4.6 Article

Positive and Negative Effects of Habitat-Forming Algae on Survival, Growth and Intra-Specific Competition of Limpets

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 7, 期 12, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0051601

关键词

-

资金

  1. Rhum Travelling Fellowship (EICC)
  2. International Postgraduate Award (University of Sydney)
  3. International Postgraduate Research Scholarship (Australian Government)
  4. Oceans 2025 programme
  5. UK Natural Environment Research Council

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Understanding the effects of environmental change on the distribution and abundance of strongly interacting organisms, such as intertidal macroalgae and their grazers, needs a thorough knowledge of their underpinning ecological relationships. Control of grazer-plant interactions is bi-directional on northwestern European coasts: grazing by limpets structures populations of macroalgae, while macroalgae provide habitat and food for limpets. Scottish shores dominated by the macroalga Fucus vesiculosus support lower densities and larger sizes of limpets Patella vulgata than shores with less Fucus. These patterns may be due to differences in inter-size-class competitive interactions of limpets among shores with different covers of Fucus. To examine this model, densities of small and large limpets were manipulated in plots with and without Fucus. Amounts of biofilm were measured in each plot. The presence of Fucus increased survival but hindered growth of small (15 mm TL) limpets, which were negatively affected by the presence of large limpets (31 mm TL). In contrast, large limpets were not affected by the presence of Fucus or of small limpets. This suggests the occurrence of asymmetric inter-size-class competition, which was influenced by the presence of macroalgae. Macroalgae and increased densities of limpets did not influence amounts of biofilm. Our findings highlight the role of interactions among organisms in generating ecological responses to environmental change.

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