Trophic Structure and Feeding Rates of Forest Soil Invertebrate Populations

McBrayer, J.F.; Reichle, David E.

doi:10.2307/3543862

Cited by 58 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Consumption by Lumbricidae estimated from laboratory feeding rates, reaches large proportions (Satchell, 1967). In areas without Lumbricidae, consumption by litter-layer saprovores was I % of dry body weight per day, compared with 7% for fungivores (McBrayer & Reichle 1971). Consumption by 'total saprovores' in a pine forest was 4.6 % of body weight daily giving a total annual consumption of only I % of the annual litter fall (Kowal & Crossley, 1971).…”

Section: Consumption Efficiencymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Most estimates are indirect, but radioisotopes allow direct estimation. Coleman & McGinnis (1970) found a very small transfer from labelled fungi to soil mites McBrayer & Reichle (1971), found that consumption by fungivores averaged 7 % of dry body weight day-l at field temperatures and total consumption was 24 mg fungus m-2 day-I. Healey (1967) reported that the fungivorous collembole Onychiurus procampatus consumes II to 17 % of its body weight daily.…”

Section: Consumption Efficiencymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Comparative productivity in ecosystems—secondary productivity

Heal¹,

MacLeanJr.

1975

Unifying Concepts in Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Consumption Efficiencymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Consumption Efficiencymentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparative productivity in ecosystems—secondary productivity

Heal¹,

MacLeanJr.

1975

Unifying Concepts in Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…microfauna]) directly mediate decomposition and humification (Prescott 2010) of the litter resource by grazing, spreading propagules, and preying on one other (e.g., Drift and Jansen 1977). These microbial grazers and their predators convert microfloral productivity and waste into invertebrate biomass (McBrayer andReichle 1971, Singh 1977), transferring energy from forest detritus up the food web, simultaneously recharging soil nutrients, including carbon and nitrogen, in addition to releasing CO 2 and CH 4 via decomposition (De Deyn et al 2008). Decomposition rates and soil carbon pools however are influenced in many other ways such as by plant trait composition, soil fertility, and abiotic conditions (Bardgett and Wardle 2010: Fig.…”

Section: Litter Herpetofauna Forests and Carbonmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In order to evaluate differences between control and treatment plots based on both prey type and prey size, we examined invertebrate samples under a dissecting microscope, identifying them to family, and assigning them to three size classes: ,1 mm, between 1 and 2 mm (,2 mm), .2 mm (small, medium, and large, respectively). Invertebrate taxa were also combined into functional groups: decomposers (shredders/grazers), predators, herbivores, and omnivores (ants) (McBrayer and Reichle 1971). Due to low sample sizes, fly and beetle larvae, determined by examining mouth parts to be shredders, were combined into one group (¼larvae).…”

Section: Invertebrate Samplesmentioning

confidence: 99%

The trophic role of a forest salamander: impacts on invertebrates, leaf litter retention, and the humification process

Best

Welsh

2014

Ecosphere

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Woodland (Plethodontid) salamanders are the most abundant vertebrates in North American forests, functioning as predators on invertebrates and prey for higher trophic levels. We investigated the role of Ensatina (Ensatina eschscholtzii ) in regulating invertebrate numbers and leaf litter retention in a northern California forest. Our objective was to examine how salamander predation on invertebrates affects leaf litter retention and the amount available for soil-building and carbon capture at the litter-soil interface. We used field enclosures to quantify the effects of Ensatina on invertebrates and litter retention over two wet seasons, using moisture as a covariate. In the first year Ensatina reduced Coleoptera (beetles) and Diptera (flies) larvae .2 mm, adult Coleoptera, Collembola (springtails), and Formicidae (ants), and increased Oribatid mites, larvae ,2 mm (Diptera and Coleoptera), Diplopoda (millipedes), and Aranaea (spiders) ,2 mm by reducing their competitors and predators. A single Ensatina in a 1.5m 2 enclosure increased litter retention by 13.3% 6 3.6% (mean 6 SE) compared to controls, facilitating the capture of 200 kg/ha of carbon. At a similar density range-wide this would equate to 72.3 metric tons/yr of carbon in one season potentially sequestered in forest soil rather than entering the atmosphere. In the second year invertebrate densities doubled in response to early rains such that while salamanders reduced the numbers of the same taxa, effect sizes were lower compared to year one, producing biological effects that failed to achieve statistical significance. However, three taxa did significantly increase in year two (Annelida [worms], Psocoptera [barklice], and Chelonethida [pseudoscorpions]). Litter retention in year two was greater on treatment plots by 5.6% 6 4.6%; however, high variability across plots precluded statistical significance. Ensatina suppressed some invertebrate taxa, released others, increased leaf litter retention, and facilitated greater carbon capture in both years; however, the strength of the effects were modulated by the bottom-up effects of the timing and amount of precipitation in year two.

show abstract

“…Order and trophic mode were assigned to each morphospecies using the follow resources: Smith (1928), McBrayer and Reichle (1971), Fauchald (1977), Steneck and Watling (1982), Rushton and Hassall (1983), Jervis and Kidd (1986), Stribling and Seymour (1988), Penry and Jumars (1990), Hunt (1991), Hiol et al (1994), Ruppert and Barnes (1994), Lewis et al (1998), Lee et al (2002) Robinson et al (2011). Samples containing unidentifiable specimens were not used in this analysis.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Invasive plant ecosystem engineer facilitates community and trophic level alteration for brackish marsh invertebrates

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Wetland habitats are becoming increasingly scarce worldwide while experiencing exceptionally high levels of plant invasion. Invasive plant species affect ecosystems through numerous avenues, including acting as ecosystem engineers, contributing unique plant functional traits, and altering trophic dynamics. We examined the impacts of the invasive weed Lepidium latifolium on soil-dwelling and canopydwelling invertebrate communities in a brackish marsh of northern California. Invertebrate abundance, species richness, diversity, and community composition were measured in both invaded and non-invaded areas of the marsh in four time periods that correspond with different L. latifolium phenologic phases. We observed these different stages of L. latifolium, and we recorded alterations in the habitat structure provided by L. latifolium as the plant entered senescence. L. latifolium had differential impacts on the two invertebrate communities studied. The presence of L. latifolium increased abundance of soil-dwelling invertebrates and decreased the species richness of canopy-dwelling invertebrates in the tidal marsh-terrestrial ecotone where L. latifolium ameliorates harsh physical conditions. No changes occurred in the tidal marsh plain and fringing tidal marsh where L. latifolium's physical structure is more similar to existing non-L. latifolium structure. During full senescence, L. latifolium reduced canopy-dwelling invertebrate abundance and altered trophic dynamics, shifting composition to a predator-dominated community. Our results demonstrate that L. latifolium can impact brackish marsh ecosystems, and we hypothesize L. latifolium's unique functional traits (large inflorescence and seasonal senescence) enable it to act as an ecosystem engineer that alters community and trophic dynamics. Mechanisms through which plant invaders alter ecosystem processes are dynamic in space and time, thus, future research will require the use of manipulative experiments to inform site-specific management strategies.

show abstract

Trophic Structure and Feeding Rates of Forest Soil Invertebrate Populations

Cited by 58 publications

References 12 publications

Comparative productivity in ecosystems—secondary productivity

Comparative productivity in ecosystems—secondary productivity

The trophic role of a forest salamander: impacts on invertebrates, leaf litter retention, and the humification process

Invasive plant ecosystem engineer facilitates community and trophic level alteration for brackish marsh invertebrates

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About