Influence of intra‐ and interspecific variation in predator–prey body size ratios on trophic interaction strengths

Abstract Predation is a pervasive force that structures food webs and directly influences ecosystem functioning. The relative body sizes of predators and prey may be an important determinant of interaction strengths. However, studies quantifying the combined influence of intra‐ and interspecific var...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Ross N. Cuthbert, Ryan J. Wasserman, Tatenda Dalu, Horst Kaiser, Olaf L. F. Weyl, Jaimie T. A. Dick, Arnaud Sentis, Michael W. McCoy, Mhairi E. Alexander
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Wiley 2020-06-01
Series:Ecology and Evolution
Subjects:
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.6332
id doaj-cd857f8e60a3498e931211f5cf9a6873
record_format Article
spelling doaj-cd857f8e60a3498e931211f5cf9a68732021-04-02T13:03:34ZengWileyEcology and Evolution2045-77582020-06-0110125946596210.1002/ece3.6332Influence of intra‐ and interspecific variation in predator–prey body size ratios on trophic interaction strengthsRoss N. Cuthbert0Ryan J. Wasserman1Tatenda Dalu2Horst Kaiser3Olaf L. F. Weyl4Jaimie T. A. Dick5Arnaud Sentis6Michael W. McCoy7Mhairi E. Alexander8GEOMAR Helmholtz‐Zentrum für Ozeanforschung Kiel Kiel GermanyDepartment of Zoology and Entomology Rhodes University Makhanda South AfricaDepartment of Ecology and Resource Management University of Venda Thohoyandou South AfricaDepartment of Ichthyology and Fisheries Science Rhodes University Makhanda South AfricaDSI/NRF Research Chair in Inland Fisheries and Freshwater Ecology South African Institute for Aquatic Biodiversity Makhanda South AfricaInstitute for Global Food Security School of Biological Sciences Queen's University Belfast Belfast UKINRAE Aix Marseille UniversityUMR RECOVERAix‐en‐Provence FranceDepartment of Biology East Carolina University Greenville SC USAInstitute for Biomedical and Environmental Health Research School of Health and Life Sciences University of the West of Scotland Paisley UKAbstract Predation is a pervasive force that structures food webs and directly influences ecosystem functioning. The relative body sizes of predators and prey may be an important determinant of interaction strengths. However, studies quantifying the combined influence of intra‐ and interspecific variation in predator–prey body size ratios are lacking. We use a comparative functional response approach to examine interaction strengths between three size classes of invasive bluegill and largemouth bass toward three scaled size classes of their tilapia prey. We then quantify the influence of intra‐ and interspecific predator–prey body mass ratios on the scaling of attack rates and handling times. Type II functional responses were displayed by both predators across all predator and prey size classes. Largemouth bass consumed more than bluegill at small and intermediate predator size classes, while large predators of both species were more similar. Small prey were most vulnerable overall; however, differential attack rates among prey were emergent across predator sizes. For both bluegill and largemouth bass, small predators exhibited higher attack rates toward small and intermediate prey sizes, while larger predators exhibited greater attack rates toward large prey. Conversely, handling times increased with prey size, with small bluegill exhibiting particularly low feeding rates toward medium–large prey types. Attack rates for both predators peaked unimodally at intermediate predator–prey body mass ratios, while handling times generally shortened across increasing body mass ratios. We thus demonstrate effects of body size ratios on predator–prey interaction strengths between key fish species, with attack rates and handling times dependent on the relative sizes of predator–prey participants. Considerations for intra‐ and interspecific body size ratio effects are critical for predicting the strengths of interactions within ecosystems and may drive differential ecological impacts among invasive species as size ratios shift.https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.6332Bluegillcontext‐dependencyfunctional responseinteraction strengthlargemouth basspiscivory
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Ross N. Cuthbert
Ryan J. Wasserman
Tatenda Dalu
Horst Kaiser
Olaf L. F. Weyl
Jaimie T. A. Dick
Arnaud Sentis
Michael W. McCoy
Mhairi E. Alexander
spellingShingle Ross N. Cuthbert
Ryan J. Wasserman
Tatenda Dalu
Horst Kaiser
Olaf L. F. Weyl
Jaimie T. A. Dick
Arnaud Sentis
