DOCSLIB.ORG

Food Webs in River Networks M

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Food Webs in River Networks M Blackwell Science, LtdOxford, UK ERE Ecological Research 0912-38142002 Ecological Society of Japan 174July 2002 503 Food webs in river networks M. E. Power and W. E. Dietrich 10.1046/j.0912-3814.2002.00503.x Review Article451471BEES SGML Ecological Research (2002) 17, 451–471 Food webs in river networks MARY ELEANOR POWER1* AND WILLIAM ERIC DIETRICH2 Departments of 1Integrative Biology and 2Earth and Planetary Science, University of California Berkeley, Berkeley, California 94720, USA Food webs and river drainages are both hierarchical networks and complex adaptive systems. How does living within the second affect the first? Longitudinal gradients in productivity, disturbance regimes and habitat structure down rivers have long interested ecologists, but their effects on food web structure and dynamics are just beginning to be explored. Even less is known about how network structure per se influences river and riparian food webs and their members. We offer some preliminary observations and hypotheses about these interactions, emphasizing observations on upstream–downstream changes in food web structure and controls, and introducing some ideas and predictions about the unexplored question of food web responses to some of the network properties of river drainages. Key words: food chain length; food webs; landscape heterogeneity; river networks; stream ecosystems. INTRODUCTION consumer has access. Ecologists have long pon- dered the historical, environmental and biological Food webs are well described as complex adaptive controls that determine path and chain lengths systems (as lucidly reviewed by Levin (1999)). Like and the impacts of particular web members other complex adaptive systems, food webs have (Hairston et al. 1960; Pimm 1979, 1982; Paine diverse components, linked by flows and (often 1980, 1988; Power 1992a; Power et al. 1996; Post non-linear) interactions, ‘which determine and are et al. 2000). This debate has been somewhat con- reinforced by hierarchical organization of these fused when energy flow paths and population con- components (Levin 1999; p. 12)’. Paine (1980) trol chains were not distinguished. Our present pointed out that two distinct flows create different understanding of these relationships is particularly hierarchies in the same food web. Energy flows limited by our rudimentary appreciation of the from more basal resources up to consumers at spatial and temporal contexts and scales of food higher trophic positions, while ‘top-down’ chains webs. The impacts of web members on each other, of population control link consumers to the and the degree to which energy flow predicts inter- resource populations they regulate or limit, if these action strength, depend largely on which spatial consumers are not suppressed by their own preda- sources of energy and nutrients sustain particular tors. Energy flow paths and population control web members, and how resident versus transient chains are related, but not identical. Organisms these members are in their communities. Synthetic should have greater impact in food webs if they studies that link food web dynamics to spatial have access to better, more productive, or more fluxes of energy, matter, organisms and informa- widely distributed energy sources. Conversely, tion across heterogeneous landscapes (Polis et al. interactions and impacts of other species may 1997; Nakano & Murakami 2001) will contribute determine the energy source to which a particular much to our understanding of these issues. In studies of spatial food webs, as of any com- plex system, trade-offs exist between realism and *Author to whom correspondence should be mechanistic understanding on the one hand, and addressed. Email: [email protected] scope and generality on the other. To explore the Received 26 September 2001. effects of landscape heterogeneity on multitrophic Accepted 12 November 2001. level dynamics, ecologists sensibly began with 452 M. E. Power and W. E. Dietrich simplified conceptualizations. These depict fluxes of sediment, water, organic matter or organisms of organisms, energy or materials across habitat from tributaries into mainstems. Longitudinal boundaries (Holt 1984; Polis et al. 1997), over 2- gradients and their impacts on species distribu- D lattices (Oksanen 1990; de Roos et al. 1991), tions have long interested stream ecologists, but or among islands or patches set in an uninhab- upstream–downstream changes in food web inter- itable matrix (chapters in Tilman & Kareiva actions are just beginning to be investigated. Even 1997). Important recent progress towards land- less is known about the network effects per se on scape realism has been made through more organisms and food webs, but these influences may explicit, sometimes experimental, studies of the help explain and predict ‘cumulative watershed ecological effects of specific landscape features, effects’, which are of great current concern in such as boundary permeability (Cadennaso & Pick- watershed management (Li et al. 1994; Dunne ett 2000; Laurance et al. 2001; Cadennaso et al. in et al. 2001). press) or geometry (Fagan et al. 1999; Anderson & In this paper, we discuss classical and more Polis 1999), or seasonal shifts in the relative pro- recent ideas for controls on food chain length. We ductivities of habitats coupled by trophic exchange then explore how such controls may vary at differ- (Nakano & Murakami 2001). However, one gen- ent positions in drainage networks where the eral feature of landscapes has so far received very energy sources, habitat structure and disturbance little attention with respect to its influence on regimes differ in channels and adjacent water- spatial food webs. River drainage networks sculpt sheds. We draw mainly on our own work with all terrestrial landscapes, defining their relief, dis- students and colleagues from rivers in north section and many other aspects of their heteroge- coastal California. A more comprehensive review neity. Channel and valley characteristics influence of the literature relevant to this topic would repay ecologically significant conditions and are partially effort, but is beyond the scope of this paper. predictable from landscape position (Montgomery & Buffington 1993; Sklar & Dietrich 1998). Here, we explore how conditions arising from longitudi- CONTROLS ON LENGTHS OF ENERGY nal and network structure might affect energy flow FLOW PATHS AND FUNCTIONAL and species performances in food webs. FOOD CHAINS IN FOOD WEBS There are many interesting questions to ask about A TALE OF TWO NETWORKS the properties of food webs (e.g. Cohen 1977; Paine 1980, 1988; Schoener 1989). Questions Food web networks are hierarchical. Energy flows about energy path or chain length are particularly up from lower to higher network positions, and informative for guiding investigations of large- consumer control is exerted down some of these scale variation in the distribution of trophic-level paths, but not others. River drainage networks are biomass (Oksanen et al. 1981; Mittelbach et al. also hierarchical, with gravity driving water, sed- 1988; Power 1992a), as well as issues of practical iment, solutes and organic matter from ridges interest. If we want to conserve native species, dividing watershed down into channels, and from sustainably harvest a resource, or suppress biologi- headwaters down mainstems to lowland floodplain cal pests, we need to know the energy flow paths rivers and estuaries. With the exception of winds that support the groups of interest and the top- and local back eddies in turbulent water, only bio- down controls on their abundance. logical fluxes (migrations and other movements of Classical hypotheses for environmental controls individuals) drive materials upstream or upslope. on the length of food chains (which unfortunately Conditions, resource fluxes and biotic interactions do not distinguish energy flow paths from top- experienced by aquatic, riparian and terrestrial down chains) discuss two environmental variables organisms in watersheds vary down longitudinal and one evolutionary factor. gradients from headwaters to lowland habitats (Vannote et al. 1980; Montgomery & Buffington 1 Productivity/efficiency. Chains should lengthen as 1993, 1997). Conditions also vary abruptly, for fluxes of limiting resources or energy to food example, where network confluences inject pulses webs increase, or as consumers increase their Food webs in river networks 453 efficiency of resource capture or conversion cient appendages for dismembering prey (Vogel (Fretwell 1977; Pimm 1979; Oksanen et al. 1981; Power 1987; Power et al. 1997). The rela- 1981; Fretwell 1987; Pimm & Kitching 