Ecological Archives E000-000-A1
Adam Kautza and S. Măzeika P. Sullivan. The energetic contributions of
aquatic primary producers to terrestrial food webs in a mid-size river system.
Ecology VOL:pp–pp.
APPENDIX A. Map of study reaches
N
Olentangy River
R1
R12
150 km
Figure A1. Location of 12 ~1,200 m Scioto River System study reaches.
Ohio, USA
Ecological Archives E000-000-A2
Adam Kautza and S. Măzeika P. Sullivan. The energetic contributions of
aquatic primary producers to terrestrial food webs in a mid-size river system.
Ecology VOL:pp–pp.
Appendix B. Additional details related to methodology.
Riparian swallows
We captured aerial insectivorous birds (riparian swallow species; Hirundinidae) from each reach
using mist nets or nest boxes (see Alberts et al. 2013 for details relative to nest-box
methodology). We positioned mist nets (2.7 x 12 m, 30-mm mesh) in the most likely locations
(i.e., near shore, across sections of the river) to intercept birds based on observations of local
swallow behavior and flight patterns. We set and monitored mist nets during periods of greatest
bird activity (e.g., morning and late afternoon/evening) and immediately removed any bird
intercepted by the net. All bird collections were conducted during the breeding season
(approximately June-July in our study area; 2010–2013) as daily movement patterns of swallows
are constrained to areas around the nest during this time. The swallow species [bank (Riparia
riparia), cliff (Petrochelidon pyrrhonota), northern rough-winged (Stelgidopteryx serripennis),
and tree (Tachycineta bicolor) swallows] of our study are obligate aerial insectivores that breed
in river-riparian ecosystems offering appropriate nesting sites [e.g., tree cavities (tree swallows),
vertical river banks (bank and northern rough-winged swallows), and bridges (cliff swallows);
Robertson et al. 1992, Brown and Brown 1995, DeJong 1996, Garrison 1999]. We banded all
captured birds with aluminum USFWS size 0 bands (bank and northern rough-winged swallows)
or size 1 bands (cliff and tree swallows). We drew blood from the jugular vein of adult swallows
for use in stable isotope analysis following Sullivan and Vierling (2012) and Alberts et al.
(2013). We revisited each reach and continued to capture birds until we collected blood from at
least 6 individuals (except at R5 where we only captured two birds).
Raccoons
We trapped raccoons (Procyon lotor) in box traps (Tomahawk Live Trap Co., Tomahawk, WI),
baited with marshmallows and anise extract, during July and August 2012–2014. Bait was only
used as an attractant and was unavailable for raccoon consumption. We deployed traps overnight
in the riparian area along the length of each reach and within 50 m of the river and checked traps
at dawn the following morning. We used an intramuscular injection of Telazol to immobilize
captured raccoons following Gehrt et al. (2001). During the period of immobilization, we drew
blood (for use in stable isotope analysis) from the jugular vein. We were able to sample raccoons
from 10 of 12 study reaches. At five of 12 reaches we captured two raccoons, with one
individual sampled at each of the remaining five reaches. All trapping and handling of raccoons
followed the guidelines of the American Society of Mammology (Sikes et al. 2011).
Literature Cited
Alberts, J. M., S. M. P. Sullivan, and A. Kautza. 2013. Riparian swallows as integrators of
landscape change in a multiuse river system: implications for aquatic-to-terrestrial
transfers of contaminants. Science of the Total Environment 463:42-50.
Brown, C. R., and M. B. Brown. 1995. Cliff Swallow Hirundo pyrrhonota. Birds of North
America Species Account #149. The Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia and
the American Ornithologists Union, Philadelphia, PA. 32 pages.
DeJong, M. J. 1996. Northern rough-winged swallow Stelgidopteryx serripennis. Birds of North
America Species Account #234. The Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia and
the American Ornithologists Union, Philadelphia, PA. 24 pages.
Garrison, B. A. 1999. Bank swallow Riparia riparia. Birds of North America Species Account
#414. The Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia and the American Ornithologists
Union, Philadelphia, PA. 28 pages.
Gehrt, S. D., L. L. Hungerford, and S. Hatten. 2001. Drug effects on recaptures of raccoons.
