Effects of habitat complexity, prey type, and abundance on intraguild predation between larval odonates

Flynn, Kelly Elizabeth; Moon, Daniel C.

doi:10.1007/s10750-011-0805-2

Cited by 14 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Furthermore, observed increases in number of species may be confounded by increases in surface area (e.g. Attrill et al, 2000;Flynn and Moon, 2011) and/or greater component (pit or crevice, for example) density (Tokeshi and Arakaki, 2012). Thus, the greater number of species observed in these more 'complex' habitats can often be due to the greater area sampled -a factor rarely controlled for in empirical studies.…”

Section: Operational Definition Of Informational Complexitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Creating complex habitats for restoration and reconciliation

Loke

Ladle

Bouma

et al. 2015

Ecological Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Operational Definition Of Informational Complexitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Creating complex habitats for restoration and reconciliation

Loke

Ladle

Bouma

et al. 2015

Ecological Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…; Romero & Koricheva ; Woodcock & Heard ), freshwater (Nilsson et al . ; Rehage, Dunlop & Loftus ; Yee ; Flynn & Moon ), marine (Geraldi & Powers ) and across ecosystem boundaries (Wesner ). Although these studies examine multiple species of predators and prey, a specific kind of hunting mode or habitat domain is often only represented by a single predator species.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The 'hunting mode-habitat domain' concept holds promise for conceptualizing and predicting predator-prey interactions in a variety of systems, including terrestrial (Barton & Schmitz 2009;Griffin et al 2011;Romero & Koricheva 2011;Woodcock & Heard 2011), freshwater (Nilsson et al 2008;Rehage, Dunlop & Loftus 2009;Yee 2010;Flynn & Moon 2011), marine (Geraldi & Powers 2011) and across ecosystem boundaries (Wesner 2012). Although these studies examine multiple species of predators and prey, a specific kind of hunting mode or habitat domain is often only represented by a single predator species.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Fear on the move: predator hunting mode predicts variation in prey mortality and plasticity in prey spatial response

Miller

Ament

Schmitz

2013

Journal of Animal Ecology

150

159

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary 1.Ecologists have long searched for a framework of a priori species traits to help predict predator-prey interactions in food webs. Empirical evidence has shown that predator hunting mode and predator and prey habitat domain are useful traits for explaining predator-prey interactions. Yet, individual experiments have yet to replicate predator hunting mode, calling into question whether predator impacts can be attributed to hunting mode or merely species identity. 2. We tested the effects of spider predators with sit-and-wait, sit-and-pursue and active hunting modes on grasshopper habitat domain, activity and mortality in a grassland system. We replicated hunting mode by testing two spider predator species of each hunting mode on the same grasshopper prey species. We observed grasshoppers with and without each spider species in behavioural cages and measured their mortality rates, movements and habitat domains. We likewise measured the movements and habitat domains of spiders to characterize hunting modes. 3. We found that predator hunting mode explained grasshopper mortality and spider and grasshopper movement activity and habitat domain size. Sit-and-wait spider predators covered small distances over a narrow domain space and killed fewer grasshoppers than sit-and-pursue and active predators, which ranged farther distances across broader domains and killed more grasshoppers, respectively. Prey adjusted their activity levels and horizontal habitat domains in response to predator presence and hunting mode: sedentary sit-and-wait predators with narrow domains caused grasshoppers to reduce activity in the same-sized domain space; more mobile sit-and-pursue predators with broader domains caused prey to reduce their activity within a contracted horizontal (but not vertical) domain space; and highly mobile active spiders led grasshoppers to increase their activity across the same domain area. All predators impacted prey activity, and sit-and-pursue predators generated strong effects on domain size. 4. This study demonstrates the validity of utilizing hunting mode and habitat domain for predicting predator-prey interactions. Results also highlight the importance of accounting for flexibility in prey movement ranges as an anti-predator response rather than treating the domain as a static attribute.

show abstract

“…IGP is probably more common in lakes than so far documented [4]. The theory predicts that productivity and the relative efficiency of resource (shared prey) utilization determine the outcome of interactions between IG-predators and IG-prey [2,5].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Intraguild Predation Dynamics in a Lake Ecosystem Based on a Coupled Hydrodynamic-Ecological Model: The Example of Lake Kinneret (Israel)

Makler-Pick

Hipsey

Zohary

et al. 2017

Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The food web of Lake Kinneret contains intraguild predation (IGP). Predatory invertebrates and planktivorous fish both feed on herbivorous zooplankton, while the planktivorous fish also feed on the predatory invertebrates. In this study, a complex mechanistic hydrodynamic-ecological model, coupled to a bioenergetics-based fish population model (DYCD-FISH), was employed with the aim of revealing IGP dynamics. The results indicate that the predation pressure of predatory zooplankton on herbivorous zooplankton varies widely, depending on the season. At the time of its annual peak, it is 10–20 times higher than the fish predation pressure. When the number of fish was significantly higher, as occurs in the lake after atypical meteorological years, the effect was a shift from a bottom-up controlled ecosystem, to the top-down control of planktivorous fish and a significant reduction of predatory and herbivorous zooplankton biomass. Yet, seasonally, the decrease in predatory-zooplankton biomass was followed by a decrease in their predation pressure on herbivorous zooplankton, leading to an increase of herbivorous zooplankton biomass to an extent similar to the base level. The analysis demonstrates the emergence of non-equilibrium IGP dynamics due to intra-annual and inter-annual changes in the physico-chemical characteristics of the lake, and suggests that IGP dynamics should be considered in food web models in order to more accurately capture mass transfer and trophic interactions.

show abstract

Effects of habitat complexity, prey type, and abundance on intraguild predation between larval odonates

Cited by 14 publications

References 38 publications

Creating complex habitats for restoration and reconciliation

Creating complex habitats for restoration and reconciliation

Fear on the move: predator hunting mode predicts variation in prey mortality and plasticity in prey spatial response

Intraguild Predation Dynamics in a Lake Ecosystem Based on a Coupled Hydrodynamic-Ecological Model: The Example of Lake Kinneret (Israel)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About