Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
image/svg+xml Jakob Voss, based on art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina and Beao Closed Access logo, derived from PLoS Open Access logo. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Closed_Access_logo_transparent.svg Jakob Voss, based on art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina and Beao Journal of Experimen...arrow_drop_down
image/svg+xml Jakob Voss, based on art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina and Beao Closed Access logo, derived from PLoS Open Access logo. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Closed_Access_logo_transparent.svg Jakob Voss, based on art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina and Beao
Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology
Article . 2007 . Peer-reviewed
License: Elsevier TDM
Data sources: Crossref
versions View all 1 versions
addClaim

Interactions between seagrasses and burrowing ghost shrimps and their influence on infaunal assemblages

Authors: Katrin Berkenbusch; Ashley A. Rowden; Thomas E. Myers;

Interactions between seagrasses and burrowing ghost shrimps and their influence on infaunal assemblages

Abstract

The current study examined the direct interactions between intertidal seagrasses (Zosteraceae) and burrowing ghost shrimps (Callianassidae) and their influence on associated infaunal assemblages. Reciprocal transplant experiments conducted in two temperate regions revealed different interactions between both types of organism. In the U.S.A., seagrass prospered in all treatments, irrespective of the presence of ghost shrimp, whilst ghost shrimp declined in plots containing seagrass. In New Zealand, neither transplanted ghost shrimp nor seagrass became established in experimental plots, at the same time, neither type of organism appeared to be affected by the experimental addition of transplants. The differences in interactions between seagrass and ghost shrimp appeared to be related to seasonal differences in the timing of the transplant experiments and the pairing of particular ghost shrimp and seagrass species in each region. Infaunal assemblages showed distinct differences between seagrass and ghost shrimp treatments and reflected the dominant type of organism present. In treatments where transplanted seagrass or ghost shrimp became established, assemblage composition shifted in accordance with the type of transplanted organism. Differences in assemblage composition were characterised by higher relative abundances of discriminating taxa in treatments dominated by seagrass. The overall patterns of infaunal assemblage composition were correlated with a number of variables including the number of shoots, above-, below-ground seagrass biomass, % fines/sand, % total organic carbon, and sediment chlorophyll a. Findings from this study highlight the functional importance of intertidal seagrasses and burrowing ghost shrimps and reveal some of the ecological repercussions associated with changes in the distribution of these sympatric ecosystem engineers.

  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    selected citations
    These citations are derived from selected sources.
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    55
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Top 10%
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Top 10%
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
selected citations
These citations are derived from selected sources.
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
popularity
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
55
Top 10%
Top 10%
Average
Upload OA version
Are you the author of this publication? Upload your Open Access version to Zenodo!
It’s fast and easy, just two clicks!