4.5 Article

Changes in carbon sources fueling benthic secondary production over depth and time: coupling Chironomidae stable carbon isotopes to larval abundance

期刊

OECOLOGIA
卷 178, 期 2, 页码 603-614

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00442-015-3225-6

关键词

Lakes; Chironomids; Methanotrophy

类别

资金

  1. French National Research Agency [ANR VUL 005]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Stable C isotope ratio (delta C-13) values of chironomid remains (head capsules; HC) were used to infer changes in benthic C sources over the last 150 years for two French sub-Alpine lakes. The HCs were retrieved from a series of sediment cores from different depths. The HC delta C-13 values started to decrease with the onset of eutrophication. The HC delta C-13 temporal patterns varied among depths, which revealed spatial differences in the contribution of methanotrophic bacteria to the benthic secondary production. The estimates of the methane (CH4)-derived C contribution to chironomid biomass ranged from a few percent prior to the 1930s to up to 30 % in recent times. The chironomid fluxes increased concomitantly with changes in HC delta C-13 values before a drastic decrease due to the development of hypoxic conditions. The hypoxia reinforced the implication for CH4-derived C transfer to chironomid production. In Lake Annecy, the HC delta C-13 values were negatively correlated to total organic C (TOC) content in the sediment (C-org), whereas no relationship was found in Lake Bourget. In Lake Bourget, chironomid abundances reached their maximum with TOC contents between 1 and 1.5 % C-org, which could constitute a threshold for change in chironomid abundance and consequently for the integration of CH4-derived C into the lake food webs. Our results indicated that the CH4-derived C contribution to the benthic food webs occurred at different depths in these two large, deep lakes (deep waters and sublittoral zone), and that the trophic transfer of this C was promoted in sublittoral zones where O-2 gradients were dynamic.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据