Abstract

Facilitative or positive interactions are ubiquitous in nature and play a fundamental role in the configuration of ecological communities. In particular, habitat modification and niche construction, in which one organism locally modifies abiotic conditions and favours other organisms by buffering the effects of adverse environmental factors, are among the most relevant facilitative interactions. In line with this, ‘keystone structures’, which provide resources, refuge, or advantageous services decisive for other species, may allow the coexistence of various species and thus considerably contribute to diversity maintenance. Beech cupules are woody husks harbouring beech fruits that remain in the forest soil for relatively long periods of time. In this study, we explored the potential role of these cupules in the distribution and maintenance of the soil fauna inhabiting the leaf litter layer. We experimentally manipulated cupule availability and soil moisture in the field to determine if such structures are limiting and can provide moist shelter to soil animals during drought periods, contributing to minimize desiccation risks. We measured invertebrate abundances inside relative to outside the cupules, total abundances in the leaf litter and animal body sizes, in both dry and wet experimental plots. We found that these structures are preferentially used by the most abundant groups of smaller soil animals—springtails, mites and enchytraeids—during droughts. Moreover, beech cupules can be limiting, as an increase in use was found with higher cupule densities, and are important resources for many small soil invertebrates, driving the spatial structure of the soil community and promoting higher densities in the leaf litter, probably through an increase in habitat heterogeneity. We propose that fruit woody structures should be considered ‘keystone structures’ that contribute to soil community maintenance. Therefore, beech trees may indirectly facilitate soil fauna activities through their decaying fruit husks, hence acting as ecosystem engineers.

Highlights

  • IntroductionSpecies can influence each other through both negative and positive interactions (Jones, Lawron & Shachak, 1997; Callaway et al, 2002), ecological research on the latter is still underrepresented (Bertness & Callaway, 1994; Bronstein, 1994; Bruno & Bertness, 2001; Bruno, Stachowicz & Bertness, 2003; Brooker et al, 2008)

  • Species can influence each other through both negative and positive interactions (Jones, Lawron & Shachak, 1997; Callaway et al, 2002), ecological research on the latter is still underrepresented (Bertness & Callaway, 1994; Bronstein, 1994; Bruno & Bertness, 2001; Bruno, Stachowicz & Bertness, 2003; Brooker et al, 2008). Such positive or facilitative interactions, defined as non-trophic interspecific interactions characterized by the benefit of at least one of the partners while negatively affecting neither (Bertness & Callaway, 1994; How to cite this article Melguizo-Ruiz et al (2016), Beech cupules as keystone structures for soil fauna

  • Some of the most determinant facilitative interactions are related to habitat modification and niche construction, in which one organism locally alters abiotic conditions and subsequently favours other organisms by buffering adverse or stressful habitat conditions (Bruno & Bertness, 2001; Stachowicz, 2001; Crain & Bertness, 2006)

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Species can influence each other through both negative and positive interactions (Jones, Lawron & Shachak, 1997; Callaway et al, 2002), ecological research on the latter is still underrepresented (Bertness & Callaway, 1994; Bronstein, 1994; Bruno & Bertness, 2001; Bruno, Stachowicz & Bertness, 2003; Brooker et al, 2008). Some of the most determinant facilitative interactions are related to habitat modification and niche construction, in which one organism locally alters abiotic conditions and subsequently favours other organisms by buffering adverse or stressful habitat conditions (Bruno & Bertness, 2001; Stachowicz, 2001; Crain & Bertness, 2006) These habitat alterations can make the local environment more suitable for the maintenance of other members of the community, and potentially contribute to its stability (Stachowicz, 2001). Trees could act as ecosystem engineers through their reproductive structures, by influencing soil community structure and its associated ecosystem processes

Objectives
Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call