4.7 Article

Grazing regulates the spatial variability of periphyton biomass

期刊

ECOLOGY
卷 89, 期 1, 页码 165-173

出版社

ECOLOGICAL SOC AMER
DOI: 10.1890/06-1910.1

关键词

coefficient of variation; grazer efficiency; meta-analysis; periphyton biomass; spatial heterogeneity; standard deviations

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The presence of consumers not only alters the mean biomass of the prey assemblage, but also affects the spatial heterogeneity of biomass distribution. Whereas the mean prey biomass is generally reduced by consumer presence, the effect on spatial heterogeneity is less clear-cut. A meta-analysis of almost 600 field experiments manipulating the presence of benthic invertebrate or vertebrate grazers was conducted to analyze the effect of grazers on both the absolute spatial variability of periphyton biomass and the relative variability, which was standardized to the mean. Effects on absolute variability were measured as the log response ratio of the standard deviation of biomass (LR-SD), whereas effects on relative variability were measured as the log response ratio of the coefficient of variation of biomass (LR-CV). The overall magnitude and range of LR-SD and LR-CV indicated that grazers not only reduced periphyton biomass, but also substantially altered their spatial distribution. However, grazer effects differed strongly for absolute and relative variability. On average, grazers reduced the absolute spatial variability in prey biomass by 50% (average LR-SD = -0.68) but increased the relative variability by 24% (average LR-CV = 0.22). The magnitude of LR-SD strongly depended on the efficiency of grazing, with strong biomass removal leading to strong homogenization. Moreover, LR-CV and LR-SD were significantly affected by habitat type (freshwater vs. coastal) and substrata. Given the importance of spatial heterogeneity for resource uptake, competition and the maintenance of diversity, grazer presence has potentially strong indirect effects on the interactions within prey assemblages.

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

4.7
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