Trophic omnivory across a productivity gradient: Intraguild predation theory and the structure and strength of species interactions

Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences

Volumn 280, Issue 1766, 2013, Pages

  Novak, Mark ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO   (United States)

^b OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Adaptive foraging; Alternative prey; Consumer dependence; Handling times; Interaction strength; Per capita attack rate

Indexed keywords

ABUNDANCE; ADAPTATION; ALLOMETRY; BIOLOGICAL PRODUCTION; COMPETITIVE ABILITY; ECOLOGICAL THEORY; FOOD WEB; FORAGING BEHAVIOR; FUNCTIONAL RESPONSE; HYPOTHESIS TESTING; INTRAGUILD PREDATION; NICHE OVERLAP; OMNIVORY; PREDATOR; PREY SELECTION; RESOURCE AVAILABILITY; ROCKY SHORE; SNAIL; TROPHIC INTERACTION;

NEW ZEALAND;

HAUSTRUM HAUSTORIUM;

ADAPTATION; ANIMAL; COMPETITIVE BEHAVIOR; FEEDING BEHAVIOR; FOOD CHAIN; GASTROPOD; NEW ZEALAND; PHYSIOLOGY; POPULATION DYNAMICS; PREDATION;

ADAPTATION, PHYSIOLOGICAL; ANIMALS; COMPETITIVE BEHAVIOR; FEEDING BEHAVIOR; FOOD CHAIN; GASTROPODA; NEW ZEALAND; POPULATION DYNAMICS; PREDATORY BEHAVIOR;

