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

Oikos

Volumn 121, Issue 7, 2012, Pages 1093-1102

  Scheinin, Matias ^a   Scyphers, Steven B ^b   Kauppi, Laura ^a   Heck, Ken L ^b   Mattila, Johanna ^a  

^a ÅBO AKADEMI UNIVERSITY   (Finland)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH ALABAMA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ASSESSMENT METHOD; CRUSTACEAN; PARADIGM SHIFT; PERCIFORM; PREDATOR-PREY INTERACTION; SUBMERGED VEGETATION; VEGETATION STRUCTURE;

ANIMALIA; DAPHNIA MAGNA; PECTINATUS; PERCA FLUVIATILIS; POTAMOGETON PECTINATUS; RUTILUS RUTILUS;

EID: 84862762369     PISSN: 00301299     EISSN: 16000706     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0706.2011.19941.x     Document Type: Article

References (66)

1. Agrawal A. A. et al. 2007. Filling key gaps in population and community ecology. Front. Ecol. Environ. 5: 145-152.
2. Anderson O. 1984. Optimal foraging by largemouth bass in structured environments. Ecology 65: 851-861.
3. Appelgren K. and Mattila J. 2005. Variation in vegetation communities in shallow bays of the northern Baltic Sea. Aquat. Bot. 83: 1-13.
4. Bartholomew A. et al. 2000. New dimensionless indices of structural habitat complexity: predicted and actual effects on a predator's foraging success. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 206: 45-58.
5. Bell S. 1985. Habitat complexity of polychaete tube-caps: influence of architecture on dynamics of a meioepibenthic assemblage. J. Mar. Res. 43: 647-671.
6. Bell S. S. et al. 1991. Habitat structure: the physical arrangement of objects in space. - Chapman and Hall.
7. Bobbink R. et al. 2006. Wetlands: functioning, biodiversity conservation, and restoration. - Springer.
8. Bowman G. B. and Harris L. D. 1980. Effect of spatial heterogeneity on ground-nest depredation. J. Wildlife Manage. 44: 806-813.
9. Brooks J. L. and Dodson S. I. 1965. Predation, body size, and composition of plankton. Science 150: 28-35.
10. Burks R. et al. 2001. Littoral zone structures as Daphnia refugia against fish predators. Limnol. Oceanogr. 46: 230-237.
11. Burks R. et al. 2002. Diel horizontal migration of zooplankton: costs and benefits of inhabiting the littoral. Freshwater Biol. 47: 343-365.
12. Canion C. R. and Heck K. L. 2009. Effect of habitat complexity on predation success: re-evaluating the current paradigm in seagrass beds. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 393: 37-46.
13. Carr G. M. et al. 1997. Models of aquatic plant productivity: a review of the factors that influence growth. Aquat. Bot. 59: 195-215.
14. Christensen B. and Persson L. 1993. Species-specific antipredatory behaviours: effects on prey choice in different habitats. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 32: 1-9.
15. Crowder L. B. and Cooper W. E. 1982. Habitat structural complexity and the interaction between bluegills and their prey. Ecology 63: 1802-1813.
16. Diehl S. 1988. Foraging efficiency of three freshwater fishes: effects of structural complexity and light. Oikos 53: 207-214.
17. Eklöv P. and Persson L. 1995. Species-specific antipredator capacities and prey refuges: interactions between piscivorous perch (Perca fluviatilis) and juvenile perch and roach (Rutilus rutilus). Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 37: 169-178.
18. Eriksson B. et al. 2009. Declines in predatory fish promote bloom-forming macroalgae. Ecol. Appl. 19: 1975-1988.
19. Estes J. A. and Palmisano J. F. 1974. Sea otters: their role in structuring shore communities. Science 185: 1058-1060.
20. Grabowski J. H. 2004. Habitat complexity disrupts predator- prey interactions but not the trophic cascade on oyster reefs. Ecology 85: 995-1004.
21. Griffen B. D. 2006. Detecting emergent effects of multiple predator species. Oecologia 148: 702-709.
22. Griffen B. D. and Williamson T. 2008. Influence of predator density on nonindependent effects of multiple predator species. Oecologia 155: 151-159.
23. Hansen J. P. et al. 2011. Distribution differences and active habitat choices of invertebrates between macrophytes of different morphological complexity. Aquat. Ecol. 45: 11-22.
24. Horinouchi M. et al. 2009. Seagrass habitat complexity does not always decrease foraging efficiencies of piscivorous fishes. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 377: 43-49.
25. Huckstorf V. et al. 2009. Performance level and efficiency of two differing predator-avoidance strategies depend on nutritional state of the prey fish. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 63: 1735-1742.
26. Hutchinson J. M. C. and Wazer P. M. 2007. Use, misuse and extensions of ''ideal gas'' models of animal encounter. Biol. Rev. 82: 335-359.
27. Ioannou C. C. et al. 2008. Search rate, attack probability, and the relationship between prey density and prey encounter rate. Behav. Ecol. 19: 842-846.
28. Jacobsen L. et al. 1997. Interactions between piscivores, zooplanktivores and zooplankton in submerged macrophytes: preliminary observations from enclosure and pond experiments. Hydrobiologia 342/343: 197-205.
29. Johnson D. W. 2006. Predation, habitat complexity, and variation in density dependent mortality of temperate reef fishes. Ecology 87: 1179-1188.
30. Karr J. R. 1976. Seasonality, resource availability, and community diversity in tropical bird communities. Am. Nat. 110: 973-994.
31. MacArthur R. H. and MacArthur J. W. 1961. On bird species diversity. Ecology 42: 594-598.
32. Manatunge J. et al. 2000. The influence of structural complexity on fish-zooplankton interactions: a study using artificial submerged macrophytes. Environ. Biol. Fishes 58: 425-438.
