4.5 Article

Terrestrial contributions to Afrotropical aquatic food webs: The Congo River case

期刊

ECOLOGY AND EVOLUTION
卷 9, 期 18, 页码 10746-10757

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/ece3.5594

关键词

allochthony; fish communities; invertebrates; stable isotopes; stomach contents; terrestrial inputs; tropical rivers

资金

  1. H2020 Marie Sklodowska-Curie Actions [704039]
  2. Federaal Wetenschapsbeleid
  3. Marie Curie Actions (MSCA) [704039] Funding Source: Marie Curie Actions (MSCA)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Understanding the degree to which aquatic and terrestrial primary production fuel tropical aquatic food webs remains poorly understood, and quantifying the relative contributions of autochthonous and allochthonous inputs is methodologically challenging. Carbon and nitrogen stable isotope ratios (delta C-13, delta N-15) can provide valuable insights about contributions of terrestrial resources and trophic position, respectively, but this approach has caveats when applied in typical complex natural food webs. Here, we used a combination of C, N, and H (delta H-2) stable isotope measurements and Bayesian mixing models to estimate the contribution of terrestrial (allochthonous) and aquatic (autochthonous) inputs to fish and invertebrate communities in the Congo River (and some tributaries). Overall, our results show that we gained power to distinguish sources by using a multiple tracer approach and we were able to discriminate aquatic versus terrestrial sources (esp. including hydrogen isotopes). Fish delta H-2 values were clearly correlated with their food preferences and revealed a high level of variation in the degree of allochthony in these tropical aquatic communities. At the community level, it is clear that terrestrial C-3 plants are an important source fueling the Congo River food web. However, in order to better constrain source contribution in these complex environments will require more robust constraints on stable isotope values of algal and methane-derived C sources.

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