Wildlife Society Bulletin 29:833-837.
Robertson, R. J., B. J. Stutchbury, and R. R. Cohen. 1992. Tree swallow Tachycineta bicolor.
Birds of North America Species Account #11. The Academy of Natural Sciences of
Philadelphia and the American Ornithologists Union, Philadelphia, PA. 26 pages.
Sikes, R. S., W. L. Gannon, and the Animal Care and Use Committee of the American Society of
Mammalogists. 2011. Journal of Mammology 92:235-253.
Sullivan, S. M. P., and K. T. Vierling. 2012. Exploring the influences of multiscale
environmental factors on the American dipper Cinclus mexicanus. Ecography 35:624636.
Ecological Archives E000-000-A3
Adam Kautza and S. Măzeika P. Sullivan. The energetic contributions of
aquatic primary producers to terrestrial food webs in a mid-size river system.
Ecology VOL:pp–pp.
APPENDIX C. Additional reach- and taxon-specific results.
Table C1. Mean and SD (in parentheses) for δ13C and δ15N of aquatic and terrestrial primary
producers and terrestrial riparian secondary consumers at the 12 Scioto River study reaches.
Raccoons were not observed at two study reaches (R1 and R6).
Primary producers
Benthic
algae
R1
R2
R3
R4
R5
R6
R7
Phytoplankton
Aquatic
macrophytes
Terrestrial
vegetation
δ13C
-21.12 (1.34)
-29.99 (1.42)
-28.91 (0.66)
-26.68 (0.31)
δ15N
11.07 (2.03)
9.21 (2.06)
13.04 (0.87)
5.46 (0.14)
δ13C
-22.57 (3.61)
-31.35 (3.39)
-29.47 (0.49)
-28.45 (0.60)
δ15N
10.95 (0.92)
8.22 (2.09)
12.84 (0.62)
3.13 (0.21)
δ13C
-17.22 (0.84)
-33.08 (1.99)
-28.83 (0.13)
-28.05 (1.17)
δ15N
8.42 (1.31)
9.42 (1.22)
12.13 (0.17)
3.19 (0.36)
δ13C
-24.00 (2.43)
-32.44 (3.28)
-29.73 (0.78)
-28.87 (0.61)
δ15N
9.75 (2.62)
10.12 (2.52)
12.94 (1.13)
5.91 (0.21)
δ13C
-23.58 (0.20)
-30.70 (0.27)
-28.79 (0.82)
-28.04 (0.59)
δ15N
9.86 (1.43)
8.64 (1.42)
13.86 (0.37)
6.86 (0.01)
δ13C
-20.64 (1.61)
-31.43 (1.77)
-28.38 (0.30)
-27.45 (1.17)
δ15N
8.90 (1.78)
9.80 (1.03)
10.06 (0.22)
6.52 (0.64)
δ13C
-21.48 (3.28)
-31.60 (2.71)
-28.24 (0.68)
-27.97 (0.42)
R8
R9
R10
R11
R12
δ15N
8.51 (1.11)
8.65 (0.69)
14.24 (1.69)
7.19 (0.18)
δ13C
-22.51 (4.40)
-31.13 (3.51)
-29.64 (0.84)
-26.87 (0.57)
δ15N
9.18 (1.13)
8.41 (2.51)
13.75 (1.10)
5.48 (0.41)
δ13C
-21.33 (5.43)
-32.46 (4.21)
-29.01 (0.27)
-28.62 (0.42)
δ15N
11.79 (0.86)
10.41 (0.40)
11.28 (0.23)
7.23 (0.10)
δ13C
-22.67 (1.05)
-33.01 (3.76)
-30.58 (1.07)
-28.39 (1.07)
δ15N
8.84 (1.13)
10.03 (0.23)
12.13 (1.34)
5.40 (0.08)
δ13C
-22.25 (5.72)
-32.58 (3.27)
-29.35 (0.65)
-29.14 (1.11)
δ15N
9.00 (1.32)
11.33 (1.65)
12.44 (1.59)
5.22 (0.04)
δ13C
-21.84 (6.48)
-32.20 (3.10)
-27.93 (0.44)
-28.26 (0.93)
δ15N
9.69 (2.27)
9.50 (0.97)
11.06 (1.69)
5.09 (0.17)
Table C1 (continued).
