Freshwater mussels alter fish distributions through habitat modifications at fine spatial scales

Hopper, Garrett W.; DuBose, Traci P.; Gido, Keith B.; Vaughn, Caryn C.

doi:10.1086/705666

Cited by 18 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 65 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In return, removal of epiphytic algae by epibionts provides a mutualistic benefit to the macrophytes (Brönmark, 1989). By constructing calciferous shells, freshwater bivalves may host unique invertebrate assemblages (Hopper, DuBose, Gido, & Vaughn, 2019). In colonising habitats with fine substrates, bivalve aggregations provide coarse substrate to freshwater organisms where it would have otherwise not been available (Beekey et al, 2004).…”

Section: Common Positive Resource Exchangesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Positive biotic interactions in freshwaters: A review and research directive

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Positive interspecific interactions such as mutualism, commensalism, and facilitation are globally ubiquitous. Although research on positive interactions in terrestrial and marine systems has progressed over the past few decades, comparatively little is known about them in freshwater ecosystems. However, recent advances have brought the study of positive interactions in freshwater systems to a point where synthesis is warranted. In this review, we catalogue the variety of direct positive interactions described to date in freshwater ecosystems, discuss factors that could influence prevalence and impact of these interactions, and provide a framework for future research. In positive interactions, organisms exchange key resources such as nutrients, protection, transportation, or habitat to a net benefit for at least one participant. A few mutualistic relationships have received research attention to date, namely seed‐dispersing fishes, crayfishes and their ectosymbiotic cleaners, and communal‐spawning stream fishes. Similarly, only a handful of commensalisms have been studied, primarily phoretic relationships. Facilitation via ecosystem engineering has received more attention, for example habitat modification by beavers and bioturbation by salmon. It is well known that interaction outcomes vary with abiotic and biotic context. However, only a few of studies have examined context dependency in positive interactions in freshwater systems. Likewise, positive interactions incur costs as well as benefits; conceptualising interactions in terms of net cost/benefit to participants will help to clarify complex interactions. It is likely that there are many positive interactions that have yet to be discovered in freshwater systems. To identify these interactions, we encourage inductive natural history studies combined with hypotheses deduced from general ecological models. Research on positive interactions must move beyond small‐scale experiments and observational studies and adopt a cross‐scale approach. Likewise, we must progress from reducing systems to oversimplified pairwise interactions, toward studying positive interactions in broader community contexts. Positive interactions have been greatly overlooked in applied freshwater ecology, but have great potential for conservation, restoration, and aquaculture.

show abstract

Section: Common Positive Resource Exchangesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Positive biotic interactions in freshwaters: A review and research directive

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We conducted our study in the Kiamichi River, Oklahoma, a well-studied stream in the southcentral U.S. known for its high freshwater mussel biodiversity ( Matthews et al, 2005 ). Mussel assemblages in this river are typically dominated by two species, Actinonaias ligamentina and Amblema plicata , that make up ∼70% of mussel biomass in this region but differ morphologically, behaviorally, and physiologically ( Vaughn, 2010 ; Hopper et al, 2019 ). Amblema plicata has a ridged shell and tends to be sedentary, while A. ligamentina is an active burrower with a smooth shell ( Allen and Vaughn, 2009 ).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mussels and Local Conditions Interact to Influence Microbial Communities in Mussel Beds

2022

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Microbiomes are increasingly recognized as widespread regulators of function from individual organism to ecosystem scales. However, the manner in which animals influence the structure and function of environmental microbiomes has received considerably less attention. Using a comparative field study, we investigated the relationship between freshwater mussel microbiomes and environmental microbiomes. We used two focal species of unionid mussels, Amblema plicata and Actinonaias ligamentina, with distinct behavioral and physiological characteristics. Mussel microbiomes, those of the shell and biodeposits, were less diverse than both surface and subsurface sediment microbiomes. Mussel abundance was a significant predictor of sediment microbial community composition, but mussel species richness was not. Our data suggest that local habitat conditions which change dynamically along streams, such as discharge, water turnover, and canopy cover, work in tandem to influence environmental microbial community assemblages at discreet rather than landscape scales. Further, mussel burrowing activity and mussel shells may provide habitat for microbial communities critical to nutrient cycling in these systems.

show abstract

“…Spent shells result from natural mortality (Strayer, 2014), predation (van Ee et al., 2020), or through disturbance‐driven mass mortality events (DuBose et al., 2019) and are therefore abundant where mussels occur. Spent shell material adds complexity to the benthos (Gutiérrez et al., 2003), engineering habitat for other organisms (Hopper et al., 2019; Spooner & Vaughn, 2006). Furthermore, spent shells may slowly release or directly supply biologically important elements (Strayer, 2014), adding spatial variation in elements that contribute to the abiotic habitat template (Kaspari & Powers, 2016) underlying freshwater systems.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%