, 675:129 | Cite as

Stoichiometric relationship between suspension-feeding caddisfly (Trichoptera: Brachycentridae) and seston

  • Jason A. Veldboom
  • Roger J. Haro
Primary Research Paper


Organisms must acquire adequate amounts of carbon (C) and nutrients [i.e., nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P)] from their food to support growth. The growth of organisms can be constrained by consumer-resource elemental imbalances in C:nutrient ratios, especially in aquatic ecosystems. Furthermore, the elemental composition of aquatic organisms can change through ontogeny, which can impose additional challenges to growth (the growth rate hypothesis), terminal body size, and reproductive output. In streams, growth in larval aquatic insects is influenced primarily by food quality and quantity, temperature, and population density. We conducted a field study that tracked the growth of a common suspension-feeding caddisfly (Brachycentrus occidentalis) through its ontogeny by comparing the elemental composition (C:N:P) of the organism with its available food supply (suspended particulate organic matter or seston). Larvae and seston were sampled from four streams throughout 1 year. Differences in the growth of larvae among the streams were evident, even though the streams possessed similar thermal regimes. Spatial and temporal differences in the nutrient contents of B. occidentalis and seston were observed, suggesting a consumer-resource elemental imbalance. Lower C:P and N:P ratios in food were positively correlated to larval growth rate, suggesting growth was limited by P. The C, N, and P contents in B. occidentalis’ body tissue did change throughout ontogeny. C:nutrient ratios varied across sites during larval development; however, inter-site variation decreased substantially as the populations approached pupation. Ultimately, consumer-resource elemental imbalances during the larval stage did not lead to differences in pre-emergent standing stocks across sites.


Ecological stoichiometry Elemental imbalance Larval growth Seston Trichoptera 



The authors thank E. Strauss, W. Richardson, M. Sandheinrich, J. Saros, and T. Gerber for their comments on this manuscript. Funding to support this research was received from the University of Wisconsin-La Crosse Office of Graduate Studies, the University of Wisconsin-La Crosse River Studies Center, and the National Science Foundation (DBI-0216204).


