Mesocosm and field experiments reveal macroinvertebrates favor algae and terrestrial resources for essential amino acids.
In river food webs, the energetic coupling of nutrient‐rich “fast” autochthonous (algal) and recalcitrant “slow” allochthonous (terrestrial) resources may confer stability. Additionally, microbial biofilms may enhance the nutritional quality of allochthonous resources for macroinvertebrate consumers, potentially facilitating trophic linkages within slow energy channels. We used 16S and 18S rRNA gene sequencing and essential amino acid (AA ESS ) carbon isotope (δ 13 C) analysis to characterize microbial biofilms and quantify proportional contributions of AA ESS derived from algae, terrestrial plants, and microbes (archaea, bacteria, fungi) to macroinvertebrates across a series of mesocosm and field leaf pack experiments in the middle Rio Grande of central New Mexico, USA. In our 12‐week mesocosm experiment, leaves of native Rio Grande Cottonwood trees ( Populus deltoides wislizeni ) contributed greater mean estimated proportions of AA ESS (0.41–0.81) to Chironomidae larvae than those of nonnative Russian Olive trees ( Elaeagnus angustifolia ; 0.18–0.50). Microbes were notable sources of AA ESS to macroinvertebrates inhabiting native C 4 grass (Spike Dropseed; Sporobolus contractus ) leaf packs (0.08–0.26). Our field experiment demonstrated river sediment was the main source of microbes colonizing submerged Cottonwood leaves and that allochthonous resource use varied across macroinvertebrate taxa, such that Chironomidae assimilated the highest mean estimated proportions of AA ESS from leaves (0.36–0.65), while Ephemeroptera and Trichoptera assimilated the highest mean estimated proportions of AA ESS from algae (0.82–0.94). Our work indicates terrestrial tree leaves are important sources of AA ESS to Chironomidae, while algae are the dominant source of AA ESS to other macroinvertebrates in the middle Rio Grande.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Besser et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: