, Volume 189, Issue 1, pp 199–209 | Cite as

Eelgrass structural complexity mediates mesograzer herbivory on epiphytic algae

  • Erin P. VoigtEmail author
  • Kevin A. Hovel
Community ecology – original research


Structural complexity mediates ecological processes such as predation, competition, and recruitment in marine systems, but relatively little is known about its effects on herbivory. In temperate seagrasses, such as eelgrass (Zostera marina), the primary herbivores are small crustacean and gastropod mesograzers that promote seagrass persistence by preferentially consuming competing epiphytic algae. We used a laboratory grazing experiment, a field colonization experiment, and stable isotope analysis to determine whether one component of eelgrass structural complexity, shoot density, dictates the strength of mesograzer top-down effects on epiphytic algae, and whether this is influenced by mesograzer community composition. Our results suggest that increasing structural complexity shifted eelgrass communities from a bottom-up to a top-down controlled system. In the lab, mesograzers reduced epiphyte standing stock only in high-shoot density experimental communities, though grazing impact varied among different combinations of dominant mesograzer taxa. In our field experiment, epiphyte biomass was inversely correlated with mesograzer density in high but not in low-shoot density eelgrass plots. High-shoot density plots contained lower epiphyte biomass despite housing lower densities of mesograzers, when compared to low-density plots, suggesting potential effects of mesograzer behavior, community composition, or self-shading on epiphyte growth. Our results suggest that structural complexity can strongly influence rates of top-down and bottom-up processes in eelgrass habitat, and should be incorporated into future experiments on the role of herbivores in seagrass ecosystems.


Grazing Habitat structure Seagrass Shoot density Stable isotope 



We thank C. Bayne, J. Boucree, W. Dailey, R. Dunn, A. Harrington, S. Hengen, J. Jaeger, J. Joseph, J. Ledbetter, P. Shukla, and M. Yeager for their advice and assistance both in the laboratory and the field. We would also like to thank J. Long, A. Palacios, J.E. Duffy, J.J Stachowicz, P.L. Reynolds, and members of the Zostera Experimental Network (ZEN) for advice and guidance throughout the study. Our research was supported by a Segal Americorps Education Award, a San Diego State University Harold and June Grant Memorial Scholarship, a CSU COAST Graduate Student Award for Marine Science Research, a Lerner-Grey Grant for Marine Research, and a National Science Foundation grant (OCE- 1336905) to K. Hovel. This is contribution number 62 from the San Diego State University Coastal and Marine Institute.

Author contribution statement

EPV and KAH conceived of and designed the experiments. EPV performed the experiments and analyzed the data. EPV and KAH wrote the manuscript.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

442_2018_4312_MOESM1_ESM.docx (562 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 561 kb)