1987). tionship of food chain length to habitat size may 2 Disturbance/stability. Chains should be shorter be less clear, however, in habitats such as rivers in more frequently disturbed environments where cross-habitat exchanges have strong effects (Pimm & Lawton 1977; Pimm & Kitching (Polis et al. 1997; Nakano et al. 1999). Analyses of 1987). river or adjacent terrestrial food webs may over- 3 Design constraints. Pimm (1979) argues that it look crucial interactions if the boundary of obser- may be impossible for evolution to build a vation or experimentation is drawn at the river Pterodactyl predator, for example, because an surface (Wallace et al. 1997; Nakano et al. 1999; organism large enough to subdue one could not Power & Rainey 2000; Nakano & Murakami fly to catch it. 2001; Sabo & Power in press a, b; Power et al. in press). Despite many food web surveys, particularly Post (unpubl. data, 2001)
Load more

Recommended publications
  • BIG RIVER ECOSYSTEM: Program 2
    BIG RIVER ECOSYSTEM: A Question of Net Worth PURPOSE To explore biodiversity at the ecosystem level. KERA CONNECTIONS to Life Science Program 2 Core Content: Structure and Function in Living Systems Academic Expectations: 2.2 Patterns, 2.3 Systems, 2.4 Models & Scale ANSWERS TO Process Skills: Observation, Modeling aFIELD NOTES OBJECTIVES 1. In a hot and hostile environment, Students should be able to: the evaporated water cannot be 1.identify five “big river” organisms incorporated into living cells (as 2.construct a diagram showing interactions between living and we know them). nonliving parts of an ecosystem 2. An extremely cold environment, 3. discuss factors that affect the level of biodiversity in their river basin. or frozen desert, does not allow cells to utilize water. VOCABULARY 3. Answers will vary but should Teachers may wish to discuss the following terms: display logical flow of water and aquatic, commercial, ecosystem, water cycle and watershed. allow for recirculation in a loop. 4. Arteries and veins. aFIELD NOTEBOOK 5. A pumping heart. Ideas for Teachers 6. Diagram A shows many different A. Develop a concept map for the water cycle. Include these items in types of ecosystems in close the concept map: clouds, groundwater, apple tree, stream, precipita- proximity. tion, condensation, evaporation, harvest mouse, snowflakes, sun and 7. Add a watering hole, plant a humans. What other cycles are needed to maintain an ecosystem? miniature forest, create a B. Biospheres, containing algae, brine shrimp and water, are often meadow of wildflowers. Most shown in advertisements. Analyze how the biosphere is self-main- importantly, break up a monocul- taining.
    [Show full text]
  • 7.014 Handout PRODUCTIVITY: the “METABOLISM” of ECOSYSTEMS
    7.014 Handout PRODUCTIVITY: THE “METABOLISM” OF ECOSYSTEMS Ecologists use the term “productivity” to refer to the process through which an assemblage of organisms (e.g. a trophic level or ecosystem assimilates carbon. Primary producers (autotrophs) do this through photosynthesis; Secondary producers (heterotrophs) do it through the assimilation of the organic carbon in their food. Remember that all organic carbon in the food web is ultimately derived from primary production. DEFINITIONS Primary Productivity: Rate of conversion of CO2 to organic carbon (photosynthesis) per unit surface area of the earth, expressed either in terns of weight of carbon, or the equivalent calories e.g., g C m-2 year-1 Kcal m-2 year-1 Primary Production: Same as primary productivity, but usually expressed for a whole ecosystem e.g., tons year-1 for a lake, cornfield, forest, etc. NET vs. GROSS: For plants: Some of the organic carbon generated in plants through photosynthesis (using solar energy) is oxidized back to CO2 (releasing energy) through the respiration of the plants – RA. Gross Primary Production: (GPP) = Total amount of CO2 reduced to organic carbon by the plants per unit time Autotrophic Respiration: (RA) = Total amount of organic carbon that is respired (oxidized to CO2) by plants per unit time Net Primary Production (NPP) = GPP – RA The amount of organic carbon produced by plants that is not consumed by their own respiration. It is the increase in the plant biomass in the absence of herbivores. For an entire ecosystem: Some of the NPP of the plants is consumed (and respired) by herbivores and decomposers and oxidized back to CO2 (RH).
