Fig. S1.

Dendrogram showing invertebrate prey classification based on their suitability to predators (cluster
based on effect traits). Prey were classified into four functional groups (FG1: blue, FG2: green, FG3:
red, FG4: pink), showing different propensity to drift, habitat use, mobility and body size.
Macroinvertebrate illustrations show representative taxa for each prey group (FG1: Dytiscidae, FG2:
Perlidae; FG3: Baetidae; FG4: Aeshnidae).

Fig. S2. Plot showing the two main axis of suitability to predators for invertebrate prey (PCoA based
on effect traits). The first axis represents a gradient of decreasing river flow with some aspects of
drift, whilst axis 2 reflects decreasing size, altered locomotion and some propensity to drift.
Functional Groups are represented by different colours and numbers (FG1: blue, FG2: green, FG3:
red, FG4: violet). Macroinvertebrate illustrations show representative taxa for each prey group (FG1:
Dytiscidae, FG2: Perlidae; FG3: Baetidae; FG4: Aeshnida.
Table S1. Effect traits used in the study and their posited relationship with predator population size. For each trait category, description, trait
type, expected overall effect on prey-predator encounter rate and on prey availability, vulnerability and nutrient content. See text for a
detailed explanation. -: weak negative effect, --: intermediate negative effect, ---: strong negative effect, +: weak positive effect, ++:
intermediate positive effect, +++: strong positive effect.

Trait Category code Category description Type Encounter rate Availability Vulnerability Nutrient value
Asymptotic body size size_l.25 < 0.25 cm fuzzy --- --- ---
size_> .5 0.25 - 0.5 cm fuzzy - - -
size_1-2 1.00 - 2.00 cm fuzzy + + +
size_2-4 2.00 - 4.00 cm fuzzy +++ +++ +++
size_g4-8 4.00 - 8.00 cm fuzzy +++ ++ +++
Calcium content calcium Calcium content (low / high) categorical + +
Diel drift pattern diel_b_t-li Twilight fuzzy + + +
diel_b_d-li Daylight fuzzy + + +
diel_b_dawn Dawn fuzzy + + +
diel_b_noct Nocturnal fuzzy + + +
diel_b_none No drift pattern fuzzy --- --- ---
Drift in water column drift_wc_none No drift fuzzy --- --- ---
drift_wc_weak Weak fuzzy - - -
drift_wc_medi Medium fuzzy ++ ++ ++
drift_wc_high High fuzzy +++ +++ +++
Drift in water surface drift_ws_none No drift fuzzy --- --- ---
drift_ws_weak Weak fuzzy - - -
drift_ws_medi Medium fuzzy ++ ++ ++
drift_ws_high High fuzzy +++ +++ +++
Drift tendency drift_index Prey adequacy index based on quantitative +++ +++ +++
drift and morphological
features (0 to 100)

Flow exposure f_exp_prot Protected – from what? fuzzy --- ---

f_exp_expo Exposed fuzzy +++ +++
Flow preference flow_ 0-5 0 - 5 cm s-1 fuzzy - -
flow_ 5-2 5 - 25 cm s-1 fuzzy - -
flow_ 25- 25 - 75 cm s-1 fuzzy + +
flow_ g75 > 75 cm s-1 fuzzy + +
Locomotion locom_surf Surface swimmer fuzzy + +
locom_full Full water swimmer fuzzy + +
locom_craw Crawler fuzzy ++ ++
locom_burr Burrower fuzzy --- ---
locom_inte Interstitial fuzzy --- ---
locom_temp Temporarily attached fuzzy - -
locom_perm Permanently attached fuzzy - -
Substrate preference subs_flag Stone blocks fuzzy + +
subs_grav Gravel fuzzy + +
subs_sand Sand fuzzy - -
subs_silt Silt fuzzy - -
subs_macr Macrophytes fuzzy - -
subs_micr Microphytes fuzzy - -
subs_twig Roots fuzzy - -
subs_orga Organic fuzzy - -
  subs_mud Mud fuzzy -   -  
Table S2. Response traits used in the study and their hypothetical relationship to environmental change. For each trait category, description,
trait type and the expected overall, resistance and resilience response against environmental change are provided. See text for a detailed
explanation. *: weak response/tolerant, **: intermediate response/slightly tolerant, ***: strong response/sensitive.

