Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-22dnz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T10:48:22.158Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

6 - Dynamic systems of exchange link trophic dynamics in freshwater and terrestrial food webs

from Part II - Ecosystems

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 May 2015

John L. Sabo
Affiliation:
Arizona State University
David Hoekman
Affiliation:
Arizona State University
David Hoekman
Affiliation:
National Ecological Observatory Network
Torrance C. Hanley
Affiliation:
Northeastern University, Boston
Kimberly J. La Pierre
Affiliation:
University of California, Berkeley
Get access

Summary

Introduction

Trophic dynamics and the exchange of materials across ecosystem boundaries are topics that have each been treated in detail, but separately, in freshwater ecosystems. The observation that common food web motifs occur – if not flourish – in spite of a boundary between water and air, which divides realms that impose fundamentally different physiological demands, would suggest that the forest doesn't end at the lake, and vice versa. This is an important observation because it further suggests that conservation and restoration cannot be successful without considering these linkages explicitly. Further, the watershed food web provides a rich framework for a more comprehensive management paradigm. In this chapter, we review some of the few, but salient, examples of cascading trophic interactions across the land–water interface. Many of these examples are “incomplete” cascades that include strong interactions across two, but not more, trophic levels. We also discuss how a dynamic systems framework can be used to conceptualize and organize the diverse array of trophic interactions in which exchange of organic matter and mobile animals across the land–water boundary may instigate strong top-down dynamics.

Aquatic–terrestrial exchange of carbon, organisms, and energy

Energy exchange between land and freshwater ecosystems has a long history in stream and lake ecology. Terrestrial organic matter is the dominant source of carbon (C) to streams in many temperate catchments (Fisher and Likens, 1973) and its removal has consequences for abundances of primary consumers (detritivores) and their predators (Wallace et al., 1999). Strong energetic dependence by rivers on terrestrial forests is the basis for the River Continuum Concept (RCC; Vannote et al., 1980). Similarly, in tropical floodplain rivers, terrestrial plants – especially fruit – provide key nutrition for fish. This observation forms the basis for the Flood Pulse Concept (FPC; Junk et al., 1989). The RCC and the FPC continue to be influential concepts and productive lines of empirical pursuit to this day (Cross et al., 2011; 2013; Jardine et al., 2012a; 2012b).

Type
Chapter
Information
Trophic Ecology
Bottom-up and Top-down Interactions across Aquatic and Terrestrial Systems
, pp. 134 - 156
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2015

