Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T04:21:19.940Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

13 - Biodiversity is related to indirect interactions among species of large effect

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 August 2009

Joseph K. Bailey
Affiliation:
Northern Arizona University
Thomas G. Whitham
Affiliation:
Northern Arizona University
Takayuki Ohgushi
Affiliation:
Kyoto University, Japan
Timothy P. Craig
Affiliation:
University of Minnesota, Duluth
Peter W. Price
Affiliation:
Northern Arizona University
Get access

Summary

Introduction

Because communities are structured by the interactions among species, indirect interactions (i.e., effects of one species on another mediated by a third) are likely to play a major role in determining community composition. Through indirect interactions with plants, herbivores can have large effects on community composition by creating habitats and conditions to which other species respond. For example, beaver herbivory of cottonwoods increases phytochemical defensive compounds in resprout cottonwoods that positively affect the abundance of a leaf-chewing chrysomelid beetle (Martinsen et al. 1998). Herbivores can create these habitats or conditions by modifying plant architecture (Nakamura and Ohgushi 2003), secondary chemistry (Karban and Baldwin 1997), plant species composition (Johnston and Naiman 1990, Chadde and Kay 1991), building of structures (Cappuccino 1993, Jones et al. 1994, Dickson and Whitham 1996, Martinsen et al. 2000, Bailey and Whitham 2003), changes to the spatial distribution of habitat (Chadde and Kay 1991), or some combination of these effects, any of which can influence community composition. When herbivores are dominant species, keystone species (Hunter 1992) and/or ecosystem engineers, they can have strong positive or negative effects on associated species (Jones et al. 1997, Wimp and Whitham 2001, Bailey and Whitham 2002). Hereafter, we refer to such organisms as species of large effect, i.e., species which create ecological conditions to which other species respond resulting in a change in community composition.

Type
Chapter
Information
Ecological Communities
Plant Mediation in Indirect Interaction Webs
, pp. 306 - 328
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2007

