| Literature DB >> 29273716 |
Lukáš Veselý1, David S Boukal2,3, Miloš Buřič4, Pavel Kozák4, Antonín Kouba4, Arnaud Sentis2,3,5.
Abstract
Nonconsumptive predator-driven mortality (NCM), defined as prey mortality due to predation that does not result in prey consumption, is an underestimated component of predator-prey interactions with possible implications for population dynamics and ecosystem functioning. However, the biotic and abiotic factors influencing this mortality component remain largely unexplored, leaving a gap in our understanding of the impacts of environmental change on ecological communities. We investigated the effects of temperature, prey density, and predator diversity and density on NCM in an aquatic food web module composed of dragonfly larvae (Aeshna cyanea) and marbled crayfish (Procambarus fallax f. virginalis) preying on common carp (Cyprinus carpio) fry. We found that NCM increased with prey density and depended on the functional diversity and density of the predator community. Warming significantly reduced NCM only in the dragonfly larvae but the magnitude depended on dragonfly larvae density. Our results indicate that energy transfer across trophic levels is more efficient due to lower NCM in functionally diverse predator communities, at lower resource densities and at higher temperatures. This suggests that environmental changes such as climate warming and reduced resource availability could increase the efficiency of energy transfer in food webs only if functionally diverse predator communities are conserved.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 29273716 PMCID: PMC5741715 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-017-17998-4
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
F and p values of the most parsimonious GLM for the effects of temperature, prey density and predator assemblage on NCM strength.
| df | resid. df | F |
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| temperature | 1 | 446 | 3.23 | 0.07 |
| prey density | 1 | 445 | 21.4 | < |
| predator assemblage | 8 | 437 | 16.6 | < |
| temperature × predator assemblage | 8 | 429 | 3.82 | < |
Data were corrected for predator density by dividing the proportion of dead prey not eaten by predator density. df = degrees of freedom, resid. df = residual degrees of freedom. Bold values represent significant explanatory variables (P < 0.05).
Figure 1Dependence of per capita NCM strengths (number of dead uneaten prey per predator; mean ± 95% CI) on temperature, prey density and predator assemblage. (A) NCM strengths for all predator treatments and prey densities at 16 °C (blue) and 20 °C (red). Predator assemblages: D = dragonfly larva, SC = small crayfish, LC = large crayfish; predator pairs with underscore. Significant differences (P < 0.05) between temperatures within each predator assemblage marked by asterisk; ‘ns’ = differences not significant. Significant differences (P < 0.05) between predator assemblages at given temperature marked with different letters (16 °C = capital letters, 20 °C = small letters). (B) Effect of prey density on NCM strength across all predator assemblages and both temperatures.
F and p values of the most parsimonious GLM for the effects of temperature, prey density, and predator identity and density on per capita NCM strength.
| df | resid. df | F |
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| temperature | 1 | 343 | 2.02 | 0.24 |
| prey density | 1 | 342 | 10.81 |
|
| predator density | 1 | 341 | 21.31 |
|
| temperature × predator density | 1 | 340 | 9.03 |
|
Only single predator treatments and treatments with predator pairs of the same size and species were used in this analysis. Variables not retained in the final model are omitted. Symbols as in Table 1.
Figure 2Dependence of per capita NCM strength (mean ± 95% CI) on predator density at two temperatures. Black bars = single predator treatments (D, SC and LC), grey bars = predator pair treatments (D_D, SC_SC and LC_LC). Dependence on prey identity (not shown) qualitatively identical to those shown in Figs 1B and 3B.
Figure 3Dependence of per capita NCM strength (mean ± 95% CI) on prey density and predator functional groups. (A) NCM strength for each functional group. Mixed treatments (i.e., scavenger and predator) = D_SC and D_LC; scavengers = SC, LC, SC_SC, LC_LC and SC_LC; predators = D_D and D. (B) Effect of prey density on NCM strength. Different letters mark significant differences (P < 0.05) between predator functional groups or prey density.
F and p values of the most parsimonious GLM for the effects of temperature, prey density and predator functional group on per capita NCM strength.
| df | resid. df | F |
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| prey density | 1 | 445 | 20.2 | < |
| functional group | 2 | 444 | 37.7 | < |
Variables not retained in the final model are omitted. Symbols as in Table 1.
Figure 4Comparison of the observed and predicted NCM strengths (mean ± 95% CI) for each temperature and predator pair averaged over all prey densities. Data were not corrected for predator density. Black bars and circles = observed values; orange bars and triangles = predicted values were generated using multiplicative risk model.