Population Ecology

, Volume 56, Issue 2, pp 265–273 | Cite as

High intraguild predator density induces thinning effects on and increases temporal overlap with prey populations

Original article

Abstract

Intraguild (IG) predator density can alter its effects on intraguild prey populations through several mechanisms, including density-dependent processes that affect IG predator traits such as size or growth that enhance or limit its predatory abilities. We examined whether intraspecific density-dependence altered IG predator traits, as well as the subsequent interspecific effects among its intraguild prey within a larval salamander guild. Four densities of ringed salamanders (Ambystoma annulatum), the IG predator, were combined with the presence/absence of spotted salamanders (A. maculatum), the IG prey, within experimental mesocosms. We modeled the effects of A. annulatum density on both conspecific and heterospecific responses that would be indicative of density-dependent competition and predation, respectively. We also modeled the reciprocal interspecific effects of A. maculatum on A. annulatum. We found that increasing intraspecific density negatively affected morphological traits but not survival of A. annulatum. No interspecific effects of A. maculatum on A. annulatum were observed. Alternatively, traits of A. maculatum showed nonlinear relationships with increasing A. annulatum density. Thinning effects of A. annulatum on A. maculatum were observed, as survival was positively and size negatively related for A. maculatum with IG predator density. The temporal overlap of the IG predator and prey also increased nonlinearly with IG predator density, intensifying the potential encounter rate of the two species. Overall, this study shows that density-dependent processes in IG predators can significantly affect traits of both themselves, as well as IG prey, which could ultimately change whether competition or predation occurs between the two groups.

Keywords

Ambystoma Competition Predation Priority effects Salamander 

Supplementary material

10144_2013_419_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (111 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 110 kb)