Category Resistanc
Trait Category description Type Expected response Resilience
code e
Aquatic stages stage_egg Egg fuzzy *** *** ***
stage_larv Larva fuzzy ** ** **
stage_nymp Nymph fuzzy ** ** **
stage_adul Adult fuzzy * * *
Dispersal disp_aq_pas Aquatic passive fuzzy *** ***
disp_aq_act Aquatic active fuzzy * *
disp_aer_pas Aerial passive fuzzy *** ***
disp_aer_act Aerial active fuzzy * *
Life cycle duration lifespan_l1yr ≤ 1 year fuzzy * * *
lifespan_g1yr > 1 year fuzzy *** *** ***
Reproduction rep_ovov Ovoviviparity fuzzy * *
rep_isol Isolated eggs, free fuzzy *** ***
rep_isol.1 Isolated eggs, cemented fuzzy * *
Clutches, cemented or
rep_clut fuzzy * *
fixed
rep_clut.1 Clutches, free fuzzy *** ***
rep_clut.2 Clutches, in vegetation fuzzy * *
rep_clut.3 Clutches, terrestrial fuzzy * *
rep_asex Asexual fuzzy * *
Reproductive
gen_less <1 cycle / year fuzzy * *
cycles
 gen_equa 1 cycle / year fuzzy ** **
gen_grea > 1 cycle / year fuzzy *** ***
Resistance forms resist_eggs Eggs, statoblasts fuzzy * *
resist_coco Cocoons fuzzy * *
resist_hous House fuzzy * *
resist_diap Diapause or dormancy fuzzy * *
resist_none None fuzzy *** ***
Respiration resp_tegu Tegument fuzzy *** ***
resp_gill Gill fuzzy *** ***
resp_plas Plastron fuzzy * *
resp_spir Spiracle fuzzy * *
Table S3. Effect traits characterising Functional Groups (FG) and effect space axes (Axis 1 –
Axis 2). The characterisation of functional groups in respect to effect traits is also shown in
the four columns, FG1-FG4. For the quantitative trait ‘drift tendency’, we show the mean
values of this trait for each FG. For the categorical trait ‘calcium content’, we present the
proportion (as percentage) of taxa showing ‘high calcium content’ category within each FG.
For fuzzy-coding trait categories, values displayed represented the percentage of taxa
showing this trait category for each FG. The last two columns show the Pearson correlation
coefficients between effect trait categories and the first two axes of the functional space.
Correlation coefficients with r≥|0.50| are shown in bold. Correlation coefficient values for
‘calcium content’ could not be calculated because it is a categorical trait (low/high calcium
content).

Trait Trait category FG1 FG2 FG3 FG4 Axis 1 Axis 2

Asymptotic body size < 0.25 cm 40 2 20 16 0.24 0.50
0.25 - 0.5 cm 31 32 48 19 -0.34 0.03
1.00 - 2.00 cm 19 52 21 33 -0.10 -0.33
2.00 - 4.00 cm 10 14 11 21 0.20 -0.11
4.00 - 8.00 cm 1 0 0 11 0.35 -0.08
Calcium content (low
Calcium content 3 18 8 3 NA NA
/ high)
Diel drift pattern Twilight 6 21 16 0 -0.61 -0.06
Daylight 1 8 13 4 -0.53 0.13
Dawn 5 32 27 5 -0.53 0.02
Nocturnal 6 33 36 4 -0.69 0.06
No drift pattern 82 6 9 87 0.78 -0.03
Drift in water column No drift 9 29 2 66 0.55 -0.67
Weak 68 56 45 31 0.07 0.36
Medium 20 14 40 2 -0.60 0.38
High 3 1 13 1 -0.41 0.11
Drift in water surface No drift 14 55 3 83 0.54 -0.76
Weak 74 35 66 15 -0.23 0.65
Medium 12 7 24 2 -0.42 0.38
High 0 2 8 0 -0.34 0.00
Prey adequacy index
based on drift and
Drift tendency 30 40 43 18 -0.67 0.06
morphological
features (0 to 100)
Flow exposure Protected 94 39 74 91 0.59 0.35
Exposed 6 61 26 9 -0.59 -0.35
Flow preference (cm s-1) 0 - 5 cm s-1 59 5 15 37 0.64 0.41
5 - 25 cm s-1 29 27 35 34 0.11 0.13
25 - 75 cm s-1 10 39 31 22 -0.55 -0.42
> 75 cm s-1 2 29 18 7 -0.55 -0.37
Locomotion Surface swimmer 3 3 1 11 0.31 -0.05
 Full water swimmer 19 4 9 14 0.06 0.16
Crawler 66 69 67 44 -0.20 0.19
Burrower 5 3 8 28 0.27 -0.17
Interstitial 4 3 4 3 -0.11 0.05
Temporarily attached 2 16 11 1 -0.25 -0.19
Permanently
0 2 0 0 0.00 -0.25
attached
Substrate preference Stone blocks 7 42 26 13 -0.63 -0.47
Gravel 8 13 12 8 -0.10 -0.11
Sand 8 10 9 9 0.11 0.00
Silt 7 2 4 6 0.35 0.22
Macrophytes 29 12 23 22 0.05 0.40
Microphytes 8 2 2 3 0.20 0.20
Roots 2 9 9 9 -0.24 -0.21
Organic 15 9 11 14 0.15 0.27
  Mud 15 2 5 14 0.61 0.17
Table S4. Characterisation of Functional Groups in respect to response traits (%).Trait/Functional
Group combinations do not always sum to 100% due to rounding.

