Advertisement

Marine Biology

, Volume 142, Issue 6, pp 1065–1071 | Cite as

The monopolization of understorey habitat by subtidal encrusting coralline algae: a test of the combined effects of canopy-mediated light and sedimentation

  • S. D. ConnellEmail author
Article

Abstract

Encrusting-coralline-algae habitat monopolized the substrata (>74% cover) under canopies of Ecklonia radiata at four sites (~1 km apart) within each of four localities (>100 km apart) spanning >1000 km of continuous South Australian coastline. This monopolization was analyzed experimentally to test whether canopy-mediated shade and sedimentation account for this canopy–understorey association. I tested the hypothesis that initially different habitat types (turf-forming-algae habitat versus habitat dominated by encrusting coralline algae) will converge to become like those under E. radiata if subjected to lower light and accumulation of sediment in the absence of E. radiata. Convergence in the absence of canopies, but in physically similar environments as under canopies, provides strong evidence that understorey habitats are primarily dependent on the manipulated environments. The experiment was provided with sufficient time (338 days) to adequately test for convergence as evidenced by indistinguishable percentage covers of encrusting coralline algae between canopies and treatments of shade on previously unoccupied rock and between habitat types transplanted to canopies. Convergence of habitat types, however, did not occur under treatments of shade and sedimentation. The effect of lowering light accounted for ~52% of the effect of canopies on percentage cover of encrusting-coralline-algae habitat. The effect of reducing sediment accumulation under shade was negligible. The magnitude of unaccounted effects (~48%) highlights a need to assess alternative factors that act to exclude taxa from or include taxa in the understorey assemblage. It is clear that canopies place strong constraints on the presence and abundance of many taxa, but not encrusting-algae habitats which beneficially coexist as understorey. A more complete identification of such positive and negative effects is needed to improve our understanding of the conditions that produce readily recognizable canopy–understorey associations that are repeated with great fidelity on a regional scale.

Keywords

Habitat Type Percentage Cover Coralline Alga Partial Shade Sediment Removal 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgements

I am grateful to The University of Adelaide for allowing me to study marine forests on the south coast of Australia and to the Southern Ocean for not prematurely claiming my experiment. I gratefully acknowledge M. Coleman and two referees who improved the manuscript. Hard labor in challenging seas was provided by M. Fowler-Walker, B. Gillanders, A. Irving and A. Melville. This research was financed by an Australian Research Council grant.

