# Stressed but Stable: Canopy Loss Decreased Species Synchrony and Metabolic Variability in an Intertidal Hard-Bottom Community

Nelson Valdivia, Claire Golléty, Aline Migné, Dominique Davoult, Markus Molis

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

To cite this version:

Nelson Valdivia, Claire Golléty, Aline Migné, Dominique Davoult, Markus Molis. Stressed but Stable: Canopy Loss Decreased Species Synchrony and Metabolic Variability in an Intertidal Hard-Bottom Community. PLoS ONE, 2012, 7 (5), pp.e36541. 10.1371/journal.pone.0036541. hal-01255962

HAL Id: hal-01255962

https://hal.science/hal-01255962

Submitted on 14 Jan 2016

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
# Stressed but Stable: Canopy Loss Decreased Species Synchrony and Metabolic Variability in an Intertidal Hard-Bottom Community

Nelson Valdivia¹,²*, Claire Golléty³,⁴,⁵, Aline Migné³,⁴, Dominique Davoult³,⁴, Markus Molis⁶

¹Instituto de Ciencias Marinas y Limnológicas, Facultad de Ciencias, Universidad Austral de Chile, Valdivia, Chile, ²Centro de Estudios Avanzados de Zonas Áridas (CEAZA), Facultad de Ciencias del Mar, Universidad Católica del Norte, Coquimbo, Chile, ³Université Pierre et Marie Curie (UPMC), Université Paris 6, Station Biologique de Roscoff, Roscoff, France, ⁴Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS, UMR 7144), Station Biologique de Roscoff, Roscoff, France, ⁵Sediment Ecology Research Group, Scottish Oceans Institute, University of St. Andrews, St. Andrews, United Kingdom, ⁶Biologische Anstalt Helgoland, Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research, Section Functional Ecology, Helgoland, Germany

## Abstract

The temporal stability of aggregate community properties depends on the dynamics of the component species. Since species growth can compensate for the decline of other species, synchronous species dynamics can maintain stability (i.e. invariability) in aggregate properties such as community abundance and metabolism. In field experiments we tested the separate and interactive effects of two stressors associated with storminess-loss of a canopy-forming species and mechanical disturbances-on species synchrony and community respiration of intertidal hard-bottom communities on Helgoland Island, NE Atlantic. Treatments consisted of regular removal of the canopy-forming seaweed *Fucus serratus* and a mechanical disturbance applied once at the onset of the experiment in March 2006. The level of synchrony in species abundances was assessed from estimates of species percentage cover every three months until September 2007. Experiments at two sites consistently showed that canopy loss significantly reduced species synchrony. Mechanical disturbance had neither separate nor interactive effects on species synchrony. Accordingly, *in situ* measurements of CO₂-fluxes showed that canopy loss, but not mechanical disturbances, significantly reduced net primary productivity and temporal variation in community respiration during emersion periods. Our results support the idea that compensatory dynamics may stabilise aggregate properties. They further suggest that the ecological consequences of the loss of a single structurally important species may be stronger than those derived from smaller-scale mechanical disturbances in natural ecosystems.

**Citation:** Valdivia N, Golléty C, Migné A, Davoult D, Molis M (2012) Stressed but Stable: Canopy Loss Decreased Species Synchrony and Metabolic Variability in an Intertidal Hard-Bottom Community. PLoS ONE 7(5): e36541. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0036541

**Editor:** Simon Thrush, National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research, New Zealand

**Received** December 5, 2011; **Accepted** April 9, 2012; **Published** May 4, 2012

**Copyright:** © 2012 Valdivia et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

**Funding:** Research was supported by the Sustainable Development, Global Change and Ecosystems Programme of the European Community's Sixth Framework Programme (contract # GOCE-CT-2003-505446), and by funds from the Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research and the Fondo Nacional de Desarrollo Científico y Tecnológico de Chile (FONDECYT, grant # 3100014) to NV. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

**Competing Interests:** The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

* E-mail: nelson.valdivia@uach.cl

## Introduction

Current rates of species loss have spurred studies testing the influence of diversity on the stability of natural communities [1,2]. As a result, ecologists recognise today that community stability depends on the temporal dynamics of the species that form the communities [1]. Species abundances can be highly variable over time, influenced by external abiotic factors, internal biotic interactions, and the combination of both [3]. The effect of species' abundance variability on community stability may depend on the degree to which species fluctuations are synchronous or compensatory [4]. Theoretical models indicate that the loss or decline of species can be compensated by others with different environmental tolerances, maintaining relative stability (i.e. invariability) in aggregate, community-level properties like community abundance and productivity [1,3,5,6]. However, field-based evidence that compensatory dynamics maintain community stability is still inconclusive [7,8,9,10].

Community respiration, defined as the sum of metabolic rates across species, is an important aggregate property because of its determinant role in the carbon cycle [11]. In addition, it directly reflects resource availability, representing therefore a powerful indicator of ecosystem "health" and ecological conditions [8]. Several studies show that compensatory species dynamics maintain a steady state in the rates of resource supply and resource use [12,13,14,15]. Therefore, it can be predicted that the degree of synchrony in species abundances may influence the temporal variation in community metabolism [16]. According to Micheli [4], testing this hypothesis needs species attributes to vary independently from those at the community-level. Both, species abundances and community-level metabolism should be measured independently.

In addition, it is still necessary to assess the effect of key species on community stability [17]. On temperate rocky shores, canopy-forming algae are key structural elements that modify the environment and facilitate or suppress the occurrence of other

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>
species [18,19,20]. Facilitation by canopy-forming seaweeds may occur by alleviating abiotic stress through shading and reduced desiccation [21,22]. Canopies may prevent recruitment of understorey species by pre-emption or sweeping fronds [23,24,25]. In addition, large and dominant species can be more persistent than subordinate ones [26,27]. So, the presence of a dominant species may increase the stability of aggregate properties [28]. This could be the case of canopy-forming macroalgae, whose structural specialisation of thallus may confer them toughness and resistance to mechanical stress [29]. Moreover, canopy-forming seaweed can be responsible for a significant proportion of community metabolism [30,31,32]. These effects on species abundances and community-level properties suggest that canopies influence the temporal variability at both levels of ecological organisation.

Loss of large canopy-forming species is accelerated [33], and mechanical stress on coastal ecosystems increases as a consequence of, for instance, increased storminess [34]. Canopy loss may also exacerbate the effects of additional storm-induced disturbances on community stability. Crashing waves can dislodge or harm benthic organisms on rocky shores [35], and these effects can be disproportionately larger on delicate growth forms than massive

canopy-forming seaweeds [29]. Consequently, mechanical disturbances may affect the composition of understorey assemblages without necessarily removing canopies. Since canopies can limit the subset of species able to colonise the substratum [23], the effects of disturbances on the understorey community could be weak when canopies are present, but strong when canopies are removed. Cumulative evidence suggests that canopy removal and mechanical disturbances interactively affect community structure [20,36,37]; however, studies linking these interactive effects to stability are still necessary to acquire a mechanistic understanding of the ecological consequences of anthropogenic impacts on natural communities.