33. Mattila J. et al. 2008. Increased habitat structure does not always provide increased refuge from predation. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 361: 15-20.
34. Mikheev V. N. et al. 2002. Feeding response of perch (Perca fluviatilis) and roach (Rutilus rutilus) fry to the presence of a predator. Dokl. Akad. Nauk. 383: 842-844.
35. Mittelbach G. G. 1981. Foraging efficiency and body size: a study of optimal diet and habitat use by bluefills. Ecology 62: 1370-1386.
36. Moss B. et al. 1998. The effects of nymphaeid (Nuphar lutea) density and predation by perch (Perca fluviatilis) on the zooplankton communities in a shallow lake. Freshwater Biol. 39: 689-697.
37. Murdoch W. W. and Oaten A. 1975. Predation and population stability. Adv. Ecol. Res. 9: 1-132.
38. Okun N. and Mehner T. 2005. Distribution and feeding of juvenile fish on invertebrates in littoral reed (Phragmites) stands. Ecol. Freshwater Fish 14: 139-149.
39. Perrow M. R. et al. 1999. The practical importance of the interactions between fish, zooplankton and macrophytes in shallow lake restoration. Hydrobiologia 395: 199-210.
40. Persson L. and Eklöv P. 1995. Prey refuges affecting interactions between piscivorous perch and juvenile perch and roach. Ecology 76: 70-81.
41. Polis G. 1999. Why are parts of the world green? Multiple factors control productivity and the distribution of biomass. Oikos 86: 3-15.
42. Quinn G. P. and Keough M. J. 2002. Experimental design and data analysis for biologists. - Cambridge Univ. Press.
43. Sass G. G. et al. 2006. Whole-lake influences of littoral structural complexity and prey body morphology on fish predator-prey interactions. Ecol. Freshwater Fish 15: 301-308.
44. Savino J. and Stein R. 1989. Behavior of fish predators and their prey: habitat choice between open water and dense vegetation. Environ. Biol. Fishes 24: 287-293.
45. Scheinin M. and Mattila J. 2010. The structure and dynamics of zooplankton communities in shallow bays in the northern Baltic Sea during a single growing season. Boreal Environ. Res. 15: 397-412.
46. Schmitz O. and Suttle K. 2001. Effects of top predator species on direct and indirect interactions in a food web. Ecology 82: 2072-2081.
47. Schoener T. W. 1971. Theory of feeding strategies. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Sys. 2: 369-404.
48. Schriver P. et al. 1995. Impact of submerged macrophytes on fish-zooplankton-phytoplankton interactions: large-scale enclosure experiments in a shallow eutrophic lake. Freshwater Biol. 33: 255-270.
49. Schultz S. T. and Kruschel C. 2010. Frequency and success of ambush and chase predation in fish assemblages associated with seagrass and bare sediment in an Adriatic lagoon. Hydrobiologia 649: 25-37.
50. Schultz S. T. et al. 2009. Influence of seagrass meadows on predator-prey habitat segregation in an Adriatic lagoon. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 374: 85-99.
51. Sih A. et al. 1985. Predation, competition, and prey communities: a review of field experiments. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 16: 269-311.
52. Sih A. et al. 1998. Emergent impacts of multiple predators on prey. Trends Ecol. Evol. 13: 350-355.
53. Simpson G. G. 1964. Species density of North American recent mammals. Syst. Zool. 13: 57-73.
54. Snickars M. et al. 2004. Antipredator behaviour of 0 + year Perca fluviatilis: effect of vegetation density and turbidity. J. Fish Biol. 65: 1604-1613.
55. Snickars M. et al. 2009. Fish assemblages in coastal lagoons in land-uplift succession: the relative importance of local and regional environmental gradients. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 81: 247-256.
56. Summerson H. C. and Peterson C. H. 1984. Role of predation in organizing benthic communities of a temperate-zone seagrass bed. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 15: 63-77.
57. Timms R. M. and Moss B. 1984. Prevention of growth of potentially dense phytoplankton populations by zooplankton grazing, in the presence of zooplanktivorous fish, in shallow wetland ecosystem. Limnol. Oceanogr. 29: 472-486.
58. Turesson H. and Brönmark C. 2007. Predator-prey encounter rates in freshwater piscivores: effects of prey density and water transparency. Oecologia 153: 281-290.
59. Verdolin J. L. 2006. Meta-analysis of foraging and predation risk tradeoffs in terrestrial systems. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 60: 457-464.
60. Walters C. J. and Juanes F. 1993. Recruitment limitation as a consequence of optimal risk-taking behaviour by juvenile fish. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 50: 2058-2070.
61. Walters C. J. and Martell S. 2004. Fisheries ecology and management. - Princeton Univ. Press.
62. Werner E. E. and Hall D. J. 1979. Foraging efficiency and habitat switching in competing sunfishes. Ecology 60: 256-264.
63. Werner E. E. and Hall D. J. 1988. Ontogenetic habitat shifts in bluegill: the foraging rate-predation risk tradeoff. Ecology 69: 1352-1366.
64. Werner E. E. et al. 1983. An experimental test of the effects of predation risk on habitat use in fish. Ecology 64: 1540-1548.
65. Winfield I. J. 1986. The influence of simulated aquatic macrophytes on the zooplankton consumption rate of juvenile roach, Rutilus rutilus, rudd, Scardinius erythrophthalmus, and perch, Perca fluviatilis. J. Fish Biol. 29: 37-48.
66. Wootton J. T. 1993. Indirect effects and habitat use in an intertidal community: interaction chains and interaction modifications. Am. Nat. 141: 71-89.