2012
DOI: 10.1139/f2012-050
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Secondary production as a tool for better understanding of aquatic ecosystems

Abstract: A major challenge for ecologists is understanding ecosystem dynamics and function under environmental and anthropogenic stresses. An approach for addressing this challenge is the analysis of the different components contributing to secondary production (i.e., consumer incorporation of organic matter or energy per time unit) and how this production is influenced by external factors. Production studies have been recognized as a powerful tool in aquatic ecology, with applications in energy–biomass flow studies, t… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

1
78
0
1

Year Published

2013
2013
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
10

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 122 publications
(80 citation statements)
references
References 108 publications
1
78
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…To our knowledge, this is the first study to show that freshwater fish influence and decrease the secondary production of certain meiofaunal groups (nematodes, oligochaetes and crustaceans) but not rotifers. The importance of meiofauna to secondary production in aquatic ecosystems is recognised (Bergtold & Traunspurger, ; Tod & Schmid‐Araya, ; Benke, ), but many different methodological assumptions have been made (Dolbeth et al ., ). The size‐frequency method used in this study is appropriate for estimating secondary production by meiofaunal communities, although a tendency of underestimation has been documented (Stead et al ., ; Tod & Schmid‐Araya, ; Butkas, Vadeboncoeur & Vander Zanden, ).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…To our knowledge, this is the first study to show that freshwater fish influence and decrease the secondary production of certain meiofaunal groups (nematodes, oligochaetes and crustaceans) but not rotifers. The importance of meiofauna to secondary production in aquatic ecosystems is recognised (Bergtold & Traunspurger, ; Tod & Schmid‐Araya, ; Benke, ), but many different methodological assumptions have been made (Dolbeth et al ., ). The size‐frequency method used in this study is appropriate for estimating secondary production by meiofaunal communities, although a tendency of underestimation has been documented (Stead et al ., ; Tod & Schmid‐Araya, ; Butkas, Vadeboncoeur & Vander Zanden, ).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…Secondary production, defined as the accumulation of heterotrophic biomass over time (Benke 2010), is a foundational concept in fisheries science (Ricker 1946;Wiley et al 1984;Beamish 1993;Dolbeth et al 2012). However, there has been a surprising lack of basic information on how fish production rates vary spatially and temporally (but see Carlander and Payne 1977;Randall et al 1995;Waters 1999;Valentine-Rose et al 2011).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It has been estimated for populations, groups of populations and entire invertebrate assemblages, but mostly in benthic habitats (Benke & Huryn, ). When production is estimated for a population, it represents a measure of success or fitness; when applied to functional groups or entire assemblages, it represents a measure of energy flow through the ecosystem (Benke, ; Dolbeth et al ., ). Production also has been used to address many additional questions, including chemical flows, intertaxon and intersystem comparisons, quantification of food webs and for assessing the effects of competition/predation, pollution and other stressors (Benke & Huryn, ; Dolbeth et al ., ).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%