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Allesina, S., Alonso, D. and Pascual, M., 2008. A general model for food web structure. Science, 320(5876), 658–661.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Arditi, R. and Saiah, H. (1992). Empirical evidence of the role of heterogeneity in ratio-dependent consumption. Ecology, 73(5), 1544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartels, P., Cucherousset, J., Steger, K., et al. (2011). Reciprocal subsidies between freshwater and terrestrial ecosystems structure consumer resource dynamics. Ecology, 93(5), 1173–1182.Google Scholar
Bartels, P., Cucherousset, J., Gudasz, C., et al. (2012). Terrestrial subsidies to lake food webs: an experimental approach. Oecologia, 168(3), 807–818.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartrons, M., Papes, M., Diebel, M. W., Gratton, C. and Vander Zanden, M. J. (2013). Regional-level inputs of emergent aquatic insects from water to land. Ecosystems, 16, 1353–1363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartz, K. and Naiman, R. (2005). Effects of salmon-borne nutrients on riparian soils and vegetation in southwest Alaska. Ecosystems, 8, 529–545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bascompte, J. and Melian, C. J. (2005). Simple trophic modules for complex food webs. Ecology, 86(11), 2868–2873.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bastow, J. L., Sabo, J. L., Finlay, J. C. and Power, M. E. (2002). A basal aquatic-terrestrial trophic link in rivers: algal subsidies via shore-dwelling grasshoppers. Oecologia, 131(2), 261–268.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baxter, C. V., Fausch, K. D., Murakami, M. and Chapman, P. L. (2004). Fish invasion restructures stream and forest food webs by interrupting reciprocal prey subsidies. Ecology, 85(10), 2656–2663.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baxter, C. V., Fausch, K. D. and Saunders, W. C. (2005). Tangled webs: reciprocal flows of invertebrate prey link streams and riparian zones. Freshwater Biology, 50(2), 201–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borer, E. T., Seabloom, E. W., Shurin, J. B., et al. (2005). What determines the strength of a trophic cascade? Ecology, 86(2), 528–537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brett, M. T., Kainz, M. J., Taipale, S. J. and Seshan, H. (2009). Phytoplankton, not allochthonous carbon, sustains herbivorous zooplankton production. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 106(50), 21197–21201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brett, M. T., Arhonditsis, G. B., Chandra, S. and Kainz, M. J. (2012). Mass flux calculations show strong allochthonous support of freshwater zooplankton production is unlikely. PLoS One, 7(6), p. e39508.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carpenter, S. R., Kitchell, J. F. and Hodgson, J. R. (1985). Cascading trophic interactions and lake productivity. BioScience, 35, 634–639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carpenter, S. R., Cole, J. J., Hodgson, J. R., et al. (2001). Trophic cascades, nutrients, and lake productivity: whole-lake experiments. Ecological Monographs, 71(2), 163–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carpenter, S. R., Cole, J. J., Pace, M. L., et al. (2005). Ecosystem subsidies: terrestrial support of aquatic food webs from C-13 addition to contrasting lakes. Ecology, 86(10), 2737–2750.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carpenter, S. R., Brock, W. A., Cole, J. J., Kitchell, J. F. and Pace, M. L. (2008). Leading indicators of trophic cascades. Ecology Letters, 11(2), 128–138.Google Scholar
Cole, J. J., Carpenter, S. R., Pace, M. L., et al. (2006). Differential support of lake food webs by three types of terrestrial organic carbon. Ecology Letters, 9(5), 558–568.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cole, J. J., Carpenter, S. R., Kitchell, J., et al. (2011). Strong evidence for terrestrial support of zooplankton in small lakes based on stable isotopes of carbon, nitrogen, and hydrogen. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 108(5), 1975–1980.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cross, W. F., Baxter, C. V., Donner, K. C., et al. (2011). Ecosystem ecology meets adaptive management: food web response to a controlled flood on the Colorado River, Glen Canyon. Ecological Applications, 21(6), 2016–2033.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cross, W. F., Baxter, C. V., Rosi-Marshall, E. J., et al. (2013). Food-web dynamics in a large river discontinuum. Ecological Monographs, 83(3), 311–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, J. M., Rosemond, A. D. and Small, G. E. (2011). Increasing donor ecosystem productivity decreases terrestrial consumer reliance on a stream resource subsidy. Oecologia, 167, 821–834.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
DeMelo, R., France, R. and McQueen, D. J. (1992). Biomanipulation: hit or myth? Limnology and Oceanography, 37(1), 192–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dreyer, J., Hoekman, D. and Gratton, C. (2012). Lake-derived midges increase abundance of shoreline terrestrial arthropods via multiple trophic pathways. Oikos, 121(2), 252–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Epanchin, P., Knapp, R. and Lawler, S. (2010). Nonnative trout impact an alpine-nesting bird by altering aquatic-insect subsidies. Ecology, 91(8), 2406–2415.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fisher, S. G. and Likens, G. E. (1973). Energy flow in Bear Brook, New Hampshire: an integrative approach to stream ecosystem metabolism. Ecological Monographs, 43(4), 421–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fretwell, S. D. (1977). Regulation of plant communities by food-chains exploiting them. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, 20(2), 169–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ginzburg, L. R. and Akcakaya, H. R. (1992). Consequences of ratio-dependent predation for steady-state properties of ecosystems. Ecology, 73(5), 1536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gratton, C. and Vander Zanden, M. (2009). Flux of aquatic insect productivity to land: comparison of lentic and lotic ecosystems. Ecology, 90(10), 2689–2699.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gratton, C., Donaldson, J. and Vander Zanden, M. J. (2008). Ecosystem linkages between lakes and the surrounding terrestrial landscape in northeast Iceland. Ecosystems, 11(5), 764–774.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hairston, N. G. and Hairston, N. G. (1993). Cause-effect relationships in energy-flow, trophic structure, and interspecific interactions. American Naturalist, 142(3), 379–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hairston, N. G. J. and Hairston, N. G. S. (1997). Does food web complexity eliminate trophic-level dynamics? American Naturalist, 149(5), 1001–1007.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hairston, N. G., Smith, F. E. and Slobodkin, L. B. (1960). Community structure, population control, and competition: Paper 17. Foundations of Ecology, 94(879), 421–425.Google Scholar
