Biogeomorphology and contingent ecosystem engineering in karst landscapes

2016 ◽  
Vol 40 (4) ◽  
pp. 503-526 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonathan D. Phillips
Keyword(s):  
Niche Construction ◽  
Ecosystem Engineering ◽  
Peat Bogs ◽  
Ecological Processes ◽  
Reciprocal Interactions ◽  
Geomorphic Features ◽  
Indirect Impacts ◽  
Karst Landscapes ◽  
Open Question ◽  
Abiotic Interactions

While karst is not biogenic in the same sense as, say, coral reefs or peat bogs, and carbonate dissolution can occur abiotically, formation of karst landscapes would not occur in the absence of the biosphere. Seven levels of biogeomorphic biotic-abiotic interactions are identified, from indirect impacts to landforms as extended phenotypes. Karst is generally near the biogenic end of that spectrum, featuring reciprocal interactions and mutual adjustments between biota and landforms and interrelated geomorphological and ecological processes. Karst biogeomorphology may also involve niche construction. In many cases biogeomorphic ecosystem engineering in karst is contingent, in the sense that the engineer organisms may have no, or different, biogeomorphic impacts in non-karst environments. Several examples of contingent ecosystem engineering in karst are given, including biogeomorphic effects of chinkapin oak. Abiotic geomorphic features exist on Earth, but consideration of landform types lying between the biotic-abiotic extremes would likely yield broadly similar conclusions to those about karst. However, it is also clear that we know very little about niche construction and coevolution in karst biogeomorphology, and whether karst or any specific karst features can be considered an extended (composite) phenotype is still an open question. Thus far, most work on biogeomorphology and ecosystem engineering has focused on what might be called obligate engineers—organisms whose engineering effects are at least inevitable, if not necessary to their survival. However, in some cases contingent ecosystem engineers have substantial geomorphic impacts.

scholarly journals What are maternal effects (and what are they not)?

2009 ◽  
Vol 364 (1520) ◽  
pp. 1107-1115 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jason B Wolf ◽  
Michael J Wade
Keyword(s):  
Maternal Effects ◽  
Niche Construction ◽  
Life History Evolution ◽  
Causal Link ◽  
Ecological Processes ◽  
Maternal Genotype ◽  
Evolutionary Response ◽  
Offspring Genotype ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Evolutionary Consequences

Maternal effects can play an important role in a diversity of ecological and evolutionary processes such as population dynamics, phenotypic plasticity, niche construction, life-history evolution and the evolutionary response to selection. However, although maternal effects were defined by quantitative geneticists well over half a century ago, there remains some confusion over exactly what phenomena should be characterized as maternal effects and, more importantly, why it matters and how they are defined. We suggest a definition of maternal effects as the causal influence of the maternal genotype or phenotype on the offspring phenotype. This definition differs from some definitions in that it treats maternal effects as a phenomenon, not as a statistical construct. The causal link to maternal genotype or phenotype is the critical component of this definition providing the link between maternal effects and evolutionary and ecological processes. We show why phenomena such as maternal cytoplasmic inheritance and genomic imprinting are distinct genetically from and have different evolutionary consequences than true maternal effects. We also argue that one should consider cases where the maternal effect is conditional on offspring genotype as a class of maternal effects.

scholarly journals Proliferation of Isoëtalean Lycophytes During the Permo-Triassic Biotic Crises: A Proxy for the State of the Terrestrial Biosphere

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cindy V. Looy ◽  
Johanna H. A. van Konijnenburg-van Cittert ◽  
Ivo A. P. Duijnstee
Keyword(s):  
Life History Traits ◽  
Niche Construction ◽  
Ecosystem Engineering ◽  
Terrestrial Biosphere ◽  
Goods And Services ◽  
Low Diversity ◽  
Weak Competitor ◽  
Slow Growing ◽  
Subordinate Role ◽  
Landscape Level

Throughout their 420-Ma-long history, Lycopodiopsida have played a subordinate role at the landscape level with very few exceptions. One being the arborescent Lepidodendrales that dominated Pennsylvanian peat swamps in equatorial regions. Another is the enigmatic world-wide proliferation of sub-arborescent Isoëtales during, and in the aftermath of the Permo-Triassic terrestrial biosphere crisis that extended deep into the Triassic. Palynological as well as megafossil data shows that in a great proportion of locations around the globe that produced a fossil record, the provincial floras characteristic for the latest Permian were replaced by communities dominated by Isoëtales such as Pleuromeia and its allies. Our analysis of the isoëtalean biology, especially of the genus Pleuromeia, reveals an unusual suite of physiological and life-history traits, all indicating that it was an excellent stress-tolerator, but also a slow-growing weak competitor. This enabled Pleuromeia to thrive during environmental crises and occupy diverse habitats following the decline of other plants groups. Given their unusual biology, Isoëtales’ repeated ubiquity throughout the Early Triassic implies prolonged and repeated environmental stress in localities worldwide. Additionally, it demonstrates that the cosmopolitan isoëtalean-dominated systems produced a low-productivity, low-diversity terrestrial trophic base of the food web that no longer provided the same level of ecological and evolutionary goods and services (energy source, niche construction, ecosystem engineering, etc.) as the communities they replaced.

