4.4 Article

Inter- and intra-specific competition between Paracentrotus lividus and Arbacia lixula in resource-limited barren areas

期刊

JOURNAL OF SEA RESEARCH
卷 60, 期 3, 页码 184-192

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.seares.2008.07.001

关键词

Paracentrotus lividus; Arbacia lixula; Gut Contents; Population Structure; Barren Ground

资金

  1. NATO-CNR senior fellowship programme 2002

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The sea urchins Paracentrotus lividus and Arbacia lixula coexist in the infralittoral zone along the Mediterranean and north-east Atlantic coasts. Through their grazing activity they can produce and maintain barren grounds, habitat characterised by low algal diversity and productivity. This study addresses the coexistence of these species within severely limited barren grounds by assessing differences in population structure, feeding preferences and conditions. Density. size structure, feeding conditions and gut contents of the two species, along with the associated algal assemblage were analysed in a hierarchical sampling design (Locations: thousands of meters apart; Sites: hundreds of meters apart). The algal assemblage, dominated by encrusting corallines (EC), was depauperate with bare rocks representing around 67% of the total percent cover, and homogeneous both at the Site and at the Location level. Sea urchins showed significant variability in density and gut conditions only at the Site level. No compensative mechanisms have been observed (no inverse correlation between the two species). The gut contents of the two species were quite different: A. lixula fed mainly on encrusting corallines, while P. lividus fed on non-encrusting macrophytes. Food limitation was detected for P. lividus, as a consequence of intra-specific competition. Our results highlight that in barren conditions a large trophic niche differentiation occurs. demonstrating that the two urchins play complementary and synergic roles in the maintenance of barrens in the Mediterranean. (C) 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据