    [Show full text]
  • Effects of Interactions Between the Green and Brown Food Webs on Ecosystem Functioning Kejun Zou
    Effects of interactions between the green and brown food webs on ecosystem functioning Kejun Zou To cite this version: Kejun Zou. Effects of interactions between the green and brown food webs on ecosystem functioning. Ecosystems. Université Pierre et Marie Curie - Paris VI, 2016. English. NNT : 2016PA066266. tel-01445570 HAL Id: tel-01445570 https://tel.archives-ouvertes.fr/tel-01445570 Submitted on 1 Jun 2017 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. Université Pierre et Marie Curie Ecole doctorale : 227 Science de la Nature et de l’Homme Laboratoire : Institut d’Ecologie et des Sciences de l’Environnement de Paris Effects of interactions between the green and brown food webs on ecosystem functioning Effets des interactions entre les réseaux vert et brun sur le fonctionnement des ecosystèmes Par Kejun ZOU Thèse de doctorat d’Ecologie Dirigée par Dr. Sébastien BAROT et Dr. Elisa THEBAULT Présentée et soutenue publiquement le 26 septembre 2016 Devant un jury composé de : M. Sebastian Diehl Rapporteur M. José Montoya Rapporteur Mme. Emmanuelle Porcher Examinatrice M. Eric Edeline Examinateur M. Simon Bousocq Examinateur M. Sébastien Barot Directeur de thèse Mme. Elisa Thébault Directrice de thèse 2 Acknowledgements At the end of my thesis I would like to thank all those people who made this thesis possible and an unforgettable experience for me.
    [Show full text]
  • Effects of Eutrophication on Stream Ecosystems
    EFFECTS OF EUTROPHICATION ON STREAM ECOSYSTEMS Lei Zheng, PhD and Michael J. Paul, PhD Tetra Tech, Inc. Abstract This paper describes the effects of nutrient enrichment on the structure and function of stream ecosystems. It starts with the currently well documented direct effects of nutrient enrichment on algal biomass and the resulting impacts on stream chemistry. The paper continues with an explanation of the less well documented indirect ecological effects of nutrient enrichment on stream structure and function, including effects of excess growth on physical habitat, and alterations to aquatic life community structure from the microbial assemblage to fish and mammals. The paper also dicusses effects on the ecosystem level including changes to productivity, respiration, decomposition, carbon and other geochemical cycles. The paper ends by discussing the significance of these direct and indirect effects of nutrient enrichment on designated uses - especially recreational, aquatic life, and drinking water. 2 1. Introduction 1.1 Stream processes Streams are all flowing natural waters, regardless of size. To understand the processes that influence the pattern and character of streams and reduce natural variation of different streams, several stream classification systems (including ecoregional, fluvial geomorphological, and stream order classification) have been adopted by state and national programs. Ecoregional classification is based on geology, soils, geomorphology, dominant land uses, and natural vegetation (Omernik 1987). Fluvial geomorphological classification explains stream and slope processes through the application of physical principles. Rosgen (1994) classified stream channels in the United States into seven major stream types based on morphological characteristics, including entrenchment, gradient, width/depth ratio, and sinuosity in various land forms.
    [Show full text]
  • Lesson Overview from There Depends on Who Eats Whom! 3.3 Energy Flow in Ecosystems
    THINK ABOUT IT What happens to energy stored in body tissues when one organism eats another? Energy moves from the “eaten” to the “eater.” Where it goes Lesson Overview from there depends on who eats whom! 3.3 Energy Flow in Ecosystems Food Chains A food chain is a series of steps in which organisms transfer energy by eating and being eaten. Food chains can vary in length. An example from the Everglades is shown. Food Chains Food Chains In some aquatic food chains, such as the example shown, Larger fishes, like the largemouth bass, eat the small fishes. primary producers are a mixture of floating algae called The bass are preyed upon by large wading birds, such as the phytoplankton and attached algae. These producers are anhinga, which may ultimately be eaten by an alligator. eaten by small fishes, such as flagfish. Food Chains Food Webs There are four steps in this food chain. In most ecosystems, feeding relationships are much more The top carnivore is four steps removed from the primary complicated than the relationships described in a single, simple producer. chain because many animals eat more than one kind of food. Ecologists call this network of feeding interactions a food web. An example of a food web in the Everglades is shown. Food Chains Within Food Webs Decomposers & Detritivores in Food Webs Each path through a food web is a food chain. Most producers die without being eaten. In the detritus A food web, like the one shown, links all of the food chains in an pathway, decomposers convert that dead material to detritus, ecosystem together.
