DOCSLIB.ORG

Herbivore Intraspecific Variation and Evolutionary Divergence Drive Trophic Cascade Strength

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Herbivore Intraspecific Variation and Evolutionary Divergence Drive Trophic Cascade Strength bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/722140; this version posted August 1, 2019. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under aCC-BY-NC 4.0 International license. 1 1 Herbivore intraspecific variation and evolutionary divergence drive trophic cascade strength 2 3 Arnaud Sentis1,4*, Raphaël Bertram1, Nathalie Dardenne1, Jean-Christophe Simon2, Alexandra Magro1, 4 Benoit Pujol3, Etienne Danchin1‡, and Jean-Louis Hemptinne1‡ 5 1 UMR-5174; EDB (Laboratoire Évolution & Diversité Biologique); CNRS, Université Toulouse III- 6 Paul Sabatier, IRD, 118 route de Narbonne, F-31062 Toulouse Cedex 9, France. 7 2 UMR 1349; IGEPP (Institut de Génétique, Environnement et Protection des Plantes); INRA, 8 Agrocampus Ouest,Université Rennes 1; Domaine de la Motte B.P. 35327, F-35653 Le Rheu cedex, 9 France. 10 3PSL Université Paris: EPHE-UPVD-CNRS, USR 3278 CRIOBE, Université de Perpignan, 52 Avenue 11 Paul Alduy, 66860 Perpignan Cedex, France. 12 4IRSTEA, Aix Marseille Univ., UMR RECOVER, 3275 route Cézanne, 13182 Aix-en-Provence, 13 France. 14 ‡These authors contributed equally to this work. 15 *Corresponding author: Arnaud Sentis. IRSTEA, Aix Marseille Univ., UMR RECOVER, 3275 route 16 Cézanne, 13182 Aix-en-Provence, France. 17 E-mail: [email protected]; phone: +33 4 42 66 99 05. 18 19 Abstract 20 Trophic cascades—the indirect effect of predators on non-adjacent lower trophic levels—are important 21 drivers of the structure and dynamics of ecological communities. However, the influence of intraspecific 22 trait variation on trophic cascade strength remains largely unexplored, which limits our understanding of 23 the mechanisms underlying ecological networks. Here we experimentally investigated how herbivore 24 intraspecific genetic variation and evolutionary divergence related to host-plant specialization influences 25 trophic cascade strength in a terrestrial tritrophic system. We found that the occurrence and strength of 26 the trophic cascade are strongly influenced by herbivores’ intraspecific variation and evolutionary 27 divergence but are not associated with density-dependent effects mediated by herbivore population 28 growth rate. Our findings stress the importance of intraspecific trait diversity and evolutionary 29 adaptations as drivers of trophic cascade strength and underline that intraspecific variation should not be 30 overlooked to decipher the joint influence of evolutionary and ecological factors on the functioning of 31 multi-trophic interactions. 32 bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/722140; this version posted August 1, 2019. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under aCC-BY-NC 4.0 International license. 2 33 Key-words: tri-trophic interactions, herbivory, indirect effects, evo-to-eco, host-plant adaptation, 34 genetic variation 35 36 Introduction 37 Predators strongly influence the structure and function of ecological communities by influencing prey 38 density, distribution, and behavior which, in turn, have cascading effects on lower trophic levels (Sih et 39 al. 1985; Beckerman, Uriarte & Schmitz 1997; Shurin et al. 2002; Schmitz, Krivan & Ovadia 2004; 40 Suraci et al. 2016). This indirect effect of predators on non-adjacent lower trophic levels, the so-called 41 “trophic cascades,” are frequently observed in both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems (Halaj & Wise 42 2001; Borer et al. 2005; Bruno & O'Connor 2005; Wu et al. 2011; Sanders, Kehoe & van Veen 2015). 43 Trophic cascades are important drivers of the structure and dynamics of populations, communities, and 44 ecosystems (Ripple et al. 2016) and have several implications for theoretical ecology, conservation 45 biology, and ecosystem management (Post et al. 1999; Hulot et al. 2000; Estes et al. 2011). For instance, 46 Delvin et al. (2015) showed that stocking fishes in fishless lakes decreases by a factor 10 the efflux rates 47 of methane—an important greenhouse gas—by reducing zooplankton abundance, which in turn increases 48 the abundance of methanotrophic bacteria. In another study, Schmitz et al. (2017) showed that the 49 composition of the arthropod predator community and associated cascading effects on plant communities 50 explain 41% of the variation in soil carbon retention across a human land-use gradient. Given the 51 importance of trophic cascades, a major issue in ecology and conservation is to determine when and 52 where trophic cascades occur, and what are the factors and mechanisms underpinning their strength. 