4.2 Article

Effects of physical ecosystem engineering and herbivory on intertidal community structure

期刊

MARINE ECOLOGY PROGRESS SERIES
卷 317, 期 -, 页码 29-39

出版社

INTER-RESEARCH
DOI: 10.3354/meps317029

关键词

Balanus glandula; biogenic habitat structure; Chthamalus dalli; competition; facilitation; grazing; Littorina plena; recruitment

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Physical ecosystem engineers play dominant roles in a wide variety of communities. While many of the direct, positive effects of ecosystem engineers are readily apparent, the roles of engineers are often mediated by indirect interactions stemming from the facilitation of one or a few key species. Although direct and indirect effects are both critical drivers of community dynamics, they are rarely considered together with regards to ecosystem engineering. In the present study barnacle and herbivorous gastropod densities are experimentally manipulated to investigate the direct positive effects of habitat provision by barnacles as well as indirect effects mediated by molluscan grazers. Molluscan grazers (Littorina spp.) and herbivorous arthropods were positively influenced by the presence of barnacles. Arthropod abundance and species richness were lower when Littorina spp. were present. This pattern was not influenced by barnacle cover, suggesting that competition among herbivore functional groups was strong but independent of biogenic habitat complexity. In addition, Littorina spp. had strong negative effects on the filamentous alga Urospora penicilliformis, but this effect was only seen in the absence of barnacles. Finally, Littorina spp. reduced the recruitment of the principal habitat-forming barnacle Balanus glandula, suggesting that Littorina spp. may mediate a negative feedback loop in B. glandula population dynamics. Given the ubiquity of ecosystem engineers, similar combinations of direct and indirect influences may have far-reaching consequences for community dynamics and species richness in a wide range of systems.

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