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...
Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |