Coral Reefs

, Volume 36, Issue 1, pp 151–155 | Cite as

The relative influence of abundance and priority effects on colonization success in a coral-reef fish

  • Shane W. Geange
  • Davina E. Poulos
  • Adrian C. Stier
  • Mark I. McCormick
Note

Abstract

The sequence of species colonization is increasingly recognized as an important determinant of community structure, yet the significance of sequence of arrival relative to colonizer abundance is seldom assessed. We manipulated the magnitude and timing of coral-reef fish settlement to investigate whether the competitive dominance of early-arriving Ambon damselfish (i.e., a priority effect) decreased in strength with increasing abundance of late-arriving lemon damselfish. Sequence of arrival had a stronger effect on survival than the number of competing individuals. Relative to when both species arrived simultaneously, lemon damselfish were less aggressive, avoided competitive interactions more frequently and experienced depressed survival when they arrived later than Ambon damselfish, with these effects occurring independently of lemon damselfish abundance. These results suggest priority effects are more important than colonizer abundance and should motivate the integration of priority effects into future studies of density dependence to determine their relative importance.

Keywords

Competition Coral-reef fish Damselfish Density dependence Pomacentrus Settlement 

Supplementary material

338_2016_1503_MOESM1_ESM.docx (22 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 22 kb)

References

  1. Adam TC (2011) High quality habitat and facilitation ameliorate competitive effects of prior residents on new settlers. Oecologia 166:121–130CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Almany GR (2003) Priority effects in coral reef fish communities. Ecology 84:1920–1935CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Borenstein M, Hedges LV, Higgins JPT, Rothstein HR (2009) Introduction to meta-analysis. John Wiley & Sons, United KingdomCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Carr MH, Anderson TW, Hixon MA (2002) Biodiversity, population regulation, and the stability of coral reef fish communities. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 99:11241–11245CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. Chesson P (2003) Quantifying and testing coexistence mechanisms arising from recruitment fluctuations. Theor Popul Biol 64:345–357CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Collie J, Rochet MJ, Bell R (2013) Rebuilding fish communities: the ghost of fisheries past and the virtue of patience. Ecol Appl 23:374–391CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Cox DR (1972) Regression models and life-tables. J R Stat Soc Series B Stat Methodol 34:187–220Google Scholar
  8. Dickson TL, Hopwood JL, Wilsey BJ (2012) Do priority effects benefit invasive plants more than native plants? An experiment with six grassland species. Biol Invasions 14:2617–2624CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dufour V, Galzin R (1993) Colonisation patterns on reef fish larvae to the lagoon at Moorea Island, French Polynesia. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 102:143–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Foster BL, Tilman D (2003) Seed limitation and the regulation of community structure in oak savanna grassland. J Ecol 91:999–1007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fukami T (2015) Historical contingency in community assembly: integrating niches, species pools, and priority effects. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 46:1–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fukami T, Nakajima M (2011) Community assembly: alternative stable states or alternative transient states? Ecol Lett 14:973–984CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. Fukami T, Dickie IA, Wilkie JP, Paulus BC, Park D, Roberts A, Buchanan PK, Allen RB (2010) Assembly history dictates ecosystem functioning: evidence from wood decomposer communities. Ecol Lett 13:675–684CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Gaines S, Roughgarden J (1985) Larval settlement rate: a leading determinant of structure in an ecological community of the marine intertidal zone. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 82:3707–3711CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. Geange SW, Stier AC (2009) Order of arrival affects competition in two reef fishes. Ecology 90:2868–2878CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Geange SW, Stier AC (2010) Priority effects and habitat complexity affect the strength of competition. Oecologia 163:111–118CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Gilpin ME, Case TJ (1976) Multiple domains of attraction in competition communities. Nature 261:40–42CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Grman E, Suding KN (2008) Within-year soil legacies contribute to strong priority effects of exotics on native California grassland communities. Restoration Ecology 18:664–670CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Holbrook SJ, Schmitt RJ (1997) Settlement patterns and processes in a coral reef damselfish: in situ nocturnal observations using infrared video. Proc 8th Int Coral Reef Symp 2:1143–1148Google Scholar
  20. Holbrook SJ, Schmitt RJ (2002) Competition for shelter space causes density-dependent predation mortality in damselfishes. Ecology 83:2855–2868CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lande R, Engen S, Saether BE (2003) Stochastic population dynamics in ecology and conservation. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UKCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Leibold MA, Holyoak M, Mouquet N, Amarasekare P, Chase JM, Hoopes MF, Holt RD, Shurin JB, Law R, Tilman D, Loreau M, Gonzalez M (2004) The metacommunity concept: a framework for multi-scale community ecology. Ecol Lett 7:601–613CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. McCormick MI (2009) Behaviourally mediated phenotypic selection in a disturbed coral reef environment. PLoS One 4:e7096CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. Munday PL (2004) Competitive coexistence of coral-dwelling fishes: the lottery hypothesis revisited. Ecology 85:623–628CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Poulos DE, McCormick MI (2014) Who wins in the battle for space? The importance of priority, behavioural history and size. Anim Behav 90:305–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Poulos DE, McCormick MI (2015) Asymmetries in body condition and order of arrival influence competitive ability and survival in a coral reef fish. Oecologia 179:719–728CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Development Core Team R (2013) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, AustriaGoogle Scholar
  28. Shima JS (2001) Regulation of local populations of a coral reef fish via joint effects of density- and number-dependent mortality. Oecologia 126:58–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Shima JS, Osenberg CW (2003) Cryptic density dependence: effects of covariation between density and site quality in reef fish. Ecology 84:46–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Steele MA (1997) Population regulation by post-settlement mortality in two temperate reef fishes. Oecologia 112:64–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Venables WN, Ripley BD (2002) Modern applied statistics with S, 4th edn. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Waters JM, Fraser CI, Hewitt GM (2013) Founder takes all: density-dependent processes structure biodiversity. Trends Ecol Evol 28:78–85CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Webster MS, Almany GR (2002) Positive indirect effects in a coral reef fish community. Ecol Lett 5:549–557CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Wilson WG, Lundberg P (2006) Non-neutral dynamics: empirical predictions for ecosystem function and diversity from linearized consumer–resource interactions. Oikos 114:71–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Shane W. Geange
    • 1
    • 2
  • Davina E. Poulos
    • 3
  • Adrian C. Stier
    • 4
  • Mark I. McCormick
    • 3
  1. 1.School of Biological SciencesVictoria University of WellingtonWellingtonNew Zealand
  2. 2.Department of ConservationWellingtonNew Zealand
  3. 3.Department of Marine Biology and Aquaculture, ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef StudiesJames Cook UniversityTownsvilleAustralia
  4. 4.Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Marine BiologyUniversity of CaliforniaSanta BarbaraUSA

Personalised recommendations