4.7 Article

Do deposit-feeders compete? Isotopic niche analysis of an invasion in a species-poor system

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 5, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/srep09715

关键词

-

资金

  1. BEAM (Baltic Ecosystem Adaptive Management)
  2. strategic marine environmental research programme of Stockholm University
  3. Swedish Research Council for Environment, Agriculture and Spatial Planning [217-2007-749, 215-2009-813]
  4. Swedish Institute (Isotope ecology network in the Baltic Sea region) [12906/2013]
  5. SYVAB (The Southwestern Stockholm Region Sewerage Company)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Successful establishment of invasive species is often related to the existence of vacant niches. Competition occurs when invaders use the same limiting resources as members of the recipient community, which will be reflected in some overlap of their trophic niches. The concept of isotopic niche has been used to study trophic niche partitioning among species. Here, we present a two-year field study comparing isotopic niches of the deposit-feeding community in a naturally species-poor system. The isotopic niche analyses showed no overlap between a recent polychaete invader and any of the native species suggesting that it has occupied a vacant niche. Its narrow isotopic niche suggests specialized feeding, however, the high delta N-15 values compared to natives are most likely due to isotope fractionation effects related to nitrogen recycling and a mismatch between biological stoichiometry of the polychaete and the sediment nitrogen content. Notably, highly overlapping isotopic niches were inferred for the native species, which is surprising in a food-limited system. Therefore, our results demonstrate that invaders may broaden the community trophic diversity and enhance resource utilization, but also raise questions about the congruence between trophic and isotopic niche concepts and call for careful examination of assumptions underlying isotopic niche interpretation.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据