Here we tested the separate and interactive effects of canopy removal and mechanical disturbance on species synchrony and the temporal variability in community respiration of intertidal rocky shore communities. Species synchrony was defined as the degree to which species' abundances vary simultaneously over time; for example, species synchrony will be high if most species' abundances show parallel increases or decreases. We measured species abundances and community-level respiration independently, instead of calculating the latter as a scalar function of species

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 1.** CAP ordination plots of species composition (A) before and (B) 1-3 days after canopy removal and mechanical disturbance treatments, and (C) long-term mean cover of *Fucus serratus* canopy. In panels A and B, the first and second CAP axes explained 41% and 34% of total inertia, respectively, at Nordostwatt and 68 and 17, respectively, at Westwatt. D- and D+ are undisturbed or disturbed treatments, respectively; C+ and C- indicate presence and removal of canopy, respectively. In panel C asterisks indicate significant differences between canopy treatments, and values are given as means ± SEM (n=5)
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0036541.g001</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /></figure>
attributes [15]. This allowed independent estimators of species-
and community-level variability. Factorial field experiments were
conducted to test the predictions (1) that canopy removal and
mechanical disturbances affect species synchrony and metabolic
variability, and (2) that the effects of mechanical disturbance are
stronger in communities that have lost the canopy than in
communities with a canopy present.

**Materials and Methods**

Study sites

Experiments were conducted in the intertidal at two sites, 'Westwatt' (54°11'22"S, 7°52'14"E) and 'Nordostwatt' (54°11'8"S, 7°52'26"E), located in the nature reserve of Helgoland Island, German Bight, NE Atlantic. This research adheres to the legal requirements of the Schleswig-Holstein state act of 24 April 1981 (classification number 791-4-37) that declared the rocky shores below the high tide limit in Helgoland a nature reserve and allows ecologists to conduct and maintain manipulative field experiments. The intertidal hard-bottom community at both sites is dominated by the toothed wrack *Fucus serratus*. The most abundant seaweed species of the understorey include crustose coralline algae (mostly *Phymatolithon* spp.) and the turf-forming algae *Cladophora rupestris*, *Chondrus crispus*, and *Corallina officinalis* [38]. During spring and summer, foliose and filamentous ephemeral algae such as *Ulva* spp., *Dumontia contorta*, Ectocarpales, and seasonal Cladophorales are abundant in gaps between the *F. serratus* canopy [39]. The most common sessile invertebrate species are the hydroid *Dynamena pumila*, the polychaete *Spirorbis spirorbis*, and the bryozoan *Electra pilosa*, while conspicuous mobile consumers include the green crab *Carcinus maenas* and several species of periwinkles dominated by *Littorina littorea* [40,41].

Experimental design and set-up

Fully factorial experiments were designed with 2 canopy
treatments [canopy unchanged (C+) or fully removed (C−)] and
2 levels of mechanical disturbance treatments [undisturbed (D−)
or disturbed (D+)] with 5 replicates at each of the 2 sites ( = 40
experimental units).

The experiment was conducted between March 2006 and
September 2007 and all manipulations and observations were
performed during emersion times. Prior to manipulations, the
position of twenty 0.3×0.3 m plots with ≥90% *F. serratus* cover
were permanently marked at each site with stainless steel screws.
Plot size was adopted from other experiments involving the
removal of fucoid canopies [42] and used to minimise the impact
of this manipulation on the natural *F. serratus* population. Plots
were positioned on flat, gently sloping surfaces lacking larger
crevices in order to ensure homogeneity among plots and correct
fitting of benthic CO₂ chambers (see *Community metabolism* section
below). To reduce the possibility of effects from adjacent canopies,
all *F. serratus* plants were removed from a 50 cm wide band around
C- plots so that adjacent *F. serratus* specimens could not reach into
these plots.

At the start of the experiment in March 2006, all *F. serratus*
specimens were completely removed with a knife from 10 plots at
each site (C-), while canopies of remaining 10 plots were left
untouched (C+). This treatment was repeated every three months
until the end of the study. Care was taken that remaining
organisms were not damaged. Five plots were randomly selected
from each canopy treatment to apply the mechanical disturbance
treatment (D+) once at the start of the experiment in early spring.
We selected this timing of disturbance in order to match the main
settlement period of several intertidal algae in Helgoland [43,44].

Mechanical disturbance treatment consisted of a biomass removal
with 50% of the effort required to remove all organisms (except
crustose algae) from a plot. In pilot tests, 36 scratches of a 2 cm
wide chisel were needed to remove all organisms from a 0.3×0.3
m area. Thus, 18 chisel scratches were haphazardly applied to
selected plots at each site. In the D+C+ treatment combination,
some *F. serratus* specimens were damaged or dislodged due to the
mechanical disturbance. Nevertheless, this effect can be seen as
analogous to that of any mechanical disturbance naturally
impacting these assemblages (e.g. wave action). Therefore, we
assumed that mechanical dislodgement of *F. serratus* in D+C+ plots
did not prevent logic interpretation of separate and interactive
effects of canopy removal and mechanical disturbances on stability
[37].

Sampling

**Species synchrony.** Percentage cover of each macro-epi-benthic species (>5 cm) was estimated per plot to the nearest 1% by the same observer (i) prior to, (ii) 1–3 days after, and (iii) every three months after the initial treatment in March 2006 until September 2007. Percentage cover directly reflects resource availability in marine hard-bottom communities, where competition for settlement surfaces is regarded as a pivotal driver of species dynamics [45]. In addition, percentage cover is routinely used as a proxy for species abundances [46], and can be significantly correlated with biomass [47]. Because the abundance of organisms attached to primary and secondary substrate was considered and due to the multi-layered structure of communities, cover estimates for the sum of all species on each plot (i.e. total community cover) were not limited to 100%. Accordingly, it was assumed that percentage cover was appropriate to assess temporal dynamics in species abundances. In order to corroborate the correlation between percentage cover and biomass, we determined at the end of the experiment dry mass (hereafter biomass) of the assemblage of each plot in Nordostwatt after all species cover was removed and dried to constant weight at 60°C.

Taxa were identified to the lowest possible taxonomic level in
the field, usually to species level. When appropriate, specimens of
unidentified taxa were taken from adjacent areas to the laboratory
for species identification. Four taxa could only be identified to
genus level (*Porphyra* spp., *Phymatolithon* spp., *Sagartia* spp., and *Ulva*

