Order of invasion affects the spatial distribution of a reciprocal intraguild predator

Abstract

When intraguild predation is reciprocal, i.e. two predator species kill and feed on each other, theory predicts that well-mixed populations of the two species cannot coexist. At low levels of the shared resource, only the best competitor exists, whereas if the level of the common resource is high, the first species to arrive on a patch can reach high numbers, which prevents the invasion of the second species through intraguild predation. The order of invasion may therefore be of high importance in systems with reciprocal intraguild predation with high levels of productivity, with the species arriving first excluding the other species. However, natural systems are not well mixed and usually have a patchy structure, which gives individuals the possibility to choose patches without the other predator, thus reducing opportunities for intraguild predation. Such avoidance behaviour can cause spatial segregation between predator species, which, in turn, may weaken the intraguild interaction strength and facilitate their co-occurrence in patchy systems. Using a simple set-up, we studied the spatial distribution of two reciprocal intraguild predators when either of them was given priority on a patch with food. We released females of two predatory mite species sequentially and found that both species avoided patches on which the other species was resident. This resulted in partial spatial segregation of the species and thus a lower chance for the two species to encounter each other. Such behaviour reinforces segregation, because heterospecifics avoid patches with established populations of the other species. This may facilitate coexistence of two intraguild predators that would exclude each other in well-mixed populations.

Declining coastal piscivore populations in the Baltic Sea: Where and when do sticklebacks matter?

“…This has been suggested to be one possible mechanism behind the apparent lack of recovery of overfished piscivore populations (Post et al 2002 ; Casini et al 2009 , but see De Roos and Persson 2002 ; Persson et al 2007b for other mechanisms). In spatially linked ecosystems, the likelihood for ASS has been shown to depend on the degree of habitat separation (van der Hammen et al 2010 ) or on the relative productivity of different habitats (Schreiber and Rudolf 2008 ). The three-spined stickleback/coastal piscivore intraguild predation system involves an extensive time period with spatial separation between coastal predators and sticklebacks due to the offshore life stage of the latter.…”

“…Life history omnivory (shifts in resource use from invertebrates to fish over ontogeny) is common in fish and may involve both habitat shifts and interactions where species both prey on and compete with each other, i.e., intraguild predation (IGP) (Werner and Gilliam 1984 ; Irigoien and de Roos 2011 ). IGP in fish communities is strongly dependent on size relationships between interacting species and includes interactions where juvenile predators compete with their future prey for shared resources to interactions where prey feed on juvenile predators, i.e., reciprocal IGP (Persson et al 2007a ; Fauchald 2010 ; van der Hammen et al 2010 ; Hin et al 2011 ). In the former case, competition from prey for shared resources may result in a juvenile competitive bottleneck in the predator which limits recruitment to the adult predator stage (Werner and Gilliam 1984 ; Byström et al 1998).…”

“…Ecosystems or habitats are in many cases coupled through fluxes of organisms (Massol et al 2011 ) and in spatially linked systems with IGP, the likelihood for ASS has been shown to depend on the degree of spatial separation (van der Hammen et al 2010 ) or on the relative productivity of the coupled systems (Schreiber and Rudolf 2008 ). In marine ecosystems, migrating fish that over their life cycle use different habitats for growth and reproduction, link processes in offshore, and coastal and/or freshwater ecosystems (Schindler et al 2005 ; Eriksson et al 2011 ).…”

Compatibility of two predator species for biological control of the two-spotted spider mite

“…Moreover, we showed before that these predators have the potential to engage in intraguild predation (Fonseca et al 2018). In such interactions, one predator may induce antipredator behaviour in the heterospecific competitor, such as avoiding its presence (Magalhães et al 2005;van der Hammen et al 2010) and shifting the distribution and oviposition in response to cues of the other species (Choh et al 2010). These behavioural responses might affect community structure (Wissinger and McGrady 1993;Snyder and Wise 1999), and thus the performance of interacting predators in biological control programs.…”

Juvenile prey induce antipredator behaviour in adult predators

“…However, predators can also indirectly affect invulnerable prey stages. For example when eggs, but not adults, are vulnerable to predation, adult female prey can avoid oviposition at sites that are accessible to predators, thus reducing the risk of predation on their offspring (Resetarits and Wilbur 1989; Mappes and Kaitala 1995; Pallini et al 1999; Binckley and Resetarits 2002; Faraji et al 2002; Reguera and Gomendio 2002; Binckley and Resetarits 2003; Murphy 2003; Nomikou et al 2003; Eitam and Blaustein 2004; Montserrat et al 2007; Carrasco and Kaitala 2009; Hirayama and Kasuya 2009; Choh and Takabayashi 2010; Choh et al 2010; van der Hammen et al 2010a, b). …”