Habitat-mediated variation in the importance of ecosystem engineers for secondary cavity nesters in a nest web.

• Main Authors: Hugo Robles, Kathy Martin
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: Public Library of Science (PLoS) 2014-01-01
• Series: PLoS ONE
• Online Access: http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC3938590?pdf=render

Through physical state changes in biotic or abiotic materials, ecosystem engineers modulate resource availability to other organisms and are major drivers of evolutionary and ecological dynamics. Understanding whether and how ecosystem engineers are interchangeable for resource users in different habitats is a largely neglected topic in ecosystem engineering research that can improve our understanding of the structure of communities. We addressed this issue in a cavity-nest web (1999-2011). In aspen groves, the presence of mountain bluebird (Sialia currucoides) and tree swallow (Tachycineta bicolour) nests was positively related to the density of cavities supplied by northern flickers (Colaptes auratus), which provided the most abundant cavities (1.61 cavities/ha). Flickers in aspen groves provided numerous nesting cavities to bluebirds (66%) and swallows (46%), despite previous research showing that flicker cavities are avoided by swallows. In continuous mixed forests, however, the presence of nesting swallows was mainly related to cavity density of red-naped sapsuckers (Sphyrapicus nuchalis), which provided the most abundant cavities (0.52 cavities/ha), and to cavity density of hairy woodpeckers (Picoides villosus), which provided few (0.14 cavities/ha) but high-quality cavities. Overall, sapsuckers and hairy woodpeckers provided 86% of nesting cavities to swallows in continuous forests. In contrast, the presence of nesting bluebirds in continuous forests was associated with the density of cavities supplied by all the ecosystem engineers. These results suggest that (i) habitat type may mediate the associations between ecosystem engineers and resource users, and (ii) different ecosystem engineers may be interchangeable for resource users depending on the quantity and quality of resources that each engineer supplies in each habitat type. We, therefore, urge the incorporation of the variation in the quantity and quality of resources provided by ecosystem engineers across habitats into models that assess community dynamics to improve our understanding of the importance of ecosystem engineers in shaping ecological communities.