Transient recovery dynamics of a predator–prey system under press and pulse disturbances

Abstract

BackgroundSpecies recovery after disturbances depends on the strength and duration of disturbance, on the species traits and on the biotic interactions with other species. In order to understand these complex relationships, it is essential to understand mechanistically the transient dynamics of interacting species during and after disturbances. We combined microcosm experiments with simulation modelling and studied the transient recovery dynamics of a simple microbial food web under pulse and press disturbances and under different predator couplings to an alternative resource.ResultsOur results reveal that although the disturbances affected predator and prey populations by the same mortality, predator populations suffered for a longer time. The resulting diminished predation stress caused a temporary phase of high prey population sizes (i.e. prey release) during and even after disturbances. Increasing duration and strength of disturbances significantly slowed down the recovery time of the predator prolonging the phase of prey release. However, the additional coupling of the predator to an alternative resource allowed the predator to recover faster after the disturbances thus shortening the phase of prey release.ConclusionsOur findings are not limited to the studied system and can be used to understand the dynamic response and recovery potential of many natural predator–prey or host–pathogen systems. They can be applied, for instance, in epidemiological and conservational contexts to regulate prey release or to avoid extinction risk of the top trophic levels under different types of disturbances.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12898-017-0123-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Diversity and coexistence are influenced by time‐dependent species interactions in a predator–prey system

“…Describing the key components of ecosystems, and the consequences of rapid environmental change, is only possible with the appreciation of the temporal variability of food webs (e.g. McMeans et al 2015; Karakoç et al 2017). It is also clear that univariate measures of diversity and stability might not completely give insight into the complex interactions within a community.…”

Interactions between predation and disturbances shape prey communities

“…As a result, communities and their functions may follow different trajectories during the disturbance and after the disturbance ends: (i) the community structure remains the same (resistance), (ii) the community structure changes, but over time returns to its original state (recovery), (iii) the community structure is changed but function is maintained (functional redundancy), (iv) function changes but the community structure does not change (functional plasticity) and (v) the community structure changes and neither returns nor maintains its function 20 – 22 . However, most of the studies do not quantify and compare the community composition between the pre-disturbance phase, the phase following the onset of the disturbance, and the phase after the disturbance (but see 10 , 21 , 23 , 24 ).…”

Instantaneous responses of microbial communities to stress in soils pretreated with Mentha spicata essential oil and/or inoculated with arbuscular mycorrhizal fungus

“…Microbes are frequently exposed to stress, but their responses must be evaluated at the community level (Rillig, Rolff, Tietjen, Wehner, & Andrare-Linares, 2015) as different microbial strains aggregate and form colonies (Ekschmitt, Liu, Vetter, Fox, & Wolters, 2005). At the community level, the response to an intensive stimulus is less predictable and complex as the effect of stress depends not only on the species-specific resistance but also on the type of interactions among the members of the community (competition, synergy, allelopathy, prey-predator relations) (Fraterrigo & Rusak, 2008;Karakos, Singer, Johst, Harms, & Chatzinotas, 2017). Existing evidence suggests that the soil microbial community responds differently to various types of stress because microbiota behavior varies in terms of species mortality and the development of the various microbial species (Gibbons et al, 2016) and in terms of differential energy cost derived by the response of various strains to stress (Rillig et al, 2015).…”