| Literature DB >> 29062602 |
Cori J Speights1,2, Michael W McCoy2.
Abstract
We investigated how recent changes in the distribution and abundance of a fouling organism affected the strength of interactions between a commercially important foundation species and a common predator. Increases in the abundance of boring sponges that bioerode the calcified shells of oysters and other shelled organisms have been attributed to increased salinization of estuarine ecosystems. We tested the hypothesis that fouling by boring sponges will change the interaction strength between oysters and a common predator (stone crabs). We generated five oyster density treatments crossed with two sponge treatments (sponge and no sponge). We contrasted the interaction strength between stone crabs and fouled and non-fouled oysters by comparing the parameters of fitted functional response curves based on Rogers random predation model. We found that fouled oysters suffered higher predation from stone crabs, and that the increased predation risk stemmed from a reduction in the handling time needed to consume the fouled oysters. These findings highlight the importance of understanding the effects of abiotic changes on both the composition of ecological communities, and on the strengths of direct and indirect interactions among species. Global climate change is altering local ecosystems in complex ways, and the success of restoration, management, and mitigation strategies for important species requires a better appreciation for how these effects cascade through ecosystems.Entities:
Keywords: Boring sponge; Climate change; Fouling; Functional response; Indirect interactions; Oyster; Predation
Year: 2017 PMID: 29062602 PMCID: PMC5651168 DOI: 10.7717/peerj.3911
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PeerJ ISSN: 2167-8359 Impact factor: 2.984
Maximum likelihood results.
AICc values for each model. Estimates are presented for all parameters (α = attack rate and h = handling time) allowed to vary by treatment in a model (95% confidence intervals are presented underneath each estimate). With few observations (nobs = 38), corrected AIC (AICc) was used instead of AIC.
| Model | Parameters | dAICc | df | Weight | No sponge | Sponge | No sponge | Sponge | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 0 | 4 | 0.597 | 4.079 (1.457, 6.701) | 1.970 (−3.416, 7.357) | 0.112 (0.075, 0.149) | 0.039 (−0.043, 0.123) | |||
| 2 | 1.1 | 3 | 0.352 | 2.534 (1.660, 3.408) | 0.093 (0.063, 0.123) | 0.051 (−0.011, 0.113) | ||||
| 3 | 5.5 | 2 | 0.038 | 2.414 (1.140, 3.688) | 1.97 (0.060, 5.353) | 0.072 (0.048, 0.095) | ||||
| 4 | 1 | 7.7 | 3 | 0.013 | 2.62 (1.690, 3.551) | 0.074 (0.052, 0.096) |
Figure 1Prey consumed over 24 h.
Amount of prey consumed by predators over a 24 h period using five increasing densities. Lines represent oysters (Crassostrea virginica) with sponges (Cliona spp.) (black) and oysters without sponges (gray), with standard error bars for each point (n = 4 trials). Attack rates and handling times used for each line were obtained from model 1 (see Table 1).