53 54 Although the existence of trophic cascades has been widely demonstrated (Schmitz 2003; Romero & 55 Koricheva 2011), most studies focused on whether cascades are more likely or stronger in some systems 56 than others (Pace et al. 1999; Shurin et al. 2002), leading to a wealth of predictions about the relative 57 strength of predator effects on plants among ecosystems with a particular focus on aquatic versus 58 terrestrial ecosystems (Shurin et al. 2002; Borer et al. 2005). Although comparing cascade strength 59 among systems is valuable, little is known about what causes variations in the magnitude of cascading 60 effects within or among systems. In particular, the role of intraspecific trait variation for the occurrence 61 and strength of trophic cascades remains largely unexplored (but see(Post et al. 2008; Harmon et al. 62 2009; Jochum et al. 2012; Keiser et al. 2015; Royauté & Pruitt 2015; Start & Gilbert 2017). Most prior 63 studies assumed that species identity or mean trait values adequately represent species interactions and 64 their effects on community dynamics. This assumption is puzzling because it ignores the considerable 65 intraspecific variation of traits (Benesh & Kalbe 2016), thereby overlooking a potentially important bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/722140; this version posted August 1, 2019. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under aCC-BY-NC 4.0 International license. 3 66 determinant of species interactions, community structure and dynamics, as well as evolutionary 67 responses to selective pressures (Roff 1997; Bolnick et al. 2011; Violle et al. 2012). Thus, knowledge of 68 how intraspecific variation modulates bi- and tri-trophic interactions is crucial for better understanding 69 and predicting the occurrence and strength of trophic cascades. 70 71 Different hypotheses have been proposed to explain variations in the occurrence and strength of trophic 72 cascades in various types of ecosystems (Hulot et al. 2000; Polis et al. 2000; Borer et al. 2005). 73 Hypotheses linked to habitat spatial heterogeneity, food web linearity or system productivity have 74 received little support (Borer et al. 2005). On the contrary, interspecific variation in plant anti-herbivore 75 defenses (Schmitz et al. 2000; Mooney et al. 2010), predator hunting mode and consumer efficiency 76 (e.g., low metabolic costs, high consumption rate and population growth rate) can significantly affect 77 trophic cascade strength (Romero & Koricheva 2011). In particular, high predator or herbivore efficiency 78 increases cascade strength via high consumption rate of herbivores by predators, and plants by herbivores 79 (Strong 1992; Polis 1999; Borer et al. 2005). Therefore, trophic cascade strength should depend on the 80 herbivore’s population growth rate in the absence of predators and on the predator efficiency in reducing 81 herbivore density (Schmitz 1998; Borer et al. 2005). We thus expect density-mediated effects driven by 82 intraspecific variation in herbivore population growth rate to be an important determinant of trophic 83 cascade strength: the faster they growth, the stronger is the trophic cascade. Deviation from this 84 prediction would stress the importance of considering intraspecific variation in other ecological traits and 85 in evolutionary history of herbivores to better understand and predict cascade strength. 