Seasonal differences in amounts of oviposition habitat and egg‐laying by caddisflies in rivers with regulated versus unregulated flows
Handoko Wahjudi,William D. Bovill,Andrew J. Brooks,Barbara J. Downes
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/fwb.14236
IF: 3.538
2024-03-12
Freshwater Biology
Abstract:Few studies consider spatio‐temporal variation in egg‐laying for benthic insects in streams. However, such variation can have lasting effects on the numbers and distribution of offspring and subsquent life‐cycle stages. For species that require specific egg‐laying habitats, such as rocks that protrude from the water surface (emergent rocks, ER), densities of egg‐laying habitat can affect densities of benthic eggs and even larvae for some species. For such species, changes in water levels alter the spatio‐temporal distribution of ER and can affect densities of eggs and, potentially, larvae. Below dams, modified flow regimes may alter the temporal availability of ER. In this study we tested whether river regulation altered the availability of oviposition habitat and changed the phenology of oviposition compared to unregulated rivers. At multiple sites in two regulated (Murrumbidgee, Tumut) and three unregulated (Goobarragandra, Goodradigbee, Micalong) rivers (south‐east Australia), we surveyed densities of ER and egg masses of five species of caddisflies (family Hydrobiosidae) seasonally over 3 years (2019–2021). Samples of adults also were collected during two seasons using light traps. High flows in both regulated rivers submerged all rocks during spring and summer and low‐flow releases stranded rocks above the waterline at all (Murrumbidgee River) or most (Tumut River) sites during autumn and winter. No ER or egg masses were observed on any date in the Murrumbidgee River, despite relatively large catches of adults. On the Tumut River, low densities of ER and egg masses were twice observed at one site, during seasons (winter, autumn) when oviposition was low in the unregulated rivers. In unregulated rivers, ER and egg masses (five species, four genera) were present at all sites but with lower densities in winter than in other seasons. During peak oviposition periods, densities of egg masses per site were not strongly related to densities of ER. In summer 2019, ER in two unregulated rivers were blanketed by sheets of algae and sediment that appeared to prevent oviposition because no egg masses were observed at this time. In regulated rivers, aseasonal flows precluded egg‐laying by submerging (summer, autumn) or stranding (winter, spring) all or most ER. In contrast, ER were available all year in the unregulated rivers and egg‐laying occurred all year, except when ER were blanketed by algae and sediment. Within seasons, local densities of egg masses may be limited by numbers of gravid females, rather than numbers of ER, which differs from previous research. Identifying impediments to reproduction is critical to understanding variability in population numbers in natural and altered systems. Our observations of oviposition failure downstream of dams present a new hypothesis for why some insect species are absent from channels where flows are regulated for irrigation. Blankets of algae may similarly preclude reproduction in rivers with low‐flow conditions, but this remains untested.
ecology,marine & freshwater biology