Trait Trait category FG1 FG2 FG3 FG4

Aquatic stages Egg 37 40 38 35
Larva 32 40 41 44
Nymph 5 16 17 6
Adult 26 4 4 15
Dispersal Aquatic passive 34 37 27 25
Aquatic active 23 28 27 30
Aerial passive 5 11 11 3
Aerial active 38 24 35 42
Life cycle duration ≤ 1 year 41 75 76 54
> 1 year 59 25 24 46
Reproduction Ovoviviparity 21 5 3 2
Isolated eggs, free 0 6 4 13
Isolated eggs, cemented 3 30 24 16
Clutches, cemented or fixed 62 44 59 21
Clutches, free 0 8 3 2
Clutches, in vegetation 4 0 1 29
Clutches, terrestrial 10 8 6 17
Asexual 0 0 0 1
Reproductive cycles <1 cycle / year 0 17 12 16
1 cycle / year 57 67 67 64
> 1 cycle / year 43 15 20 20
Resistance forms Eggs, statoblasts 2 17 12 13
Cocoons 1 3 0 3
House 0 0 0 0
Diapause or dormancy 25 26 15 23
None 71 54 73 62
Respiration Tegument 33 50 49 30
Gill 29 35 37 34
Plastron 7 0 3 4
Spiracle 31 15 11 32
Table S5. List of studies used to characterise the diets of wagtails, trout, salmon or dippers. The
study region and the number of river locations studied are also indicated.

Predator Region Reference Locations

Grey Wagtail Spain (Santamarina 1990b) 1
Spain (Santamarina 1993) 1
Wales (Ormerod & Tyler 1987) 2
Wales (Ormerod & Tyler 1991a) 8
Brown Trout Denmark (Anderson et al. 1992) 1
England (Bailey 1966) 1
England (Elliott 1967) 3
England (Mann & Blackburn 1991) 1
England (Soong 1938) 1
Finland (Kreivi et al. 1999) 2
France (De Crespin De Billy et al. 2002) 2
France (Elliott 1973) 3
Ireland (Dineen et al. 2007) 9
Italy (Fochetti et al. 2003) 1
Global (Meissner & Muotka 2015) 1
Scotland (Egglishaw 1967) 4
Scotland (Maitland 1965) 1
Spain (García de Jalón & Barceló 1987) 3
Spain (Oscoz et al. 2005) 1
Spain (Sánchez-Hernández et al. 2011) 1
Spain (Sánchez-Hernández 2009) 22
Spain (Santamarina 1993) 2
Sweden (Dahl 1998) 1
Wales Own data 11
Wales (Thomas 1962) 1
Atlantic Salmon England (Bailey 1966) 1
England (Mann & Blackburn 1991) 1
England (Soong 1938) 1
Ireland (Dineen et al. 2007) 6
Ireland (McCormick & Harrison 2011) 14
Scotland (Allen 1941) 4
Scotland (Egglishaw 1967) 4
Scotland (Maitland 1965) 1
Spain (Sánchez-hernández et al. 2013) 1
Wales Own data 4
Wales (Thomas 1962) 1
Dipper Hungary (Horváth 2002) 1
Ireland (Agnew & Pery 1993) 2
Ireland (Taylor & O’Halloran 1997) 1
Ireland (Taylor & O’Halloran 2001) 2
Norway (Ormerod et al. 1987) 2
Spain (Santamarina 1990a) 1
Spain (Santamarina 1993) 1
Wales (Ormerod & Tyler 1986) 1
Wales (Ormerod & Tyler 1991b) 12
Wales (Ormerod 1985) 2
Wales (Smith & Ormerod 1986) 1
 Table S6. Pairwise Pearson correlation coefficients for predictors of each dataset.

