Effects of Multiple, Predator‐Induced Behaviors on Short‐term Producer‐Grazer Dynamics in Open Systems

By S. Diehl, S. D. Cooper, Kim W. Kratz, R. Nisbet, S. K. Roll, S. W. Wiseman, Thomas M. Jenkins, Jr.. American Naturalist, 2000

94 citations recorded by the source corpus.

We investigated the population consequences of multiple behavioral responses of grazers to a foraging return–predation risk trade‐off in an open system consisting of primary producers, grazers, and predators. Using a dynamical model where grazers adjust their foraging activity and emigration rate to the densities of predators and producers, we explored how changes in control variables (predator density, grazer immigration, and producer immigration and carrying capacity) affect the dynamics of producers and grazers at temporal scales shorter than consumer and predator reproduction. The model predicts that producer biomass increases and that both the density of foraging grazers and the feeding rate of predators decrease with predator density. These predictions hold although total ( \documentclass{aastex} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{bm} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{pifont} \usepackage{stmaryrd} \usepackage{textcomp} \usepackage{portland,xspace} \usepackage{amsmath,amsxtra} \usepackage[OT2,OT1]{fontenc} \newcommand\cyr{ \renewcommand\rmdefault{wncyr} \renewcommand\sfdefault{wncyss} \renewcommand\encodingdefault{OT2} \normalfont \selectfont} \DeclareTextFontCommand{\textcyr}{\cyr} \pagestyle{empty} \DeclareMathSizes{10}{9}{7}{6} \begin{document} \landscape $$\mathrm{foraging}\,+\mathrm{nonforaging}\,$$ \end{document} ) grazer density may actually increase with predator density. The latter will occur whenever the benefit of higher resource density outweighs the increased risk of predation. In this case, per capita grazer emigration decreases with predator density, which might be misinterpreted as a direct “freezing” response to predators. Increased grazer immigration is predicted to result in decreased producer density and increased densities of both foraging and total grazers, as well as increased grazer emigration and predator feeding rates. Increased producer immigration or carrying capacity should increase producer and grazer densities and predator feeding rate but decrease per capita grazer emigration. Manipulation of predator (trout) densities in a set of nine large (50 m2) stream channels produced results in broad agreement with model predictions. Most notably, a positive effect of trout on benthic algal biomass was mainly mediated through grazer behavior (changes in the use of epibenthic surfaces and in emigration rate) rather than through consumptive reductions of grazer numbers by trout.

Subfields: Environmental Chemistry, Nature and Landscape Conservation

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/2b57871eeb156e9e8b3773b8d01a4360fdaf0825

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Environmental Chemistry

1. J. Richardson
2. H. Hillebrand
3. C. Townsend
4. S. Peacor
5. Francesca Gherardi
6. B. Cardinale

In Nature and Landscape Conservation

1. K. Simon
2. S. Peacor
3. L. Blaustein
4. C. Townsend
5. E. Werner
6. F. Hiraldo
7. J. Richardson
8. L. Rowe

Citations in the corpus

• Intraguild predation in raptor assemblages: A review (2008, result): “In the first, the diversity of an assemblage of diurnal raptors peaked at medium to high densities of a major intraguild predator, the Eagle Owl (Sergio et al. 2003a), which is consistent with the predictions of various theoretical models (Holt & Polis 1997, Diehl et al. 2000, Mylius et al. 2001).”
• A REVIEW OF TRAIT-MEDIATED INDIRECT INTERACTIONS IN ECOLOGICAL COMMUNITIES (2003, background): “…1995) has explored three-species food chains that parallel some of the characteristics of the empirical examples, i.e., where the middle species (consumer) adaptively responds to both its predator and its resource according to a growth/risk trade-off (see also Schmitz 1998b, Diehl et al. 2000).”
• The influence of predatory fish on mayfly drift: extrapolating from experiments to nature (2002, background): “Mayfly movement also affects the apparent impact of predators on their abundance (Cooper, Walde & Peckarsky, 1990; Sih & Wooster, 1994; Englund, 1997; Dahl & Greenberg, 1999; Forrester, Dudley & Grimm, 1999; Diehl et al., 2000).”
• Impacts of freshwater invaders at different levels of ecological organisation, with emphasis on salmonids and ecosystem consequences (2003, background): “, which is invasive in North America, achieves a high biomass and consequently sequesters nitrogen, possibly reducing nitrogen availability to other organisms (Templer et al., 1998).”
• Individual, Population, Community, and Ecosystem Consequences of a Fish Invader in New Zealand Streams (2003, background): “The reduced invertebrate densities in two of the experiments may be a result of higher predation rates by trout than galaxiids and/or a greater tendency of invertebrates to leave (or not settle in) channels containing trout (cf. Diehl et al. 2000).”
• OVIPOSITION HABITAT SELECTION BY MOSQUITOES (CULISETA LONGIAREOLATA) AND CONSEQUENCES FOR POPULATION SIZE (2002, background): “Diehl et al. (2000) showed that in a model of an open system containing predators, grazers, and producers, reduced foraging and increased emigration by grazers in response to increased predator densities (assumed to be adaptive responses) could result in increased producer biomass.”
• Top-down versus bottom-up control of autotrophic biomass—a meta-analysis on experiments with periphyton (2002, background): “Predators are able to reduce grazing activity by removing herbivores or by changing herbivore behavior towards a reduction of predation risk (McCollum et al. 1998, Diehl et al. 2000).”
• Causes and consequences of invertebrate drift in running waters: from individuals to populations and trophic fluxes (2016, background): “…(Allan 1982; Dahl and Greenberg 1996); however, there is some evidence that predation 554 on drift may have top-down effects (Forrester 1994; Diehl et al. 2000; Meissner and Muotka 555 2006), and the ability of trout to consume a significant fraction of benthic production is well 556…”
• PREY STATE AND EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN AFFECT RELATIVE SIZE OF TRAIT- AND DENSITY-MEDIATED INDIRECT EFFECTS (2003, background): “…manipulated systems in such a way as to allow quantitative estimates of TMIIs and DMIIs, and these studies have demonstrated that TMIIs can be greater than DMIIs (Soluk and Collins 1988, Huang and Sih 1990, 1991, Wissinger and McGrady 1993, Schmitz 1998, Diehl et al. 2000, Peacor and Werner 2001).”