Predator Effects in Predator-Free Space: the Remote Effects of Predators on Prey

Orrock, John L.; Dill, Lawerence M.; Sih, Andrew; Grabowski, Jonathan H.; Peacor, Scott D.; Peckarsky, Barbara L.; Preisser, Evan L.; Vonesh, James R.; Werner, Earl E.

doi:10.2174/1874213001003030022

Cited by 39 publications

(44 citation statements)

References 71 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The effects observed in our system are analogous to remote effects of predators (Orrock et al. ) but in reverse, with prey‐driven patterns of dispersal and colonization in predator populations. While predators may be more dominant drivers of community structure later in community assembly, the abundances and identities of the initial colonists are important, as they can shape future colonization patterns and successional dynamics (Alford and Wilbur ).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 62%

Prey‐driven control of predator assemblages: zooplankton abundance drives aquatic beetle colonization

Pintar

Resetarits

2017

Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Trophic interactions are critical determinants of community structure and ecosystem function. In freshwater habitats, top predators are traditionally viewed as drivers of ecosystem structure, shaping populations of consumers and primary producers. The temporary nature of small water bodies makes them dependent on colonization by many organisms, particularly insects that form highly diverse predator assemblages. We conducted mesocosm experiments with naturally colonizing populations of aquatic beetles to assess how prey (zooplankton) abundances influenced colonization and assemblages of natural populations of aquatic beetles. We experimentally demonstrate that zooplankton populations can be proximate regulators of predator populations and assemblages via prey-density-dependent predator recruitment. Our results provide support for the importance of prey populations in structuring predator populations and the role of habitat selection in structuring communities. We indicate that traditional views of predators as drivers of ecosystem structure in many systems may not provide a comprehensive picture, particularly in the context of highly disturbed or ephemeral habitats.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 62%

Prey‐driven control of predator assemblages: zooplankton abundance drives aquatic beetle colonization

Pintar

Resetarits

2017

Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For instance, human activities have reduced structured (i.e., refuge) habitats in coastal and marine systems, with estimates of global seagrass, oyster reef, and coral reef habitat loss ranging from 20% to 85% (Waycott et al 2009, Beck et al 2011. Anthropogenic alteration of refuge habitats may also have unappreciated implications for prey persistence (Orrock et al 2008) and food-web dynamics (Orrock et al 2010b) if refuge habitats alter the likelihood of prey dispersal.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The cost of safety: Refuges increase the impact of predation risk in aquatic systems

Orrock

Preisser

Grabowski

et al. 2013

Ecology

Self Cite

111

116

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Although use of refuge habitats by prey can reduce their risk of predation, refuge use may also involve costs such as increased within-refuge competition for resources. Despite the ubiquity of refuge use by prey, it is unknown whether predator-induced use of refuges has widespread, negative nonconsumptive effects on prey growth, survival, and fecundity. We performed a meta-analysis of 204 studies of aquatic taxa containing data on 271 distinct predator-prey pairs and found strong evidence that the negative effect of predation risk on prey activity, growth, and fecundity increases when prey have access to refuge habitats. Moreover, the effect of refuge habitats on growth and activity depends upon whether the refuge provides partial or total protection from predators. These results suggest that prey choosing whether to use refuges face a trade-off between lowering the immediate risk of being consumed and increased nonconsumptive costs of refuge use. Our results suggest that changes in nonconsumptive effects in the presence of refuge habitats may alter prey population dynamics, coexistence, and metapopulation dynamics. Moreover, our results reveal key pragmatic considerations: the magnitude and direction of nonconsumptive effects may depend on the presence of refuge habitat and whether the refuge provides partial or total protection from predators.

show abstract

“…The reduction of invertebrate predators in fish-occupied ponds may reduce the number of predatory guilds within permanent ponds (where G. holbrooki is most abundant), but is unlikely to reduce overall predation pressure because G. holbrooki is a more voracious and abundant predator than many other species (Baber & Babbitt 2003). This type of interaction is described as a remote effect of a predator on a refugebased prey species in Orrock et al (2010). If the two latter possibilities are true, then the abundance of invertebrate predators in G. holbrooki-free ponds would be higher than expected.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Community level impacts of invasive mosquitofish may exacerbate the impact to a threatened amphibian

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Invasive fish threaten many native freshwater fauna. However, it can be difficult to determine how invasive fish impact animals with complex life cycles as interaction may be driven by either predation of aquatic larvae or avoidance of fish-occupied waterbodies by the terrestrial adult stage. Mosquitofish (Gambusia spp.) are highly successful and aggressive invaders that negatively impact numerous aquatic fauna. One species potentially threatened by Gambusia holbrooki is the green and golden bell frog (Litoria aurea). However, G. holbrooki's role in this frog's decline was unclear due to declines driven by the chytrid fungal disease and the continued co-existence of these fish and frogs in multiple locations. To clarify the extent to which Gambusia is impacting L. aurea, we conducted 3 years of field surveys across a deltaic wetland system in south-east Australia. We measured the presence and abundance of aquatic taxa including G. holbrooki, and L. aurea frogs and tadpoles, along with habitat parameters at the landscape and microhabitat scale. Generalized linear models were used to explore patterns in the abundance and distributions of L. aurea and G. holbrooki. We found strong negative associations between G. holbrooki and tadpoles of most species, including L. aurea, but no apparent avoidance of G. holbrooki by adult frogs. Native invertebrate predators (Odonata and Coleoptera) were also absent from G. holbrooki-occupied ponds. Due to the apparent naivety of adult frogs toward G. holbrooki, the separation of G. holbrooki and tadpoles, plus the abundance of alternative predators in G. holbrooki-free ponds, we conclude that the impact of G. holbrooki on L. aurea recruitment is likely substantial and warrants management action.

show abstract

Predator Effects in Predator-Free Space: the Remote Effects of Predators on Prey

Cited by 39 publications

References 71 publications

Prey‐driven control of predator assemblages: zooplankton abundance drives aquatic beetle colonization

Prey‐driven control of predator assemblages: zooplankton abundance drives aquatic beetle colonization

The cost of safety: Refuges increase the impact of predation risk in aquatic systems

Community level impacts of invasive mosquitofish may exacerbate the impact to a threatened amphibian

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About