, 636:173 | Cite as

The effects of leaf toughness on feeding preference by two Tasmanian shredders

  • L. Ratnarajah
  • L. A. Barmuta
Primary research paper


The effect of leaf toughness on the diet preference of two shredding invertebrates, Caenota plicata (Trichoptera: Calocidae) and Antipodeus wellingtoni (Amphipoda) using native leaves, Eucalyptus globulus, Eucalyptus obliqua and Pomaderris apetala, and one exotic species, Alnus glutinosa (Alder) were tested in the laboratory. We hypothesised that the softer textured leaves of P. apetala and A. glutinosa would be preferred over the tougher eucalypt leaves. Leaf toughness was measured using a penetrometer and preference was calculated based on Chesson–Manly selection index. E. globulus, E. obliqua and A. glutinosa were all consumed to some extent; however, there was a clear avoidance of P. apetala by both shredder species. Only A. wellingtoni showed a clear preference for E. globulus. This study demonstrates that the toughness of leaves does not affect the consumption of leaves by A. wellingtoni and C. plicata. Hence there is no reason to assume a priori that the tougher Australian leaves would be avoided by local shredders as have been observed in northern hemisphere studies.


Multichoice feeding trials Eucalyptus Pomaderris apetala Alnus glutinosa Shredders 



This work was supported by the School of Zoology, University of Tasmania, Honours programme and in collaboration with Dr. Luz Boyero of James Cook University with support from the National Geographic Society (USA). We are grateful to Professor B.J.F Manly (formerly of University of Otago) for making available his software for computing the selectivity index and its confidence interval. We are thankful to all the volunteers who assisted in the field and to Daryl, Susanne, Adam and Sally. This research was carried out under permits granted by the Wellington Park Management Trust (07-84-46) and the Inland Fisheries Service of Tasmania.