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bailey, J. K., and Whitham, T. G.. 2002. Interactions among fire, aspen and elk affect insect biodiversity: reversal of a community response. Ecology 83:1701–1712.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bailey, J. K., and Whitham, T. G.. 2003. Interactions among elk, aspen, galling sawflies, and insectivorous birds. Oikos 101:127–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bailey, J. K., and Whitham, T. G.. 2006. Interactions between cotton wood and beavers positively affect sawfly abundance. Ecological Entomology 31:294–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bailey, J. K., Schweitzer, J. A., Rehill, B., Lindroth, R., and Whitham, T. G.. 2004. Beavers as molecular geneticists: a genetic basis to the foraging of an ecosystem engineer. Ecology 85:603–608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, W. L., Munroe, J. A., and Hessl, A. E.. 1997. The effects of elk on aspen in the winter range in Rocky Mountain National Park. Ecography 20:155–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartos, D. L., and R. B. Cambell, Jr. 1998. Water depletion and other ecosystem values forfeited when conifer forests displace aspen communities. In Potts, D. F. (ed.) Rangeland Management and Water Resources. Herndon, VA: America Water Resources Association.Google Scholar
Bartos, D. L., Brown, J. K., and Booth, G. D.. 1994. Twelve years biomass response in aspen communities following fire. Journal of Range Management 47:79–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Basey, J. M., Jenkins, S. H., and Miller, G. C.. 1990. Food selection by beaver in relation to inducible defenses of Populus tremuloides. Oikos 59:57–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boyce, M. S. 1989. The Jackson Elk Herd: Intensive Wildlife Management in North America. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Brown, J. H., and Davidson, D. W.. 1977. Competition between seed-eating rodents and ants in desert ecosystems. Science 196:880–882.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brown, J. H., and Heske, E. J.. 1990. Control of a desert–grassland transition by a keystone rodent guild. Science 250:1705–1707.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brown, J. H., Whitham, T. G., Ernest, S. K. M., and Gehring, C. A.. 2001. Complex species interactions and the dynamics of ecological systems: long-term experiments. Science 293:643–650.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bryant, J. P. 1981. Phytochemical deterrence of snowshoe hare browsing by adventitious shoots of four Alaskan trees. Science 213:889–890.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cantor, L. F., and Whitham, T. G.. 1989. Importance of belowground herbivory: pocket gophers may limit aspen to rock outcrop refugia. Ecology 70:962–970.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cappuccino, N. 1993. Mutual use of leaf-shelters by lepidopteran larvae on paper birch. Ecological Entomology 19:399–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cebrian, J. 1999. Patterns in the fate of production in plant communities. American Naturalist 154:449–468.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chadde, S. W., and C. E. Kay. 1991. Tall willow communities on Yellowstone's northern range: a test of the “natural regulation” paradigm, pp. 231–262 in Keiter, R. B. and Boyce, M. S. (eds.) The Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Clausen, T. P., Reichardt, P. B., Bryant, J. P., et al. 1989. Chemical model for short-term induction in quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides) foliage against herbivores. Journal of Chemical Ecology 15:2335–2346.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cyr, H., and Pace, M. L.. 1993. Magnitude and patterns of herbivory in aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. Nature 361:148–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dannell, K., and Huss-Danell, K.. 1985. Feeding by insects and hares on birches earlier affected by moose browsing. Oikos 44:75–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dickson, L. L., and Whitham, T. G.. 1996. Genetically-based plant resistance traits affect arthropods, fungi, and birds. Oecologia 106:400–406.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dirzo, R., and A. Miranda. 1991. Altered patterns of herbivory and diversity in the forest understory: a case study of the possible consequences of contemporary defaunation, pp. 273–287 in Price, P. W., Lewinsohn, T. M., Fernandez, G. W., and Benson, W. W. (eds.) Plant–Animal Interactions: Evolutionary Ecology in Tropical and Temperate Regions. New York: Wiley Interscience.Google Scholar
Faeth, S. H. 1986. Indirect interactions between temporally separated herbivores mediated by the host plant. Ecology 67:479–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hobbs, R. J., and Huenneke, L. F.. 1992. Disturbance, diversity, and invasion: implications for conservation. Conservation Biology 6:324–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hunter, M. D. 1987. Opposing effects of spring defoliation on late-season oak caterpillars. Ecological Entomology 12:373–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hunter, M. D. 1992. Interactions within herbivore communities mediated by the host plant: the keystone herbivore concept, pp. 287–325 in Hunter, M. D., Ohgushi, T., and Price, P. W. (eds.) Effects of Resource Distribution on Animal–Plant Interactions. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Hunter, M. D., and Price, P. W.. 1992. Playing chutes and ladders: heterogeneity and the relative role of bottom–up and top–down forces in natural communities. Ecology 73:724–732.Google Scholar
Johnson, N. C., Graham, J. H., and Smith, F. A.. 1997. Functioning of mycorrhizal associations along the mutualism–parasitism continuum. New Phytologist 135:575–585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnston, C. A., and Naiman, R. J.. 1990. Browse selection by beaver: effects on riparian forest composition. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 20:1036–1043.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, C. G., Lawton, J. H., and Shachak, M.. 1994. Organisms as ecosystem engineers. Oikos 69:373–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, C. G., Lawton, J. H., and Shachak, M.. 1997. Positive and negative effects of organisms as physical ecosystem engineers. Ecology 78:1946–1957.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, J. R., and N. V. Debyle. 1985. Aspen: ecology and management in the Western United States, pp. 77–81 in Debyle, N. V. and Winokur, R. P. (eds.) US Department of Agriculture Forestry Service Gen. Technical Report RM-119. Fort Collins, CO:Rocky Mountain Forest Range Experimental Station.
Jordan, G. J., Potts, B. M., and Wiltshire, R. J.. 1999. Strong, independent, quantitative genetic control of the timing of vegetative phase change and first flowering in Eucalyptus globulus ssp. globulus (Tasmanian Blue Gum). Heredity 83:179–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karban, R., and Baldwin, I. T.. 1997. Induced Responses to Herbivory. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kay, C. E. 1990. Yellowstone northern elk herd: a critical evaluation of the natural regulation paradigm. Ph.D. Dissertation, Logan, UT, USA: Utah State University.