  1. Allen, J. D., 1995. Stream Ecology: Structure and Function of Running Waters. Chapman and Hall, London, UK.Google Scholar
  2. Angradi, T. R. & J. S. Griffith, 1990. Diel feeding chronology and diet selection of Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) in the Henrys Fork of the Snake River, Idaho. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 47: 199–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. APHA, 2002. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 21st ed. American Public Health Association, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
  4. Back, J. A., J. M. Taylor, R. S. King, K. L. Fallert & E. H. Hintzen, 2008. Ontogenetic differences in mayfly stoichiometry influence growth rates in response to phosphorus enrichment. Archiv fur Hydrobiologie 3: 233–240.Google Scholar
  5. Biggs, B. J. F., D. G. Goring & V. I. Nikora, 1998. Subsidy and stress responses of stream periphyton to gradients in water velocity as a function of community growth form. Journal of Phycology 34: 598–607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Boersma, M. & J. J. Elser, 2006. Too much of a good thing: on stoichiometrically balanced diets and maximal growth. Ecology 87: 1325–1330.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bowman, M. F., P. A. Chambers & D. W. Schindler, 2005. Changes in stoichiometric constraints on epilithon and benthic macroinvertebrates in response to slight nutrient enrichment of mountain rivers. Freshwater Biology 50: 1836–1852.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cavanaugh, J. C., R. J. Haro & S. N. Jones, 2004. Conspecific cases as alternative grazing surfaces for larval Glossosoma intermedium (Trichoptera: Glossosomatidae). Journal of the North American Benthological Society 23: 297–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chapman, R. F., 1998. The Insects: Structure and Function. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
  10. Christian, A. D., B. G. Crump & D. J. Berg, 2008. Nutrient release and ecological stoichiometry of freshwater mussels (Mollusca: Unionidae) in 2 small, regionally distinct streams. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 27: 440–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cross, W. F., J. P. Benstead, P. C. Frost & S. A. Thomas, 2005. Ecological stoichiometry in freshwater benthic systems: recent progress and perspectives. Freshwater Biology 50: 1895–1912.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cross, W. F., J. P. Benstead, A. D. Rosemond & J. B. Wallace, 2003. Consumer-resource stoichiometry in detritus-based streams. Ecology Letters 6: 721–732.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cross, W. F., J. B. Wallace & A. D. Rosmond, 2007. Nutrient enrichment reduces constraints on material flows in a detritus-based food web. Ecology 88: 2563–2575.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cummins, K. W. & M. J. Klug, 1979. Feeding ecology of stream invertebrates. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 10: 147–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Deuschle, D. R., 2001. Effects of deposited sediment on a keystone grazer, Glossosoma intermedium (Trichoptera: Glossosomatidae) and its associated macroinvertebrate community in southwest Wisconsin streams. Master’s Thesis. University of Wisconsin-La Crosse, La Crosse, Wisconsin.Google Scholar
  16. Dodds, W. K., 1991. Community interactions between the filamentous alga Cladophora glomerata (L.) Kuetzing, its epiphytes, and epiphyte grazers. Oecologia 85: 572–580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Elliott, S. R., R. J. Naiman & P. A. Bisson, 2004. Riparian influences on the biophysical characteristics of seston in headwater streams. Northwest Science 78: 150–157.Google Scholar
  18. Evans-White, M. A., R. S. Stelzer & G. A. Lamberti, 2005. Taxonomic and regional patterns in benthic macroinvertebrate elemental composition in streams. Freshwater Biology 50: 1786–1799.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fairchild, M. P. & J. R. Holomuzki, 2002. Spatial variability and assemblage structure of stream hydropsychid caddisflies. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 21: 576–588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fink, P., L. Peters & E. Von Elert, 2006. Stoichiometric mismatch between littoral invertebrates and their periphyton food. Archiv fur Hydrobiologie 2: 145–165.Google Scholar
  21. Flint, O. S., 1984. The genus Brachycentrus in North America, with a proposed phylogeny of the genera of Brachycentridae (Trichoptera). Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology 398: 1–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Franken, R. J. M., B. Waluto, E. Peeters, J. J. P. Gardeniers, J. A. J. Beijer & M. Scheffer, 2005. Growth of shredders on leaf litter biofilms: the effect of light intensity. Freshwater Biology 50: 459–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Frost, P. C., J. J. Elser & M. A. Turner, 2002. Effects of caddisfly grazers on the elemental composition of epilithon in a Boreal Lake. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 21: 54–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Frost, P. C., S. E. Tank, M. A. Turner & J. J. Elser, 2003. Elemental composition of littoral invertebrates from oligotrophic and eutrophic Canadian lakes. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 22: 51–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Fuller, R. L. & C. Desmond, 1997. Influence of food type on the growth of early and late instars of three mayfly (Ephemeroptera) species. Archiv fur Hydrobiologie 141: 1–11.Google Scholar
