Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2017 May;13(5):20170129.
doi: 10.1098/rsbl.2017.0129.

Contrasting effects of aquatic subsidies on a terrestrial trophic cascade

Affiliations

Contrasting effects of aquatic subsidies on a terrestrial trophic cascade

Nadin Graf et al. Biol Lett. 2017 May.

Abstract

Subsidies from adjacent ecosystems can alter recipient food webs and ecosystem functions, such as herbivory. Emerging aquatic insects from streams can be an important prey in the riparian zone. Such aquatic subsidies can enhance predator abundances or cause predators to switch prey, depending on the herbivores. This can lead to an increase or decrease of in situ herbivores and herbivory. We examined the effects of aquatic subsidies on a simplified terrestrial food web consisting of two types of herbivores, plants and predators (spiders). In our six-week experiment, we focused on the prey choice of the spiders by excluding predator immigration and reproduction. In accordance with predator switching, survival of leafhoppers increased in the presence of aquatic subsidies. By contrast, the presence of aquatic subsidies indirectly reduced weevils and herbivory. Our study shows that effects of aquatic subsidies on terrestrial predators can propagate through the food web in contrasting ways. Thereby, the outcome of the trophic cascade is determined by the prey choice of predators.

Keywords: aquatic subsidy; aquatic-terrestrial linkages; indirect effects; prey choice; spiders; trophic cascades.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

We declare we have no competing interests.

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Design of the three treatments (control: only plants; terrestrial: terrestrial plants, prey and predators; aquatic: terrestrial treatment including aquatic subsidies). Solid lines indicate direct effects between organisms and dashed lines potential indirect effects of aquatic subsidies.
Figure 2.
Figure 2.
Effects of aquatic subsidies on (a) number of leafhoppers, (b) number of weevils, (c) herbivory (cm² per day), (d) plant growth (mm), (e) plant dry mass (g). Control: only plants; terrestrial: control + herbivores + spiders; aquatic: terrestrial + aquatic subsidies. Letters indicate means that are significantly different (p < 0.05). Data are presented as mean (filled circle) ± s.e.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Polis GA, Strong DR. 1996. Food web complexity and community dynamics. Am. Nat. 147, 813–846. (10.1086/285880) - DOI
    1. Holt RD, Lawton JH. 1994. The ecological consequences of shared natural enemies. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 25, 495–520. (10.1146/annurev.es.25.110194.002431) - DOI
    1. Abrams PA, Matsuda H. 1996. Positive indirect effects between prey species that share predators. Ecology 77, 610–616. (10.2307/2265634) - DOI
    1. Schulz R, et al. 2015. Review on environmental alterations propagating from aquatic to terrestrial ecosystems. Sci. Total Environ. 538, 246–261. (10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.08.038) - DOI - PubMed
    1. Post DM, Doyle MW, Sabo JL, Finlay JC. 2007. The problem of boundaries in defining ecosystems: a potential landmine for uniting geomorphology and ecology. Geomorphology 89, 111–126. (10.1016/j.geomorph.2006.07.014) - DOI