4.4 Article

Riparian vegetation removal alters consumer-resource stoichiometry in an Australian lowland stream

期刊

MARINE AND FRESHWATER RESEARCH
卷 63, 期 1, 页码 1-8

出版社

CSIRO PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.1071/MF11092

关键词

carbon; C : N ratio; crayfish; crustacean; detritus; elemental homeostasis; nitrogen

资金

  1. Murray-Darling Basin Authority
  2. Australian Research Council [LP0990038]
  3. Australian Centre for Biodiversity at Monash University
  4. Australian Research Council [LP0990038] Funding Source: Australian Research Council

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Anthropogenic impacts on stream ecosystems generate changes in nutrient and carbon availability which act as stoichiometric challenges to consumers. We tested the hypothesis that removal of Eucalyptus riparian vegetation alters in-stream resource stoichiometry with flow-on effects for a benthic consumer (the freshwater crayfish, Cherax destructor). Sites with high and low riparian canopy cover were selected on a lowland stream in south-eastern Australia. A reduction in riparian vegetation canopy cover was associated with decreased terrestrial detritus (low nutritional quality; high carbon to nitrogen (C : N) ratio) and increased cover of macrophytes and filamentous algae (high quality; low C : N ratio). This resource-quality shift was associated with a small but significant decrease in C. destructor C : N ratio (molar ratio of muscle tissue). This suggests that the animals are deviating from homeostasis and may be in better condition in the stream pools dominated by in-stream productivity. A significant negative relationship between C. destructor length and C : N ratio was observed, suggesting that resource-quality impacts may differ with age. The present study has shown that riparian loss alters stoichiometric interactions in stream benthic ecosystems, with potential consequences for stream processes such as nutrient cycling. Ecological stoichiometric theory should therefore be further utilised to make predictions of ecological impacts in freshwater systems.

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