Advertisement

Ecosystems

, Volume 20, Issue 3, pp 568–582 | Cite as

Biogeographic Variability in the Value of Mussel Beds as Ecosystem Engineers on South African Rocky Shores

  • Justin A. LathleanEmail author
  • Christopher D. McQuaid
Article

Abstract

Ecological engineers have important effects on biodiversity because they often increase habitat complexity and moderate environmental conditions, implying that their influence on associated fauna will vary across gradients of environmental stress. To test this, we quantified the positive effects of mussel beds on associated benthic communities around the entire South African coastline (~3500 km). We hypothesised that molluscan assemblages would show stronger affinities to the presence of mussel beds with increasing levels of heat-stress. Biomimetic loggers used to characterise thermal properties within and outside mussel beds found that solitary mussels experienced significantly greater daily maximum temperatures than mussels within beds across all locations. However, the magnitude of such differences did not appear to vary with latitude or time of year but rather was strongly influenced by biogeographic region. Differences in the abundance, diversity and community structure of molluscs within and outside mussel beds showed similar biogeographic variability, with differences in total molluscan abundances being most pronounced along the cool temperate west coast during summer and least pronounced along the warm temperate south coast during winter. Greater affinity of molluscan assemblages for mussel beds within cooler biogeographic regions suggests that evolutionary history and/or other abiotic factors may be the primary cause for the stronger influence of mussel beds on the west coast. This highlights the complex, context-dependant nature of ecosystem engineering and the varying degrees to which associated organisms affiliate with these biogenic structures. Such findings have important implications for the use of ecosystem engineers as umbrella species in ecological conservation.

Keywords

body temperatures ecosystem engineers mollusc assemblages mussel beds Mytilus galloprovincialis Perna perna rocky intertidal shore South Africa thermal stress 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Jaqui Trassierra, Morgana Tagliarolo, Eleonora Puccinelli, Bruce Mostert, Aldwin Ndhlovu, Carlota Fernandez Muniz, Martinus Scheepers and Elizabeth Lathlean for assistance in the field; Gwen Johnson for her considerable administration skills and Elizabeth Lathlean for comments on earlier versions of the manuscript. This work was funded by a National Research Foundation Postdoctoral Fellowship to J. A. L., a Rhodes University Research Council Grant and by the South African Research Chairs Initiative of the Department of Science and Technology and the National Research Foundation.

