Department of Forest and Conservation Sciences, Centre for Applied Conservation Research, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
PLoS One. 2013 Sep 11;8(9):e74694. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0074694. eCollection 2013.
While ecosystem engineering is a widespread structural force of ecological communities, the mechanisms underlying the inter-specific associations between ecosystem engineers and resource users are poorly understood. A proper knowledge of these mechanisms is, however, essential to understand how communities are structured. Previous studies suggest that increasing the quantity of resources provided by ecosystem engineers enhances populations of resource users. In a long-term study (1995-2011), we show that the quality of the resources (i.e. tree cavities) provided by ecosystem engineers is also a key feature that explains the inter-specific associations in a tree cavity-nest web. Red-naped sapsuckers (Sphyrapicusnuchalis) provided the most abundant cavities (52% of cavities, 0.49 cavities/ha). These cavities were less likely to be used than other cavity types by mountain bluebirds (Sialiacurrucoides), but provided numerous nest-sites (41% of nesting cavities) to tree swallows (Tachycinetabicolour). Swallows experienced low reproductive outputs in northern flicker (Colaptesauratus) cavities compared to those in sapsucker cavities (1.1 vs. 2.1 fledglings/nest), but the highly abundant flickers (33% of cavities, 0.25 cavities/ha) provided numerous suitable nest-sites for bluebirds (58%). The relative shortage of cavities supplied by hairy woodpeckers (Picoidesvillosus) and fungal/insect decay (<10% of cavities each, <0.09 cavities/ha) provided fewer breeding opportunities (<15% of nests), but represented high quality nest-sites for both bluebirds and swallows. Because both the quantity and quality of resources supplied by different ecosystem engineers may explain the amount of resources used by each resource user, conservation strategies may require different management actions to be implemented for the key ecosystem engineer of each resource user. We, therefore, urge the incorporation of both resource quantity and quality into models that assess community dynamics to improve conservation actions and our understanding of ecological communities based on ecosystem engineering.
虽然生态系统工程是生态群落中广泛存在的结构性力量,但生态系统工程师与资源利用者之间的种间关联的机制仍知之甚少。然而,充分了解这些机制对于理解群落结构至关重要。先前的研究表明,增加生态系统工程师提供的资源数量会增强资源利用者的种群数量。在一项长期研究(1995-2011 年)中,我们表明,生态系统工程师提供的资源质量(即树洞)也是解释树洞-巢网中种间关联的关键特征。红冠啄木鸟(Sphyrapicusnuchalis)提供了最丰富的树洞(52%的树洞,0.49 个/公顷)。这些树洞比山蓝鸟(Sialiacurrucoides)更不容易被利用,但为树燕(Tachycinetabicolour)提供了大量的巢址(41%的筑巢树洞)。与啄木鸟树洞(1.1 只育雏/巢)相比,燕在北美星鸦(Colaptesauratus)树洞中的繁殖产出较低,但数量丰富的星鸦(33%的树洞,0.25 个/公顷)为蓝鸟提供了大量合适的巢址(58%)。绒毛啄木鸟(Picoidesvillosus)和真菌/昆虫腐烂物(每个提供不到 10%的树洞,每公顷不到 0.09 个树洞)提供的树洞数量相对较少(<15%的鸟巢),但为蓝鸟和燕提供了高质量的巢址。因为不同生态系统工程师提供的资源数量和质量都可能解释每个资源利用者利用的资源量,所以保护策略可能需要为每个资源利用者的关键生态系统工程师实施不同的管理措施。因此,我们敦促将资源数量和质量纳入评估群落动态的模型中,以改进保护措施并增强我们对基于生态系统工程的生态群落的理解。