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

Abstract

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.

The relationship between epilithic biofilm stability and its associated meiofauna under two patterns of flood disturbance

“…In other words, meiofauna peaked when biofilm biomass peaked, and biofilm biomass peaks occurred with increasing periods of stability (DAF). In contrast, density maxima have been reported for spring and summer in most longterm monitoring studies of meiofauna in rivers (Beier and Traunspurger 2003, Stead et al 2003, Tod and Schmid-Araya 2009. In general, our results agreed with those of other studies pointing out floods as a major shaping force in lotic environments (Lake 2000).…”

“…However, data are lacking on resistance and resilience of biofilmdwelling meiofauna to variations of flow in rivers. Sediment-dwelling meiofauna also can respond to environmental constraints, such as temperature, that change seasonally (Stead et al 2003) and to habitat characteristics, such as sediment grain size distribution or organic matter availability (Swan and Palmer 2000, Beier and Traunspurger 2003, Reiss and SchmidAraya 2008, Tod and Schmid-Araya 2009. Studies addressing the temporal dynamics of meiofauna in river biofilms are rare.…”

Temporal changes in periphytic meiofauna in lakes of different trophic states

“…The present study determined average production values of 5 g DW m 2 y -1 , 10.9 g DW m 2 y -1 , and 8.8 g DW m 2 y -1 in the epilithon of the sampled lakes. These values are in the same range as those reported for sediment-dwelling meiofauna in lakes (Strayer, and Likens 1986;Bergtold, and Traunspurger 2005) and even higher than those obtained in lotic studies (Stead et al 2005;Reiss, and SchmidAraya 2010;Tod, and Schmid-Araya 2009). Further evidence for the importance of meiofaunal organisms in freshwater ecosystems comes from the studies of Bergtold, and Traunspurger (2005) and Strayer, and Likens (1986), in which sediment-dwelling meiofauna were shown to account for up to 50% of the total benthic secondary production.…”

Estimates of autumntime benthic secondary production in Laizhou Bay and adjacent Bohai Sea waters

“…Meiofauna (metazoans passing through a sieve of 500 μm and being retained on a sieve of 42μm) was another important contributor to the total benthic secondary production. Although meiofauna served as a link between basal resources (algae, detritus) and predators such as larger invertebrates and fishes (Coull, 1999), their small size may preclude them from making a substantial contribution to the total biomass and secondary production (Tod and Schmid-Araya, 2009). However, meiofauna has much shorter regeneration time and much faster growth rates than macrofauna and occurs with significantly higher population densities.…”