86 87 In this study, we experimentally investigated the effects of herbivore intraspecific trait variation on 88 trophic cascade strength using a broad bean–aphid–ladybeetle system. The pea aphid Acyrthosiphon 89 pisum Harris (Homoptera: Aphididae) feeds on many Fabaceae species and forms host-plant-associated 90 populations (“host races” or “biotypes”) that are genetically differentiated (Via 1999; Hawthorne & Via 91 2001; Peccoud et al. 2009) in a way that affects their performance on different host plants (Via 1999; 92 Via, Bouck & Skillman 2000; Hawthorne & Via 2001). These different features make the pea aphid an 93 interesting biological model to assess the influence of intraspecific trait variation and evolutionary 94 divergence for trophic cascade strength. Here we conducted a full factorial laboratory experiment with 95 six pea aphid clonal lineages (i.e. asexually reproducing aphid genetic lines) specialized either on alfalfa 96 (Alfalfa biotype) or clover (Clover biotype) and exposed or not to a generalist predator. We first tested 97 whether trophic cascade strength varies among aphid clonal lineages, and then investigated whether 98 differences among lineages are best explained by density-mediated
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Backyard Food
    Suggested Grades: 2nd - 5th BACKYARD FOOD WEB Wildlife Champions at Home Science Experiment 2-LS4-1: Make observations of plants and animals to compare the diversity of life in different habitats. What is a food web? All living things on earth are either producers, consumers or decomposers. Producers are organisms that create their own food through the process of photosynthesis. Photosynthesis is when a living thing uses sunlight, water and nutrients from the soil to create its food. Most plants are producers. Consumers get their energy by eating other living things. Consumers can be either herbivores (eat only plants – like deer), carnivores (eat only meat – like wolves) or omnivores (eat both plants and meat - like humans!) Decomposers are organisms that get their energy by eating dead plants or animals. After a living thing dies, decomposers will break down the body and turn it into nutritious soil for plants to use. Mushrooms, worms and bacteria are all examples of decomposers. A food web is a picture that shows how energy (food) passes through an ecosystem. The easiest way to build a food web is by starting with the producers. Every ecosystem has plants that make their own food through photosynthesis. These plants are eaten by herbivorous consumers. These herbivores are then hunted by carnivorous consumers. Eventually, these carnivores die of illness or old age and become food for decomposers. As decomposers break down the carnivore’s body, they create delicious nutrients in the soil which plants will use to live and grow! When drawing a food web, it is important to show the flow of energy (food) using arrows.
    [Show full text]
  • Seventh Grade
    Name: _____________________ Maui Ocean Center Learning Worksheet Seventh Grade Our mission is to foster understanding, wonder and respect for Hawai‘i’s Marine Life. Based on benchmarks SC.6.3.1, SC. 7.3.1, SC. 7.3.2, SC. 7.5.4 Maui Ocean Center SEVENTH GRADE 1 Interdependent Relationships Relationships A food web (or chain) shows how each living thing gets its food. Some animals eat plants and some animals eat other animals. For example, a simple food chain links plants, cows (that eat plants), and humans (that eat cows). Each link in this chain is food for the next link. A food chain always starts with plant life and ends with an animal. Plants are called producers (they are also autotrophs) because they are able to use light energy from the sun to produce food (sugar) from carbon dioxide and water. Animals cannot make their own food so they must eat plants and/or other animals. They are called consumers (they are also heterotrophs). There are three groups of consumers. Animals that eat only plants are called herbivores. Animals that eat other animals are called carnivores. Animals and people who eat both animals and plants are called omnivores. Decomposers (bacteria and fungi) feed on decaying matter. These decomposers speed up the decaying process that releases minerals back into the food chain for absorption by plants as nutrients. Do you know why there are more herbivores than carnivores? In a food chain, energy is passed from one link to another. When a herbivore eats, only a fraction of the energy (that it gets from the plant food) becomes new body mass; the rest of the energy is lost as waste or used up (by the herbivore as it moves).