  26. Gallepp, G. W., 1977. Response of caddisfly larvae (Brachycentrus spp.) to temperature, food availability and current velocity. The American Midland Naturalist 98: 59–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gallepp, G. W., 1974. Diel periodicity in the behaviour of the caddisfly, Brachycentrus americanus (Banks). Freshwater Biology 4: 193–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hart, D. D., 1987. Experimental studies of exploitative competition in a grazing stream insects. Oecologia 73: 41–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hildrew, A. G., 1992. The Rivers Handbook, Vol. I. Blackwell Scientific Publications, London.Google Scholar
  30. Hilsenhoff, W. L., 1985. The Brachycentridae (Trichoptera) of Wisconsin. The Great Lakes Entomologist 18: 149–154.Google Scholar
  31. Lepneva, S. G., 1966. Larvae and pupae of the suborder Integripalpia: Trichoptera. Fauna of the U.S.S.R. Akademiya Nauk SSSR 2(2): 700 pp.Google Scholar
  32. Liess, A. & H. Hillebrand, 2005. Stoichiometric variation in C:N, C:P, and N:P ratios of littoral benthic invertebrates. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 24: 256–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Maier, K. J., P. Kosalwat & A. W. Knight, 1990. Culture of Chironomus decorus (Diptera, Chironomidae) and the effect of temperature on its life history. Environmental Entomology 19: 1681–1688.Google Scholar
  34. Main, T. M., D. R. Dobberfuhl & J. J. Elser, 1997. N:P stoichiometry and ontogeny of crustacean zooplankton: a test of the growth rate hypothesis. Limnology and Oceanography 42: 1474–1478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Martinson, H. M., K. Schneider, J. Gilbert, J. E. Hines, P. A. Hamback & W. F. Fagan, 2008. Detritivory: stoichiometry of a neglected trophic level. Ecological Research 23: 487–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Mulholland, P. J. & A. D. Rosemond, 1992. Periphyton response to longitudinal nutrient depletion in a woodland stream: evidence of upstream-downstream linkage. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 11: 405–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Naddafi, R., P. Eklov & K. Pettersson, 2009. Stoichiometric constraints do not limit successful invaders: zebra mussels in Swedish lakes. PLoS ONE 4: e5345.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Ohkawa, A. & T. Ito, 2001. Terrestrial insect ingestion by filter feeding caddisfly larvae, Brachycentrus americanus (Trichoptera). Journal of Freshwater Ecology 16: 263–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Plath, K. & M. Boersma, 2001. Mineral limitation of zooplankton: stoichiometric constraints and optimal foraging. Ecology 82: 1260–1269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Rosi-Marshall, E. J., 2004. Decline in the quality of matter as a food resource: suspended fine particulate for chironomids downstream of an urban area. Freshwater Biology 49: 515–525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Steinman, A. D. & P. J. Mulholland, 1996. Phosphorus limitation, uptake and turnover in stream algae. In Hauer, F. R. & G. A. Lamberti (eds), Methods in Stream Ecology. Academic Press, San Diego, CA: 161–190.Google Scholar
  42. Stelzer, R. S. & G. A. Lamberti, 2002. Ecological stoichiometry in running waters: periphyton chemical composition and snail growth. Ecology 83: 1039–1051.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Sterner, R. W. & J. J. Elser, 2002. Ecological Stoichiometry: The Biology of Elements from Molecules to the Biosphere. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.Google Scholar
  44. Strogen, J. W. Jr., 1979. A comparison of the diet and growth of the trout from the Upper Au Sable and Upper Manistee Rivers, Michigan. Michigan Department of Natural Resoucres, Fisheries Research Report #1867.Google Scholar
  45. Vannote, R. L. & B. W. Sweeney, 1980. Geographic analysis of thermal equilibria: a conceptual model for evaluating the effect of natural and modified thermal regimes on aquatic insect communities. American Naturalist 115: 667–695.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Vannote, R. L., G. W. Minshall, K. W. Cummings, J. R. Sedell & C. E. Cushing, 1980. The river continuum concept. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 37: 130–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Villar-Argaiz, M., J. M. Medina-Sanchez & P. Carrillo, 2002. Linking life history strategies and ontogeny in crustacean zooplankton: implications for homeostasis. Ecology 83: 1899–1914.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Voelz, N. J. & J. V. Ward, 1996. Microdistributions, food resources and feeding habits of filter-feeding Trichoptera in the Upper Colorado River. Archiv fur Hydrobiologie 137: 325–348.Google Scholar
  49. Wallace, J. B. & J. W. Grubaugh, 1996. Transport and storage of FPOM. In Hauer, F. R. & G. A. Lamberti (eds), Methods in Stream Ecology. Academic Press, San Diego, CA: 191–215.Google Scholar
  50. Wallace, J. B. & R. W. Merritt, 1980. Filter-feeding ecology of aquatic insects. Annual Review of Entomology 25: 103–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Whiles, M. R. & W. K. Dodds, 2002. Relationships between stream size, suspended particles, and filter-feeding macroinvertebrates in a Great Plains drainage network. Journal of Environmental Quality 31: 1589–1600.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.River Studies CenterUniversity of Wisconsin-La CrosseLa CrosseUSA
  2. 2.U.S. Geological Survey, Upper Midwest Environmental Sciences CenterLa CrosseUSA

Personalised recommendations