INVESTIGADORES
BALSEIRO esteban Gabriel
artículos
Título:
Does predation by the introduced rainbow trout cascade down to detritus and algae in a forested small stream in Patagonia?
Autor/es:
BURIA, L.; ALBARIÑO, R.; DIAZ VILLANUEVA, V.; MODENUTTI, B.E.; BALSEIRO, E.G.
Revista:
HYDROBIOLOGIA
Editorial:
SPRINGER
Referencias:
Año: 2010 vol. 651 p. 161 - 172
ISSN:
0018-8158
Resumen:
<!-- /* Font Definitions */ @font-face {font-family:"Cambria Math"; panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4; mso-font-charset:0; mso-generic-font-family:roman; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:-1610611985 1107304683 0 0 415 0;} /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-unhide:no; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; margin:0cm; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:EN-GB;} p.MsoTitle, li.MsoTitle, div.MsoTitle {mso-style-unhide:no; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-link:"Título Car"; margin:0cm; margin-bottom:.0001pt; text-align:center; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:EN-GB; font-weight:bold;} span.TtuloCar {mso-style-name:"Título Car"; mso-style-unhide:no; mso-style-locked:yes; mso-style-link:Título; mso-ansi-font-size:12.0pt; mso-ansi-language:EN-GB; font-weight:bold;} .MsoChpDefault {mso-style-type:export-only; mso-default-props:yes; font-size:10.0pt; mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt;} @page Section1 {size:612.0pt 792.0pt; margin:70.85pt 3.0cm 70.85pt 3.0cm; mso-header-margin:36.0pt; mso-footer-margin:36.0pt; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} -->
Cascade effects of an exotic predator, the
rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), on periphyton
and leaf litter were analysed in a headwater, forested
stream of Andean Patagonia (Argentina). We conducted
seasonal field sampling and two field experiments
measuring leaf litter mass, periphyton biomass
and macroinvertebrate biomass in relation to the
presence and absence of rainbow trout. In the field
survey, the presence of trout influenced resource mass:
leaf litter (60% decrease in summer, P = 0.024)
and periphyton (tenfold increase in chlorophyll a,
and periphyton (tenfold increase in chlorophyll a,
and periphyton (tenfold increase in chlorophyll a,
and periphyton (tenfold increase in chlorophyll a,
and periphyton (tenfold increase in chlorophyll a,
and leaf litter were analysed in a headwater, forested
stream of Andean Patagonia (Argentina). We conducted
seasonal field sampling and two field experiments
measuring leaf litter mass, periphyton biomass
and macroinvertebrate biomass in relation to the
presence and absence of rainbow trout. In the field
survey, the presence of trout influenced resource mass:
leaf litter (60% decrease in summer, P = 0.024)
and periphyton (tenfold increase in chlorophyll a,
and periphyton (tenfold increase in chlorophyll a,
and periphyton (tenfold increase in chlorophyll a,
and periphyton (tenfold increase in chlorophyll a,
and periphyton (tenfold increase in chlorophyll a,
and leaf litter were analysed in a headwater, forested
stream of Andean Patagonia (Argentina). We conducted
seasonal field sampling and two field experiments
measuring leaf litter mass, periphyton biomass
and macroinvertebrate biomass in relation to the
presence and absence of rainbow trout. In the field
survey, the presence of trout influenced resource mass:
leaf litter (60% decrease in summer, P = 0.024)
and periphyton (tenfold increase in chlorophyll a,
and periphyton (tenfold increase in chlorophyll a,
and periphyton (tenfold increase in chlorophyll a,
and periphyton (tenfold increase in chlorophyll a,
and periphyton (tenfold increase in chlorophyll a,
and leaf litter were analysed in a headwater, forested
stream of Andean Patagonia (Argentina). We conducted
seasonal field sampling and two field experiments
measuring leaf litter mass, periphyton biomass
and macroinvertebrate biomass in relation to the
presence and absence of rainbow trout. In the field
survey, the presence of trout influenced resource mass:
leaf litter (60% decrease in summer, P = 0.024)
and periphyton (tenfold increase in chlorophyll a,
and periphyton (tenfold increase in chlorophyll a,
and periphyton (tenfold increase in chlorophyll a,
and periphyton (tenfold increase in chlorophyll a,
and periphyton (tenfold increase in chlorophyll a,
and leaf litter were analysed in a headwater, forested
stream of Andean Patagonia (Argentina). We conducted
seasonal field sampling and two field experiments
measuring leaf litter mass, periphyton biomass
and macroinvertebrate biomass in relation to the
presence and absence of rainbow trout. In the field
