Substrate preferences of coexisting invasive amphipods, Dikerogammarus villosus and Dikerogammarus haemobaphes, under field and laboratory conditions

Sea freshening may drive the ecological impacts of emerging and existing invasive non‐native species

“…Indeed, many Ponto‐Caspian INNS can thrive in areas of anthropogenic alteration, including pollution and large salinity ranges, at the expense of natives (Den Hartog et al., 1992). Amphipod crustaceans are one group of particularly successful INNS, with many Ponto‐Caspian species undergoing drastic range expansions over the last two decades (Clinton et al., 2018; Cuthbert et al., 2020; Grabowski et al., 2006). Amphipods are major drivers of disturbance through predation, herbivory, competition for substrate and modification of sediment (Conlan, 1994), and their invasions have lead to major changes in the faunal make‐up of the systems in which they establish (Dick & Platvoet, 2000; Jazdzewski et al., 2004; Kelly et al., 2006).…”

Substrate mediated predator–prey interactions between invasive crayfish and indigenous and non-native amphipods

“…For these species, cobble substrates resulted in survivorship rates of 70% or greater. All three species (G. pulex, G tigrinus and D. villosus) have habitat preferences for larger mineralogical particle-sizes which provide refuge within the relatively large interstitial pore spaces (Platvoet et al, 2009;Kobak et al, 2014;Clinton et al, 2018); although all will utilize smaller substrate particles. In marked contrast, C. pseudogracilis displayed higher survivorship from predation on sand substrates.…”

“…There is increasing evidence that range expansions of multiple non-native species are occurring simultaneously (Clinton et al, 2018;Zhang et al, 2019). This is leading to growing concerns that a hypothesised ''invasional meltdown'' of aquatic ecosystems could occur in the future, in which the presence of existing non-indigenous species may facilitate the colonisation and establishment of additional invasive species, thereby magnifying the effects on indigenous communities further (Simberloff and Von Holle, 1999;Green et al, 2011;Hohenadler et al, 2018).…”

Beneath the surface: Application of transparent super absorbent polymer substrates to track faunal activity within the sediment layer

“…body shape and size) and behavioural traits (habitat affinity and locomotion strategy) of the individual may also alter the behaviour of biota within the sediment layer (Mathers, Hill, et al, 2019; Omesová, Horsák, & Helešic, 2008). There are also documented substrate preferences associated with the body size / life stage of an individual with intra‐ and inter‐specific spatial segregation being observed in many amphipod species (Clinton, Mathers, Constable, Gerrard, & Wood, 2018; McGrath, Peeters, Beijer, & Scheffer, 2007). Subsurface sediments may also act as a refuge from predation pressures of larger invertebrates and vertebrates (MacNeil, Platvoet, & Dick, 2008; Mathers, Rice, et al, 2019; Starry, Wanzenböck, & Danielopol, 1998).…”