Species Diversity of Stream Insects of Fontinalis SPP. Compared to Diversity on Artificial Substrates

Glime, Janice M.; Clemons, Roger M.

doi:10.2307/1934233

Cited by 75 publications

(36 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…We collected 17 samples of each plant by detaching macrophytes from the substratum and quickly placing them into downstream plastic bags while still underwater. A previous study using similar methodologies resulted in less than 1% loss of moss-associated insects (Glime and Clemons 1972). In areas where we observed Canada geese feeding, most of the Podostemum was grazed down to a turf of only about 2 cm in height.…”

Section: Study Area and Sampling Of Vegetation And Macroinvertebratessupporting

confidence: 50%

Stream mosses as chemically-defended refugia for freshwater macroinvertebrates

Parker¹,

Burkepile²,

Collins³

et al. 2007

Oikos

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Marine and terrestrial studies show that small, sedentary herbivores that utilize plants as both food and habitat can gain enemy-free space by living on hosts that are chemically defended from larger, generalist consumers. Although large herbivores are increasingly recognized as important consumers of macrophytes in freshwater communities, the potential indirect effects of herbivory on plant-associated macroinvertebrates have rarely been studied. Here, we show that the large, generalist consumers in a riverine system, Canada geese, Branta canadensis , and crayfish, Procambarus spiculifer , both selectively consumed riverweed, Podostemum ceratophyllum , over an aquatic moss, Fontinalis novae-angliae, even though moss comprised 89% of the total plant biomass on riverine rocky shoals. Moss supported twice as many plant-associated macroinvertebrates as riverweed, suggesting that it might provide a spatial refuge from consumption by these larger consumers. Bioassay-guided fractionation of moss extracts led to the isolation of a C 18 acetylenic acid, octadeca-9,12-dien-6-ynoic acid, that deterred crayfish feeding. In contrast to results with Canada geese and crayfish, both the amphipod Crangonyx gracilis and the isopod Asellus aquaticus consumed significant amounts of moss but rejected riverweed in laboratory feeding assays. Moreover, neither amphipod nor isopod feeding was deterred by the crude organic extract of Fontinalis , suggesting that these mesograzers tolerate or circumvent the chemical defenses that deterred larger consumers. Thus, herbivory by large, generalist herbivores may drive freshwater plant community structure towards chemically defended plants and favor the ecological specialization of smaller, less mobile herbivores on unpalatable hosts that represent enemy-free space.

show abstract

Section: Study Area and Sampling Of Vegetation And Macroinvertebratessupporting

confidence: 50%

Stream mosses as chemically-defended refugia for freshwater macroinvertebrates

Parker¹,

Burkepile²,

Collins³

et al. 2007

Oikos

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Much can be said about the POM filtering properties of moss in running waters, and how POM influences invertebrate density and diversity (Glime & Clemons, 1972;Maurer & Brusven, 1983). One may also attribute larger overall insect densities on plants than on mineral substrates because of increased surface area of the plants (Minshall, 1984).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The role of aquatic moss on community composition and drift of fish-food organisms

1990

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Macroinvertebrate density, biomass and drift were studied from moss-covered and moss-free channels in the South Fork Salmon River, Idaho. Insect densities were compared for 10 different substrate types and locations involving moss (Fontinalis neo-mexicana), sand, pebbles and cobbles. An ANOVA test demonstrated that insect densities varied significantly with substrate type (P < 0.05), and that total insect density in moss clumps differed significantly from densities in mineral substrates. Insect densities were 4-18 times greater in moss clumps than in mineral substrates under and adjacent to moss; sands under moss supported the lowest densities. During most tests, densities in pebble and cobble substrates adjacent to moss clumps were not significantly different from those found in similar substrates in the moss-free channel. The 20% moss-covered channel had 1.6 to 7.2 greater insect density and 1.4 to 6.1 greater biomass than did the moss-free channel for the tests conducted. Generally, midges (Chironomidae) made up over 50% of the insect community; annelids were the principal non-insect invertebrates.In spite of greater insect density and biomass in a moss-covered than in the moss-free channel, we did not demonstrate universally increased drift of the immature stages from the moss-covered channel, at least during daylight hours. As a consequence, we infer that salmonid fishes, feeding primarily on drifting insects during the daytime, may not derive increased caloric benefit from moss habitats until the insects emerge as adults.

show abstract

“…Invertebrates living on stream bryophytes usually have similar or higher species richness and density than on bare substrata (Suren E-mail 1991), and certain invertebrate species are more common on bryophytes than in other habitats (Egglishaw 1969). For these reasons, bryophytes may provide a more diverse and stable ecological habitat than other substrata within headwater environments (Glime and Clemons 1972, Suren 1991, 1992. The importance of bryophytes in streams and the paucity of studies on them led a group of aquatic ecologists (Stream Bryophyte Group 1999) to review the state of this research and to propose several focal areas for future study.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%