JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org..Wiley-Blackwell and Nordic Society Oikos are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Oikos. M. 1994. Organisms as ecosystem engineers.-Oikos 69: 373-386.Ecosystem engineers are organisms that directly or indirectly modulate the availability of resources to other species, by causing physical state changes in biotic or abiotic materials. In so doing they modify, maintain and create habitats. Autogenic engineers (e.g. corals, or trees) change the environment via their own physical structures (i.e. their living and dead tissues). Allogenic engineers (e.g. woodpeckers, beavers) change the environment by transforming living or non-living materials from one physical state to another, via mechanical or other means. The direct provision of resources to other species, in the form of living or dead tissues is not engineering. Organisms act as engineers when they modulate the supply of a resource or resources other than themselves. We recognise and define five types of engineering and provide examples. Humans are allogenic engineers par excellence, and also mimic the behaviour of autogenic engineers, for example by constructing glasshouses. We explore related concepts including the notions of extended phenotypes and keystone species. Some (but not all) products of ecosystem engineering are extended phenotypes. Many (perhaps most) impacts of keystone species include not only trophic effects, but also engineers and engineering. Engineers differ in their impacts. The biggest effects are attributable to species with large per capita impacts, living at high densities, over large areas for a long time, giving rise to structures that persist for millennia and that modulate many resource flows (e.g. mima mounds created by fossorial rodents). The ephemeral nests constructed by small, passerine birds lie at the opposite end of this continuum. We provide a tentative research agenda for an exploration of the phenomenon of organisms as ecosystem engineers, and suggest that all habitats on earth support, and are influenced by, ecosystem engineers.

Physical ecosystem engineers are organisms that directly or indirectly control the availability of resources to other organisms by causing physical state changes in biotic or abiotic materials. Physical ecosystem engineering by organisms is the physical modification, maintenance, or creation of habitats. Ecological effects of engineers on many other species occur in virtually all ecosystems because the physical state changes directly create nonfood resources such as living space, directly control abiotic resources, and indirectly modulate abiotic forces that, in turn, affect resource use by other organisms. Trophic interactions and resource competition do not constitute engineering. Engineering can have significant or trivial effects on other species, may involve the physical structure of an organism (like a tree) or structures made by an organism (like a beaver dam), and can, but does not invariably, have feedback effects on the engineer. We argue that engineering has both negative and positive effects on species richness and abundances at small scales, but the net effects are probably positive at larger scales encompassing engineered and nonengineered environments in ecological and evolutionary space and time. Models of the population dynamics of engineers suggest that the engineer/habitat equilibrium is often, but not always, locally stable and may show long‐term cycles, with potential ramifications for community and ecosystem stability. As yet, data adequate to parameterize such a model do not exist for any engineer species. Because engineers control flows of energy and materials but do not have to participate in these flows, energy, mass, and stoichiometry do not appear to be useful in predicting which engineers will have big effects. Empirical observations suggest some potential generalizations about which species will be important engineers in which ecosystems. We point out some of the obvious, and not so obvious, ways in which engineering and trophic relations interact, and we call for greater research on physical ecosystem engineers, their impacts, and their interface with trophic relations.

No abstract

A new model for vegetation patterns is introduced. The model reproduces a wide range of patterns observed in water-limited regions, including drifting bands, spots, and labyrinths. It predicts transitions from bare soil at low precipitation to homogeneous vegetation at high precipitation, through intermediate states of spot, stripe, and hole patterns. It also predicts wide precipitation ranges where different stable states coexist. Using these predictions we propose a novel explanation of desertification phenomena and a new approach to classifying aridity.

Abstract. Physical ecosystem engineers are organisms that directly or indirectly control the availability of resources to other organisms by causing physical state changes in biotic or abiotic materials. Physical ecosystem engineering by organisms is the physical modification, maintenance, or creation of habitats. Ecological effects of engineers on many other species occur in virtually all ecosystems because the physical state changes directly create nonfood resources such as living space, directly control abiotic resources, and indirectly modulate abiotic forces that, in turn, affect resource use by other organisms. Trophic interactions and resource competition do not constitute engineering. Engineering can have significant or trivial effects on other species, may involve the physical structure of an organism (like a tree) or structures made by an organism (like a beaver dam), and can, but does not invariably, have feedback effects on the engineer. We argue that engineering has both negative and positive effects on species richness and abundances at small scales, but the net effects are probably positive at larger scales encompassing engineered and nonengineered environments in ecological and evolutionary space and time. Models of the population dynamics of engineers suggest that the engineer/habitat equilibrium is often, but not always, locally stable and may show long-term cycles, with potential ramifications for community and ecosystem stability. As yet, data adequate to parameterize such a model do not exist for any engineer species. Because engineers control flows of energy and materials but do not have to participate in these flows, energy, mass, and stoichiometry do not appear to be useful in predicting which engineers will have big effects. Empirical observations suggest some potential generalizations about which species will be important engineers in which ecosystems. We point out some of the obvious, and not so obvious, ways in which engineering and trophic relations interact, and we call for greater research on physical ecosystem engineers, their impacts, and their interface with trophic relations.

Habitat and species richness in drylands are affected by the dynamics of a few key species, termed "ecosystem engineers." These species modulate the landscape and redistribute the water resources so as to allow the introduction of other species. A mathematical model is developed for a pair of ecosystem engineers commonly found in drylands: plants forming vegetation patterns and cyanobacteria forming soil crusts. The model highlights conditions for habitat creation and for high habitat richness, and suggests a novel mechanism for species loss events as a result of environmental changes.

No abstract

No abstract