Non-linear ecosystems : intertwined consumptive and non-consumptive pathways following increase in predator habitat

The extent to which the diversity in habitat of an ecological system, or habitat heterogeneity, affects communities is an important aspect of ecology. Although higher habitat diversity is generally linked to higher species richness, how the increase in specific groups affects trophic dynamics in a system remains elusive. Studying biotic habitat modification, the formation of habitats by species and the subsequent alterations in persistence of other local species, can shed light on this topic. As biotic habitat modification tends to increase abundance and/or richness of specific taxa, the impacts of the increase of these specific groups can be analyzed. Tank bromeliads are common epiphytic biotic habitat modifiers throughout the Neotropics, and are facultatively associated with a variety of predatory arthropods. Here, we examine the community consequences of bromeliad-mediated increase in predator habitat in Costa Rican orange trees. As the effects of predation can attenuated by a variety of ecological processes, such as facilitative interactions, we examined two different aspects of community modification. First, in a manipulative experiment, we tested the hypothesis that bromeliads mediate trophic cascades in their support tree communities. In that view, we manipulated bromeliad densities on trees, and measured impacts on arboreal and bromeliad invertebrate communities, and leaf damage. Second, in an observational survey, we examined if the presence of bromeliads in a tree modified the behaviour of arboreal invertebrates, and interspecific interactions. We found that habitat modification by bromeliads was highly contingent on season and time of the day, and influenced arboreal invertebrate communities in various ways. Predators were more numerous with higher bromeliad densities, but effects on herbivores differed. Bromeliads did not modify cascading dynamics, and only weakly affected community structure, suggesting that invertebrate communities in orange trees can be functionally resilient. Even if bromeliads largely harboured predators, several groups of herbivores were commonly encountered in the epiphytes, plausibly attenuating cascading effects. The bromeliad-associated ants that dominated our system were strongly associated with honeydew-producing homopterans, suggesting less reliance on predation. These results suggest that the impacts of increased habitat heterogeneity on trophic dynamics can be attenuated by functional resilience and facilitative dynamics.Science, Faculty ofZoology, Department ofGraduat

distance

distanc

vacuum

vacuu

dissection

dissectio

Course Training Material

All course training materials reside here

Subtle structures with not-so-subtle functions: A dataset of arthropod constructs and their host plants