Terrestrial consumers
Orb-weaving
spiders
(Tetragnathidae)
Rove beetles
(Staphylinidae)
Narrow-wing
damselflies
(Coenagrionidae)
Riparian
swallows
(Hirundinidae)
Raccoons
(Procyon
lotor)
-26.38 (0.35)
-25.85 (0.64)
-25.82 (0.62)
-24.73 (0.40)
-
13.82 (0.39)
12.33 (0.76)
12.47 (0.57)
10.35 (0.30)
-
-27.87 (1.60)
-29.19 (0.95)
-26.97 (0.21)
-24.55 (0.66)
-21.52 (0.75)
12.00 (1.21)
7.90 (1.12)
10.52 (0.84)
11.00 (0.44)
7.97 (0.55)
-30.54 (0.59)
-24.08 (2.87)
-28.50 (1.01)
-24.38 (0.52)
-20.39 (-)
13.46 (0.34)
7.60 (0.39)
12.32 (0.98)
10.14 (0.93)
7.95 (-)
-28.05 (0.41)
-26.52 (1.01)
-27.19 (2.08)
-25.88 (0.51)
-22.70 (0.25)
12.30 (1.91)
10.31 (1.09)
12.33 (1.37)
12.16 (1.25)
7.91 (0.68)
-27.55 (1.05)
-26.28 (2.23)
-25.61 (1.54)
-24.88 (1.03)
-22.53 (-)
12.09 (0.58)
10.95 (1.20)
10.55 (1.25)
9.72 (0.06)
10.60 (-)
-26.90 (0.09)
-24.92 (2.16)
-26.71 (0.95)
-24.26 (0.93)
-
12.46 (0.30)
9.92 (0.91)
12.77 (1.16)
11.03 (1.05)
-
-27.68 (0.10)
-28.96 (1.75)
-27.75 (1.37)
-22.73 (1.05)
-22.83 (-)
11.30 (1.02)
8.92 (1.71)
11.12 (0.71)
8.64 (0.19)
9.01 (-)
-27.94 (0.57)
-26.19 (0.45)
-27.36 (0.30)
-26.75 (0.79)
-24.80 (0.29)
12.36 (0.57)
9.72 (0.27)
11.34 (1.24)
12.78 (0.90)
9.71 (0.68)
-27.76 (0.32)
-26.34 (1.27)
-27.72 (1.84)
-24.42 (0.71)
-23.51 (0.35)
12.71 (0.67)
9.93 (0.60)
11.77 (0.57)
10.37 (0.85)
10.13 (0.04)
-27.13 (0.79)
-24.96 (1.44)
-26.49 (1.03)
-23.36 (0.24)
-20.00 (0.77)
14.00 (2.28)
10.68 (1.77)
11.28 (1.53)
7.91 (0.77)
7.37 (0.93)
-27.00 (1.35)
-26.44 (0.59)
-26.40 (0.98)
-25.15 (0.34)
-16.87 (-)
11.90 (0.72)
11.72 (1.15)
12.04 (1.90)
10.87 (0.47)
7.78 (-)
-25.91 (1.99)
-25.94 (1.47)
-26.77 (0.54)
-24.28 (0.75)
-16.65 (-)
12.25 (0.65)
8.09 (0.19)
12.23 (1.48)
11.15 (1.00)
8.66 (-)
Table C2. Mean proportional contributions and 95% credible intervals of aquatic (periphyton,
phytoplankton, macrophytes) and terrestrial primary producer sources to terrestrial riparian
consumers. Estimates of means and variability of nutritional contributions were derived from the
Bayesian stable isotope mixing model MixSIAR (Stock and Semmens 2013) in R (R Core Team
2014).
