Fear of Predation Slows Plant-Litter Decomposition

Hawlena, Dror; Strickland, Michael S.; Bradford, Mark A.; Schmitz, Oswald J.

doi:10.1126/science.1220097

Cited by 201 publications

(186 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

175

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These differences, while small, may cause larger net differences to emerge at the ecosystem level (Hawlena et al. 2012), which is also evident in our other measures of ecosystem properties and functions (see below). Relative to the “Control”, the “Risk” treatment increased primary (70X) and secondary (1.95X) productivity and primary (4.7X) ecological efficiency, but lowered secondary (0.5X) ecological efficiency (Fig.…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 74%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Predator‐driven elemental cycling: the impact of predation and risk effects on ecosystem stoichiometry

Leroux

Schmitz

2015

Ecology and Evolution

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Empirical evidence is beginning to show that predators can be important drivers of elemental cycling within ecosystems by propagating indirect effects that determine the distribution of elements among trophic levels as well as determine the chemical content of organic matter that becomes decomposed by microbes. These indirect effects can be propagated by predator consumptive effects on prey, nonconsumptive (risk) effects, or a combination of both. Currently, there is insufficient theory to predict how such predator effects should propagate throughout ecosystems. We present here a theoretical framework for exploring predator effects on ecosystem elemental cycling to encourage further empirical quantification. We use a classic ecosystem trophic compartment model as a basis for our analyses but infuse principles from ecological stoichiometry into the analyses of elemental cycling. Using a combined analytical‐numerical approach, we compare how predators affect cycling through consumptive effects in which they control the flux of nutrients up trophic chains; through risk effects in which they change the homeostatic elemental balance of herbivore prey which accordingly changes the element ratio herbivores select from plants; and through a combination of both effects. Our analysis reveals that predators can have quantitatively important effects on elemental cycling, relative to a model formalism that excludes predator effects. Furthermore, the feedbacks due to predator nonconsumptive effects often have the quantitatively strongest impact on whole ecosystem elemental stocks, production and efficiency rates, and recycling fluxes by changing the stoichiometric balance of all trophic levels. Our modeling framework predictably shows how bottom‐up control by microbes and top‐down control by predators on ecosystems become interdependent when top predator effects permeate ecosystems.

show abstract

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 74%

“…2012), with attendant significant affects on organic matter decomposition rate (Hawlena et al. 2012). …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Predator‐driven elemental cycling: the impact of predation and risk effects on ecosystem stoichiometry

Leroux

Schmitz

2015

Ecology and Evolution

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This difference arises because stressed herbivore carcasses were a poorer quality resource, given the lower relative nitrogen content, for soil microbes that use the nitrogen to manufacture enzymes that degrade more recalcitrant plantlitter inputs (Hawlena and others 2012). Predator-induced changes in herbivore body chemistry can thus have surprising multiplier effects on ecosystem carbon cycling by reducing microbialmediated decomposition of plant inputs and hence the rate of CO 2 released from the soil (Hawlena and Schmitz 2012).…”

Section: Exploring Mechanisms Of Animal Effectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Animating the Carbon Cycle

et al. 2013

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Understanding the biogeochemical processes regulating carbon cycling is central to mitigating atmospheric CO 2 emissions. The role of living organisms has been accounted for, but the focus has traditionally been on contributions of plants and microbes. We develop the case that fully "animating" the carbon cycle requires broader consideration of the functional role of animals in mediating biogeochemical processes and quantification of their effects on carbon storage and exchange among terrestrial and aquatic reservoirs and the atmosphere. To encourage more hypothesis-driven experimental research that quantifies animal effects we discuss the mechanisms by which animals may affect carbon exchanges and storage within and among ecosystems and the atmosphere. We illustrate how those mechanisms lead to multiplier effects whose magnitudes may rival those of more traditional carbon storage and exchange rate estimates currently used in the carbon budget. Many animal species are already directly managed. Thus improved quantitative understanding of their influence on carbon budgets may create opportunity for management and policy to identify and implement new options for mitigating CO 2 release at regional scales.

show abstract

“…Nutritional ecology often focuses on individuals, but a species rarely exists in solitude, and thus it is more realistic, although infrequent, to examine nutrient limitation at the community level of organization (Simpson et al, 2010). Identifying and quantifying the imbalances between consumers and their diet are necessary to understand how nutrient limitation of an individual ramifies to the community and ecosystem levels (e.g., Hawlena et al, 2012).…”

Section: Q1mentioning

confidence: 99%