Individual‐based models of cod movement and population dynamics

Understanding the strength and diversity of predator‐prey interactions among species is essential to understand ecosystem consequences of population‐level variation. Directly quantifying the predatory behaviour of wild fishes at large spatial scales (>100 m) in the open sea is fraught with difficulties. To date the only empirical approach has been to search for correlations in the abundance of predators and their putative prey. As an example we use this approach to search for predators of the keystone crown‐of‐thorns starfish. We show that this approach is unlikely to detect predator–prey linkages because the theoretical relationship is non‐linear, resulting in multiple possible prey responses for single given predator abundance. Instead we suggest some indication of the strength and ecosystem importance of a predator–prey relationship can be gained by using the abundance of both predators and their putative prey to parameterize functional response models.     

Top–down limits on prey populations may be more severe in larger prey species,despite having fewer predators

Variation in the vulnerability of herbivore prey to predation is linked to body size, yet whether this relationship is size‐nested or size‐partitioned remains debated. If size‐partitioned, predators would be focused on prey within their preferred prey size range. If size‐nested, smaller prey species should become increasingly more vulnerable because increasingly more predators are capable of catching them. Yet, whether either of these strategies manifests in top–down prey population limitation would depend both on the number of potential predator species as well as the total mortality imposed. Here we use a rare ecosystem scale ‘natural experiment’ comparing prey population dynamics between a period of intense predator persecution and hence low predator densities and a period of active predator protection and population recovery. We use three decades of data on herbivore abundance and distribution to test the role of predation as a mechanism of population limitation among prey species that vary widely in body size. Notably, we test this within one of the few remaining systems where a near‐full suite of megaherbivores occur in high density and are thus able to include a thirtyfold range in herbivore body size gradient. We test whether top–down limitation on prey species of particular body size leads to compositional shifts in the mammalian herbivore community. Our results support both size‐nested and size‐partitioning predation but suggest that the relative top–down limiting impact on prey populations may be more severe for intermediate sized species, despite having fewer predators than small species. In addition we show that the gradual recovery of predator populations shifted the herbivore community assemblage towards large‐bodied species and has led to a community that is strongly dominated by large herbivore biomass.     

Intraguild interactions among generalist predator functional groups drive impact on herbivore and decomposer prey

Different functional groups of generalist predators may complement each other in controlling prey populations; but intraguild interactions, common among generalist predators, may also reduce the strength of top–down control. In natural communities greater alterations to ecosystem function are expected if a whole functional group declines in abundance or is lost. Therefore studying functional group diversity is important for predicting effects of predator loss. We studied the top–down impact of web‐building spiders, hunting spiders and ants, which are highly abundant generalist predators in most terrestrial ecosystems, on prey from the herbivore and decomposer system of a grassland food web. The density of the three predator groups was manipulated by continuous removal in a three‐factorial designed field experiment, which was carried out for two years. We found no positive effect of increasing predator functional group richness on prey control. However there was evidence for strong composition effects between the functional groups. The presence of ants in predator assemblages reduced the prey suppression through mostly trait‐mediated intraguild interactions, while hunting and web‐building spiders contributed additively to prey suppression and reduced the density of herbivore and decomposer prey by 50–60%. A trophic cascade on plant biomass triggered by web‐builders and hunting spiders was diminished at levels of higher predator group diversity. In conclusion, our experiments showed that intraguild interactions strongly influence the strength of top–down control by generalist predators. Among spiders there was evidence for a positive relation between functional group richness and prey suppression but the overall outcome strongly depended on the occurrence of interference, driven by trait‐mediated indirect interactions.     

