共查询到20条相似文献，搜索用时 29 毫秒
1.
2.
Foundation species can provide habitat that modify abiotic and biotic processes that contribute to ecosystem function. While many studies have focused on the processes and consequences of a focal foundation species, understanding the ecological equivalence of co‐occurring foundation species is important to identify key species responsible for ecosystem function. Here, we investigated the relative contributions of co‐occurring foundation species on abiotic (temperature) and biotic responses of invertebrate species (recruitment, persistence, growth and survival). In a series of experimental field studies, we manipulated foundation species to measure invertebrate recruitment, persistence, and predation. A laboratory experiment measured foundation species effects on herbivore growth. Results demonstrated that macroalgal (Fucus vesiculosus ecad and Ascophyllum nodosum ecad scorpioides) intermediate foundation species provide habitat, food, and alleviate abiotic stress for dominant littorinid herbivores that surpass that provided by the primary species (Spartina alterniflora). These foundation effects were species‐specific with F. vesiculosus ecad important for early life‐history stages (enhanced recruitment and early growth of littorinid snails) and A. nodosum ecad important later on as a refuge from predators (Carcinus meanas) and stressful temperature. Understanding of the different effects of co‐occurring foundation species on population and community processes is necessary for predicting community response to natural disturbance, species invasion, and ecosystem‐based management actions. 相似文献
3.
Intraspecific phenotypic differences in fish affect ecosystem processes as much as bottom–up factors 
下载免费PDF全文
下载免费PDF全文 Rana W. El‐Sabaawi Ronald D. Bassar Chase Rakowski Michael C. Marshall Brynne L. Bryan Steven N. Thomas Catherine Pringle David N. Reznick Alexander S. Flecker 《Oikos》2015,124(9):1181-1191
Evolution of life history traits can occur rapidly and has the potential to influence ecological processes, which can also be shaped by abiotic and biotic factors. Few studies have shown that life history phenotype can affect ecological processes as much as commonly studied biotic ecological variables, but currently we do not know how the ecological effects of life history phenotype compare in size to the effects of abiotic factors, or whether the ecological effects of phenotypes are sensitive to variability in abiotic conditions. Using a factorial mesocosm experiment we compared the ecosystem effects of guppy Poecilia reticulata life history phenotypes in two light treatments representing a four‐fold difference in light levels, which was comparable to upstream downstream differences in light availability in Trinidadian streams. Light and phenotype had significant effects on similar aspects of ecosystem function. Whereas light had a stronger effect on ecosystem structure (algal and invertebrate stocks) than phenotype, phenotype and light had nearly equal effects on many ecosystem processes (nutrient recycling, nutrient fluxes, ecosystem metabolism and leaf litter decomposition). Light had a stronger effect on most guppy life history traits and guppy fitness than differences between phenotypes. The effect of light on these traits was consistent with higher availability of food resources in the high light treatments. Interactions between light and phenotype were weak for the majority of response variables suggesting that abiotic variability did not alter the mechanisms by which phenotypes affect ecosystem function. We conclude that subtle phenotypic differences in consumers can affect ecosystem processes as much as meaningful variability in abiotic factors which until recently were thought to be the primary drivers of ecosystem function in nature. However, despite its effects on traits and the ecosystem, light did not alter the effect of guppy phenotype on ecosystem function. 相似文献
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
- 1 Lotic meiofaunal communities demonstrate extremely variable dynamics, especially when viewed at small spatial scales (≤ metres). Given the limited amount of research on lotic meiofauna, we chose to organise our discussion of their small‐scale spatial patterns around the dominant factors we believe drive their spatial distributions in streams. We separate scale‐dependent effects that structure lotic meiofauna into biotic factors (e.g. predation, food quantity/quality, dispersal) and abiotic factors (e.g. local flow dynamics and substratum characteristics).
- 2 The impact of predation on the distribution of meiofauna varies with the scale over which predators forage (e.g. fish predation influences meiofauna in different ways and at broader spatial scales than do invertebrate predators), the type of streambed substrata in which the predator‐prey interactions occur, and the dispersal ability of different meiofauna. The latter is greatly influenced by predator and prey (meiofauna) interactions with the flow environment.
