4.6 Article

Overcompensation and grazing optimisation in a swan-pondweed system?

期刊

FRESHWATER BIOLOGY
卷 49, 期 11, 页码 1391-1399

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2427.2004.01275.x

关键词

compensatory production; foraging threshold; intraspecific competition; maximum yield; sequential model

向作者/读者索取更多资源

1. The general notion is that negative effects of vertebrate herbivores on water plants, which play a key role in freshwaters, prevail, and that positive feedbacks of herbivores on plants are insignificant. 2. The most likely systems to find such positive feedbacks are those in which herbivores exert strong feeding pressures on plants during part of the year. Previous theoretical work has suggested that compensatory production occurs when migratory Bewick's swans forage on tubers of fennel pondweed. As a corollary, the swans can exploit the tubers down to a level that maximises their tuber yield. 3. In order to test these hypotheses, I measured pondweed tuber biomass on three occasions per year (just before and after foraging, and just before tuber sprouting) in three consecutive years. The 17 sampling sites in the Lauwersmeer (the Netherlands) were classified according to their silt content and water depth. Within four silt-depth classes, I predicted for each year tuber biomass production and, from that, the optimum foraging threshold that would result in the maximum tuber biomass yield. 4. Water depth did not affect tuber production, and silt content only did in one of the 3 years. In accordance with overcompensation predictions, tuber production was higher at plots with moderate foraging pressures than at plots with little or no grazing. However, the winter and summer conditions following the swan foraging had large unpredictable effects on tuber mortality and production. 5. These results indicate that overcompensation by fennel pondweed occurs and that Bewick's swans are generally able to profit from it, albeit without fine-tuning of the foraging threshold to the yield.

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