    [Show full text]
  • Plants Are Producers! Draw the Different Producers Below
    Name: ______________________________ The Unique Producer Every food chain begins with a producer. Plants are producers. They make their own food, which creates energy for them to grow, reproduce and survive. Being able to make their own food makes them unique; they are the only living things on Earth that can make their own source of food energy. Of course, they require sun, water and air to thrive. Given these three essential ingredients, you will have a healthy plant to begin the food chain. All plants are producers! Draw the different producers below. Apple Tree Rose Bushes Watermelon Grasses Plant Blueberry Flower Fern Daisy Bush List the three essential needs that every producer must have in order to live. © 2009 by Heather Motley Name: ______________________________ Producers can make their own food and energy, but consumers are different. Living things that have to hunt, gather and eat their food are called consumers. Consumers have to eat to gain energy or they will die. There are four types of consumers: omnivores, carnivores, herbivores and decomposers. Herbivores are living things that only eat plants to get the food and energy they need. Animals like whales, elephants, cows, pigs, rabbits, and horses are herbivores. Carnivores are living things that only eat meat. Animals like owls, tigers, sharks and cougars are carnivores. You would not catch a plant in these animals’ mouths. Then, we have the omnivores. Omnivores will eat both plants and animals to get energy. Whichever food source is abundant or available is what they will eat. Animals like the brown bear, dogs, turtles, raccoons and even some people are omnivores.
    [Show full text]
  • What Happened When Wolves Were Reintroduced to Yellowstone Park?
    Trophic Cascades: What Happened When Wolves Were Reintroduced to Yellowstone Park? Lesson Question How did the reintroduction of wolves into Yellowstone Park affect the other animals and plants in the ecosystem? Lesson Tasks Students analyze data to determine the effect of wolves on Yellowstone’s elk population, on the plants that elk graze on, and on the animals that compete with elk for food. They write a report describing how the reintroduction of wolves has created a trophic cascade—not just a few direct changes in one food chain, but a series of indirect changes throughout the food web. Standards • HS-LS2-2 Ecosystems: Interactions, Energy, and Dynamics NGSS Science and Engineering Practices • Constructing Explanations and Designing Solutions • Engaging in Argument from Evidence • Evaluate the claims, evidence, and reasoning behind currently accepted explanations or solutions to determine the merits of arguments. NGSS Disciplinary Core Ideas • LS2.C: Ecosystem Dynamics, Functioning and Resilience • ETS1.B: Developing Possible Solutions Crosscutting Concepts • Stability and Change, Patterns Connections to Nature of Science • Scientific Knowledge is open to revision in light of new evidence. • Most scientific Knowledge is quite durable, but is, in principle, subject to change based on new evidence and/or reinterpretation of existing evidence. Trophic Cascades: What Happened When Wolves Were Reintroduced to Yellowstone Park? TABLE OF CONTENTS OVERVIEW ........................................................... 3 INVESTIGATION ...............................................
    [Show full text]
  • Evidence for Ecosystem-Level Trophic Cascade Effects Involving Gulf Menhaden (Brevoortia Patronus) Triggered by the Deepwater Horizon Blowout
    Journal of Marine Science and Engineering Article Evidence for Ecosystem-Level Trophic Cascade Effects Involving Gulf Menhaden (Brevoortia patronus) Triggered by the Deepwater Horizon Blowout Jeffrey W. Short 1,*, Christine M. Voss 2, Maria L. Vozzo 2,3 , Vincent Guillory 4, Harold J. Geiger 5, James C. Haney 6 and Charles H. Peterson 2 1 JWS Consulting LLC, 19315 Glacier Highway, Juneau, AK 99801, USA 2 Institute of Marine Sciences, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 3431 Arendell Street, Morehead City, NC 28557, USA; [email protected] (C.M.V.); [email protected] (M.L.V.); [email protected] (C.H.P.) 3 Sydney Institute of Marine Science, Mosman, NSW 2088, Australia 4 Independent Researcher, 296 Levillage Drive, Larose, LA 70373, USA; [email protected] 5 St. Hubert Research Group, 222 Seward, Suite 205, Juneau, AK 99801, USA; [email protected] 6 Terra Mar Applied Sciences LLC, 123 W. Nye Lane, Suite 129, Carson City, NV 89706, USA; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +1-907-209-3321 Abstract: Unprecedented recruitment of Gulf menhaden (Brevoortia patronus) followed the 2010 Deepwater Horizon blowout (DWH). The foregone consumption of Gulf menhaden, after their many predator species were killed by oiling, increased competition among menhaden for food, resulting in poor physiological conditions and low lipid content during 2011 and 2012. Menhaden sampled Citation: Short, J.W.; Voss, C.M.; for length and weight measurements, beginning in 2011, exhibited the poorest condition around Vozzo, M.L.; Guillory, V.; Geiger, H.J.; Barataria Bay, west of the Mississippi River, where recruitment of the 2010 year class was highest.
