Mobile marine predators: an understudied source of nutrients to coral reefs in an unfished atoll

Williams, Jessica J.; Papastamatiou, Yannis P.; Caselle, Jennifer E.; Bradley, Darcy; Jacoby, David

doi:10.1098/rspb.2017.2456

Cited by 88 publications

(72 citation statements)

References 47 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…sustain entire cave ecosystems through their nightly roosting behaviour, since their guano provides nutrients to an otherwise energy-poor system (Ferreira & Martins, 1999;Poulson & Lavoie, 2000;Fenolio et al, 2006;Bird et al, 2007;Kunz et al, 2011). Parallel examples also exist in marine environments (Williams et al, 2018). By contrast, pulse perturbations can occur when a less-common behaviour results in the instantaneous alteration of active subsidy behaviour or population density, and thus creates a flux of nutrients of large magnitude and short duration ( Fig.…”

Section: The Quantitative Importance Of Active Subsidiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Vectors with autonomy: what distinguishes animal‐mediated nutrient transport from abiotic vectors?

McInturf

Pollack²,

Yang

et al. 2019

Biological Reviews

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Animal movements are important drivers of nutrient redistribution that can affect primary productivity and biodiversity across various spatial scales. Recent work indicates that incorporating these movements into ecosystem models can enhance our ability to predict the spatio‐temporal distribution of nutrients. However, the role of animal behaviour in animal‐mediated nutrient transport (i.e. active subsidies) remains under‐explored. Here we review the current literature on active subsidies to show how the behaviour of active subsidy agents makes them both ecologically important and qualitatively distinct from abiotic processes (i.e. passive subsidies). We first propose that animal movement patterns can create similar ecological effects (i.e. press and pulse disturbances) in recipient ecosystems, which can be equal in magnitude to or greater than those of passive subsidies. We then highlight three key behavioural features distinguishing active subsidies. First, organisms can transport nutrients counter‐directionally to abiotic forces and potential energy gradients (e.g. upstream). Second, unlike passive subsidies, organisms respond to the patterns of nutrients that they generate. Third, animal agents interact with each other. The latter two features can form positive‐ or negative‐feedback loops, creating patterns in space or time that can reinforce nutrient hotspots in places of mass aggregations and/or create lasting impacts within ecosystems. Because human‐driven changes can affect both the space‐use of active subsidy species and their composition at both population (i.e. individual variation) and community levels (i.e. species interactions), predicting patterns in nutrient flows under future modified environmental conditions depends on understanding the behavioural mechanisms that underlie active subsidies and variation among agents' contributions. We conclude by advocating for the integration of animal behaviour, animal movement data, and individual variation into future conservation efforts in order to provide more accurate and realistic assessments of changing ecosystem function.

show abstract

Section: The Quantitative Importance Of Active Subsidiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Vectors with autonomy: what distinguishes animal‐mediated nutrient transport from abiotic vectors?

McInturf

Pollack²,

Yang

et al. 2019

Biological Reviews

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Graham and colleagues' study adds to our growing appreciation of the importance of long-distance nutritional subsidies for reefs, generated not only by seabirds as documented here, but also by wide-ranging underwater predators such as sharks 7 . Notably, human impacts can disrupt the subsidies in both of these cases.…”

Section: How Rats Wreak Havoc On Coral Reefsmentioning

confidence: 58%

How rats wreak havoc on coral reefs

Knowlton¹

2018

Nature

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The largest batoid and among the largest filterfeeders in the sea, their habitat may cover vast areas (Homma, 1997). They provide diverse ecological functions for the marine environment such as control of plankton levels and "large foodfalls" (O'Brien, 1979;Blumenshine and Hambright, 2003;Higgs et al, 2014;Ratnarajah et al, 2014), as well as being suppliers of nutrient subsidies (Williams et al, 2018). Likewise, manta rays are a source of livelihood for many stakeholders, such as fishermen, merchants, and tourism operators (Alava et al, 1997;Acebes, 2013;O'Malley et al, 2013).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Feeding – Cleaning Trade-Off: Manta Ray “Decision-Making” as a Conservation Tool

Barr

Abelson

2019

Front. Mar. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Identifying critical aggregation sites and behavioral patterns of imperiled species contributes to filling knowledge gaps essential for their conservation. Manta rays present a prominent example of such species, the populations of which are declining globally due to directed fishery, by-catch, and other anthropogenic stressors. Our goal was to explore manta ray aggregation sites in the Philippines in order to determine the factors governing the mantas' visits -a knowledge gap essential to understand manta ecology, facilitate ecosystem-based fishery management, and promote sustainable manta-based ecotourism. Diving surveys, environmental conditions assessment, and autonomous cameras were employed to study manta behavior and visit patterns to a cleaning station cluster on a commonly fished seamount, visited by both Mobula birostris and Mobula alfredi. Our findings reveal several environmental conditions (e.g., sea state, moon illumination, and flow) that serve as predictors of manta presence/absence at the site. We suggest that these conditions affect both the behavior of the manta's food (i.e., the spatial distribution of plankton) and the cleaning effectiveness of the cleaner wrasse, which consequently influence manta activity. The findings suggest a trade-off between cleaning and foraging: i.e., mantas tend to visit the cleaning stations when environmental conditions are less favorable for foraging but suitable for effective cleaning; while being absent from the cleaning stations when environmental conditions form plankton aggregations, ideal for efficient feeding. This study sheds light on manta behavior and habitat use on dynamic, small spatio-temporal scales (i.e., hundreds of meters to a few kilometers, hours to days). The acquired data may be applied in the planning of marine protected areas and in fishery management (e.g., to reduce the chances of manta bycatch by limiting fishing activities to periods of manta absence) as well as contribute to enhancing sustainable exploitation, such as ecotourism, by increasing the chances of diving encounters with manta rays.

show abstract

Mobile marine predators: an understudied source of nutrients to coral reefs in an unfished atoll

Cited by 88 publications

References 47 publications

Vectors with autonomy: what distinguishes animal‐mediated nutrient transport from abiotic vectors?

Vectors with autonomy: what distinguishes animal‐mediated nutrient transport from abiotic vectors?

How rats wreak havoc on coral reefs

Feeding – Cleaning Trade-Off: Manta Ray “Decision-Making” as a Conservation Tool

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About