Timing and abundance as key mechanisms affecting trophic interactions in variable environments

Climatic changes are disrupting otherwise tight trophic interactions between predator and prey. Most of the earlier studies have primarily focused on the temporal dimension of the relationship in the framework of the match–mismatch hypothesis. This hypothesis predicts that predator's recruitment will be high if the peak of the prey availability temporally matches the most energy‐demanding period of the predators breeding phenology. However, the match–mismatch hypothesis ignores the level of food abundance while this can compensate small mismatches. Using a novel time‐series model explicitly quantifying both the timing and the abundance component for trophic relationships, we here show that timing and abundance of food affect recruitment differently in a marine (cod/zooplankton), a marine–terrestrial (puffin/herring) and a terrestrial (sheep/vegetation) ecosystem. The quantification of the combined effect of abundance and timing of prey on predator dynamics enables us to come closer to the mechanisms by which environment variability may affect ecological systems.     

The relationship between vegetation density and its protective value depends on the densities and traits of prey and predators

Densities of submerged vegetation and those of associated animals tend to co‐vary. This relationship is often attributed to the positive correlation between the density of vegetation and its protective value against predators. However, two counteracting basic elements underlying this paradigm limit its generality. That is, increasing vegetation density should result in decreased predator–prey encounters, whilst at the same time predator–prey encounters should increase as animal densities increase. These two mechanisms should thus counteract each other when the densities of vegetation and associated animals, including both prey and predators, co‐vary. Experimental designs that expose fixed densities of prey and predators to varying densities of vegetation assess only the former mechanism and may thus not properly evaluate the protective value of vegetation in such conditions. By contrast, designs that mimic the naturally co‐varying organism densities test both mechanisms and thus their counteractive impacts on predator–prey encounters. We compared the outcomes of the two alternative designs and carried out additional experiments to explain the putative discrepancy. Increasing vegetation density (mimics of Potamogeton pectinatus) enhanced prey (Daphnia magna) survival only when fixed densities of prey and predators (Perca fluviatilis or Rutilus rutilus) were used. When the animal densities were allowed to co‐vary with vegetation density, vegetation had no impact on prey survival. Instead, prey survival was determined by the aggregate density of prey and predators, shaped by the species‐specific traits of the latter. Thus, the impact of the increased animal densities overrode the impact of the increased vegetation density on predator–prey encounters. It may be insufficient to attribute the co‐variation of vegetation, prey and predator densities simply to the association between vegetation density and its protective value. Increased food resources and reduced competition within vegetation may promote prey and thereby also predator abundance to a greater extent than previously thought.     

A cross‐system meta‐analysis reveals coupled predation effects on prey biomass and diversity

Predator diversity and abundance are under strong human pressure in all types of ecosystems. Whereas predator potentially control standing biomass and species interactions in food webs, their effects on prey biomass and especially prey biodiversity have not yet been systematically quantified. Here, we test the effects of predation in a cross‐system meta‐analysis of prey diversity and biomass responses to local manipulation of predator presence. We found 291 predator removal experiments from 87 studies assessing both diversity and biomass responses. Across ecosystem types, predator presence significantly decreased both biomass and diversity of prey across ecosystems. Predation effects were highly similar between ecosystem types, whereas previous studies had shown that herbivory or decomposition effects differed fundamentally between terrestrial and aquatic systems based on different stoichiometry of plant material. Such stoichiometric differences between systems are unlikely for carnivorous predators, where effect sizes on species richness strongly correlated to effect sizes on biomass. However, the negative predation effect on prey biomass was ameliorated significantly with increasing prey richness and increasing species richness of the manipulated predator assemblage. Moreover, with increasing richness of the predator assemblage present, the overall negative effects of predation on prey richness switched to positive effects. Our meta‐analysis revealed strong general relationships between predator diversity, prey diversity and the interaction strength between trophic levels in terms of biomass. This study indicates that anthropogenic changes in predator abundance and diversity will potentially have strong effects on trophic interactions across ecosystems. Synthesis The past centuries we have experienced a dramatic loss of top–predator abundance and diversity in most types of ecosystems. To understand the direct consequences of predator loss on a global scale, we quantitatively summarized experiments testing predation effects on prey communities in a cross‐system meta‐analysis. Across ecosystem types, predator presence significantly decreased both biomass and diversity of prey, and predation effects were highly similar. However, with increasing predator richness, the overall negative effects of predation on prey richness switched to positive ones. Anthropogenic changes in predator communities will potentially have strong effects on prey diversity, biomass, and trophic interactions across ecosystems.     

