Loading…

Do functional groups of planktonic copepods differ in their ecological niches?

Aim: To assess the degree of overlap between the environmental niches of marine planktonic copepods and test if the distribution of copepod functional groups differs across environmental gradients. Location: The Mediterranean Sea. Methods: Functional groups were defined based on clustering of functi...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of biogeography 2018-03, Vol.45 (3), p.604-616
Main Authors: Benedetti, Fabio, Vogt, Meike, Righetti, Damiano, Guilhaumon, François, Ayata, Sakina-Dorothée
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3886-cd623c7cb60b0d8ababb2bb2a9b624d64851cb599f8c34955c89251d6b26d1683
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3886-cd623c7cb60b0d8ababb2bb2a9b624d64851cb599f8c34955c89251d6b26d1683
container_end_page 616
container_issue 3
container_start_page 604
container_title Journal of biogeography
container_volume 45
creator Benedetti, Fabio
Vogt, Meike
Righetti, Damiano
Guilhaumon, François
Ayata, Sakina-Dorothée
description Aim: To assess the degree of overlap between the environmental niches of marine planktonic copepods and test if the distribution of copepod functional groups differs across environmental gradients. Location: The Mediterranean Sea. Methods: Functional groups were defined based on clustering of functional traits in 106 marine copepod species using a multivariate ordination analysis. Functional traits included maximum body length, feeding mode, spawning strategy and trophic group. Simultaneously, the global distribution of the species was used to model their environmental niches with six environmental variables. For each of these predictors, four niche parameters were derived from the univariate response curve of each species to summarise their environmental preferences and ordinate the species in niche space through a PCA. Finally, the differences in the position in niche space of functional groups were tested with variance analysis. Results: We identified seven copepod functional groups with different distributions along the environmental gradients covered by our study. While carnivorous functional groups were affiliated with oligotrophic and tropical conditions, large and small current-feeding herbivores are associated with colder, more seasonally varying and productive conditions. Small cruising detritivores and other small current-feeding herbivores were not affiliated with specific conditions as their constituting species were scattered in niche space. Main conclusions: Since copepod functional groups occupy distinct ecological niches, ecosystem processes related to these groups are expected to vary across environmental gradients. Conditions favouring large current-feeding herbivores should allow for enhanced fluxes of energy and nutrients through Mediterranean Sea ecosystems, while such fluxes should be weakened where large carnivores and small passive ambush-feeding copepods dominate. Our study supports the development of trait-based Zooplankton functional groups in marine ecosystem models.
doi_str_mv 10.1111/jbi.13166
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>jstor_hal_p</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_hal_primary_oai_HAL_hal_01826722v1</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><jstor_id>26626974</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>26626974</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3886-cd623c7cb60b0d8ababb2bb2a9b624d64851cb599f8c34955c89251d6b26d1683</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kUtLAzEUhYMoWB8Lf4AQcOVi2jxmMslKfLdSdKPrkGQybeo4GZOp0n9varWuvFy4cPnOgXsuACcYDXGq0UK7IaaYsR0wwJQVGWFC7IIBoqjIECnRPjiIcYEQEgXNB-DxxsN62Zre-VY1cBb8sovQ17BrVPva-9YZaHxnO19FWLm6tgG6FvZz6wK0xjd-5kwSJm5u48UR2KtVE-3xzzwEL3e3z9fjbPp0P7m-nGaGcs4yUzFCTWk0QxpVXGmlNUmthGYkr1jOC2x0IUTNDc1FURguSIErpgmrMOP0EJxvfOeqkV1wbyqspFdOji-ncr1DmBNWEvKBE3u2Ybvg35c29nLhlyFdGyVBqOSC4Vz8OZrgYwy23tpiJNfRyhSt_I42saMN--kau_oflA9Xk1_F6UaxiL0PWwVhLP2nzOkXKiCC2w</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2007896149</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Do functional groups of planktonic copepods differ in their ecological niches?</title><source>JSTOR Archival Journals and Primary Sources Collection</source><source>Wiley-Blackwell Read &amp; Publish Collection</source><creator>Benedetti, Fabio ; Vogt, Meike ; Righetti, Damiano ; Guilhaumon, François ; Ayata, Sakina-Dorothée</creator><creatorcontrib>Benedetti, Fabio ; Vogt, Meike ; Righetti, Damiano ; Guilhaumon, François ; Ayata, Sakina-Dorothée</creatorcontrib><description>Aim: To assess the degree of overlap between the environmental niches of marine planktonic copepods and test if the distribution of copepod functional groups differs across environmental gradients. Location: The Mediterranean Sea. Methods: Functional groups were defined based on clustering of functional traits in 106 marine copepod species using a multivariate ordination