Dissemin is shutting down on January 1st, 2025

Published in

Wiley, Ecological Applications, 2(34), 2023

DOI: 10.1002/eap.2939

Links

Tools

Export citation

Search in Google Scholar

Facilitating the recovery of insect communities in restored streams by increasing oviposition habitat

Journal article published in 2023 by Samantha Dilworth ORCID, Brad W. Taylor ORCID
This paper was not found in any repository, but could be made available legally by the author.
This paper was not found in any repository, but could be made available legally by the author.

Full text: Unavailable

Green circle
Preprint: archiving allowed
Orange circle
Postprint: archiving restricted
Red circle
Published version: archiving forbidden
Data provided by SHERPA/RoMEO

Abstract

AbstractRecruitment limitation is known to influence species abundances and distributions. Recognition of how and why it occurs both in natural and in designed environments could improve restoration. Aquatic insects, for instance, rarely reestablish in restored streams to levels comparable to reference streams even years after restoration. We experimentally increased oviposition habitat in five out of 10 restored streams in western North Carolina to test whether insect egg‐laying habitat was limiting insect populations in restored streams. A main goal was to test whether adding oviposition habitat in the form of rocks that partially protrude above the water surface could be used to increase the abundance and richness of stream insect eggs and larval insects in restored streams. Adding egg‐laying habitat enhanced several response variables (e.g., protruding rocks, number of eggs, egg masses, egg morphotype richness, and oviposition habitat stability) to levels similar to those found in reference streams. Following the addition of protruding rocks, egg mass abundance increased by 186% and richness by 77% in restored‐treated streams. Densities of larval insects that attached their eggs to protruding rocks showed an overall pattern consistent with treatment effects due to the combination of nonsignificant and significant increases of several taxa and not just one taxon. Our results indicate that these stream insect populations are limited by oviposition habitat and that adding egg‐laying habitat alleviated this component of recruitment limitation. However, the weaker larval response indicates that additional post‐recruitment factors, such as egg or larval mortality, may still be limiting a full recovery of larval insect abundances in these restored streams. This study shows the importance of integrating information from animal life histories, ecology, and geomorphology into restoration practices to improve the recovery of aquatic insects, which are commonly used to assess water quality and the biological efficacy of stream restoration.