Advertisement

Oecologia

, Volume 191, Issue 4, pp 1015–1024 | Cite as

Ecosystem engineering creates a new path to resilience in plants with contrasting growth strategies

  • Laura M. SoissonsEmail author
  • Marieke M. van Katwijk
  • Baoquan Li
  • Qiuying Han
  • Tom Ysebaert
  • Peter M. J. Herman
  • Tjeerd J. Bouma
Conservation ecology – original research
  • 182 Downloads

Abstract

Plant species can be characterized by different growth strategies related to their inherent growth and recovery rates, which shape their responses to stress and disturbance. Ecosystem engineering, however, offers an alternative way to cope with stress: modifying the environment may reduce stress levels. Using an experimental study on two seagrass species with contrasting traits, the slow-growing Zostera marina vs. the fast-growing Zostera japonica, we explored how growth strategies versus ecosystem engineering may affect their resistance to stress (i.e. addition of organic material) and recovery from disturbance (i.e. removal of above-ground biomass). Ecosystem engineering was assessed by measuring sulphide levels in the sediment porewater, as seagrass plants can keep sulphide levels low by aerating the rhizosphere. Consistent with predictions, we observed that the fast-growing species had a high capacity to recover from disturbance. It was also more resistant to stress and still able to maintain high standing stock with increasing stress levels because of its ecosystem engineering capacity. The slow-growing species was not able to maintain its standing stock under stress, which we ascribe to a weak capacity for ecosystem engineering regarding this particular stress. Overall, our study suggests that the combination of low-cost investment in tissues with ecosystem engineering to alleviate stress creates a new path in the growth trade-off between investment in strong tissues or fast growth. It does so by being both fast in recovery and more resistant. As such low-cost ecosystem engineering may occur in more species, we argue that it should be considered in assessing plant resilience.

Keywords

Recovery from disturbance Resistance to stress Seagrass Sulphide intrusion 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This study was conducted as part of the NSFC-NWO “Water ways, Harbours, Estuaries and Coastal Engineering” scheme, and it was co-supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (no. NSFC41061130543) and the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (no. 843.10.003). We thank the local managers from Moon Lake for their interest and support in implementing the experiments. We are also grateful to the students from the Yantai Institute for Coastal zone research-Chinese Academy of Sciences (YIC-CAS) for their help and time during field experiments and measurements done in China.

Author contribution statement

LMS, MMvK, TY, PMJH and TJB conceived and designed the experiment. LMS, BL and QH executed and analysed the data collected as part of the field manipulative experiment. LMS, MMvK and TJB wrote the manuscript, and other authors provided editorial advice.

