938574

Cited by 107 publications

(86 citation statements)

References 44 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…data). to the process of pelagic-benthic coupling in lake food webs. Moreover, chironomid larvae can be important food for macroinvertebrate predators, fish and birds (Strayer & Likens, 1986;Lindegaard, 1994). Most evidence for exploitation of methane-carbon by zoobenthos via MOB relates to profundal chironomid larvae.…”

Section: Benthic Food Websmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Because chironomids feature prominently in the diets of fish and even birds (Strayer & Likens, 1986;Lindegaard, 1994), and if some chironomid larvae derive an appreciable part of their carbon biomass from methane, it might be expected that chironomids can act as a vector for passage of methane-derived carbon up food chains to higher trophic levels and across ecosystem boundaries. However, to date, there have been surprisingly few attempts to evaluate this, and evidence for methane-derived carbon as a detectable part of higher consumers is almost lacking.…”

Section: Does Methane-carbon Transfer From Zoobenthos To Higher Trophmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Biogenic methane in freshwater food webs

2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SUMMARY1. It has long been known that substantial amounts of methane are produced in anoxic lake sediments, and the components of the methane cycle in lakes have been well described. At oxic-anoxic interfaces, methane-oxidising bacteria (MOB) convert methane to microbial biomass and can be highly productive. However, only recently has methane been recognised as a potentially important carbon and energy source for lake food webs, and some instances have also been reported of methane contribution to river food webs. Stable isotope analysis (SIA) has provided compelling evidence in this respect and has been supplemented by other lines of evidence. 2. In the benthic food webs of lakes, profundal chironomid larvae appear to be the main conduits for trophic transfer of biogenic methane via grazing on MOB. The mode of feeding of these larvae and the microhabitats they generate both promote larval ability to exploit MOB production. Support to chironomid larvae from methane is rather widespread, but its degree is highly variable; estimates suggest that in some lakes methane-carbon might contribute more than 60% of chironomid carbon biomass. 3. Evidence of crustacean zooplankton in lakes deriving part of their carbon from methane is currently more limited. Reports from some lakes have indicated Daphnia with a substantial (>50%) contribution of methane-carbon in their biomass. However, for this to happen, an oxic-anoxic interface where sufficient MOB production can occur needs to be within the range of vertical migrations by zooplankton, which may only rarely be the case. Hence, a significant methane subsidy of pelagic food webs in lakes is probably much less widespread than for benthic food webs. 4. There is also recent and currently very limited evidence that some stream benthos derives biomass carbon (reported values up to 30%) from methane. This can occur in stagnant backwater pools where conditions can be analogous to those in lake sediments. However, groundwater aquifers can also supply water supersaturated with methane to some rivers, providing a basis for a microbially-mediated transfer of methane-carbon to river benthos. 5. Evidence for significant transfer of methane-derived carbon to higher trophic levels is still very limited. Within some lakes, those fish species that feed extensively on chironomid larvae can derive a substantial part (perhaps up to 20%) of their carbon biomass from methane. It is also likely that methane-carbon produced in lakes or rivers is exported to riparian ecosystems when emerging chironomids or other insects are eaten by invertebrate or avian predators. 6. We argue that conceptual models of freshwater food webs, and especially those for lakes, need to be modified to enable incorporation of biogenic methane as a carbon and energy source. For some types of lakes, carbon and energy budgets certainly need to take

show abstract

Section: Benthic Food Websmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Does Methane-carbon Transfer From Zoobenthos To Higher Trophmentioning

confidence: 99%

Biogenic methane in freshwater food webs

2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In streams and rivers, percentages of zoobenthic biomass attributable to meiofauna vary widely between 0.01% and 22% (Hakenkamp et al 2002) and an even larger range between 0.07% and 52% is estimated for meiofaunal production (Hakenkamp et al 2002). In contrast, in lakes the contribution of meiofaunal metabolic activity (as production or assimilation) can be as high as the macrofauna, ranging between 33% and 60% (Holopainen and Paasivirta 1977;Strayer and Likens 1986). Hakenkamp and Morin (2000) speculated that high meiofaunal contribution will depend on whether permanent meiofauna (taxa that complete their entire life cycle in meiofaunal size classes) dominates over the macrofauna.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Meiofauna versus macrofauna: Secondary production of invertebrates in a lowland chalk stream

Tod

Schmid‐Araya

2009

Limnology & Oceanography

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The whole metazoan community inhabiting macrophyte stands and gravel beds of the English chalk stream River Lambourn were sampled for 1 yr. Secondary production estimates for specific taxa of macrofauna and meiofauna, usually at species or genus level, were made using the size-frequency method. Annual standing biomass and production to biomass ratios were also estimated. Total annual secondary production was as high as 64.99 g m 22 yr 21 in the macrophyte stands while within the gravel beds total annual secondary production was 22.55 g m 22 yr 21 . Macrofauna contributed .91% to secondary production in both habitats. A corresponding standing biomass of 11.87 g m 22 in the macrophyte stands was also higher than within gravel beds of 5.13 g m 22 . Macrofauna contributed .97% to standing biomass in both habitats. A large number of meiofauna and some macrofauna species displayed annual production-to-biomass (P : B) values in both habitats significantly higher than 9 or 10. Despite higher densities and turnover rates within the benthos of the River Lambourn, there was a minimal contribution of the meiofauna to total secondary production dominated by the macrofauna.

show abstract

“…In shallower reaches, benthic primary production can be the most important carbon source for the benthos (Strayer and Likens 1986). Deep lakes never have high benthic biomass, while shallow lakes have a wide range of values (Deevey 1941).…”

Section: Animal Biomass and Secondary Productionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…There is much less information on meiofaunal species in lakes where their role has received relatively little attention (Strayer and Likens 1986). In Mirror Lake, meiobenthos accounts for approximately 30% of macrobenthic biomass (Likens 1985).…”

Section: Animal Biomass and Secondary Productionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparative ecology of the macrofauna of freshwater and marine muds1

Lopez

1988

Limnology & Oceanography

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There are many striking similarities between the benthic macrofauna inhabiting marine and lacustrine sediments. Most of the same trophic/functional groups are well represented in both habitats. There is no obvious difference between the tylpes of particulate food sources available for microphagous animals. Temperate lakes and neritic environments support a similar standing stock of macrofauna, which is a function of similar detrital input to the benthos. There is no characteristic difference in P : B ratios between marine and freshwater macrobenthos. Predation and competition have similar important efrects on community structure. Likewise, community succession appears to follow the same pattern.There are certain differences between marine and freshwater macrobenthos, however, that appear to relate to fundamental habitat differences. The major #difference is that low salinity and the closed, ephemeral nature or most lakes have resulted in little taxonomic similarity between the two faunas. Tentaculate deposit feeders are found only in marine sediments, and interstitial suspension feeders are common only in fi-cshwatcr muds. The ability to use dissolved organic matter is well developed only in marine animals, which is a consequence of the osmotic problems faced by freshwater animals. The ability of many limnetic species to survive prolonged anoxia relates to the lack of tidal mixing in lak&.

show abstract

An Energy Budget for the Zoobenthos of Mirror Lake, New Hampshire

Cited by 107 publications

References 44 publications

Biogenic methane in freshwater food webs

Biogenic methane in freshwater food webs

Meiofauna versus macrofauna: Secondary production of invertebrates in a lowland chalk stream

Comparative ecology of the macrofauna of freshwater and marine muds1

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About