4.5 Article

Allochthonous Organic Matter Supports Benthic but Not Pelagic Food Webs in Shallow Coastal Ecosystems

期刊

ECOSYSTEMS
卷 21, 期 7, 页码 1459-1470

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10021-018-0233-5

关键词

climate change; terrestrial organic carbon; stable isotope analysis; autochthonous production; benthic-pelagic coupling; food webs; Bothnian Sea

类别

资金

  1. Kempe foundation
  2. Umea Marine Sciences Centre
  3. marine strategic research program EcoChange

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Rivers transport large amounts of allochthonous organic matter (OM) to the ocean every year, but there are still fundamental gaps in how allochthonous OM is processed in the marine environment. Here, we estimated the relative contribution of allochthonous OM (allochthony) to the biomass of benthic and pelagic consumers in a shallow coastal ecosystem in the northern Baltic Sea. We used deuterium as a tracer of allochthony and assessed both temporal variation (monthly from May to August) and spatial variation (within and outside river plume). We found variability in allochthony in space and time and across species, with overall higher values for zoobenthos (26.2 +/- 20.9%) than for zooplankton (0.8 +/- 0.3%). Zooplankton allochthony was highest in May and very low during the other months, likely as a result of high inputs of allochthonous OM during the spring flood that fueled the pelagic food chain for a short period. In contrast, zoobenthos allochthony was only lower in June and remained high during the other months. Allochthony of zoobenthos was generally higher close to the river mouth than outside of the river plume, whereas it did not vary spatially for zooplankton. Last, zoobenthos allochthony was higher in deeper than in shallower areas, indicating that allochthonous OM might be more important when autochthonous resources are limited. Our results suggest that climate change predictions of increasing inputs of allochthonous OM to coastal ecosystems may affect basal energy sources supporting coastal food webs.

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

4.5
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