2018
DOI: 10.3354/meps12622
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Nutrient load and epiphytes are drivers of increased herbivory in seagrass communities

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
9
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
5
1
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 13 publications
(10 citation statements)
references
References 101 publications
1
9
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Earlier studies have revealed that a large number of seagrass-associated organisms feed heavily on marine epiphytic algae, which are important primary producers in seagrass ecosystems and make a significant contribution to food webs (Borowitzka et al 2006, Myers andHeck 2013). Moreover, previous works have demonstrated that the presence of different species of epiphytes in seagrass leaves increases the consumption in these ecosystems by different consumers, such as sea urchins, fishes and mesograzers (Garcia et al 1999, Jaschinski and Sommer 2008a, Marco-Méndez et al 2015, Jiménez-Ramos et al 2018a. Overproduction by epiphytic algae, however, has been associated with large-scale losses of seagrasses in eutrophic waters (Silberstein et al 1986, Walker andMcComb 1992).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Earlier studies have revealed that a large number of seagrass-associated organisms feed heavily on marine epiphytic algae, which are important primary producers in seagrass ecosystems and make a significant contribution to food webs (Borowitzka et al 2006, Myers andHeck 2013). Moreover, previous works have demonstrated that the presence of different species of epiphytes in seagrass leaves increases the consumption in these ecosystems by different consumers, such as sea urchins, fishes and mesograzers (Garcia et al 1999, Jaschinski and Sommer 2008a, Marco-Méndez et al 2015, Jiménez-Ramos et al 2018a. Overproduction by epiphytic algae, however, has been associated with large-scale losses of seagrasses in eutrophic waters (Silberstein et al 1986, Walker andMcComb 1992).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Direct consumption of epiphytes attached to seagrass leaves is usually by mesograzers and can have positive consequences on leaf growth and indirectly, for herbivores that consume seagrass (Borowitzka et al 2006). On the other hand, the removal of epiphytes might also negatively affect herbivores such as fish or sea urchins, many of which gain nutrition from the epiphytic algae, in addition to seagrass itself (Marco‐Méndez et al 2017) or could be also attracted by them (Jiménez‐Ramos et al 2018 b ).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Care was taken to collect shoots with intact vertical rhizomes to minimize changes in leaf properties and in order to allow the safeguarding of leaves throughout the experiment. Once transported to the laboratory and prior to any measurement, 40 healthy shoots (no necrosis or bites) from each location were carefully selected and epiphytes were carefully scraped off to avoid their potentially confounding role in feeding preference (Jiménez‐Ramos et al 2018 b ).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…al, 2020). Limited studies exist on dugong feeding biology from India (D'Souza et al, 2015;Nair & Mohan, 1975) given the difficulty to observe them in the wild. Thus, stranded dugongs provide an opportunity to understand their dietary composition through gut sampling.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Since availability of seagrasses is a limiting factor, understanding foraging patterns of dugongs is crucial in mapping their distribution. So far, dugong foraging preferences are known through direct observations of feeding or by analysis of stomach contents (Preen, 1992;Andre et al, 2005; De longh et al, 2007;D'souza et al, 2015). Data available from stomach content analysis has provided most detailed information on feeding habits of dugongs (Preen, 1995) and their energy requirements (Andre et al, 2005).Indian dugong populations are imperilled due to various threats with an estimated population of less than 300 individuals left in the wild (Pandey et al, 2010;Sivakumar & Nair, 2013).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%