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 2.** Effects of removal of *Fucus serratus* canopy and mechanical disturbance on synchrony in species abundances ($\phi_x$) at Nordostwatt and Westwatt. Values of $\phi_x$=1 indicate perfect synchrony; $\phi_x$=0 indicates perfect asynchrony. D- and D+ indicate undisturbed and mechanically disturbed treatments, respectively. Values are given as means ± SEM (n=5). Asterisks denote significant differences between canopy treatments.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0036541.g002</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_7.png" /></figure>
<table><caption>**Table 1.** ANOVA of the effects of canopy removal and mechanical disturbance on synchrony in species abundances, temporal coefficient of variation of community respiration ($V_{CR}$), and understorey community respiration.</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Source of variation</th><th colspan="4">Species synchrony<sup>1</sup></th><th colspan="4">Understorey species synchrony<sup>1</sup></th></tr><tr><th>DF</th><th>MS</th><th>F</th><th>P</th><th>MS<sub>den.</sub></th><th>DF</th><th>MS</th><th>F</th><th>P</th><th>MS<sub>den.</sub></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Site = S</td><td>1</td><td>0.0225</td><td>3.33</td><td>0.077</td><td>Residuals</td><td>1</td><td>0.0060</td><td>2.6364</td><td>0.114</td><td>Residuals</td></tr><tr><td>Canopy = C</td><td>1</td><td>0.2053</td><td>31.14</td><td>&lt;0.001</td><td>Pooled</td><td>1</td><td>0.0428</td><td>19.5975</td><td>&lt;0.001</td><td>Pooled</td></tr><tr><td>Disturbance = D</td><td>1</td><td>0.0017</td><td>0.25</td><td>0.621</td><td>S × D</td><td>1</td><td>0.0027</td><td>1.1685</td><td>0.288</td><td>Pooled</td></tr><tr><td>S × C</td><td>1</td><td>0.0001</td><td>0.01</td><td>0.921</td><td>Pooled</td><td>1</td><td>0.0004</td><td>0.1684</td><td>0.684</td><td>Residuals</td></tr><tr><td>S × D</td><td>1</td><td>0.0114</td><td>1.7</td><td>0.202</td><td>Residuals</td><td>1</td><td>0.0015</td><td>0.6358</td><td>0.431</td><td>Residuals</td></tr><tr><td>C × D</td><td>1</td><td>&lt;0.0001</td><td>&lt;0.1</td><td>0.977</td><td>Pooled</td><td>1</td><td>0.0005</td><td>0.2166</td><td>0.645</td><td>Pooled</td></tr><tr><td>S × C × D</td><td>1</td><td>0.008</td><td>1.19</td><td>0.284</td><td>Residuals</td><td>1</td><td>0.0013</td><td>0.5604</td><td>0.459</td><td>Residuals</td></tr><tr><td>Residuals</td><td>32</td><td>0.0068</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>32</td><td>0.0023</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Pooled</td><td>34</td><td>0.0066</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>36</td><td>0.0022</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Transformation</td><td colspan="4">Square-root</td><td colspan="4">Square-root</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><th colspan="11" style="text-align: center;">Temporal variation in community respiration (V<sub>CR</sub>)<sup>2</sup></th></tr><tr><th></th><th>DF</th><th>MS</th><th>pseudo-F</th><th>P Monte Carlo</th><th>Understorey community respiration<sup>2</sup></th><th>DF</th><th>MS</th><th>pseudo-F</th><th>P Monte Carlo</th><th></th></tr><tr><td>Canopy = C</td><td>1</td><td>0.8469</td><td>18.22</td><td><strong>0.017</strong></td><td></td><td>1</td><td>0.1027</td><td>0.04</td><td>0.859</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Disturbance = D</td><td>1</td><td>0.1159</td><td>2.49</td><td>0.193</td><td></td><td>1</td><td>1.9911</td><td>0.72</td><td>0.402</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>C × D</td><td>1</td><td>0.009</td><td>0.19</td><td>0.687</td><td></td><td>1</td><td>0.0046</td><td>0.00</td><td>0.959</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Residuals</td><td>4</td><td>0.0465</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>8</td><td>2.7546</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Transformation</td><td colspan="4">None</td><td colspan="4">None</td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

The abundance of *F. serratus* was included in the analyses of synchrony ("Species synchrony"). The analysis was repeated after excluding *F. serratus* abundance in order to check for consistency of results ("Understorey species synchrony"). DF, SS, and MS stand for degrees of freedom, sum of squares, and mean squares, respectively. Significant P-values are in bold.

¹For species synchrony, terms used as denominator for F-ratio are listed in the column *MS<sub>den.</sub>* Error terms with highly conservative P-values (>0.25) were removed from the model. Synchrony was measured at Nordostwatt and Westwatt (n=40). ²For $V_{CR}$ and understorey community respiration (n=2 and 3, respectively), the distribution of the F-ratio was obtained after 999 Monte Carlo samples of raw data. $V_{CR}$ and understorey community respiration were measured at Nordostwatt

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0036541.t001

<figure><img src="image_8.png" /></figure>
spp.), while small spionids were grouped at the family level (Spionidae) and small brown filamentous algae at the order level (Ectocarpales).

We used species abundance data obtained before treatments to confirm that the experimental communities were similar in terms of species composition. Species abundances estimated within 3 days after manipulations were used to validate treatment efficacy (see statistical analyses, below). Three-monthly estimates on species abundances were used to test our hypotheses as explained on the following lines.

We used the $\phi_x$ statistic to measure community-wide synchrony [48] as:

$$ \phi_x = \sigma^2 \left( \sum_{i=1}^{N} x_i \right) / \left( \sum_{i=1}^{N} \sigma_{x_i} \right)^2 \quad (1) $$

where $\phi_x$ describes the sum of the standard deviations of all N individual species ($x_i$) with respect to the variance of the summed total and is standardised between 0 (perfect asynchrony) and 1 (perfect synchrony; i.e. most species' abundances show positively correlated changes over time). The $\phi_x$ statistic uses the fact that the variance of an aggregate property can be partitioned into the sum of all species variances plus the sum of all pair-wise species covariances [49,50] such that:

$$ \sigma^2 \left( \sum_{i=1}^{N} x_i \right) = \sum_{i=1}^{N} \sigma_{x_i}^2 + 2 \left( \sum_{i=1}^{N} \sum_{j=1}^{i-1} \sigma^2(x_i, x_j) \right) \quad (2) $$

The $\phi_x$ statistic does not make any assumption on the magnitude and distribution of species abundances and variances, allowing quantitative comparisons of communities with different species richness [48]. The percentage cover of F. serratus was included in the calculations of species synchrony. The analysis was, however, repeated after excluding F. serratus abundance from the dataset in order to check for consistency of results (see results).

**Community metabolism.** CO₂-fluxes due to respiration at the rock-air interface were measured at low tide 6, 16, and 18 months after starting the experiment. All metabolic measurements were conducted during daytime. Due to logistic constrains, community metabolism was measured at only one site (Nordostwatt). We used a benthic chamber made of a transparent Perspex dome with a 0.3×0.3 m transparent Perspex base, equalling a total volume of 18.9 L [51]. Each plot was completely enclosed by the chamber base and air-tightly sealed with neutral silicon. Changes in CO₂ mol fraction were measured by an infrared CO₂ gas analyser (LI-800; LI-COR Inc., Lincoln, NE, USA) and recorded with a data logger (LI-1400; LI-COR Inc.) every 15 seconds. Each plot was incubated for ca. 20 min and CO₂ fluxes then calculated from the absolute value of the slope of CO₂ concentration (µmol CO₂ mol air⁻¹) against time. Results were expressed as carbon units (mmol C m⁻² h⁻¹), assuming a molar volume of 22.4 L mol⁻¹ at standard temperature and pressure. Measurements were carried out in darkness, by covering the chamber with an opaque polyethylene sheet, to assess community respiration (CR). The coefficient of variation of CR ($V_{CR}$ = sd/mean$_{CR}$) was then calculated from the three measurements made during the experiment of each plot. Coefficients of CR variation were used to test the hypothesis of separate and interactive effects of canopy removal and mechanical disturbance on the temporal variation in community metabolism.

