Home About us Contact
|
Home About us Contact | ||
|
|
||
Prey Population Dynamics (prey + population_dynamics)
Selected AbstractsReciprocal phenotypic plasticity can lead to stable predator,prey interactionJOURNAL OF ANIMAL ECOLOGY, Issue 6 2009Akihiko Mougi Summary 1.,Inducible defences of prey and inducible offences of predators are prevalent strategies in trophic interactions with temporal variation. Due to the inducible properties of the functional traits themselves, which drive the dynamic predator,prey relationship on an ecological time-scale, predator and prey may reciprocally interact through their inducible traits (i.e. reciprocal phenotypic plasticity). 2.,Although overwhelming evidence of the stabilizing effect of inducible traits in either species on community dynamics forcefully suggests a critical ecological role for reciprocal plasticity in predator,prey population dynamics, our understanding of its ecological consequences is very limited. 3.,Within a mathematical modelling framework, we investigated how reciprocal plasticity influences the stability of predator,prey systems. 4.,By assuming two types of phenotypic shift, a density-dependent shift and an adaptive phenotypic shift, we examined two interaction scenarios with reciprocal plasticity: (i) an arms-race-like relationship, in which the defensive prey phenotype is more protective against both predator phenotypes (i.e. normal and offensive) than the normal prey phenotype, and the offensive predator is a more efficient consumer, preying upon both prey phenotypes (i.e. normal and defensive), than the normal predator and (ii) a matching response-like relationship, in which the offensive predator consumes more defensive prey and fewer normal prey than the normal predator. 5.,Results of both phenotypic shift models consistently suggest that given the used set of parameter values, the arms-race-like reciprocal plasticity scenario has the largest stability area, when compared with the other scenarios. In particular, higher stability is achieved when the prey exhibits a high-performance inducible defence. Furthermore, this stabilization is so strong that the destabilizing effects of enrichment may be eliminated, even though the higher flexibility of plasticity does not always stabilize a system. 6.,Recent empirical studies support our model predictions. Clear-cut examples of reciprocal phenotypic plasticity show an arms-race-like relationship in which prey species exhibit induced high-performance defences. We may need to re-examine reported predator,prey interactions in which predator or prey exhibits inducible plasticity to determine whether arms-race-like reciprocal plasticity is a general ecological phenomenon. [source] Predator size, prey size and threshold food densities of diving ducks: does a common prey base support fewer large animals?JOURNAL OF ANIMAL ECOLOGY, Issue 5 2009Samantha E. Richman Summary 1. Allometry predicts that a given habitat area or common prey biomass supports fewer numbers of larger than smaller predators; however, birds from related taxa or the same feeding guild often deviate from this pattern. In particular, foraging costs of birds may differ among locomotor modes, while intake rates vary with accessibility, handling times and energy content of different-sized prey. Such mechanisms might affect threshold prey densities needed for energy balance, and thus relative numbers of different-sized predators in habitats with varying prey patches. 2. We compared the foraging profitability (energy gain minus cost) of two diving ducks: smaller lesser scaup (Aythya affinis, 450,1090 g) and larger white-winged scoters (Melanitta fusca, 950,1800 g). Calculations were based on past measurements of dive costs with respirometry, and of intake rates of a common bivalve prey ranging in size, energy content and burial depth in sediments. 3. For scaup feeding on small prey <12 mm long, all clams buried deeper than 5 cm were unprofitable at realistic prey densities. For clams buried in the top 5 cm, the profitability threshold decreased from 216 to 34 clams m,2 as energy content increased from 50 to 300 J clam,1. 4. For larger scoters feeding on larger prey 18,24 mm long, foraging was profitable for clams buried deeper than 5 cm, with a threshold density of 147 m,2 for clams containing 380 J clam,1. For clams <5 cm deep, the threshold density decreased from 86 to 36 clams m,2 as energy content increased from 380 to 850 J clam,1. If scoters decreased dive costs by swimming with wings as well as feet (not an option for scaup), threshold prey densities were 11,12% lower. 5. Our results show that threshold densities of total prey numbers for different-sized ducks depend on prey size structure and depth in the sediments. Thus, heterogeneity in disturbance regimes and prey population dynamics can create a mosaic of patches favouring large or small predators. Whether a given area or total prey biomass will support greater numbers of larger or smaller predators will vary with these effects. [source] A model of human hunting impacts in multi-prey communitiesJOURNAL OF APPLIED ECOLOGY, Issue 5 2003J. Marcus Rowcliffe Summary 1The hunting of wild animals for consumption by people currently threatens many species with extinction. In the tropics, where the threat is most acute, hunting frequently targets many prey species simultaneously, yet our understanding of the dynamics of hunting in such multi-prey systems is limited. This study addressed this issue by modelling the effects of human hunters on prey population dynamics in a multi-species prey community. Both pursuit hunting (in which offtake depends partly on hunters' prey preferences) and trap hunting (in which the offtake is determined solely by random processes) were considered as submodels. 2The pursuit hunting submodel was validated against studies of subsistence hunting in tropical forests, while the trap hunting submodel was validated against data from five studies of offtake rates by snare hunters in subSaharan Africa. In all cases, observed prey removal rates were predicted well by the model. 3Simulations demonstrated the emergence of distinctive prey profiles at different intensities of hunting, related to sequences of overexploitation dependent on species' vulnerabilities to exploitation. 4Synthesis and applications. A model is developed to explore the impacts of harvesting on multi-species prey communities. Model predictions can be used to aid the interpretation of incomplete monitoring data, such as snapshots of the species taken by hunters. This will improve our ability to assess the sustainability of multi-species hunting systems using the limited information typically available in these cases. [source] The impact of predation risk from small mustelids on prey populationsMAMMAL REVIEW, Issue 3-4 2000Kai Norrdahl ABSTRACT Small mustelids are ,snake-like' mammals adapted to hunt small rodents, which are their principal prey, in tunnels leaving practically no refuge for the prey. Prey rodents have adaptive behaviours to situations where the predation risk from mustelids is high, including reduced activity and escape by climbing. Small mustelids may affect prey population dynamics directly through killing (increased mortality) and/or indirectly through behavioural changes in prey as a response to the presence of mustelids (predation risk). The Predator-Induced Breeding Suppression hypothesis (PIBS) states that a trade-off between survival and reproduction should lead to delayed breeding under temporarily high predation risk, so that the mere presence of predators may reduce reproductive output. Current results suggest that small mustelids mainly affect prey population growth rate directly through killing. In many cyclic rodent populations, small mustelid predation is a major mortality factor, and experimental evidence supports the hypothesis that these predators drive prolonged summer declines in prey. In contrast, the evidence for PIBS is controversial. Experimental evidence shows that the indirect effects of small mustelids on prey populations are negligible during the best breeding season. However, in other seasons, the presence of predators may indirectly affect prey populations, although this has not been studied experimentally. Prey rodents may decrease mobility as a response to high predation risk by small mustelids, and this reduction in mobility decreases feeding. Reduced feeding affects the energy reserves of voles, and may delay maturation or lower the size of the first litter. [source] | ||||||||||