    [Show full text]
  • Ecosystem Services Generated by Fish Populations
    AR-211 Ecological Economics 29 (1999) 253 –268 ANALYSIS Ecosystem services generated by fish populations Cecilia M. Holmlund *, Monica Hammer Natural Resources Management, Department of Systems Ecology, Stockholm University, S-106 91, Stockholm, Sweden Abstract In this paper, we review the role of fish populations in generating ecosystem services based on documented ecological functions and human demands of fish. The ongoing overexploitation of global fish resources concerns our societies, not only in terms of decreasing fish populations important for consumption and recreational activities. Rather, a number of ecosystem services generated by fish populations are also at risk, with consequences for biodiversity, ecosystem functioning, and ultimately human welfare. Examples are provided from marine and freshwater ecosystems, in various parts of the world, and include all life-stages of fish. Ecosystem services are here defined as fundamental services for maintaining ecosystem functioning and resilience, or demand-derived services based on human values. To secure the generation of ecosystem services from fish populations, management approaches need to address the fact that fish are embedded in ecosystems and that substitutions for declining populations and habitat losses, such as fish stocking and nature reserves, rarely replace losses of all services. © 1999 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved. Keywords: Ecosystem services; Fish populations; Fisheries management; Biodiversity 1. Introduction 15 000 are marine and nearly 10 000 are freshwa­ ter (Nelson, 1994). Global capture fisheries har­ Fish constitute one of the major protein sources vested 101 million tonnes of fish including 27 for humans around the world. There are to date million tonnes of bycatch in 1995, and 11 million some 25 000 different known fish species of which tonnes were produced in aquaculture the same year (FAO, 1997).
    [Show full text]
  • Trophic Levels
    Trophic Levels Douglas Wilkin, Ph.D. Jean Brainard, Ph.D. Say Thanks to the Authors Click http://www.ck12.org/saythanks (No sign in required) AUTHORS Douglas Wilkin, Ph.D. To access a customizable version of this book, as well as other Jean Brainard, Ph.D. interactive content, visit www.ck12.org CK-12 Foundation is a non-profit organization with a mission to reduce the cost of textbook materials for the K-12 market both in the U.S. and worldwide. Using an open-content, web-based collaborative model termed the FlexBook®, CK-12 intends to pioneer the generation and distribution of high-quality educational content that will serve both as core text as well as provide an adaptive environment for learning, powered through the FlexBook Platform®. Copyright © 2015 CK-12 Foundation, www.ck12.org The names “CK-12” and “CK12” and associated logos and the terms “FlexBook®” and “FlexBook Platform®” (collectively “CK-12 Marks”) are trademarks and service marks of CK-12 Foundation and are protected by federal, state, and international laws. Any form of reproduction of this book in any format or medium, in whole or in sections must include the referral attribution link http://www.ck12.org/saythanks (placed in a visible location) in addition to the following terms. Except as otherwise noted, all CK-12 Content (including CK-12 Curriculum Material) is made available to Users in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial 3.0 Unported (CC BY-NC 3.0) License (http://creativecommons.org/ licenses/by-nc/3.0/), as amended and updated by Creative Com- mons from time to time (the “CC License”), which is incorporated herein by this reference.