In addition, 6 months after the onset of the experiment we measured CO₂-fluxes under light conditions to assess net primary

productivity (NPP). During the incubations, air temperatures in the chamber ranged between 19 and 25°C (July), and between 9 and 16°C (October). Nevertheless, air temperatures varied over time during the incubations by -0.45% in July and +0.71% in October.

Due to the dominance of the canopy, it is likely that canopy itself could explain any observed differences in metabolism between C+ and C⁻ plots. In order to compare only understorey species, we obtained an additional sample of CR at the end of the experiment after having removed the canopy from the C+ plots (i.e. understorey community respiration). These understorey CR values were obtained immediately after the last CR measurements.

## Statistical analysis

Permutational multivariate analysis of variance (PERMANOVA [52]) were used to test (i) whether experimental communities allocated to different treatment combinations varied in their species composition before manipulations, (ii) whether canopy removal affected species composition of understorey communities, and (iii) to validate the efficacy of the mechanical disturbance treatment. These analyses were complemented with a canonical analysis on principal coordinates (CAP [53]), a constrained multivariate method that uses an *a priori* hypothesis to produce an ordination plot, allowing us to detect patterns that could be masked by overall dispersion in unconstrained methods such as multidimensional scaling. CAP plots were based on a matrix of factors (canopy and mechanical disturbance) fitted to a matrix of Bray-Curtis dissimilarities calculated from presence/absence-transformed data. PERMANOVA and CAP analyses were conducted for each site, before, and 1-3 days after the application of treatments.

Treatment effects on species synchrony were tested using a 3-way mixed ANOVA with canopy (2 levels: C+ or C⁻) and mechanical disturbance (2 levels: D⁻ or D⁺) as fixed factors, and site (2 levels: Nordostwatt and Westwatt) as a random factor. Highly conservative (P>0.25) error terms were removed from the model and F-ratio statistics were then calculated with a pooled denominator [54]. Net primary productivity and biomass were analysed with separate 2-way ANOVAs. Homogeneity of variance was graphically explored by means of residuals-vs.-fits and normal

<figure><img src="image_9.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 3.** Effects of canopy removal and mechanical disturbance on the coefficient of temporal variation of community respiration ($V_{CR}$) at Nordostwatt. D⁻ and D⁺ indicate undisturbed or mechanically disturbed treatments, respectively. Values are mean (± SEM, n = 2). Asterisk denotes a significant difference between canopy treatments.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0036541.g003</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_10.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_11.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 4.** Effects of canopy removal and mechanical disturbance on the Net Primary Productivity (NNP, panel A) and biomass (B) at Nordostwatt. D− and D+ indicate undisturbed or mechanically disturbed treatments, respectively. NPP and biomass were obtained 6 and 18 months after the onset of the experiment, respectively. Values are mean (± SEM, n=5). Asterisk denotes a significant difference between canopy treatments.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0036541.g004</figcaption></figure>

Q-Q plots. Data of species synchrony were square root transformed to achieve homoscedasticity.

Due to harsh weather conditions, we were only able to consistently quantify community respiration over time on 2 plots for each treatment combination. At the last sample date (18 months), we were able to measure understorey community respiration on 3 replicate plots. Distributional assumptions cannot be assessed in a design with very low replication. Therefore, we obtained distribution free F-statistics for main and interactive treatment effects on *V*<sub>CR</sub> and understorey community respiration after 999 Monte Carlo samples of raw data; the P-value was calculated as the percentile rank of the observed F-ratio among the samples of F-values [55,56]. This method does not rely on homogenous variances [56], which makes it preferable over rank-based tests (e.g. Scheirer-Ray-Hare test [57]), for which the assumption of equality of variances across groups still applies [54].

Multivariate analyses were conducted in order to identify the species contributing most to differences in community structure between treatments. Separately for each sample date and site, we conducted similarity percentage routines (SIMPER), which consisted in calculating Bray-Curtis dissimilarities between all pairs of treatments and then breaking down the average between-group dissimilarity into the contribution from each species [58].

SIMPER routines were performed using PRIMER v.5. All other statistical analyses were conducted using the R environment version 2.13.1 [59].

## Results

We identified a total of 51 species in the understorey assemblages at both sites. Invertebrates were represented by 27 species, red algae by 15, brown algae by 5, and green algae by 4 (see reference [60] for a complete species list). A total of 48 and 47 species were identified in Nordostwatt and Westwatt, respectively. Apart from crustose coralline algae like *Phymatolithon* spp. dominating understorey assemblages at both sites, Cladophorales like *C. rupestris* (mean cover ± standard error of the mean: 20.3±1.8%) and *Cladophora sericea* (6.9±0.2%) were more abundant at Nordostwatt, and turf-forming algae like *C. crispus* (21.2 ±1.7%) and *Mastocarpus stellatus* (7.2±1%) were more abundant at Westwatt. Biomass of assemblages measured at the end of the experiment was linearly and significantly correlated to total percentage cover (biomass [g m⁻²] = -17.9+0.6 total cover [%], r² = 0.695, P<0.001).

Prior to the manipulations, community structure was similar across treatments (Fig 1A and 1B, P>0.4 for canopy, disturbance, and interaction for both sites). PERMANOVA indicated that community composition following initial treatments was significantly affected by the mechanical disturbance only at Nordostwatt (pseudo-F₁, _16_ = 3.35, P = 0.005). Nevertheless, CAP ordination plots showed comparable levels of differentiation between disturbed and undisturbed plots following initial treatments at both sites (Fig 1A and 1B), indicating the efficacy of this treatment in affecting community composition. During the experiment and averaged across the 7 sample dates, the cover of the *F. serratus* canopy was ca. 60–90% in the C+ plots, and remained below 10% in the C− plots (Fig 1C). These differences between canopy treatments were statistically significant at both sites (ANOVA, P<0.01 for both sites), and no separate or interactive effects of mechanical disturbances on *F. serratus* cover were found (P>0.3 for both sites).

Species synchrony indicates the extent to which species temporal changes are parallel and was, on average, a significant 60% lower in C− than C+ communities (Fig 2, Table 1). Mechanical disturbance showed no main effect on species synchrony, and the effects of canopy removal were independent of mechanical disturbance as indicated by a missing canopy × disturbance interaction (Table 1). No significant differences between sites were found. Effects on species synchrony remained unchanged after excluding canopy abundance from the analysis (Table 1).