analysis. Functional traits included maximum body length, feeding mode, spawning strategy and trophic group. Simultaneously, the global distribution of the species was used to model their environmental niches with six environmental variables. For each of these predictors, four niche parameters were derived from the univariate response curve of each species to summarise their environmental preferences and ordinate the species in niche space through a PCA. Finally, the differences in the position in niche space of functional groups were tested with variance analysis. Results: We identified seven copepod functional groups with different distributions along the environmental gradients covered by our study. While carnivorous functional groups were affiliated with oligotrophic and tropical conditions, large and small current-feeding herbivores are associated with colder, more seasonally varying and productive conditions. Small cruising detritivores and other small current-feeding herbivores were not affiliated with specific conditions as their constituting species were scattered in niche space. Main conclusions: Since copepod functional groups occupy distinct ecological niches, ecosystem processes related to these groups are expected to vary across environmental gradients. Conditions favouring large current-feeding herbivores should allow for enhanced fluxes of energy and nutrients through Mediterranean Sea ecosystems, while such fluxes should be weakened where large carnivores and small passive ambush-feeding copepods dominate. Our study supports the development of trait-based Zooplankton functional groups in marine ecosystem models.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0305-0270</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1365-2699</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/jbi.13166</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Oxford: John Wiley &amp; Sons Ltd</publisher><subject>Biodiversity and Ecology ; Body length ; Carnivores ; Clustering ; Copepoda ; copepods ; Detritivores ; Earth Sciences ; Ecological monitoring ; Ecological niches ; Ecosystem models ; Environment models ; Environmental gradient ; environmental niche ; Environmental Sciences ; Feeding ; Feeding behavior ; Fluxes ; Functional groups ; Herbivores ; Marine ecosystems ; Morphology and diversity ; Niches ; Nutrients ; Oceanography ; Ordination ; Sciences of the Universe ; Spawning ; Species ; trait biogeography ; Variance analysis ; Zooplankton</subject><ispartof>Journal of biogeography, 2018-03, Vol.45 (3), p.604-616</ispartof><rights>Copyright © 2017 John Wiley &amp; Sons Ltd.</rights><rights>2018 John Wiley &amp; Sons Ltd</rights><rights>Copyright © 2018 John Wiley &amp; Sons Ltd</rights><rights>Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3886-cd623c7cb60b0d8ababb2bb2a9b624d64851cb599f8c34955c89251d6b26d1683</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3886-cd623c7cb60b0d8ababb2bb2a9b624d64851cb599f8c34955c89251d6b26d1683</cites><orcidid>0000-0003-4707-8932 ; 0000-0002-7554-3646 ; 0000-0003-3226-9779</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/26626974$$EPDF$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/26626974$$EHTML$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,780,784,885,27924,27925,58238,58471</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://hal.science/hal-01826722$$DView record in HAL$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Benedetti, Fabio</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vogt, Meike</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Righetti, Damiano</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Guilhaumon, François</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ayata, Sakina-Dorothée</creatorcontrib><title>Do functional groups of planktonic copepods differ in their ecological niches?</title><title>Journal of biogeography</title><description>Aim: To assess the degree of overlap between the environmental niches of marine planktonic copepods and test if the distribution of copepod functional groups differs across environmental gradients. Location: The Mediterranean Sea. Methods: Functional groups were defined based on clustering of functional traits in 106 marine copepod species using a multivariate ordination analysis. Functional traits included maximum body length, feeding mode, spawning strategy and trophic group. Simultaneously, the global distribution of the species was used to model their environmental niches with six environmental variables. For each of these predictors, four niche parameters were derived from the univariate response curve of each species to summarise their environmental preferences and ordinate the species in niche space through a PCA. Finally, the differences in the position in niche space of functional groups were tested with variance analysis. Results: We identified seven copepod functional groups with different distributions along the environmental gradients covered by our study. While carnivorous