    [Show full text]
  • Structure of Tropical River Food Webs Revealed by Stable Isotope Ratios
    OIKOS 96: 46–55, 2002 Structure of tropical river food webs revealed by stable isotope ratios David B. Jepsen and Kirk O. Winemiller Jepsen, D. B. and Winemiller, K. O. 2002. Structure of tropical river food webs revealed by stable isotope ratios. – Oikos 96: 46–55. Fish assemblages in tropical river food webs are characterized by high taxonomic diversity, diverse foraging modes, omnivory, and an abundance of detritivores. Feeding links are complex and modified by hydrologic seasonality and system productivity. These properties make it difficult to generalize about feeding relation- ships and to identify dominant linkages of energy flow. We analyzed the stable carbon and nitrogen isotope ratios of 276 fishes and other food web components living in four Venezuelan rivers that differed in basal food resources to determine 1) whether fish trophic guilds integrated food resources in a predictable fashion, thereby providing similar trophic resolution as individual species, 2) whether food chain length differed with system productivity, and 3) how omnivory and detritivory influenced trophic structure within these food webs. Fishes were grouped into four trophic guilds (herbivores, detritivores/algivores, omnivores, piscivores) based on literature reports and external morphological characteristics. Results of discriminant function analyses showed that isotope data were effective at reclassifying individual fish into their pre-identified trophic category. Nutrient-poor, black-water rivers showed greater compartmentalization in isotope values than more productive rivers, leading to greater reclassification success. In three out of four food webs, omnivores were more often misclassified than other trophic groups, reflecting the diverse food sources they assimilated. When fish d15N values were used to estimate species position in the trophic hierarchy, top piscivores in nutrient-poor rivers had higher trophic positions than those in more productive rivers.
    [Show full text]
  • Food Chains in Woodland Habitats. All Animals Need to Eat Food to Survive
    Science Lesson Living Things and their Habitats- Food chains in woodland habitats. Key Learning • A food chain shows the links between different living things and where they get their energy from. • Living things can be classified as producers or consumers according to their place in the food chain. • A predator is an animal that feeds on other animals (its prey). • Animals can be described as carnivores, herbivores or omnivores. All animals need to eat food to survive. • Talk about what you already know about the kind of food different animals eat. • What is the name of an animal that only eats plants? • What is the name of an animal that only eats other animals? • What is the name of an animal that eats both plants and other animals? Watch this clip about birds. What kind of food do they eat? https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/clips/z9nhfg8 Animals can be described as herbivores, carnivores or omnivores. Birds like robins, blue tits and house sparrows have a very varied diet! worms spiders slugs flies mealworms berries Robins, blue tits and house sparrows are omnivores because they eat plants and other animals. Describing a food chain. Watch this clip describing a food chain. https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/clips/zjshfg8 Caterpillar cat magpie Think about these questions as you watch • Where does a food chain start? • Which animals are herbivores? • Which animals are carnivores? A food chain starts with energy from the Sun because plants need the Sun’s light energy to make their own food in their leaves. Plants are eaten by animals.
    [Show full text]
  • Ecology (Pyramids, Biomagnification, & Succession
    ENERGY PYRAMIDS & Freshmen Biology FOOD CHAINS/FOOD WEBS May 4 – May 8 Lecture ENERGY FLOW •Energy → powers life’s processes •Energy = ATP! •Flow of energy determines the system’s ability to sustain life FEEDING RELATIONSHIPS • Energy flows through an ecosystem in one direction • Sun → autotrophs (producers) → heterotrophs (consumers) FOOD CHAIN VS. FOOD WEB FOOD CHAINS • Energy stored by producers → passed through an ecosystem by a food chain • Food chain = series of steps in which organisms transfer energy by eating and being eaten FOOD WEBS •Feeding relationships are more complex than can be shown in a food chain •Food Web = network of complex interactions •Food webs link all the food chains in an ecosystem together ECOLOGICAL PYRAMIDS • Used to show the relationships in Ecosystems • There are different types: • Energy Pyramid • Biomass Pyramid • Pyramid of numbers ENERGY PYRAMID • Only part of the energy that is stored in one trophic level can be passed on to the next level • Much of the energy that is consumed is used for the basic functions of life (breathing, moving, reproducing) • Only 10% is used to produce more biomass (10 % moves on) • This is what can be obtained from the next trophic level • All of the other energy is lost 10% RULE • Only 10% of energy (from organisms) at one trophic level → the next level • EX: only 10% of energy/calories from grasses is available to cows • WHY? • Energy used for bodily processes (growth/development and repair) • Energy given off as heat • Energy used for daily functioning/movement • Only 10% of energy you take in should be going to your actual biomass/weight which another organism could eat BIOMASS PYRAMID • Total amount of living tissue within a given trophic level = biomass • Represents the amount of potential food available for each trophic level in an ecosystem PYRAMID OF NUMBERS •Based on the number of individuals at each trophic level.
