Influence of the surface roughness of hard substrates on the attachment of selected running water macrozoobenthos [Elektronische Ressource] / Petra Ditsche-Kuru

Petra Ditsche-Kuru

Sujets

• Naturwissenschaften

Informations

• Publié par: rheinische_friedrich-wilhelms-universitat_bonn
• Publié le: 01 janvier 2009
• Nombre de lectures: 119
• Langue: English
• Poids de l'ouvrage: 4 Mo

Extrait

Influence of the surface roughness of
hard substrates on the attachment
of selected running water macrozoobenthos



Dissertation


zur
Erlangung des Doktorgrades (Dr. rer. nat.)
der Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftlichen Fakultät
der
Rheinischen Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität


vorgelegt von



Petra Ditsche-Kuru


aus

Mönchengladbach



Bonn, 2009 Angefertigt mit Genehmigung der Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftlichen Fakultät der
Rheinischen Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität Bonn

































1. Referent: Prof. Dr. rer. nat. habil. Wilhelm Barthlott
2. Referent: PD Dr. rer. nat. habil. Jochen Koop

Tag der Promotion



Contents

Preface and acknowledgements 1

1. General introduction 3

2. Background and state of knowledge 5
2.1 Current in running waters 5
2.2 The influence of current on aquatic macroinvertebrates 8
2.3 Attachment devices of torrential macroinvertebrates 14
2.4 Surface texture of hard substrates and its influence on the attachment
of macrozoobenthos 20

3. The surface roughness of natural hard substrates in running waters and its
influence on the distribution of selected macrozoobenthos organisms 24
3.1 Introduction 26
3.2 Study area 28
3.3 Material and methods 30
3.4 Results 33
3.5 Discussion 46
3.6 Conclusions and outlook 51

4. New insights into a life in current: Do the gill lamellae of Epeorus assimilis
and Iron alpicola larvae (Heptageniidae) fuction as a sucker or as
friction pads? 54
4.1 Introduction 55
4.2 Material and methods 56
4.3 Results 58
4.4 Discussion 62




5. Underwater attachment in current: The role of gill lamella surfaces of
the mayfly larvae Epeorus assimilis in attachment to substrates of
different roughness 67
5.1 Introduction 68
5.2 Material and methods 70
5.3 Results 73
5.4 Discussion 80

6. Which surface roughness does the claw need to cling to the substrate? –
Investigations on the running water mayfly larvae Epeorus assimilis
(Heptageniidae, Ephemeroptera) 85
6.1 Introduction 86
6.2 Material and methods 88
6.3 Results 91
6.4 Discussion 99

7. General Discussion 105

8. Summary 113

9. Zusammenfassung 115

References 117

Appendix 132

Curriculum vitae 164
List of abbreviations

ANOVA analyse of variances
d.f. degree of freedom
Chi-Sq Chi-Square
λc wavelength
µ friction coefficient
Δ µ difference of friction coefficients in larvae with and without gill lamellae
F friction force
Δ F difference of friction force in larvae with and without gill lamellae
HMDS 1,1,1,3,3,3-Hexamethyldisilasan
p-profile unfiltered profile
P Probability value
r-profile filtered profile
Ra arithmetic roughness average
Ra Ra measured in coarse roughness setting H0
Ra Ra measured in fine roughness setting H2
Re Reynolds number
Rk core roughness depth
RK core roughness ratio
Rpk reduced peak height
RPk peak-valley proportion
Rvk reduced valley depth
Rz average maximum height of the profile
S substrate
S1-S4 types
SEM scanning electron microscopy
S.D. standard deviation
ST 1-4 seta types
V flow velocity
W1-W3 three ranges of normal forces applied in experiments
Preface and acknowledgements

