Literature DB >> 20931232

Relative importance of top-down and bottom-up forces in food webs of Sarracenia pitcher communities at a northern and a southern site.

David Hoekman1.   

Abstract

The relative importance of resources (bottom-up forces) and natural enemies (top-down forces) for regulating food web dynamics has been debated, and both forces have been found to be critical for determining food web structure. How the relative importance of top-down and bottom-up forces varies between sites with different abiotic conditions is not well understood. Using the pitcher plant inquiline community as a model system, I examine how the relative importance of top-down and bottom-up effects differs between two disparate sites. Resources (ant carcasses) and top predators (mosquito larvae) were manipulated in two identical 4 × 4 factorial press experiments, conducted at two geographically distant sites (Michigan and Florida) within the range of the purple pitcher plant, Sarracenia purpurea, and the aquatic community that resides in its leaves. Overall, top predators reduced the density of prey populations while additional resources bolstered them, and the relative importance of top-down and bottom-up forces varied between sites and for different trophic levels. Specifically, top-down effects on protozoa were stronger in Florida than in Michigan, while the opposite pattern was found for rotifers. These findings experimentally demonstrate that the strength of predator-prey interactions, even those involving the same species, vary across space. While only two sites are compared in this study, I hypothesize that site differences in temperature, which influences metabolic rate, may be responsible for variation in consumer-resource interactions. These findings warrant further investigation into the specific factors that modify the relative importance of top-down and bottom-up effects.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20931232     DOI: 10.1007/s00442-010-1802-2

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


  11 in total

1.  Regulation of keystone predation by small changes in ocean temperature

Authors: 
Journal:  Science       Date:  1999-03-26       Impact factor: 47.728

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

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

3.  Global biodiversity, biochemical kinetics, and the energetic-equivalence rule.

Authors:  Andrew P Allen; James H Brown; James F Gillooly
Journal:  Science       Date:  2002-08-30       Impact factor: 47.728

4.  Warming alters the metabolic balance of ecosystems.

Authors:  Gabriel Yvon-Durocher; J Iwan Jones; Mark Trimmer; Guy Woodward; Jose M Montoya
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2010-07-12       Impact factor: 6.237

5.  Turning up the heat: temperature influences the relative importance of top-down and bottom-up effects.

Authors:  David Hoekman
Journal:  Ecology       Date:  2010-10       Impact factor: 5.499

6.  Are natural microcosms useful model systems for ecology?

Authors:  Diane S Srivastava; Jurek Kolasa; Jan Bengtsson; Andrew Gonzalez; Sharon P Lawler; Thomas E Miller; Pablo Munguia; Tamara Romanuk; David C Schneider; M Kurtis Trzcinski
Journal:  Trends Ecol Evol       Date:  2004-07       Impact factor: 17.712

7.  Reconciling differences in trophic control in mid-latitude marine ecosystems.

Authors:  Kenneth T Frank; Brian Petrie; Nancy L Shackell; Jae S Choi
Journal:  Ecol Lett       Date:  2006-10       Impact factor: 9.492

8.  Testing the functional significance of microbial community composition.

Authors:  Michael S Strickland; Christian Lauber; Noah Fierer; Mark A Bradford
Journal:  Ecology       Date:  2009-02       Impact factor: 5.499

9.  Genetic shift in photoperiodic response correlated with global warming.

Authors:  W E Bradshaw; C M Holzapfel
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2001-11-06       Impact factor: 11.205

10.  Warming and resource availability shift food web structure and metabolism.

Authors:  Mary I O'Connor; Michael F Piehler; Dina M Leech; Andrea Anton; John F Bruno
Journal:  PLoS Biol       Date:  2009-08-25       Impact factor: 8.029

View more
  5 in total

1.  Testing successional hypotheses of stability, heterogeneity, and diversity in pitcher-plant inquiline communities.

Authors:  Thomas E Miller; Casey P terHorst
Journal:  Oecologia       Date:  2012-03-20       Impact factor: 3.225

2.  Effects of prey, pitcher age, and microbes on acid phosphatase activity in fluid from pitchers of Sarracenia purpurea (Sarraceniaceae).

Authors:  Carl S Luciano; Sandra J Newell
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-07-18       Impact factor: 3.240

3.  Selective Bacterial Community Enrichment between the Pitcher Plants Sarracenia minor and Sarracenia flava.

Authors:  Scott M Yourstone; Nikolas M Stasulli; Ilon Weinstein; Elizabeth Ademski; Elizabeth A Shank
Journal:  Microbiol Spectr       Date:  2021-11-24

4.  Are trade-offs among species' ecological interactions scale dependent? A test using pitcher-plant inquiline species.

Authors:  Jamie M Kneitel
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-07-23       Impact factor: 3.240

5.  Aquatic microfauna alter larval food resources and affect development and biomass of West Nile and Saint Louis encephalitis vector Culex nigripalpus (Diptera: Culicidae).

Authors:  Dagne Duguma; Michael G Kaufman; Arthur B Simas Domingos
Journal:  Ecol Evol       Date:  2017-04-09       Impact factor: 2.912

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.