Precipitation and temperature drive continental-scale patterns in stream invertebrate production

Patrick, Christopher J.; McGarvey, Daniel J.; Larson, James H.; Cross, Wyatt F.; Allen, Daniel C.; Benke, Arthur C.; Brey, Thomas; Huryn, Alexander D.; Jones, Jeremy B.; Murphy, C.; Ruffing, Claire M.; Saffarinia, Parsa; Whiles, Matt R.; Wallace, J. Bruce; Woodward, Guy

doi:10.1126/sciadv.aav2348

Cited by 49 publications

(40 citation statements)

References 98 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The mean annual level reported here, for example, exceeds 58% of the community estimates of macroinvertebrate annual production reported worldwide in a recent meta‐analysis (Patrick et al. ), despite annual mean water temperatures ranging from only 4.2°C to 7.6°C (: Fig. S1).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 39%

“…Levels of production estimated for the macroinvertebrate primary consumers (10.1-17.4 g DMÁm À2 Áyr À1 ) of Ivishak Spring were surprisingly high, particularly given its location above the Arctic Circle (69°N). The mean annual level reported here, for example, exceeds 58% of the community estimates of macroinvertebrate annual production reported worldwide in a recent meta-analysis (Patrick et al 2019), despite annual mean water temperatures ranging from only 4.2°C to 7.6°C (Appendix S1: Fig. S1).…”

Section: How Productive Is Ivishak Spring?mentioning

confidence: 40%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Seasonal changes in light availability modify the temperature dependence of secondary production in an Arctic stream

Huryn

Benstead

2019

Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Light and temperature are key drivers of ecosystem productivity, but synchrony of their annual cycles typically obscures their relative influence. The coupling of annual light–temperature regimes also drives complementary seasonal cycles of energy supply (primary production) and demand (metabolism), perhaps promoting temporal stability in carbon (C) storage and food web production that may be difficult to discern in most ecosystems. Spring‐fed streams in the Arctic are subject to extreme annual fluctuations in light availability but have relatively stable water temperatures, which allows assessment of the independent effects of light and temperature. We used the unusual annual light and temperature regimes of Ivishak Spring, Alaska, USA (latitude 69° N, annual water temperature range ~4–7°C) to test predictions about the effect of light availability on consumer productivity with minimally confounding effects of temperature. We predicted that (1) annual patterns of secondary production would follow patterns of primary production, rather than temperature, due to organic C limitation during winter darkness when photosynthesis is effectively halted, (2) C limitation would propagate from primary producers upward through several trophic levels, (3) the lack of temperature dependence during winter darkness would be expressed as anomalous Arrhenius plots of growth rates indicating decoupled production‐temperature relationships, and (4) consumer diets would reflect C limitation during winter. As predicted, we found (1) lowest production by macroinvertebrates and Salvelinus malma (Dolly Varden char) at the lowest light levels rather than the lowest temperatures, (2) apparent winter C limitation propagated upward through three trophic levels, (3) anomalous Arrhenius plots indicating lack of temperature dependence of consumer growth rates during winter, and (4) lowest consumption of diatoms (by macroinvertebrates) and invertebrate prey (by S. malma) during winter. Together, these results indicate that light drives annual patterns of animal production in Ivishak Spring, with stable annual temperatures likely exacerbating C limitation of ectotherm metabolism during winter. The timing and severity of winter C limitation in this unusual Arctic‐spring food web highlight a fundamental role for light–temperature synchrony in matching energy supply with demand in most other ecosystem types, thereby conferring a measure of stability in the metabolism of their food webs over annual time scales.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 39%

Section: How Productive Is Ivishak Spring?mentioning

confidence: 40%

Seasonal changes in light availability modify the temperature dependence of secondary production in an Arctic stream

Huryn

Benstead

2019

Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A positive relationship between biomass and precipitation is well established for terrestrial plant communities, where droughts can limit community productivity (Ciais et al., 2005; Hogg, Brandt, & Michaelian, 2008; Ma et al., 2010; Zhao & Running, 2010). In streams, the effects of precipitation are mediated through the hydrological regimen, which may be a key regulator of aquatic macroinvertebrate secondary production (Chadwick & Huryn, 2007; Grimm & Fisher, 2006; Ledger, Edwards, Brown, Milner, & Woodward, 2011; Patrick et al., 2019) and affects recruitment of stream fish via synchronization of life‐history events with streamflow (Bunn & Arthington, 2002; Lytle & Poff, 2004; Mims & Olden, 2012, 2013). Therefore, after accounting for indirect effects mediated by biodiversity variables, our results indicate a direct, positive effect of streamflow on fish community biomass, as indicated by analyses on other taxa.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We used piecewise path analysis to examine direct and indirect drivers of the variation in local biomass across stream sites. Path analysis is an appropriate method to quantify DBR in observational analyses because it can discriminate between the relative importance of multiple covarying factors (Mokany et al., 2008) and account for complex interrelationships of predictor variables that affect biomass (Patrick et al., 2019). We constructed hypothesized causal models (Figure 2; Table 1) for two separate path models: a first one that did not discriminate between native and non‐native species (hereafter, “total biodiversity model”; Figure 2a) and a second where we assessed potential differences between native and non‐native species richness in driving DBR (hereafter, “partitioned biodiversity model”; Figure 2b).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Testing the diversity–biomass relationship in riverine fish communities