    [Show full text]
  • Herbivore Physiological Response to Predation Risk and Implications for Ecosystem Nutrient Dynamics
    Herbivore physiological response to predation risk and implications for ecosystem nutrient dynamics Dror Hawlena and Oswald J. Schmitz1 School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, Yale University, New Haven, CT 06511 Communicated by Thomas W. Schoener, University of California, Davis, CA, June 29, 2010 (received for review January 4, 2010) The process of nutrient transfer throughan ecosystem is an important lower the quantity of energy that can be allocated to production determinant of production, food-chain length, and species diversity. (20–23). Consequently, stress-induced constraints on herbivore The general view is that the rate and efficiency of nutrient transfer up production should lower the demand for N-rich proteins (24). the food chain is constrained by herbivore-specific capacity to secure Herbivores also have low capacity to store excess nutrients (24), N-rich compounds for survival and production. Using feeding trials and hence should seek plants with high digestible carbohydrate with artificial food, we show, however, that physiological stress- content to minimize the costs of ingesting and excreting excess N. response of grasshopper herbivores to spider predation risk alters the Such stress-induced shift in nutrient demand may be especially nature of the nutrient constraint. Grasshoppers facing predation risk important in terrestrial systems in which digestible carbohydrate had higher metabolic rates than control grasshoppers. Elevated represents a small fraction of total plant carbohydrate-C, and may metabolism accordingly increased requirements for dietary digestible be limiting even under risk-free conditions (25). Moreover, stress carbohydrate-C to fuel-heightened energy demands. Moreover, di- responses include break down of body proteins to produce glucose gestible carbohydrate-C comprises a small fraction of total plant (i.e., gluconeogenesis) (14), which requires excretion of N-rich tissue-C content, so nutrient transfer between plants and herbivores waste compounds (ammonia or primary amines) (26).
    [Show full text]
  • CHAPTER 5 Ecopath with Ecosim: Linking Fisheries and Ecology
    CHAPTER 5 Ecopath with Ecosim: linking fi sheries and ecology V. Christensen Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia, Canada. 1 Why ecosystem modeling in fi sheries? Fifty years ago, fi sheries science emerged as a quantitative discipline with the publication of Ray Beverton and Sidney Holt’s [1] seminal volume On the Dynamics of Exploited Fish Populations. This book provided the foundation for how to manage fi sheries and was based on detailed, mathe- matical analyses of the dynamics of individual fi sh populations, of how they grow and how they are affected by fi shing. Fisheries science has developed and matured since then, and remarkably much of what has been achieved are modifi cations and further developments of what Beverton and Holt introduced. Given then that fi sheries science has developed to become one of the most data-rich, quantita- tive fi elds in ecology [2], how well has it fared? We often see fi sheries issues in the headlines and usually in a negative context and there are indeed many threats to the sustainability of ocean resources [3]. Many, judging not the least from newspaper headlines, consider fi sheries manage- ment a usual suspect in connection with fi sheries collapses. This may lead one to suspect that there is a problem with the science, but I hold this to be an erroneous conclusion. It should be stressed that the main problem is not to be found in the computational aspects of the science, but rather in how management advice actually is implemented in praxis [4]. The major force in fi sh- eries throughout the world is excessive fi shing capacity; the days with unexploited resources and untapped oceans are over [5], and the fi shing industry is now relying heavily on subsidies to keep the machinery going [6].
