Skip to main content
Log in

Paradoxical effects and interactions in food webs: a commentary on Nilsson and McCann (2016)

  • BRIEF COMMUNICATION
  • Published:
Theoretical Ecology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Counter-intuitive responses of population density to changes in parameter values were used by Nilsson and McCann (Theor Ecol 9:59–71, 2016, Theoretical Ecology) to argue for the superiority of a recently proposed measure of interaction strength. They argued that one of these responses (decreasing consumer density in response to increasing per capita resource attack rate) is rarely or never discussed and is distinct from responses to consumer mortality. In fact, there is a long history of work on responses to altered attack rates, and they are linked to responses to mortality because the latter very often produce coupled changes in attack rate. This earlier literature does not support a qualitative difference between the impacts of these two types of parameter change and does not clearly support the desirability of any particular measure of interaction strength.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

References

  • Abrams PA (1986) Adaptive responses of predators to prey and prey to predators: the failure of the arms race analogy. Evolution 44:1229–1247

  • Abrams PA (1991) The evolution of anti-predator traits in prey in response to evolutionary change in predators. Oikos 59:147–156

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abrams PA (1992) Why don’t predators have positive effects on prey populations? Evol Ecol 6:449–457

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abrams PA (1994) The fallacies of ’ratio dependent’ predation. Ecology 75:1842–1850

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abrams PA (1995) Implications of dynamically variable traits for identifying, classifying, and measuring direct and indirect effects in ecological communities. Am Nat 146:112–134

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abrams PA (1997) Variability and adaptive behaviour: implications for interactions between stream organisms. J N Am Benthol Soc 16:358–374

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abrams PA (2001) Describing and quantifying interspecific interactions; a commentary on recent approaches. Oikos 94:209–218

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abrams PA (2002) Will declining population sizes warn us of impending extinctions? Am Nat 160:293–305

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Abrams PA (2003) Effects of altered resource consumption rates by one consumer species on a competitor. Ecol Lett 6:550–555

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abrams PA (2004) Trait initiated indirect effects in simple food webs: consequences of changes in consumption-related traits. Ecology 85:1029–1038

  • Abrams PA (2009a) When does greater mortality increase population size? The long history and diverse mechanisms underlying the hydra effect. Ecol Lett 12:462–474

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Abrams PA (2009b) Adaptive changes in prey vulnerability shape the response of predator populations to mortality. J Theor Biol 261:294–304

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Abrams PA (2014) The evolutionary and behavioral modification of consumer responses to environmental change. J Theor Biol 343:162–173

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Abrams PA, Ginzbrg LR (2000) Models of predation: prey dependent, ratio dependent or neither? TREE 15:337–341

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Abrams PA, Matsuda H (2005) The effect of adaptive change in the prey on the dynamics of an exploited predator population. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 62:758–766

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abrams PA, Quince C (2005) The impact of mortality on predator population size and stability in systems with stage-structured prey. Theor Popul Biol 68:253–266

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Abrams PA, Roth J (1994) The responses of unstable food chains to enrichment. Evol Ecol 8:150–171

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abrams PA, Vos M (2003) Adaptation, density dependence, and the abundances of trophic levels. Evol Ecol Res 5:1113–1132

    Google Scholar 

  • Abrams PA, Walters CJ (1996) Invulnerable prey and the paradox of enrichment. Ecology 77:1125–1133

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abrams PA, Namba T, Mimura M, Roth JD (1997) Comment on Abrams and Roth: the relationship between productivity and population densities in cycling predator–prey systems. Evol Ecol 11:371–373

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cortez MH, Abrams PA (2016) Hydra effects in stable communities and their implications for system dynamics. Ecology 97:1135–1145

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • DeAngelis DL, Goldstein RA, O’Neill RV (1975) A model for trophic interactions. Ecology 56:881–892

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert B, Tunney TD, McCann KS et al (2014) A bioenergetics framework for the temperature dependence of trophic interactions. Ecol Letts 17:902–914

  • Gilpin ME (1975) Group selection in predator–prey communities. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  • Holt RD, Barfield M (2013) Direct plant-predator interactions as determinants of food chain dynamics. J Theor Biol 339:47–57

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ives AR, Carpenter SR (2007) Stability and diversity of ecosystems. Science 317:58–62

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Jeschke J, Kopp M, Tollrian R (2004) Consumer-food systems: why type I functional responses are exclusive to filter feeders. Biol Revs 79:337–349

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lima SL (1998) Nonlethal effects in the ecology of predator–prey interactions. Bioscience 48:25–34

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maynard Smith J (1982) Evolution and the theory of games. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Nilsson KA, McCann KS (2016) Interaction strength revisited—clarifying the role of energy flux for food web stability. Theor Ecol 9:59–71

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pels B, de Roos AM, Sabelis MW (2002) Evolutionary dynamics of prey exploitation in a metapopulation of predators. Am Nat 159:172–189

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ricker WE (1954) Stock and recruitment. J Fish Res Board Can 11:559–653

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sieber M, Hilker FM (2012) The hydra effect in predator–prey models. J Math Biol 64:341–360

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Slobodkin LB (1974) Prudent predation does not require group selection. Am Nat 108:665–678

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yamamichi M, Yoshida T, Sasaki A (2014) Timing and propagule size of invasion determine its success by a time-varying threshold of demographic regime shift. Ecology 95:2303–2315

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

I thank the reviewer and Michael Cortez for comments on an earlier draft. This work was supported by a Discovery Grant from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Peter A. Abrams.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Abrams, P.A. Paradoxical effects and interactions in food webs: a commentary on Nilsson and McCann (2016). Theor Ecol 9, 513–517 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12080-016-0312-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12080-016-0312-1

Keywords

Navigation