I the Role of Functional Diversity in Biotic Resistance of Non-Native
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
The role of functional diversity in biotic resistance of non-native fishes and invertebrates in Lake Erie coastal wetlands Thesis Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Masters of Science in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Jenna Lynn Odegard, B.S. Graduate Program in Environment & Natural Resources The Ohio State University 2017 Thesis Committee: Dr. Suzanne M. Gray, Co-Advisor Dr. Lauren M. Pintor, Co-Advisor Dr. Christopher M. Tonra Dr. Christopher J. Winslow i Copyright by Jenna Lynn Odegard 2017 i Abstract Biological invasions are a leading cause of biodiversity declines and impairment of ecosystem function. Native assemblages that resist invasion by non-native species are frequently thought to be more diverse (i.e. diversity-invasibility hypothesis, DIH). This “biotic resistance” to non-natives by a more diverse assemblage of native species is thought to occur through increased interspecific competition, more fully used resources, and less available niche space. Evidence in support of the biotic resistance is mixed, suggesting that the DIH relationship depends on spatial scale (e.g. “invasion paradox”); however, another factor influencing the relationship between native and non-native species might be how diversity is measured. Most research that examines whether more diverse assemblages are more resistant to invasion has typically focused on measuring taxonomic biodiversity; however, functional diversity (e.g. feeding groups) might also be an important factor contributing to a native assemblage’s biotic resistance. In this study, I investigated if there is support for DIH in fish and invertebrate assemblages in coastal wetlands along the western basin of Lake Erie, according to taxonomic and functional richness and diversity. I sampled native and non-native fishes and invertebrates seasonally between 2013 and 2016. I expected to find a negative association between native and non-native organisms in support of DIH; however, I did not find significant within- taxonomic group relationships. In contrast, when investigating the association between fishes and non-native invertebrate presence across assemblage, I found a positive association. Explanations for these results might be related to spatial scale of the study, the possibility of abiotic factors or facilitation influencing invasion success, my approach to quantifying the biotic assemblage, time since invasion, and the statistical power. Assessing these biotic resistance trends is important for reducing costly impacts of invasion, prioritizing management efforts, and conserving native species. ii Dedication This work is dedicated to the love of nature, fresh air, calming waters, and funny-looking aquatic organisms. May we never cease to be amazed by life. iii Acknowledgments Thanks to my advisors, Dr. Lauren Pintor and Dr. Suzanne Gray, for giving immense support and guidance during my graduate career. Thanks to my committee members, Dr. Chris Tonra and Dr. Chris Winslow, for sharing their ideas to develop and conduct this research project. Thanks to NOAA/Ohio Sea Grant and OSU for providing funding and employees and students to assist with field work, including Tory Gabriel, Matt Thomas, Kevin Hart, Chris Johnson, Richard Oldham, Erin O'Shaughnessey, Ryan Hudson, Alan Coburn, Martha Zapata, and Ross Standt. Thanks to Rhithron Associates, Angela Dripps (Environment Protection Agency), and Dr. Watters (Museum for Biological Diversity) for their professional assistance with identification of “mystery” macroinvertebrates. Finally, many thank to the numerous undergraduate students who assisted with processing of invertebrates samples in the laboratory. This army of undergraduate researchers includes Katie White, Elizabeth Bertoli, Victoria Stoodley, Callie Nauman, Grace Simpson, Alissa Finke, Ella Weaver, Kaylina Ruth, Mayim Hamblen, Alec Mell, Gemma Bush, Brin Kessinger, Taylor Gray, Scott Meyer, Dan Hribar, Katherine Denune, and Andy Opplinger. Without the involvement of all these people, this project would not have been possible! iv Vita May 2009 ...................................................................................Mahtomedi High School May 2013 ..................................................................................................B.S. in Biology University of Wisconsin-River Falls July 2014 to present ......................................Graduate Research and Teaching Associate, School of Environment and Natural Resources, The Ohio State University Fields of Study Major Field: Environment and Natural Resources Specialization Fisheries and Wildlife Science v Table of Contents Abstract……………………………………………………………………....... ii Dedication……………………………………………………………………... iii Acknowledgements…………………………………………………………… iv Vita……………………………………………………………………............. v List of Tables………………………………………………………………….. vii List of Figures…………………………………………………………………. x Chapter 1: Literature review of invasion, biotic resistance, and functional diversity……………………………………………………………………...... 