References

  1. Airoldi L (1998) Roles of disturbance, sediment stress, and substratum retention on spatial dominance in algal turf. Ecology 79:2759–2770Google Scholar
  2. Airoldi L (2000) Effects of disturbance, life histories, and overgrowth on coexistence of algal crusts and turfs. Ecology 81:798–814Google Scholar
  3. Airoldi L (2003) The effects of sedimentation on rocky shore assemblages. Oceanogr Mar Biol Annu Rev (in press)Google Scholar
  4. Aleem AA (1956) Quantitative underwater study of benthic communities inhabiting kelp beds off California. Science 123:183Google Scholar
  5. Andrew NL (1993) Spatial heterogeneity, sea urchin grazing, and habitat structure on reefs in temperate Australia. Ecology 74:292–302Google Scholar
  6. Bertness MD, Leonard GH (1997) The role of positive interactions in communities: lessons from intertidal habitats. Ecology 78:1976–1989Google Scholar
  7. Callaway RM (1998) Are positive interactions species-specific? Oikos 82:202–207Google Scholar
  8. Callaway RM, Brooker R, Choler P, Kilvidze Z, Lortie C, Michalet R, Paolini L, Pugnaire F, Newingham B, Aschehoug E, Armas C, Kikodez D, Cook B (2002) Positive interactions among alpine plants increase with stress. Nature 417:844–848CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Chapman ARO, Johnson CR (1990) Disturbance and organization of macroalgal assemblages in the northwest Atlantic. Hydrobiologia 192:77–121Google Scholar
  10. Daume S, Brand-Gardner S, Woelkerling WJ (1999) Community structure of nongeniculate coralline red algae (Corallinales, Rhodophyta) in three boulder habitats in southern Australia. Phycologia 38:138–148Google Scholar
  11. Dayton PK, Currie V, Gerrodette T, Keller BD, Rosenthal R, Ven Tresca D (1984) Patch dynamics and stability of some California kelp communities. Ecol Monogr 54:253–289Google Scholar
  12. Duggins DO, Dethier MN (1985) Experimental studies of herbivory and algal competition in a low intertidal habitat. Oecologia 67:183–191Google Scholar
  13. Edwards MS (1998) Effects of long-term kelp canopy exclusion on the abundance of the annual alga Desmarestia ligulata (Light F). J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 228:309–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fowler-Walker MJ, Connell SD (2002) Opposing states of subtidal habitat across temperate Australia: consistency and predictability in kelp canopy–understorey associations. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 240:49–56Google Scholar
  15. Gleason HA (1926) The individualistic concept of the plant association. Bull Torrey Bot Club 53:7–26Google Scholar
  16. Greenlee JT, Callaway RM (1996) Abiotic stress and the relative importance of interference and facilitation in montane bunchgrass communities in western Montana. Am Nat 148:386–396CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Irving AD, Connell SD (2002) Interactive effects of sedimentation and microtopography on the abundance of subtidal turfing algae. Phycologia 41:517–522Google Scholar
  18. Irving AD, Connell SD (2002) Sedimentation and light penetration interact to maintain heterogeneity of subtidal habitats: algal vs invertebrate dominated assemblages. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 245:83–91Google Scholar
  19. James PL, Larkum AWD (1996) Photosynthetic inorganic carbon acquisition of Posidonia australis. Aquat Bot 55:149–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Jones GP, Andrew NL (1990) Herbivory and patch dynamics on rocky reefs in temperate Australasia: the roles of fish and sea urchins. Aust J Ecol 15:505–520Google Scholar
  21. Kendrick GA (1991) Recruitment of coralline crusts and filamentous turf algae in the Galapagos archipelago: effect of sediment scour, erosion and accretion. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 147:XX–XXGoogle Scholar
  22. Kennelly SJ (1987a) Physical disturbances in an Australian kelp community. I. Temporal effects. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 40:145–153Google Scholar
  23. Kennelly SJ (1987b) Physical disturbances in an Australian kelp community. II. Effects on understorey species due to differences in kelp cover. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 40:155–165Google Scholar
  24. Kennelly SJ (1989) Effects of kelp canopies on understorey species due to shade and scour. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 168:35–58Google Scholar
  25. Kennelly SJ, Underwood AJ (1993) Geographic consistencies of effects of experimental physical disturbance on understorey species in sublittoral kelp forests in central New South Wales. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 168:35–58Google Scholar
  26. Lawton JH (1996) Patterns in ecology. Oikos 75:145–147Google Scholar
  27. Lawton JH (1999) Are there general laws in ecology? Oikos 84:177–192Google Scholar
  28. Littler MM, Littler DS (1980) The evolution of thallus form and survival strategies in benthic marine macroalgae: field and laboratory tests of a functional form model. Am Nat 116:25–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Littler MM, Littler DS (1984) Relationships between macroalgal functional form groups and substrata stability in a sub-tropical rocky–intertidal system. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 74:13–34Google Scholar
  30. McCann K, Hastings A, Huxel GR (1998) Weak trophic interactions and the balance of nature. Nature 395:794–798CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. McLean JH (1962) Sublittoral ecology of kelp beds of the open coast area near Carmel, California. Biol Bull (Woods Hole) 122:95–114Google Scholar
  32. Melville AJ, Connell SD (2001) Experimental effects of kelp canopies on subtidal coralline algae. Aust Ecol 26:102–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Menge BA, Berlow EL, Blanchette CA, Navarrete SA, Yamada SB (1994) The keystone species concept: variation in interaction strength in a rocky intertidal habitat. Ecol Monogr 64:249–286Google Scholar
  34. Padilla DK, Allen BJ (2000) Paradigm lost: reconsidering functional form and group hypotheses in marine ecology. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 250:207–221PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Phillips JC, Kendrick GA, Lavery PS (1997) A test of a functional group approach to detecting shifts in macroalgal communities along a disturbance gradient. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 153:125–138Google Scholar
  36. Reed DC, Foster MS (1984) The effects of canopy shading on algal recruitment and growth in a giant kelp forest. Ecology 65:937–948Google Scholar
  37. Roughgarden J, Diamond J (1986) Overview: the role of species interactions in community ecology. In: Diamond J, Case TJ (eds) Community ecology. Harper and Row, New York, pp 333–342Google Scholar
  38. Santilices B, Ojeda FO (1984) Effects of canopy removal on the understorey algal community structure of coastal forests of Macrocystis pyrifera from southern South America. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 14:165–175Google Scholar
  39. Schiel DR, Foster MS (1986) The structure of subtidal algal stands in temperate waters. Oceanogr Mar Biol Annu Rev 24:265–307Google Scholar
  40. Shepherd SA, Womersley HBS (1970) The sublittoral ecology of West Island. I. Environmental features and the algal ecology. Trans R Soc S Aust 94:105–138Google Scholar
  41. Steneck RS (1986) The ecology of coralline algal crusts: convergent patterns and adaptative strategies. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 17:273–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Steneck RS (1997) Crustose corallines, other algal functional groups, herbivores and sediments: complex interactions along reef productivity gradients. Proc 8th Int Coral Reef Symp 1:695–700Google Scholar
  43. Underwood AJ (1997) Experiments in ecology. Their logical design and interpretation using analysis of variance. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  44. Underwood AJ, Kingsford MJ, Andrew NL (1991) Patterns in shallow subtidal marine assemblages along the coast of New South Wales. Aust J Ecol 6:231–249Google Scholar
  45. Underwood AJ, Chapman MC, Connell SD (2000) Observations in ecology: you can't make progress on processes without understanding the patterns. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 250:97–115PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Velimirov B, Griffiths CL (1979) Wave-induced kelp movement and its importance for community structure. Bot Mar 22:169–172Google Scholar
  47. Wilson JFB, Agnew ADQ (1992) Positive-feedback switches in plant communities. Adv Ecol Res 23:263–336Google Scholar
  48. Witman JD (1987) Subtidal coexistence: storms, grazing, mutualism, and the zonation of kelps and mussels. Ecol Monogr 57:167–187Google Scholar
  49. Witman JD, Dayton PK (2001) Rocky subtidal communities. In: Bertness MD, Gaines SD, Hay ME (eds) Marine community ecology. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, pp 339–366Google Scholar
  50. Wootton JT (2001) Local interactions predict large-scale pattern in empirically derived cellular automata. Nature 413:841–844CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Southern Seas Ecology Laboratories, School of Earth and Environmental ScienceThe University of AdelaideAdelaideAustralia

Personalised recommendations