东太平洋中部中上层鲨鱼群落营养生态位分化

鲨鱼在大洋生态系统中占据着重要的生态地位,其作为顶级捕食者,通过下行效应直接影响生态系统的稳定.稳定同位素技术是目前研究摄食生态学强有力的手段之一,可利用碳氮稳定同位素在食物网中的特性分别指示鲨鱼的食物来源和营养级.本研究选取8种130尾采集自东太平洋中部的中上层鲨鱼,应用稳定同位素绘制其种群生态位图谱,比较不同种群间的生态地位及资源分配方式上的差异.结果表明:不同鲨鱼种群碳、氮稳定同位素比值存在显著差异;8种鲨鱼在东太平洋生态系统中的营养级为4.3~5.4,大青鲨、尖吻鲭鲨与其他6种鲨鱼存在摄食隔离,表现出独特的营养生态地位.这些结果充分证明大洋性中上层鲨鱼并非生态系统的冗余种,其营养生态位的独特性不会被其他捕食者简单地替代和弥补.     

提高生态位模型转移能力来模拟入侵物种 的潜在分布

生态位模型利用物种分布点所关联的环境变量去推算物种的生态需求, 模拟物种的分布。在模拟入侵物种分布时, 经典生态位模型包括模型构建于物种本土分布地, 然后将其转移并投射至另一地理区域, 来模拟入侵物种的潜在分布。然而在模型运用时, 出现了模型的转移能力较低、模拟的结果与物种的实际分布不相符的情况, 由此得出了生态位漂移等不恰当的结论。提高生态位模型的转移能力, 可以准确地模拟入侵物种的潜在分布, 为入侵种的风险评估提供参考。作者以入侵种茶翅蝽(Halyomorpha halys)和互花米草(Spartina alterniflora)为例, 从模型的构建材料(即物种分布点和环境变量)入手, 全面阐述提高模型转移能力的策略。在构建模型之前, 需要充分了解入侵物种的生物学特性、种群平衡状态、本土地理分布范围及物种的生物历史地理等方面的知识。在模型构建环节上, 物种分布点不仅要充分覆盖物种的地理分布和生态空间的范围, 同时要降低物种采样点偏差; 环境变量的选择要充分考虑其对物种分布的限制作用、各环境变量之间的空间相关性, 以及不同地理种群间生态空间是否一致, 同时要降低环境变量的空间维度; 模型构建区域要真实地反映物种的地理分布范围, 并考虑种群的平衡状态。作者认为, 在生态位保守的前提下, 如果模型是构建在一个合理方案的基础上, 生态位模型的转移能力是可以保证的, 在以模型转移能力较低的现象来阐述生态位分化时需要引起注意。     

Effects of coexistence on habitat use and trophic ecology of interacting native and invasive amphipods

1. Invasive species in aquatic systems are major drivers of changes in biodiversity. Amphipods are key species in freshwaters, with invasive amphipods either replacing or coexisting with native species and often damaging local biodiversity. However, the consequences of interactions among native and invasive amphipods for their habitat use and feeding ecology and ecosystem function are not yet well understood. 2. We examined a number of streams in Brittany and Northern Ireland, with native and invasive amphipods, to evaluate the consequences of species interactions for both habitat use and diet. Our field studies centred on testing two proposed models: a cohabitation model without competition between two native species (Gammarus pulex vs Echinogammarus berilloni), and a competition model between an invasive and a native species (Gammarus pulex vs Gammarus duebeni celticus). For these three species, alone and in combination, we assessed their habitat use and feeding patterns, the latter through gut contents and stable C and N isotope analyses of their tissues. 3. When existing as single‐species populations, all three species used stream habitats broadly similarly, although G. pulex was more strongly associated with leaf litter and vegetation compared to pebble substrata than the other species. When G. pulex coexisted with either E. berilloni or G. d. celticus, the latter two changed to using all habitats equally, whereas the former retained its habitat preferences. 4. Similarly, all three species when alone had similar gut contents, with inorganic material predominating, followed by leaf and woody material and more rarely algae and invertebrates. When G. pulex coexisted with E. berilloni, the diet of the latter did not change; however, the frequency of inorganic matter, leaves and wood declined in the gut contents of G. pulex. When G. pulex coexisted with G. d. celticus, the pattern of gut contents did not change in either species. 5. When existing as single‐species populations, G. pulex had a broader range of isotopic signatures, both for δ¹³C and for δ¹⁵N, than the two other species, indicating a more variable diet among individuals. When G. pulex coexisted with either E. berilloni or G. d. celticus, the latter two had similar ranges of δ¹³C and δ¹⁵N, whereas for G. pulex the range was much less for δ¹³C and δ¹⁵N, suggesting a less diverse diet. 6. Our results infer two different modes of coexistence between native and non‐native amphipods. We have shown that the native species, which coexist stably, appear to show interference competition, leading to spatial habitat segregation, whereas competition for food and possible intraguild predation by G. pulex on G. d. celticus would explain why the distribution and density of the latter is affected by G. pulex. However, since all the species have a similar diet and feeding habit, we expect no great overall effect on ecosystem processes as a consequence of species interactions and displacements.     

Trophic ecology of parabiotic ants: Do the partners have similar food niches?

Organisms associated with another species may experience both costs and benefits from their partner. One of these costs is competition, which is the more likely if the two species are ecologically similar. Parabioses are associations between two ant species that share a nest and often attend the same food sources. Albeit parabioses are probably mutualistic, parabiotic partners may compete for food. We therefore investigated feeding niches and dietary overlap of two parabiotically associated ants in Borneo using cafeteria experiments and stable isotope analyses. The two species strongly differed in their food choices. While Crematogaster modiglianii mostly foraged at carbohydrate‐rich baits, Camponotus rufifemur preferred urea‐rich sources. Both species also consumed animal protein. The ¹⁵N concentration in Ca. rufifemur workers was consistently lower than in Cr. modiglianii. Camponotus rufifemur but not Cr. modiglianii possesses microbial endosymbionts, which can metabolize urea and synthesize essential amino acids. Its lower ¹⁵N signature may result from a relatively higher intake of plant‐based or otherwise ¹⁵N‐depleted nitrogen. Isotopic signatures of the two partners in the same parabiosis showed strongly parallel variation across nests. As we did not find evidence for spatial autocorrelation, this correlation suggests an overlap of food sources between the two ant species. Based on model simulations, we estimated a diet overlap of 22–66% for nitrogen sources and 45–74% for carbon sources. The overlap may arise from either joint exploitation of the same food sources or trophallactic exchange of food. This suggests an intense trophic interaction and potential for competition between the parabiotic partners.