Resource–consumer diversity: testing the effects of leaf litter species diversity on stream macroinvertebrate communities
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Summary 1. Understanding relationships between resource and consumer diversity is essential to predicting how changes in resource diversity might affect several trophic levels and overall ecosystem functioning. 2. We tested for the effects of leaf litter species diversity (i.e. litter mixing) on litter mass remaining and macroinvertebrate communities (taxon diversity, abundance and biomass) during breakdown in a detritus‐based headwater stream (North Carolina, U.S.A.). We used full‐factorial analyses of single‐ and mixed‐species litter from dominant riparian tree species with distinct leaf chemistries [red maple (Acer rubrum), tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), chestnut oak (Quercus prinus) and rhododendron (Rhododendron maximum)] to test for additivity (single‐species litter presence/absence effects) and non‐additivity (emergent effects of litter species interactions). 3. Significant non‐additive effects of litter mixing on litter mass remaining were explained by species composition, but not richness, and litter‐mixing effects were variable throughout breakdown. Specifically, small differences in observed versus expected litter mass remaining were measured on day 14; whereas observed litter mass remaining in mixed‐species leaf packs was significantly higher on day 70 and lower on day 118 than expected from data for single‐species leaf packs. 4. Litter mixing had non‐additive effects on macroinvertebrate community structure. The number of species in litter mixtures (two to four), but not litter species composition, was a significant predictor of the dominance of particular macroinvertebrates (i.e. indicator taxa) within mixed‐species packs. 5. In addition, the presence/absence of high‐ (L. tulipifera) and low‐quality (R. maximum) litter had additive effects on macroinvertebrate taxon richness, abundance and biomass. The presence ofL. tulipiferalitter had both positive (synergistic) and negative (antagonistic) effects on invertebrate taxon richness, that varied during breakdown but were not related to litter chemistry. In contrast, the presence/absence ofL. tulipiferahad a negative relationship with total macroinvertebrate biomass (due to low leaf mass remaining whenL. tulipiferawas present and higher condensed and hydrolysable tannins associated with leaf packs lackingL. tulipifera). Macroinvertebrate abundance was consistently lower whenR. maximumwas present, which was partially explained by litter chemistry [e.g., high concentrations of lignin, condensed tannins, hydrolysable tannins and total phenolics and high carbon to nutrient (N and P) ratios]. 6. The bottom‐up effects of litter species diversity on stream macroinvertebrates and litter breakdown are different, which suggests that structural attributes of macroinvertebrate communities may only partially explain the effects of litter‐mixing on organic matter processing in streams. In addition, stream macroinvertebrates colonising decomposing litter are influenced by resource diversity as well as resource availability. Broad‐scale shifts in riparian tree species composition will alter litter inputs to streams, and our results suggest that changes in the diversity and availability of terrestrial litter may alter stream food webs and organic matter processing.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».