Context dependency of animal resource subsidies

Subalusky, Amanda L.; Post, David M.

doi:10.1111/brv.12465

Cited by 114 publications

(159 citation statements)

References 225 publications

(391 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

147

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Recent work argues that the nutrient contributions from active subsidies can be of similar magnitude to those of passive subsidies, and are essential for many ecological systems (Earl & Zollner, 2017;Subalusky & Post, 2019). Even small organisms can show behaviours (e.g.…”

Section: The Quantitative Importance Of Active Subsidiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…There is increasing recognition that the materials exchanged via animal vector links should be incorporated into management decisions to maintain resilience and ensure future ecosystem function (Lundberg & Moberg, 2003). Previous work has highlighted some of the major implications of removing active subsidy agents in altered ecosystems (Subalusky & Post, 2019). Among these, human-induced rapid environmental change (HIREC; Sih, Ferrari & Harris, 2011) can cause population reductions or even local extinctions, resulting in fewer active subsidy agents (Barnosky et al, 2011;Dirzo et al, 2014;Earl & Zollner, 2017;Subalusky & Post, 2019).…”

Section: Conservation Implicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Consequently, an increasing body of literature now advocates modelling methods that consider animal movement when predicting the ecological impact of active subsidies (e.g. individual-based models, state-space models, hidden Markov models) (Earl & Zollner, 2017;Subalusky & Post, 2019).…”

Section: Introduction: Animals As Important Vectors Of Nutrient Trmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

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%

Section: Conservation Implicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

“…, Anderson et al. ; Subalusky and Post ). Resource subsidies can strongly affect nutrient cycling (Kitchell et al.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Organic matter and nutrient inputs from large wildlife influence ecosystem function in the Mara River, Africa

Subalusky

Dutton

Njoroge

et al. 2018

Ecology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Animals can be important vectors for the movement of resources across ecosystem boundaries. Animals add resources to ecosystems primarily through egestion, excretion, and carcasses, and the stoichiometry and bioavailability of these inputs likely interact with characteristics of the recipient ecosystem to determine their effects on ecosystem function. We studied the influence of hippopotamus excretion/egestion and wildebeest carcasses, and their interactions with discharge, in the Mara River, Kenya. We measured nutrient dissolution and decomposition rates of wildlife inputs, the influence of inputs on nutrient concentrations and nutrient limitation in the river and the influence of inputs on biofilm growth and function in both experimental streams and along a gradient of inputs in the river. We found that hippopotamus excretion/egestion increases ammonium and coarse particulate organic matter in the river, and wildebeest carcasses increase ammonium, soluble reactive phosphorus, and total phosphorus. Concentrations of dissolved carbon and nutrients in the water column increased along a gradient of wildlife inputs and during low discharge, although concentrations of particulate carbon decreased during low discharge due to deposition on the river bottom. Autotrophs were nitrogen limited and heterotrophs were carbon limited and nitrogen and phosphorus colimited upstream of animal inputs but there was no nutrient limitation downstream of inputs. In experimental streams, hippo and wildebeest inputs together increased biofilm gross primary production (GPP) and respiration (R). These results differed in the river, where low concentrations of hippo inputs increased gross primary production (GPP) and respiration (R) of biofilms, but high concentrations of hippo inputs in conjunction with wildebeest inputs decreased GPP. Our research shows that inputs from large wildlife alleviate nutrient limitation and stimulate ecosystem metabolism in the Mara River and that the extent to which these inputs subsidize the ecosystem is mediated by the quantity and quality of inputs and discharge of the river ecosystem. Thus, animal inputs provide an important ecological subsidy to this river, and animal inputs were likely important in many other rivers prior to the widespread extirpation of large wildlife.

show abstract

“…Likely, the magnitude of response depends on the quantity and quality of the subsidy leaving the donor system (Marczak et al 2007, Marcarelli et al 2011, Subalusky and Post 2018. Whether this level of aquatic insect subsidies can elicit a detectable response in terrestrial communities is unclear.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Stream network geometry and the spatial influence of aquatic insect subsidies across the contiguous United States

Kopp

Allen

2019

Ecosphere

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Emergent aquatic insects transport aquatic-derived resources into terrestrial ecosystems but are rarely studied at landscape or regional scales. Here, we investigate how stream network geometry constrains the spatial influence of aquatic insect subsidies in terrestrial ecosystems. We also explore potential factors (i.e., climate, topography, soils, and vegetation) that could produce variation in stream network geometry and thus change the extent of aquatic insect subsidies from one region to another. The stream signature is the percentage of aquatic insect subsidies traveling a given distance into the terrestrial ecosystem, relative to what comes out of the stream. We use this concept to model the spatial extent (area) and distribution (spatial patterning) of aquatic subsidies in terrestrial ecosystems across the contiguous United States. Our findings suggest that at least 8% of the subsidies measured at the aquatic-terrestrial boundary (i.e., the 8% stream signature) are typically transferred throughout the entire watershed and that variation in this spatial extent is largely influenced by the drainage density of the stream network. Moreover, we found stream signatures from individual stream reaches overlap such that the spatial extent of the 8% stream signature often includes inputs from multiple stream reaches. Landscapescale stream network characteristics increased the area of overlapping stream signatures more than reach-scale channel properties. Finally, we found runoff was an important factor influencing stream network geometry suggesting a potential effect of climate on aquatic-to-terrestrial linkages that have been understudied.

show abstract

Context dependency of animal resource subsidies

Cited by 114 publications

References 225 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?

Organic matter and nutrient inputs from large wildlife influence ecosystem function in the Mara River, Africa

Stream network geometry and the spatial influence of aquatic insect subsidies across the contiguous United States

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About