The effects of exotic seaweeds on native benthic assemblages: variability between trophic levels and influence of background environmental and biological conditions

Environmental Evidence

Elena Maggi⁶  Gil Rilov⁵  Devin Lyons¹  Jonne Kotta²  Tasman Crowe¹  Eva Chatzinikolaou³  Lisandro Benedetti-Cecchi⁶  Rebecca Mant⁴  Fabio Bulleri⁶ 

[1] University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland;Estonian Marine Institute, Tallinn, Estonia;Hellenic Centre for Marine Research, Iraklion, Crete, Greece;Bangor University, Bangor, UK;Israel Oceanographic and Limnological Research, Haifa, Israel;University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy

关键词: Ecosystem functioning;    Biodiversity;    Human disturbance;    Consumers;    Seaweeds;    Biological invasions;   

Others  :  803016
DOI  :  10.1186/2047-2382-1-8

 received in 2012-02-09, accepted in 2012-06-13,  发布年份 2012

【 摘 要 】

Background

Biological invasions are among the most severe threats to marine biodiversity. The impacts of introduced seaweeds on native macroalgal assemblages have been thoroughly reviewed. In contrast, no attempt has been made to synthesize the available information on the effects of exotic seaweeds on other trophic levels. In addition, it has not been clarified whether the effects of introduced seaweeds on native assemblages vary according to background physical and biological conditions.

Methods

This protocol provides details of our proposed method to carry out a systematic review aiming to identify and synthesize existing knowledge to answer the following primary questions: a) how does the impact of the presence of exotic seaweeds on native primary consumers (across trophic levels) compare in magnitude and extent to that observed on native primary producers (same trophic level)?; b) does the intensity of the effects of the presence of exotic seaweeds on native benthic ecosystems vary along a gradient of human disturbance (i.e. from urban/industrial areas to extra-urban areas to pristine areas)?

【 授权许可】

   
2012 Bulleri et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Gray JS: Marine biodivesity: patterns, threats and conservation needs. Biodiv Conserv 1997, 6:153-157.
• [2]Williamson MH: Biological invasions. Chapman and Hall, London; 1996.
• [3]Pimentel D, Lach L, Zuniga R, Morrison D: Environmental and economic costs of nonindigenous species in the United States. Bioscience 2000, 50:53-65.
• [4]Smith JE, Williams SL: A global review of the distribution, taxonomy and impacts of introduced seaweeds. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 2007, 38:327-359.
• [5]Thomsen MS, Wenberg T, Tuya F, Silliman BR: Evidence for impacts of nonindigenous macroalgae: a meta-analysis of experimental field studies. J Phycol 2009, 45:812-819.
• [6]Trowbridge CD, Todd CD: Host-plant change in marine specialist herbivores: ascoglossan sea slugs on introduced macroalgae. Ecol Monogr 2001, 71:219-243.
• [7]Box A, Deudero S, Sureda A, Blanco A, Alòs J, Terrados J, Grau AM, Riera F: Diet and physiological responses of Spondyliosoma cantharus (Linnaeus, 1758) to the Caulerpa racemosa var. cylindracea invasion. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 2009, 380:11-19.
• [8]Terlizzi A, Felline S, Lionetto MG, Caricato R, Perfetti V, Cutignano A, Mollo E: Detrimental physiological effects of the invasive alga Caulerpa racemosa on the Mediterranean white seabream Diplodus sargus. Aquat Biol 2011, 12:109-117.
• [9]Kean RM, Crawley MJ: Exotic plant invasions and the enemy release hypothesis. Trends Ecol Evol 2002, 17:164-170.
• [10]Hobbs RJ, Huenneke LF: Disturbance, diversity, and invasion: implications for conservation. Cons Biol 1992, 6:324-337.
• [11]Davis MA, Grime JP, Thompson K: Fluctuating resources in plant communities: a general theory of invisibility. J Ecol 2000, 88:528-534.
• [12]Stachowicz JJ, Fried H, Osman RW, Whitlatch RB: Biodiversity, invasion resistance, and marine ecosystem function: reconciling pattern and process. Ecology 2002, 83:2575-2590.
• [13]Bulleri F, Balata D, Bertocci I, Tamburello L, Benedetti-Cecchi L: The seaweed Caulerpa racemosa on Mediterranean rocky reefs: from passenger to driver of ecological change. Ecology 2010, 91:2205-2212.
• [14]Bertness M, Callaway RM: Positive interactions in communities. Trends Ecol Evol 1994, 9:191-193.
• [15]Allen PA, Brown JH, Gillooly GF: Global biodiversity, biochemical kinetics and the energetic-equivalence rule. Science 2002, 297:1545-1548.
• [16]Solan M, Cardinale BJ, Downing AL, Engelhardt KAM, Ruesink JL, Srivastava DS: Extinction and ecosystem function in the marine benthos. Science 2004, 306:1177-1180.
• [17]Pennings SC, Silliman BR: Linking biogeography and community ecology: Latitudinal variation in plant-herbivore interaction strength. Ecology 2005, 86:2310-2319.
• [18]Sax DF: Latitudinal gradients and geographic ranges of exotic species: implications for biogeography. J Biogeogr 2001, 28:139-150.
• [19]Vilà M, Espinar JL, Hejda M, Hulme PE, Jarosik V, Maron JL, Pergl J, Schaffner U, Sun Y, Pysek P: Ecological impacts of alien plants: a meta-analysis of their effects on species, communities and ecosystems. Ecol Lett 2011, 14:702-708.
• [20]Underwood AJ: Experiments in ecology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge; 1997.
• [21]Winer BJ, Brown DR, Michels KM: Statistical principles in experimental 410 design. McGraw-Hill, New York; 1991.
• [22]Halpern BS, Walbridge S, Selkoe KA, Kappel CV, Micheli F, D’Agrosa C, Bruno JF, Casey KS, Ebert C, Fox HE, Fujita R, Heinemann D, Lenihan HS, Madin EMP, Perry MT, Selig ER, Spalding M, Steneck R, Watson R: A global map of human impact on marine ecosystems. Science 2008, 319:948-952.
• [23]Gurevitch J, Hedges LV: Statistical issues in ecological meta-analysis. Ecology 1999, 80:1142-1149.
• [24]Hedges LV, Gurevitch J, Curtis P: The meta-analysis using response ratios in experimental ecology. Ecology 1999, 80:1150-1156.
• [25]Osenberg CW, Sarnelle O, Cooper SD, Holt RD: Resolving ecological questions through meta-analysis: goals, metrics, and models. Ecology 1999, 80:1105-1117.
• [26]Rosenberg MS, Adams DC, Gurevitch J: Metawin: Statistical software for meta-analysis. Sinauer Associates, Massachusetts; 2000.