Dataset FG2 FG3 TD-e TD-r ric abun alt

Wagtail & Dipper datasets FG3 0.79            
TD-e 0.62 0.61
TD-r 0.70 0.68 0.94
ric 0.78 0.79 0.89 0.92
abun 0.87 0.98 0.62 0.70 0.80
alt -0.27 -0.34 -0.19 -0.26 -0.27 -0.31
pH 0.27 0.33 0.04 0.12 0.17 0.34 -0.24
Salmon FG3 0.82            
TD-e 0.43 0.50
TD-r 0.60 0.65 0.89
ric 0.64 0.70 0.88 0.88
abun 0.93 0.97 0.46 0.63 0.67
alt -0.48 -0.38 -0.45 -0.42 -0.52 -0.43
pH 0.69 0.71 0.27 0.47 0.45 0.73 -0.10
Trout FG3 0.79            
TD-e 0.43 0.43
TD-r 0.57 0.55 0.90
ric 0.69 0.66 0.84 0.86
abun 0.90 0.97 0.43 0.57 0.67
alt -0.45 -0.34 -0.14 -0.19 -0.38 -0.37
pH 0.70 0.68 0.32 0.50 0.51 0.72 -0.16
Multiple-predator index FG3 0.83            
TD-e 0.41 0.46
TD-r 0.58 0.62 0.89
ric 0.65 0.71 0.86 0.88
abun 0.93 0.97 0.43 0.60 0.68
alt -0.52 -0.42 -0.45 -0.44 -0.55 -0.46
pH 0.70 0.72 0.23 0.44 0.45 0.74 -0.14
Table S7. Results of the models relating prey biodiversity metrics and predator population
sizes. Models are ranked according to a decreasing statistical support based on AIC values.
Standardised regression coefficients, goodness-of-fit (r2), ΔAICc values (difference with the
model with the lowest AIC value), and model weight are also showed.