  1. Akaike H (1974) A new look at the statistical model identification. IEEE Trans Autom Control 19:716–723CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barry CK (1974) Role of form vision in habitat selection of the grass shrimp Hippolyte californiensis. Mar Biol 26:261–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bell JD, Westoby M (1986) Abundance of macrofauna in dense seagrass is due to habitat preference, not predation. Oecologia 68:205–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Best RJ, Stachowicz JJ (2012) Trophic cascades in seagrass meadows depend on mesograzer variation in feeding rates, predation susceptibility, and abundance. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 456:29–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boström C, Bonsdorff E (2000) Zoobenthic community establishment and habitat complexity-the importance of seagrass shoot-density, morphology and physical disturbance for faunal recruitment. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 205:123–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bracken M, Dolecal RE, Long JD (2014) Community context mediates the top-down vs. bottom-up effects of grazers on rocky shores. Ecology 95:1458–1463CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Burnham KP, Anderson DR (2004) Multimodel inference: understanding AIC and BIC in model selection. Sociol Methods Res 33:261–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Byrnes JE, Stachowicz JJ (2009) The consequences of consumer diversity loss: different answers from different experimental designs. Ecology 90(10):2879–2888CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cebrian J, Stutes J, Christiaen B (2013) Effects of grazing and fertilization on epiphyte growth dynamics under moderately eutrophic conditions: implications for grazing rate estimates. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 474:121–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Clarke KR, Warwick RM (2001) Change in marine communities: an approach to statistical analysis and interpretation. PRIMER E Ltd, PlymouthGoogle Scholar
  11. Crowder LB, Cooper WE (1982) Habitat structural complexity and the interaction between bluegills and their prey. Ecology 63:1802–1813CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. deMaintenon MJ (1999) Phylogenetic analysis of the Columbellidae (Mollusca: Neogastropoda) and the evolution of herbivory from carnivory. Invertebrate Biol 1:258–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Duarte CM, Middelburg JJ, Caraco N (2005) Major role of marine vegetation on the oceanic carbon cycle. Biogeosciences 2:1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Duarte CM, Marbà N, Gacia E et al (2010) Seagrass community metabolism: assessing the carbon sink capacity of seagrass meadows. Glob Biogeochem Cycles 24:GB4032CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Duffy JE (2009) Why biodiversity is important to the functioning of real-world ecosystems. Front Ecol Environ 7:437–444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Duffy JE, Harvilicz AM (2001) Species-specific impacts of grazing amphipods in an eelgrass-bed community. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 223:201–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Duffy JE, Macdonald KS, Rhode JM, Parker JD (2001) Grazer diversity, functional redundancy, and productivity in seagrass beds: an experimental test. Ecology 82:2417–2434CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Duffy JE, Paul Richardson J, Canuel EA (2003) Grazer diversity effects on ecosystem functioning in seagrass beds. Ecol Lett 6:637–645CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Duffy JE, Paul Richardson J, France KE (2005) Ecosystem consequences of diversity depend on food chain length in estuarine vegetation. Ecol Lett 8:301–309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Duffy JE, Reynolds PL, Boström C et al (2015) Biodiversity mediates top-down control in eelgrass ecosystems: a global comparative-experimental approach. Ecol Lett 18:696–705CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Edgar GJ (1990) The use of the size structure of benthic macrofaunal communities to estimate faunal biomass and secondary production. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 137:195–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Edgar GJ, Shaw C (1995) The production and trophic ecology of shallow-water fish assemblages in southern Australia III. General relationships between sediments, seagrasses, invertebrates and fishes. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 194:107–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Eggleston DB, Etherington LL, Elis WE (1998) Organism response to habitat patchiness: species and habitat-dependent recruitment of decapod crustaceans. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 223:111–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ellison AM, Bank MS, Clinton BD et al (2005) Loss of foundation species: consequences for the structure and dynamics of forested ecosystems. Front Ecol Environ 3:479–486CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Fonseca MS, Bell SS (1998) Influence of physical setting on seagrass landscapes near Beaufort, North Carolina, USA. Marine Ecol Prog Ser 171:109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Fonseca MS, Fisher JS (1986) A comparison of canopy friction and sediment movement between four species of seagrass with reference to their ecology and restoration. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 29:15–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Heck KL Jr, Crowder LB (1991) Habitat structure and predator-prey interactions in vegetated aquatic systems. Habitat structure. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 281–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Heck KL Jr, Orth RJ (2006) Predation in seagrass beds. Seagrasses: biology, ecology, and conservation. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 537–550CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hooper DU, Chapin Iii FS, Ewel JJ et al (2005) Effects of biodiversity on ecosystem functioning: a consensus of current knowledge. Ecol Monogr 75:3–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hovel KA, Warneke AM, Virtue-Hilborn SP, Sanchez AE (2016) Mesopredator foraging success in eelgrass (Zostera marina): relative effects of epiphytes, shoot density, and prey abundance. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 474:142–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hughes AR, Bando KJ, Rodriguez LF, Williams SL (2004) Relative effects of grazers and nutrients on seagrasses: a meta-analysis approach. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 282:87–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hughes TP, Graham NAJ, Jackson JBC et al (2010) Rising to the challenge of sustaining coral reef resilience. Trends Ecol Evol 25:633–642CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hunter MD, Price PW (1992) Playing chutes and ladders: heterogeneity and the relative roles of bottom-up and top-down forces in natural communities. Ecology 73:724–732Google Scholar