Enhanced Ecologies and Ecosystem Engineering

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ian J. McNiven ◽  
Tiina Manne ◽  
Anne Ross
Keyword(s):  
Food Resource ◽  
Ecosystem Engineering ◽  
Ecological Processes ◽  
Hunter Gatherers ◽  
Aboriginal Australians ◽  
The Past ◽  
Resource Enhancement ◽  
Agricultural Societies ◽  
Intimate Knowledge ◽  
Animal Resource

Anthropological and archaeological representations of Aboriginal Australians as hunter-gatherers adapting to the natural availability of food resources are simplistic and inconsistent with ethnographic records of active, strategic, and sociopolitically meaningful resource enhancement. Scholarship over the past four decades has documented plant and animal food resource enhancement by Aboriginal Australians that blur socioeconomic boundaries with agricultural societies of New Guinea. Enhancements were achieved by using intimate knowledge of local ecological processes to modify ecosystems through a range of strategies such as landscape burning, animal translocation, protected rearing, shelter creation, and restocking. These strategies were embedded within broader sociocultural and sociopolitical domains that were often accompanied by ritual. Such engineered food enhancement practices reveal that many documented and modelled associations between environment and behaviour are in fact correlations between behaviour and the products of behaviour. The uneven distribution of animal resource enhancement practices across Australia indicates considerable regional diversity and supports existing views that many enhancements are related to regionally specific and historically contingent developments in social complexity.

Indirect biotic interactions of plant invasions with native plants and animals.

2020 ◽  
pp. 308-323
Author(s):  
Warwick J. Allen ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Invasive Plants ◽  
Biotic Interactions ◽  
Direct Interaction ◽  
Invasion Biology ◽  
Plant Invasions ◽  
Ecological Processes ◽  
Research Areas ◽  
Systematic Understanding ◽  
Indirect Impacts ◽  
Indirect Facilitation

Invasive plants often occur at high densities and tend to be highly generalist in their interactions with herbivores, pathogens, mycorrhiza, endophytes and pollinators. These characteristics mean that invasive plants should frequently participate in diverse indirect biotic interactions with the surrounding community, mediated by their direct interaction partners (e.g. antagonists and mutualists). Indirect interactions play an important role in many ecological processes, yet we still lack a systematic understanding of the circumstances under which they influence the success and impacts of invasive species. In this chapter, I first describe several of the indirect interaction pathways that are commonly encountered in invasion biology and review their contribution to the impacts of plant invasions on co-occurring species. The literature review revealed that there are now many case studies describing various indirect impacts of invasive plants. However, identical interaction motifs (e.g. plant-enemy-plant, plant-mutualist-plant) can bring about several possible outcomes, depending upon each species' provenance, relative abundances and interaction strengths, abiotic resource availability, spatial and temporal scale and the influence of other species. Moreover, knowledge gaps identified include a lack of studies of indirect facilitation outside of plant-pollinator systems, limited consideration of indirect invader impacts on other non-native species, and the scarcity of generalizable results to date. Second, I integrate the literature with some trending research areas in invasion biology (interaction networks, biogeography, invasion dynamics) and identify some potential future research directions. Finally, I discuss how knowledge about indirect biotic interactions could be incorporated into the management of invasive plants.

Indirect biotic interactions of plant invasions with native plants and animals.

2020 ◽  
pp. 308-323
Author(s):  
Warwick J. Allen
Keyword(s):  
Invasive Plants ◽  
Biotic Interactions ◽  
Direct Interaction ◽  
Invasion Biology ◽  
Plant Invasions ◽  
Ecological Processes ◽  
Research Areas ◽  
Systematic Understanding ◽  
Indirect Impacts ◽  
Indirect Facilitation

Abstract Invasive plants often occur at high densities and tend to be highly generalist in their interactions with herbivores, pathogens, mycorrhiza, endophytes and pollinators. These characteristics mean that invasive plants should frequently participate in diverse indirect biotic interactions with the surrounding community, mediated by their direct interaction partners (e.g. antagonists and mutualists). Indirect interactions play an important role in many ecological processes, yet we still lack a systematic understanding of the circumstances under which they influence the success and impacts of invasive species. In this chapter, I first describe several of the indirect interaction pathways that are commonly encountered in invasion biology and review their contribution to the impacts of plant invasions on co-occurring species. The literature review revealed that there are now many case studies describing various indirect impacts of invasive plants. However, identical interaction motifs (e.g. plant-enemy-plant, plant-mutualist-plant) can bring about several possible outcomes, depending upon each species' provenance, relative abundances and interaction strengths, abiotic resource availability, spatial and temporal scale and the influence of other species. Moreover, knowledge gaps identified include a lack of studies of indirect facilitation outside of plant-pollinator systems, limited consideration of indirect invader impacts on other non-native species, and the scarcity of generalizable results to date. Second, I integrate the literature with some trending research areas in invasion biology (interaction networks, biogeography, invasion dynamics) and identify some potential future research directions. Finally, I discuss how knowledge about indirect biotic interactions could be incorporated into the management of invasive plants.

