4.6 Article

The Effects of Copper Pollution on Fouling Assemblage Diversity: A Tropical-Temperate Comparison

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 6, 期 3, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0018026

关键词

-

资金

  1. Marine Science Network (MSN)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: The invasion of habitats by non-indigenous species (NIS) occurs at a global scale and can generate significant ecological, evolutionary, economic and social consequences. Estuarine and coastal ecosystems are particularly vulnerable to pollution from numerous sources due to years of human-induced degradation and shipping. Pollution is considered as a class of disturbance with anthropogenic roots and recent studies have concluded that high frequencies of disturbance may facilitate invasions by increasing the availability of resources. Methodology/Principal Findings: To examine the effects of heavy metal pollution as disturbance in shaping patterns of exotic versus native diversity in marine fouling communities we exposed fouling communities to different concentrations of copper in one temperate (Virginia) and one tropical (Panama) region. Diversity was categorized as total, native and nonindigenous and we also incorporated taxonomic and functional richness. Our findings indicate that total fouling diversity decreased with increasing copper pollution, whether taxonomic or functional diversity is considered. Both native and nonindigenous richness decreased with increasing copper concentrations at the tropical site whereas at the temperate site, non-indigenous richness was too low to detect any effect. Conclusions/Significance: Non-indigenous richness decreased with increasing metal concentrations, contradicting previous investigations that evaluate the influence of heavy metal pollution on diversity and invasibility of fouling assemblages. These results provide first insights on how the invasive species pool in a certain region may play a key role in the disturbance vs. non-indigenous diversity relationship.

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

4.6
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