Naiveté and an aquatic–terrestrial dichotomy in the effects of introduced predators

Cox, James C.; Lima, Steven L.

doi:10.1016/j.tree.2006.07.011

Cited by 434 publications

(478 citation statements)

References 58 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

461

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Although the results of our study support our hypothesis and other published predictions concerning historical exposure between predator and prey (Vermeij 2001;Blackburn and Gaston 2005;Cox and Lima 2006;Strauss et al 2008), several limitations of our study preclude us from deWnitively concluding that historical exposure underlies the results. First, we did not test how invasive crabs and native whelks interact to inXuence oysters via trophic cascades.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 80%

“…5a). As predicted by Cox and Lima (2006), the historical exposure to native crabs can explain why a general behavioral response to smaller but functionally similar invasive crabs has also been selected for in native whelk populations (Garth and Abbott 1980;Hellberg et al 2001). Invasive whelks, however, generally appear naive to the threat of crabs-regardless of predator size-because they did not respond to non-lethal native or invasive crabs (Fig.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 88%

“…And for density-mediated cascades, it is reasonable that the top predator's evolutionary history with common prey (and its own predators) selected a dietary preference, hunting mode, and/or morphological features that facilitate hunting and eYciently consuming a widely available intermediate consumer (Vermeij 1982b). Although the behavior underlying trophic cascades could be learned by individual top predators and intermediate consumers, each animal's capacity for learning would be inXuenced by the presence/absence of innate morphological or behavioral traits that would increase Wtness and ultimately be selected for within a population over time (Berger et al 2001;Cox and Lima 2006;Smith 2004). We therefore suspect that a common feature of functioning cascades is that the top predator and intermediate consumer species share an evolutionary history and/or have historical exposure with similar types of predator and prey species so that their predator and anti-predator strategies are well matched.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Because this historical exposure may inXuence the degree of match between predator-prey types (Strauss et al 2008;Vermeij 2001), invaders may interfere with or fail to recreate historically important native trophic cascades. For instance, a nonnative intermediate consumer may not participate in a trait-mediated cascade if it is unable to recognize or eVectively respond to a native top predator (Cox and Lima 2006;Werner and Peacor 2003). This naivete may occur because the intermediate consumer experienced little predation or suYciently diVerent predators in its native range and thereby employs an inappropriate anti-predator strategy, ultimately leading to an unsuccessful invasion (Cox and Lima 2006).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For instance, a nonnative intermediate consumer may not participate in a trait-mediated cascade if it is unable to recognize or eVectively respond to a native top predator (Cox and Lima 2006;Werner and Peacor 2003). This naivete may occur because the intermediate consumer experienced little predation or suYciently diVerent predators in its native range and thereby employs an inappropriate anti-predator strategy, ultimately leading to an unsuccessful invasion (Cox and Lima 2006). Naivete, however, could also weaken density-mediated cascades and promote invasion when the foraging traits of top predators are not well matched to a novel intermediate consumer; such predators may choose or only be able to eat small numbers of a novel intermediate consumer.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Invasive species cause large-scale loss of native California oyster habitat by disrupting trophic cascades

et al. 2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although invasive species often resemble their native counterparts, diVerences in their foraging and antipredator strategies may disrupt native food webs. In a California estuary, we showed that regions dominated by native crabs and native whelks have low mortality of native oysters (the basal prey), while regions dominated by invasive crabs and invasive whelks have high oyster mortality and are consequently losing a biologically diverse habitat.Using Weld experiments, we demonstrated that the invasive whelk's distribution is causally related to a large-scale pattern of oyster mortality. To determine whether predatorprey interactions between crabs (top predators) and whelks (intermediate consumers) indirectly control the pattern of oyster mortality, we manipulated the presence and invasion status of the intermediate and top trophic levels in laboratory mesocosms. Our results show that native crabs indirectly maintain a portion of the estuary's oyster habitat by both consuming native whelks (density-mediated trophic cascade) and altering their foraging behavior (trait-mediated trophic cascade). In contrast, invasive whelks are naive to crab predators and fail to avoid them, thereby inhibiting trait-mediated cascades and their invasion into areas with native crabs. Similarly, when native crabs are replaced with invasive crabs, the naive foraging strategy and smaller size of invasive crabs prevents them from eYciently consuming adult whelks, thereby inhibiting strong density-mediated cascades. Thus, while trophic cascades allow native crabs, whelks, and oysters to locally co-exist, the replacement of native crabs and whelks by functionally similar invasive species results in severe depletion of native oysters. As 123 coastal systems become increasingly invaded, the mismatch of evolutionarily based strategies among predators and prey may lead to further losses of critical habitat that support marine biodiversity and ecosystem function.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 80%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 88%