References

  1. Alford RA (1989) Variation in predator phenology affects predator performance and prey community composition. Ecology 70:206–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arim M, Marquet PA (2004) Intraguild predation: a widespread interaction related to species biology. Ecol Lett 7:557–564CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Balfour RA, Buddle CM, Rypstra AL, Walker SE, Marshall SD (2003) Ontogenetic shifts in competitive interactions and intra-guild predation between two wolf spider species. Ecol Entomol 28:25–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bolker BM (2008) Ecological models and data in R. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  5. Bolker BM (2012) bbmle: Tools for general maximum likelihood estimation. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=bbmle
  6. Boone MD, Scott DE, Niewiarowski PH (2002) Effects of hatching time for larval ambystomatid salamanders. Copeia 2:511–517CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Borer ET, Briggs CJ, Murdoch WW, Swarbrick SL (2003) Testing intraguild predation theory in a field system: does numerical dominance shift along a gradient of productivity? Ecol Lett 6:929–935CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brodin T, Johansson F (2002) Effects of predator-induced thinning and activity changes on life history in a damselfly. Oecologia 132:316–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brodman R (2004) Intraguild predation on congeners affects size, aggression, and survival among Ambystoma salamander larvae. J Herpetol 38:21–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brodman R, Krause HD (2007) How blue-spotted and small-mouthed salamander larvae coexist with their unisexual counterparts. Herpetologica 63:135–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Burley LA, Moyer AT, Petranka JW (2006) Density of an intraguild predator mediates feeding group size, intraguild egg predation, and intra- and interspecific competition. Oecologia 148:641–649PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chase JM, Abrams PA, Grover JP, Diehl S, Chesson P, Holt RD, Richards SA, Nisbet RM, Case TJ (2002) The interaction between predation and competition: a review and synthesis. Ecol Lett 5:302–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Crawley MJ (2012) The R book. Wiley, West SussexCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Davenport JM, Chalcraft DR (2012) Evaluating the effects of trophic complexity on a keystone predator by disassembling a partial intraguild predation food web. J Anim Ecol 81:242–250PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Finke DL, Denno RF (2006) Spatial refuge from intraguild predation: implications for prey suppression and trophic cascades. Oecologia 149:265–275PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hocking DJ, Rittenhouse TA, Rothermel BB, Johnson JR, Connor CA, Harper EB, Semlitsch RD (2008) Breeding and recruitment phenology of amphibians in Missouri oak-hickory forests. Am Midl Nat 160:41–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Holt RD, Huxel GR (2007) Alternative prey and the dynamics of intraguild predation: theoretical perspectives. Ecology 88:2706–2712PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Holt RD, Polis GA (1997) A theoretical framework for intraguild predation. Am Nat 149:745–764CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Janssen A, Sabelis MW, Magalhães S, Montserrat M, van der Hammen T (2007) Habitat structure affects intraguild predation. Ecology 88:2713–2719PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lawler SP, Morin PJ (1993) Temporal overlap, competition, and priority effects in larval anurans. Ecology 74:174–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Morin P (1999) Productivity, intraguild predation, and population dynamics in experimental food webs. Ecology 80:752–760CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Mylius SD, Klumpers K, de Roos AW, Persson L (2001) Impact of intraguild predation and stage structure on simple communities along a productivity gradient. Am Nat 158:259–276PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Peterson CL, Wilkinson RF, Moll D, Holder T (1991) Premetamorphic survival of Ambystoma annulatum. Herpetologica 47:96–100Google Scholar
  24. Petranka JW (1998) Salamanders of the United States and Canada. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington [D.C.]Google Scholar
  25. Polis GA, Myers CA, Holt RD (1989) The ecology and evolution of intraguild predation: potential competitors that eat each other. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 20:297–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. R Development Core Team (2013) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna. http://www.R-project.org/
  27. Rothermel B, Semlitsch R (2006) Consequences of forest fragmentation for juvenile survival in spotted (Ambystoma maculatum) and marbled (Ambystoma opacum) salamanders. Can J Zool 84:797–807CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Scott DE (1990) Effects of larval density in Ambystoma opacum: an experiment in large-scale field enclosures. Ecology 71:296–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Scott DE (1994) The effect of larval density on adult demographic traits in Ambystoma opacum. Ecology 75:1383–1396CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Semlitsch RD (1987) Density-dependent growth and fecundity in the paedomorphic salamander Ambystoma talpoideum. Ecology 68:1003–1008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Semlitsch RD, Walls SC (1993) Competition in two species of larval salamanders: a test of geographic variation in competitive ability. Copeia 1993:587–595CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Shoop CR (1974) Yearly variation in larval survival of Ambystoma maculatum. Ecology 55:440–444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sih A, Englund G, Wooster D (1998) Emergent impacts of multiple predators on prey. Trends Ecol Evol 13:350–355PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Stenhouse SL (1985) Interdemic variation in predation on salamander larvae. Ecology 66:1706–1717CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Stenhouse SL (1987) Embryo mortality and recruitment of juveniles of Ambystoma maculatum and Ambystoma opacum in North Carolina. Herpetologica 43:496–501Google Scholar
  36. Stenhouse SL, Hairston NG, Cobey AE (1983) Predation and competition in Ambystoma larvae: field and laboratory experiments. J Herpetol 17:210–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Stier AC, Geange SW, Bolker BM (2013) Predator density and competition modify the benefits of group formation in a shoaling reef fish. Oikos 122:171–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Taylor BE, Estes RA, Pechmann JHK, Semlitsch RD (1988) Trophic relations in a temporary pond: larval salamanders and their microinvertebrate prey. Can J Zool 66:2191–2198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Urban MC (2007a) The growth-predation risk trade-off under a growing gape-limited predation threat. Ecology 88:2587–2597PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Urban MC (2007b) Predator size and phenology shape prey survival in temporary ponds. Oecologia 154:571–580PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Van Buskirk J, Yurewicz KL (1998) Effects of predators on prey growth rate: relative contributions of thinning and reduced activity. Oikos 82:20–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Vance-Chalcraft HD, Rosenheim JA, Vonesh JR, Osenberg CW, Sih A (2007) The influence of intraguild predation on prey suppression and prey release: a meta-analysis. Ecology 88:2689–2696PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Walls SC (1996) Differences in foraging behaviour explain interspecific growth inhibition in competing salamanders. Anim Behav 52:1157–1162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Wilbur HM (1997) Experimental ecology of food webs: complex systems in temporary ponds. Ecology 78:2279–2302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Wissinger SA (1989) Seasonal variation in the intensity of competition and predation among dragonfly larvae. Ecology 70:1017–1027CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Wissinger S, McGrady J (1993) Intraguild predation and competition between larval dragonflies: direct and indirect effects on shared prey. Ecology 74:207–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Yang LH, Rudolf VH (2010) Phenology, ontogeny and the effects of climate change on the timing of species interactions. Ecol Lett 13:1–10PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Yurewicz KL (2004) A growth/mortality trade-off in larval salamanders and the coexistence of intraguild predators and prey. Oecologia 138:102–111PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Society of Population Ecology and Springer Japan 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division of Biological SciencesUniversity of Missouri-ColumbiaColumbiaUSA

Personalised recommendations