Cargando…

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

1. 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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Cuthbert, Ross N., Wasserman, Ryan J., Dalu, Tatenda, Kaiser, Horst, Weyl, Olaf L. F., Dick, Jaimie T. A., Sentis, Arnaud, McCoy, Michael W., Alexander, Mhairi E.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7319243/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32607203
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ece3.6332
_version_ 1783551016912814080
author Cuthbert, Ross N.
Wasserman, Ryan J.
Dalu, Tatenda
Kaiser, Horst
Weyl, Olaf L. F.
Dick, Jaimie T. A.
Sentis, Arnaud
McCoy, Michael W.
Alexander, Mhairi E.
author_facet Cuthbert, Ross N.
Wasserman, Ryan J.
Dalu, Tatenda
Kaiser, Horst
Weyl, Olaf L. F.
Dick, Jaimie T. A.
Sentis, Arnaud
McCoy, Michael W.
Alexander, Mhairi E.
author_sort Cuthbert, Ross N.
collection PubMed
description 1. 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. 2. 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. 3. 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. 4. 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. 5. 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7319243
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-73192432020-06-29 Influence of intra‐ and interspecific variation in predator–prey body size ratios on trophic interaction strengths Cuthbert, Ross N. Wasserman, Ryan J. Dalu, Tatenda Kaiser, Horst Weyl, Olaf L. F. Dick, Jaimie T. A. Sentis, Arnaud McCoy, Michael W. Alexander, Mhairi E. Ecol Evol Original Research 1. 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. 2. 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. 3. 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. 4. 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. 5. 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. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2020-06-01 /pmc/articles/PMC7319243/ /pubmed/32607203 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ece3.6332 Text en © 2020 The Authors. Ecology and Evolution published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Research
Cuthbert, Ross N.
Wasserman, Ryan J.
Dalu, Tatenda
Kaiser, Horst
Weyl, Olaf L. F.
Dick, Jaimie T. A.
Sentis, Arnaud
McCoy, Michael W.
Alexander, Mhairi E.
Influence of intra‐ and interspecific variation in predator–prey body size ratios on trophic interaction strengths
title 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_short 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
topic Original Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7319243/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32607203
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ece3.6332
work_keys_str_mv AT cuthbertrossn influenceofintraandinterspecificvariationinpredatorpreybodysizeratiosontrophicinteractionstrengths
AT wassermanryanj influenceofintraandinterspecificvariationinpredatorpreybodysizeratiosontrophicinteractionstrengths
AT dalutatenda influenceofintraandinterspecificvariationinpredatorpreybodysizeratiosontrophicinteractionstrengths
AT kaiserhorst influenceofintraandinterspecificvariationinpredatorpreybodysizeratiosontrophicinteractionstrengths
AT weylolaflf influenceofintraandinterspecificvariationinpredatorpreybodysizeratiosontrophicinteractionstrengths
AT dickjaimieta influenceofintraandinterspecificvariationinpredatorpreybodysizeratiosontrophicinteractionstrengths
AT sentisarnaud influenceofintraandinterspecificvariationinpredatorpreybodysizeratiosontrophicinteractionstrengths
AT mccoymichaelw influenceofintraandinterspecificvariationinpredatorpreybodysizeratiosontrophicinteractionstrengths
AT alexandermhairie influenceofintraandinterspecificvariationinpredatorpreybodysizeratiosontrophicinteractionstrengths