Predator-Prey Interactions

  • Robert G. Wetzel
  • Gene E. Likens


Predator-prey interactions have been among the most intensively studied areas of aquatic biology during the past several decades. Investigations have focused particularly on theories of “optimal foraging,” which seeks to describe predator behavior [e.g., Charnov (1976), Werner and Hall (1974), and Pyke (1984)], and “predator mediated community structure” (Hrbacek, 1962; Brooks and Dodson, 1965; Hall et al., 1976; Zaret, 1980; Werner and Gilliam, 1984; Sih et al., 1985; Kerfoot and Sih, 1987), which interprets community structure in relation to predatory activities. Many of these hypotheses still are speculative, although supporting evidence for some is growing. These concepts form a useful basis for the study of predator-prey relationships. The literature on this subject is extremely large; a few summary articles relative to limnology are cited in this exercise.


Functional Response Prey Density Optimal Forage Bluegill Sunfish High Prey Density 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Arts, T.M., E.J. Maly, and M. Pasitschniak. 1981. The influence of Acilius (Dytiscidae) predation on Daphnia in a small pond. Limnol. Oceanogr. 26:1172–1175.Google Scholar
  2. Brooks, J.L. 1968. The effects of prey size selection by lake planktivores. Syst. Zool.17:273–291. Brooks, J.L. and S.I. Dodson. 1965. Predation, body size, and composition of plankton. Science 150:28–35.Google Scholar
  3. Charnov, E.L. 1976. Optimal foraging theory: the marginal value theorem. Theor. Pop. Biol. 9: 129–136.Google Scholar
  4. Clepper, H. and R.H. Stroud, (eds). 1979. Predator-Prey Systems in Fisheries Management. Sport Fishing Institute, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  5. Hall, J.D., S.T. Threlkeld, C.W. Burns, and P.H. Crowley. 1976. The size-efficiency hypothesis and the size structure of zooplankton communities. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 7: 177–208.Google Scholar
  6. Hassell, M.P. 1977. Sigmoid functional responses by invertebrate predators and parasitoids. J. Anim. Ecol. 46: 249–262.Google Scholar
  7. Holling C.S. 1965a. The functional response of predators to prey density, and its role in mimicry and population regulation. Mem. Ent. Soc. Can. 45:1–60.Google Scholar
  8. Holling, C.S. 1965b. The functional response of invertebrate predators to prey density. Mem. Ent. Soc. Can. 48:1–86.Google Scholar
  9. Hrbacek, J. 1962. Species composition and the amount of the zooplankton in relation to the fish stock. Rozpravy Ceskosl. Akad. Ved. Rada Matem. Prir. Ved. 72:1–114.Google Scholar
  10. Iwasa, Y., et al. 1981. Prey distribution as a factor determining the choice of optimal foraging strategy. Amer. Nat. 117:710–723.Google Scholar
  11. Jacobs, J. 1965. Significance of morphology and physiology of Daphnia for its survival in predator-prey experiments. Naturwissenschaften 52: 141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kerfoot, W.C. and A. Sih (eds.) 1987. Predation: Direct and Indirect Impacts on Aquatic Communities. Univ. Press of New England, Hanover, NH. 386 pp.Google Scholar
  13. Langeland, A. 1981. Decreased zooplankton density in two Norwegian lakes caused by predation of recently introduced Mysis relicta. Verh. Int. Verein. Limnol. 21:926–937.Google Scholar
  14. Morgan, M.D., S.T. Threlkeld, and C.R. Goldman. 1978. Impact of the introduction of Kokanee (Oncorphynchus nerka) and the oppossum shrimp (Mysis relicta) on a subalpine lake. J. Fish. Res. Bd. Can. 35: 1572–1579.Google Scholar
  15. Murdoch, W.W. 1973. The functional response of predators. J. Appl. Ecol. 10:335–342. Pyke, G.H. 1984. Optimal foraging theory: A critical review. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 15:523–575.Google Scholar
  16. Oaten, A. and W.W. Murdoch. 1975. Switching, functional response and stability in predator-prey systems. Amer. Nat. 109: 299–318.Google Scholar
  17. Schoener, T.W. 1971. Theory of feeding strategies. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 2: 369–404.Google Scholar
  18. Sih, A., P. Crowley, M. McPeek, J. Petranka, and K. Strohmeier. 1985. Predation, competition, and prey communities: A review of field experiments. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 16: 269–311.Google Scholar
  19. Taylor, R.J. 1981. Ambush predation as a destabilizing influence upon prey populations. Amer. Nat. 118:102–109.Google Scholar
  20. Thompson, D.J. 1978. Towards a realistic predator-prey model: The effects of temperature on the functional response and life history of larvae of the damselfy Ishnura elegans. J. Anim. Ecol. 47:757–767.Google Scholar
  21. Werner, E.E. 1974. The fish size, prey size handling time relation in several sunfishes and some implications. J Fish. Res. Bd. Can. 31:1531–1536.Google Scholar
  22. Werner, E.E. and D.J. Hall. 1974. Optimal foraging and the size selection of prey by the bluegill sunfish (Lepomis macrochirus). Ecology 55:1042–1052.Google Scholar
  23. Werner, E.E. and J.F. Gilliam. 1984. The ontogenetic niche and species interactions in size-structured populations. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 15: 393–425.Google Scholar
  24. Zaret, T.M. 1980. Predation and Freshwater Communities. Yale Univ. Press, New Haven, CT.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • Robert G. Wetzel
    • 1
  • Gene E. Likens
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Biology, College of Arts and SciencesUniversity of AlabamaTuscaloosaUSA
  2. 2.Institute of Ecosystem StudiesThe New York Botanical Garden, Cary ArboretumMillbrookUSA

Personalised recommendations