Skip to main content
Log in

Measurement of the carrying capacity of benthic habitats using a metabolic-rate based index

  • Original Papers
  • Published:
Oecologia Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Carrying capacities of grazed habitats are typically expressed as numbers or biomass of animals per unit area; however, such parameters are appropriate only when the body size of animals is constant because consumption and other metabolic-rate based parameters such as respiration and production are proportional to body mass raised by a power of ≈0.75 rather than 0 or 1. Habitat carrying levels are therefore better expressed in the form of an index of total community consumption by summing the body masses of individual animals after they have been scaled using a biomass exponent of ≈0.75. A parameter scaled in this way,P 20, varied in a predictable manner when calculated for the mobile epifaunal assemblages associated with rope fibre habitats placed at marine and estuarine sites;P 20 showed no significant difference between 17 shallow, clear-water sites worldwide, but declined consistently when photosynthesis was reduced.P 20 also did not vary significantly when calculated for the mobile epifaunal communities associated with fourAmphibolis antarctica seagrass habitats in Australia (\(\bar x\) = 100 µg ·g−1 · day−1), and reached but did not significantly exceed a ceiling of ≈280 μg · g-1 · day-1 forSargassum plants. These results are consistent with the hypothesis that the production of shallow-water epifaunal communities of grazers is constrained by resource ceilings which can be quantified using metabolic-rate based indices. If this “production ceiling” hypothesis is correct then diffuse competition is generally more important than predation or environmental disturbance in restricting the growth of mobile epifaunal populations.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Al-Ogilby SM, Knight-Jones EW (1977) Anti-fouling role of antibiotics produced by marine algae and bryozoans. Nature 265:728–729

    Google Scholar 

  • Bell JD, Westoby M (1986) Abundance of macrofauna in dense seagrass is due to habitat preference, not predation. Oecologia 68:205–209

    Google Scholar 

  • Brawley SH, Fei XG (1987) Studies of mesoherbivory in aquaria and in an unbarricaded mariculture farm on the Chinese coast. J Phycol 23:614–623

    Google Scholar 

  • Cammen LM (1980) Ingestion rate: an empirical model for aquatic deposit feeders and detritivores. Oecologia 44:303–310

    Google Scholar 

  • Edgar GJ (1983) The ecology of south-east Tasmanian phytal animal communities. II. Seasonal change in plant and animal populations. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 70:159–179

    Google Scholar 

  • Edgar GJ (1990a) The use of the size-structure of benthic macrofaunal communities to estimate faunal biomass and secondary production J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 137:195–214

    Google Scholar 

  • Edgar GJ (1990b) The influence of plant structure on the species richness, biomass and secondary production of macrofaunal assemblages associated with Western Australian seagrass beds. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 137:215–240

    Google Scholar 

  • Edgar GJ (1990c) Population regulation, population dynamics and competition amongst mobile epifauna associated with seagrass. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 144:205–234

    Google Scholar 

  • Edgar GJ (1991a) Artificial algae as habitats for mobile epifauna: factors affecting colonization in a JapanaseSargassum bed. Hydrobiologia 226:111–118

    Google Scholar 

  • Edgar GJ (1991b) Distribution patterns of mobile epifauna associated with rope fibre habitats within the Bathurst Harbour estuary, south-western Tasmania. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci 33:589–604

    Google Scholar 

  • Edgar GJ, Aoki M (1993) Resource limitation and fish predation: their importance to mobile epifauna associated with JapaneseSargassum. Oecologia 95:122–133

    Google Scholar 

  • Edgar GJ, Robertson AI (1992) The influence of seagrass structure on the distribution and abundance of mobile epifauna: pattern and process in a Western AustralianAmphibolis bed. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 160:13–31

    Google Scholar 

  • Fredette TJ, Diaz RJ (1986) Life history ofGammarus mucronatus Say (Amphipoda: Gammaridae) in warm temperate estuarine habitats, York River, Virginia. J Crust Biol 6:57–78

    Google Scholar 

  • Gunnill FC (1983) Seasonal variations in the invertebrate faunas ofPelvetia fastigiata (Fucaceae): effects of plant size and distribution. Mar Biol 73:115–130

    Google Scholar 

  • Heck KL, Orth RJ (1980) Seagrass habitats: the roles of structural complexity, competition and predation in structuring associated fish and macroinvertebrate assemblages. In: Kennedy VS (ed) Estuarine perspectives. Academic Press, New York, pp 449–464

    Google Scholar 

  • Hornsey IS, Hide D (1974) The production of antimicrobial compounds by British marine algae. I. Antibiotic-producing marine algae. Brit J Phycol 9:353–361

    Google Scholar 

  • Humphreys WF (1979) Production and respiration in animal populations. J Anim Ecol 48:427–453

    Google Scholar 

  • Imada K, Kikuchi T (1984) Studies of the reproductive traits of three caprellids (Crustacea: Amphipoda) and their seasonal fluctuations in theSargassum bed. Publ Amakusa Mar Biol Lab 7:151–172

    Google Scholar 

  • Jensen KT, Jensen JN (1985) The importance of some epibenthic predators on the density of juvenile benthic macrofauna in the Danish Wadden Sea. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 113:9–21

    Google Scholar 

  • Kikuchi T (1980) Faunal relationships in temperate seagrass beds. In: Phillips RC, McRoy CP (eds) Handbook of seagrass biology: an ecosystem perspective. Garland STPM, New York, pp 153–173