EID: 84894473072     PISSN: 09628452     EISSN: 14712954     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2013.1415     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. Cousins S. 1987 The decline of the trophic level concept. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2, 312-316. (doi:10. 1016/0169-5347(87)90086-3)
2. Polis GA, Myers CA, Holt RD. 1989 The ecology and evolution of intraguild predation: potential competitors that eat each other. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 20, 297-330. (doi:10.1146/annurev. es.20. 110189.001501)
3. Polis GA, Holt RD. 1992 Intraguild predation: the dynamics of complex trophic interactions. Trends Ecol. Evol. 7, 151-154. (doi:10.1016/0169-5347 (92)90208-S)
4. Holt RD, Polis GA. 1997 A theoretical framework for intraguild predation. Am. Nat. 149, 745-764. (doi:10.1086/286018)
5. Vance-Chalcraft HD, Rosenheim JA, Vonesh JR, Osenberg CW, Sih A. 2007 The influence of intraguild predation on prey suppression and prey release: a meta-analysis. Ecology 88, 2689-2696. (doi:10.1890/06-1869.1)
6. Briggs CJ, Borer ET. 2005 Why short-term experiments may not allow long-terms predictions about intraguild predation? Ecol. Appl. 15, 1111-1117. (doi:10.1890/04-1776)
7. Diehl S, Feissel M. 2001 Intraguild prey suffer from enrichment of their resources: a microcosm experiment with ciliates. Ecology 82, 2977-2983. (doi:10.1890/ 0012-9658(2001)082[2977:IPSFEO]2.0. CO;2)
8. Liess A, Diehl S. 2006 Effects of enrichment on protist abundances and bacterial composition in simple microbial communities. Oikos 114, 15-26. (doi:10.1111/j.2006.0030-1299.14516. x)
9. Montserrat M, Magalhaes S, Sabelis MW, de Roos AM, Janssen A. 2008 Patterns of exclusion in an intraguild predator-prey system depend on initial conditions. J. Anim. Ecol. 77, 624-630. (doi:10. 1111/j.1365-2656.2008.01363. x)
10. Holt RD, Huxel GR. 2007 Alternative prey and the dynamics of intraguild predation: theoretical perspectives. Ecology 88, 2706-2712. (doi:10.1890/ 06-1525.1)
11. Daugherty MP, Harmon JP, Briggs CJ. 2007 Trophic supplements to intraguild predation. Oikos 116, 662-677. (doi:10.1111/j.2006.0030-1299.15378. x)
12. Kondoh M. 2008 Building trophic modules into a persistent food web. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 105, 16 631-16 635. (doi:10.1073/pnas.0805870105)
13. Wootton JT, Emmerson M. 2005 Measurement of interaction strength in nature. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 36, 419-444. (doi:10.1146/annurev. ecolsys. 36.091704.175535)
14. Novak M, Wootton JT. 2010 Using experimental indices to quantify the strength of species interactions. Oikos 119, 1057-1063. (doi:10.1111/j. 1600-0706.2009.18147. x)
15. Menge BA, Daley BA, Lubchenco J, Eric S, Dahlhoff E, Halpin PM, Hudson G, Burnaford JL. 1999 Topdown and bottom-up regulation of New Zealand rocky intertidal communities. Ecol. Monogr. 69, 297-330. (doi:10.1890/0012-9615(1999)069 [0297:TDABUR]2.0. CO;2)
16. Menge BA et al. 2003 Coastal oceanography sets the pace of rocky intertidal community dynamics. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 100, 12 229-12 234. (doi:10. 1073/pnas.1534875100)
17. Novak M. 2010 Estimating interaction strengths in nature: experimental support for an observational approach. Ecology 91, 2394-2405. (doi:10.1890/ 09-0275.1)
18. Chesson J. 1983 The estimation and analysis of preference and its relationship to foraging models. Ecology 64, 1297-1304. (doi:10.2307/1937838)
19. Novak M, Wootton JT. 2008 Estimating nonlinear interaction strengths: an observation-based method for species-rich food webs. Ecology 89, 2083-2089. (doi:10.1890/08-0033.1)
20. Yeakel JD, Novak M, Guimaraes Jr PR, Dominy NJ, Koch PL, Ward EJ, Moore JW, Semmens BX. 2011 Merging resource availability with isotope mixing models: the role of neutral interaction assumptions. PLoS ONE 6, e22015. (doi:10.1371/journal. pone. 0022015)
21. McCoy MW, Gillooly JF. 2008 Predicting natural mortality rates of plants and animals. Ecol. Lett. 11, 710-716. (doi:10.1111/j.1461-0248.2008.01190. x)
22. Humphreys WF. 1979 Production and respiration in animal populations. J. Anim. Ecol. 48, 427-453. (doi:10.2307/4171)
23. Amarasekare P. 2006 Productivity, dispersal and the coexistence of intraguild predators and prey. J. Theor. Biol. 243, 121-133. (doi:10.1016/j. jtbi. 2006.06.007)
24. Amarasekare P. 2007 Spatial dynamics of communities with intraguild predation: the role of dispersal strategies. Am. Nat. 170, 819-831. (doi:10.1086/522837).
25. Sanford E, Roth MS, Johns GC, Wares JP, Somero GN. 2003 Local selection and latitudinal variation in a marine predator-prey interaction. Science 300, 1135-1137. (doi:10.1126/science.1083437)
26. Rudolf VHW. 2007 The interaction of cannibalism and omnivory: consequences for community dynamics. Ecology 88, 2697-2705. (doi:10.1890/06-1266.1)
27. Křivan V. 2000 Optimal intraguild foraging and population stability. Theor. Popul. Biol. 58, 79-94. (doi:10.1006/tpbi.2000.1480)
28. Křivan V, Schmitz OJ. 2003 Adaptive foraging and flexible food web topology. Evol. Ecol. Res. 5, 623-652.
29. Křivan V, Diehl S. 2005 Adaptive omnivory and species coexistence in tri-trophic food webs. Theor. Popul. Biol. 67, 85-99. (doi:10.1016/j. tpb.2004. 09.003)
30. Holt RD. 1983 Optimal foraging and the form of the predator isocline. Am. Nat. 122, 521-541. (doi:10. 1086/284153)
31. Hart DR. 2002 Intraguild predation, invertebrate predators, and trophic cascades in lake food webs. J. Theor. Biol. 218, 111-128. (doi:10.1006/jtbi. 2002.3053)
32. Arditi R, Ginzburg LR. 2012 How species interact: altering the standard view of trophic ecology, 170 p. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
33. Abrams PA, Ginzburg LR. 2000 The nature of predation: prey dependent, ratio dependent or neither? Trends Ecol. Evol. 15, 337-341. (doi:10. 1016/S0169-5347(00)01908-X)
34. Jensen CXJ, Jeschke JM, Ginzburg LR. 2007 A direct, experimental test of resource vs. consumer dependence: comment. Ecology 88, 1600-1602.
35. Fussmann GF, Weithoff G, Yoshida T. 2007 A direct, experimental test of resource vs. consumer dependence: reply. Ecology 88, 1603-1604.
36. Murdoch WW. 1969 Switching in general predators: experiments on predator specificity and stability of prey populations. Ecol. Monogr. 39, 335-354. (doi:10.2307/1942352)
37. Katz CH. 1985 A nonequilibrium marine predator-prey interaction. Ecology 66, 1426-1438. (doi:10. 2307/1938005)
38. Akcakaya HR, Arditi R, Ginzburg LR. 1995 Ratiodependent predation: an abstraction that works. Ecology 76, 995-1004. (doi:10.2307/1939362)
39. Abrams PA. 1994 The fallacies of 'ratio-dependent' predation. Ecology 75, 1842-1850.
40. Novak M. 2008 Trophic omnivory and the structure, strength, and nonlinear nature of species interactions across a productivity gradient. PhD thesis, University of Chicago, Chicago.
41. Connell JH. 1970 A predator-prey system in the marine intertidal region. I. Balanus glandula and several predatory species of Thais. Ecol. Monogr. 40, 49-78. (doi:10.2307/1942441)
42. Navarrete SA, Berlow EL. 2006 Variable interaction strengths stabilize marine community pattern. Ecol. Lett. 9, 526-536. (doi:10.1111/j.1461-0248.2006. 00899. x)
43. Abrams PA, Fung SR. 2010 Prey persistence and abundance in systems with intraguild predation and type-2 functional responses. J. Theor. Biol. 264, 1033-1042. (doi:10.1016/j. jtbi.2010.02.045)
44. Abrams PA. 2011 Simple life-history omnivory: responses to enrichment and harvesting in systems with intraguild predation. Am. Nat. 178, 305-319. (doi:10.1086/661243)
45. Armstrong RA, McGehee R. 1980 Competitiveexclusion. Am. Nat. 115, 151-170. (doi:10.1086/ 283553)
46. Navarrete SA, Menge BA, Daley BA. 2000 Species interactions in intertidal food webs: prey or predation regulation of intermediate predators? Ecology 81, 2264-2277. (doi:10.1890/0012-9658(2000)081[2264:SIIIFW]2.0. CO;2)
47. Amarasekare P. 2008 Coexistence of intraguild predators and prey in resource-rich environments. Ecology 89, 2786-2797. (doi:10.1890/07-1508.1)
48. Polis GA, Strong DR. 1996 Food web complexity and community dynamics. Am. Nat. 147, 813-846. (doi:10.1086/285880)
49. Menge BA. 1995 Indirect effects in marine rocky intertidal interaction webs: patterns and importance. Ecol. Monogr. 65, 21-74. (doi:10. 2307/2937158)
50. Blomberg SP, Garland T, Ives AR. 2003 Testing for phylogenetic signal in comparative data: behavioral traits are more labile. Evolution 57, 717-745. (doi:10.1111/j.0014-3820.2003. tb00285. x)