Kearsley, M. J. C. 1991. The effects of host development on herbivores of narrowleaf cottonwoods (Populus angustifolia L.). Ph.D. dissertation, Flagstaff, AZ, USA: Northern Arizona University.
Kearsley, M. J. C., and Whitham, T. G.. 1989. Developmental changes in resistance to herbivory: implications for individuals and populations. Ecology 70:422–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kearsley, M. J. C., and Whitham, T. G.. 1998. The developmental stream of cottonwoods affects ramet growth and resistance to herbivory by galling aphids. Ecology 79:178–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawrence, R., Potts, B. M., and Whitham, T. G.. 2003. Relative importance of plant ontogeny, host genetic variation, and leaf age for a common herbivore. Ecology 84:1171–1178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawton, J. H. 1999. Are there general laws in ecology? Oikos 84:177–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martinsen, G. D., Driebe, E. M., and Whitham, T. G.. 1998. Indirect interactions mediated by changing plant chemistry: beaver browsing benefits beetles. Ecology 79:192–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martinsen, G. D., Floate, K. D., Waltz, A. M., Wimp, G. M., and Whitham, T. G.. 2000. Positive interactions between leaf-gallers and other arthropods enhance biodiversity on hybrid cottonwoods. Oecologia 123:82–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McArthur, R., and Wilson, E. O.. 1967. The Theory of Island Biogeography. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Minchin, P. R. 1987. An evaluation of the relative robustness of techniques for ecological ordination. Vegetatio 69:89–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Naiman, R. J., Melillo, J. M., and Hobbie, J. E.. 1986. Ecosystem alteration of boreal forest streams by beaver (Castor canadensis). Ecology 67:1254–1269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Naiman, R. J., Johnston, C. A., and Kelley, J. C.. 1988. Alteration of North American streams by beaver. BioScience 38:753–762.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Naiman, R. J., Pinay, G., Johnston, C. A., and Pastor, J.. 1994. Beaver influences on the long-term biogeochemical characteristics of boreal forest drainage networks. Ecology 75:905–921.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nakamura, M., and Ohgushi, T.. 2003. Positive and negative effects of leaf shelters on herbivorous insects: linking multiple herbivore species on a willow. Oecologia 136:445–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neuvonen, S., and Danell, K.. 1987. Does browsing modify the quality of birch forage for Epirrita autumnata larvae?Oikos 49:156–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Noss, R. F., III, E. T. LaRoe, and Scott, J. M.. 1995. Endangered Ecosystems of the United States: A Preliminary Assessment of Loss and Degradation. Washington, DC: US Department of the Interior, National Biological Service.Google Scholar
Orians, C. M., and Fritz, R. S.. 1996. Genetic and soil-nutrient effects on the abundance of herbivores on willow. Oecologia 105:388–396.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Polis, G. A. 1999. Why are parts of the world green? Multiple factors control productivity and the distribution of biomass. Oikos 86:3–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Power, M. E., Tilman, D., Estes, J. A., et al. 1996. Challenges in the quest for keystones. BioScience 46:609–620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Price, P. W. 1991. The plant vigor hypothesis and herbivore attack. Oikos 62:244–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Romme, W. H., Turner, M. G., Wallace, L. L., and Walker., J. S. 1995. Aspen, elk, and fire in northern Yellowstone National Park. Ecology 76:2097–2106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rood, S. B., and Mahoney, J. H.. 1990. Collapse of riparian poplar forests downstream from dams in western prairies: probable causes and prospects for mitigation. Environmental Management 14:451–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Root, R. B. 1973. Organization of a plant–arthropod association in simple and diverse habitats: the fauna of collards, Brassica oleracea. Ecological Monographs 43:95–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sokal, R. R., and Rohlf, F. J.. 1995. Biometry: The Principles and Practice of Statistics in Biological Research. New York: W. H. Freeman.Google Scholar
Stein, J. S., Price, P. W., Abrahmson, W. G., and Sacchi, C. F.. 1992. The effect of fire on stimulating willow regrowth and subsequent attack by grasshoppers and elk. Oikos 65:190–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strauss, S. Y. 1991. Indirect effects in community ecology: their definition, study, and importance. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 6:206–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, D. B., Brown, J. H., and Spencer, W. D.. 1991. Indirect facilitation of granivorous birds by desert rodents: experimental evidence from foraging patterns. Ecology 72:852–863.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tilman, D. 1988. Plant Strategies and the Dynamics of Structure of Plant Communities. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Tilman, D. 1994. Competition and biodiversity in spatially structured habitats. Ecology 75:2–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ommeren, R. J., and Whitham, T. G.. 2002. Changes in interactions between juniper and mistletoe mediated by shared avian frugivores: parasitism to potential mutualism. Oecologia 130:281–288.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Warwick, R. M., Clarke, K. R., and Suharsono, . 1990. A statistical analysis of coral community responses to the 1982–1983 El Niño in the Thousand Islands, Indonesia. Coral Reefs 8:171–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wimp, G. M., and Whitham, T. G.. 2001. Biodiversity consequences of predation and host plant hybridization on an aphid–ant mutualism. Ecology 82:440–452.Google Scholar
Wimp, G. M., Martinsen, G. D., Floate, K. D., Bangert, R. K., and Whitham, T. G.. 2005. Plant genetic determinants of arthropod community structure and diversity. Evolution 59:61–69.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wolf, J. B., III, E. D. Brodie, Cheverud, J. M., Moore, A. J., and Wade, M. J.. 1998. Evolutionary consequences of indirect genetic effects. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 13:64–69.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wootton, J. T. 1994. The nature and consequences of indirect effects in ecological communities. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 25:443–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, J. P., Jones, C. G., and Flecker, A. S.. 2002. An ecosystem engineer, the beaver, increases species richness at the landscape scale. Oecologia 132:96–101.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wright, J. P., Flecker, A. S., and Jones, C. G.. 2003. Local vs. landscape controls on plant species richness in beaver meadows. Ecology 84:3162–3173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×