Form–function relationships in a marine foundation species depend on scale: a shoot to global perspective from a distributed ecological experiment |
| |
| Authors: | Jennifer L. Ruesink John J. Stachowicz Pamela L. Reynolds Christoffer Boström Mathieu Cusson James Douglass Johan Eklöf Aschwin H. Engelen Masakazu Hori Kevin Hovel Katrin Iken Per‐Olav Moksnes Masahiro Nakaoka Mary I. O'Connor Jeanine L. Olsen Erik E. Sotka Matthew A. Whalen J. Emmett Duffy |
| |
| Affiliation: | 1. http://orcid.org/0000‐0001‐5691‐2234;2. Dept of Biology, Univ. of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195, USA;3. Dept of Evolution and Ecology, Univ. of California, Davis, CA, USA;4. Virginia Inst. of Marine Science, Gloucester Point, VA, USA;5. Environmental and Marine Biology, Faculty of Science and Engineering, ?bo Akademi Univ., ?bo, Finland;6. Dépt des sciences fondamentales, Univ. du Québec à Chicoutimi, Chicoutimi, QC, Canada;7. Florida Gulf Coast Univ., Fort Myers, FL, USA;8. Dept of Ecology, Environment and Plant Sciences, Stockholm Univ., Stockholm, Sweden;9. Centro de Ciencias do Mar do Algarve (CCMAR), Univ. of Algarve, Faro, Portugal;10. Inst. of Fisheries and Environment of Inland Sea, Japan Fisheries Research and Education Agency, Hiroshima, Japan;11. Dept of Biology, San Diego State Univ., San Diego, CA, USA;12. College of Fisheries and Ocean Sciences, Univ. of Alaska Fairbanks, AK, USA;13. Dept of Marine Sciences, Univ. of Gothenburg, G?teborg, Sweden;14. Akkeshi Marine Station, Field Sciences Center of Northern Biosphere, Hokkaido Univ., Aikappu, Akkeshi, Hokkaido, Japan;15. Dept of Zoology and Biodiversity Research Centre, Univ. of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada;16. Groningen Inst. for Evolutionary Life Sciences, Univ. of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands;17. Grice Marine Laboratory, College of Charleston, Charleston, SC, USA;18. Tennenbaum Marine Observatories Network, Smithsonian Inst., Washington, D.C., USA |
| |
| Abstract: | Form–function relationships in plants underlie their ecosystem roles in supporting higher trophic levels through primary production, detrital pathways, and habitat provision. For widespread, phenotypically‐variable plants, productivity may differ not only across abiotic conditions, but also from distinct morphological or demographic traits. A single foundation species, eelgrass Zostera marina, typically dominates north temperate seagrass meadows, which we studied across 14 sites spanning 32–61°N latitude and two ocean basins. Body size varied by nearly two orders of magnitude through this range, and was largest at mid‐latitudes and in the Pacific Ocean. At the global scale, neither latitude, site‐level environmental conditions, nor body size helped predict productivity (relative growth rate 1–2% day‐1 at most sites), suggesting a remarkable capacity of Z. marina to achieve similar productivity in summer. Furthermore, among a suite of stressors applied within sites, only ambient leaf damage reduced productivity; grazer reduction and nutrient addition had no effect on eelgrass size or growth. Scale‐dependence was evident in different allometric relationships within and across sites for productivity and for modules (leaf count) relative to size. Zostera marina provides a range of ecosystem functions related to both body size (habitat provision, water flow) and growth rates (food, carbon dynamics). Our observed decoupling of body size and maximum production suggests that geographic variation in these ecosystem functions may be independent, with a future need to resolve how local adaptation or plasticity of body size might actually enable more consistent peak productivity across disparate environmental conditions. |
| |
| Keywords: | |
|
|
