Behavior is a major determinant of predation risk in zooplankton

Almeda, Rodrigo; Gréve, Hans van Someren; Kiørboe, Thomas

doi:10.1002/ecs2.1668

Cited by 36 publications

(31 citation statements)

References 83 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…To estimate energetic (metabolic) expenses and mortality risk, we assume

Metabolism M true(p true) = m_{0} + p m_{f}

normalM normalo normalr normalt normala normall normali normalt normaly μ true(p true) = μ_{0} + p μ_{f}

where m 0 and μ 0 are background metabolism (mass per time) and mortality (per time), and

m_{f}

and

μ_{f}

are metabolic costs and mortality risk of feeding, respectively. There is both theoretical and experimental evidence that mortality risk increases with foraging activity in zooplankton (Tiselius et al , Kiørboe et al ; Almeda et al ). The interpretation of

p

as the fraction of time spent feeding makes it natural to assume a linear dependence of foraging metabolism and predation mortality risk on

p .

…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Adaptive feeding behavior and functional responses in zooplankton

Kiørboe

Saiz

Tiselius

et al. 2017

Limnology & Oceanography

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Zooplankton may modify their feeding behavior in response to prey availability and presence of predators with implications to populations of both predators and prey. Optimal foraging theory predicts that such responses result in a type II functional response for passive foragers and a type III response for active foragers, with the latter response having a stabilizing effect on prey populations. Here, we test the theoretical predictions and the underlying mechanisms in pelagic copepods that are actively feeding (feeding-current feeders), passively feeding (ambushers), or that can switch between the two feeding modes. In all cases, individual behaviors are consistent with the resulting functional response. Passive ambushing copepods have invariant foraging behavior and a type II functional response, as predicted. When foraging actively, the species with switching capability change its functional response from type II to III and modify its foraging effort in response to prey density and predation risk, also as predicted by theory. The obligate active feeders, however, follow a type II response inconsistent with the theoretical prediction. A survey of the literature similarly finds consistent type II response in ambush feeding copepods, but variable (II or III) responses in active feeders. We examine reasons for why observed behaviors at times deviate from predictions, and discuss the population dynamics and food web implications of the two types of functional responses and their underlying mechanisms.

show abstract

“…To estimate energetic (metabolic) expenses and mortality risk, we assume

Metabolism M true(p true) = m_{0} + p m_{f}

normalM normalo normalr normalt normala normall normali normalt normaly μ true(p true) = μ_{0} + p μ_{f}

where m 0 and μ 0 are background metabolism (mass per time) and mortality (per time), and

m_{f}

and

μ_{f}

p

as the fraction of time spent feeding makes it natural to assume a linear dependence of foraging metabolism and predation mortality risk on

p .

…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Adaptive feeding behavior and functional responses in zooplankton

Kiørboe

Saiz

Tiselius

et al. 2017

Limnology & Oceanography

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The modified entrainment Péclet number can be significantly smaller than the previous one, indicating a possibly substantial decrease in contact time. Therefore, even though prey motility increases encounter rates with predators [68], it could nonetheless reduce the overall probability of being captured.…”

Section: Optimal Size For Contact Timementioning

confidence: 99%

Universal entrainment mechanism controls contact times with motile cells

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Contact between particles and motile cells underpins a wide variety of biological processes, from nutrient capture and ligand binding, to grazing, viral infection and cell-cell communication. The window of opportunity for these interactions depends on the basic mechanism determining contact time, which is currently unknown. By combining experiments on three different species -Chlamydomonas reinhardtii, Tetraselmis subcordiforms, and Oxyrrhis marina-simulations and analytical modelling, we show that the fundamental physical process regulating proximity to a swimming microorganism is hydrodynamic particle entrainment. The resulting distribution of contact times is derived within the framework of Taylor dispersion as a competition between advection by the cell surface and microparticle diffusion, and predicts the existence of an optimal tracer size that is also observed experimentally. Spatial organisation of flagella, swimming speed, swimmer and tracer size influence entrainment features and provide trade-offs that may be tuned to optimise the estimated probabilities for microbial interactions like predation and infection. * A.M. and R.J. contributed equally to this work and are joint lead authors. A.M., R.J. and M.P. designed the study, analysed results, developed the theory, wrote the manuscript; R.J. performed the experiments; A.M. developed the model, performed simulations. † R.J. Current Address: IMEDEA, University of the Balearic Islands, Carrer de Miquel Marquès, 21 07190 Esporles, Illes Balears ‡ Correspondence: M.Polin@warwick.ac.uk (S) J above the length L (S) M at the peak of the distribution. Exponential fits to these curves give L (CR) J = 9.2 ± 0.6 µm for CR, L (TS) J = 7.4 ± 1.2 µm for TS and L (OM) J = 11.7 ± 1.4 µm for OM, while we find L (CR) M ≈ 6.7 µm, L (TS) M ≈ 8.6 µm and L (OM) M ≈ 7.5 µm. Unexpectedly, the characteristic entrainment length L (S) J

show abstract

“…This classification of feeding behaviors and foraging strategies applies across taxonomic groups, from small flagellates to large gelatinous zooplankton, and the different foraging modes are expected to have different benefits in terms of ability of obtaining food (foraging gain) and different costs in terms of mortality (predation risk) and metabolic expenses (Abrams ; Kiørboe et al ). We have previously quantified the different costs associated with the main foraging behaviors in zooplankton through theoretical models and experimental testing, particularly mortality costs due to predation (Kiørboe et al , ; Almeda et al ; van Someren Gréve et al ). Here, we aim at quantifying the benefits of the same foraging behaviors, specifically to quantify maximum clearance rates, to achieve a fuller understanding of the trade‐offs of zooplankton small‐scale foraging behaviors.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Prey perception mechanism determines maximum clearance rates of planktonic copepods

Almeda

Gréve

Kiørboe

2018

Limnology & Oceanography

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The ecological consequences of “sit‐and‐wait” (ambushing) vs. “searching” (active feeding) foraging strategies are not well‐understood in marine plankton food webs. We determined the maximum clearance rates of ambush and active feeders to evaluate the trade‐off between foraging gain and predation risk associated with the main foraging strategies in planktonic copepods. We show that maximum clearance rates are similar among feeding behaviors for motile prey but one order of magnitude lower for ambush than for active feeders toward nonmotile prey. The prey size spectrum is narrower and toward relatively larger prey in ambushers compared with active feeders. Prey detection in ambushers relies on the hydrodynamic disturbances and is inefficient toward nonmotile prey but highly efficient for large motile prey. The effective prey perception mechanism in ambushers compensates for the lower prey encounter velocity in ambush feeding copepods compared with active feeding copepods. Therefore, ambushers are more restricted in target prey than active feeders and prey perception mechanism determines the efficiency of planktonic copepod foraging strategies. The lower clearance rates of ambush feeders on nonmotile prey is compensated for by a lower predation risk, which can partially explain the coexistence of both “high‐gain & high‐risk” (active feeders) and “low‐gain & low‐risk” (ambush feeders) foraging strategies in marine plankton food webs.

show abstract

Behavior is a major determinant of predation risk in zooplankton

Cited by 36 publications

References 83 publications

Adaptive feeding behavior and functional responses in zooplankton

Adaptive feeding behavior and functional responses in zooplankton

Universal entrainment mechanism controls contact times with motile cells

Prey perception mechanism determines maximum clearance rates of planktonic copepods

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About