Geometric factors influencing the diet of vertebrate predators in marine and terrestrial environments

Predator–prey relationships are vital to ecosystem function and there is a need for greater predictive understanding of these interactions. We develop a geometric foraging model predicting minimum prey size scaling in marine and terrestrial vertebrate predators taking into account habitat dimensionality and biological traits. Our model predicts positive predator–prey size relationships on land but negative relationships in the sea. To test the model, we compiled data on diets of 794 predators (mammals, snakes, sharks and rays). Consistent with predictions, both terrestrial endotherm and ectotherm predators have significantly positive predator–prey size relationships. Marine predators, however, exhibit greater variation. Some of the largest predators specialise on small invertebrates while others are large vertebrate specialists. Prey–predator mass ratios were generally higher for ectothermic than endothermic predators, although dietary patterns were similar. Model‐based simulations of predator–prey relationships were consistent with observed relationships, suggesting that our approach provides insights into both trends and diversity in predator–prey interactions.     

Bottom‐up processes drive reproductive success in an apex predator

One of the central goals of the field of population ecology is to identify the drivers of population dynamics, particularly in the context of predator–prey relationships. Understanding the relative role of top‐down versus bottom‐up drivers is of particular interest in understanding ecosystem dynamics. Our goal was to explore predator–prey relationships in a boreal ecosystem in interior Alaska through the use of multispecies long‐term monitoring data. We used 29 years of field data and a dynamic multistate site occupancy modeling approach to explore the trophic relationships between an apex predator, the golden eagle, and cyclic populations of the two primary prey species available to eagles early in the breeding season, snowshoe hare and willow ptarmigan. We found that golden eagle reproductive success was reliant on prey numbers, but also responded prior to changes in the phase of the snowshoe hare population cycle and failed to respond to variation in hare cycle amplitude. There was no lagged response to ptarmigan populations, and ptarmigan populations recovered quickly from the low phase. Together, these results suggested that eagle reproduction is largely driven by bottom‐up processes, with little evidence of top‐down control of either ptarmigan or hare populations. Although the relationship between golden eagle reproductive success and prey abundance had been previously established, here we established prey populations are likely driving eagle dynamics through bottom‐up processes. The key to this insight was our focus on golden eagle reproductive parameters rather than overall abundance. Although our inference is limited to the golden eagle–hare–ptarmigan relationships we studied, our results suggest caution in interpreting predator–prey abundance patterns among other species as strong evidence for top‐down control.     

Prey and predator density‐dependent interactions under different water volumes

Predation is a critical ecological process that directly and indirectly mediates population stabilities, as well as ecosystem structure and function. The strength of interactions between predators and prey may be mediated by multiple density dependences concerning numbers of predators and prey. In temporary wetland ecosystems in particular, fluctuating water volumes may alter predation rates through differing search space and prey encounter rates. Using a functional response approach, we examined the influence of predator and prey densities on interaction strengths of the temporary pond specialist copepod Lovenula raynerae preying on cladoceran prey, Daphnia pulex, under contrasting water volumes. Further, using a population dynamic modeling approach, we quantified multiple predator effects across differences in prey density and water volume. Predators exhibited type II functional responses under both water volumes, with significant antagonistic multiple predator effects (i.e., antagonisms) exhibited overall. The strengths of antagonistic interactions were, however, enhanced under reduced water volumes and at intermediate prey densities. These findings indicate important biotic and abiotic contexts that mediate predator–prey dynamics, whereby multiple predator effects are contingent on both prey density and search area characteristics. In particular, reduced search areas (i.e., water volumes) under intermediate prey densities could enhance antagonisms by heightening predator–predator interference effects.     