functional groups were affiliated with oligotrophic and tropical conditions, large and small current-feeding herbivores are associated with colder, more seasonally varying and productive conditions. Small cruising detritivores and other small current-feeding herbivores were not affiliated with specific conditions as their constituting species were scattered in niche space. Main conclusions: Since copepod functional groups occupy distinct ecological niches, ecosystem processes related to these groups are expected to vary across environmental gradients. Conditions favouring large current-feeding herbivores should allow for enhanced fluxes of energy and nutrients through Mediterranean Sea ecosystems, while such fluxes should be weakened where large carnivores and small passive ambush-feeding copepods dominate. Our study supports the development of trait-based Zooplankton functional groups in marine ecosystem models.</description><subject>Biodiversity and Ecology</subject><subject>Body length</subject><subject>Carnivores</subject><subject>Clustering</subject><subject>Copepoda</subject><subject>copepods</subject><subject>Detritivores</subject><subject>Earth Sciences</subject><subject>Ecological monitoring</subject><subject>Ecological niches</subject><subject>Ecosystem models</subject><subject>Environment models</subject><subject>Environmental gradient</subject><subject>environmental niche</subject><subject>Environmental Sciences</subject><subject>Feeding</subject><subject>Feeding behavior</subject><subject>Fluxes</subject><subject>Functional groups</subject><subject>Herbivores</subject><subject>Marine ecosystems</subject><subject>Morphology and diversity</subject><subject>Niches</subject><subject>Nutrients</subject><subject>Oceanography</subject><subject>Ordination</subject><subject>Sciences of the Universe</subject><subject>Spawning</subject><subject>Species</subject><subject>trait biogeography</subject><subject>Variance analysis</subject><subject>Zooplankton</subject><issn>0305-0270</issn><issn>1365-2699</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2018</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp1kUtLAzEUhYMoWB8Lf4AQcOVi2jxmMslKfLdSdKPrkGQybeo4GZOp0n9varWuvFy4cPnOgXsuACcYDXGq0UK7IaaYsR0wwJQVGWFC7IIBoqjIECnRPjiIcYEQEgXNB-DxxsN62Zre-VY1cBb8sovQ17BrVPva-9YZaHxnO19FWLm6tgG6FvZz6wK0xjd-5kwSJm5u48UR2KtVE-3xzzwEL3e3z9fjbPp0P7m-nGaGcs4yUzFCTWk0QxpVXGmlNUmthGYkr1jOC2x0IUTNDc1FURguSIErpgmrMOP0EJxvfOeqkV1wbyqspFdOji-ncr1DmBNWEvKBE3u2Ybvg35c29nLhlyFdGyVBqOSC4Vz8OZrgYwy23tpiJNfRyhSt_I42saMN--kau_oflA9Xk1_F6UaxiL0PWwVhLP2nzOkXKiCC2w</recordid><startdate>201803</startdate><enddate>201803</enddate><creator>Benedetti, Fabio</creator><creator>Vogt, Meike</creator><creator>Righetti, Damiano</creator><creator>Guilhaumon, François</creator><creator>Ayata, Sakina-Dorothée</creator><general>John Wiley &amp; Sons Ltd</general><general>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</general><general>Wiley</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7SS</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>RC3</scope><scope>1XC</scope><scope>VOOES</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4707-8932</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7554-3646</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3226-9779</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>201803</creationdate><title>Do functional groups of planktonic copepods differ in their ecological niches?</title><author>Benedetti, Fabio ; Vogt, Meike ; Righetti, Damiano ; Guilhaumon, François ; Ayata, Sakina-Dorothée</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3886-cd623c7cb60b0d8ababb2bb2a9b624d64851cb599f8c34955c89251d6b26d1683</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2018</creationdate><topic>Biodiversity and Ecology</topic><topic>Body length</topic><topic>Carnivores</topic><topic>Clustering</topic><topic>Copepoda</topic><topic>copepods</topic><topic>Detritivores</topic><topic>Earth Sciences</topic><topic>Ecological monitoring</topic><topic>Ecological niches</topic><topic>Ecosystem models</topic><topic>Environment models</topic><topic>Environmental gradient</topic><topic>environmental niche</topic><topic>Environmental Sciences</topic><topic>Feeding</topic><topic>Feeding behavior</topic><topic>Fluxes</topic><topic>Functional groups</topic><topic>Herbivores</topic><topic>Marine ecosystems</topic><topic>Morphology and diversity</topic><topic>Niches</topic><topic>Nutrients</topic><topic>Oceanography</topic><topic>Ordination</topic><topic>Sciences of the Universe</topic><topic>Spawning</topic><topic>Species</topic><topic>trait biogeography</topic><topic>Variance analysis</topic><topic>Zooplankton</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Benedetti, Fabio</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vogt, Meike</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Righetti, Damiano</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Guilhaumon, François</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ayata, Sakina-Dorothée</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Entomology Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><collection>Hyper Article en Ligne (HAL)</collection><collection>Hyper Article en Ligne (HAL) (Open Access)</collection><jtitle>Journal of biogeography</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Benedetti, Fabio</au><au>Vogt, Meike</au><au>Righetti, Damiano</au><au>Guilhaumon, François</au><au>Ayata, Sakina-Dorothée</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Do functional groups of planktonic copepods differ in their ecological niches?