Canopy removal significantly reduced temporal variation in community respiration by, on average, 50% and this effect was independent of mechanical disturbance treatments (Fig 3, Table 1). Mechanical disturbance did not affect temporal variation of community respiration. The temporal mean of community respiration was 20.3 and 3 mmol C m⁻² h⁻¹, for C+ and C− treatments, respectively, indicating that canopy removal reduced community respiration by about one order of magnitude. Neither the separate nor the combined effects of canopy removal and

<figure><img src="image_12.png" /></figure>
<table><caption>**Table 2.** Relative contribution (%) of species to Bray-Curtis dissimilarities between assemblages with and without *Fucus serratus* canopy. "↑", "↓", and "-" denote positive, negative, and no effect of the loss of canopy on species abundance, respectively.</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Species</th><th colspan="7">Months after the start of the experiment</th></tr><tr><th>3</th><th>6</th><th>9</th><th>12</th><th>15</th><th>18</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="7"><strong>Nordostwatt</strong></td></tr><tr><td>Cladophora rupestris</td><td>9.6</td><td>↓</td><td><strong>13.8</strong></td><td>↓</td><td><strong>17.2</strong></td><td>↓</td><td>10.1</td><td>↓</td><td>11.6</td><td>↓</td><td><strong>12.6</strong></td><td>↓</td></tr><tr><td>Cladophora sericea</td><td><strong>16.9</strong></td><td>↑</td><td>0.0</td><td>-</td><td>0.0</td><td>-</td><td>0.0</td><td>-</td><td><strong>14.5</strong></td><td>↑</td><td>1.7</td><td>↑</td></tr><tr><td>Ulva spp.</td><td>7.5</td><td>↑</td><td>11.7</td><td>↑</td><td>6.6</td><td>↑</td><td><strong>13.0</strong></td><td>↑</td><td>6.4</td><td>↓</td><td>11.2</td><td>↑</td></tr><tr><td>Chondrus crispus</td><td>6.0</td><td>↑</td><td>9.1</td><td>↑</td><td>9.1</td><td>↑</td><td>6.3</td><td>↑</td><td>6.4</td><td>↑</td><td>6.9</td><td>↑</td></tr><tr><td>Dumontia contorta</td><td>2.1</td><td>↑</td><td>0.0</td><td>-</td><td>0.0</td><td>-</td><td>8.8</td><td>↑</td><td>7.2</td><td>↑</td><td>0.8</td><td>↓</td></tr><tr><td>Ceramium virgatum</td><td>1.3</td><td>↑</td><td>1.3</td><td>↑</td><td>2.4</td><td>↑</td><td>2.1</td><td>↑</td><td>4.4</td><td>↑</td><td>9.7</td><td>↑</td></tr><tr><td>Corallina officinalis</td><td>4.0</td><td>↓</td><td>7.8</td><td>↑</td><td>11.2</td><td>↓</td><td>7.3</td><td>-</td><td>6.9</td><td>↓</td><td>10.3</td><td>↓</td></tr><tr><td>Phymatolithon spp.</td><td>8.8</td><td>↓</td><td>6.4</td><td>↓</td><td>1.6</td><td>↑</td><td>5.0</td><td>↓</td><td>11.2</td><td>↓</td><td>10.6</td><td>↑</td></tr><tr><td>Hildenbrandia rubra</td><td>4.5</td><td>↓</td><td>4.7</td><td>↓</td><td>8.8</td><td>↑</td><td>6.2</td><td>↑</td><td>2.5</td><td>↓</td><td>4.8</td><td>↑</td></tr><tr><td>Spirorbis spirorbis</td><td>8.5</td><td>↓</td><td>7.1</td><td>↓</td><td>4.5</td><td>↓</td><td>3.3</td><td>↓</td><td>0.5</td><td>↓</td><td>2.5</td><td>↓</td></tr><tr><td colspan="12"><strong>Westwatt</strong></td></tr><tr><td>Cladophora rupestris</td><td>6.5</td><td>↓</td><td>8.7</td><td>↓</td><td>10.0</td><td>↓</td><td>5.9</td><td>↓</td><td>6.6</td><td>↓</td><td>10.4</td><td>↓</td></tr><tr><td>Cladophora sericea</td><td>7.2</td><td>↑</td><td>0.6</td><td>↑</td><td>2.7</td><td>↑</td><td>2.3</td><td>↑</td><td>5.6</td><td>↑</td><td>0.0</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Ulva spp.</td><td><strong>17.5</strong></td><td>↑</td><td><strong>22.1</strong></td><td>↑</td><td>4.9</td><td>↑</td><td><strong>12.7</strong></td><td>↑</td><td>9.8</td><td>↑</td><td>11.4</td><td>↑</td></tr><tr><td>Chondrus crispus</td><td>7.1</td><td>↑</td><td>7.2</td><td>↑</td><td><strong>13.1</strong></td><td>↑</td><td>5.2</td><td>↑</td><td>8.2</td><td>↑</td><td>8.0</td><td>↑</td></tr><tr><td>Mastocarpus stellatus</td><td>6.4</td><td>↑</td><td>8.0</td><td>↑</td><td>10.3</td><td>↓</td><td>7.6</td><td>↓</td><td><strong>13.8</strong></td><td>↑</td><td><strong>14.2</strong></td><td>↑</td></tr><tr><td>Corallina officinalis</td><td>5.5</td><td>↓</td><td>7.1</td><td>↑</td><td>12.5</td><td>↓</td><td>7.9</td><td>↓</td><td>9.3</td><td>↑</td><td>12.2</td><td>↓</td></tr><tr><td>Phymatolithon spp.</td><td>13.3</td><td>↓</td><td>6.4</td><td>↓</td><td>2.2</td><td>↓</td><td>8.5</td><td>↓</td><td>6.7</td><td>↓</td><td>12.2</td><td>↓</td></tr><tr><td>Hildenbrandia rubra</td><td>5.6</td><td>↓</td><td>8.5</td><td>↓</td><td>9.3</td><td>↓</td><td>5.7</td><td>↓</td><td>6.2</td><td>↓</td><td>5.8</td><td>↓</td></tr></tbody></table>

Highest contributions for each site and sample date are in bold.

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0036541.t002

mechanical disturbance affected understorey ecosystem respiration (Table 1).

After 6 months of experimentation, net primary productivity significantly varied only between C+ and C- treatments (Fig 4, P=0.002, P=0.92, P=0.79 for canopy removal, mechanical disturbance, and interaction, respectively). At the end of the experiment, biomass tended to respond negatively to the interaction between canopy removal and mechanical disturbance (Fig 4). ANOVA, however, showed non-significant effects of treatments on biomass (P>0.1 for canopy, disturbance, and interaction).

SIMPER routines conducted on data pooled across mechanical disturbance treatments showed that up to 10 and 8 species in Nordostwatt and Westwatt, respectively, explained>60% of dissimilarity between canopy treatments (Table 2). In general, removal of canopy had a strong negative effect on the abundance of *C. rupestris*, *Phymatolithon* spp., and the polychaete *Spirorbis spirorbis* (Table 2). On the other hand, abundances of *C. crispus* and *M. stellatus*, in addition to filamentous algae such as *C. sericea*, *Dumontia contorta*, and *Ceramium virgatum*, and the foliose green algae *Ulva* spp. increased in response to canopy removal (Table 2).

Discussion

Our results showed that species synchrony significantly decreased as a result of the loss of canopy, indicating that compensatory dynamics may have been strengthened upon canopy removal. Canopy removal led to a decrease in net primary productivity (NPP) and temporal variation of community respiration ($V_{CR}$). Neither separate nor interactive effects of mechanical

disturbance on species synchrony, NPP, and $V_{CR}$ were observed. These results support the notion that compensatory species dynamics stabilise aggregate community properties. They also indicate that canopy removal, but not smaller-scale mechanical disturbances, may significantly affect mechanisms contributing to community stability.