1 References…………………………………………………………………….. 11 Chapter 2: The role of functional diversity in biotic resistance of non-native fishes in Lake Erie coastal waters……………………………………………... 19 References.......................................................................................................... 39 Chapter 3- The role of functional diversity of fishes and invertebrates in biotic resistance of non-native fishes in Ottawa National Wildlife Refuge…... 58 References.......................................................................................................... 91 Appendix A. Native and non-native fishes found collected using fyke nets from 8 sites sampled in fall and spring 2013-2014 and their associated status, and feeding guilds (FG)…………………………………………. 124 Appendix B. Abiotic water sampling: averages of 3 water collections collected from each site were calculated to assess seasonal and yearly fluctuations.…………………………………………………………………… 126 Appendix C. Invertebrate subsampling method 1 used to randomly select material to search for invertebrates for samples larger than 250-mL. ………... 129 Appendix D. Fish species found, minnow trap mesh size they were collected in, Invader status according to GLANSIS, and associated feeding guild (FG)…..………………...................................................................................... 130 Appendix E. Invertebrates found with Operational Taxonomic Units (OTUs), Invader status, and functional feeding group (FFG)…………………………... 131 vi List of Tables Table 2.1. Sampling regime of fish sampling in fall and spring 2013 and 2014………………………………………………………………………... 46 Table 2.2. Non-native fishes found and percent relative abundance among non-native species found……………...…………………………………… 47 Table 2.3. Non-native fish taxonomic richness explained by native fish taxonomic richness, connection to Lake Erie, year, and season, shown by A) 15 candidate generalized linear mixed effect models and B) Relative Variable Importance (RVI) scores for the explanatory variables……….…. 48 Table 2.4. Non-native fish functional richness explained by native fish functional richness, connection to Lake Erie, year, and season, shown by A) Ranked generalized linear mixed effect models, and B) Relative Variable Importance (RVI) scores for the explanatory variables….………. 49 Table 2.5. Non-native fish taxonomic diversity according to Shannon- Weiner Diversity Index explained by native fish taxonomic diversity, connection to Lake Erie, year, and season, shown by A) Ranked linear mixed effect models, and B) Relative Variable Importance (RVI) scores for the explanatory variables…………………………...………………….. 50 Table 2.6. Non-native fish taxonomic diversity according to Simpson’s Index of Diversity explained by native fish taxonomic diversity, connection to Lake Erie, year, and season, shown by A) Ranked linear mixed effect models, and B) Relative Variable Importance (RVI) scores for the explanatory variables…………………….………………………… 51 Table 2.7. Non-native fish functional diversity according to Shannon- Weiner Index of Diversity explained by native fish functional diversity, connection to Lake Erie, year, and season, shown by A) Ranked linear vii mixed effect models, and B) Relative Variable Importance (RVI) scores for the explanatory variables…..…...…………………….………………... 52 Table 2.8. Non-native fish functional diversity according to Simpson’s Index of Diversity explained by native fish functional diversity, connection to Lake Erie, year, and season, shown by A) Ranked linear mixed effect models and B) Relative Variable Importance (RVI) scores for the explanatory variables……………………..………………...……… 53 Table 2.9. Area of sites not directly connected to Lake Erie………...……. 54 Table 3.1. Schedule of fish and invertebrate sampling conducted at Ottawa National Wildlife Refuge, OH…………………………………….. 98 Table 3.2. Taxonomic and functional richness and diversity averages +/- standard error fish and invertebrates samples across 7 sites in 2014 and 9 sites in 2015 in spring, summer and fall……...……………………………. 99 Table 3.3. Results of the generalized linear mixed effect regression model performed on the dependent variable, non-native fish abundance, to test its association with native fish……………………………………...…………. 100 Table 3.4. Results of generalized linear mixed effect regression model performed on the dependent variable, non-native fish presence, to test its association with native………..…………..…………………………...…… 102 Table 3.5. Results of the generalized linear mixed effect regression