Advertisement

Marine Biology

, 165:165 | Cite as

Predicting rates of consumer-mediated nutrient cycling by a diverse herbivore assemblage

  • Matthew E. S. Bracken
  • Jill M. Oates
  • Alexander J. Badten
  • Genevieve Bernatchez
Original paper

Abstract

Herbivores mediate the abundances of primary producers both from the top-down, by consuming them, and from the bottom-up, by recycling nutrients. Whereas the top-down effects of herbivores on algae in marine ecosystems are well-documented, less is known about their roles as mediators of local-scale nutrient availability. We conducted a series of surveys and measurements of tide pools and the grazers in those pools between October of 2016 and June of 2017 at an intertidal site on the coast of Southern California, USA (33°35′16.3″N, 117°52′1.5″W). We surveyed grazer abundances in the field, measured biomass of representatives from four different grazer groups (littorine snails, limpets, chitons, and turban snails), measured ammonium excretion rates, and quantified ammonium accumulation rates in tide pools at our study site. We found that different grazer groups were characterized by different per-biomass ammonium excretion rates. Some grazer groups—turban snails and chitons—contributed more ammonium than predicted by their biomass, whereas other grazer groups—littorine snails and limpets—contributed less ammonium than predicted by biomass. Because of these differences between grazer groups, ammonium accumulation rates in tide pools at our study site were effectively predicted based on the ammonium excretion rates of the different grazer groups. However, ammonium accumulation rates were not related to total herbivore biomass. Our results highlight the importance of grazer identity—and particularly the role of species such as turban snails that contribute disproportionately to nutrient recycling—in understanding the contributions of grazers as mediators of bottom-up processes in marine systems.

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank S. Bedgood, L. Elsberry, R. Fales, and B. Nguyen for field assistance and the City of Newport Beach for access to our study location. Funding was provided by the National Science Foundation (OCE 1736891 to M. Bracken and A. Martiny) and the UC Irvine Undergraduate Research Opportunities Program. We greatly appreciate the comments provided by P. Kraufvelin and two anonymous reviewers.