Trait Environmen
Key traits Mass effects
diversity t
Intercep abu ΔAIC weigh
Population size FG2 FG3 TD-e TD-r ric alt pH r2m r2c
t n c t
Wagtail 0.0
territories 0.18 -0.18 0.18 6 0.00 0.16
0.3 - 0.0
0.18 7 0.22 6 0.28 0.14
0.2 0.0
0.19 2 4 0.81 0.11
0.2 - 0.0
0.18 8 0.17 5 0.89 0.10
0.1 0.0
0.17 1 -0.14 0.15 7 1.30 0.08
0.0
0.17 0.07 -0.16 0.16 6 1.82 0.06
0.0
0.20 0.18 3 2.05 0.06
0.0
0.18 -0.03 -0.18 0.19 6 2.10 0.06
0.0 0.0
0.18 3 -0.17 0.18 6 2.15 0.05
0.1 - 0.0
0.17 7 0.13 -0.14 0.12 8 2.54 0.04
- 0.0
0.17 0.11 0.12 -0.15 0.13 7 3.34 0.03
0.1 0.0
0.21 3 1 3.67 0.03
0.0 - 0.0
0.17 6 0.08 -0.17 0.16 6 4.00 0.02
0.1 - 0.0
0.20 8 0.13 2 4.64 0.02
0.2 - 0.0
0.20 2 0.13 2 4.95 0.01
0.0
0.21 0.05 0 5.09 0.01
- 0.0
0.21 0.04 0 5.14 0.01
0.0
0.21 0.02 0 5.27 0.01
Dipper 0.1
territories -0.07         0.51       8   0.00 0.38
0.5 0.1
-0.07 0 7 1.23 0.21
0.4 0.1
-0.07 7 0.08 8 2.82 0.09
0.4 0.1
-0.07 4 0.09 8 3.00 0.09
0.1
-0.05 0.45 5 3.66 0.06
 0.5 0.1
-0.08 8 0.01 -0.15 9 3.97 0.05
0.1
-0.07 0.50 -0.04 -0.01 8 4.26 0.05
0.5 0.1
-0.08 5 0.04 0.00 -0.13 9 6.10 0.02
0.1
-0.06 0.52 -0.03 -0.15 6 6.39 0.02
0.3 0.1
-0.03 9 2 6.65 0.01
0.2 0.1
-0.04 9 0.16 3 7.55 0.01
0.3 0.1
-0.03 6 0.10 3 7.91 0.01
0.1
-0.07 0.04 0.50 -0.03 -0.14 7 8.50 0.01
0.1
-0.01 0.34 0 9.24 0.00
0.4 0.1
-0.04 3 -0.06 -0.10 3 10.12 0.00
0.3 0.1
-0.04 8 0.08 -0.06 -0.08 3 11.81 0.00
0.0
0.02 0.20 4 14.69 0.00
0.0
0.04 -0.14 0.03 2 19.83 0.00
Salmon biomass 2.2 0.2 0.7
(g) 5.85   6             2 9 0.00 0.16
2.9 - 0.2 0.7
5.90 0 1.00 4 9 0.75 0.11
2.9 0.2 0.7
5.87 8 -1.00 4 9 1.02 0.10
2.6 - 0.2 0.7
5.91 5 1.28 -1.00 7 8 1.14 0.09
1.9 0.2 0.7
5.85 6 -0.72 3 9 1.21 0.09
0.1 0.7
5.84 2.08 8 9 1.68 0.07
2.4 - 0.2 0.7
5.87 0 0.28 2 9 2.03 0.06
0.2 0.7
5.83 -1.33 1.60 0 9 2.76 0.04
2.1 - 0.2 0.7
5.89 6 0.56 -0.91 4 9 2.87 0.04
0.2 0.7
5.84 1.73 -0.74 0 9 2.93 0.04
- 0.2 0.7
5.88 0.73 2.53 0 9 3.11 0.03
0.1 0.7
5.85 -0.58 2.47 9 9 3.47 0.03
- 0.1 0.7
5.85 0.08 2.11 8 9 3.85 0.02
1.8 0.1 0.7
5.82 0 4 9 3.91 0.02
- 0.2 0.7
5.86 0.73 -1.61 1.90 2 9 4.17 0.02
5.84 - -1.41 1.64 0.2 0.7 4.91 0.01
 0.19 1 9
1.3 0.1 0.7
5.82 6 -0.85 6 9 5.03 0.01
2.0 - 0.1 0.7
5.84 2 0.38 4 9 5.89 0.01
1.8 0.1 0.7
5.82 9 -0.14 4 9 6.06 0.01
1.7 0.1 0.7
5.82 5 0.10 4 9 6.06 0.01
1.6 - 0.1 0.7
5.85 4 0.57 -0.96 7 9 6.81 0.01
1.6 0.1 0.7
5.83 2 -0.51 -1.00 6 9 6.97 0.00
1.4 - 0.1 0.7
5.83 0 0.15 -0.90 6 9 7.21 0.00
0.1 0.7
5.79 0.33 -1.35 0 9 7.52 0.00
0.0 0.7
5.77 1.07 5 9 7.66 0.00
0.0 0.7
5.73 0.78 3 9 8.53 0.00
0.0 0.7
5.75 0.77 3 9 8.64 0.00
Trout biomass 1.1 0.0 0.7
(g) 8.58 5               6 5 0.00 0.12
0.0 0.7
8.57 1.02 5 5 0.65 0.09
0.0 0.7
8.55 0.98 4 5 0.75 0.08
0.9 0.0 0.7
8.57 3 4 5 1.04 0.07
0.8 0.0 0.7
8.60 3 -0.62 7 5 1.44 0.06
1.3 - 0.0 0.7
8.62 3 0.44 6 5 1.69 0.05
0.6 0.0 0.7
8.60 2 -0.80 6 5 1.88 0.05
0.8 0.0 0.7
8.58 9 0.37 6 5 1.99 0.04
1.3 - 0.0 0.7
8.60 0 0.28 6 5 2.02 0.04
0.0 0.7
8.60 -0.94 0.42 5 5 2.24 0.04
0.0 0.7
8.56 0.56 0.64 5 5 2.40 0.04
- 0.0 0.7
8.60 0.39 1.18 5 5 2.46 0.03
0.0 0.7
8.53 0.41 1 5 2.46 0.03
0.4 0.0 0.7
8.56 8 0.67 5 5 2.62 0.03
- 0.0 0.7
8.58 0.17 1.11 5 5 2.75 0.03
0.0 0.7
8.54 0.01 0 5 2.84 0.03
1.0 - 0.0 0.7
8.60 6 0.34 4 5 2.93 0.03
 0.9 - 0.0 0.7
8.57 7 0.07 4 5 3.18 0.02
1.0 - 0.0 0.7
8.63 1 0.38 -0.57 7 5 3.30 0.02
0.0 0.7
8.59 0.39 0.48 -0.69 7 5 3.66 0.02
0.0 0.7
8.60 0.80 -0.73 -0.12 6 5 3.82 0.02
0.7 - 0.0 0.7
8.62 5 0.29 -0.78 6 5 3.86 0.02
0.0 0.7
8.59 0.60 -0.76 0.14 6 5 3.90 0.02
- 0.0 0.7
8.61 0.19 -0.95 0.48 5 5 4.34 0.01
0.0 0.7
  8.59       0.06     -0.94 0.39 5 5 4.41 0.01
References