</atitle><jtitle>Journal of biogeography</jtitle><date>2018-03</date><risdate>2018</risdate><volume>45</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>604</spage><epage>616</epage><pages>604-616</pages><issn>0305-0270</issn><eissn>1365-2699</eissn><abstract>Aim: To assess the degree of overlap between the environmental niches of marine planktonic copepods and test if the distribution of copepod functional groups differs across environmental gradients. Location: The Mediterranean Sea. Methods: Functional groups were defined based on clustering of functional traits in 106 marine copepod species using a multivariate ordination analysis. Functional traits included maximum body length, feeding mode, spawning strategy and trophic group. Simultaneously, the global distribution of the species was used to model their environmental niches with six environmental variables. For each of these predictors, four niche parameters were derived from the univariate response curve of each species to summarise their environmental preferences and ordinate the species in niche space through a PCA. Finally, the differences in the position in niche space of functional groups were tested with variance analysis. Results: We identified seven copepod functional groups with different distributions along the environmental gradients covered by our study. While carnivorous functional groups were affiliated with oligotrophic and tropical conditions, large and small current-feeding herbivores are associated with colder, more seasonally varying and productive conditions. Small cruising detritivores and other small current-feeding herbivores were not affiliated with specific conditions as their constituting species were scattered in niche space. Main conclusions: Since copepod functional groups occupy distinct ecological niches, ecosystem processes related to these groups are expected to vary across environmental gradients. Conditions favouring large current-feeding herbivores should allow for enhanced fluxes of energy and nutrients through Mediterranean Sea ecosystems, while such fluxes should be weakened where large carnivores and small passive ambush-feeding copepods dominate. Our study supports the development of trait-based Zooplankton functional groups in marine ecosystem models.</abstract><cop>Oxford</cop><pub>John Wiley &amp; Sons Ltd</pub><doi>10.1111/jbi.13166</doi><tpages>13</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4707-8932</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7554-3646</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3226-9779</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0305-0270
ispartof Journal of biogeography, 2018-03, Vol.45 (3), p.604-616
issn 0305-0270
1365-2699
language eng
recordid cdi_hal_primary_oai_HAL_hal_01826722v1
source JSTOR Archival Journals and Primary Sources Collection; Wiley-Blackwell Read & Publish Collection
subjects Biodiversity and Ecology
Body length
Carnivores
Clustering
Copepoda
copepods
Detritivores
Earth Sciences
Ecological monitoring
Ecological niches
Ecosystem models
Environment models
Environmental gradient
environmental niche
Environmental Sciences
Feeding
Feeding behavior
Fluxes
Functional groups
Herbivores
Marine ecosystems
Morphology and diversity
Niches
Nutrients
Oceanography
Ordination
Sciences of the Universe
Spawning
Species
trait biogeography
Variance analysis
Zooplankton
title Do functional groups of planktonic copepods differ in their ecological niches?
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-25T21%3A18%3A19IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-jstor_hal_p&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Do%20functional%20groups%20of%20planktonic%20copepods%20differ%20in%20their%20ecological%20niches?&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20biogeography&rft.au=Benedetti,%20Fabio&rft.date=2018-03&rft.volume=45&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=604&rft.epage=616&rft.pages=604-616&rft.issn=0305-0270&rft.eissn=1365-2699&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/jbi.13166&rft_dat=%3Cjstor_hal_p%3E26626974%3C/jstor_hal_p%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3886-cd623c7cb60b0d8ababb2bb2a9b624d64851cb599f8c34955c89251d6b26d1683%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2007896149&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_jstor_id=26626974&rfr_iscdi=true