Halpern, B. S., Borer, T., Seabloom, E. W. and Shurin, J. B. (2005). Predator effects on herbivore and plant stability. Ecology Letters, 8(2), 189–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Helfield, J. M. and Naiman, R. J. (2001). Effects of salmon-derived nitrogen on riparian forest growth and implications for stream productivity. Ecology, 82, 2403–2409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoekman, D., Dreyer, J., Jackson, R., Townsend, P. and Gratton, C. (2011). Lake to land subsidies: experimental addition of aquatic insects increases terrestrial arthropod densities. Ecology, 92(11), 2063–2072.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hoekman, D., Bartrons, M. and Gratton, C. (2012). Ecosystem linkages revealed by experimental lake-derived isotope signal in heathland food webs. Oecologia, 1–9.Google ScholarPubMed
Hrbacek, J., Dvoráková, V., Korínek, V., et al. (1961). Demonstration of the effect of the fish stock on the species composition of zooplankton and the intensity of metabolism of the whole plankton association. Verhandlungen der Internationalen Vereinigung für Theoretische und Angewandte Limnologie, 14, 192–195.Google Scholar
Jardine, T. D., Pettit, N. E., Warfe, D. M., et al. (2012a). Consumer–resource coupling in wet–dry tropical rivers. Journal of Animal Ecology, 81(2), 310–322.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jardine, T. D., Pusey, B. J., Hamilton, S. K., et al. (2012b). Fish mediate high food web connectivity in the lower reaches of a tropical floodplain river. Oecologia, 168(3), 829–838.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Johnson, B. R. and Wallace, J. B. (2005). Bottom-up limitation of a stream salamander in a detritus-based food web. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 62(2), 301–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jonsson, M. and Wardle, D. A. (2009). The influence of freshwater-lake subsidies on invertebrates occupying terrestrial vegetation. Acta Oecologica, 35(5), 698–704.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Junk, W. J., Bayley, P. B. and Sparks, R. E. (1989). The flood pulse concept in river-floodplain systems. Canadian Special Publication of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 106(1), 110–127.Google Scholar
Knight, T. M., McCoy, M. W., Chase, J. M., McCoy, K. A. and Holt, R. D. (2005). Trophic cascades across ecosystems. Nature, 437(7060), 880–883.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lafontaine, N. and McQueen, D. J. (1991). Contrasting trophic level interactions in Lake St. George and Haynes Lake (Ontario, Canada). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 48(3), 356–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindeman, R. L. (1942). The trophic-dynamic aspect of ecology: Paper 7.Foundations of Ecology, 23, 399–418.Google Scholar
Marczak, L. B., Thompson, R. M. and Richardson, J. S. (2007). Meta-analysis: Trophic level, habitat, and productivity shape the food web effects of resource subsidies. Ecology, 88(1), 140–148.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McCann, K. S. (2012). Food Webs. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
McClain, M. E., Boyer, E. W., Dent, C. L., et al. (2003). Biogeochemical hot spots and hot moments at the interface of terrestrial and aquatic. Ecosystems, 6(4), 301–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McQueen, D. J., Post, J. R. and Mills, E. L. (1986). Trophic relationships in fresh-water pelagic ecosystems. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 43(8), 1571–1581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mittelbach, G. G., Osenberg, C. W. and Leibold, M. A. (1988). Trophic relations and ontogenetic niche shifts in aquatic ecosystems. In Size-Structured Populations, ed. Ebenman, D. B. and Persson, D. L.. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer, pp. 219–235. Available at: http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978–3–642–74001–5_15 (Accessed December 6, 2013).Google Scholar
Muehlbauer, J. D., Collins, S. F., Doyle, M. W. and Tockner, K. (2013). How wide is a stream? Spatial extent of the potential “stream signature” in terrestrial food webs using meta-analysis. Ecology. Available at: http://www.esajournals.org/doi/abs/10.1890/12–1628.1 (Accessed December 6, 2013).
Murakami, M. and Nakano, S. (2002). Indirect effect of aquatic insect emergence on a terrestrial insect population through predation by birds. Ecology Letters, 5(3), 333–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murdoch, W. W. (1966). Community structure, population control, and competition – a Critique. American Naturalist, 100(912), 219–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Naiman, R. J., Bilby, R. E., Schindler, D. E. and Helfield, J. M. (2002). Pacific salmon, nutrients, and the dynamics of freshwater and riparian ecosystems. Ecosystems, 5(4), 399–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nakano, S. and Murakami, M. (2001). Reciprocal subsidies: dynamic interdependence between terrestrial and aquatic food webs. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 98(1), 166–170.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nakano, S., Miyasaka, H. and Kuhara, N. (1999). Terrestrial–aquatic linkages: riparian arthropod inputs alter trophic cascades in a stream food web. Ecology, 80(7), 2435–2441.Google Scholar