  1. Abelho, M. & M. A. S. Graça, 1996. Effects of eucalyptus afforestation on leaf litter dynamics and macroinvertebrate community structure of streams in central portugal. Hydrobiologia 324: 195–204.Google Scholar
  2. Arsuffi, T. L. & K. Suberkropp, 1989. Selective feeding by shredders on leaf-colonizing stream fungi: comparison of macroinvertebrate taxa. Oecologia 79: 30–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bärlocher, F. & B. Kendrick, 1975. Leaf-conditioning by microorganisms. Oecologia 20: 359–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bunn, S. E., 1986. Origin and fate of organic matter in Australian upland stream. In DeDeckker, P. & W. D. Williams (eds), Limnology in Australia. CSIRO, Melbourne, Australia.Google Scholar
  5. Bunn, S., 1988. Processing of leaf litter in two northern jarrah forest streams, western australia: II. The role of macroinvertebrates and the influence of soluble polyphenols and inorganic sediment. Hydrobiologia 162: 211–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Campbell, I. C. & L. Fuchshuber, 1994. Amount, composition and seasonality of terrestrial litter accession to an Australian cool temperate rainforest stream. Archiv für Hydrobiologie 130: 499–512.Google Scholar
  7. Campbell, I. C., K. R. James, B. T. Hart & A. Devereaux, 1992. Allochthonous coarse particulate organic material in forest and pasture reaches of two south-eastern Australian streams. II. Litter processing. Freshwater Biology 27: 353–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Canhoto, C. & M. A. S. Graca, 1995. Food value of introduced eucalypt leaves for a mediterranean stream detritivore: Tipula lateralis. Freshwater Biology 34: 209–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Canhoto, C. & M. A. S. Graça, 1996. Decomposition of eucalyptus globulus leaves and three native leaf species (Alnus glutinosa, Castanea sativa and Quercus faginea) in a portuguese low order stream. Hydrobiologia 333: 79–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Canhoto, C. & M. A. S. Graça, 1999. Leaf barriers to fungal colonization and shredders (Tipula lateralis) consumption of decomposing Eucalyptus globulus. Microbial Ecology 37: 163–172.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Canhoto, C. & C. Laranjeira, 2007. Leachates of Eucalyptus globulus in intermittent streams affect water parameters and invertebrates. International Review of Hydrobiology 92: 173–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chesson, J., 1983. The estimation and analysis of preference and its relationship to foraging models. Ecology 64: 1297–1304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fox, L. R. & B. J. Macauley, 1977. Insect grazing on eucalyptus in response to variation in leaf tannins and nitrogen. Oecologia 29: 145–162.Google Scholar
  14. Friberg, N. & D. Jacobsen, 1994. Feeding plasticity of two detritivore-shredders. Freshwater Biology 32: 133–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Golladay, S. W., J. R. Webster & E. F. Benfield, 1983. Factors affecting food utilization by a leaf shredding aquatic insect: leaf spedes and conditioning time. Holarctic Ecology 6: 157–162.Google Scholar
  16. Graça, M. A. S., L. Maltby & P. Calow, 1993. Importance of fungi in diet of Gammarus pulex and Asellus aquaticus. II. Effects on growth, reproduction and physiology. Oecologia 96: 304–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Graça, M. A. S., C. Cressa, M. O. Gessner, M. J. Feio, K. A. Callies & C. Barrios, 2001. Food quality, feeding preferences, survival and growth of shredders from temperate and tropical streams. Freshwater Biology 46: 947–957.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gregory, S. V., F. J. Swanson, W. A. McKee & K. W. Cummins, 1991. An ecosystem perspective of riparian zones. BioScience 41: 540–551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hladyz, S., M. O. Gessner, P. S. Giller, J. Pozo & G. Woodward, 2009. Resource quality and stoichiometric constraints on stream ecosystem functioning. Freshwater Biology 54: 957–970.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Irons, J. G., M. W. Oswood & J. P. Bryant, 1988. Consumption of leaf detritus by a stream shredder: Influence of tree species and nutrient status. Hydrobiologia 160: 53–61.Google Scholar
  21. Iversen, T. M., 1974. Ingestion and growth in Sericostoma personatum (trichoptera) in relation to the nitrogen content of ingested leaves. Oikos 25: 278–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Johnson, D. H., 1980. The comparison of usage and availability measurements for evaluating resource preference. Ecology 61: 65–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kaushik, N. K. & H. B. N. Hynes, 1971. The fate of the dead leaves that fall into streams. Archiv für Hydrobiologie 68: 465–515.Google Scholar
  24. Lieske, R. & P. Zwick, 2007. Food preference, growth and maturation of Nemurella pictetii (Plecoptera: Nemouridae). Freshwater Biology 52: 1187–1197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Malicky, H., 1990. Feeding tests with caddis larvae (Insecta: Trichoptera) and amphipods (Crustacea: Amphipoda) on Platanus orientalis (platanaceae) and other leaf litter. Hydrobiologia 206: 163–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Manly, B. F. J., 1993. Comments on design and analysis of multiple-choice feeding-preference experiments. Oecologia 93: 149–153.Google Scholar
  27. Manly, B. F. J., 1995. Measuring selectivity from multiple choice feeding-preference experiments. Biometrics 51: 709–715.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Nicotri, M. E., 1980. Factors involved in herbivore food preference. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 42: 13–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Nolen, J. A. & R. G. Pearson, 1993. Factors affecting litter processing by Anisocentropus kirramus (Trichoptera: Calamoceratidae) from an Australian tropical rainforest stream. Freshwater Biology 29: 469–479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Otto, C., 1974. Growth and energetics in a larval population of Potamophylax cingulatus (Steph.) (Trichoptera) in a south Swedish stream. Journal of Animal Ecology 43: 339–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Richardson, J. S., C. R. Shaughnessy & P. G. Harrison, 2004. Litter breakdown and invertebrate association with three types of leaves in a temperate rainforest stream. Archiv für Hydrobiologie 159: 309–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Stout, R. J., W. H. Taft & R. W. Merritt, 1985. Patterns of macroinvertebrate colonization on fresh and senescent alder leaves in two Michigan streams. Freshwater Biology 15: 573–580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Wedderburn, M. E. & J. Carter, 1999. Litter decomposition by four functional tree types for use in silvopastoral systems. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 31: 455–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Yao, Y., 1965. An approximate degrees of freedom solution to the multivariate behrens-fisher problem. Biometrika 52: 139–147.Google Scholar
  35. Yeates, L. V. & L. A. Barmuta, 1999. The effects of willow and eucalypt leaves on feeding preference and growth of some Australian aquatic macroinvertebrates. Australian Journal of Ecology 24: 593–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Murray Darling Freshwater Research CentreLa Trobe UniversityWodongaAustralia
  2. 2.School of ZoologyUniversity of TasmaniaHobartAustralia

Personalised recommendations