File Download

There are no files associated with this item.

  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Article: Can strong consumer and producer effects be reconciled to better forecast 'catastrophic' phase-shifts in marine ecosystems?

TitleCan strong consumer and producer effects be reconciled to better forecast 'catastrophic' phase-shifts in marine ecosystems?
Authors
KeywordsCarbon dioxide
Climate change
Habitat loss
Indirect effects
Turfs
Issue Date2011
Citation
Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 2011, v. 400, n. 1-2, p. 296-301 How to Cite?
AbstractThe indirect effects of climate on species interactions were initially surprising, but ecological models that account for ecosystem decline have long underestimated their ubiquity and strength. Indirect effects not only yield "unexpected results", but also some of the strongest ecological effects (i.e. phase-shifts) that have been regarded as "catastrophes" on coral reefs, "collapses" of kelp forests and "crises" in seagrass meadows. Such effects went unanticipated because the impact of one species on another required knowledge of a third element that was inadequately understood. Subsequent debate over the causes of habitat loss has often been polarised by two extreme points of view, i.e. consumer versus producer effects. It is our perspective that these debates will persist unless we clarify the context-dependency of two kinds of indirect effect; those driven by strong consumer effects and those driven by strong producer effects. On human-dominated coasts, loss of coral, kelp and seagrass can occur as a function of change in trophic cascades (i.e. consumer effects) as well as change to competitive hierarchies (i.e. producer competition for resources). Because production and consumption are under strong physiological control by climate (providing predictable responses), there is merit in recognising the type and context of indirect effects to reduce errors associated with model-based forecasting. Indeed, forecasts of how global (e.g. elevated temperature and CO2) and local drivers (e.g. fishing and pollution) combine to drive ecological change will often depend on the relative strength of different kinds of indirect effects (i.e. consumer effects vs producer effects). By recognising the context-dependency of the indirect effects under investigation, the information content of forecasts may not only increase, but also provide an improved understanding of indirect effects and community ecology in general. © 2011 Elsevier B.V.
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/213168
ISSN
2015 Impact Factor: 1.796
2015 SCImago Journal Rankings: 1.029

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorConnell, Sean D.-
dc.contributor.authorRussell, Bayden D.-
dc.contributor.authorIrving, Andrew D.-
dc.date.accessioned2015-07-28T04:06:22Z-
dc.date.available2015-07-28T04:06:22Z-
dc.date.issued2011-
dc.identifier.citationJournal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 2011, v. 400, n. 1-2, p. 296-301-
dc.identifier.issn0022-0981-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/213168-
dc.description.abstractThe indirect effects of climate on species interactions were initially surprising, but ecological models that account for ecosystem decline have long underestimated their ubiquity and strength. Indirect effects not only yield "unexpected results", but also some of the strongest ecological effects (i.e. phase-shifts) that have been regarded as "catastrophes" on coral reefs, "collapses" of kelp forests and "crises" in seagrass meadows. Such effects went unanticipated because the impact of one species on another required knowledge of a third element that was inadequately understood. Subsequent debate over the causes of habitat loss has often been polarised by two extreme points of view, i.e. consumer versus producer effects. It is our perspective that these debates will persist unless we clarify the context-dependency of two kinds of indirect effect; those driven by strong consumer effects and those driven by strong producer effects. On human-dominated coasts, loss of coral, kelp and seagrass can occur as a function of change in trophic cascades (i.e. consumer effects) as well as change to competitive hierarchies (i.e. producer competition for resources). Because production and consumption are under strong physiological control by climate (providing predictable responses), there is merit in recognising the type and context of indirect effects to reduce errors associated with model-based forecasting. Indeed, forecasts of how global (e.g. elevated temperature and CO2) and local drivers (e.g. fishing and pollution) combine to drive ecological change will often depend on the relative strength of different kinds of indirect effects (i.e. consumer effects vs producer effects). By recognising the context-dependency of the indirect effects under investigation, the information content of forecasts may not only increase, but also provide an improved understanding of indirect effects and community ecology in general. © 2011 Elsevier B.V.-
dc.languageeng-
dc.relation.ispartofJournal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology-
dc.subjectCarbon dioxide-
dc.subjectClimate change-
dc.subjectHabitat loss-
dc.subjectIndirect effects-
dc.subjectTurfs-
dc.titleCan strong consumer and producer effects be reconciled to better forecast 'catastrophic' phase-shifts in marine ecosystems?-
dc.typeArticle-
dc.description.natureLink_to_subscribed_fulltext-
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.jembe.2011.02.031-
dc.identifier.scopuseid_2-s2.0-79955118837-
dc.identifier.volume400-
dc.identifier.issue1-2-
dc.identifier.spage296-
dc.identifier.epage301-

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats