Search

Search Results

• 1. [Article] The Interplay Between Landscape Structure and Biotic Interactions

  Landscape structure and biotic interactions are closely linked. We identify five aspects of landscape structure that contribute to the co-occurrence of species and restrict or enable different types of ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: The Interplay Between Landscape Structure and Biotic Interactions Author: Zarnetske, Phoebe, Baiser, Benjamin, Strecker, Angela L., Record, Sydne, Belmaker, Jonathan, Tuanmu, Mao-Ning Year: 2017 Landscape structure and biotic interactions are closely linked. We identify five aspects of landscape structure that contribute to the co-occurrence of species and restrict or enable different types of biotic interactions: patch size and habitat amount, isolation of patches, barriers to dispersal and movement, persistence of landscape structure, and landscape complexity. In addition, these aspects of landscape structure influence the strength and outcome of biotic interactions. Whereas most research focuses on the effects of the abiotic environment on species and their biotic interactions, research on foundation species and ecosystem engineers demonstrates the important influence of biotic interactions on landscape structure itself, including effects on landscape complexity, extent of habitat, and the structure of landscape features. In this review, we describe ecological theories that lay the foundation for interplay between landscape structure and biotic interactions, and summarize these connections across an array of interacting species in freshwater, marine, and terrestrial systems. We end with suggestions for integrating the fields of landscape ecology and community ecology to better understand the connections between landscape structure and biotic interactions and better predict their dynamics in light of global change. Title: The Interplay Between Landscape Structure and Biotic Interactions Author: Zarnetske, Phoebe, Baiser, Benjamin, Strecker, Angela L., Record, Sydne, Belmaker, Jonathan, Tuanmu, Mao-Ning Year: 2017 Landscape structure and biotic interactions are closely linked. We identify five aspects of landscape structure that contribute to the co-occurrence of species and restrict or enable different types of biotic interactions: patch size and habitat amount, isolation of patches, barriers to dispersal and movement, persistence of landscape structure, and landscape complexity. In addition, these aspects of landscape structure influence the strength and outcome of biotic interactions. Whereas most research focuses on the effects of the abiotic environment on species and their biotic interactions, research on foundation species and ecosystem engineers demonstrates the important influence of biotic interactions on landscape structure itself, including effects on landscape complexity, extent of habitat, and the structure of landscape features. In this review, we describe ecological theories that lay the foundation for interplay between landscape structure and biotic interactions, and summarize these connections across an array of interacting species in freshwater, marine, and terrestrial systems. We end with suggestions for integrating the fields of landscape ecology and community ecology to better understand the connections between landscape structure and biotic interactions and better predict their dynamics in light of global change. Close

• 2. [Article] The Limitation of Spread of Non-native Marine Invertebrates from Artificial Structures to Natural Habitats

  Artificial structures created for aquatic anthropogenic activities are often colonized and fouled by many non-native species, few of which have invaded natural areas. Some research has indicated predation ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: The Limitation of Spread of Non-native Marine Invertebrates from Artificial Structures to Natural Habitats Author: McClees, Whitney, de Rivera, Catherine E. Year: 2017 Artificial structures created for aquatic anthropogenic activities are often colonized and fouled by many non-native species, few of which have invaded natural areas. Some research has indicated predation is limiting the spread of non-native species, while other research has indicated that it is dispersal-driven. To determine the effects of dispersal limitation and predation on the risk to surrounding habitats of being invaded by non-native species established on marina docks, we used a three-factor design, deploying seven unglazed ceramic panels per each treatment combination of 1) inside versus outside a marina in Yaquina Bay, Oregon; 2) cage keeping out predators >mesh size, no cage, or partial cage; 3) fixed near the substrata (benthic) versus floating 1m below the surface. We also moved panels of either adults or recruits from floating in the marina to any of the treatment combinations to test if they would have lower survival outside by the substrate. The community on panels suspended in the marina only minimally overlapped with panels outside of the marina near the bottom. However, there was no difference between the cage treatments, which suggests that predators excluded by the cages are not responsible for the observed differences in species richness or composition. Title: The Limitation of Spread of Non-native Marine Invertebrates from Artificial Structures to Natural Habitats Author: McClees, Whitney, de Rivera, Catherine E. Year: 2017 Artificial structures created for aquatic anthropogenic activities are often colonized and fouled by many non-native species, few of which have invaded natural areas. Some research has indicated predation is limiting the spread of non-native species, while other research has indicated that it is dispersal-driven. To determine the effects of dispersal limitation and predation on the risk to surrounding habitats of being invaded by non-native species established on marina docks, we used a three-factor design, deploying seven unglazed ceramic panels per each treatment combination of 1) inside versus outside a marina in Yaquina Bay, Oregon; 2) cage keeping out predators >mesh size, no cage, or partial cage; 3) fixed near the substrata (benthic) versus floating 1m below the surface. We also moved panels of either adults or recruits from floating in the marina to any of the treatment combinations to test if they would have lower survival outside by the substrate. The community on panels suspended in the marina only minimally overlapped with panels outside of the marina near the bottom. However, there was no difference between the cage treatments, which suggests that predators excluded by the cages are not responsible for the observed differences in species richness or composition. Close