The Role of Beavers in an Aquatic Ecosystem

An exposed mudflat in my river on August 26, 2025, with a thick growth of Sparganium emersum (bur-reed).

A few days ago, I was out on one of my meandering walks. Eventually, I made my way down to the little river that flows through my property. My first stop was at an old beaver lodge to see what might be growing on it.

Looking for plants

On the beaver lodge, I found some weedy species: Erechtites hieraciifolius, Hypericum majus, Epilobium leptophyllum, and Pseudognaphalium obtusifolium. Erechtites hieraciifolius is an annual and Hypericum majus, Epilobium leptophyllum, and Pseudognaphalium obtusifolium are short-lived perennials that would never survive in the thick marsh grasses. I’ve never seen them anywhere near the river except on other old beaver lodges and dams. How many years (decades?) had their seeds lain dormant in the muck before the beavers brought them to the surface?

Same location as the top photo, but now the water is much deeper. October 06, 2025.

No rain but the river is rising

I kept walking along the riverbank, fighting my way through the tall and densely tangled grass. When I got to the place where I keep my canoe in the summer, I noticed the water had risen.

We haven’t had any substantial rain all season. When it does rain, the water soaks right into the ground and doesn’t change the river’s water level at all. So what could have happened to raise the water level in just a few days? I suspected the beavers had returned.

The beavers are back

I continued walking until I came to a small, partially forested island in the marsh. Here I saw chewed tree stumps and drag marks through the grass. Beavers had been working here, pulling aspen branches and logs to an old canal connected to the river. This had all happened over a period of three days because the last time I was here was on October 2nd, and there was only a little beaver activity noted then.

An old dam and a renewed dam

About two years ago, the river had worked its way around an old beaver dam built in 2005 but abandoned by 2009. The new river course reopened a channel cut off in the 1960s. But this isn’t where the beavers were working. The new dam was further downstream, about 300 feet as the crow flies, and it was being built on the remains of an older dam (called Dam 3 on my maps) from 2010. I was impressed by how quickly they had built this new dam and how far it had backed up the water behind it.

Beavers are ecosystem engineers

By building dams and excavating canals into the surrounding marsh, the beavers maintain the river’s hydrology. Their dams hold back water that is slowly released downstream through the leaky dams, keeping the stream flowing all year. Water flowing over the dams mixes with air and becomes oxygenated, thus preventing anoxic stagnant conditions.

The impounded water also recharges and raises the water table, further maintaining the stream’s flow. The ponds and the higher water help keep the surrounding marsh wet.

A complex hydrology

Because the river channel is meandering, and the terrain is flat and wide, the dams the beavers build do not need to be high or long. The dams are just high enough to hold back the water, which then backs up and spills into old river channels, oxbows, and beaver canals, creating a huge network of interconnected waterways.

This satellite image (above) of the river shows its main channel and the complex system of interconnected smaller streams, backwaters, oxbows, and canals created by centuries of beaver activity.

The area in the image is 30 acres (about 12 hectares). Most of the land in the image is a sedge meadow/shrub carr wetland. There is also a large alder thicket, and a conifer/hardwood swamp is reclaiming its former territory.

If you look closely, you can see tiny finger-like projections extending from the riverbank into the channel. Aerial photos from the 1940s also show these stubs as well as most of the smaller streams and backwaters.

The stubs are the remains of old dams, possibly more than a hundred years old. Trapping eliminated beavers from Minnesota by the 1890s, but they were reintroduced in the 1900s. Those dam fragments may date to that time or a little later.

The straight part of the channel was caused by something, but I have not been able to learn who or what did it. If it was ditched (but why?), there are no traces of ditch spoils to confirm it. Anyway, it’s a good fishing spot.

Four active dams are visible in the image, but only one (lower left) has a rounded pond behind it. The other three ponds are more linear in shape. The oxbow in the upper right has a small dam blocking it, but that dam keeps water from the main channel from entering it. A thin stream channel flows from the oxbow through the marsh and shrubs and back into the main channel.

An abundance of shallow water habitat

The water behind the dams and in the older abandoned channels hosts a larger variety of wildlife and plant life than the river would without them. These areas of shallow water, from 1 to 6 feet deep, support submerged, floating, and emergent plants.

These weedy waters are an ideal habitat for many species of small fish, crustaceans, amphibians, aquatic insects, and mollusks. They also provide habitat and food for waterfowl such as mallards, blue herons, night herons, geese, sandhill cranes, bitterns, and kingfishers, and mammals like water shrews and star-nosed moles.

Submerged, floating, and emergent wetland vegetation grow in this backwater. Species in the photo are water calla (Calla palustris), lake sedge (Carex lacustris), water crowfoot (Ranunculus gmelinii), and duckweed (Lemna minor).

In future posts, I will be writing more about this wetland complex, exploring its connections to conifer swamps, hardwood swamps, and the adjacent upland hardwood/conifer forests.

A new caddisfly

 

Nemotaulius hostilis
Nemotaulius hostilis

 

There are about 277 species of caddisflies in Minnesota but my list of caddisflies from Carlton County is dismally low at only eight species three of which are of uncertain identification plus several unknowns. So when I saw this caddisfly a last week (May 31) I felt pretty sure I had a new species to add to the checklist. And it was. This caddisfly species is Nemotaulius hostilis which in Minnesota is known from several counties in the northern forested region of the state (Houghton 2012).

