| Literature DB >> 25473482 |
Márcio S Araújo1, R Brian Langerhans2, Sean T Giery3, Craig A Layman3.
Abstract
One consequence of human-driven habitat degradation in general, and habitat fragmentation in particular, is loss of biodiversity. An often-underappreciated aspect of habitat fragmentation relates to changes in the ecology of species that persist in altered habitats. In Bahamian wetlands, ecosystem fragmentation causes disruption of hydrological connectivity between inland fragmented wetlands and adjacent marine areas, with the consequent loss of marine piscivores from fragmented sections. We took advantage of this environmental gradient to investigate effects of ecosystem fragmentation on patterns of resource use in the livebearing fish Gambusia hubbsi (Family Poeciliidae), using both population- and individual-level perspectives. We show that fragmentation-induced release from predation led to increased G. hubbsi population densities, which consequently led to lower mean growth rates, likely as a result of higher intraspecific competition for food. This was accompanied by a broadening of dietary niches via increased interindividual diet variation, suggesting a negative effect of predation and a positive effect of intraspecific competition on the degree of diet variation in natural populations. Our results therefore indicate that habitat fragmentation can greatly impact the ecology of resilient populations, with potentially important ecological and evolutionary implications.Entities:
Keywords: Bahamas mosquitofish; RNA/DNA ratios; food webs; individual specialization; niche variation; predation; stable isotopes
Year: 2014 PMID: 25473482 PMCID: PMC4222216 DOI: 10.1002/ece3.1140
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Ecol Evol ISSN: 2045-7758 Impact factor: 2.912
Figure 1Female (top) and male (bottom) Gambusia hubbsi inhabiting one of the studied tidal creeks in Abaco, Bahamas.
Results of principal components analysis of the 10 environmental variables measured at 13 tidal creek systems in the Bahamas
| Variable | PC1 | PC2 | PC3 | PC4 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean tidal range (m) | 0.44 | 0.28 | 0.14 | |
| Maximum tidal range (m) | 0.38 | 0.28 | 0.13 | |
| Distance to creek mouth (m) | − | 0.35 | 0.16 | −0.45 |
| Ecosystem size (m2) | 0.24 | −0.24 | ||
| Maximum water depth (cm) | −0.32 | 0.44 | −0.14 | |
| pH | − | 0.20 | 0.54 | 0.21 |
| Salinity (ppt) | −0.31 | 0.09 | −0.01 | |
| Conductivity (mS) | −0.45 | −0.07 | −0.04 | |
| Turbidity (NTU) | −0.17 | − | 0.49 | 0.40 |
| Mangrove perimeter (%) | 0.25 | −0.51 | 0.11 | |
| Percentage of variance | 40.50 | 24.81 | 14.09 | 10.66 |
PC loadings ≥ |0.6| in bold type.
Figure 2Relationship between environmental variation and degree of fragmentation of 13 tidal creeks in Abaco, Bahamas. Sites were ordered by PC1-scores and a brief description of their fragmentation status is given on the x-axis. Overall, PC1-scores map onto the degree of fragmentation. See Table A2 for details on the sites.
Number of piscivores, Gambusia densities, RNA/DNA ratios (females/males/juveniles), total niche width (TNW), the V index of individual specialization, δ13C and δ15N [mean (SD)], and stable isotope standard ellipse areas (SEA) of the 13 studied areas
| Site | Connectivity | Piscivores (ind/0.3 ha) | RNA/DNA | TNW | V | SEA | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sand Bar | High | 316 | 0 | 2.94/1.45/2.45 | 1.27 | 0.52 | −17.6 (1.15) | 6.5 (0.39) | 1.34 |
| Twisted Bridge | High | 365 | 0 | 1.90/0.92/1.41 | 0.61 | 0.16 | −15.22 (0.64) | 7.1 (0.37) | 0.70 |
| Cherokee Sound | High | 56 | 0.3 | 2.75/1.19/1.92 | 0.86 | 0.20 | −17.29 (0.92) | 6.8 (0.52) | 1.23 |
| Blue Holes | High | 118 | 0.3 | 1.65/1.17/1.70 | 1.02 | 0.33 | |||
| Treasure Cay | High | 78 | 0.2 | 1.49/1.05/1.53 | 1.49 | 0.40 | −18.9 (0.75) | 7.3 (0.46) | 1.05 |
| Crossing Rocks | Intermediate | 40 | 7.6 | 1.34/0.80/1.20 | 1.88 | 0.60 | −15.0 (1.07) | 8.3 (0.43) | 1.54 |
| Sandy Point | Intermediate | 1 | 15.8 | 1.35/1.06/1.59 | 1.23 | 0.43 | −16.8 (1.31) | 6.5 (0.41) | 1.73 |
| Indian River West | Intermediate | 163 | 2.3 | 1.42/0.92/1.53 | 1.55 | 0.50 | −22.5 (0.79) | 9.3 (0.19) | 0.51 |
| Loggerhead Creek | Intermediate | 4 | 7.4 | 1.27 | 0.52 | ||||
| Indian River East | None | 0 | 12.8 | 1.66 | 0.60 | ||||
| Stinky Pond | None | 0 | 5.1 | 1.98/1.20/1.38 | 1.35 | 0.38 | −23.0 (2.55) | 7.6 (0.95) | 7.57 |
| Double Blocked-Down | None | 10 | 4.5 | 1.59/1.28/1.31 | 0.97 | 0.44 | −23.1 (0.53) | 8.1 (0.49) | 0.83 |
| Double Blocked-Up | None | 0 | 10.7 | 0.16/0.51/0.66 | 1.81 | 0.55 | −25.7 (2.35) | 8.1 (0.65) | 4.91 |
For males we present RNA/DNA site means; for females and juveniles we present marginal means from a general linear model including log mass as a covariate.
Figure 3Diet composition of the 13 analyzed populations. Populations were pooled together according to level of connectivity (colors follow Figure 2). Diets are represented as the proportions of the number of prey items consumed.
Figure 4Path analysis results. Numerical values indicate standardized path coefficients, and line thickness reflects the strength of the path. Solid lines represent positive effects, and dashed lines represent negative effects. f: females; m: males; j: juveniles. total niche width (TNW), V, and standard ellipse areas (SEA) as in Table 2.
Summary of total effects (combined direct and indirect effects) revealed by path analysis
| PC1 | PC2 | PC3 | PC4 | Piscivore density | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Effect on | ||||||||||||
| Piscivore density | 0.79 | 0.004 | ||||||||||
| −0.65 | 0.007 | −0.33 | 0.046 | −0.83 | 0.009 | |||||||
| Total niche width (TNW) | −0.35 | 0.018 | −0.18 | 0.025 | −0.44 | 0.017 | 0.53 | 0.018 | ||||
| Individual specialization (V) | −0.40 | 0.015 | −0.20 | 0.029 | −0.50 | 0.02 | 0.61 | 0.018 | ||||
| Isotopic Ellipse Area (SEA) | −0.55 | 0.025 | 0.37 | 0.173 | −0.70 | 0.012 | ||||||
| Female growth rate (RD) | 0.44 | 0.003 | 0.22 | 0.005 | −0.50 | 0.003 | 0.55 | 0.003 | −0.67 | 0.002 | ||
| Male growth rate (RD) | 0.32 | 0.011 | 0.16 | 0.007 | −0.54 | 0.016 | 0.40 | 0.012 | −0.49 | 0.006 | ||
| Juvenile growth rate (RD) | 0.43 | 0.002 | 0.22 | 0.007 | −0.56 | 0.001 | 0.55 | 0.003 | −0.67 | 0.002 | ||