  34. Irlandi EA (1997) Seagrass patch size and survivorship of an infaunal bivalve. Oikos 78:511CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Jaschinski S, Sommer U (2008) Functional diversity of mesograzers in an eelgrass–epiphyte system. Mar Biol 154:475–482CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Jaschinski S, Sommer U (2010) Positive effects of mesograzers on epiphytes in an eelgrass system. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 401:77–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Jaschinski S, Aberle N, Gohse-Reimann S et al (2008) Grazer diversity effects in an eelgrass–epiphyte–microphytobenthos system. Oecologia 159:607–615CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Larkum AWD, Orth RJ, Duarte CM (2006) Seagrasses: biology, ecology, and conservation. Springer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  39. Lima SL, Dill LM (1990) Behavioral decisions made under the risk of predation: a review and prospectus. Can J Zool 68:619–640CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Loreau M (1998) Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning: a mechanistic model. Proc Natl Acad Sci 95:5632–5636CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Loreau M, Hector A (2001) Partitioning selection and complementarity in biodiversity experiments. Nature 412:72–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Loreau M, Naeem S, Inchausti P (2002) Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning: synthesis and perspectives. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  43. McCoy ED, Bell SS (1991) Habitat structure: the evolution and diversification of a complex topic. Habitat structure: the physical arrangement of objects in space. Chapman and Hall, London, pp 3–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Michel L, Dauby P, Dupont A, Gobert S (2015) Selective top-down control of epiphytic biomass by amphipods from Posidonia oceanica meadows: implications for ecosystem functioning. Belgian J Zool 145:83–93Google Scholar
  45. Moore EC, Hovel KA (2010) Relative influence of habitat complexity and proximity to patch edges on seagrass epifaunal communities. Oikos 119:1299–1311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Nelson WG (1979) Experimental studies of selective predation on amphipods: consequences for amphipod distribution and abundance. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 38:225–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Norberg J (2000) Resource-niche complementarity and autotrophic compensation determines ecosystem-level responses to increased cladoceran species richness. Oecologia 122:264–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Orth RJ, Heck KL Jr (1980) Structural components of eelgrass (Zostera marina) meadows in the lower Chesapeake Bay-fishes. Estuaries Coasts 3:278–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Orth RJ, Heck KL Jr, Van Montfrans J (1984) Faunal communities in seagrass beds: a review of the influence of plant structure and prey characteristics on predator-prey relationships. Estuaries Coasts 7:339–350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Orth RJ, Carruthers TJB, Dennison WC et al (2006) A global crisis for seagrass ecosystems. Bioscience 56:987–996CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Paine RT (1992) Food-web analysis through field measurement of per capita interaction strength. Nature 355:73–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Perez-Matus A, Shima JS (2010) Density- and trait-mediated effects of fish predators on amphipod grazers: potential indirect benefits for the giant kelp Macrocystis pyrifera. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 417:151–U168. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Phillips DL, Gregg JW (2001) Uncertainty in source partitioning using stable isotopes. Oecologia 128:304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Reynolds PL, Sotka EE (2011) Non-consumptive predator effects indirectly influence marine plant biomass and palatability. J Ecol 99:1272–1281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Reynolds PL, Richardson JP, Duffy JE (2014) Field experimental evidence that grazers mediate transition between microalgal and seagrass dominance. Limnol Oceanogr 59:1053–1064CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Ruppert JLW, Travers MJ, Smith LL et al (2013) Caught in the middle: combined impacts of shark removal and coral loss on the fish communities of coral reefs. PLoS One 8:e74648CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Sanders D, Nickel H, Grützner T, Platner C (2008) Habitat structure mediates top–down effects of spiders and ants on herbivores. Basic Appl Ecol 9:152–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Schmitz OJ, Krivan V, Ovadia O (2004) Trophic cascades: the primacy of trait-mediated indirect interactions. Ecol Lett 7:153–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Sirota L, Hovel KA (2006) Simulated eelgrass Zostera marina structural complexity: effects of shoot length, shoot density, and surface area on the epifaunal community of San Diego Bay, California, USA. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 326:115–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Sommer U (1999) The impact of herbivore type and grazing pressure on benthic microalgal diversity. Ecol Lett 2:65–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Stachowicz JJ, Best RJ, Bracken MES, Graham MH (2008) Complementarity in marine biodiversity manipulations: reconciling divergent evidence from field and mesocosm experiments. Proc Natl Acad Sci 105:18842–18847CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Stoner AW (1980) Perception and choice of substratum by epifaunal amphipods associated with seagrasses. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 3:105–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Tait KJ, Hovel KA (2012) Do predation risk and food availability modify prey and mesopredator microhabitat selection in eelgrass (Zostera marina) habitat? J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 426–427:60–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Trussell GC, Ewanchuk PJ, Matassa CM (2006) Habitat effects on the relative importance of trait- and density-mediated indirect interactions. Ecol Lett 9:1245–1252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Valentine JF, Duffy JE (2006) The central role of grazing in seagrass ecology. In: Larkum AWD et al (eds) Seagrasses: biology, ecology, and conservation. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 463–501Google Scholar
  66. Van Montfrans J, Wetzel RL, Orth RJ (1984) Epiphyte-grazer relationships in seagrass meadows: consequences for seagrass growth and production. Estuaries 7:289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Vergés A, Vanderklift MA, Doropoulos C, Hyndes GA (2011) Spatial patterns in herbivory on a coral reef are influenced by structural complexity but not by algal traits. PLoS One 6:e17115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Warfe DM, Barmuta LA (2004) Habitat structural complexity mediates the foraging success of multiple predator species. Oecologia 141:171–178 (d) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Waycott M, Duarte CM, Carruthers TJB et al (2009) Accelerating loss of seagrasses across the globe threatens coastal ecosystems. Proc Natl Acad Sci 106:12377–12381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Whalen MA, Duffy JE, Grace JB (2013) Temporal shifts in top-down vs. bottom-up control of epiphytic algae in a seagrass ecosystem. Ecology 94:510–520CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Williams SL, Heck KL Jr (2001) Seagrass community ecology. Marine Community Ecology. Sinauer Associates Inc, Sunderland, pp 317–337Google Scholar

Copyright information

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

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Biology and Coastal and Marine InstituteSan Diego State UniversitySan DiegoUSA
  2. 2.Department of Marine, Earth & Atmospheric SciencesNorth Carolina State UniversityRaleighUSA

Personalised recommendations