Canopy-forming species usually reduce the variability in environmental factors [21,22]. Since seasonal changes in, for example, temperature and light, can be large in Helgoland [44], experimental canopy removal exposed the understorey assemblage to a wide range of environmental conditions. Different species may be competitively dominant at different times [61], which can foster the occurrence of asynchronous, compensatory dynamics among species exposed to large environmental variability [3,62]. In our experiment, for instance, canopy loss had lead to an average increase in light regime of ca. 400% during summer months [63]. Such changes may have detrimental effects for some understorey species, like low-light adapted seaweeds, but may have beneficial effects for high-light adapted macroalgae. In fact, abundance of low-light adapted crustose red algae (e.g. *Phymatolithon* spp.) declined in plots where the *F. serratus* canopy was removed, while abundance of high-light adapted green algae (e.g. *Ulva* spp.) increased here relative to control plots. Moreover, insulation effects of *F. serratus* canopies at the study site during low tide may reduce air temperature in the understory for several hours during sunny afternoons by up to 20°C (M. Molis, unpublished data). Changes in sedimentation rate, light, and temperature regimes as a consequence of canopy loss have been reported as important abiotic drivers of community structure during subsequent succession in seaweed dominated communities [64,65]. Therefore,

<figure><img src="image_13.png" /></figure>
differential abilities of understorey species to cope with enhanced
environmental variability upon canopy loss probably decreased
species synchrony.

According to theoretical models, decreased species synchrony
should lead to increased stability of aggregate properties [3,6]. Our
results support this prediction, as VCR significantly decreased upon
canopy removal. Asynchronous dynamics, due to contrasting
environmental responses of understorey species, may have
maintained the steady state in the rates of resource supply and
resource use. Differences in life history traits between low-light and
high-light adapted species, for instance, may have led to
asynchronous variation in metabolic activity [66]. Therefore, it
is likely that compensatory dynamics in metabolic functions may
well occur, at least, between these two functional groups. This
hypothesis however still needs to be tested through proper
experimentation.

On the other hand, the temporal variability in the abundance or
metabolism of the dominant species may also affect the
community-level stability. Canopy-forming seaweeds can signifi-
cantly contribute to the metabolism of benthic habitats [30,31,32].
Accordingly, the significant negative effects of canopy removal on
NPP and CR, and the fact that understorey community
respiration did not differ between C+ and C- treatments indicates
that *F. serratus* canopy comprised the bulk of productivity and
respiration of un-manipulated communities. Thus, the steady state
between resource supply and resource use of the community
probably depended mostly on the metabolic activity of *F. serratus*.

These results contradict previous work showing that increased
dominance by one or few species increases the stability of the total
community [26,27,28]. Dominance can enhance community
stability when the dominant species are more resistant to events
of destruction than subordinate species [26,67]. On the contrary,
the small attachment area of *F. serratus* holdfasts may result in
dislodgement by dragging forces and cobble bash. Single storm
events, for instance, may remove across the entire study site up to
60 % of *F. serratus* canopy (I. Bartsch, unpublished data). Winter
losses of *F. serratus* cover could be positively correlated with
significant wave height, as shown for giant kelp in California
[68,69] and a dominant fucoid in southern New Zealand [70]. In
addition, recent manipulative work shows that strengthened
compensatory dynamics upon canopy loss can stabilise the total
community abundance [71]. Therefore, dominance and mono-
polisation of resources would actually reduce stability if the
dominant species were prone to large variations through time.

In our study, mechanical disturbance had no significant effect
on species synchrony, community productivity, and stability,
although disturbance can strongly affect species diversity and
composition in different benthic systems [72,73]. High seasonality
in recruitment patterns and quick re-colonisation may explain the
lack of separate and interactive effects of mechanical disturbances.
We applied a pulse event of destruction at the onset of the
experiment in March, before the main settlement period of several
ephemeral, corticated, and leathery algae [44], and during the
main reproductive period of *F. serratus* and *F. vesiculosus* [43]. This
indicates that propagules of these species could have been
available when mechanical disturbances were applied. Covers

higher than 20% of *F. serratus* recruits, however, were observed
between June and December, and no recruit of *F. vesiculosus* was
observed on our plots during the experiment (N. Valdivia,
unpublished data). Patches of empty substratum can be re-
colonised by both local propagule dispersal and lateral expansion
of species with clonal or colonial growth [74,75]. Rapid re-
colonisation by expansion of adults could have prevented
disturbance-generated patches of habitats from being available
during the main settlement period of algae. Variability during
early stages of colonisation, in addition to priority effects of the
species that happen to colonise first, can determine much of the
subsequent dynamics in the assemblage [76,77]. Extreme storms,
nevertheless, can be observed every ca. 2 years in the Atlantic
basin [78]. At the temporal scale of our study, therefore, timing
and frequency of mechanical disturbance seemed to be appropri-
ate to mimic the impact of extreme winter storms.

Some caution should be used to interpret our results. We assumed that abundance and energy use are equivalent measures of community function [15]. The validity of this assumption depends, however, on unmeasured variables such as body size distribution [15,79,80]. On the other hand, calculation of variation in community respiration was constrained by weather conditions and tides to only 3 repeated measurements, indicating the need for longer-term datasets of *in situ* metabolic community functions. Finally, lack of interactive effects between stressors observed in this study agrees with previous manipulative field-based experiments [64,81], but it contradicts a major synthesis of ca. 170 laboratory-based studies [82]. These opposing results hint at the need for more manipulative and field-based experiments accounting for interactive effects of simultaneous stressors on ecosystems [37].

Through manipulative experiments and assessing eco-physio-
logical variables such as species percentage cover, biomass, NPP,
and CR, we have tested in natural conditions the effects of
multiple anthropogenic stressors on mechanisms that maintain
community stability. Our analyses showed that stressors related
with storminess may affect species and community-level variability
by removal of dominant canopies, but not necessarily by
associated smaller-scale mechanical disturbances. These results
shed light on the mechanisms that may drive the response of
communities facing present and future anthropogenic pressures.

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to S. Domisch, J. Ellrich, A. Engel, M. Honens, D. Kohlmeier, M. Marklewitz, A. Wagner, and H.Y. Yun for invaluable support during fieldwork. Comments by I. Bartsch, M. Wahl, B. R. Broitman, R. A. Scrosati, S. Thrush, and two anonymous reviewers greatly improved early versions of this manuscript. This experiment was conducted in the framework of the MarBEF responsive mode project BIOFUSE, led by T. Crowe and L. Benedetti-Cecchi.

Author Contributions

Conceived and designed the experiments: NV CG AM DD MM.
Performed the experiments: NV CG AM DD. Analyzed the data: NV.
Contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools: NV CG AM DD MM.
Wrote the paper: NV MM.

**References**

1. Hooper DU, Chapin FS, Ewel JJ, Hector A, Inchausti P, et al. (2005) Effects of biodiversity on ecosystem functioning: a consensus of current knowledge. Ecol Monogr 75: 3–35.

2. Stachowicz JJ, Bruno JF, Duffy JE (2007) Understanding the effects of marine biodiversity on communities and ecosystems. Annu Rev Ecol Evol S 38: 739–766.

3. Gonzalez A, Loreau M (2009) The causes and consequences of compensatory dynamics in ecological communities. Annu Rev Ecol Evol S 40: 393–414.

4. Micheli F, Cottingham KL, Bascompte J, Bjornstad ON, Eckert GL, et al. (1999) The dual nature of community variability. Oikos 85: 161–169.

5. Tilman D (1996) Biodiversity: population versus ecosystem stability. Ecology 77: 350–363.

<figure><img src="image_14.png" /></figure>
6. Yachi S, Loreau M (1999) Biodiversity and ecosystem productivity in a fluctuating environment: the insurance hypothesis. P Natl Acad Sci USA 96: 1463-1468.

7. Winfree R, Kremen C (2009) Are ecosystem services stabilized by differences among species? A test using crop pollination. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 276: 229-237.

8. Rowe RJ, Terry RC, Rickart EA (2011) Environmental change and declining resource availability for small-mammal communities in the Great Basin. Ecology 92: 1366-1375.

9. Houlahan JE, Currie DJ, Cottenie K, Cumming GS, Ernest SKM, et al. (2007) Compensatory dynamics are rare in natural ecological communities. P Natl Acad Sci USA 104: 3273-3277.

10. Thibaut L, Connolly SR, Sweatman HPA (2011) Diversity and stability of herbivorous fishes on coral reefs. Ecology.

11. Valentini R, Matteucci G, Dolman AJ, Schulze ED, Rebmann C, et al. (2000) Respiration as the main determinant of carbon balance in European forests. Nature 404: 861-865.

12. Enquist BJ, Economo EP, Huxman TE, Allen AP, Ignace DD, et al. (2003) Scaling metabolism from organisms to ecosystems. Nature 423: 639-642.

13. Klug JL, Fischer JM, Ives AR, Dennis B (2000) Compensatory dynamics in planktonic community responses to pH perturbations. Ecology 81: 387-398.

14. Ernest SKM, Brown JH (2001) Homeostasis and compensation: the role of species and resources in ecosystem stability. Ecology 82: 2118-2132.

15. White EP, Ernest SKM, Thibault KM (2004) Trade-offs in community properties through time in a desert rodent community. Am Nat 164: 670-676.

16. Downing AL, Brown BL, Perrin EM, Keitt TH, Leibold MA (2008) Environmental fluctuations induce scale-dependent compensation and increase stability in plankton ecosystems. Ecology 89: 3204-3214.

17. Tilman D (2004) Niche tradeoffs, neutrality, and community structure: A stochastic theory of resource competition, invasion, and community assembly. P Natl Acad Sci USA 101: 10854-10861.

18. Irving A, Connell S (2006) Predicting understorey structure from the presence and composition of canopies: an assembly rule for marine algae. Oecologia 148: 491-502.

19. Morrow K, Carpenter R (2008) Shallow kelp canopies mediate macroalgal composition: effects on the distribution and abundance of *Corynactis californica* (Corallimorpharia). Mar Ecol Prog Ser 361: 119-127.

20. Lilley S, Schiel D (2006) Community effects following the deletion of a habitat-forming alga from rocky marine shores. Oecologia 148: 672-681.

21. Bertness D, Leonard G, Levine J, Schmidt P, Ingraham A (1999) Testing the relative contribution of positive and negative interactions in rocky intertidal communities. Ecology 80: 2711-2726.

22. Dayton PK (1971) Competition, disturbance, and community organization: the provision and subsequent utilization of space in a rocky intertidal community. Ecol Monogr 41: 351-389.

23. Jenkins SR, Norton TA, Hawkins SJ (2004) Long term effects of *Ascophyllum nodosum* canopy removal on mid shore community structure. J Mar Biol Assoc UK 84: 327-329.

24. Kiirikki M (1996) Experimental evidence that *Fucus vesiculosus* (Phaeophyta) controls filamentous algae by means of the whiplash effect. Eur J Phycol 31: 61-66.

25. Connell SD (2003) Negative effects overpower the positive of kelp to exclude invertebrates from the understorey community. Oecologia 137: 97-103.

26. Steiner CF, Darcy-Hall TL, Dorn NJ, Garcia EA, Mittelbach GG, et al. (2005) The influence of consumer diversity and indirect facilitation on trophic level biomass and stability. Oikos 110: 556-566.

27. Polley HW, Wilsey BJ, Derner JD (2007) Dominant species constrain effects of species diversity on temporal variability in biomass production of tallgrass prairie. Oikos 116: 2044-2052.

28. Grman E, Lau JA, Schoolmaster DR, Gross KL (2010) Mechanisms contributing to stability in ecosystem function depend on the environmental context. Ecol Lett 13: 1400-1410.

29. Littler MM, Littler DS (1980) The evolution of thallus form and survival strategies in benthic marine macroalgae: field and laboratory tests of a functional form model. Am Nat 116: 25-44.

30. Duarte CM, Middelburg JJ, Caraco N (2005) Major role of marine vegetation on the oceanic carbon cycle. Biogeosciences 2: 1-8.

31. Tait LW, Schiel DR (2011) Legacy effects of canopy disturbance on ecosystem functioning in macroalgal assemblages. PLoS ONE 6: e26986.

32. Golléty C, Migne A, Davoult D (2008) Benthic metabolism on a sheltered rocky shore: Role of the canopy in the carbon budget. J Phycol 44: 1146-1153.

33. Connell SD (2007) Water quality and the loss of coral reefs and kelp forests: alternative states and the influence of fishing. In: Connell SD, Gillanders BM, eds. Mar Ecol. Melbourne: Oxford University Press, pp 556-568.

34. IPCC (2007) Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. A Allali, R Bojariu, S Diaz, I Elgizouli, D Griggs, et al., editor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 52 p.

35. Nielsen KJ (2007) Algae, overview. In: Denny MW, Gaines SD, eds. Encyclopedia of tidepools and rocky shores. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. pp 10-21.

36. Benedetti-Cecchi L, Pannacciulli F, Bulleri F, Moschella PS, Airoldi L, et al. (2001) Predicting the consequences of anthropogenic disturbance: large-scale effects of loss of canopy algae on rocky shores. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 214: 137-150.

37. Bertocci I, Arenas F, Matias MG, Vaselli S, Araújo R, et al. (2010) Canopy-forming species mediate the effects of disturbance on macroalgal assemblages on Portuguese rocky shores. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 414: 107-116.

38. Bartsch I, Titley I (2004) The rocky intertidal biotypes of Helgoland: present and past. Helg Mar Res 58: 289-302.

39. Janke K (1990) Biological interactions and their role in community structure in the rocky intertidal of Helgoland (German Bight, North Sea). Helg Mar Res 44: 219-263.

40. Eschweiler N, Molis M, Buschbaum C (2009) Habitat-specific size structure variations in periwinkle populations (*Littorina littorea*) caused by biotic factors. Helg Mar Res 63: 119-127.

