4.4 Article

Macroinvertebrate trophic structure on waterfalls in Borneo

Journal

MARINE AND FRESHWATER RESEARCH
Volume 68, Issue 11, Pages 2061-2069

Publisher

CSIRO PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.1071/MF16373

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) [DAR7132]
  2. NERC Life Sciences Mass Spectrometry [EK232-11/14]
  3. Natural Environment Research Council [lsmsf010002] Funding Source: researchfish
  4. NERC [lsmsf010002] Funding Source: UKRI

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Waterfalls have unique physical characteristics and harbour highly specialised macroinvertebrate communities, but have been the subject of very few ecological studies. There are no previous studies of trophic structure of waterfall assemblages. It was hypothesised that because of the steep gradient of waterfalls and low retention of terrestrial-based resources, the abundant basal food resources would be periphyton. In addition, because of the frequent scouring flood events, it was predicted that periphyton would be a significant source of food for filter feeders. Waterfalls in the Ulu Temburong National Park (Brunei Darussalam) were used in the present case study. Methods included stable carbon (C)and nitrogen (N)-isotope analyses (SIA; delta(13) C and delta(15) N of leaf litter and periphyton) and gut-content analysis (GCA) of the most the abundant macroinvertebrates. With delta(15) N values ranging from -1.9 to 5.5%, literature suggests that this indicates that herbivores (Heptageniidae and Blephariceridae), omnivores (Simuliidae and Hydropsychidae) and predators (Buccinidae) live in the waterfalls. Apart from Buccinidae, the taxa had delta(13) C signatures ranging from -33 to -26%, with a high dependence on periphyton, which is similar to other tropical-stream biotopes. The present study suggests that despite scouring velocities, waterfalls support animals with a range of diets, based on grazing or scraping, filter feeding and predation.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available