Funding

This research was made possible through funding provided by the University of California, Irvine, including an Undergraduate Research Opportunities Program award to J. Oates and A. Badten and a National Science Foundation Grant to M. Bracken and A. Martiny. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. All applicable state and institutional guidelines for the care and use of animals were followed. All collections were made under California Department of Fish and Wildlife Scientific Collecting Permit SCP-13405.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Adams A (1854) Descriptions of twenty-seven new species of shells from the collection of Hugh Cuming, Esq. Proc Zool Soc Lond 22:311–317.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7998.1854.tb07283.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aquilino KM, Bracken MES, Faubel MN, Stachowicz JJ (2009) Local-scale nutrient regeneration facilitates seaweed growth on wave-exposed rocky shores in an upwelling system. Limnol Oceanogr 54:309–317.  https://doi.org/10.4319/lo.2009.54.1.0309 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Best B (1964) Feeding activities of Tegula funebralis. Veliger 6(suppl):42–45Google Scholar
  4. Bracken MES (2004) Invertebrate-mediated nutrient loading increases growth of an intertidal macroalga. J Phycol 40:1032–1041.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1529-8817.2004.03106.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bracken MES, Nielsen KJ (2004) Diversity of intertidal macroalgae increases with nutrient loading by invertebrates. Ecology 85:2828–2836.  https://doi.org/10.1890/03-0651 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bracken MES, Dolecal RE, Long JD (2014) Community context mediates the top-down vs. bottom-up effects of grazers on rocky shores. Ecology 95:1458–1463.  https://doi.org/10.1890/13-2094.1d CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Bray RN, Miller AC, Johnson S, Krause PR, Robertson DL, Westcott AM (1988) Ammonium excretion by macroinvertebrates and fishes on a subtidal rocky reef in southern California. Mar Biol 100:21–30.  https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00392951 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Burkepile DE, Allgeier JE, Shantz AA, Pritchard CE, Lemoine NP, Bhatti LH, Layman CA (2013) Nutrient supply from fishes facilitates macroalgae and suppresses corals in a Caribbean coral reef ecosystem. Sci Rep 3:1493.  https://doi.org/10.1038/srep01493 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Burnham KP, Anderson DR (2002) Model selection and inference: a practical information-theoretic approach, 2nd edn. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  10. Carey N, Sigwart JD, Richards JG (2013) Economies of scaling: more evidence that allometry of metabolism is linked to activity, metabolic rate and habitat. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 439:7–14.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jembe.2012.10.013 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Carpenter PP (1855) Descriptions of (supposed) new species and varieties of shells, from the Californian and west Mexican coasts, principally in the collection of Hugh Cuming, Esq. Proc Zool Soc Lond 23:228–235.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7998.1855.tb00330.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Carpenter PP (1864) Supplementary report on the present state of our knowledge with regard to the Mollusca of the west coast of North America. Rep Br Assoc Adv Sci 33:517–686Google Scholar
  13. Carpenter RC (1986) Partitioning herbivory and its effect on coral reef algal communities. Ecol Monogr 56:345–363.  https://doi.org/10.2307/1942551 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Castenholz RW (1961) The effect of grazing on marine littoral diatom populations. Ecology 42:783–794.  https://doi.org/10.2307/1933507 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Conrad TA (1837) Description of new marine shells, from Upper California, collected by Thomas Nuttall Esq. J Acad Nat Sci Phila 7:227–268Google Scholar
  16. Corwith HL, Wheeler PA (2002) El Niño related variations in nutrient and chlorophyll distributions off Oregon. Prog Oceanogr 54:361–380.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0079-6611(02)00058-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Duffy JE, Richardson JP, Canuel EA (2003) Grazer diversity effects on ecosystem functioning in seagrass beds. Ecol Lett 6:637–645.  https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1461-0248.2003.00474.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Duffy JE, Reynolds PL, Boström C, Coyer JA, Cusson M, Donadi S, Douglass JG, Eklöf JS, Engelen AH, Eriksson BK (2015) Biodiversity mediates top-down control in eelgrass ecosystems: a global comparative-experimental approach. Ecol Lett 18:696–705.  https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.12448 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Dunker G (1856) Mytilacea nova collection is Cumingianae. Proc Zool Soc Lond 24:358–366.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7998.1856.tb00343.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Eklöf JS, Alsterberg C, Havenhand JN, Sundbäck K, Wood HL, Gamfeldt L (2012) Experimental climate change weakens the insurance effect of biodiversity. Ecol Lett 15:864–872.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2012.01810.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Flater D (1998) XTide v. 2.13. FlaterCo, GermantownGoogle Scholar
  22. Giannotti AL, McGlathery KJ (2001) Consumption of Ulva lactuca (Chlorophyta) by the omnivorous mud snail Ilyanassa obsoleta (Say). J Phycol 37:209–215.  https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1529-8817.2001.037002209.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Glazier DS (2005) Beyond the ‘3/4-power law’: variation in the intra-and interspecific scaling of metabolic rate in animals. Biol Rev 80:611–662.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-185X.2009.00095.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Gould AA (1846) Description of new shells, collected by the United States exploring expedition, and belong to the genus Patella. Proc Boston Soc Nat Hist 2:148–152Google Scholar