All
Tetraganthidae
Staphylinidae
Source
Mean
95% CI
Mean
95% CI
Mean
95% CI
Periphyton
0.07
0.004-0.21
0.07
0.001-0.24
0.07
0.002-0.22
Phytoplankton
0.21
0.03-0.51
0.24
0.01-0.69
0.22
0.01-0.53
Macrophytes
0.17
0.02-0.37
0.23
0.01-0.52
0.17
0.01-0.37
Terrestrial
0.55
0.12-0.74
0.46
0.17-0.68
0.54
0.23-0.82
Periphyton
0.19
0.08-0.31
0.08
0.01-0.28
0.04
0.01-0.15
Phytoplankton
0.22
0.03-0.57
0.35
0.003-0.77
0.29
0.001-0.75
Macrophytes
0.08
0.02-0.27
0.13
0.003-0.37
0.04
0.002-0.15
Terrestrial
0.51
0.17-0.74
0.44
0.05-0.84
0.63
0.07-0.93
Periphyton
0.15
0.04-0.22
0.06
0.004-0.16
0.04
0.01-0.17
Phytoplankton
0.27
0.11-0.59
0.51
0.26-0.79
0.07
0.01-0.21
Macrophytes
0.08
0.001-0.18
0.12
0.002-0.23
0.03
0.00-0.08
Terrestrial
0.50
0.18-0.69
0.31
0.05-0.54
0.86
0.66-0.96
Periphyton
0.10
0.01-0.29
0.07
0.004-0.25
0.08
0.003-0.25
Phytoplankton
0.14
0.01-0.52
0.16
0.003-0.60
0.12
0.003-0.44
Macrophytes
0.15
0.01-0.37
0.17
0.004-0.54
0.12
0.005-0.29
Terrestrial
0.61
0.27-0.90
0.60
0.14-0.93
0.68
0.25-0.94
Periphyton
0.14
0.003-0.36
0.05
0.004-0.24
0.04
0.001-0.18
Phytoplankton
0.17
0.01-0.36
0.36
0.01-0.73
0.19
0.05-0.42
Macrophytes
0.03
0.001-0.13
0.03
0.00-0.20
0.02
0.00-0.09
Terrestrial
0.66
0.33-0.88
0.56
0.16-0.90
0.75
0.44-0.99
Periphyton
0.13
0.01-0.45
0.08
0.01-0.25
0.10
0.003-0.30
Phytoplankton
0.16
0.01-0.51
0.23
0.01-0.59
0.11
0.01-0.28
Macrophytes
0.20
0.01-0.46
0.29
0.02-0.60
0.11
0.01-0.25
Terrestrial
0.51
0.23-0.79
0.40
0.10-0.81
0.68
0.40-0.91
Periphyton
0.19
0.01-0.45
0.13
0.003-0.40
0.10
0.004-0.25
Phytoplankton
0.26
0.02-0.54
0.33
0.01-0.71
0.31
0.02-0.74
Macrophytes
0.08
0.002-0.17
0.07
0.001-0.30
0.09
0.001-0.18
Terrestrial
0.47
0.06-0.73
0.47
0.10-0.89
0.50
0.11-0.79
Periphyton
0.08
0.004-0.28
0.08
0.002-0.33
0.06
0.001-0.16
Phytoplankton
0.22
0.01-0.60
0.28
0.01-0.69
0.21
0.01-0.80
Macrophytes
0.10
0.01-0.29
0.13
0.003-0.43
0.06
0.001-0.15
Terrestrial
0.60
0.17-0.86
0.51
0.10-0.88
0.67
0.05-0.98
Periphyton
0.10
0.04-0.28
0.06
0.01-0.24
0.07
0.01-0.22
Phytoplankton
0.16
0.02-0.43
0.19
0.02-0.57
0.14
0.01-0.58
Macrophytes
0.12
0.01-0.26
0.24
0.01-0.60
0.08
0.001-0.23
Terrestrial
0.62
0.26-0.83
0.51
0.12-0.91
0.71
0.31-0.97
Periphyton
0.19
0.02-0.63
0.11
0.01-0.44
0.09
0.001-0.33
Phytoplankton
0.08
0.004-0.33
0.14
0.001-0.53
0.06
0.001-0.39
Macrophytes
0.07
0.002-0.21
0.19
0.001-0.54
0.02
0.001-0.20
Terrestrial
0.66
0.33-0.92
0.56
0.12-0.90
0.83
0.32-0.99
Periphyton
0.17
0.08-0.39
0.16
0.02-0.36
0.16
0.02-0.39
Phytoplankton
0.12
0.004-0.36
0.13
0.002-0.52
0.12
0.002-0.42
Macrophytes
0.15
0.01-0.29
0.15
0.002-0.44
0.16
0.002-0.41
Terrestrial
0.56
0.29-0.79
0.56
0.18-0.90
0.56
0.23-0.89
Periphyton
0.14
0.05-0.40
0.13
0.03-0.37
0.08
0.01-0.17
Phytoplankton
0.10
0.01-0.27
0.11
0.004-0.44
0.06
0.001-0.14
Macrophytes
0.14
0.01-0.33
0.16
0.01-0.53
0.08
0.001-0.15
Terrestrial
0.62
0.36-0.77
0.60
0.20-0.86
0.78
0.61-0.90
Table C2 (continued).
Coenagrionidae
Riparian swallows
Raccoons
Mean
95% CI
Mean
95% CI
Mean
95% CI
0.07
0.002-0.20
0.06
0.001-0.17
-
-
0.22
0.02-0.50
0.17
0.01-0.40
-
-
0.17
0.02-0.37
0.12
0.01-0.23
-
-
0.54
0.30-0.76
0.65
0.39-0.83
-
-
0.09
0.04-0.25
0.33
0.22-0.45
0.39
0.01-0.77
0.20
0.01-0.55
0.12
0.01-0.28
0.15
0.01-0.75
0.12
0.01-0.27
0.09
0.01-0.23
0.04
0.00-0.08
0.59
0.28-0.86
0.46
0.24-0.60
0.42
0.13-0.92
0.04
0.01-0.18
0.25
0.15-0.37
0.30
0.07-0.91
0.52
0.22-0.67
0.12
0.04-0.28
0.15
0.003-0.29
0.11
0.01-0.21
0.08
0.001-0.15
0.08
0.001-0.17
0.33
0.18-0.60
0.55
0.37-0.68
0.47
0.16-0.97
0.09
0.01-0.29
0.11
0.01-0.31
0.15
0.00-0.58
0.15
0.01-0.50
0.13
0.01-0.43
0.13
0.02-0.60
0.16
0.01-0.37
0.17
0.01-0.47
0.12
0.002-0.23
0.60
0.22-0.87
0.59
0.24-0.84
0.60
0.10-0.98
0.06
0.002-0.31
0.13
0.001-0.47
0.44
0.14-0.86
0.09
0.003-0.35
0.08
0.001-0.35
0.11
0.002-0.49
0.02
0.001-0.12
0.02
0.00-0.14
0.04
0.00-0.26
0.83
0.46-0.99
0.77
0.30-0.98
0.41
0.05-0.90
0.09
0.02-0.28
0.24
0.01-0.49
-
-
0.21
0.01-0.50
0.09
0.01-0.31
-
-
0.31
0.06-0.79
0.09
0.004-0.30
-
-
0.39
0.17-0.69
0.58
0.21-0.88
-
-
0.10
0.003-0.41
0.35
0.22-0.59
0.28
0.12-0.43
0.33
0.01-0.76
0.14
0.01-0.52
0.20
0.01-0.60
0.14
0.003-0.39
0.03
0.001-0.16
0.07
0.00-0.16
0.43
0.08-0.83
0.48
0.10-0.77
0.45
0.13-0.81
0.09
0.004-0.28
0.10
0.002-0.43
0.09
0.001-0.27
0.24
0.01-0.61
0.20
0.01-0.56
0.17
0.03-0.40
0.10
0.01-0.29
0.14
0.01-0.43
0.07
0.001-0.15
0.57
0.15-0.88
0.56
0.13-0.90
0.67
0.22-0.97
0.07
0.01-0.28
0.14
0.04-0.28
0.15
0.004-0.31
0.20
0.01-0.62
0.11
0.01-0.41
0.16
0.01-0.69
0.13
0.002-0.44
0.07
0.004-0.24
0.09
0.00-0.18
0.60
0.09-0.92
0.68
0.29-0.89
0.60
0.08-0.96
0.07
0.001-0.29
0.22
0.01-0.43
0.45
0.09-0.87
0.10
0.001-0.47
0.04
0.001-0.28
0.08
0.001-0.80
0.09
0.001-0.43
0.02
0.001-0.19
0.03
0.001-0.13
0.74
0.33-0.99
0.72
0.36-0.95
0.44
0.21-0.69
0.16
0.02-0.36
0.19
0.09-0.38
0.19
0.03-0.60
0.12
0.002-0.52
0.11
0.004-0.35
0.12
0.001-0.74
0.16
0.002-0.45
0.13
0.004-0.30
0.15
0.003-0.35
0.56
0.16-0.90
0.57
0.29-0.78
0.54
0.12-0.85
0.09
0.01-0.29
0.20
0.09-0.39
0.20
0.002-0.51
0.15
0.002-0.52
0.07
0.01-0.26
0.10
0.001-0.23
0.21
0.004-0.61
0.12
0.01-0.32
0.13
0.002-0.21
0.55
0.15-0.89
0.61
0.37-0.78
0.57
0.14-0.90
Table C3. Abundance and biomass (mg) of Chironomidae, the most numerically-dominant
emergent aquatic insect family collected from floating emergent insect traps across the 12 study
reaches. Also shown are mixing model (MixSIAR) estimates for the nutritional contributions of
primary producers to adult Chironomidae and crayfish, which are both potentially important prey
