, Volume 172, Issue 4, pp 1159–1165 | Cite as

Intra-guild interactions and projected impact of climate and land use changes on North American pochard ducks

  • Guillaume PéronEmail author
  • David N. Koons
Community ecology - Original research


The co-occurrence of functionally similar species is very common in nature, and is often put forward as a basis for ecosystem resilience to disturbance. At the same time, competition between similar species is also considered a strong driver of community composition. However, environmental stochasticity can alter this prediction, either because competitive abilities depend on time-varying factors or because covariance in species’ responses to environmental conditions masks the effect of competition. Interactions other than competition can also influence community dynamics but have received less attention. We used a simplified community of two sympatric duck species (redhead Aythya americana and canvasback A. valisineria) and a previously published analysis of 50 years of demographic data to parameterize a stochastic, density-dependent, stage-structured model. These ducks interact via nest parasitism (mostly of canvasback by redhead) in addition to competition for food resources, with consequences at the demographic level; these interactions are modulated by habitat availability (number of ponds in the study landscape). We found that if habitat availability decreased there was a high risk of quasi-extinction, and redheads, although initially able to maintain their numerical dominance, quickly became the least abundant species because they perform worse during droughts. If habitat availability increased, we found that the initially more rare canvasback would increase in relative abundance, albeit slowly. We interpret this as a shift from a community influenced by nest parasitism (which is detrimental to canvasback) to a community mostly driven by species-specific dynamics due to relaxation of resource limitation.


Community structure Extinction risk Nest parasitism Population viability analysis Stage-structured model 



We are grateful to all the people involved in data collection and management. We thank the P. Adler laboratory for comments on an earlier draft, as well as three anonymous reviewers. G.P. was supported by an S.J. and Jessie E. Quinney Foundation post-doctoral fellowship.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

442_2012_2571_MOESM1_ESM.docx (20 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 20 kb)


  1. Abrams P (1984) Variability in resource consumption rates and the coexistence of competing species. Theor Popul Biol 25:106–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adler PB, Dalgleish HJ, Ellner SP (2012) Forecasting plant community impacts of climate variability and change: when do competitive interactions matter? J Ecol 100:478–487CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baldassarre GA, Bolen EG (2006) Waterfowl ecology and management. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  4. Bell G (2001) Ecology—neutral macro ecology. Science 293:2413–2418PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Both C, van Asch M, Bijlsma RG, van den Burg AB, Visser ME (2009) Climate change and unequal phenological changes across four trophic levels: constraints or adaptations? J Anim Ecol 78:73–83PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chesson P (1994) Multispecies competition in variable environments. Theor Popul Biol 45:227–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chesson P (2000) Mechanisms of maintenance of species diversity. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 31:343–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cryer JD, Chan KS (2008) Time series analysis: with applications in R. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Drever MC, Clark RG, Derksen C, Slattery SM, Toose P, Nudds TD (2012) Population vulnerability to climate change linked to timing of breeding in boreal ducks. Glob Chang Biol 18:480–492CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gilman SE, Urban MC, Tewksbury J, Gilchrist GW, Holt RD (2010) A framework for community interactions under climate change. Trends Ecol Evol 25:325–331PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hubbell SP (2005) Neutral theory in community ecology and the hypothesis of functional equivalence. Funct Ecol 19:166–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Jackson JBC et al (2001) Historical overfishing and the recent collapse of coastal ecosystems. Science 293:629–637PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Jenouvrier S, Caswell H, Barbraud C, Holland M, Stroeve J, Weimerskirch H (2009) Demographic models and IPCC climate projections predict the decline of an emperor penguin population. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 106:1844–1847PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lang B, Rall BC, Brose U (2012) Warming effects on consumption and intraspecific interference competition depend on predator metabolism. J Anim Ecol 81:516–523PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lemoine N, Bohning-Gaese K (2003) Potential impact of global climate change on species richness of long-distance migrants. Conserv Biol 17:577–586CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Levine JM, HilleRisLambers J (2009) The importance of niches for the maintenance of species diversity. Nature 461:254–330PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Moller AP, Rubolini D, Lehikoinen E (2008) Populations of migratory bird species that did not show a phenological response to climate change are declining. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105:16195–16200PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Péron G, Koons DN (2012) Integrated modeling of communities: parasitism, competition, and demographic synchrony in sympatric ducks. Ecology 93:2456–2464Google Scholar
  19. Preiss E, Martin JL, Debussche M (1997) Rural depopulation and recent landscape changes in a Mediterranean region: consequences to the breeding avifauna. Landsc Ecol 12:51–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Rocha MR, Gaedke U, Vasseur DA (2011) Functionally similar species have similar dynamics. J Ecol 99:1453–1459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Rockwell RF, Gormezano LJ, Koons DN (2011) Trophic matches and mismatches: can polar bears reduce the abundance of nesting snow geese in western Hudson Bay? Oikos 120:696–709CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Saino N et al (2009) Climate change effects on migration phenology may mismatch brood parasitic cuckoos and their hosts. Biol Lett 5:539–541PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Schweiger O et al (2012) Increasing range mismatching of interacting species under global change is related to their ecological characteristics. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 21:88–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Seppanen JT, Forsman JT, Monkkonen M, Thomson RL (2007) Social information use is a process across time, space, and ecology, reaching heterospecific. Ecology 88:1622–1633PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Smith GW (1995) A critical review of the aerial and ground surveys of breeding waterfowl in North America. Biol Sci Rep 5:1–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Sorenson MD (1991) The functional-significance of parasitic egg-laying and typical nesting in redhead ducks—an analysis of individual behavior. Anim Behav 42:771–796CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Sorenson MD (1997) Effects of intra- and interspecific brood parasitism on a precocial host, the canvasback, Aythya valisineria. Behav Ecol 8:153–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Tylianakis JM, Didham RK, Bascompte J, Wardle DA (2008) Global change and species interactions in terrestrial ecosystems. Ecol Lett 11:1351–1363PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Violle C et al (2007) Let the concept of trait be functional! Oikos 116:882–892CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Yachi S, Loreau M (1999) Biodiversity and ecosystem productivity in a fluctuating environment: the insurance hypothesis. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 96:1463–1468PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Wildland ResourcesUtah State UniversityLoganUSA
  2. 2.USGS Colorado Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research UnitColorado State UniversityFort CollinsUSA
  3. 3.Patuxent Wildlife Research CenterU.S. Geological SurveyLaurelUSA
  4. 4.Department of Wildland Resources and The Ecology CenterUtah State UniversityLoganUSA

Personalised recommendations