Neutel, A.-M., Heesterbeek, J. A. P. and de Ruiter, P. C. (2002). Stability in real food webs: weak links in long loops. Science, 296(5570), 1120–1123.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Oaten, A. and Murdoch, W. W. (1975a). Functional response and stability in predator-prey systems.The American Naturalist, 109, 289–298.Google Scholar
Oaten, A. and Murdoch, W. W. (1975b). Switching, functional response, and stability in predator-prey systems. The American Naturalist, 109, 299–318.Google Scholar
Oksanen, L. (1983). Trophic exploitation and arctic phytomass patterns. The American Naturalist, 122, 45–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oksanen, L. and Oksanen, T. (2000). The logic and realism of the hypothesis of exploitation ecosystems. The American Naturalist, 155(6), 703–723.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Oksanen, L., Fretwell, S. D., Arruda, J. and Niemela, P. (1981). Exploitation ecosystems in gradients of primary productivity. The American Naturalist, 118(2), 240–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ostfeld, R. S. and Keesing, F. (2000). Pulsed resources and community dynamics of consumers in terrestrial ecosystems. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 15(6), 232–237.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pace, M. L., Cole, J. J., Carpenter, S. R. and Kitchell, J. F. (1999). Trophic cascades revealed in diverse ecosystems. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 14(12), 483–488.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pace, M. L., Cole, J. J., Carpenter, S. R., et al. (2004). Whole-lake carbon-13 additions reveal terrestrial support of aquatic food webs. Nature, 427(6971), 240–243.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Polis, G. A. and Strong, D. R. (1996). Food web complexity and community dynamics. American Naturalist, 147(5), 813–846.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Polis, G. A, Hurd, S. D., Jackson, C. T. and Pinero, F. S. (1997a). El Niño effects on the dynamics and control of an island ecosystem in the Gulf of California. Ecology, 78(6), 1884–1897.Google Scholar
Polis, G. A., Anderson, W. B. and Holt, R. D. (1997b). Toward an integration of landscape and food web ecology: the dynamics of spatially subsidized food webs. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 28(1), 289–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Power, M. E. (1984). Depth distributions of armored catfish: predator-induced resource avoidance?Ecology, 65(2), 523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Power, M. E. (1990). Effects of fish in river food webs. Science, 250(4982), 811–814.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Power, M. E., Rainey, W. E., Parker, M. S., et al. (2004). River-to-watershed subsidies in an old-growth conifer forest. In Food Webs at the Landscape Level, ed. Polis, A., Power, M. E., and Huxel, G. R.. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, pp. 387–409.Google Scholar
Power, M. E., Parker, M. S. and Dietrich, W. E. (2008). Seasonal reassembly of a river food web: floods, droughts, and impacts of fish. Ecological Monographs, 78(2), 263–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sabo, J. L. and Hagen, E. M. (2012). A network theory for resource exchange between rivers and their watersheds. Water Resources Research, 48(4). Available at: http://www.agu.org/journals/wr/wr1204/2011WR010703/ (Accessed December 7, 2013).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sabo, J. L. and Power, M. E. (2002a). Numerical response of lizards to aquatic insects and short-term consequences for terrestrial prey. Ecology, 83(11), 3023–3036.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sabo, J. L. and Power, M. E. (2002b). River-watershed exchange: effects of riverine subsidies on riparian lizards and their terrestrial prey. Ecology, 83(7), 1860–1869.Google Scholar
Sanzone, D. M., Meyer, J. L., Marti, E., et al. (2003). Carbon and nitrogen transfer from a desert stream to riparian predators. Oecologia, 134(2), 238–250.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shurin, J. B., Borer, T., Seabloom, E. W., et al. (2002). A cross-ecosystem comparison of the strength of trophic cascades. Ecology Letters, 5(6), 785–791.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shurin, J. B., Gruner, D. S. and Hillebrand, H. (2006). All wet or dried up? Real differences between aquatic and terrestrial food webs. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 273(1582), 1–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stachowicz, J. J. and Hay, M. E. (1999). Reducing predation through chemically mediated camouflage: indirect effects of plant defenses on herbivores. Ecology, 80(2), 495–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strong, D. R. (1992). Are trophic cascades all wet? Differentiation and donor-control in speciose ecosystems. Ecology, 73(3), 747–754.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vander Zanden, M. J. and Gratton, C. (2011). Blowin’ in the wind: Reciprocal airborne carbon fluxes between lakes and land. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 68(1), 170–182.Google Scholar
Vannote, R. L., Minshall, G. W., Cummins, K. W., Sedell, J. R. and Cushing, C. E. (1980). River Continuum Concept. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 37(1), 130–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wallace, J., Eggert, S., Meyer, J. and Webster, J. (1997). Multiple trophic levels of a forest stream linked to terrestrial litter inputs. Science, 277(5322), 102–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wallace, J. B., Eggert, S., Meyer, J. and Webster, J. (1999). Effects of resource limitation on a detrital-based ecosystem. Ecological Monographs, 69(4), 409–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wesner, J. S. (2012). Predator diversity effects cascade across an ecosystem boundary. Oikos, 121, 53–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wootton, J. T., Parker, M. S. and Power, M. E. (1996). Effects of disturbance on river food webs. Science, 273(5281), 1558–1560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×