Predator and Prey Body Sizes in Marine Food Webs

Abstract

Abstract. Knowledge of relationships between predator size and prey size are needed to describe interactions of species and size classes in food webs. Most estimates of predator and prey sizes have been based on dietary studies and apply to small numbers of species in a relatively narrow size range. These estimates may or may not be representative of values for other groups of species and body sizes or for other locations. Marine predator and prey size data associated with published literature were identified and collated to produce a single data set. If predator or prey length of mass were not measured in the original study, the length or mass was calculated using length-mass relationships. The data set consists of 34 931 records from 27 locations covering a wide range of environmental conditions from the tropics to the poles and for 93 types of predator with sizes ranging from 0.1 mg to over 415 kg and 174 prey types with sizes from 75 pg to over 4.5 kg. Each record includes: predator and prey scientific names, common names, taxa, life stages and sizes (length and mass with conversion details), plus the type of feeding interaction, geographic location (with habitat description, latitude, longitude) and mean annual environmental data (sea surface temperature and primary productivity).

Temperature alters food web body-size structure

“…shoreline to open ocean ecosystems from the poles to the tropics with different mean annual temperatures measured at sea level [19,21]. The data include 93 different types of vertebrate and invertebrate predators ranging from 10 24 kg to 415 kg, and 174 different types of vertebrate and invertebrate prey from 10 215 kg to 5 kg.…”

“…The data include 93 different types of vertebrate and invertebrate predators ranging from 10 24 kg to 415 kg, and 174 different types of vertebrate and invertebrate prey from 10 215 kg to 5 kg. In some cases, the original dataset had mass estimates derived from body length measurements [3,19]. Temperatures were included as average temperature by location measured at sea level [19].…”

“…In some cases, the original dataset had mass estimates derived from body length measurements [3,19]. Temperatures were included as average temperature by location measured at sea level [19].…”

Characteristic Sizes of Life in the Oceans, from Bacteria to Whales

“…Among heterotrophic metazoans there appear to be two dominant strategies to 780 predator--prey size ratio: a fixed predator--prey length ratio in the range 10--100, 781 which is the strategy followed by most fish and copepods (Barnes et al 2008 The maximum visual range in clear water can be estimated by considering the properties of a pin--hole camera eye as done in a largely unrecognized work by Dunbrack and Ware (1987). Here we provide a simplified derivation of their argument, which corrects a number of minor errors.…”

Individual interaction data are required in community ecology: a conceptual review of the predator–prey mass ratio and more

“…2). Based on this expectation, numerous studies have examined the predator-prey size relationship (Cohen et al 1993Brose et al 2005Brose et al , 2006aWoodward and Warren 2007;Barnes et al 2008Barnes et al , 2010Owen-Smith and Mills 2008;Scharf et al 2010;de Visser et al 2011;Naisbit et al 2011;Nakazawa et al 2011;Riede et al 2011;Lurgi et al 2012;Reum and Hunsicker 2012;Klecka and Boukal 2013;Nakazawa et al 2013;Tsai et al 2016) and applied the PPMR to food web models (Andersen and Beyer 2006;Brose et al 2006b;Otto et al 2007;Blanchard et al 2009Blanchard et al , 2011Hartvig et al 2011;Thierry et al 2011;Zhang et al 2013;Guiet et al 2016). Nevertheless, according to my review of relevant literature, very few studies have appropriately quantified the PPMR or tested its fundamental assumptions.…”