A meta‐analysis of non‐consumptive predator effects in arthropods: the influence of organismal and environmental characteristics

Buchanan, Amanda L.; Hermann, Sara L.; Lund, Margaret; Szendrei, Zsofia

doi:10.1111/oik.04384

Cited by 52 publications

(40 citation statements)

References 59 publications

(86 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Leaf litter and structural complexity increase with time since fire in mallee (Haslem et al, 2011), which can inhibit animal movement (Smith et al, 2016). There is also substantial turnover in plant species (Gosper et al, 2012) and invertebrate composition (Teasdale et al, 2013) in the decades after fire, which may alter non-consumptive effects on potential prey species (Buchanan et al, 2017) and food availability (Smith, 2018), hence changing movement patterns and detectability. In addition to revealing ecological processes, detection differences across a time-since-disturbance gradient has important implications for researchers studying disturbance.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For example, if low detection reflects inactivity, does this also influence the species' functional role in the ecosystem? Further, what drives inactivity, with possible mechanisms including non-consumptive effects of predators (Buchanan et al, 2017;Hossie et al, 2017) or prey availability (Lai et al, 2017)? If high detection is caused by increased movement linked to reduced food availability, does abundance subsequently decline, and does increased movement have new impacts on prey species (e.g.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Interactions among body size, trophic level, and dispersal traits predict beetle detectability and occurrence responses to fire

Driscoll

Smith

Blight

et al. 2019

Ecological Entomology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

1. Testing the extent to which traits act alone or in combination with other traits to influence responses to fire informs the trade‐off between increased generalisation using single traits and increased predictive power using interactions. This study investigated the following question: do four traits (body size, trophic group, dispersal ability, and stratum of the ecosystem), alone or in combination, best explain changes in beetle occurrence with time since fire? 2. The data from 4 years and 15 independent fires in southern Australia were analysed using generalised linear mixed models. The study also assessed whether detectability depends on time since fire using multi‐year detection models, because detectability has the potential to confound occurrence patterns. 3. The best model included the three‐way combination of size, flight, and trophic level interacting with time since fire and with year. The relationship between detectability and time since fire was similar to the occurrence relationship in six of the 10 trait–combination groups, with flightless species generally showing reduced detection probability as time since fire increased. Detectability did not confound occurrence responses for four trait groups, with three increasing with time since fire and one decreasing. 4. Generalisation using main effects of traits risks oversimplifying animal responses to fire, because combinations of traits influence the direction and magnitude of the response. Also, taking detectability into account is critical to correctly interpretating occupancy data. Three‐way trait combinations that differ by just one trait, particularly dispersal ability, can result in either negligible effects of disturbance on detectability or strong effects that influence observed occurrence.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Interactions among body size, trophic level, and dispersal traits predict beetle detectability and occurrence responses to fire

Driscoll

Smith

Blight

et al. 2019

Ecological Entomology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Models constructed with individual or pairwise species responses are unlikely to yield realistic results, as these may be modified by indirect effects in multispecies interaction networks [ 50 ]. These effects can include trait-mediated, non-consumptive effects [ 51 ], although these do not appear to be operating in this work.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Community dynamics can modify the direction of simulated warming effects on crop yield

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Climate change affects agriculture through a range of direct and indirect pathways. These include direct changes to impacts of pests and diseases on crops and indirect effects produced by interactions between organisms. It remains unclear whether the net effects of these biotic influences will be beneficial or detrimental to crop yield because few studies consider multiple interactions within communities and the net effects of these on community structure and yield. In this study, we created two experimental grapevine communities in field cages, and quantified direct and indirect effects of key pest and disease species under simulated climate change conditions (elevated temperature and reduced humidity). We found that the net impact of simulated climate change on total yield differed for the two communities, with increased yield in one community and no effect in the other. These effects, and the interactions between pests and pathogens, may also have been affected by the prevailing abiotic conditions, and we discuss how these may contribute to our findings. These results demonstrate that future research should consider more of the interactions between key organisms affecting crops under varying abiotic conditions to help generate future recommendations for adapting to the effects of climate change.

show abstract

“…New Phytologist population trends, case studies of accidental pest introductions, and planned biological control (Hajek & Leger, 1994;Rosenheim, 1998;P aez et al, 2017;Vidal & Murphy, 2018). In addition to killing herbivores, natural enemies provide substantial reductions in plant consumption by causing herbivores to hide, flee or feed on suboptimal tissues (Buchanan et al, 2017), and likewise, in addition to killing herbivores, plant toxins increase herbivore exposure to lethal natural enemies by delaying their growth (Shikano et al, 2018).…”

Section: Forummentioning

confidence: 99%

Why do entomologists and plant pathologists approach trophic relationships so differently? Identifying biological distinctions to foster synthesis

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ViewpointsWhy do entomologists and plant pathologists approach trophic relationships so differently? Identifying biological distinctions to foster synthesis Summary Plant interactions with herbivores and pathogens are among the most widespread ecological relationships, and show many congruent properties. Despite these similarities, general models describing how plant defenses function in ecosystems, and the prioritization of responses to emerging challenges such as climate change, invasive species and habitat alteration, often differ markedly between entomologists and plant pathologists. We posit that some fundamental distinctions between how insects and pathogens interact with plants underlie these differences. We propose a conceptual framework to help incorporate these distinctions into robust models and research priorities. The most salient distinctions include features of host-searching behavior, evasion of plant defenses, plant tolerance to utilization, and sources of insect and microbial population regulation. Collectively, these features lead to relatively more diffuse and environmentally mediated plant-insect interactions, and more intimate and genetically driven plant-pathogen interactions. Specific features of insect vs pathogen life histories can also yield different patterns of spatiotemporal dynamics. These differences can become increasingly pronounced when scaling from controlled laboratory to open ecological systems. Integrating these differences alongside similarities can foster improved models and research approaches to plant defense, trophic interactions, coevolutionary dynamics, food security and resource management, and provide guidance as traditional departments increase collaborations, or merge into larger units.

show abstract

A meta‐analysis of non‐consumptive predator effects in arthropods: the influence of organismal and environmental characteristics

Cited by 52 publications

References 59 publications

Interactions among body size, trophic level, and dispersal traits predict beetle detectability and occurrence responses to fire

Interactions among body size, trophic level, and dispersal traits predict beetle detectability and occurrence responses to fire

Community dynamics can modify the direction of simulated warming effects on crop yield

Why do entomologists and plant pathologists approach trophic relationships so differently? Identifying biological distinctions to foster synthesis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About