4.4 Article

Feeding-preference trials confirm unexpected stable isotope analysis results: freshwater macroinvertebrates do consume macrophytes

期刊

MARINE AND FRESHWATER RESEARCH
卷 62, 期 10, 页码 1248-1257

出版社

CSIRO PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.1071/MF10298

关键词

Allochthonous resources; carbon:nitrogen ratios; leaf toughness; mixing models

资金

  1. University of Tasmania
  2. Tasmanian Department of Primary Industries, Water and Environment [NAP08]
  3. Holsworth Wildlife Research Fund
  4. School of Zoology, University of Tasmania

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The loss of connectivity in intermittent streams can limit aquatic-invertebrate access to food resources, with different resources available in individual pools. Although leaf litter was abundant in the Macquarie River in Tasmania, stable carbon and nitrogen isotope analyses suggested that aquatic macrophytes were more prevalent in shredding macroinvertebrate diets. We tested this result with two multi-choice trials, which examined the feeding preferences of Atalophlebia albiterminata (Ephemeroptera) and the case-building trichopterans Lectrides varians, Notalina bifaria, Triplectides similis and T. ciuskus ciuskus. We first tested preferences for the dominant benthic leaf species (Acacia mucronata, Eucalyptus amygdalina, E. barberi, E. obliqua and E. viminalis). We hypothesised that macroinvertebrates would preferentially select leaves with lower chemical concentrations. However, there were no strong preferences for conditioned leaves by any invertebrate, although the leaves varied in toughness, tannin, nitrogen and allelochemical content. Second, we examined the preferences for E. amygdalina and E. barberi leaves or the fresh macrophytes Triglochin procerum, Myriophyllum salsugineum and Potamogeton tricarinatus. Macrophytes were preferred over leaves by all invertebrates, with T. procerum significantly preferred over the other macrophytes. This suggests that macrophytes may be undervalued in riverine food webs, and should be included in analyses of food webs using stable isotopes.

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

4.4
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