Literature DB >> 18335250

Swan foraging shapes spatial distribution of two submerged plants, favouring the preferred prey species.

Håkan Sandsten1, Marcel Klaassen.   

Abstract

Compared to terrestrial environments, grazing intensity on belowground plant parts may be particularly strong in aquatic environments, which may have great effects on plant-community structure. We observed that the submerged macrophyte, Potamogeton pectinatus, which mainly reproduces with tubers, often grows at intermediate water depth and that P. perfoliatus, which mainly reproduces with rhizomes and turions, grows in either shallow or deep water. One mechanism behind this distributional pattern may be that swans prefer to feed on P. pectinatus tubers at intermediate water depths. We hypothesised that when swans feed on tubers in the sediment, P. perfoliatus rhizomes and turions may be damaged by the uprooting, whereas the small round tubers of P. pectinatus that escaped herbivory may be more tolerant to this bioturbation. In spring 2000, we transplanted P. perfoliatus rhizomes into a P. pectinatus stand and followed growth in plots protected and unprotected, respectively, from bird foraging. Although swan foraging reduced tuber biomass in unprotected plots, leading to lower P. pectinatus density in spring 2001, this species grew well both in protected and unprotected plots later that summer. In contrast, swan grazing had a dramatic negative effect on P. perfoliatus that persisted throughout the summer of 2001, with close to no plants in the unprotected plots and high densities in the protected plots. Our results demonstrate that herbivorous waterbirds may play a crucial role in the distribution and prevalence of specific plant species. Furthermore, since their grazing benefitted their preferred food source, the interaction between swans and P. pectinatus may be classified as ecologically mutualistic.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18335250      PMCID: PMC2373415          DOI: 10.1007/s00442-008-1010-5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Oecologia        ISSN: 0029-8549            Impact factor:   3.225


  3 in total

1.  Effects of macrophyte species richness on wetland ecosystem functioning and services.

Authors:  K A Engelhardt; M E Ritchie
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2001-06-07       Impact factor: 49.962

2.  Are there real differences among aquatic and terrestrial food webs?

Authors: 
Journal:  Trends Ecol Evol       Date:  2000-10-01       Impact factor: 17.712

Review 3.  Herbivory: effects on plant abundance, distribution and population growth.

Authors:  John L Maron; Elizabeth Crone
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2006-10-22       Impact factor: 5.349

  3 in total
  3 in total

1.  Understanding plant community responses to combinations of biotic and abiotic factors in different phases of the plant growth cycle.

Authors:  Kevin A Wood; Richard A Stillman; Ralph T Clarke; Francis Daunt; Matthew T O'Hare
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-11-14       Impact factor: 3.240

2.  Dietary habits of the black-necked swan Cygnus melancoryphus (Birds: Anatidae) and variability of the aquatic macrophyte cover in the Río Cruces wetland, southern Chile.

Authors:  Carlos Velásquez; Eduardo Jaramillo; Patricio Camus; Fabio Labra; Cristina San Martín
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-12-19       Impact factor: 3.240

3.  Above- and below-ground vertebrate herbivory may each favour a different subordinate species in an aquatic plant community.

Authors:  Bert Hidding; Bart A Nolet; Thijs de Boer; Peter P de Vries; Marcel Klaassen
Journal:  Oecologia       Date:  2009-09-10       Impact factor: 3.225

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.