2017
DOI: 10.1007/s10750-017-3391-0
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Snails have stronger indirect positive effects on submerged macrophyte growth attributes than zooplankton

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1

Citation Types

2
5
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

1
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 18 publications
(7 citation statements)
references
References 43 publications
2
5
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In addition, the pathway from the snail to macrophytes was nonsignificant (Figure 4), which indicates that the changes in snails cannot directly explain the variation in macrophytes. These results further demonstrate that snail communities have indirect positive effects on submerged macrophyte growth through the removal of epiphytic algae and phytoplankton (Mormul et al, 2018).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 61%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…In addition, the pathway from the snail to macrophytes was nonsignificant (Figure 4), which indicates that the changes in snails cannot directly explain the variation in macrophytes. These results further demonstrate that snail communities have indirect positive effects on submerged macrophyte growth through the removal of epiphytic algae and phytoplankton (Mormul et al, 2018).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 61%
“…Snails positively affected submerged macrophyte growth and development by increasing biomass, as demonstrated in both simulation experiments and field investigations (Li et al, 2008 ; Mormul et al, 2018 ; Yang et al, 2020 ). We found that the presence of snails significantly reduced the biomass of epiphytic algae and phytoplankton (Figure 3 ).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 73%
“…Furthermore, biological factors in lakes also play an important role in regulating the development of periphyton communities through bottom-up and top-down effects, and this may partly explain the change of its community (Garcia et al, 2015;Mormul et al, 2017;Beck et al, 2019). However, with the lack of snail and fish data in our study, it was not possible to evaluate their impacts on the periphyton, which may help to explain why all the measured environment indicators did not have a higher explanation (only 50.2%) for the changes in the community structure of periphyton.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Changes in the biomass and species composition of periphyton are regulated by biological groups, for example, invertebrates and vertebrate (Jones and Sayer, 2003;Cebrian et al, 2013). For example, benthic fish disturbance will potentially facilitate the release of nutrients from the sediment, thereby promoting periphyton growth (Meerhoff et al, 2007;Jeppesen et al, 2010), while invertebrates can remove periphyton biomass and alter community composition through direct grazing (Garcia et al, 2015;Mormul et al, 2017;Beck et al, 2019;Wolters et al, 2019).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…. Herbivory is an important mechanism in controlling aquatic macrophytes in freshwater ecosystems (Xiong et al 2008;Li et al 2009;Schooler et al 2011;Bakker et al 2016;Wood et al 2017;Mormul et al 2018;O'Hare et al 2018;Strange et al 2018), in which snails may negatively impact the macrophytes (Carlsson and Lacousière 2005;Gross and Lombardo 2018). Herbivores may also reduce populations of native macrophyte species, however, thus facilitating colonization by invasive species, which become established due to less regulation by the herbivore than the native species in the invaded habitat (i.e., enemy release hypothesis; Keane and Crawley 2002).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%