The context dependence of non‐consumptive predator effects

Non‐consumptive predator effects (NCEs) are now widely recognised for their capacity to shape ecosystem structure and function. Yet, forecasting the propagation of these predator‐induced trait changes through particular communities remains a challenge. Accordingly, focusing on plasticity in prey anti‐predator behaviours, we conceptualise the multi‐stage process by which predators trigger direct and indirect NCEs, review and distil potential drivers of contingencies into three key categories (properties of the prey, predator and setting), and then provide a general framework for predicting both the nature and strength of direct NCEs. Our review underscores the myriad factors that can generate NCE contingencies while guiding how research might better anticipate and account for them. Moreover, our synthesis highlights the value of mapping both habitat domains and prey‐specific patterns of evasion success (‘evasion landscapes’) as the basis for predicting how direct NCEs are likely to manifest in any particular community. Looking ahead, we highlight two key knowledge gaps that continue to impede a comprehensive understanding of non‐consumptive predator–prey interactions and their ecosystem consequences; namely, insufficient empirical exploration of (1) context‐dependent indirect NCEs and (2) the ways in which direct and indirect NCEs are shaped interactively by multiple drivers of context dependence.     

Rethinking trophic niches: Speed and body mass colimit prey space of mammalian predators

1. Realized trophic niches of predators are often characterized along a one‐dimensional range in predator–prey body mass ratios. This prey range is constrained by an “energy limit” and a “subdue limit” toward small and large prey, respectively. Besides these body mass ratios, maximum speed is an additional key component in most predator–prey interactions.
2. Here, we extend the concept of a one‐dimensional prey range to a two‐dimensional prey space by incorporating a hump‐shaped speed‐body mass relation. This new “speed limit” additionally constrains trophic niches of predators toward fast prey.
3. To test this concept of two‐dimensional prey spaces for different hunting strategies (pursuit, group, and ambush predation), we synthesized data on 63 terrestrial mammalian predator–prey interactions, their body masses, and maximum speeds.
4. We found that pursuit predators hunt smaller and slower prey, whereas group hunters focus on larger but mostly slower prey and ambushers are more flexible. Group hunters and ambushers have evolved different strategies to occupy a similar trophic niche that avoids competition with pursuit predators. Moreover, our concept suggests energetic optima of these hunting strategies along a body mass axis and thereby provides mechanistic explanations for why there are no small group hunters (referred to as “micro‐lions”) or mega‐carnivores (referred to as “mega‐cheetahs”).
5. Our results demonstrate that advancing the concept of prey ranges to prey spaces by adding the new dimension of speed will foster a new and mechanistic understanding of predator trophic niches and improve our predictions of predator–prey interactions, food web structure, and ecosystem functions.

     

Predator population dynamics under a cyclic prey regime: numerical responses,demographic parameters and growth rates

The consequences of cyclic fluctuations in abundance of prey species on predator continue to improve our understanding of the mechanisms behind population regulation. Among predators, vole‐eating raptors usually respond to changes in prey abundance with no apparent time‐lag and therefore contradict predictions from the predator–prey theory. In such systems, the interplay between demographic traits and population growth rate in relation to prey abundance remains poorly studied, yet it is crucial to characterize the link between ecological processes and population changes. Using a mechanistic approach, we assessed the demographic rates associated to the direct and indirect numerical responses of a specialist raptor (Montagu's harrier) to its cyclic prey (common vole), using long term data from two adjacent study sites in France. First‐year survival rates were weakly affected by vole abundance, probably due to the fact that Montagu's harriers are trans‐Saharan migrants and thus escape the vole collapse occurring in autumn–winter. Recruitment of yearling as well as breeding propensity of experienced adult females were strongly affected by vole abundance and at least partially shaped the trajectory of the breeding population. We argued that the strong density dependent signal detected in predator time series was mostly the phenomenological consequence of the positive direct numerical response of harriers to vole abundance. Accounting for this, we proposed a method to assess density dependence in predator relying on a cyclic prey. Finally, the variation in Montagu's harrier population growth rates was best explained by overwinter growth rates of the prey population and to a lesser extent by previous residual predator density.     

Evaluating the effects of large marine predators on mobile prey behavior across subtropical reef ecosystems

The indirect effect of predators on prey behavior, recruitment, and spatial relationships continues to attract considerable attention. However, top predators like sharks or large, mobile teleosts, which can have substantial top–down effects in ecosystems, are often difficult to study due to their large size and mobility. This has created a knowledge gap in understanding how they affect their prey through nonconsumptive effects. Here, we investigated how different functional groups of predators affected potential prey fish populations across various habitats within Biscayne Bay, FL. Using baited remote underwater videos (BRUVs), we quantified predator abundance and activity as a rough proxy for predation risk and analyzed key prey behaviors across coral reef, sea fan, seagrass, and sandy habitats. Both predator abundance and prey arrival times to the bait were strongly influenced by habitat type, with open homogenous habitats receiving faster arrival times by prey. Other prey behaviors, such as residency and risk‐associated behaviors, were potentially driven by predator interaction. Our data suggest that small predators across functional groups do not have large controlling effects on prey behavior or stress responses over short temporal scales; however, habitats where predators are more unpredictable in their occurrence (i.e., open areas) may trigger risk‐associated behaviors such as avoidance and vigilance. Our data shed new light on the importance of habitat and context for understanding how marine predators may influence prey behaviors in marine ecosystems.     

Do native predators benefit from non‐native prey?

Despite knowledge on invasive species’ predatory effects, we know little of their influence as prey. Non‐native prey should have a neutral to positive effect on native predators by supplementing the prey base. However, if non‐native prey displace native prey, then an invader's net influence should depend on both its abundance and value relative to native prey. We conducted a meta‐analysis to quantify the effect of non‐native prey on native predator populations. Relative to native prey, non‐native prey similarly or negatively affect native predators, but only when studies employed a substitutive design that examined the effects of each prey species in isolation from other prey. When native predators had access to non‐native and native prey simultaneously, predator abundance increased significantly relative to pre‐invasion abundance. Although non‐native prey may have a lower per capita value than native prey, they seem to benefit native predators by serving as a supplemental prey resource.     

Hunting‐mediated predator facilitation and superadditive mortality in a European ungulate

Predator‐prey theory predicts that in the presence of multiple types of predators using a common prey, predator facilitation may result as a consequence of contrasting prey defense mechanisms, where reducing the risk from one predator increases the risk from the other. While predator facilitation is well established in natural predator‐prey systems, little attention has been paid to situations where human hunters compete with natural predators for the same prey. Here, we investigate hunting‐mediated predator facilitation in a hunter‐predator‐prey system. We found that hunter avoidance by roe deer (Capreolus capreolus) exposed them to increase predation risk by Eurasian lynx (Lynx lynx). Lynx responded by increasing their activity and predation on deer, providing evidence that superadditive hunting mortality may be occurring through predator facilitation. Our results reveal a new pathway through which human hunters, in their role as top predators, may affect species interactions at lower trophic levels and thus drive ecosystem processes.     

