Colonisation patterns of mayfly nymphs (Ephemeroptera) on implanted substrate trays of different size

Giller, Paul S.; Cambell, R. N. B.

doi:10.1007/bf00006113

Cited by 16 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…First, where dispersal by drifting has been compared with dispersal by other means, drifting was the major component of movement by mayflies (Bishop and Hynes 1969, Townsend and Hildrew 1976, Williams and Hynes 1976, Bird and Hynes 1981, Benzie 1984, Bergey and Ward 1989. Second, and more important, studies measuring reoccupation of denuded substrata, where colonization could occur by any means, suggested the same rank order of dispersal propensity that I measured using drift nets (Allan 1975, Shaw and Minshall 1980, Ciborowski and Clifford 1984, Peckarsky 1986, Giller and Campbell 1989.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 84%

Influences of Predatory Fish on the Drift Dispersal and Local Density of Stream Insects

Forrester¹

1994

Ecology

115

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.. Ecological Society of America is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Ecology.Abstract. Researchers have recently suggested that frequent prey dispersal into and out of an area can swamp the local effect of predation. Where prey are mobile, the extent of prey movement can therefore explain variation in the apparent effect of predators on local prey density. I compared the effect of the dominant predator in a temperate stream (brook charr, Salelinus fontinalis Mitchill) on five insect prey taxa (mayflies: Ephemeroptera), to test the prediction that the extent of density reduction should be less for prey taxa dispersing more frequently.The propensity of the mayflies to disperse by drifting downstream in the water column was measured in unmanipulated areas of the stream. Relative propensity to drift of the five mayflies was, from greatest to least: Baetis, Paraleptophlebia, Ephemerella, Eurylophella, Stenoneina. I then tested effects of charr on the mayflies by manipulating charr density in fenced 35-m sections of the stream. Charr densities were adjusted to zero, medium, and high levels relative to natural densities. Rates of predation by charr in stream sections did not vary among the five mayfly taxa. Charr caused a large reduction in the density of Baetis, had a smaller effect on Paraleptophlebia, but had no detectable effect on the density of the other mayflies. Drift dispersal into the stream sections did not differ among charr densities. Effects of charr on prey densities could thus have been caused by direct predation or by increases in emigration from areas containing charr. Charr caused increased drift dispersal of Baetis and of Paraleptophlebia, but had no influence on drift of the other three mayflies. The reduction in density of Baetis by charr was due more to the charr-induced increase in drifting of Baetis than to direct predation on Baetis.The hypothesis that frequent prey dispersal swamps the effects of predators assumes that predators influence prey density primarily by consuming prey. In this system charr also influenced prey densities by causing increases in prey drift rates, affecting the mayflies that drifted most frequently. For this reason, the mayflies drifting less frequently were not, as predicted, the ones most strongly affected by charr. Variation in the effect of predators on prey density may thus be partially explained by both (1) changes in prey dispersal not related to predators, as proposed in the initial hypothesis, and (2) influences of predators on prey dispersal.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 84%

Influences of Predatory Fish on the Drift Dispersal and Local Density of Stream Insects

Forrester¹

1994

Ecology

115

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…present work was to provide a longer series of measurements of colonization rate in order to identify Giller & Cambell (1989) found that crawling contributed as many mayflies as drift when denuded environmental factors that might affect the continuous, small-scale movements of invertebrates. substrata were made available for colonization, and Richards & Minshall (1988) estimated that 40-50% of Baetis sp.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Field experiments on the mobility of benthic invertebrates in a southern English stream

1997

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

1. In each of twenty‐six week‐long experiments, the colonization by macroinvertebrates of boxes of natural sediment in a stony stream was measured. The experiments took place between February and November 1992 and environmental conditions prevailing during the weeks (particularly discharge and temperature) differed widely. 2. Colonization rate also varied widely between the weekly experiments and was sensitive to discharge, temperature and background benthic density, depending on the taxa considered. 3. A ‘mobility index’ measured colonization rate independently of background benthic density. This index was most strongly and positively correlated with discharge for the abundant stonefly Leuctra nigra, the net‐spinning caddis Plectrocnemia conspersa and the Chironomidae, perhaps indicating that their mobility is physically driven by the influence of flow on drift. 4. Mobility in a second stonefly (Nemurella pictetii) was greatest in summer, when flows were low but temperature was high. Peak mobility in this species occurred during an ochreous bloom on the stream bed. It is likely the mobility of N. pictetii is more active than the other taxa. 5. There were thus differences among taxa in their mobility at baseflow and in their susceptibility to flow fluctuations. The population consequences of differences in mobility among taxa are discussed.

show abstract

“…Introduced substrata were placed within the mixed substratum habitat because the bedrock outcrop is a steep, high gradient area. Upstream and lateral migration are important colonization mechanisms in streams (Gore, 1982; Giller & Cambell, 1989). Hence, the source colonists were probably from the neighboring substratum.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Colonization and production of macroinvertebrates on artificial substrata: upstream–downstream responses to a leaf litter exclusion manipulation

et al. 2001

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

1. Macroinvertebrate colonization dynamics were examined on artificial substrata in a stream with terrestrial litter inputs excluded, downstream of the litter‐exclusion treatment, and in a reference stream.  2. Short‐term examination of the rates of organic matter accrual and invertebrate colonization demonstrated significantly lower accumulation of leaf detritus and invertebrates in the litter‐excluded reach and a short distance downstream of that reach.  3. All major fractions of organic matter and invertebrates declined on artificial substrata during the 3‐year litter exclusion. Further, secondary production on artificial substrata in the litter‐excluded reach decreased from 6.2 to 1.5 g AFDM m−2 year−1 from pretreatment to the third year of litter exclusion, respectively.  4. Downstream, fine particulate organic matter on artificial substrata decreased during litter exclusion, and there was a significant reduction in colonization of collector‐filterers. Total secondary production downstream of the litter exclusion declined >70%, demonstrating that downstream colonization dynamics are linked to upstream detritus inputs and processing by stream invertebrates.

show abstract

Colonisation patterns of mayfly nymphs (Ephemeroptera) on implanted substrate trays of different size

Cited by 16 publications

References 27 publications

Influences of Predatory Fish on the Drift Dispersal and Local Density of Stream Insects

Influences of Predatory Fish on the Drift Dispersal and Local Density of Stream Insects

Field experiments on the mobility of benthic invertebrates in a southern English stream

Colonization and production of macroinvertebrates on artificial substrata: upstream–downstream responses to a leaf litter exclusion manipulation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About