Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 422

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Light Limitation in a Stream Ecosystem: Responses by Primary Producers and Consumers

Hill, Walter R., Ryon, Michael G., Schilling, Elizabeth M.·1995·Ecology

Abstract

Heavy shade presents serious challenges for primary producers and food—limited herbivores in forest streams. In this study, we examined the response of periphyton and grazing snails (Elimia clavaeformis) to summer shade in White Oak Creek (WOC), a second—order stream in a Tennessee deciduous forest. Three experiments were performed: (1) in situ manipulation of light and snail density to test the effects of light limitation and grazing; (2) construction of photosynthesis—irradiance (P—I) curves to test for shade adaptation by periphyton; and (3) measurements of snail growth vs. irradiance, to qualify the indirect relationship between grazers and an abiotic constraint on photosynthesis. In the first experiment, light and snail densities were manipulated in a 2 X 2 factorial design: two light treatments were created by removing streamside vegetation from four sites in WOC and by pairing each of these sites with an adjacent, shade site; two snail density treatments at each site were created by adding snails at normal (970 individuals/m 2) and low (50 individuals/m 2) density to the two sides of Plexiglas channels. Snails at normal densities cropped periphyton biomass to low levels regardless of light regime, but periphyton productivity was higher at the open sites where snails grew faster and accumulated more lipid. Snail growth and lipid accumulation were strongly affected by intraspecific competition in both light regimes. In the second experiment, photosynthesis—irradiance curves for periphyton from shaded and open sites illustrated considerable shade adaptation: shaded periphyton was 2 times more efficient at low irradiance than was periphyton from open sites. Despite the greater efficiency of shade periphyton at low irradiance, integrated primary production estimated with photosynthetic models was 4 times greater in the open because shade adaptation provided only partial compensation for the very low irradiances in the shade. In the third experiment, in situ snail growth again increased with decreasing shade. The growth vs. irradiance response resembled a P—I curve: snail growth increased almost linearly with increased light and then leveled off at a photon flux density of °7 mol°m—2·d—1. If this curve primarily reflects rates of food supply, then periphyton production and grazer growth in WOC and similar streams is light—limited at a photon flux density <7 mol·—2·d—1. Bottom—up effects of light limitation were propagated very strongly in WOC, where the invertebrate fauna is dominated by a grazer that appears to escape top—down control.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2307/1940936

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 3 references

Cited by

See all 422

Metadata

Authors
Hill, W. R., Ryon, M. G., & Schilling, E. M.
Venue
Ecology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
1995-06
Volume
76
Issue
4
Pages
1297-1309
ISSN
  • 0012-9658 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-9170
OpenAlex
W2071472891
Cited by
422
References
3
FWCI
14.25
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Light Limitation in a Stream Ecosystem: Responses by Primary Producers and Consumers. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2307/1940936
The paper
Hill, W. R., Ryon, M. G., & Schilling, E. M. (1995). Light Limitation in a Stream Ecosystem: Responses by Primary Producers and Consumers. Ecology. https://doi.org/10.2307/1940936

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.