An Introduction to Landscape Ecology

2019 ◽  
pp. 1-13
Author(s):  
Kimberly A. With
Keyword(s):  
Landscape Ecology ◽  
Scientific Basis ◽  
Spatial Context ◽  
Ecological Processes ◽  
Reciprocal Interactions ◽  
Research Themes ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Core Concepts ◽  
Explicit Consideration

Landscape ecology provides the scientific basis for the study and management of landscapes, as well as the ecological systems they contain. More generally, landscape ecology investigates the reciprocal interactions between spatial patterns (environmental heterogeneity) and ecological processes across a wide range of scales. This introductory chapter discusses the rise of landscape ecology as a discipline, its regional perspectives, core concepts, and research themes, and provides an overview of the textbook itself. Among its core concepts, landscape ecology asserts that heterogeneity is a defining characteristic of landscapes; that landscapes can be defined and studied at any scale; and that landscapes occur within aquatic and marine systems, as well as terrestrial ones. As such, landscape ecology can benefit the study and management of any ecological system, from populations to ecosystems, through its explicit consideration of how heterogeneity, scale, spatial context, and disturbance dynamics influence critical ecological processes.

scholarly journals The Implications of Niche Construction and Ecosystem Engineering for Conservation Biology

BioScience ◽  
2006 ◽  
Vol 56 (7) ◽  
pp. 570 ◽  
Author(s):  
NEELTJE J. BOOGERT ◽  
DAVID M. PATERSON ◽  
KEVIN N. LALAND
Keyword(s):  
Conservation Biology ◽  
Niche Construction ◽  
Ecosystem Engineering

scholarly journals Rhizosphere Bacterial Networks, but Not Diversity, Are Impacted by Pea-Wheat Intercropping

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Barbara Pivato ◽  
Amélie Semblat ◽  
Thibault Guégan ◽  
Samuel Jacquiod ◽  
Juliette Martin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Microbial Communities ◽  
Plant Species ◽  
Ecological Processes ◽  
Niche Complementarity ◽  
Beneficial Effects ◽  
Sole Cropping ◽  
Chemical Inputs ◽  
Occurrence Pattern ◽  
Open Question ◽  
The Impact

Plant-plant associations, notably cereal-legume intercropping, have been proposed in agroecology to better value resources and thus reduce the use of chemical inputs in agriculture. Wheat-pea intercropping allows to decreasing the use of nitrogen fertilization through ecological processes such as niche complementarity and facilitation. Rhizosphere microbial communities may account for these processes, since they play a major role in biogeochemical cycles and impact plant nutrition. Still, knowledge on the effect of intecropping on the rhizosphere microbiota remains scarce. Especially, it is an open question whether rhizosphere microbial communities in cereal-legume intercropping are the sum or not of the microbiota of each plant species cultivated in sole cropping. In the present study, we assessed the impact of wheat and pea in IC on the diversity and structure of their respective rhizosphere microbiota. For this purpose, several cultivars of wheat and pea were cultivated in sole and intercropping. Roots of wheat and pea were collected separately in intercropping for microbiota analyses to allow deciphering the effect of IC on the bacterial community of each plant species/cultivar tested. Our data confirmed the well-known specificity of the rhizosphere effect and further stress the differentiation of bacterial communities between pea genotypes (Hr and hr). As regards the intercropping effect, diversity and structure of the rhizosphere microbiota were comparable to sole cropping. However, a specific co-occurrence pattern in each crop rhizosphere due to intercropping was revealed through network analysis. Bacterial co-occurrence network of wheat rhizosphere in IC was dominated by OTUs belonging to Alphaproteobacteria, Bacteroidetes and Gammaproteobacteria. We also evidenced a common network found in both rhizosphere under IC, indicating the interaction between the plant species; this common network was dominated by Acidobacteria, Alphaproteobacteria, and Bacteroidetes, with three OTUs belonging to Acidobacteria, Betaproteobacteria and Chloroflexi that were identified as keystone taxa. These findings indicate more complex rhizosphere bacterial networks in intercropping. Possible implications of these conclusions are discussed in relation with the functioning of rhizosphere microbiota in intercropping accounting for its beneficial effects.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document