41. Molis M, Preuss I, Firmenich A, Ellrich J (2011) Predation risk indirectly enhances survival of seaweed recruits but not intraspecific competition in an intermediate herbivore species. J Ecol 99: 807-817.

42. Moore P, Hawkins SJ, Thompson RC (2007) Role of biological habitat amelioration in altering the relative responses of congeneric species to climate change. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 334: 11-19.

43. Kornmann P, Sahling P-H (1993) Meeresalgen von Helgoland-benthische Grün-, Braun- und, Rotalgen. Hamburg: Biologische Anstalt Helgoland. 289 p.

44. Munda I, Markham J (1982) Seasonal variations of vegetation patterns and biomass constituents in the rocky eulittoral of Helgoland. Helg Mar Res 35: 131-151.

45. Connolly SR, Muko S (2003) Space preemption, size-dependent competition, and the coexistence of clonal growth forms. Ecology 84: 2979-2998.

46. Dethier MN, Graham ES, Cohen S, Tear LM (1993) Visual versus random-point percent cover estimations: 'objective' is not always better. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 96: 93-100.

47. Cavanaugh KC, Siegel DA, Kinlan BP, Reed DC (2010) Scaling giant kelp field measurements to regional scales using satellite observations. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 403: 13-27.

48. Loreau M, de Mazancourt C (2008) Species synchrony and its drivers: neutral and nonneutral community dynamics in fluctuating environments. Am Nat 172: E48-E66.

49. Box GEP, Hunter WG, Hunter JS (1978) Statistics for experimenters: an introduction to design, data analysis, and model building: John Wiley and Sons. 672 p.

50. Schlüter D (1984) A variance test for detecting species associations, with some example applications. Ecology 65: 998-1005.

51. Migné A, Davoult D, Spilmont N, Menu D, Boucher G, et al. (2002) A closed-chamber CO₂-flux method for estimating intertidal primary production and respiration under emersed conditions. Mar Biol 140: 865-869.

52. Anderson MJ (2001) A new method for non-parametric multivariate analysis of variance. Austral Ecol 26: 32-46.

53. Anderson MJ, Willis TJ (2003) Canonical analysis of principal coordinates: a useful method of constrained ordination for ecology. Ecology 84: 511-525.

54. Quinn GP, Keough MJ (2002) Experimental design and data analysis for biologists. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 537 p.

55. Anderson MJ, Ter Braak CJF (2003) Permutation tests for multi-factorial analysis of variance. J Stat Comput Sim 73: 85-113.

56. Anderson MJ, Robinson J (2003) Generalized discriminant analysis based on distances. Aust N Z J Stat 45: 301-318.

57. Scheirer CJ, Ray WS, Hare N (1976) The analysis of ranked data derived from completely randomized factorial designs. Biometrics 32: 429-434.

58. Clarke KR (1993) Non-parametric multivariate analyses of changes in community structure. Aust J Ecol 18: 117-143.

59. R Development Core Team (2011) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. 2.13.1 ed. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.

60. Valdivia N, Molis M (2009) Observational evidence of a negative biodiversity-stability relationship in intertidal epibenthic communities. Aquat Biol 4: 263-271.

61. Hutchinson GE (1961) The paradox of the plankton. The American Naturalist 95: 137-145.

62. Chesson PL, Warner RR (1981) Environmental variability promotes coexistence in lottery competitive systems. Am Nat 117: 923-943.

63. Kohlmeier D (2009) Physiologische Reaktionen von Unterwuchsalgen nach Entfernen der Deckalgen in der Helgoländer Gezeitenzone. Bremen: Fachber-ich Biologie. University of Bremen. 75 p.

64. Connell SD (2003) The monopolization of understorey habitat by subtidal encrusting coralline algae: a test of the combined effects of canopy-mediated light and sedimentation. Mar Biol 142: 1065-1071.

65. Burnaford JL (2004) Habitat modification and refuge from sublethal stress drive a marine plant-herbivore association. Ecology 85: 2837-2849.

66. Gomez I, Huovinen P (2011) Morpho-functional patterns and zonation of South Chilean seaweeds: the importance of photosynthetic and bio-optical traits. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 429: 77-91.

67. Dunstan PK, Johnson CR (2006) Linking richness, community variability, and invasion resistance with patch size. Ecology 87: 2842-2850.

68. Cavanaugh KC, Siegel DA, Reed DC, Dennison PE (2011) Environmental controls of giant-kelp biomass in the Santa Barbara Channel, California. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 429: 1-17.

69. Reed DC, Rassweiler A, Arkema KK (2008) Biomass rather than growth rate determines variation in net primary production by giant kelp. Ecology 89: 2493-2505.

<figure><img src="image_15.png" /></figure>
70. Schiel DR, Lilley SA (2011) Impacts and negative feedbacks in community recovery over eight years following removal of habitat-forming macroalgae. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 407: 108-115.

71. Bulleri F, Benedetti-Cecchi L, Cusson M, Maggi E, Arenas F, et al. (2012) Temporal stability of European rocky shore assemblages: variation across a latitudinal gradient and the role of habitat-formers. Oikos doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0706.2011.19967.x.

72. Cardinale BJ, Palmer MA (2002) Disturbance moderates biodiversity-ecosystem function relationships: experimental evidence from caddisflies in stream mesocosms. Ecology 83: 1915-1927.

73. Shea K, Roxburgh SH, Rauschert SJ (2004) Moving from pattern to process: coexistence mechanisms under intermediate disturbance regimes. Ecol Lett 7: 491-508.

74. Connell JH, Keough MJ (1985) Disturbance and patch dynamics of subtidal marine animals on hard substrata. In: Pickett STA, White PS, eds. The ecology of natural disturbance and patch dynamics. Orlando: Academic Press. pp 125-151.

75. Underwood AJ, Chapman MG (2006) Early development of subtidal macrofaunal assemblages: relationships to period and timing of colonization. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 330: 221-233.

76. Fukami T, Nakajima M (2011) Community assembly: alternative stable states or alternative transient states? Ecol Lett 14: 973-984.

77. Benedetti-Cecchi L (2000) Priority effects, taxonomic resolution, and the prediction of variable patterns of colonisation of algae in littoral rock pools. Oecologia 123: 265-274.

78. Bender MA, Knutson TR, Tuleya RE, Sirutis JJ, Vecchi GA, et al. (2010) Modeled impact of anthropogenic warming on the frequency of intense Atlantic hurricanes. Science 327: 454-458.

79. Taper ML, Marquet PA (1996) How do species really divide resources? Am Nat 147: 1072-1086.

80. Ernest SKM, White EP, Brown JH (2009) Changes in a tropical forest support metabolic zero-sum dynamics. Ecol Lett 12: 507-515.

81. Svensson JR, Lindegarth M, Siccha M, Lenz M, Molis M, et al. (2007) Maximum species richness at intermediate frequencies of disturbance: Consistency among levels of productivity. Ecology 88: 830-838.

82. Crain CM, Kroeker K, Halpern BS (2008) Interactive and cumulative effects of multiple human stressors in marine systems. Ecol Lett 11: 1304-1315.

<figure><img src="image_16.png" /></figure>