    [Show full text]
  • OCN 201 Spring 2011 Exam 3 (75 Pts) True Or False (1 Pt Each)
    Name:________________________ Exam: ____A____ ID: ______________________________ OCN 201 Spring 2011 Exam 3 (75 pts) True or False (1 pt each). A = TRUE; B = FALSE 1. According to the “serial endosymbiosis theory”, prokaryotes developed when eukaryotes lost their organelles. 2. The aphotic zone of the ocean is in the epipelagic. 3. Amino acids (one of the building blocks of life) have been found in meteorites. 4. Bioluminescence occurs only in the deep sea. 5. Phytoplankton are photoautotrophs. 6. Marine snow is a source of organic carbon to the deep sea. 7. Tropical oceans have very low productivity for most of the year because they frequently mix below the critical depth year-round. 8. Larger organisms are more abundant than smaller ones in the ocean. 9. Ctenophores (comb jellies) propel themselves by pulsing their bell, just like jellyfish. 10. Corals have only one opening to their digestive cavity. 11. Many animals in the very deep sea are red or black. 12. The “deep scattering layer” moves toward the sea surface during the day. 13. In fisheries, the maximum sustainable yield is the amount of fish that must be caught to keep up with the current rate of inflation. 14. Geological evidence indicates that life on earth began at least 3.5 billion years ago. 15. Light and nutrients are the two main things limiting primary productivity in the ocean. 16. Areas of the ocean with upwelling tend to have high productivity. 17. Some bacteria are photoautotrophs. p. 1 of 6 18. Nudibranchs are a type of flatworm 19. Whales are nekton. 20.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 36D. South Pacific Ocean
    Chapter 36D. South Pacific Ocean Contributors: Karen Evans (lead author), Nic Bax (convener), Patricio Bernal (Lead member), Marilú Bouchon Corrales, Martin Cryer, Günter Försterra, Carlos F. Gaymer, Vreni Häussermann, and Jake Rice (Co-Lead member and Editor Part VI Biodiversity) 1. Introduction The Pacific Ocean is the Earth’s largest ocean, covering one-third of the world’s surface. This huge expanse of ocean supports the most extensive and diverse coral reefs in the world (Burke et al., 2011), the largest commercial fishery (FAO, 2014), the most and deepest oceanic trenches (General Bathymetric Chart of the Oceans, available at www.gebco.net), the largest upwelling system (Spalding et al., 2012), the healthiest and, in some cases, largest remaining populations of many globally rare and threatened species, including marine mammals, seabirds and marine reptiles (Tittensor et al., 2010). The South Pacific Ocean surrounds and is bordered by 23 countries and territories (for the purpose of this chapter, countries west of Papua New Guinea are not considered to be part of the South Pacific), which range in size from small atolls (e.g., Nauru) to continents (South America, Australia). Associated populations of each of the countries and territories range from less than 10,000 (Tokelau, Nauru, Tuvalu) to nearly 30.5 million (Peru; Population Estimates and Projections, World Bank Group, accessed at http://data.worldbank.org/data-catalog/population-projection-tables, August 2014). Most of the tropical and sub-tropical western and central South Pacific Ocean is contained within exclusive economic zones (EEZs), whereas vast expanses of temperate waters are associated with high seas areas (Figure 1).