References

  1. Armstrong W (1971) Oxygen diffusion from the roots of rice grown under waterlogged conditions. Physiol Plant 24:242–247.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1399-3054.1971.tb03487.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Armstrong J, Armstrong W, Beckett PM (1992) Phragmites australis: Venturi- and humidity-induced pressure flows enhance rhizome aeration and rhizosphere oxidation. New Phytol 120:197–207.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.1992.tb05655.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bertness MD, Callaway R (1994) Positive interactions in communities. Trends Ecol Evol 9:191–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Boese BL, Alayan KE, Gooch EF, Robbins BD (2003) Desiccation index: a measure of damage caused by adverse aerial exposure on intertidal eelgrass (Zostera marina) in an Oregon (USA) estuary. Aquat Bot 76:329–337.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-3770(03)00068-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bos AR, Bouma TJ, de Kort GLJ, van Katwijk MM (2007) Ecosystem engineering by annual intertidal seagrass beds: sediment accretion and modification. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci 74:344–348.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss.2007.04.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bouma TJ, de Vries MB, Low E et al (2005) Trade-offs related to ecosystem engineering: a case study on stiffness of emerging macrophytes. Ecology 86:2187–2199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bouma TJ, Olenin S, Reise K, Ysebaert T (2009) Ecosystem engineering and biodiversity in coastal sediments: posing hypotheses. Helgol Mar Res 63:95–106.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10152-009-0146-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bouma TJ, de Vries MB, Herman PMJ (2010) Comparing ecosystem engineering efficiency of two plant species with contrasting growth strategies. Ecology 91:2696–2704CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bruno JF, Stachowicz JJ, Bertness MD (2003) Inclusion of facilitation into ecological theory. Trends Ecol Evol 18:119–125.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-5347(02)00045-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Crain CM, Bertness MD (2006) Ecosystem engineering across environmental gradients: implications for conservation and management. Bioscience 56:211–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dawkins R (1982) The extended phenotype: the long reach of the gene. Oxford University Press Inc., Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
  12. Duarte CM (1991) Seagrass depth limits. Aquat Bot 40:363–377.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3770(91)90081-F CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Facelli JM, Pickett S (1991) Plant litter : Its dynamics and effects on plant community structure. Bot Rev 57:1–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fonseca MS, Fisher JS (1986) A comparison of canopy friction and sediment movement between four species of seagrass with reference to their ecology and restoration. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 29:15–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Frederiksen MS, Holmer M, Borum J, Kennedy H (2006) Temporal and spatial variation of sulfide invasion in eelgrass (Zostera marina) as reflected by its sulfur isotopic composition. Limnol Oceanogr 51:2308–2318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ganthy F, Sottolichio A, Verney R (2013) Seasonal modification of tidal flat sediment dynamics by seagrass meadows of Zostera noltii (Bassin d’Arcachon, France). J Mar Syst 109–110:233–240.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmarsys.2011.11.027 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ganthy F, Soissons LM, Sauriau P-G et al (2015) Effects of short flexible seagrass Zostera noltei on flow, erosion and deposition processes determined using flume experiments. Sedimentology 62:997–1023.  https://doi.org/10.1111/sed.12170 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Govers LL, de Brouwer JHF, Suykerbuyk W et al (2014) Toxic effects of increased sediment nutrient and organic matter loading on the seagrass Zostera noltii. Aquat Toxicol 155:253–260.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquatox.2014.07.005 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Greve TM, Borum J, Pedersen O (2003) Meristematic oxygen variability in eelgrass (Zostera marina). Limnol Ocean 48:210–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Grime JP (1974) Vegetation classification by reference to strategies. Nature 250:26–31.  https://doi.org/10.1038/250026a0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Grime JP (1977) Evidence for the existence og three primary strategies in plants and its relevance to ecological and evolutionary theory. Am Nat 111:1169–1194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hall Cushman J, Waller JC, Hoak DR (2010) Shrubs as ecosystem engineers in a coastal dune: influences on plant populations, communities and ecosystems. J Veg Sci 21:821–831.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1654-1103.2010.01196.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Han Q, Soissons LM, Liu D et al (2017) Individual and population indicators of Zostera japonica respond quickly to experimental addition of sediment-nutrient and organic matter. Mar Pollut Bull 114:201–209.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2016.08.084 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Hasler-Sheetal H, Holmer M (2015) Sulfide intrusion and detoxification in the seagrass Zostera marina. PLoS One 10:e0129136.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0129136 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. Hemminga MA, Duarte CM (2000) Seagrass ecology. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hille Ris Lambers R, Rietkerk M, van Den Bosch F et al (2001) Vegetation pattern formation in semi-arid grazing systems. Ecology 82:50–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Jabot F, Pottier J (2012) A general modelling framework for resource-ratio and CSR theories of plant community dynamics. J Ecol 100:1296–1302.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2745.2012.02024.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Jones CG, Lawton JH, Shachak M (1994) Organisms as ecosystem engineers. Oikos 69:373–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Jones CG, Lawton JH, Shachak M (1997) Positive and negative effects of organisms as physical ecosystem engineers. Ecology 78:1946–1957.  