A framework for understanding physical ecosystem engineering by organisms

Abstract

While well‐recognized as an important kind of ecological interaction, physical ecosystem engineering by organisms is diverse with varied consequences, presenting challenges for developing and using general understanding. There is also still some uncertainty as to what it is, and some skepticism that the diversity of engineering and its effects is amenable to conceptual integration and general understanding. What then, are the key cause/effect relationships and what underlies them? Here we develop, enrich and extend our extant understanding of physical ecosystem engineering into an integrated framework that exposes the essential cause/effect relationships, their underpinnings, and the interconnections that need to be understood to explain or predict engineering effects. The framework has four cause/effect relationships linking four components: 1. An engineer causes structural change; 2. Structural change causes abiotic change; 3. Structural and abiotic change cause biotic change; 4. Structural, abiotic and biotic change can feedback to the engineer. The first two relationships describe an ecosystem engineering process and abiotic dynamics, while the second two describe biotic consequence for other species and the engineer. The four relationships can be parameterized and linked using time‐indexed equations that describe engineered system dynamics. After describing the relationships we discuss the utility of the framework; how it might be enriched; and briefly how it can be used to identify intersections of ecosystem engineering with fields outside ecology.

How strong is the effect of invasive ecosystem engineers on the distribution patterns of local species, the local and regional biodiversity and ecosystem functions?

“…There are quite a few studies, and several reviews among them, that treat marine invaders as habitat modifiers or ecosystem engineers [1,2,7], but to the best of our knowledge a comprehensive systematic review of invasive ecosystem engineers that includes meta-analysis on the size and direction of the impacts has not yet been conducted. This is in contrast, for example, to two (though limited) such analyses on freshwater systems, one on carp and crayfish impacts and one on the impacts of dreissenid mussels [8,9].…”

The loss of foundation species revisited

“…Other categories, such as ecosystem engineer (Jones et al 2010), core species (Hanski 1982), dominant species (Grime 1984), 58 and structural species (Huston 1994) describe particular aspects of foundation species (Ellison et al 2005). However, foundation 59 species are distinct from these other types of species because they also have unique sets of traits that are functionally irreplaceable in a 60 given ecosystem and that, coupled with a foundation species' system-wide dominance and high abundance, define that ecosystem 61 (Fig.…”

Remote Sensing of Epibenthic Shellfish Using Synthetic Aperture Radar Satellite Imagery

“…Unlike endobenthic bivalves, the epibenthic species Mytilus edulis (blue mussel) and Crassostrea gigas (Pacific oyster) are able to create reefs, which provide hard substrates on otherwise entirely soft bottom sediment [2,3]. This autogenic ecosystem engineering makes epibenthic shellfish important species in intertidal soft bottom ecosystems, as they introduce heterogeneity and maintain habitats important for a wide variety of marine organisms, both locally and on spatially-extended scales [4,5]. In addition, both the blue mussel and the Pacific oyster are important species for mariculture.…”