Interactive prey and predator diversity effects drive consumption rates

The positive relationship between biodiversity and ecosystem functioning is mainly derived from studies concerning primary producers, whereas a generalization of this relationship for higher trophic levels is more difficult. Furthermore, most evidence of the biodiversity–ecosystem functioning relationship is derived from experiments manipulating only one trophic level and, as a consequence, interactive diversity effects at multiple trophic levels have mostly been ignored. Here, we performed a mesocosm experiment in which we manipulated functional group diversity at two trophic levels (primary and secondary consumers) applying a full‐factorial design. More specifically, we asked whether 1) predator functional diversity affects prey mortality rates, 2) prey functional diversity affects prey mortality rates, 3) whether there are interactive effects of simultaneous diversity changes at both trophic levels. For each trophic level we used two functional groups, i.e. organisms belonging to two different habitat domains: at the higher trophic position 1) a ground foraging spider species and 2) a spider species foraging in the vegetation canopy and at the lower trophic position 3) a ground living cricket species and 4) leafhoppers living in the vegetation canopy. Increasing predator functional group diversity increased prey mortality by 53%, and increasing prey functional group diversity increased prey mortality by 24%. Further, prey mortality was highest at the uppermost level of functional group diversity (142% increase in prey mortality compared to single prey and predator functional diversity), most likely due to resource partitioning between the predators. This finding demonstrates that a multi‐trophic perspective is necessary, and that previous studies focusing on only one trophic level have most likely underestimated the strength of the relationship between biodiversity and ecosystem functioning.     

Flow‐mediated predator–prey dynamics influence fish populations in a tropical river

相似文献   

Body mass relationships affect the age structure of predation across carnivore–ungulate systems: a review and synthesis

相似文献   

Testing the validity of functional response models using molecular gut content analysis for prey choice in soil predators

Analysis of predator–prey interactions is a core concept of animal ecology, explaining structure and dynamics of animal food webs. Measuring the functional response, i.e. the intake rate of a consumer as a function of prey density, is a powerful method to predict the strength of trophic links and assess motives of prey choice, particularly in arthropod communities. However, due to their reductionist set‐up, functional responses, which are based on laboratory feeding experiments, may not display field conditions, possibly leading to skewed results. Here, we tested the validity of functional responses of centipede predators and their prey by comparing them with empirical gut content data from field‐collected predators. Our predator–prey system included lithobiid and geophilomorph centipedes, abundant and widespread predators of forest soils and their soil‐dwelling prey. First, we calculated the body size‐dependent functional responses of centipedes using a published functional response model in which we included natural prey abundances and animal body masses. This allowed us to calculate relative proportions of specific prey taxa in the centipede diet. In a second step, we screened field‐collected centipedes for DNA of eight abundant soil‐living prey taxa and estimated their body size‐dependent proportion of feeding events. We subsequently compared empirical data for each of the eight prey taxa, on proportional feeding events with functional response‐derived data on prey proportions expected in the gut, showing that both approaches significantly correlate in five out of eight predator–prey links for lithobiid centipedes but only in one case for geophilomorph centipedes. Our findings suggest that purely allometric functional response models, which are based on predator–prey body size ratios are too simple to explain predator–prey interactions in a complex system such as soil. We therefore stress that specific prey traits, such as defence mechanisms, must be considered for accurate predictions.     

Parasites as prey in aquatic food webs: implications for predator infection and parasite transmission

While the recent inclusion of parasites into food‐web studies has highlighted the role of parasites as consumers, there is accumulating evidence that parasites can also serve as prey for predators. Here we investigated empirical patterns of predation on parasites and their relationships with parasite transmission in eight topological food webs representing marine and freshwater ecosystems. Within each food web, we examined links in the typical predator–prey sub web as well as the predator–parasite sub web, i.e. the quadrant of the food web indicating which predators eat parasites. Most predator– parasite links represented ‘concomitant predation’ (consumption and death of a parasite along with the prey/host; 58–72%), followed by ‘trophic transmission’ (predator feeds on infected prey and becomes infected; 8–32%) and predation on free‐living parasite life‐cycle stages (4–30%). Parasite life‐cycle stages had, on average, between 4.2 and 14.2 predators. Among the food webs, as predator richness increased, the number of links exploited by trophically transmitted parasites increased at about the same rate as did the number of links where these stages serve as prey. On the whole, our analyses suggest that predation on parasites has important consequences for both predators and parasites, and food web structure. Because our analysis is solely based on topological webs, determining the strength of these interactions is a promising avenue for future research.