Clive G. Jones

Bio: Clive G. Jones is an academic researcher from Institute of Ecosystem Studies. The author has contributed to research in topics: Ecosystem & Population. The author has an hindex of 54, co-authored 133 publications receiving 19901 citations. Previous affiliations of Clive G. Jones include New York Botanical Garden & École Normale Supérieure.

Organisms as ecosystem engineers

Abstract: Interactions between organisms are a major determinant of the distribution and abundance of species. Ecology textbooks (e.g., Ricklefs 1984, Krebs 1985, Begon et al. 1990) summarise these important interactions as intra- and interspecific competition for abiotic and biotic resources, predation, parasitism and mutualism. Conspicuously lacking from the list of key processes in most text books is the role that many organisms play in the creation, modification and maintenance of habitats. These activities do not involve direct trophic interactions between species, but they are nevertheless important and common. The ecological literature is rich in examples of habitat modification by organisms, some of which have been extensively studied (e.g. Thayer 1979, Naiman et al. 1988).

Positive and negative effects of organisms as physical ecosystem engineers

Abstract: Physical ecosystem engineers are organisms that directly or indirectly control the availability of resources to other organisms by causing physical state changes in biotic or abiotic materials. Physical ecosystem engineering by organisms is the physical modification, maintenance, or creation of habitats. Ecological effects of engineers on many other species occur in virtually all ecosystems because the physical state changes directly create nonfood resources such as living space, directly control abiotic resources, and indirectly modulate abiotic forces that, in turn, affect resource use by other organisms. Trophic interactions and resource competition do not constitute engineering. Engineering can have significant or trivial effects on other species, may involve the physical structure of an organism (like a tree) or structures made by an organism (like a beaver dam), and can, but does not invariably, have feedback effects on the engineer. We argue that engineering has both negative and positive effects on species richness and abundances at small scales, but the net effects are probably positive at larger scales encompassing engineered and nonengineered environments in ecological and evolutionary space and time. Models of the population dynamics of engineers suggest that the engineer/habitat equilibrium is often, but not always, locally stable and may show long-term cycles, with potential ramifications for community and ecosystem stability. As yet, data adequate to parameterize such a model do not exist for any engineer species. Because engineers control flows of energy and materials but do not have to participate in these flows, energy, mass, and stoichiometry do not appear to be useful in predicting which engineers will have big effects. Empirical observations suggest some potential generalizations about which species will be important engineers in which ecosystems. We point out some of the obvious, and not so obvious, ways in which engineering and trophic relations interact, and we call for greater research on physical ecosystem engineers, their impacts, and their interface with trophic relations.

Mollusks as ecosystem engineers: the role of shell production in aquatic habitats

Abstract: Mollusk shells are abundant, persistent, ubiquitous physical structures in aquatic habitats. Using an ecosystem engineering perspective, we identify general roles of mollusk shell production in aquatic ecosystems. Shells are substrata for attachment of epibionts, provide refuges from predation, physical or physiological stress, and control transport of solutes and particles in the benthic environment. Changes in availability of these resources caused by shell production have important consequences for other organisms. Colonization of shelled habitat depends on individual shell traits and spatial arrangement of shells, which determine access of organisms to resources and the degree to which biotic or abiotic forces are modulated. Shell production will increase species richness at the landscape level if shells create resources that are not otherwise available and species are present that use these resources. Changes in the availability of resources caused by shells and the resulting effects on other organisms have both positive and negative feedbacks to these engineers. Positive feedbacks appear to be most frequently mediated by changes in resource availability, whereas negative feedbacks appear to be most frequently mediated by organisms. Given the diversity of species that depend upon resources controlled by shells and rapid changes in global shell production that are occurring due to human activities, we suggest that shell producers should not be neglected as a targets of conservation, restoration and habitat management.

