Spatiotemporal variation of drift and upstream movements of the amphipod Gammarus fossarum in a small unaltered stream

• Autorzy: Žganec K. , Gottsein S. , Hudina S.
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

Stream invertebrates use ‘drift’ or downstream transport in the water column to disperse, but they also actively move upstream against current. These movements have important role in re-colonization of empty stream reaches and in regulation of population size. For more than half a century, research of stream drift was stimulated by the problem of ‘drift paradox’, i.e. the question how upstream reaches of streams remain inhabited despite constant and often ample losses of individuals by drift. In this study we examined drift and upstream movements of the amphipod Gammarus fossarum through monthly sampling over one-year period at two sites in the upper and middle course of a small unaltered stream in the northwest Croatia. Differences in tendency to drift and to move upstream and effects of environmental factors (temperature, flow, population density and detritus dry weight) on the movement dynamics on both temporal and spatial scale were examined for three size categories (adults, subadults and juveniles). While seasonal variations of drift and upstream movements were similar at two examined sites, at the middle course we recorded higher density, and higher drift and upstream movement rates. In both drift and upstream movements, adults were the most represented size category. In subadults and juveniles, both type of movements depended on population density. Adult upstream movements peaked in November and May/June, with massive upstream movements in May in the middle course. Seasonality of diurnal and nocturnal drift was very similar at both sites, while seasonality of diurnal and nocturnal upstream movements differed between the sites. Out of four examined independent environmental factors, density and temperature had the most important positive effect on spatiotemporal variations of diurnal drift, while nocturnal drift was more strongly affected by density and flow. Temperature was the most significant driver of diurnal upstream movements, while nocturnal upstream movements were most significantly positively affected by density. Massive upstream movements were driven by overcrowding and enabled adults to colonize microhabitats where food is more abundant and competition is less severe.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

freshwater drift; upstream movements; population dynamics; Gammaridae

PL

dryf; ruch w góre rzeki; dynamika populacji; kiełże

• Wydawca: Museum and Institute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences
• Czasopismo: Polish Journal of Ecology
• Rocznik: 2013
• Tom: Vol. 61, nr 4
• Strony: 769--784
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 45 poz., il.

Twórcy

autor

Žganec K.

• Faculty of Science, University of Zagreb, Division of Biology, Rooseveltov trg 6, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia

autor

Gottsein S.

• Faculty of Science, University of Zagreb, Division of Biology, Rooseveltov trg 6, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia

autor

Hudina S.

• Faculty of Science, University of Zagreb, Division of Biology, Rooseveltov trg 6, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia

Bibliografia

• 1. Allan J.D. 1996 – Stream ecology. Structure and function of running waters – Chapman and Hall, London, 388 pp.
• 2. Allan J.D., Herbst G.N., Ortal R., Regev Y. 1988 – Invertebrate drift in the Dan River, Israel – Hydrobiologia, 160: 155–163.
• 3. Anholt B.R. 1995 – Density dependence resolves the stream drift paradox – Ecology, 76: 2235–2239.
• 4. Brittain J.E., Eikeland T.J. 1988 – Invertebrate drift - A review – Hydrobiologia, 166: 77–93.
• 5. Dahl J., Greenberg L. 1996 – Effects of habitat structure on habitat use by Gammarus pulex in artificial streams – Freshwat. Biol. 36: 487–495.
• 6. Dedecker A.P., Goethals P.L. M., de Pauw N. 2003 – Overview and quantification of the factors affecting the upstream and downstream movements of Gammarus pulex (Amphipoda) – Comm. Appl. Biol. Sci. Ghent University, 68: 25–31.
• 7. Elliott J.M. 2002a – A continuous study of the total drift of freshwater shrimps, Gammarus pulex, in a small stony stream in the English Lake District – Freshwat. Biol. 47: 75–86.
• 8. Elliott J.M. 2002b – The drift distances and time spent in the drift by freshwater shrimps, Gammarus pulex, in a small stony stream, and their implications for the interpretation of downstream dispersal – Freshwat. Biol. 47: 1403–1417.
• 9. Gee J.H.R. 1982 – Resource utilization by Gammarus pulex (Amphipoda) in a Cotswold Stream: A microdistribution study – J. Anim. Ecol. 51: 817–831.
• 10. Goedmakers A. 1980 – Population dynamics of three gammarid species (Crustacea, Amphipoda) in French chalks stream. Part I. General aspects and environmental factors – Bijdr. Dierk. 50: 1–34.
• 11. Goedmakers A. 1981 – Population dynamics of three gammarid species (Crustacea, Amphipoda) in a French chalk stream. Part IV. Review and implications – Bijdr. Dierk. 51: 181–190.
• 12. Goedmakers A., Pinkster S. 1981 – Population dynamics of three gammarid species (Crustacea, Amphipoda) in a French chalk stream. Part III. Migration – Bijdr. Dierk. 51: 145–180.
• 13. Hershey A.E., Pastor J., Peterson B.J., Kling G.W. 1993 – Stable isotopes resolve the drift paradox for Baetis mayflies in an arctic river – Ecology, 74: 2315–2325.
• 14. Hildrew A.G., Townsend C.R. 1980 – Aggregation, interference and foraging by larvae of Plectrocnemia conspersa (Trichoptera: Polycentropodidae) – Anim. Behav. 28: 553–560.
• 15. Hoover T.M., Richardson J.S., Yonemitsu N. 2006 – Flow-substrate interactions create and mediate leaf litter resource patches in streams – Freshwat. Biol. 51: 435–447.
• 16. Hughes D.A. 1970 – Some factors affecting drift and upstream movements of Gammarus pulex – Ecology, 51: 301–305.
• 17. Hultin L. 1971 – Upstream movements of Gammarus pulex pulex (Amphipoda) in a South Swedish stream – Oikos, 22: 329–347.
• 18. Humphries S., Ruxton G.D. 2001 – Re-examining the drift paradox – Trends Ecol. Evol. 16: 486.
• 19. Humphries S., Ruxton G.D. 2002 – Is there really a drift paradox? – J. Anim. Ecol. 71: 151–154.
• 20. Hynes H.B.N. 1970 – The ecology of running waters – University of Toronto Press, Toronto, 555 pp.
• 21. Kohler S.L. 1985 – Identification of stream drift mechanisms: an experimental and observational approach – Ecology, 66: 1749–1761.
• 22. Legendere P., Legendere L. 1998 – Numerical Ecology – Elsevier, Amsterdam, 870 pp.
• 23. Lehmann U. 1967 – Drift und Populationsdynamik von Gammarus pulex fossarum Koch – Z. Morph. Ökol. Tiere, 60: 227–274.
• 24. MacNeil C., Dick J.T.A., Elwood R.W. 1997 – The trophic ecology of freshwater Gammarus spp. (Crustacea: Amphipoda): problems and perspectives concerning the functional feeding group concept – Biological Reviews, 72: 349–364.
• 25. McGrath K.E., Peeters E.T.H.M., Beijer J.A.J., Scheffer M. 2007 – Habitat-mediated cannibalism and microhabitat restriction in the stream invertebrate Gammarus pulex – Hydrobiologia, 589: 155–164.
• 26. Meijering M.D.P. 1972 – Experimentelle Un¬tersuchungen zur Drift und Aufwanderung von Gammaridan in Fließgewässern – Arch. Hydrobiol. 70: 133–205.
• 27. Meijering M.P.D. 1977 – Quantitative relationships between drift und upstream migration of Gammarus fossarum Koch 1835 – Crustaceana Suppl. 4: 128–135.
• 28. Meijering M.P.D. 1980 – Drift, upstream-migration, and population dynamics of Gammarus fossarum Koch, 1835 – Crustaceana Suppl. 6: 194–203.
• 29. Minckley W.L. 1964 – Upstream movements of Gammarus (Amphipoda) in Doe Run, Made County, Kentucky – Ecology, 45: 195–197.
• 30. Müller K. 1963 – Diurnal rhythm in ´Organic Drift´ of Gammarus pulex – Nature, 198: 806–807.
• 31. Müller K. 1966 – Die Tagesperiodik von Fliesswasserorganismen – Z. Morph. Ökol. Tiere, 56: 93–142.
• 32. Müller K. 1974 – Stream drift as a chronobiological phenomenon in running water ecosystems – Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 5: 309–323.
• 33. Pachepsky E., Lutscher F., Nisbet R.M., Lewis M.A. 2005 – Persistence, spread and the drift paradox – Theor. Popul. Biol. 67: 61–73.
• 34. Pieper H.-G. 1978 – Ökophysiologische und produktionbiologische Untersuchungen an Jugendstadien von Gammarus fossarum – Arch. Hydrobiol. Suppl. 54: 257–327.
• 35. Pöckl M. 1993 – Reproductive potential and lifetime potential fecundity of the freshwater amphipods Gammarus fossarum and G. roeseli in Austrian streams and rivers – Freshwat. Biol. 30: 73–91.
• 36. Pöckl M., Humpesch U.H. 1990 – Intra- and inter-specific variation in egg survival and brood development time for Austrian populations of Gammarus fossarum and G. roeseli (Crustacea: Amphipoda) – Freshwat. Biol. 23: 441–455.
• 37. Speirs D.C., Gurney W.S.C. 2001 – Population persistence in rivers and estuaries – Ecol¬ogy, 85: 1219–1237.
• 38. Waters T.F. 1961 – Standing crop and drift of stream bottom organisms – Ecology, 42: 532–537.
• 39. Waters T.F. 1962 – Diurnal periodicity in the drift of stream invertebrates – Ecology, 43: 316–320.
• 40. Waters T.F. 1965 – Interpretation of invertebrate drift in streams – Ecology, 46: 327–334.
• 41. Waters T.F. 1972 – The drift of stream insects – Annu. Rev. Entomol. 17: 253–272.
• 42. Williams D.D., Moore K.A. 1982 – The effect of environmental factors on the activity of Gammarus pseudolimnaeus (Amphipoda) – Hydrobiologia, 96: 137–147.
• 43. Williams D.D., Moore K.A. 1989 – Environ¬mental complexity and the drifting behaviour of a running water amphipod – Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 46: 1520–1530.
• 44. Williams D.D., Williams N.E. 1993 – The upstream/downstream movement paradox of lotic invertebrates: quantitative evidence from a Welsh mountain stream – Freshwat. Biol. 30: 199–218.
• 45. Zar J.H. 1996 – Biostatistical analysis – Prentice–Hall International, Inc., London, 662 pp.