4.6 Article

Composition, invertebrate community and productivity of a beaver dam in comparison to other stream habitat types

Journal

HYDROBIOLOGIA
Volume 459, Issue -, Pages 201-212

Publisher

KLUWER ACADEMIC PUBL
DOI: 10.1023/A:1012507613952

Keywords

Castor fiber; woody debris; beaver pond; insect emergence; biomass

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Insect emergence from three different sections of a small mountain brook in Germany was studied: a free-flowing section ('brook'). a section impounded by beavers ('beaver pond') and a beaver dam. The three sections had very different faunas with that of the dam being more similar to that of the brook than that of the pond. The heterogeneity of the fauna was greatest in the dam and lowest in the pond. Median emergence density in the dam was 443 specimens m(-2) d(-1). This was 3.2 times higher than median emergence density in the brook section and 5.5 times higher than median emergence density in the pond section. In particular, the density of emerging Trichoptera (especially filter-feeding species) was increased. Mean annual number of emerging EPTC species was 32.3/trap (779 cm(2) ground area) in the dam. 18.4/trap in the brook and 11.0/trap in the pond. Emerging biomass was highest in the dam (18.0-26.7 g m(-2) yr(-1); 5.0 times higher than in the free flowing section and 5.4 times higher than in the pond section). The composition of a recently broken beaver dam is described by measuring all pieces of wood used in building the dam and analysing sediment samples. The dam consisted of a framework of wood pieces almost entirely of a diameter <5 cm, in which cavities are partly filled with fine sediment (mean organic content = 20%). The 'inner surface' of the dam was 2.09 times higher than the dam's ground area and 1.63 times higher than the dam's surface. Beavers, therefore, significantly increase the heterogeneity of faunal composition and productivity of small brooks.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available