Asymmetric coexistence: bidirectional abiotic and biotic effects between goose barnacles and mussels.
Asymmetric coexistence: bidirectional abiotic and biotic effects between goose barnacles and mussels.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1111/j.1365-2656.2006.01111.x
复制
发表时间：
2006-07
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
T. Kawai;M. Tokeshi
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
T. Kawai;M. Tokeshi
1.物种共存取决于相互作用物种的净效应，代表多个相互作用组分的总和，这些组分可能同时起作用，并根据周围环境条件独立变化。因此，为了全面了解物种相互作用和共存的复合性质，需要一种机械的方法，允许单独评估每个相互作用组件。2.两个无柄滤食动物，鹅藤壶Capitulum mitella和贻贝Septifer virgatus，共存于适度的波浪暴露在日本西南部的岩石海岸。在潮间带上部，头状花序通过改善热应力和物理干扰，对Septifer的生存和生长产生积极影响。另一方面，这些物种是潜在的竞争对手，因为它们具有相似的体型和资源利用模式。这两个相反的过程，促进和竞争，是基于非生物特性和生物功能的两个物种，分别。3.为了量化双向的非生物、生物和净效应，进行了一系列实验操作，包括使用既有非生物效应又有生物效应的活邻居，以及使用人工模拟物来模拟无生物效应的非生物效应。4.在大多数实验期间，头状体对贻贝的存活率有很强的正非生物效应，而生物效应可以忽略不计或弱负，这表明头状体对贻贝存活率的净效应在很大程度上归因于非生物效应。与此相反，贻贝的生长速度显着的负面生物效应始终存在，虽然这是抵消了较大的，积极的非生物效应。在Septifer的情况下，它的非生物和生物的影响鹅藤壶的生存可以忽略不计，而对生长速度的时间变化。5.在种间相互作用与环境条件的关系方面，头状花序对贻贝生存的非生物促进作用强度随非生物胁迫的增加而增加，而生物促进作用强度可忽略不计或呈弱负效应。至于贻贝对鹅藤壶的影响，我们的研究表明没有明显的关系。这些结果表明，分解相互作用的重要性，一个准确的，机械的理解物种的关系和共存。
1. Species coexistence depends on the net effect of interacting species, representing the sum of multiple interaction components that may act simultaneously and vary independently depending on ambient environmental conditions. Consequently, for a comprehensive understanding of the compound nature of species interactions and coexistence, a mechanistic approach that allows a separate evaluation of each interaction component is required. 2. Two sessile filter-feeders, the goose barnacle Capitulum mitella and the mussel Septifer virgatus, coexist on moderately wave-exposed rocky shores in south-western Japan. In the upper intertidal, Capitulum positively influenced Septifer survivorship and growth through amelioration of thermal stress and of physical disturbance. On the other hand, these species are potential competitors as they have similar body sizes and modes of resource utilization. These opposite processes, facilitation and competition, are based on abiotic characteristics and biotic functions of the two species, respectively. 3. In order to quantify the bidirectional abiotic, biotic and net effects, a series of experimental manipulations was conducted involving the use of living neighbours with both abiotic and biotic effects, and artificial mimics to simulate abiotic effects without biotic effects. 4. Capitulum had strong positive abiotic effects on the mussel survivorship in most experimental periods, while the biotic effect was negligible or weakly negative, suggesting that the net effect of Capitulum on mussel survival was largely attributable to the abiotic effect. In contrast, a significantly negative biotic effect on the mussel growth rate was always present, though this was cancelled out by the larger, positive abiotic effect. In the case of Septifer, its abiotic and biotic effects on the survivorship of goose barnacles were negligible, while those on the growth rate showed temporal variation. 5. With respect to the relationship between species interaction and environmental conditions, the strength of abiotic facilitative effect of Capitulum on mussel survival increased with increasing abiotic stress, while the strength of biotic effect was negligible or weakly negative. As regards the effects of mussels on goose barnacles, our study indicated no obvious relationship. These results point to the importance of decomposing interaction for an accurate, mechanistic understanding of species relations and coexistence.