- 3 Organic matter influences the small‐scale distribution of meiofauna in streams. Both its quality as food (as indicated by C:N content, ATP content, or microbial biomass) and its spatial distribution on the streambed, influence meiofauna patchiness, community structure and life history characteristics. As a habitat, the structure that organic matter provides (e.g. wood or leaves) can influence predator‐prey interactions, offer materials for case‐building and offer refugia during disturbance events ‐ all of which influence the small‐scale spatial distribution of meiofauna.
- 4 Stream flow influences the distribution of meiofauna at broad scales (10s–100s of metres), primarily because of the high susceptibility of meiofauna to passive drift; small‐scale interactions between flow and substrata are also important, however, particularly at more localised (≤ metre) scales. At both scales, substratum particle size is important to interstitial‐dwelling fauna, influencing the probability of passive drift by meiofauna as well as local microhabitat conditions (e.g. dissolved oxygen; upwelling/downwelling in the hyporheic zone) and, thus, the small‐scale distribution among microhabitats.
- 5 In general, the processes governing the distribution of meiofauna at small scales cannot be separated entirely from those processes working at larger scales. A conceptual diagram is presented illustrating the relative importance of various factors in influencing the spatial patterns of meiofauna and over what scales these factors act.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
Rayanne Barros Setubal Ana Cristina Petry Cláudia Costa Bonecker Thiago Martins Clarice Casa Nova Marcos Paulo Figueiredo-Barros Reinaldo Luiz Bozelli 《Freshwater Biology》2020,65(8):1376-1391
- The interest in understanding ecosystem functioning has grown in recent years due to the effects of species loss on ecosystem processes. Even though biotic and abiotic factors control ecosystem processes, their relative influence may vary according to ecosystem dynamics. In flood and coastal plains, these dynamics are mainly represented by flood pulses and hydroregime, respectively. The objective of this study was to investigate the importance of abiotic and biotic factors for the ecosystem processes represented by zooplankton secondary production (SP), biomass (ZB), and resource use efficiency (RUE) in lentic waterbodies subjected to different hydrological regimes. We hypothesised that abiotic factors would more strongly determine the ecosystem processes in temporary waterbodies and floodplain lakes, given their greater susceptibility to environmental changes. Biotic factors would be more relevant in coastal lagoons due to their greater temporal stability.
- Sampling was undertaken quarterly over 1 year in eight coastal lagoons, 10 temporary ponds and five floodplain lakes. The environments were characterised in relation to limnological variables, and zooplankton functional divergence, functional dispersion (FDis), functional evenness, functional richness, and taxonomic richness were measured. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to verify seasonal changes in SP, ZB, RUE, functional diversity, richness, and abiotic factors. Linear mixed models were used to determine which abiotic and biotic factors were the most important for ZB, SP, and RUE.
- In the coastal lagoons, RUE differed over time. In the temporary ponds and floodplain lakes, no seasonal significant differences were observed for any of the zooplankton production variables. The linear mixed model analyses showed that models composed mainly of biotic factors were better fitted to the production variables. For coastal lagoons, phytoplankton density affected ZB, SP, and RUE increasing them by 9.9 mg DW/m3, 12.4 mg DW/m3, and 1.23, respectively. For temporary ponds, FDis lowered ZB by 6.9 mg DW/m3 and taxonomic richness increased SP and RUE by 14.2 mg DW/m3 and 1.17, respectively. For floodplain lakes, FDis lowered ZB it by 9.9 mg DW/m3 and functional divergence lowered RUE by 0.81.
- The present study demonstrates that biotic factors are the main determinants of ecosystem processes in neotropical lentic waterbodies, irrespective of their annual hydrological regimes. Complementarity effects and high functional diversity are more important in more stable environments, whereas redundancy and low functional diversity prevail in environments subject to more frequent environmental changes. Biotic factors play a major role in ensuring the functioning of aquatic ecosystems and indicate the important role of biodiversity in enabling ecosystem states to be maintained after disturbances and to prevent changes in ecosystem processes.
17.
18.
19.