 

Taxonomy
Class Insecta (Insects)
Order Trichoptera (Caddisflies)
Suborder Integripalpia
Infraorder Plenitentoria
Superfamily Limnephiloidea
Family Limnephilidae (Northern Caddisflies)
Subfamily Limnephilinae
Tribe Limnephilini
Genus/species Nemotaulius hostilis

Larvae
The larvae of Nemotaulius hostilis build cases from large leaf fragments in such a way that they are sandwiched between the layers (Houghton 2012). This is in contrast to the larval cases of other caddisfly species are tubular or rectangular in cross-section. Larvae live in lakes, marshes, and sluggish streams with thick beds of aquatic macrophytes where they feed on plant debris (Houghton 2012). The small stream that meanders through my property with its abandoned channels and ox-bows contains many sites with dense aquatic vegetation where I hope to find Nemotaulius hostilis larvae later this summer.

Description
The following description of Nemotaulius hostilis is after Schmid (1952), Nimmo (1971), and Houghton (2012). Adult N. hostilis are between 25 and 30 mm long. The coloration and patterning of the forewings is the most conspicuous feature. These are a mixture of solid areas of color, mostly shades of brown, gray-brown, or even black, mixed with clear irrorate (speckled) areas. Schmid says of the translucent speckling (“macules claires”) on the wings that it is “more extensive than in other species” and the wings are “riddled” with them (“l’aile dont toute la surface est criblée de macules claires plus grosses que chez les autres espèces”). The costa is hyaline with some basal irroration. About mid-way on the forewings is a narrow, slanted bright zone. The scalloped wing tips are a distinctive feature.

Range
Nemotaulius hostilis occurs from Newfoundland to Alberta and Alaska, and from New England to the Great Lakes Region, also in Colorado (Nimmo 1971).

Ecological importance
Case-making caddisflies (there are several families) like Nemotaulius hostilis feed by shredding dead leaves and other plant parts that fall into the water or were growing in the water. Some case-making species are predators on small invertebrates while others scrap the fine layer of fungi, diatoms, and bacteria that grow on submerged objects usually wood. A small number of species feed on living plants or construct nets to trap prey or fine particles on which they feed. Shredders and scrappers are especially important in nutrient and energy cycling in forested streams which receive little direct sunlight that would support photosynthetic plants like algae with their ability to produce carbohydrates. In these systems cellulose and lignified woody plant tissue become primary carbohydrate sources which are first acted upon by bacteria and fungi before the insect larvae consume them. Further processing occurs in the gut of the larvae with the help of symbiotic bacteria which reside there. Organisms that feed on caddisfly larvae and adults thus benefit from the ability of the larvae to transform inedible wood and rotting leaves into edible insect bodies. (see Anderson et al. 1978, Wallace 1996, Cummins 2002, Feio et al 2005, Houghton 2007, Resh et al. 2011)

And this one
I found this caddisfly Monday night (June 4). It is one of the giant casemaker caddisflies in the Superfamily Phryganeoidea that is probably Ptilostomis ocellifera, a species which is widespread and common in Minnesota. More on Ptilostomis ocellifera in an upcoming post.

 

Ptilostomis ocellifera caddisfly trichoptera
Ptilostomis ocellifera

 

SOURCES

Anderson, N. H, Sedell, J. R., . Roberts, M, and F. J. Triska, J. (1978). The Role of Aquatic Invertebrates in Processing of Wood Debris in Coniferous Forest Streams. The American Midland Naturalist, 100(1):64-82

Cummins, Kenneth W. (2002). Riparian-stream Linkage Paradigm. Verhandlungen des Internationalen Verein Limnologie, 28:49-58.

Feio, Maria J., Vieira-Lanero, Rufino, Ferreira, Veronica , and Graça, Manuel A. S. (2005). The role of the environment in the distribution and composition of Trichoptera assemblages in streams. Archiv fur Hydrobiologie, 164(4):493–512.

Houghton, David C . (2007). The effects of landscape-level disturbance on the composition of Minnesota caddisfly (Insecta: Trichoptera) trophic functional groups: evidence for ecosystem homogenization. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 135(1-3):253-64

Houghton, David C . (2012). Biological diversity of the Minnesota caddisflies (Insecta, Trichoptera). ZooKeys 189:1–389. doi: 10.3897/zookeys.189.2043. Description of Nemotaulius hostilis on page 259.

Nimmo, Andrew P. (1971) The Adult Rhyacophilidae and Limnephilidae (Trichoptera) of Alberta and Eastern British Columbia and Their Post-glacial Origin. Quaestiones entomologicae 7:3-234. Description of Nemotaulius hostilis on page 124.

Resh, Vincent H. , Hannaford, Morgan , Jackson, John K. , Lamberti, Gary A., and Mendez, Patina K. (2011). The biology of the limnephilid caddisfly Dicosmoecus gilvipes (Hagen) in Northern California and Oregon (USA) Streams. Zoosymposia, 5:413–419.

Schmid, Fernand. (1952). Les genres Glyphotaelius Steph. et Nemotaulius BKS (Trichop. Limnophil.). Bulletin de la Société Vaudoise des Sciences Naturelles 65(280):231-244. Description of Nemotaulius hostilis on pages 229 to 231.

Wallace, J. Bruce. (1996). The Role of Macroinvertebrates in Stream Ecosystem Function. Annual Review of Entomology, 41:115-139.