for a suite of terrestrial riparian consumers. Included are total estimated contributions from all
aquatic primary producer sources, as well as from each individual source (periphyton,
phytoplankton, and macrophytes). Estimates of the total available biomass of aquatic versus
terrestrially-derived nutritional subsidies (i.e., energy) transported to terrestrial riparian
consumers via emerging chironomids was calculated by multiplying emergent chironomid
biomass by the reliance (%) on aquatic vs. terrestrially primary producers assessed from stable
isotope mixing models.
R1
R2
R3
R4
R5
R6
Abundance
3,402
2,737
1,357
2,606
6,145
5,316
Biomass (mg)
197.9
326.4
152.4
505.1
1,398.3
636.2
78
70
74
36
48
60
7
17
5
4
8
3
Phytoplankton (%)
61
25
49
22
31
24
Macrophytes (%)
10
28
20
10
9
34
43.5
97.9
39.6
323.3
727.1
254.5
154.4
228.5
112.8
181.8
671.2
381.7
Chironomidae
Aquatically-derived energy sources
contributing to Chironomidae
Total (%)
Periphyton (%)
Biomass of energy sources
transported in Chironomidae (mg)
From terrestrial detritus
From aquatic primary producers
Crayfish (Orconectes rusticus)
Aquatically-derived energy sources
contributing to crayfish
Total (%)
61
53
62
51
49
61
Periphyton (%)
13
8
4
7
3
6
Phytoplankton (%)
31
28
40
23
32
32
Macrophytes (%)
17
17
18
21
14
23
Table C3 (continued).
R7
R8
R9
R10
R11
R12
MEAN
SD
10,333
5,821
11,068
3,278
1,608
1,789
4,621.7
3,262.6
2,373.3
762.3
2,699.2
1,217.0
739.3
574.4
965.2
823.7
35
47
42
65
45
43
54
15
5
12
3
29
9
10
9
7
19
19
9
13
19
15
26
15
11
16
30
13
17
18
18
8
1,542.6
404.0
1,565.5
669.4
406.6
327.4
329.3
238.1
830.7
358.3
1,133.7
547.7
332.7
247.0
367.9
227.9
65
55
63
63
57
62
59
5
8
12
8
17
10
9
9
4
34
24
17
15
14
17
26
9
23
19
38
31
33
36
24
8
Figure C1. Reliance on aquatically-derived (separated into periphyton, phytoplankton, and
aquatic macrophyte compartments) and terrestrially-derived energy by a suite of terrestrial
consumers at 12 reaches across the Scioto River system, Ohio, USA. “NA” for R1 and R6
indicates that no raccoons were captured at these reaches. Estimates are based on Bayesian
mixing models using MixSIAR (Stock and Semmens 2013) in R (R Core Team 2014).
Literature Cited
R Core Team. 2014. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for
Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. http://www.R-project.org/
Stock, B. C., and B. X. Semmens. 2013. MixSIAR GUI User Manual, version 1.0.
http://conserver.iugo-cae.org/user/brice.semmens/MixSIAR.