References

  1. Anderson MJ. 2005. PERMANOVA: a FORTRAN computer program for permutational multivariate analysis of variance. Auckland: Department of Statistics, University of Auckland.Google Scholar
  2. Andrews WRH, Hutchings L. 1980. Upwelling in the Southern Benguela Current. Progress in Oceanography 9:1–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arribas LP, Bagur M, Klein E, Penchaszadeh P, Palomo MG. 2013. Geographic distribution of two mussel species and associated assemblages along the northern Argentinian coast. Aquatic Biology 18:91–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Arribas LP, Donnarumma L, Palomo MG, Scrosati RA. 2014. Intertidal mussels as ecosystem engineers: their associated invertebrate biodiversity under contrasting wave exposures. Marine Biodiversity 44:203–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Badano EI, Cavieres LA. 2006. Impacts of ecosystem engineers on community attributes: effects of cushion plants at different elevations of the Chilean Andes. Diversity and Distributions 12:388–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Baldanzi S, Weidberg NF, Fusi M, Cannicci S, McQuaid CD, Porri F. 2015. Contrasting environments shape thermal physiology across the spatial range of the sandhopper Talorchestia capensis. Oecologia 179:1067–78.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Berke SK. 2012. Biogeographic variability in ecosystem engineering: patterns in the abundance and behavior of the tube-building polychaete Diopatra cuprea. Marine Ecology Progress Series 447:1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bertness MD, Callaway R. 1994. Positive interactions in communities. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 9:191–3.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Bertness MD, Leonard GH, Levine JM, Schmidt PR, Ingraham AO. 1999. Testing the relative contribution of positive and negative interactions in rocky intertidal communities. Ecology 80:2711–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bolton JJ, Leliaert F, de Clerck O, Anderson RJ, Stegenga H, Engledow HE, Coppejans E. 2004. Where is the western limit of the tropical Indian Ocean seaweed flora? An analysis of intertidal seaweed biogeography on the east coast of South Africa. Marine Biology 144:51–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Borthagaray AI, Carranza A. 2007. Mussels as ecosystem engineers: their contribution to species diversity in a rocky littoral community. Acta Oecologica 31:243–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bray JR, Curtis JT. 1957. An ordination of the upland forest communities of southern Wisconsin. Ecological Monographs 27:326–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cartwright SR, Williams GA. 2012. Seasonal variation in utilization of biogenic microhabitats by littorinid snails on tropical rocky shores. Marine Biology 159:2323–32.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. Clarke KR, Gorley RN. 2006. PRIMER v6: user manual/tutorial. Plymouth, UK: PRIMER-E.Google Scholar
  15. Cole VJ, McQuaid CD. 2010. Bioengineers and their associated fauna respond differently to the effects of biogeography and upwelling. Ecology 91:3549–62.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Cole VJ, McQuaid CD. 2011. Broad-scale spatial factors outweigh the influence of habitat structure on the fauna associated with a bioengineer. Marine Ecology Progress Series 442:101–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Crain CM, Bertness MD. 2006. Ecosystem engineering across environmental gradients: implications for conservation and management. Bioscience 56:211–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Crain CM, Silliman BR, Bertness SL, Bertness MD. 2004. Physical and biotic drivers of plant distribution across estuarine salinity gradients. Ecology 85:2539–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Daleo P, Iribarne O. 2009. Beyond competition: the stress-gradient hypothesis tested in plant-herbivore interactions. Ecology 90:2368–74.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Griffiths CL, Robinson TB, Lange L, Mead A. 2010. Marine biodiversity in South Africa: an evaluation of current states of knowledge. PLoS One 5(8):e12008. doi: 10.137/journal.pone.0012008.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. Hammond W, Griffiths CL. 2006. Biogeographical patterns in the fauna associated with southern African mussel beds. African Zoology 41:123–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Jones CG, Gutiérrez JL. 2007. On the purpose, meaning, and usage of the physical ecosystem engineering concept. Theoretical Ecology Series 4:3–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jones CG, Gutiérrez JL, Byers JE, Crooks JA, Lambrinos JG, Talley TS. 2010. A framework for understanding physical ecosystem engineering by organisms. Oikos 119:1862–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Jones CG, Lawton JH, Shachak M. 1994. Organisms as ecosystem engineers. Oikos 69:373–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jones CG, Lawton JH, Shachak M. 1997. Positive and negative effects of organisms as ecosystem engineers. Ecology 78:1946–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Jungerstam J, Erlandsson J, McQuaid CD, Porri F, Westerbom M, Kraufvelin P. 2014. Is habitat amount important for biodiversity in rocky shore systems? A study of South African mussel assemblages. Marine Biology 161:1507–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kobak J, Jermacz L, Plachocki D. 2014. Effectiveness of zebra mussels to act as shelters from fish predators differs between native and invasive amphipod prey. Aquatic Ecology 48:397–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kohler KE, Gill SM. 2006. Coral Point Count with Excel extension (CPEe): a visual basic program for the determination of coral and substrate coverage using random point count methodology. Computers and Geosciences 32:1259–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lathlean JA, Ayre DJ, Coleman RA, Minchinton TE. 2014a. Using biomimetic loggers to measure interspecific and microhabitat variation in body temperatures of rocky intertidal invertebrates. Marine and Freshwater Research 66:86–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lathlean JA, Ayre DJ, Minchinton TE. 2014b. Estimating latitudinal variability in extreme heat stress on rocky intertidal shores. Journal of Biogeography 41:1478–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lima FP, Wethey DS. 2009. Robolimpets: measuring intertidal body temperatures using biomimetic loggers. Limnology and Oceanography: Methods 7:347–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lutjeharms JRE, Cooper J, Roberts M. 2000. Upwelling at the inshore edge of the Agulhas Current. Continental Shelf Research 20:737–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Newell RC. 1979. Biology of intertidal animals. Faversham, Kent: Marine Ecological Surveys.Google Scholar
  34. Palomo M.G., J. People, M.G. Chapman, A.J. Underwood. 2007. Separating the effects of physical and biological aspects of mussel beds on their associated assemblages. Marine Ecology Progress Series 344:131–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Pedro D, Oscar I. 2009. Beyond competition: the stress-gradient hypothesis tested in plant-herbivore interactions. Ecology 90:2368–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Rouault M, Pohl B, Penven P. 2010. Coastal oceanic climate change and variability from 1982 to 2009 around South Africa. African Journal of Marine Science 32(2):237–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Silliman BR, Bertness MD, Altieri AH, Griffin JN, Bazterrica MC, Hidalgo FJ, Crain CM, Reyna MV. 2011. Whole-community facilitation regulates biodiversity on Patagonian rocky shores. PLoS ONE 6(10):e24502.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  38. Stephenson TA, Stephenson A. 1974. Life between tidemarks on rocky shores. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman.Google Scholar
  39. Teske PR, McQuaid CD, Froneman PW, Barker NP. 2006. Impacts of marine biogeographic boundaries on phylogeographic patterns of three South African estuarine crustaceans. Marine Ecology Progress Series 314:283–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Wieters EA, Salles E, Januario SM, Navarrete SA. 2009. Refuge utilisation and preferences between competing intertidal crab species. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 374:37–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Wu L, Cai W, Zhang L, Nakamura H, Timmermann A, Joyce T, McPhaden MJ, Alexander M, Qui B, Visbeck M, Chang P, Giese B. 2012. Enhanced warming over the global subtropical boundary currents. Nature Climate Change 2:161–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Wright JP, Jones CG. 2006. The concept of organisms as ecosystem engineers ten years on: progress, limitations, and challenges. Bioscience 56:203–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Xavier BM, Branch GM, Wieters E. 2007. Abundance, growth and recruitment of Mytilus galloprovincialis on the west coast of South Africa in relation to upwelling. Marine Ecology Progress Series 346:189–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Zoology and EntomologyRhodes UniversityGrahamstownSouth Africa

Personalised recommendations