An ecosystem engineer, the beaver, increases species richness at the landscape scale

Abstract: Ecosystem engineering - the physical modifi- cation of habitats by organisms - has been proposed as an important mechanism for maintaining high species richness at the landscape scale by increasing habitat heterogeneity. Dams built by beaver (Castor canaden- sis) dramatically alter riparian landscapes throughout much of North America. In the central Adirondacks, New York, USA, ecosystem engineering by beaver leads to the formation of extensive wetland habitat capable of supporting herbaceous plant species not found else- where in the riparian zone. We show that by increasing habitat heterogeneity, beaver increase the number of species of herbaceous plants in the riparian zone by over 33% at a scale that encompasses both beaver-modified patches and patches with no history of beaver occupa- tion. We suggest that ecosystem engineers will increase species richness at the landscape scale whenever there are species present in a landscape that are restricted to engineered habitats during at least some stages of their life cycle.

疟原虫var基因转换速率变化导致抗原变异[英]／Paul H, Robert P, Christodoulou Z, et al//Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A

Abstract: 抗原变异可使得多种致病微生物易于逃避宿主免疫应答。表达在感染红细胞表面的恶性疟原虫红细胞表面蛋白1（PfPMP1）与感染红细胞、内皮细胞、树突状细胞以及胎盘的单个或多个受体作用，在黏附及免疫逃避中起关键的作用。每个单倍体基因组var基因家族编码约60种成员，通过启动转录不同的var基因变异体为抗原变异提供了分子基础。

The Theory of Island Biogeography

Abstract: Preface to the Princeton Landmarks in Biology Edition vii Preface xi Symbols Used xiii 1. The Importance of Islands 3 2. Area and Number of Speicies 8 3. Further Explanations of the Area-Diversity Pattern 19 4. The Strategy of Colonization 68 5. Invasibility and the Variable Niche 94 6. Stepping Stones and Biotic Exchange 123 7. Evolutionary Changes Following Colonization 145 8. Prospect 181 Glossary 185 References 193 Index 201

Effects of biodiversity on ecosystem functioning: a consensus of current knowledge

Abstract: Humans are altering the composition of biological communities through a variety of activities that increase rates of species invasions and species extinctions, at all scales, from local to global. These changes in components of the Earth's biodiversity cause concern for ethical and aesthetic reasons, but they also have a strong potential to alter ecosystem properties and the goods and services they provide to humanity. Ecological experiments, observations, and theoretical developments show that ecosystem properties depend greatly on biodiversity in terms of the functional characteristics of organisms present in the ecosystem and the distribution and abundance of those organisms over space and time. Species effects act in concert with the effects of climate, resource availability, and disturbance regimes in influencing ecosystem properties. Human activities can modify all of the above factors; here we focus on modification of these biotic controls. The scientific community has come to a broad consensus on many aspects of the re- lationship between biodiversity and ecosystem functioning, including many points relevant to management of ecosystems. Further progress will require integration of knowledge about biotic and abiotic controls on ecosystem properties, how ecological communities are struc- tured, and the forces driving species extinctions and invasions. To strengthen links to policy and management, we also need to integrate our ecological knowledge with understanding of the social and economic constraints of potential management practices. Understanding this complexity, while taking strong steps to minimize current losses of species, is necessary for responsible management of Earth's ecosystems and the diverse biota they contain.

Organisms as ecosystem engineers

Abstract: Interactions between organisms are a major determinant of the distribution and abundance of species. Ecology textbooks (e.g., Ricklefs 1984, Krebs 1985, Begon et al. 1990) summarise these important interactions as intra- and interspecific competition for abiotic and biotic resources, predation, parasitism and mutualism. Conspicuously lacking from the list of key processes in most text books is the role that many organisms play in the creation, modification and maintenance of habitats. These activities do not involve direct trophic interactions between species, but they are nevertheless important and common. The ecological literature is rich in examples of habitat modification by organisms, some of which have been extensively studied (e.g. Thayer 1979, Naiman et al. 1988).