    Google Scholar 

  • Klumpp DW, Howard RK, Pollard DA (1989) Trophodynamics and nutritional ecology of seagrass communities. In: Larkum AWD, McComb AJ, Shepherd SA (eds) Biology of seagrasses: a treatise on the biology of seagrasses with special reference to the Australian region. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 394–457

    Google Scholar 

  • Kneib RT (1988) Testing for indirect effects of predation in an intertidal soft-bottom community. Ecology 69:1795–1805

    Google Scholar 

  • Kneib RT (1992) Population dynamics of the tanaidHargeria rapax (Crustacea: Peracarida) in a tidal marsh. Mar Biol 113:437–445

    Google Scholar 

  • Lavigne DM (1982) Similarity in energy budgets of animal populations. J Anim Ecol 51:195–206

    Google Scholar 

  • Leber KM (1985) The influence of predatory decapods, refuge, and microhabitat selection on seagrass communities. Ecology 66:1951–1964

    Google Scholar 

  • McNeill S, Lawton JH (1970) Annual production and respiration in animal communities. Nature 225:472–474

    Google Scholar 

  • Marquet PA, Navarrete SA, Castilla JC (1990) Scaling population density to body size in rocky intertidal communities. Science 250:1125–1127

    Google Scholar 

  • Moore PG (1977) Organization in simple communities: observations on the natural history ofHyale nilssoni (Amphipoda) in high littoral seaweeds. In: Keegan BF, Ceidigh PO, Boaden PJS (eds) Biology of benthic organisms. Pergamon, New York, pp 443–451

    Google Scholar 

  • Morgan MD, Kitting CL (1984) Productivity and utilization of the seagrassHalodule wrightii and its attached epiphytes. Limnol Oceanogr 29:1066–1076

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson WG (1979) An analysis of structural pattern in an eelgrass (Zostera marina L.) amphipod community. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 39:231–264

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson WG, Cairns KD, Virnstein RW (1982) Seasonality and spatial patterns of seagrass-associated amphipods of the Indian River Lagoon, Florida, Bull Mar Sci 32:121–129

    Google Scholar 

  • Norton TA, Benson MR (1983) Ecological interactions between the brown seaweedSargassum muticum and its associated fauna. Mar Biol 75:169–177

    Google Scholar 

  • Orth RJ, Van Montfrans J (1984) Epiphyte-seagrass relationships with an emphasis on the role of micrograzing: a review. Aquat Bot 18:43–69

    Google Scholar 

  • Orth RJ, Heck KL, Van Montfrans J (1984) Faunal communities in seagrass beds: a review of the influence of plant structure and prey characteristics on predator-prey relationships. Estuaries 7A:339–350

    Google Scholar 

  • Peters RH (1983) The ecological implications of body size. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Peters RH, Wassenberg K (1983) The effect of body size on animal abundance. Oecologia 60:89–96

    Google Scholar 

  • Preston A, Moore PG (1990) Observations on the feeding habits of the commoner animals associated withCladophora algida (Huds.) Kütz. in rockpools. Glasgow Nat 21:523–535

    Google Scholar 

  • Quast JC (1971) observations on the food of kelp fishes. In: North WJ (ed) Biology of kelp beds(Macrocystis pyrifera) in California. Beih Nova Hedwigia 32:541–579

    Google Scholar 

  • Russo AR (1988) Detritus and epibiota on artificial substrata: the possible role of food in structuring Hawaiian epiphytal amphipod communities. Int Rev Ges Hydrobiol 73:319–325

    Google Scholar 

  • Russo AR (1991) Do predatory fishes affect the structure of an epiphytal amphipod assemblage on a protected algal reef in Hawaii? Hydrobiologia 224:185–192

    Google Scholar 

  • Ryland JS (1974) Observations on some epibionts of gulf-weedSargassum natans (L.) Meyen. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 14:17–25

    Google Scholar 

  • Sieburth JM (1968) The influence of algal antibiosis on the ecology of marine organisms. Adv Microbiol Sea 1:63–94

    Google Scholar 

  • Sullivan MJ, Moncreiff CA (1990) Edaphic algae are an important component of salt marsh food webs: evidence from multiple stable isotope analyses. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 62:149–159

    Google Scholar 

  • Virnstein RW, Curran MC (1986) Colonization of artificial seagrass versus time and distance from source. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 29:279–288

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson WH (1989) Predation and the mediation of intraspecific competition in an infaunal community in the Bay of Fundy. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 132:221–245

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiltse WI, Foreman KH, Teal JM, Valiela I (1984) Effects of predators and food resources on the macrobenthos of salt marsh creeks. J Mar Res 42:923–942

    Google Scholar 

  • Young DK, Young MW (1978) Regulation of species densities of seagrass-associated macrobenthos: evidence from field experiments in the Indian River estuary, Florida. J Mar Res 36:569–593

    Google Scholar 

  • Young DK, Buzas MA, Young MW (1976) Species densities of macrobenthos associated with seagrass: A field experimental study of predation. J Mar Res 34:577–592

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Edgar, G.J. Measurement of the carrying capacity of benthic habitats using a metabolic-rate based index. Oecologia 95, 115–121 (1993). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00649514

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00649514

Key words

Navigation