4.2 Article

Temporal variation in positive and negative interactions between marsh herbivores mediated by changes in plant traits

期刊

MARINE ECOLOGY PROGRESS SERIES
卷 634, 期 -, 页码 89-97

出版社

INTER-RESEARCH
DOI: 10.3354/meps13187

关键词

Positive-negative interactions; Indirect interactions; Benefactor-beneficiary relationship; Facilitation; Herbivory; Plant-mediated interactions; Salt marsh; Crabs; Stem-boring moth

资金

  1. UNMdP
  2. CONICET
  3. ANPCT

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Studies on bidirectional benefactor-beneficiary interactions between organisms have generally neglected the importance of this feedback in trophic levels other than plants. The burrowing crab Neohelice granulata aids the development of larvae of the stem-boring moth Haimbachia sp. nov. within the stems of Spartina alterniflora. In our research, we evaluated whether the stem-boring moth subsequently influences crab feeding on these marsh plants. Surveys and experiments in a tidal marsh of the SW Atlantic coast (36 degrees 22' S) showed that at the beginning of the stem-boring moth attack there was no difference in crab herbivory between plants with or without larvae of the stem-boring moth. However, after 3.5 mo, crabs foraged more on plants without larvae than on those with larvae. Plant tissue analyses showed a decrease in leaf tissue carbon concentrations in plants with larvae. This change in the nutritional quality of leaves, caused by construction of the stem-boring moth galleries, could explain the segregation in plant use between both herbivores. Unlike an allelochemical response, the non-specificity of the induced nutritional change could impair a wide variety of herbivores regardless of their feeding modes or taxonomic proximity. These effects could propagate bottom-up through the food-web, leading to more diffuse interspecific effects. Thus, here we show how the benefactor-beneficiary feedback between herbivores can be important for the maintenance of species coexistence and the functioning of 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

4.2
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