  25. Gould AA (1849) Descriptions of the following new species of shells, brought home by the US exploring expedition. Proc Boston Soc Nat Hist 3:83–85Google Scholar
  26. Hawkins SJ, Watson DC, Hill AS, Harding SP, Kyriakides MA, Hutchinson S, Norton TA (1989) A comparison of feeding mechanisms in microphagous, herbivorous, intertidal prosobranchs in relation to resource partitioning. J Mollusc Stud 55:151–165.  https://doi.org/10.1093/mollus/55.2.151 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kitching JA, Ebling FJ (1961) The ecology of Lough Ine: XI. The control of algae by Paracentrotus lividus (Echinoidea). J Anim Ecol 30:373–383.  https://doi.org/10.2307/2304 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. LaScala-Gruenewald DE, Miller LP, Bracken MES, Allen BJ, Denny MW (2016) Quantifying the top-down effects of grazers on a rocky shore: selective grazing and the potential for competition. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 553:49–66.  https://doi.org/10.3354/meps11774 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lawton JH (1994) What do species do in ecosystems? Oikos 71:367–374.  https://doi.org/10.2307/3545824 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Layman CA, Allgeier JE, Yeager LA, Stoner EW (2013) Thresholds of ecosystem response to nutrient enrichment from fish aggregations. Ecology 94:530–536.  https://doi.org/10.1890/12-0705.1 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Longphuirt SN, Lim J-H, Leynaert A, Claquin P, Choy E-J, Kang C-K, An S (2009) Dissolved inorganic nitrogen uptake by intertidal microphytobenthos: nutrient concentrations, light availability and migration. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 379:33–44.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss.2007.04.025 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lubchenco J (1978) Plant species diversity in a marine intertidal community: importance of herbivore food preference and algal competitive abilities. Am Nat 112:23–39.  https://doi.org/10.1086/283250 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Martiny AC, Talarmin A, Mouginot C, Lee JA, Huang JS, Gellene AG, Caron DA (2016) Biogeochemical interactions control a temporal succession in the elemental composition of marine communities. Limnol Oceanogr 61:531–542.  https://doi.org/10.1002/lno.10233 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Matthiessen B, Gamfeldt L, Jonsson PR, Hillebrand H (2007) Effects of grazer richness and composition on algal biomass in a closed and open marine system. Ecology 88:178–187.  https://doi.org/10.1890/0012-9658(2007)88%5b178:EOGRAC%5d2.0.CO;2 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. McIntyre PB, Jones LE, Flecker AS, Vanni MJ (2007) Fish extinctions alter nutrient recycling in tropical freshwaters. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 104:4461–4466.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0608148104 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. McIntyre PB, Flecker AS, Vanni MJ, Hood JM, Taylor BW, Thomas SA (2008) Fish distributions and nutrient cycling in streams: can fish create biogeochemical hotspots? Ecology 89:2335–2346.  https://doi.org/10.1890/07-1552.1 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Murray SN, Denis TG, Kido JS, Smith JR (1999) Human visitation and the frequency and potential effects of collecting on rocky intertidal populations in southern California marine reserves. Calif Coop Ocean Fish Investig Rep 40:100–106Google Scholar
  38. Naeem S (2002) Ecosystem consequences of biodiversity loss: the evolution of a paradigm. Ecology 83:1537–1552.  https://doi.org/10.1890/0012-9658(2002)083%5b1537:ECOBLT%5d2.0.CO;2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Nicotri ME (1977) Grazing effects of four marine intertidal herbivores on the microflora. Ecology 58:1020–1032.  https://doi.org/10.2307/1936922 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Nielsen KJ (2001) Bottom-up and top-down forces in tide pools: test of a food chain model in an intertidal community. Ecol Monogr 71:187–217.  https://doi.org/10.1890/0012-9615(2001)071%5b0187:BUATDF%5d2.0.CO;2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. O’Connor NE, Bracken MES, Crowe TP, Donohue I (2015) Nutrient enrichment alters the consequences of species loss. J Ecol 103:862–870.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2745.12415 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. O’Reilly WC, Olfe CB, Thomas J, Seymour RJ, Guza RT (2016) The California coastal wave monitoring and prediction system. Coast Eng 116:118–132.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coastaleng.2016.06.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Pfister CA (2007) Intertidal invertebrates locally enhance primary production. Ecology 88:1647–1653.  https://doi.org/10.1890/06-1913.1 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Reeve LA (1847) Monograph of the genus Chiton. In: Reeve LA (ed) Conchologia iconica, or, illustrations of the shells of molluscous animals, vol 4. Reeve, Benham, and Reeve, LondonGoogle Scholar
  45. Ryther JH, Dunstan WM (1971) Nitrogen, phosphorus, and eutrophication in the coastal marine environment. Science 171:1008–1013.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.171.3975.1008 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. SAS Institute (2012) SAS version 9.4. SAS Institute, CaryGoogle Scholar
  47. Solórzano L (1969) Determination of ammonia in natural waters by the phenolhypochlorite method. Limnol Oceanogr 14:799–801.  https://doi.org/10.4319/lo.1969.14.5.0799 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Stimpson W (1857) Notices of new species of Crustacea of western North America; being an abstract from a paper to be published in the Journal of the Society. Proc Bost Soc Nat Hist 6:84–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Taylor RB, Rees TAV (1998) Excretory products of mobile epifauna as a nitrogen source for seaweeds. Limnol Oceanogr 43:600–606.  https://doi.org/10.4319/lo.1998.43.4.0600 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Williams SL, Bracken MES, Jones E (2013) Additive effects of physical stress and herbivores on intertidal seaweed biodiversity. Ecology 94:1089–1101.  https://doi.org/10.1890/12-0401.1 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Ecology and Evolutionary BiologyUniversity of CaliforniaIrvineUSA

Personalised recommendations