Michael W. McCoy
Mhairi E. Alexander
Influence of intra‐ and interspecific variation in predator–prey body size ratios on trophic interaction strengths
Ecology and Evolution
Bluegill
context‐dependency
functional response
interaction strength
largemouth bass
piscivory
author_facet Ross N. Cuthbert
Ryan J. Wasserman
Tatenda Dalu
Horst Kaiser
Olaf L. F. Weyl
Jaimie T. A. Dick
Arnaud Sentis
Michael W. McCoy
Mhairi E. Alexander
author_sort Ross N. Cuthbert
title Influence of intra‐ and interspecific variation in predator–prey body size ratios on trophic interaction strengths
title_short Influence of intra‐ and interspecific variation in predator–prey body size ratios on trophic interaction strengths
title_full Influence of intra‐ and interspecific variation in predator–prey body size ratios on trophic interaction strengths
title_fullStr Influence of intra‐ and interspecific variation in predator–prey body size ratios on trophic interaction strengths
title_full_unstemmed Influence of intra‐ and interspecific variation in predator–prey body size ratios on trophic interaction strengths
title_sort influence of intra‐ and interspecific variation in predator–prey body size ratios on trophic interaction strengths
publisher Wiley
series Ecology and Evolution
issn 2045-7758
publishDate 2020-06-01
description Abstract Predation is a pervasive force that structures food webs and directly influences ecosystem functioning. The relative body sizes of predators and prey may be an important determinant of interaction strengths. However, studies quantifying the combined influence of intra‐ and interspecific variation in predator–prey body size ratios are lacking. We use a comparative functional response approach to examine interaction strengths between three size classes of invasive bluegill and largemouth bass toward three scaled size classes of their tilapia prey. We then quantify the influence of intra‐ and interspecific predator–prey body mass ratios on the scaling of attack rates and handling times. Type II functional responses were displayed by both predators across all predator and prey size classes. Largemouth bass consumed more than bluegill at small and intermediate predator size classes, while large predators of both species were more similar. Small prey were most vulnerable overall; however, differential attack rates among prey were emergent across predator sizes. For both bluegill and largemouth bass, small predators exhibited higher attack rates toward small and intermediate prey sizes, while larger predators exhibited greater attack rates toward large prey. Conversely, handling times increased with prey size, with small bluegill exhibiting particularly low feeding rates toward medium–large prey types. Attack rates for both predators peaked unimodally at intermediate predator–prey body mass ratios, while handling times generally shortened across increasing body mass ratios. We thus demonstrate effects of body size ratios on predator–prey interaction strengths between key fish species, with attack rates and handling times dependent on the relative sizes of predator–prey participants. Considerations for intra‐ and interspecific body size ratio effects are critical for predicting the strengths of interactions within ecosystems and may drive differential ecological impacts among invasive species as size ratios shift.
topic Bluegill
context‐dependency
functional response
interaction strength
largemouth bass
piscivory
url https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.6332
work_keys_str_mv AT rossncuthbert influenceofintraandinterspecificvariationinpredatorpreybodysizeratiosontrophicinteractionstrengths
AT ryanjwasserman influenceofintraandinterspecificvariationinpredatorpreybodysizeratiosontrophicinteractionstrengths
AT tatendadalu influenceofintraandinterspecificvariationinpredatorpreybodysizeratiosontrophicinteractionstrengths
AT horstkaiser influenceofintraandinterspecificvariationinpredatorpreybodysizeratiosontrophicinteractionstrengths
AT olaflfweyl influenceofintraandinterspecificvariationinpredatorpreybodysizeratiosontrophicinteractionstrengths
AT jaimietadick influenceofintraandinterspecificvariationinpredatorpreybodysizeratiosontrophicinteractionstrengths
AT arnaudsentis influenceofintraandinterspecificvariationinpredatorpreybodysizeratiosontrophicinteractionstrengths
AT michaelwmccoy influenceofintraandinterspecificvariationinpredatorpreybodysizeratiosontrophicinteractionstrengths
AT mhairiealexander influenceofintraandinterspecificvariationinpredatorpreybodysizeratiosontrophicinteractionstrengths
_version_ 1721566649955385344