https://doi.org/10.1890/0012-9658(1997)078%5b1946:PANEOO%5d2.0.CO;2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Jovanovic Z, Pedersen MØ, Larsen M et al (2015) Rhizosphere O2 dynamics in young Zostera marina and Ruppia maritima. Mar Ecol Progress Ser 518:95–105.  https://doi.org/10.3354/meps11041 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kilminster K, Walker D, Thompson P, Raven J (2008) Changes in growth, internode distance and nutrient concentrations of the seagrass Halophila ovalis with exposure to sediment sulphide. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 361:83–91.  https://doi.org/10.3354/meps07479 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Klap VA, Hemminga MA, Boon JJ (2000) Retention of lignin in seagrasses: angiosperms that returned to the sea. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 194:1–11.  https://doi.org/10.3354/meps194001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lamers LPM, Govers LL, Janssen ICJM et al (2013) Sulfide as a soil phytotoxin-a review. Front Plant Sci 4:268.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2013.00268 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  34. MacArthur RH, Wilson EO (1967) The theory of island biogeography. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  35. Marbà N, Duarte CM (1998) Rhizome elongation and seagrass clonal growth. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 174:269–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Marbà N, Duarte CM, Terrados J et al (2009) Effects of seagrass rhizospheres on sediment redox conditions in SE Asian coastal ecosystems. Estuaries Coasts 33:107–117.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12237-009-9250-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Matthews B, de Meester L, Jones CG et al (2014) Under niche construction: an operational bridge between ecology, evolution and ecosystem science. Ecol Monogr 84:245–263.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ecy.2446 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. McGlathery KJ, Reynolds LK, Cole LW et al (2012) Recovery trajectories during state change from bare sediment to eelgrass dominance. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 448:209–221.  https://doi.org/10.3354/meps09574 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Mumby PJ, Anthony KRN (2015) Resilience metrics to inform ecosystem management under global change with application to coral reefs. Methods Ecol Evol.  https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.12380 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Pedersen MØ, Kristensen E (2015) Sensitivity of Ruppia maritima and Zostera marina to sulfide exposure around roots. J Exp Mar Bio Ecol 468:138–145.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jembe.2015.04.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Peralta G, van Duren LA, Morris EP, Bouma TJ (2008) Consequences of shoot density and stiffness for ecosystem engineering by benthic macrophytes in flow dominated areas: a hydrodynamic flume study. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 368:103–115.  https://doi.org/10.3354/meps07574 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Pianka ER (1970) On r- and K-selection. Am Nat 104:592–597CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Puijalon S, Bouma TJ, Douady CJ et al (2011) Plant resistance to mechanical stress: evidence of an avoidance—tolerance trade-off. New Phytol 191:1141–1149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Soana E, Bartoli M (2014) Seasonal regulation of nitrification in a rooted macrophyte (Vallisneria spiralis L.) meadow under eutrophic conditions. Aquat Ecol 48:11–21.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10452-013-9462-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Soissons LM, Han Q, Li B et al (2014) Cover versus recovery: contrasting responses of two indicators in seagrass beds. Mar Pollut Bull 87:211–219.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2014.07.057 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Tilman D (1990) Constraints and tradeoffs: toward a predictive theory of competition and succession. Oikos 58:3–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Touchette BW, Smith GA, Rhodes KL, Poole M (2009) Tolerance and avoidance: two contrasting physiological responses to salt stress in mature marsh halophytes Juncus roemerianus Scheele and Spartina alterniflora Loisel. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 380:106–112.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jembe.2009.08.015 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. van Katwijk MM, Hermus DCR (2000) Effects of water dynamics on Zostera marina: transplantation experiments in the intertidal Dutch Wadden Sea. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 208:107–118.  https://doi.org/10.3354/meps208107 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. van Wesenbeeck BK, Crain CM, Altieri AH, Bertness MD (2007) Distinct habitat types arise along a continuous hydrodynamic stress gradient due to interplay of competition and facilitation. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 349:63–71.  https://doi.org/10.3354/meps07051 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Westoby M (1998) A leaf-height-seed (LHS) plant ecology strategy scheme. Plant Soil 199:213–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Widdows J, Pope ND, Brinsley MD et al (2008) Effects of seagrass beds (Zostera noltii and Z. marina) on near-bed hydrodynamics and sediment resuspension. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 358:125–136.  https://doi.org/10.3354/meps07338 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Wissel C (1984) A universal law of the characteristic return time near thresholds. Oecologia 65:101–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Estuarine and Delta Systems (EDS), NIOZ Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea ResearchUtrecht UniversityYersekeThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Department of Environmental Sciences, Institute for Wetland and Water Research, Faculty of ScienceRadboud University NijmegenNijmegenThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Yantai Institute of Coastal Zone Research-Chinese Academy of Sciences (YIC-CAS)ShandongChina
  4. 4.MARBEC, Univ. Montpellier-CNRS-Ifremer-IRDSèteFrance
  5. 5.DeltaresDelftThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations