The interaction between predation and competition: a review and synthesis |
| |
| Authors: | Jonathan M. Chase,Peter A. Abrams,James P. Grover,Sebastian Diehl,Peter Chesson,Robert D. Holt,Shane A. Richards,Roger M. Nisbet,& Ted J. Case |
| |
| Affiliation: | Department of Biological Sciences, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.,;Department of Zoology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.,;Department of Biology, University of Texas-Arlington, Arlington, Texas, USA.,;Department of Zoology, Ludwig Maximillians Universität, München, Germany.,;Section of Ecology and Evolution, University of California-Davis, Davis, California, USA.,;Department of Zoology, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA.,;National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis, Santa Barbara, California, USA.,;Department of Ecology, Evolution and Marine Biology, University of California-Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, California, USA.,;Department of Biology, University of California-San Diego, San Diego, California, USA. |
| |
| Abstract: | This review discusses the interface between two of the most important types of interactions between species, interspecific competition and predation. Predation has been claimed to increase, decrease, or have little effect on, the strength, impact or importance of interspecific competition. There is confusion about both the meaning of these terms and the likelihood of, and conditions required for, each of these outcomes. In this article we distinguish among three measures of the influence of predation on competitive outcomes: short‐term per capita consumption or growth rates, long‐term changes in density, and the probability of competitive coexistence. We then outline various theoretical mechanisms that can lead to qualitatively distinct effects of predators. The qualitative effect of predators can depend both on the mechanism of competition and on the definition of competitive strength/impact. In assessing the empirical literature, we ask: (1) What definitions of competitive strength/impact have been assumed? (2) Does strong evidence exist to support one or more of the possible mechanisms that can produce a given outcome? (3) Do biases in the choice of organism or manipulation exist, and are they likely to have influenced the conclusions reached? We conclude by discussing several unanswered questions, and espouse a stronger interchange between empirical and theoretical approaches to this important question. |
| |
| Keywords: | Coexistence diversity herbivory interaction strength interspecific competition predation |
|
|
