A cross‐ecosystem comparison of the strength of trophic cascades

Shurin, Jonathan B.; Borer, Elizabeth T.; Seabloom, Eric W.; Anderson, Kurt E.; Blanchette, Carol A.; Broitman, Bernardo R.; Cooper, Scott D.; Halpern, Benjamin S.

doi:10.1046/j.1461-0248.2002.00381.x

Cited by 808 publications

(940 citation statements)

References 51 publications

(145 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

863

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, the presence of some species of honeydewcollecting ants results in increased aphid numbers and also increased numbers of aphid parasitoids when protecting aphids from predators and incidentally also protecting parasitized aphids against predators and hyperparasitoids (Völkl 1992;Kaneko 2002). Nevertheless, the most recognized indirect trophic interactions are top-down trophic cascades in which predators influence plants by feeding on herbivores, thus reducing the consequences of herbivory (Schmitz et al 2000;Shurin et al 2002;Turrini et al 2016).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Does urbanization explain differences in interactions between an insect herbivore and its natural enemies and mutualists?

Rocha

Fellowes

2018

Urban Ecosyst

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Urbanization can alter the composition of arthropod communities. However, little is known about how urbanization affects ecological interactions. Using experimental colonies of the black bean aphid Aphis fabae Scopoli reared on Vicia faba L, we asked if patterns of predator-prey, host-parasitoid and ant-aphid mutualisms varied along an urbanization gradient across a large town in southern England. We recorded the presence of naturally occurring predators, parasitoid wasps and mutualistic ants together with aphid abundance. We examined how biotic (green areas and plant richness) and abiotic features (impervious surfaces and distance to town center) affected (1) aphid colony size, (2) the likelihood of finding predators, mutualistic ants and aphid mummies (indicating the presence of parasitoids), and (3) how the interplay among these factors affected patterns of parasitoid attack, predator abundance, mutualistic interactions and aphid abundance. Aphid abundance was best explained by the number of mutualistic ants attending the colonies. Aphid predators responded negatively to both the proportion of impervious surfaces and to the number of mutualistic ants farming the colonies, and positively to aphid population size, whereas parasitized aphids were found in colonies with higher numbers of aphids and ants. The number of mutualistic ants attending was positively associated with aphid colony size and negatively with the number of aphid predators. Our findings suggest that for insect-natural enemy interactions, urbanization may affect some groups, while not influencing others, and that local effects (mutualists, host plant presence) will also be key determinants of how urban ecological communities are formed.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Does urbanization explain differences in interactions between an insect herbivore and its natural enemies and mutualists?

Rocha

Fellowes

2018

Urban Ecosyst

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…contribute to of the strength of trophic cascades in aquatic systems, among which the feeding activities and taxonomy (high composition of omnivores and carnivores) are the most important ones (Shurin et al, 2002;Borer et al, 2005). For marine planktonic food web, the increase of carnivorous feeding of mesozooplankton is the main reason for driving trophic cascades (Sommer, 2008).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Seasonal Variability of Mesozooplankton Feeding Rates on Phytoplankton in Subtropical Coastal and Estuarine Waters

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In order to understand how mesozooplankton assemblages influenced phytoplankton in coastal and estuarine waters, we carried out a monthly investigation on mesozooplankton composition at two contrasting stations of Hong Kong coastal and estuarine waters and simultaneously conducted bottle incubation feeding experiments. The assemblage of mesozooplankton was omnivorous at both stations with varying carnivory degree (the degree of feeding preference of protozoa and animal food to phytoplankton) and the variations of carnivory degree were significantly associated with microzooplankton biomass (ciliates for the coastal station, both ciliates and dinoflagellates for the estuarine stations) and physical environmental parameters (primarily salinity). High carnivory was primarily due to high composition of noctilucales, Corycaeus spp., Oithona spp. and Acartia spp. Results of feeding experiments showed that grazing impacts on phytoplankton ranged from −5.9 to 17.7%, while the mean impacts were just <4% at both stations. The impacts were size-dependent, by which mesozooplankton consumed around 9% of large-sized phytoplankton while indirectly caused an increase of 4% of small-sized phytoplankton. Mesozooplankton clearance rate on phytoplankton, calculated from the log response of chlorophyll a concentrations by the introduction of bulk grazers after 1-day incubation, was significantly reduced by increasing carnivory degree of the mesozooplankton assemblage. The mechanism for the reduction of mesozooplankton clearance rate with increasing carnivory degree was primarily due to less efficient of filtering feeding and stronger trophic cascades due to suppression of microzooplankton. The feeding rates of mesozooplankton on microzooplankton were not obtained in this study, but the trophic cascades indirectly induced by mesozooplankton carnivorous feeding can be observed by the negative clearance rate on small-sized phytoplankton. Overall, the main significance of this study is the empirical relationship between carnivory degree and clearance rate, which allow researchers to potentially predict the herbivory of mesozooplankton in the nature without conducting feeding experiments.

show abstract

“…Predation is one of the main factors that affect invertebrate assemblages in aquatic habitats (Shurin et al 2002;Morin 2011) in a variety of ways. These include the direct removal of prey, which results in reductions in prey populations (Murdoch et al 2003).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of fish predation on Posidonia oceanica amphipod assemblages

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

and biomass were unchanged. In the inclusion cages, a size-frequency analysis revealed that predators mainly targeted large A. spinicornis and Apherusa chiereghinii individuals. Our results suggest that predation by fish may be an important factor in controlling amphipod abundances and biomasses in P. oceanica meadows. Overall, amphipod community composition was not affected by exclusion or inclusion of fish predators. However, some significant effects at the species level point to more complex interactions between some amphipods and fish.

show abstract

A cross‐ecosystem comparison of the strength of trophic cascades

Cited by 808 publications

References 51 publications

Does urbanization explain differences in interactions between an insect herbivore and its natural enemies and mutualists?

Does urbanization explain differences in interactions between an insect herbivore and its natural enemies and mutualists?

Seasonal Variability of Mesozooplankton Feeding Rates on Phytoplankton in Subtropical Coastal and Estuarine Waters

Effects of fish predation on Posidonia oceanica amphipod assemblages

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About