survey, the presence of trout influenced resource mass:
leaf litter (60% decrease in summer, P = 0.024)
and periphyton (tenfold increase in chlorophyll a,
and periphyton (tenfold increase in chlorophyll a,
and periphyton (tenfold increase in chlorophyll a,
and periphyton (tenfold increase in chlorophyll a,
and periphyton (tenfold increase in chlorophyll a,
Oncorhynchus mykiss), on periphyton
and leaf litter were analysed in a headwater, forested
stream of Andean Patagonia (Argentina). We conducted
seasonal field sampling and two field experiments
measuring leaf litter mass, periphyton biomass
and macroinvertebrate biomass in relation to the
presence and absence of rainbow trout. In the field
survey, the presence of trout influenced resource mass:
leaf litter (60% decrease in summer, P = 0.024)
and periphyton (tenfold increase in chlorophyll a,
and periphyton (tenfold increase in chlorophyll a,
and periphyton (tenfold increase in chlorophyll a,
and periphyton (tenfold increase in chlorophyll a,
and periphyton (tenfold increase in chlorophyll a,
P = 0.024)
and periphyton (tenfold increase in chlorophyll a,a,
P0.001) were affected, which were mediated by a
decrease in the biomass of shredders (95% decrease in
summer, P0.001) and scrapers (90% decrease,
decrease in the biomass of shredders (95% decrease in
summer, P0.001) and scrapers (90% decrease,
decrease in the biomass of shredders (95% decrease in
summer, P0.001) and scrapers (90% decrease,
decrease in the biomass of shredders (95% decrease in
summer, P0.001) and scrapers (90% decrease,
decrease in the biomass of shredders (95% decrease in
summer, P0.001) and scrapers (90% decrease,
0.001) were affected, which were mediated by a
decrease in the biomass of shredders (95% decrease in
summer, P0.001) and scrapers (90% decrease,P0.001) and scrapers (90% decrease,
P0.001). There was an effect on leaf litter biomass
only in the summer, whereas fish presence reduced
periphyton biomass all year except in the winter. In the
field experiments, we observed that leaf litter breakdown
and periphyton development were effectively
controlled by consumers in the absence of fish. In
contrast, the presence of fish caused a release of
herbivory and detritivory resulting in a significant
increase in periphyton biomass (100% increase,
only in the summer, whereas fish presence reduced
periphyton biomass all year except in the winter. In the
field experiments, we observed that leaf litter breakdown
and periphyton development were effectively
controlled by consumers in the absence of fish. In
contrast, the presence of fish caused a release of
herbivory and detritivory resulting in a significant
increase in periphyton biomass (100% increase,
only in the summer, whereas fish presence reduced
periphyton biomass all year except in the winter. In the
field experiments, we observed that leaf litter breakdown
and periphyton development were effectively
controlled by consumers in the absence of fish. In
contrast, the presence of fish caused a release of
herbivory and detritivory resulting in a significant
increase in periphyton biomass (100% increase,
only in the summer, whereas fish presence reduced
periphyton biomass all year except in the winter. In the
field experiments, we observed that leaf litter breakdown
and periphyton development were effectively
controlled by consumers in the absence of fish. In
contrast, the presence of fish caused a release of
herbivory and detritivory resulting in a significant
increase in periphyton biomass (100% increase,
only in the summer, whereas fish presence reduced
periphyton biomass all year except in the winter. In the
field experiments, we observed that leaf litter breakdown
and periphyton development were effectively
controlled by consumers in the absence of fish. In
contrast, the presence of fish caused a release of
herbivory and detritivory resulting in a significant
increase in periphyton biomass (100% increase,
0.001). There was an effect on leaf litter biomass
only in the summer, whereas fish presence reduced
periphyton biomass all year except in the winter. In the
field experiments, we observed that leaf litter breakdown
and periphyton development were effectively
controlled by consumers in the absence of fish. In
contrast, the presence of fish caused a release of
herbivory and detritivory resulting in a significant
increase in periphyton biomass (100% increase,
P0.001) and a decrease in leaf litter decay (40%
decrease, P0.001). Our results suggest that in low
order streams and in the presence of visual predators,
trophic cascades may operate both on detritus and
algae, but with different timing.
