HomeDAVAO RESEARCH JOURNALvol. 15 no. 1 (2024)

Biotic and abiotic synergies in a log ecosystem

Larizza Faith N. Del Socorro

Discipline: environmental sciences

 

Abstract:

Log ecosystems are unique ecosystems that arise from fallen trees, forming microhabitats that exhibit distinct ecological dynamics. This paper aims to describe what a log ecosystem is and what are its components and their connection. Additionally, it identifies the biotic and abiotic components present in the decaying bark of a tree and explains how these factors interact together in the log ecosystem. The study was performed at the Davao Oriental State University Marfori Demonstration Farm at Barangay Don Enrique Lopez, Mati City, Davao Oriental. In this study, a decaying Swietenia macrophylla log was pried open, and biotic and abiotic factors were observed and identified. A total of eleven (11) animal species were found and identified. These were, white rot fungi, scarlet millipede, fungus beetle, woodworm, isopod, dry wood termites, spider, tyrant ants, sun skink, dwarf wood scorpion, and flat bugs, collectively scoring a moderate diversity of 1.37 (Shannon-Wiener Index), and 0.65 in the Simpson’s diversity index. Additionally, the observation of the abiotic factors revealed that the temperature in the area and the amount of sunlight were the most crucial factors shaping the ecosystem, followed by the moisture within the log and humidity, and precipitation in the environment was very low. The biotic and abiotic components coexist and interact with each other in this log ecosystem.



References:

  1. Arakawa, N., and Bader, L. R. (2022). Consensus development methods: Considerations for national and global frameworks and policy development. Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy, 18(1), 2222-2229.
  2. Begon, M., Townsend, C. R., & Harper, J. L. (2006). Ecology: From individuals to ecosystems (4th ed). Blackwell Publishing.
  3. Clarke, A., and Gaston, K. J. (2006). Climate, energy and diversity. Proc Biol Sci. 22;273 (1599):2257-66.
  4. Cornelissen, J., Sass-Klaassen, U., Poorter, L., Geffen, K., Logtestijn, R., van Hal, J., Goudzwaard, L., Sterck, F., Klaassen, R., Freschet, G., van der Wal, A., Eshuis, H., Zuo, J., de Boer, W., Lamers, T., Weemstra, M., Cretin, V., Martin, R., Ouden, J., and Hefting, M. (2012). Controls on coarse wood decay in temperate tree species: Birth of the LOGLIFE experiment. Ambio. 41 Suppl 3. 231-45.
  5. Currie, D. J., Mittelbach, G. G., Cornell, H. V., Field, R., Guégan, J., Hawkins, B. A., Kaufman, D. M., Kerr, J. T., Oberdoff, T., O’Brien, E., and Turner, J. R. G. (2004). Predictions and tests of climate-based hypotheses of broad-scale variation in taxonomic richness. Ecol. Lett. 7, 1121–1134.
  6. Hanley, T. C., & La Pierre, K. J. (2015). Trophic ecology: Bottom-up and top-down interactions across aquatic and terrestrial systems. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.
  7. Harmon, M. E., Franklin, J. F., Swanson, F. J., Sollins, P., Gregory, S. V., Lattin, J. D., Anderson, N. H., Cline, S. P., Aumen, N. G., Sedell, J. R., Lienkaemper, G. W., Cromack, K., and Cummins, K. W. (1986). Ecology of coarse woody debris in temperate ecosystems. Advances in Ecological Research, Academic Press, 15, 133-302.
  8. Harwood, J., and Wilkin, D. (2015). Consumers and Decomposers. Palo Alto, California: CK-12 Foundation.
  9. Henle, K., Davies, K.F., Kleyer, M., Margules, C., and Settle, J. (2004). Predictors of Species Sensitivity to Fragmentation. Biodiversity and Conservation 13, 207–251.
  10. Khatoon, H., Solanki, P., Narayan, M., Tewari, L., Rai, J., and Hina Khatoon, C. (2017). Role of microbes in organic carbon decomposition and maintenance of soil ecosystem. International Journal of Chemical Studies, 5(6), 1648-1656.
  11. Lassauce,  A., Paillet, Y., Jactel, H., and Bouget, C. (2011). Deadwood as a surrogate for forest biodiversity: Meta-analysis of correlations between deadwood volume and species richness of saproxylic organisms. Ecological Indicators 11:1027–1039.
  12. Levin, S. (1998). Ecosystems and the biosphere as complex adaptive systems. Ecosystems 1, 431–436.
  13. Menke, S. B., Guénard, B., Sexton, J. O., Weiser, M. D., Dunn, R. R., and Silverman, J. (2011). Urban areas may serve as habitat and corridors for dry-adapted, heat tolerant species; an example from ants. Urban Ecosystems, 14, 135-163.
  14. Odum, E. P. (1971). Fundamentals of ecology. Philadelphia, PA: W.B. Saunders Co. Ostroumov, S. A. (2002). New definitions of the concepts and terms ecosystem and biogeocenosis. Doklady Biological Sciences, 383, 141–143.
  15. Potapov, A. M., Beaulieu, F., Birkhofer, K., Bluhm, S. L., Degtyarev, M. I., Devetter, M., and Scheu, S. (2022). Feeding habits and multifunctional classification of soil‐associated consumers from protists to vertebrates. Biological Reviews, 97(3), 1057-1117.
  16. Salang, R. Q. M. (2020). Decomposers found on a partially decomposed Caimito (Chrysophyllum cainito): Example of a log ecosystem. Davao Research Journal (DRJ), 12(3), 6-10.
  17. Samuelsson, J., Gustafsson, L., and Ingelög, T. (1994). Dying and dead trees - a review of their importance for biodiversity. Swedish Environmental Protection Agency.
  18. Sokolova, I. (2021). Bioenergetics in environmental adaptation and stress tolerance of aquatic ectotherms: linking physiology and ecology in a multi-stressor landscape. Journal of Experimental Biology, 224(Suppl_1), jeb236802.
  19. Turner, M. G. (2005). Landscape ecology: What is the state of the science? Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, 36:319–344. 
  20. Yu, G. H., and Kuzyakov, Y. (2021). Fenton chemistry and reactive oxygen species in soil: Abiotic mechanisms of biotic processes, controls and consequences for carbon and nutrient cycling. Earth-Science Reviews, 214, 103525.