The construction of shelters on plants by arthropods might influence other organisms via changes in colonization, community richness, species composition and functionality. Arthropods, including beetles, caterpillars, sawflies, spiders, and wasps often interact with host plants via the construction of shelters, building a variety of structures such as leaf ties, tents, rolls, and bags; leaf and stem galls, and hollowed out stems. Such constructs might have both an adaptive value in terms of protection (i.e., serve as shelters) but may also exert a strong influence on terrestrial community diversity in the engineered and neighboring hosts via colonization by secondary occupants. While different traits of the host plant (e.g., physical, chemical and architectural features) may affect the potential for ecosystem engineering by insects, such effects have been, to a certain degree, overlooked. Further analyses of how plant traits affect the occurrence of shelters may thus enrich our understanding of the organizing principles of plant-based communities. This dataset includes more than a thousand unique records of ecosystem engineering by arthropods, in the form of structures built on plants. All records have been published in the literature, and span both natural structures (90.6% of the records) and structures artificially created byresearchers (9% of the records). The data were gathered between 1932 and 2021, across more than 50 countries and several ecosystems, ranging from polar to tropical zones. Besides data on host plants and engineers, we aggregated data on the type of constructs and the identity of inquilines using these structures. This dataset highlights the importance of these subtle structures for the organization of terrestrial arthropod communities, enabling hypotheses testing in ecological studiesaddressing ecosystem engineering and facilitation mediated by constructs.Fil: Pereira, Cássio Cardoso. Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais; BrasilFil: Novais, Samuel. Instituto de Ecología; MéxicoFil: Barbosa, Milton. Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais; BrasilFil: Negreiros, Daniel. Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais; BrasilFil: Gonçalves Souza, Thiago. Universidade Federal de Pernambuco; BrasilFil: Roslin, Tomas. Swedish University Of Agricultural Sciences; SueciaFil: Marquis, Robert. University of Missouri; Estados UnidosFil: Marino, Nicholas. Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro; BrasilFil: Novotny, Vojtech. Biology Centre of the Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic; República ChecaFil: Orivel, Jerome. Universite de Guyane; GuyanaFil: Sui, Shen. New Guinea Binatang Research Center; GuineaFil: Aires, Gustavo. Universidade Federal de Pernambuco; BrasilFil: Antoniazzi, Reuber. University of Texas at Austin; Estados UnidosFil: Dáttilo, Wesley. Instituto de Ecología; MéxicoFil: Breviglieri, Crasso. Universidade Estadual de Campinas; BrasilFil: Busse, Annika. Bavarian Forest National Park; AlemaniaFil: Gibb, Heloise. La Trobe University. Department Of Ecology, Environment And Evolution; AustraliaFil: Izzo, Thiago. Universidade Federal do Mato Grosso do Sul; BrasilFil: Kadlec, Tomas. Czech University Of Life Sciences Prague; República ChecaFil: Kemp, Victoria. Queen Mary University of London; Reino UnidoFil: Kersch Becker, Monica. University of Alabama at Birmingahm; Estados UnidosFil: Knapp, Michal. Czech University Of Life Sciences Prague; República ChecaFil: Kratina, Pavel. Queen Mary University of London; Reino UnidoFil: Luke, Rebecca. Royal Holloway University of London; Reino UnidoFil: Majnari, Stefan. University Of Zagreb, Faculty Of Science; CroaciaFil: Maritz, Robin. University of the Western Cape; SudáfricaFil: Martins, Paulo Mateus. Universidade Federal de Pernambuco; BrasilFil: Mendesil, Esayas. Jimma University; EtiopíaFil: Michalko, Jaroslav. Slovak Academy of Sciences; EslovaquiaFil: Mrazova, Anna. Biology Centre of the Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic; República ChecaFil: Peri, Mirela Serti. University Of Zagreb. Faculty Of Science; CroaciaFil: Petermann, Jana. University Of Salzburg. Department Of Biosciences; AustriaFil: Ribeiro, Sérvio. Universidade Federal de Ouro Preto; BrasilFil: Sam, Katerina. University of Missouri; Estados UnidosFil: Trzcinski, M. Kurtis. University of British Columbia; CanadáFil: Vieira, Camila. Universidade Federal de Uberlândia; BrasilFil: Westwood, Natalie. University of British Columbia; CanadáFil: Bernaschini, Maria Laura. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Córdoba. Instituto Multidisciplinario de Biología Vegetal. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas Físicas y Naturales. Instituto Multidisciplinario de Biología Vegetal; ArgentinaFil: Carvajal, Valentina. Universidad de Caldas; ColombiaFil: González, Ezequiel. Czech University of Life Sciences Prague; República ChecaFil: Jausoro, Mariana. Universidad Nacional de Chilecito. Departamento de Ciencias Basicas y Tecnologicas; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Córdoba. Instituto Multidisciplinario de Biología Vegetal. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas Físicas y Naturales. Instituto Multidisciplinario de Biología Vegetal; ArgentinaFil: Kaensin, Stanis. New Guinea Binatang Research Center; GuineaFil: Ospina, Fabiola. Universidad de Caldas; ColombiaFil: Pérez, Jacob Cristóbal. Universidad Autónoma del Estado de México; MéxicoFil: Quesada, Mauricio. Universidad Autónoma del Estado de México; MéxicoFil: Rogy, Pierre. University of British Columbia; CanadáFil: Srivastava, Diane S.. University of British Columbia; CanadáFil: Szpryngiel, Scarlett. The Swedish Museum of Natural History; SueciaFil: Tack, Ayco J. M.. Stockholms Universitet; SueciaFil: Teder, Tiit. University of Tartu; EstoniaFil: Videla, Martin. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Córdoba. Instituto Multidisciplinario de Biología Vegetal. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas Físicas y Naturales. Instituto Multidisciplinario de Biología Vegetal; ArgentinaFil: Viljur, Mari Liis. University of Tartu; EstoniaFil: Koricheva, Julia. Royal Holloway University of London; Reino UnidoFil: Fernandes, Geraldo Wilson Afonso. Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais; BrasilFil: Romero, Gustavo Q.. Universidade Estadual de Campinas; BrasilFil: Cornelissen, Tatiana. Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais. Instituto de Ciências Biológicas; Brasi