4.2 Article

Modeling of priority effects and species dominance in Long Island Sound benthic communities

期刊

MARINE ECOLOGY PROGRESS SERIES
卷 413, 期 -, 页码 229-240

出版社

INTER-RESEARCH
DOI: 10.3354/meps08764

关键词

Community threshold; Dispersal; Life history; Model

资金

  1. EPA [R832448]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Spatially structured communities are common in many systems, including the marine benthos where sessile species compete for substrate. Which species colonizes a habitat first may determine species coexistence or dominance. The strength of this priority effect will vary as a function of the interaction between life history processes and disturbance events at different spatial and temporal scales. On a local scale, disturbance tends to open up space, allowing new propagules to arrive, while on a regional scale, it has the potential to reduce source populations and the colonization ability of dispersal-limited species. Differences in larval longevity will have a direct influence on dispersal distance, the relative timing of colonization, and the impact of priority effects, especially when interacting with different disturbance regimes. This study presents a modeling exercise to highlight this synergy and its implications for invasive species and ecosystem management. Four life histories were simulated, representing species from the 4 common community states of Long Island Sound, USA: resident bryozoans, invasive ascidians, mussels, and the ascidian Diplosoma listerianum that is restricted to years with abnormally warm winters. Brooding species took longer to exert dominance than broadcast spawners, but were more resilient to disturbance, having less local extinctions. Simulations showed that the combined effects of dispersal ability and disturbance could allow the maintenance of diversity on a regional scale regardless of the identity of locally dominant species. Priority effects are only present when the system experiences localized disturbance regimes, such as predation.

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

4.2
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