    [Show full text]
  • Plants Are Producers! Draw the Different Producers Below
    Name: ______________________________ The Unique Producer Every food chain begins with a producer. Plants are producers. They make their own food, which creates energy for them to grow, reproduce and survive. Being able to make their own food makes them unique; they are the only living things on Earth that can make their own source of food energy. Of course, they require sun, water and air to thrive. Given these three essential ingredients, you will have a healthy plant to begin the food chain. All plants are producers! Draw the different producers below. Apple Tree Rose Bushes Watermelon Grasses Plant Blueberry Flower Fern Daisy Bush List the three essential needs that every producer must have in order to live. © 2009 by Heather Motley Name: ______________________________ Producers can make their own food and energy, but consumers are different. Living things that have to hunt, gather and eat their food are called consumers. Consumers have to eat to gain energy or they will die. There are four types of consumers: omnivores, carnivores, herbivores and decomposers. Herbivores are living things that only eat plants to get the food and energy they need. Animals like whales, elephants, cows, pigs, rabbits, and horses are herbivores. Carnivores are living things that only eat meat. Animals like owls, tigers, sharks and cougars are carnivores. You would not catch a plant in these animals’ mouths. Then, we have the omnivores. Omnivores will eat both plants and animals to get energy. Whichever food source is abundant or available is what they will eat. Animals like the brown bear, dogs, turtles, raccoons and even some people are omnivores.
    [Show full text]
  • Detrital Food Chain As a Possible Mechanism to Support the Trophic Structure of the Planktonic Community in the Photic Zone of a Tropical Reservoir
    Limnetica, 39(1): 511-524 (2020). DOI: 10.23818/limn.39.33 © Asociación Ibérica de Limnología, Madrid. Spain. ISSN: 0213-8409 Detrital food chain as a possible mechanism to support the trophic structure of the planktonic community in the photic zone of a tropical reservoir Edison Andrés Parra-García1,*, Nicole Rivera-Parra2, Antonio Picazo3 and Antonio Camacho3 1 Grupo de Investigación en Limnología Básica y Experimental y Biología y Taxonomía Marina, Instituto de Biología, Universidad de Antioquia. 050010 Medellín, Colombia. 2 Grupo de Fundamentos y Enseñanza de la Física y los Sistemas Dinámicos, Instituto de Física, Universidad de Antioquia. 050010 Medellín, Colombia. 3 Instituto Cavanilles de Biodiversidad y Biología Evolutiva. Universidad de Valencia. E–46980 Paterna, Valencia. España. * Corresponding author: [email protected] Received: 31/10/18 Accepted: 10/10/19 ABSTRACT Detrital food chain as a possible mechanism to support the trophic structure of the planktonic community in the photic zone of a tropical reservoir In the photic zone of aquatic ecosystems, where different communities coexist showing different strategies to access one or different resources, the biomass spectra can describe the food transfers and their efficiencies. The purpose of this work is to describe the biomass spectrum and the transfer efficiency, from the primary producers to the top predators of the trophic network, in the photic zone of the Riogrande II reservoir. Data used in the model of the biomass spectrum were taken from several studies carried out between 2010 and 2013 in the reservoir. The analysis of the slope of a biomass spectrum, of the transfer efficiencies, and the omnivory indexes, suggest that most primary production in the photic zone of the Riogrande II reservoir is not directly used by primary consumers, and it appears that detritic mass flows are an indirect way of channeling this production towards zooplankton.
    [Show full text]