order streams and in the presence of visual predators,
trophic cascades may operate both on detritus and
algae, but with different timing.
order streams and in the presence of visual predators,
trophic cascades may operate both on detritus and
algae, but with different timing.
order streams and in the presence of visual predators,
trophic cascades may operate both on detritus and
algae, but with different timing.
order streams and in the presence of visual predators,
trophic cascades may operate both on detritus and
algae, but with different timing.
decrease, P0.001). Our results suggest that in low
order streams and in the presence of visual predators,
trophic cascades may operate both on detritus and
algae, but with different timing.
order streams and in the presence of visual predators,
trophic cascades may operate both on detritus and
algae, but with different timing.
order streams and in the presence of visual predators,
trophic cascades may operate both on detritus and
algae, but with different timing.
order streams and in the presence of visual predators,
trophic cascades may operate both on detritus and
algae, but with different timing.
order streams and in the presence of visual predators,
trophic cascades may operate both on detritus and
algae, but with different timing.
decrease, P0.001). Our results suggest that in low
order streams and in the presence of visual predators,
trophic cascades may operate both on detritus and
algae, but with different timing.
order streams and in the presence of visual predators,
trophic cascades may operate both on detritus and
algae, but with different timing.
order streams and in the presence of visual predators,
trophic cascades may operate both on detritus and
algae, but with different timing.
order streams and in the presence of visual predators,
trophic cascades may operate both on detritus and
algae, but with different timing.
order streams and in the presence of visual predators,
trophic cascades may operate both on detritus and
algae, but with different timing.
decrease, P0.001). Our results suggest that in low
order streams and in the presence of visual predators,
trophic cascades may operate both on detritus and
algae, but with different timing.
order streams and in the presence of visual predators,
trophic cascades may operate both on detritus and
algae, but with different timing.
order streams and in the presence of visual predators,
trophic cascades may operate both on detritus and
algae, but with different timing.
order streams and in the presence of visual predators,
trophic cascades may operate both on detritus and
algae, but with different timing.
order streams and in the presence of visual predators,
trophic cascades may operate both on detritus and
algae, but with different timing.
decrease, P0.001). Our results suggest that in low
order streams and in the presence of visual predators,
trophic cascades may operate both on detritus and
algae, but with different timing.
order streams and in the presence of visual predators,
trophic cascades may operate both on detritus and
algae, but with different timing.
order streams and in the presence of visual predators,
trophic cascades may operate both on detritus and
algae, but with different timing.
order streams and in the presence of visual predators,
trophic cascades may operate both on detritus and
algae, but with different timing.
order streams and in the presence of visual predators,
trophic cascades may operate both on detritus and
algae, but with different timing.
0.001) and a decrease in leaf litter decay (40%
decrease, P0.001). Our results suggest that in low
order streams and in the presence of visual predators,
trophic cascades may operate both on detritus and
algae, but with different timing.
order streams and in the presence of visual predators,
trophic cascades may operate both on detritus and
algae, but with different timing.
order streams and in the presence of visual predators,
trophic cascades may operate both on detritus and
algae, but with different timing.
order streams and in the presence of visual predators,
trophic cascades may operate both on detritus and
algae, but with different timing.
order streams and in the presence of visual predators,
trophic cascades may operate both on detritus and
algae, but with different timing.
P0.001). Our results suggest that in low
order streams and in the presence of visual predators,
trophic cascades may operate both on detritus and
algae, but with different timing.