4.3 Article

Inter-hemispheric comparison of bottom-up effects on community structure: Insights revealed using the comparative-experimental approach

Journal

ECOLOGICAL RESEARCH
Volume 17, Issue 1, Pages 1-16

Publisher

SPRINGER JAPAN KK
DOI: 10.1046/j.1440-1703.2002.00458.x

Keywords

bottom-up; predation; recruitment; top-down; upwelling

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The comparative-experimental approach uses identically designed, replicated experiments at different sites along environmental gradients in order to gain insight into the changing dynamics of communities with changing environmental conditions. Such studies reveal how ecological processes vary in intensity and interact to produce community structure. Early emphases were on the community consequences of shifting top-down impacts, competition and disturbance with environmental stress. Recent advances include the more precise quantification of gradients and thus a better understanding of species responses to the environment, and the revelation that bottom-up forces can vary significantly on within-region scales, with major consequences for the impact of top-down forces and thus community dynamics. Here the use of the method to examine the role of geographic location (coastal ecosystems in different hemispheres) and oceanographic conditions (upwelling vs downwelling) on these bottom-up/top-down linkages is advanced. We show that a bottom-up factor (prey recruitment) and a top-down effect (predation rate) vary consistently with oceanographic conditions within each coastal ecosystem, and also between geographic locations (New Zealand, Oregon). In general, both recruitment and predation rates are higher in Oregon. It is postulated that these differences are common responses to oceanographic variation, and that between-hemisphere differences result from the stronger and more persistent upwelling in the California Current ecosystem.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available