Importance of predatory infauna in marine soft-bottom communities: reply to Wilson

Ambrose, WG

doi:10.3354/meps032041

Cited by 13 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The evidence presented here is by no means exhaustive, but provides strong support for a 3-level trophic structure model in sedimentary habitats. Our results also extend the validity of this model to sandy sediments, a habitat where Ambrose (1984aAmbrose ( , 1986) and subsequent authors have not found supporting evidence for this model. The consistency of these results is also remarkable considering that they come from contrasting habitats (15 to 30 m deep coarse sandy sediments in Newfoundland and intertidal muddy-sand sediments in Prince Edward Island), and from the manipulation of either an entire guild of predators (exclusions) or individual epibenthic predators (snow crab, green crab, rock crab) in the laboratory or in the field.…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 83%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Trophic complexity in marine sediments: new evidence from the Gulf of St. Lawrence

Quijón¹,

Snelgrove²

2008

Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 83%

“…Quijón & Snelgrove 2005a,b). As in the original studies by Ambrose (1984aAmbrose ( , 1986 and references therein) and Wilson (1986), we compare simple metrics such as the ratio of predators: non-predators in sediments exposed to predation and those that are not.…”

Section: Abstract: Trophic Complexity · Predatory Infauna · Soft Sedmentioning

confidence: 99%

Trophic complexity in marine sediments: new evidence from the Gulf of St. Lawrence

Quijón¹,

Snelgrove²

2008

Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Predators can affect prey populations directly through reducing prey abundance or biomass (e.g., Hairston et al 1960, Paine 1966, Connell 1972, or indirectly through altering how a prey species interacts with its competitor (Paine 1966, Hughes 1994, Werner and Anholt 1996 or its own prey (Carpenter et al 1985, Power et al 1985, Ambrose 1986). In addition to these density-mediated (direct and indirect) effects where one species influences the abundance or biomass of one or several other species, a species can also mediate trophic interactions through behavioral, chemical, and environmental pathways (Wootton 1993, Menge 1995.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Habitat Complexity Disrupts Predator–prey Interactions but Not the Trophic Cascade on Oyster Reefs

Grabowski

2004

Ecology

331

297

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite recognition of the significance of both food web interactions and habitat complexity in community dynamics, current ecological theory rarely couples these two processes. Experimental manipulations of the abundance of the two predators in an oyster-reef trophic cascade, and the structural complexity provided by reefs of living oysters, demonstrated that enhanced habitat complexity weakened the strengths of trophic interactions. The system of tri-trophic interactions included oyster toadfish (Opsanus tau) as the top predator that consumed the mud crab (Panopeus herbstii), which preys upon juvenile oysters (Crassostrea virginica). On reefs of low complexity, toadfish controlled mud crab abundances and indirectly determined the level of mortality of juvenile oysters. The indirect effects of toadfish on oysters emerged through their influence on how intensely mud crabs preyed on oysters. Augmentation of habitat complexity by substituting vertically oriented, living oysters for the flat shells of dead oysters disrupted both of the direct trophic linkages but did not alter the magnitude of the indirect effect of toadfish on juvenile oysters. This paradox can be understood by partitioning the mechanisms by which toadfish influence mud crabs and ultimately juvenile oysters. Trait-mediated indirect interactions (TMIIs; i.e., predator-avoidance behavior in mud crabs) accounted for 95.6-98.2% of toadfish indirect benefits to oyster survival and, consequently, were a much greater contributor than densitymediated indirect interactions (DMIIs; i.e., the reduction in crab abundance by toadfish). Avoidance behavior was unaffected by modification in habitat complexity. Complex reefs increased total oyster survival because added habitat complexity reduced mud crab predation on oysters. Additionally, the magnitude of this effect was much greater than the increase in oyster mortality as a result of complex reefs disrupting toadfish predation on mud crabs. This experimental demonstration of how habitat complexity modifies trophic interactions in a temperate reef community has fundamental implications for our understanding of species interaction webs and community structure. The influence of habitat complexity on the strength of a trophic cascade generally may depend upon whether physical complexity provides actual and perceived refuges for component predator-prey pairs.

show abstract

“…He proposed a 3-level interactive model composed of epibenthic predators, predatory infauna and other infauna. There is increasing evidence that the predatory infauna structures soft bottom communities (Kent & Day 1983, Commito & Ambrose 1985a, b, Comnlito & Shrader 1985, Ambrose 1986, Schubert & Reise 1986, and these studies emphasize the complexities of community organization in soft bottoms rather than providing clear cut principles.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of macroepifauna on developing nematode and harpacticoid assemblages in a subtidal muddy habitat

Ólafsson¹,

Moore²

1992

Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In order to assess the effects of macrofauna on meiofaunal community structure, field investigations were performed in a low energy subtidal muddy sediment in Loch Creran, a sea-loch on the west coast of Scotland. Meiofaunal colonization of azoic sediment was studied in cages designed to exclude macrofauna to varying degrees. In all the cages high diversity assemblages developed rapidly. Considerable variation in species composition was found, both for nematodes and harpacticoids, and no indication that exclusion of the macrofauna was influencing the early colonizing individuals. For the harpacticoid species the results from multivariate analyses indicated a strong successional pattern inside the cages. However such a pattern was not obvious for the nematode component of the meiofauna. The semi-pelagic harpacticoid copepod Longipedia helgolandica became extremely abundant inside the cages, while it was hardly found in the background sediment. The initial colonization by most of the harpacticoids was marked by a high proportion of copepodites. The exclusion of macroepifauna did not result in a simpler meiofaunal community as one would expect i f suppression of dominant competitive relationships by macroepifauna occurred. This study emphasizes the complexity of the community organization, where multitrophic relationships may be of vital importance as factors influencing community structure.

show abstract

Importance of predatory infauna in marine soft-bottom communities: reply to Wilson

Cited by 13 publications

References 13 publications

Trophic complexity in marine sediments: new evidence from the Gulf of St. Lawrence

Trophic complexity in marine sediments: new evidence from the Gulf of St. Lawrence

Habitat Complexity Disrupts Predator–prey Interactions but Not the Trophic Cascade on Oyster Reefs

Effects of macroepifauna on developing nematode and harpacticoid assemblages in a subtidal muddy habitat

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About