Agnew, P. & Pery, K.W. (1993). The diet of breading dippers in north-west during the period
of incubation. Irish birds, 5, 49–54.
Allen, K.R. (1941). Studies on the biology of the early stages of the salmon (Salmo salar). J.
Anim. Ecol., 10, 47.
Anderson, T.H., Hansen, H.O., Iversen, T.M., Jacobsen, D., Krojgaard, L. & Poulsen, N. (1992).
Growth and feeding of 0+ Brown Trout (Salmo trutta L .) introduced to two small
Danish streams. Arch. für Hydrobiol., 125, 339–346.
Bailey, R.G. (1966). Observations on the nature and importance of organic drift in a Devon
River. Hydrobiologia, 27, 353–367.
De Crespin De Billy, V., Dumont, B., Lagarrigue, T., Baran, P. & Statzner, B. (2002).
Invertebrate accessibility and vulnerability in the analysis of brown trout (Salmo trutta
L.) summer habitat suitability. River Res. Appl., 18, 533–553.
Dahl, J. (1998). Effects of a benthivorous and a drift-feeding fish on a benthic stream
assemblage. Oecologia, 116, 426–432.
Dineen, G., Harrison, S.S.C. & Giller, P.S. (2007). Diet partitioning in sympatric Atlantic
salmon and brown trout in streams with contrasting riparian vegetation. J. Fish Biol.,
71, 17–38.
Egglishaw, H.J. (1967). The food, growth and population structure of salmon and trout in
two streams in the Scottish Highlands. Freshw. salmon Fish. Res., 1–32.
Elliott, J.M. (1967). The food of trout (Salmo trutta) in a Dartmoor stream. J. Appl. Ecol., 4,
59.
Elliott, J.M. (1973). The food of brown and rainbow trout (Salmo trutta and Salmo gairdneri)
in relation to the abundance of drifting invertebrates in a mountain stream. Oecologia,
329–347.
Fochetti, R., Amici, I. & Argano, R. (2003). Seasonal changes and selectivity in the diet of
brown trout in the river Nera (central Italy). J. Freshw. Ecol., 18, 437–444.
García de Jalón, D. & Barceló, E. (1987). Estudio sobre la alimentación de la trucha común en
ríos pirenaicos. Ecología, 1, 263–269.
Horváth, R. (2002). The diet of Dippers (Cinclus cinclus) in the Aggtelek karst. TISCIA, 33, 59–
66.
Kreivi, P., Muotka, T., Huusko, A., Maki-Petays, A., Huhta, A. & Meissner, K. (1999). Diel
feeding periodicity, daily ration and prey selectivity in juvenile brown trout in a
subarctic river. J. Fish Biol., 55, 553–571.
Maitland, P.S. (1965). The feeding relationships of Salmon, Trout, Minnows, Stone Loach
and Three-Spined Stickle-Backs in the River Endrick, Scotland. J. Anim. Ecol., 34, 109.
Mann, R.H.K. & Blackburn, J.H. (1991). The biology of the eel Anguilla anguilla (L.) in an
English chalk stream and interactions with juvenile trout Salmo trutta L. and salmon
Salmo salar L. Hydrobiologia, 218, 65–76.
McCormick, D.P. & Harrison, S.S.C. (2011). Direct and indirect effects of riparian canopy on
juvenile Atlantic salmon, Salmo salar, and brown trout, Salmo trutta, in south-west
Ireland. Fish. Manag. Ecol., 18, 444–455.
Meissner, K. & Muotka, T. (2015). The role of trout in stream food webs: integrating
evidence from field surveys an experiments. J. Anim. Ecol., 75, 421–433.
Ormerod, S.J. (1985). The diet of breeding Dippers Cinclus cinclus and their nestlings in the
catchment of the River Wye, mid‐Wales: a preliminary study by faecal analysis. Ibis
