2017
DOI: 10.1002/ecy.1862
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Stress and subsidy effects of seagrass wrack duration, frequency, and magnitude on salt marsh community structure

Abstract: Environmental perturbations can strongly affect community processes and ecosystem functions by acting primarily as a subsidy that increases productivity, a stress that decreases productivity, or both, with the predominant effect potentially shifting from subsidy to stress as the overall intensity of the perturbation increases. While perturbations are often considered along a single axis of intensity, they consist of multiple components (e.g., magnitude, frequency, and duration) that may not have equivalent str… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
9
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
5
2

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 14 publications
(11 citation statements)
references
References 53 publications
(149 reference statements)
2
9
0
Order By: Relevance
“…However, the absence of significant oiling effects on S. alterniflora aboveground traits (density, stem height, leaf growth) at the end of the experiment suggests that this species does have some resilience to oil exposure, which is consistent with studies finding that S. alterniflora has a high capacity for disturbance recovery (Hanley et al. ). This aboveground recovery likely occurred due to a translocation of resources from belowground tissues, as evidenced by reduced belowground biomass in the oiled treatments at the end of the experiment.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 85%
“…However, the absence of significant oiling effects on S. alterniflora aboveground traits (density, stem height, leaf growth) at the end of the experiment suggests that this species does have some resilience to oil exposure, which is consistent with studies finding that S. alterniflora has a high capacity for disturbance recovery (Hanley et al. ). This aboveground recovery likely occurred due to a translocation of resources from belowground tissues, as evidenced by reduced belowground biomass in the oiled treatments at the end of the experiment.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 85%
“…Efforts to understand the functional effects of abiotic connectivity across spatial scales have mainly focused on the trophic assimilation of transported resources (Polis and Hurd 1996, Phoenix et al 2012, Sitters et al 2015 and regional implications of biotic-abiotic interactions mediated by foundation species remain unresolved (Hastings et al 2007). In coastal systems, resource subsidies have been shown to have strong effects on vegetation structure and their accumulation can facilitate disturbances (van de Koppel et al 2005, Deegan et al 2012, Hanley et al 2017. Our field observations provide further evidence for this feedback in mussel bed ecosystems.…”
Section: Non-resource Effects Of Foundation Species On Ecosystem Funcsupporting
confidence: 59%
“…These local stressors likely commonly occur with a range of magnitudes, frequencies, and durations, yet these characteristics are often not explicitly compared and contrasted in ecological research. Thus, our understanding of the impacts of local stressor temporal regimes is in its infancy (but see Murphy et al 2012, Hanley et al 2017, Fong et al 2018). Here, we provide a novel demonstration that the effects of stressor temporal regime varied and multiple stressors interacted to exhibit complex, emergent interaction effects, demonstrating the need to explicitly contrast stressor temporal regimes under multiple conditions to understand how communities will respond to future challenges.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Experimental research directly contrasting stressor regimes indicates different temporal stressor regimes have disparate impacts on populations and communities (e.g., Hewitt and Norkko 2007, Molinos and Donohue 2011, Murphy et al 2012, Hanley et al 2017, Fong and Fong 2018). Additionally, there is some indirect evidence that press vs. pulse stressors may differ in their impacts.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%