Interactions Between Growing Predators and Growing Prey

Wilbur, Henry M.

doi:10.1007/978-3-642-74001-5_11

Cited by 153 publications

(184 citation statements)

References 65 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

180

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Although it has been shown that cannibalism may have a positive effect on a cannibal's growth rate (DeAngelis et al 1979;Simon 1984;Wilbur 1988;Fagan and Odell 1996;Maret and Collins 1997), the mechanism of such a population-dynamic bottleneck has not been demonstrated before. In intraspecific competition, smaller individuals are often superior to larger ones because of size-dependent scaling of foraging and metabolic rates (Persson 1987;Werner 1988;Persson et al 1998).…”

Section: The Interplay Between Size-dependent Cannibalism and Competimentioning

confidence: 99%

Dwarfs and Giants: Cannibalism and Competition in Size-Structured Populations

Claessen¹,

Roos²,

Persson³

2000

The American Naturalist

125

317

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cannibals and their victims often share common resources and thus potentially compete. Smaller individuals are often competitively superior to larger ones because of size-dependent scaling of foraging and metabolic rates, while larger ones may use cannibalism to counter this competition. We study the interplay between cannibalism and competition using a size-structured population model in which all individuals consume a shared resource but in which larger ones may cannibalize smaller conspecifics. In this model, intercohort competition causes single-cohort cycles when cannibalism is absent. Moderate levels of cannibalism reduce intercohort competition, enabling coexistence of many cohorts. More voracious cannibalism, in combination with competition, produces large-amplitude cycles and a bimodal population size distribution with many small and few giant individuals. These coexisting ''dwarfs'' and ''giants'' have very different life histories, resulting from a reversal in importance of cannibalism and competition. The population structure at time of birth determines whether individuals suffer severe cannibalism, with the few survivors reaching giant sizes, or whether they suffer intense intracohort competition, with all individuals remaining small. These model results agree remarkably well with empirical data on perch population dynamics. We argue that the induction of cannibalistic giants in piscivorous fish is a populationdynamic emergent phenomenon that requires a combination of sizedependent cannibalism and competition.

show abstract

Section: The Interplay Between Size-dependent Cannibalism and Competimentioning

confidence: 99%

Dwarfs and Giants: Cannibalism and Competition in Size-Structured Populations

Claessen¹,

Roos²,

Persson³

2000

The American Naturalist

125

317

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A small, random, higher growth rate by a few individuals can amplify if their larger size gives them a slight competitive advantage. Predicting the outcome of such situations is difficult (Persson 1987;Łomnicki 1988;Wilbur 1988).…”

Section: The Modelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Fish Cohort Dynamics: Application of Complementary Modeling Approaches

Jiang¹,

Rose

Crowder

et al. 1993

The American Naturalist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract.The recruitment to the adult stock of a fish population is a function of both environmental conditions and the dynamics of juvenile fish cohorts. These dynamics can be quite complicated and involve the size structure of the cohort. Two types of models, i-state distribution models (e.g., partial differential equations) and i-state configuration models (computer simulation models following many individuals simultaneously), have been developed to study this type of question. However, these two model types have not to our knowledge previously been compared in detail. Analytical solutions are obtained for three partial differential equation models of early life-history fish cohorts. Equivalent individual-by-individual computer simulation models are also used. These two approaches can produce similar results, which suggests that one may be able to use the approaches interchangeably under many circumstances. Simple uncorrected stochasticity in daily growth is added to the individual-by-individual models, and it is shown that this produces no significant difference from purely deterministic situations. However, when the stochasticity was temporally correlated such that a fish growing faster than the mean 1 d has a tendency to grow faster than the mean the next day, there can be great differences in the outcomes of the simulations.The great majority of models of ecological populations describe populations as homogeneous collections of organisms. However, to an increasing degree, ecologists have become aware that the internal age and size structures of populations can have a decisive influence on the population dynamics (Ebenman and Persson 1988). Size structure may be particularly important in populations in which growth is fairly plastic and feeding and vulnerability to predation depend on size. The first factor, plasticity in growth, leads to the potential for a wide spectrum of organism sizes in the population, even within cohorts of individuals of the same age. The second factor, size dependence of feeding and vulnerability, means that members of an age-class cohort that have different sizes will have different probabilities of success in surviving and reproducing.These factors affect the dynamics of a population cohort and thus have many ramifications, both theoretical and practical, in ecology. On the theoretical side, there are questions of appropriate parental strategies (e.g., size of eggs, early parental care) and individual growth strategies in the face of environments with various size-dependent food availabilities and risks of predation. On the practical side, the recruitment of juvenile fish to the adult classes in commercial fish species is extremely important but is not well understood. It is quite possible

show abstract

“…Predators are often size selective, preferring larger prey (Wilbur 1988), although there are few studies addressing the basis of this preference. In one case, bluegill sunfish preferred daphnia of larger apparent size (independent of actual size; O'Brien et al 1976).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%