DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS OF PREDATION BY COMMON EIDERS AND ABIOTIC DISTURBANCE IN AN INTERTIDAL COMMUNITY

• Main Author: Hamilton, Diana J.
• Format: Article in Journal/Newspaper
• Language: unknown
• Published: Figshare 2016
• Subjects: Environmental Science; Ecology; FOS Biological sciences; Canada; Somateria mollissima; Nucella lapillus
• Online Access: https://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.c.3308934; https://figshare.com/collections/DIRECT_AND_INDIRECT_EFFECTS_OF_PREDATION_BY_COMMON_EIDERS_AND_ABIOTIC_DISTURBANCE_IN_AN_INTERTIDAL_COMMUNITY/3308934

Predation and disturbance have been well studied in intertidal communities. However, the impact of vertebrate predators, particularly waterfowl, has been only infrequently determined in long-term intertidal studies. Using predator exclusion cages and simulated abiotic disturbance, I studied the direct and indirect effects of predation by Common Eiders ( Somateria mollissima ) on an intertidal mussel bed community in Passamaquoddy Bay, New Brunswick, Canada. Eiders fed heavily on blue mussels ( Mytilus edulis ), the dominant invertebrate present, reducing their abundance in “+duck” (exposed to predation) relative to “−duck” (exclosure) plots by nearly 50% within eight months of initiation of the experiment. Based on counts and estimated consumption rates, eiders appeared to be responsible for most predation observed in this system. Although ducks fed heavily on the dominant intertidal invertebrate, they had little effect on species diversity or richness in the community. However, relative abundance of the most common invertebrates did vary. In particular, exclusion of eiders led to an increase in abundance of dogwhelks ( Nucella lapillus ) one year into the experiment. Whelks, in turn, fed heavily on mussels under cages and obscured the longer-term effect of ducks in the system. This indirect effect appears to be an example of asymmetric exploitation competition, with ducks influencing the food supply of whelks, but whelks having little effect on ducks. When ducks were excluded, whelks were released from this competition and acted as compensating predators. No other indirect effects developed following duck exclusion, presumably due to the increased whelk effect. Disturbance, in contrast, did lead to an increase in species diversity, which later returned to predisturbance levels as the community recovered. Predation delayed the recovery of disturbed sites, because ducks began feeding in these plots before mussel abundance had completely rebounded. Disturbance, while initially deterring predation somewhat, ultimately allowed the effects of predators to persist longer. This interaction of predation and disturbance resulted from compensatory growth of mussels under exclosures in disturbed sites. Mussels protected from eider predation grew quickly after disturbance and rapidly became larger than the preferred prey for whelks. As a consequence, whelks did not feed as heavily on mussels in disturbed sites as in undisturbed sites, where more mussels were of the preferred size, and the observed effect of ducks on mussel biomass persisted. This experiment demonstrates that eiders were significant, and, probably, keystone predators in this system. Eiders directly reduced abundance of mussels, thereby indirectly increasing whelk density in plots where ducks were excluded. Compensatory predation by whelks following duck exclusion blocked other potential indirect effects, thus preventing eiders from having more widespread effects in the system. Such compensatory predation may act to stabilize communities and evidently can occur in relatively simple systems as well as the more species-rich communities with which it is usually associated.