Woods

Comte

Tedesco

et al. 2020

Global Ecol. Biogeogr.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim We examined the diversity–biomass relationship in stream fish communities and quantified direct and indirect effects of abiotic variables on this relationship. Location France. Time period 1992–2012. Major taxa studied Stream fishes. Methods We analysed the relationship between biodiversity (species richness and functional diversity) and fish community biomass at 1,357 stream sites distributed throughout France. We used piecewise path analysis to quantify effects of abiotic and biodiversity variables on biomass and assess relative contributions of native and non‐native species on the diversity–biomass relationship. Results Biodiversity showed a direct positive relationship with biomass after controlling for sampling effort, and direct effects of biodiversity variables on community biomass exceeded those of climate and physical habitat variables. Our analysis indicates that positive effects of species richness on biomass exceeded those of functional diversity. Indirect effects of abiotic variables mediated by biodiversity metrics indicated that biomass increased in warmer, lowland habitats. Human impact had no effect on native biodiversity but had a positive effect on non‐native biodiversity. Main conclusions We provide evidence that direct effects of biodiversity on community biomass outweigh those of abiotic variables in riverine fish communities, but resource partitioning alone is unlikely to drive the effects of biodiversity on biomass in this system. Quantification of the relative roles of anthropogenic impacts, biodiversity and environmental context in the regulation of ecosystem functioning will be necessary to understand the potential consequences of ongoing global change.

show abstract

“…Unfortunately, continental-scale estimates of emergent insect production are unavailable at present, so it was not possible to quantify the level of aquatic insects being deposited within the spatial extent of the stream signature. Other studies have estimated emergence as a fraction of benthic insect production Vander Zanden 2009, Bartrons et al 2013) however, and recently, global predictions of aquatic secondary production have become available (Patrick et al 2019). Thus, future studies could combine these Notes: Models are best preforming (the lowest WAIC) of those generated from a backward stepwise procedure.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Stream network geometry and the spatial influence of aquatic insect subsidies across the contiguous United States

Kopp

Allen

2019

Ecosphere

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Emergent aquatic insects transport aquatic-derived resources into terrestrial ecosystems but are rarely studied at landscape or regional scales. Here, we investigate how stream network geometry constrains the spatial influence of aquatic insect subsidies in terrestrial ecosystems. We also explore potential factors (i.e., climate, topography, soils, and vegetation) that could produce variation in stream network geometry and thus change the extent of aquatic insect subsidies from one region to another. The stream signature is the percentage of aquatic insect subsidies traveling a given distance into the terrestrial ecosystem, relative to what comes out of the stream. We use this concept to model the spatial extent (area) and distribution (spatial patterning) of aquatic subsidies in terrestrial ecosystems across the contiguous United States. Our findings suggest that at least 8% of the subsidies measured at the aquatic-terrestrial boundary (i.e., the 8% stream signature) are typically transferred throughout the entire watershed and that variation in this spatial extent is largely influenced by the drainage density of the stream network. Moreover, we found stream signatures from individual stream reaches overlap such that the spatial extent of the 8% stream signature often includes inputs from multiple stream reaches. Landscapescale stream network characteristics increased the area of overlapping stream signatures more than reach-scale channel properties. Finally, we found runoff was an important factor influencing stream network geometry suggesting a potential effect of climate on aquatic-to-terrestrial linkages that have been understudied.

show abstract

Precipitation and temperature drive continental-scale patterns in stream invertebrate production

Cited by 49 publications

References 98 publications

Seasonal changes in light availability modify the temperature dependence of secondary production in an Arctic stream

Seasonal changes in light availability modify the temperature dependence of secondary production in an Arctic stream

Testing the diversity–biomass relationship in riverine fish communities

Stream network geometry and the spatial influence of aquatic insect subsidies across the contiguous United States

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About