    [Show full text]
  • The Incredible Lightness of Being Methane-Fuelled: Stable Isotopes Reveal Alternative Energy Pathways in Aquatic Ecosystems and Beyond
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Frontiers - Publisher Connector REVIEW published: 11 February 2016 doi: 10.3389/fevo.2016.00008 The Incredible Lightness of Being Methane-Fuelled: Stable Isotopes Reveal Alternative Energy Pathways in Aquatic Ecosystems and Beyond Jonathan Grey * Lancaster Environment Centre, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK We have known about the processes of methanogenesis and methanotrophy for over 100 years, since the days of Winogradsky, yet their contributions to the carbon cycle were deemed to be of negligible importance for the majority of that period. It is only Edited by: in the last two decades that methane has been appreciated for its role in the global Jason Newton, carbon cycle, and stable isotopes have come to the forefront as tools for identifying Scottish Universities Environmental Research Centre, UK and tracking the fate of methane-derived carbon (MDC) within food webs, especially Reviewed by: within aquatic ecosystems. While it is not surprising that chemosynthetic processes David Bastviken, dominate and contribute almost 100% to the biomass of organisms residing within Linköping University, Sweden Blake Matthews, extreme habitats like deep ocean hydrothermal vents and seeps, way below the reach Eawag: Swiss Federal Institute of of photosynthetically active radiation, it is perhaps counterintuitive to find reliance upon Aquatic Science and Technology, MDC in shallow, well-lit, well-oxygenated streams. Yet, apparently, MDC contributes to Switzerland
    [Show full text]
  • Pesticide Use Harming Key Species Ripples Through the Ecosystem Regulatory Deficiencies Cause Trophic Cascades That Threaten Species Survival Boulder Creek
    Pesticide Use Harming Key Species Ripples through the Ecosystem Regulatory deficiencies cause trophic cascades that threaten species survival Boulder Creek, Boulder, Colorado © Beyond Pesticides DREW TOHER stabilizing the water table, and both worked in tandem to provide cool, deep, shaded water for native fish. espite a growing body of scientific literature, complex, ecosystem-wide effects of synthetic When a predator higher up on the food chain is eliminated, pesticides are not considered by the U.S. Envi- that predator’s prey is released from predation, often causing ronmental Protection Agency (EPA). Beyond a trophic cascade that throws the ecosystem out of balance. direct toxicity, pesticides can significantly reduce, It is not always the top-level predator that creates a trophic Dchange the behavior of, or destroy populations of plants cascade. The loss or reduction of populations at any trophic and animals. These effects can ripple up and down food level—including amphibians, insects, or plants—can result chains, causing what is known as a trophic cascade. in changes that are difficult to perceive, but nonetheless A trophic cascade is one easily-understood example equally damaging to the stability and long-term health of of ecosystem-mediated pesticide effects. an ecosystem. Salient research on the disruptive, cascading effects that pesticides have at the ecosystem level must lead In determining legal pesticide use patterns that protect regulators to a broader consideration of the indirect impacts ecosystems (the complex web of organisms in nature) EPA caused by the introduction of these chemicals into complex requires a set of tests intended to measure both acute and living systems.
    [Show full text]
  • Key Features and Context-Dependence of Fishery-Induced Trophic Cascades
    Review Key Features and Context-Dependence of Fishery-Induced Trophic Cascades ANNE K. SALOMON,∗† SARAH K. GAICHAS,‡ NICK T. SHEARS,∗ JENNIFER E. SMITH,§ ELIZABETH M. P. MADIN,∗†† AND STEVEN D. GAINES∗†† ∗Marine Science Institute, University of California Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, CA 93106-6150, U.S.A. †School of Resource and Environmental Management, Simon Fraser University, 8888 University Drive, Burnaby, British Columbia V5A 1S6, Canada, email [email protected] ‡National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Alaska Fisheries Science Center, 7600 Sand Point Way NE, Seattle, WA 98115, U.S.A. §Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California San Diego, 9500 Gilman Drive, La Jolla, CA 92093, U.S.A. ††Department of Ecology Evolution, and Marine Biology, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA 93106-9610, U.S.A. Abstract: Trophic cascades triggered by fishing have profound implications for marine ecosystems and the socioeconomic systems that depend on them. With the number of reported cases quickly growing, key features and commonalities have emerged. Fishery-induced trophic cascades often display differential response times and nonlinear trajectories among trophic levels and can be accompanied by shifts in alternative states. Furthermore, their magnitude appears to be context dependent, varying as a function of species diversity, regional oceanography, local physical disturbance, habitat complexity, and the nature of the fishery itself. To conserve and manage exploited marine ecosystems,
    [Show full text]