 (Lond. 1859)., 127, 316–331.
Ormerod, S.J., Efteland, S. & Gabrielsen, L.E. (1987). The diet of breeding dippers Cinclus
cinclus and their nestlings in southwestern Norway. Ecography (Cop.)., 10, 201–205.
Ormerod, S.J. & Tyler, S.J. (1986). The diet of Dippers Cinclus cinclus wintering in the
catchment of the River Wye, Wales. Bird Study, 33, 36–45.
Ormerod, S.J. & Tyler, S.J. (1987). Aspects of the breeding ecology of welsh grey wagtails
Motacilla cinerea. Bird Study, 34, 43–51.
Ormerod, S.J. and Tyler, S.J. (1991a), The influence of stream acidification and riparian land
use on the feeding ecology of Grey Wagtails Motacilla cinerea in Wales. Ibis, 133: 53-
61. doi:10.1111/j.1474-919X.1991.tb04810.x
Ormerod, S.J. & Tyler, S.J. (1991b). Exploitation of prey by a river bird, the dipper Cinclus
cinclus (L.), along acidic and circumneutral streams in upland Wales. Freshw. Biol., 25,
105–116.
Oscoz, J., Leunda, P.M., Campos, F., Escala, M.C. & Miranda, R. (2005). Diet of 0+ brown
trout (Salmo trutta L., 1758) from the river Erro (Navarra, north of Spain). Limnetica,
24, 319–326.
Sánchez-Hernández, J. (2009). Biología de la alimentación de la trucha común (Salmo trutta
L., 1758) en los ríos de Galicia. University Santiago de Compostela.
Sánchez-hernández, J., Servia, M.J., Vieira-Lanero, R. & Cobo, F. (2013). Resultados
preliminares sobre la dieta de juveniles de salmón en el río Landro (NO España).
Chiioglossa, 5, 1–7.
Sánchez-Hernández, J., Vieira-Lanero, R., Servia, M.J. & Cobo, F. (2011). Feeding habits of
four sympatric fish species in the Iberian Peninsula: Keys to understanding coexistence
using prey traits. Hydrobiologia, 667, 119–132.
Santamarina, J. (1990a). Alimentación del mirlo acuático (Cinclus cinclus) en ríos de Galicia.
Misc. Zool., 14, 207–215.
Santamarina, J. (1990b). La alimentación de la lavandera cascadeña (Motacilla cinerea) en la
cuenca del Río Ulla (Galicia, NW de España). Ardeola, 37, 97–101.
Santamarina, J. (1993). Feeding ecology of a vertebrate assemblage inhabiting a stream of
NW Spain (Riobo; Ulla basin). Hydrobiologia, 252, 175–191.
Smith, R.P. & Ormerod, S.J. (1986). The diet of moulting Dippers Cinclus cinclus in the
catchment of the Welsh River Wye. Bird Study, 33, 138–139.
Soong, M.K. (1938). Preliminary notes on the food of young trout and salmon parr. Avon
Biol. Res. Annu. Rep., 6, 34–35.
Taylor, A.J. & O’Halloran, J. (1997). The diet of the Dipper Cinclus cinclus as represented by
faecal and regurgitate pellets: A comparison. Bird Study, 44, 338–347.
Taylor, A.J. & O’Halloran, J. (2001). Diet of dippers Cinclus cinclus during an early winter
spate and the possible implications for dipper populations subjected to climate change.
Bird Study, 48, 173–179.
Thomas, J.D. (1962). The food and growth of brown trout and its feeding relationships with
the salmon parr and the eel in river Teify. J. Anim. Ecol., 31, 175–205.
Tyler, S.J. & Ormerod, S.J. (1991). The influence of stream acidification and riparian land‐use
on the breeding biology of Grey Wagtails Motacilla cinerea in Wales. Ibis (Lond. 1859).,
133, 286–292.