Role of two contrasting ecosystem engineers (Zostera noltii and Cymodocea nodosa) on the food intake rate of Cerastoderma edule

Brun, Fernando G.; Zetten, Elleke van; Cacabelos, Eva; Bouma, Tjeerd J.

doi:10.1007/s10152-008-0134-7

Cited by 22 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 40 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These positive feedbacks generally require a minimal threshold to be surpassed before becoming eVective (e.g. Bouma et al 2009;van der Heide et al 2007). As a result, at sediment shores, isolated individuals of autogenic engineers often come and go.…”

Section: Habitat Creation By Ecosystem Engineers: Evects Of Thresholdmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Also for other endobenthos, living conditions will tend to deteriorate with increasing intensity of epibenthic ecosystem engineering (Kochmann et al 2008;Bouma et al 2009;Ysebaert et al 2009). However, more complex relations arise within beds of semi-infaunal mussels (Commito et al 2008;Buschbaum et al 2009).…”

Section: )mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The presence of the cordgrass Spartina anglica causes the formation of a dome shaped tussock (b) answer. The hydrodynamic transport of particles may make aquatic systems a suitable system to work on this type of questions (Brun et al 2009). …”

Section: Mechanisms By Which Ecosystem Engineers May Avect Biodiversitymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Ecosystem engineering and biodiversity in coastal sediments: posing hypotheses

et al. 2009

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Coastal sediments in sheltered temperate locations are strongly modiWed by ecosystem engineering species such as marsh plants, seagrass, and algae as well as by epibenthic and endobenthic invertebrates. These ecosystem engineers are shaping the coastal sea and landscape, control particulate and dissolved material Xuxes between the land and sea, and between the benthos and the passing water or air. Above all, habitat engineering exerts facilitating and inhibiting eVects on biodiversity. Despite a strongly growing interest in the functional role of ecosystem engineering over the recent years, compared to food web analyses, the conceptual understanding of engineering-mediated species interactions is still in its infancy. In the present paper, we provide a concise overview on current insights and propose two hypotheses on the general mechanisms by which ecosystem engineering may aVect biodiversity in coastal sediments. We hypothesise that autogenic and allogenic ecosystem engineers have inverse eVects on epibenthic and endobenthic biodiversity in coastal sediments. The primarily autogenic structures of the epibenthos achieve high diversity at the expense of endobenthos, whilst allogenic sediment reworking by infauna may facilitate other infauna and inhibits epibenthos. On a larger scale, these antagonistic processes generate patchiness and habitat diversity. Due to such interaction, anthropogenic inXuences can strongly modify the engineering community by removing autogenic ecosystem engineers through coastal engineering or bottom trawling. Another source of anthropogenic inXuences comes from introducing invasive engineers, from which the impact is often hard to predict. We hypothesise that the local biodiversity eVects of invasive ecosystem engineers will depend on the engineering strength of the invasive species, with engineering strength deWned as the number of habitats it can invade and the extent of modiWcation. At a larger scale of an entire shore, biodiversity need not be decreased by invasive engineers and may even increase. On a global scale, invasive engineers may cause shore biota to converge, especially visually due to the presence of epibenthic structures.

show abstract

Section: Habitat Creation By Ecosystem Engineers: Evects Of Thresholdmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: )mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Ecosystem engineering and biodiversity in coastal sediments: posing hypotheses

et al. 2009

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…phytoplankton, larvae and organic matter; Irlandi & Peterson ; Brun et al . ; González‐Ortiz et al . ) compared with unvegetated areas.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Submerged vegetation complexity modifies benthic infauna communities: the hidden role of the belowground system

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Marine plants provide a variety of functions with high economic and ecological values in ecosystems. The above‐ (AG) and below‐ground (BG) systems increase the structural complexity of plants, which also enhance faunal abundance and diversity. The ecological role of the AG compartment in structuring inter‐tidal macrobenthic communities has been widely studied; however, this is not the case for the BG compartment. This study addressed the effects of variation in vegetation complexity (in both AG and BG systems) on associated macrobenthic infauna with respect to abundance, species richness, composition, weight and body type. To achieve this aim, a field experiment using artificial vegetation mimics was carried out using replicated treatments with different AG‐BG complexity ratios. We found a significant increase in the density and the number of taxa of macrobenthic infaunal species in plots with vegetation mimics compared with unvegetated areas, regardless of either AG or BG complexity. This effect was found even when AG parts were not present (i.e. when only BG parts were used). Furthermore, a positive relationship between structural complexity and diversity was recorded. Variation in one or both plant compartments was strongly related to diversity changes in the associated macrobenthic infauna. In conclusion, our experimental set‐up provides the first evidence that the BG compartment is at least as important as the AG compartment in controlling diversity in inter‐tidal vegetated areas because it was able to strongly affect community structure even when the AG system was totally absent.

show abstract

“…In the extreme this may enhance anoxia in the sediment but at more exposed areas the sheltering and stabilizing eVect of the canopy will dominate. Brun et al (2009) show a facilitative eVect on the Wlter-feeding rate of cockles. Apparently, the drop in Xow velocity did not lead to food depletion in the suspension feeders.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%