4.5 Article

Spatial heterogeneity in the relative impacts of foliar quality and predation pressure on red oak, Quercus rubra, arthropod communities

期刊

OECOLOGIA
卷 164, 期 4, 页码 1017-1027

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00442-010-1750-x

关键词

Bird predation; Exclosure experiment; Spatial variability; Trophic cascade

类别

资金

  1. NSF [DEB 0342750]
  2. Long Term Ecological Research Program [DEB-0823293]
  3. Direct For Biological Sciences
  4. Division Of Environmental Biology [823293] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Predation pressure and resource availability often interact in structuring herbivore communities, with their relative influence varying in space and time. The operation of multiple ecological pressures and guild-specific herbivore responses may combine to override simple predictions of how the roles of plant quality and predation pressure vary in space. For 2 years at the Coweeta LTER in the Southern Appalachian Mountains, we conducted a bird exclosure experiment on red oak (Quercus rubra) saplings to investigate the effects of bird predation on red oak arthropod communities. We established bird exclosures at six sites along an elevational gradient and estimated variation in foliar nitrogen and bird predation pressure along this gradient. Foliar nitrogen concentrations increased with elevation while our index of bird predation pressure was variable across sites. Greater arthropod densities were detected inside exclosures; however, this result was mainly driven by the response of phloem feeders which were much more prevalent inside exclosures than on control trees. There was little evidence for an effect of bird predation on the other arthropod guilds. Consequently, there was no evidence of a trophic cascade either in terms of leaf damage or tree growth. Finally, we found more variation in arthropod density among trees within sites than variation in arthropod density among sites, indicating the importance of micro-site variation in structuring arthropod communities.

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

4.5
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