Everybody who ever tried to swim against the flow or simply puts his hand in flowing water
gets an impression of the forces acting on animals in running waters. To cope with these flow
forces animals developed a fascinating diversity of adaptations like attachment devices
supporting bottom dewlling animals to maintain their position in the current. So far little is
known about the interplaybetween the microtexture of solid substrates and these attachment
devices. Are there surface textures animals cannot hold on? Are there other textures
advantageous to cling to? Dealing with these questions I was able to find first interesting
answers. Also I realized that we just start to understand this interplay and much more work
can (and should) be devoted to this topic in future.
This thesis was carried out at the Nees Institute for Biodiversity of Plants (University of
Bonn) in close collaboration with the german Federal Institute of Hydrology (Koblenz). This
work was accomplished under the project “Investigation of the relation between surface
texture and macrozoobenthos attachment devices against the background of the development
of optimized surfaces for hydraulic engineering” which was financially supported by the
Federal Ministry of Transport, Building and Urban Affairs.
Many people contributed for this study. First of all, I wish to thank PD Dr. Jochen Koop
(Federal Institute of Hydrology, Koblenz), who had the initial idea to investigate the interplay
between surface roughness and attachment in macrozoobenthos in running waters. He
directed my interest to this fascinating topic, supervised this study and made it possible for me
to use their comprehensive technical equipment of the Federal Institute of Hydrology.
Moreover, I am indebted to Prof. Dr. Wilhelm Barthlott (Nees Institute for Biodiversity of
Plants, Bonn) for supervision of this thesis, his generous support and helpful discussions. He
enabled me to take a deeper look on aquatic attachment devices by the fascinating technique
of scanning electron microscopy.
I would also like to express my special thank to Prof. Dr. Stanislav Gorb (Max Plank Institute
for Metal Research, Stuttgart; University of Kiel) for inspiring discussions and helpful
comments regarding Chapters 4 and 5 and the invitation to Stuttgart for research purposes.
This stay allowed me to explore new techniques and gain more understanding about the
functioning of attachment devices in general. I thank Conny Miksch (Max Plank Institute for
Metal Research, Stuttgart) for her steady technical support during this time. The equal
opportunity commissioner of the Max Plank Institute for Metal Research is greatly thanked 2 Preface and acknowledgements

for arranging a child-care place in Stuttgart for my little daughter that made it possible for me
to work their. Moreover, I am indebted to the University of Bonn for financial support of this
research opportunity out of the Maria von Linden-programme.
Special thank for assistance goes to the whole department of animal ecology of the Federal
Institute of Hydrology. Bernd Mockenhaupt provided excellent technical assistance and was a
great help during the field work. Bettina Salinus helped with profilometric measurements.
Many thanks to Barbara Anderer for supporting the determination of macrozoobenthos
animals. Moreover, Dr. Christian Ortmann, Bettina Salinus, Kathrin Busch, and Stefan
Wieland supported some of the field work.
Moreover, I wish to thank the staff of the Nees Institut for the support given in many ways.
Dr. Holger Bohn gave helpful comments on Chapter 4. Georg Fisher and Zdravko Colic
assisted some of the field trips and helped preparing animals for the SEM.
I am very grateful to Ronald Bellstedt (Museum of Natural History of the city of Gotha) for
making available specimens of E. assimilis larvae. The Senckenberg Research Institute and
Natural History Museum kindly provided I. alpicola larvae which are under protection in
Germany. More specimens of I. alpicola larvae have been collected by Laurent Vuataz
(Musee cantonal de zoologie, Lausanne) in the Swiss Alps to whom I express my gratitude.
Many thanks to Dr. Janice Peters (University of Florida) for kindly providing examples of
Drunella doddsi.
I thank Mr. Bernd Uebelmann (Federal Institute of Hydrology) for proof-reading parts of this
thesis. My sincere thanks to Dr. Andreas Frutiger (former EAWAG Dübendorf) and Dr.
Carola Winkelmann (TU Dresden) for helpful comments to chapter 4. Other helpful
comments have been provided by Prof. Dr. Adam Summers (San Diego State University) to
the topic of chapter 5, by Dr. Georg Becker (University of Cologne) to chapter 6 and by Dr.
Tanja Bergfeld (Federal Institute of Hydrology) to Chapter 3.
Last but not least, I wish to express my warmest gratitude to my family who supported me in
so many ways. My mother Ursula and Barbaros took care of my little daughter Celine so
often and they even accompanied us to several conferences and research stays. I thank my
daughter Celine for her patience with me when I had to work so often. I also thank her for
sometimes forcing me to make a break and see the world with her children’s eyes reminding
me of the diversity of live in all its ways.
Chapter 1

General introduction



Current is the dominating factor of selection for organisms in running waters (Einsele 1960).