Advertisement

Oecologia

, Volume 99, Issue 1–2, pp 7–15 | Cite as

Predator impacts on stream benthic prey

  • David Wooster
Original Paper

Abstract

The impact that predators have on benthic, macroinvertebrate prey density in streams is unclear. While some studies show a strong effect of predators on prey density, others show little or no effect. Two factors appear to influence the detection of predator impact on prey density in streams. First, many field studies have small sample sizes and thus might be unable to detect treatment effects. Second, streams contain two broad classes of predators, invertebrates and vertebrates, which might have different impacts on prey density for a variety of reasons, including availability of refuge for prey and prey emigration responses to the two types of predators. In addition, predatory vertebrates have more complex prey communities than predatory invertebrates; this complexity might reduce the impact that predatory vertebrates have on prey because of indirect effects. I conducted a meta-analysis on the results of field studies that manipulate predator density in enclosures to determine (1) if predators have a significant impact on benthic prey density in streams, (2) if the impacts that predatory invertebrates and vertebrates have differ, and (3) if predatory vertebrates have different impacts on predatory prey versus herbivorous prey. The results of the meta-analysis suggest that on average predators have a significant negative effect on prey density, predatory invertebrates have a significantly stronger impact than predatory vertebrates, and predatory vertebrates do not differ in their impact on predatory versus herbivorous invertebrate prey. Three methodological variables (mesh size of enclosures, size of enclosures, and experimental duration) were examined to determine if cross correlations exist that may explain the differences in impact between predatory invertebrates and vertebrates. No correlation exists between mesh size and predator impact. Over all predators, no correlation exists between experimental duration and predator impact; however, within predatory invertebrates a correlation does exist between these variables. Also, a correlation was found between enclosure size and predator impact. This correlation potentially explains the difference in impact between predatory invertebrates and predatory vertebrates. Results of the meta-analysis suggest two important areas for future research: (1) manipulate both types of predators within the same system, and (2) examine their impacts on the same spatial scale.

Key words

Streams Predator impacts Benthic invertebrates Meta-analysis 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Allan JD (1981) Determinants of diet of brook trout (Salvelinusfontinalis) in a mountain stream. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 38: 184–192Google Scholar
  2. Allan JD (1982) The effects of reduction in trout density on the invertebrate community in a mountain stream. Ecology 63: 1444–1455Google Scholar
  3. Allan JD (1983) Predator-prey relationships in streams. In: Barnes JR, Minshall GW (eds) Stream ecology: application and testing of general ecological theory. Plenum Press, New York, pp 191–229Google Scholar
  4. Allan JD, Flecker AS (1988) Prey preferences in stoneflies: a comparative analysis of prey vulnerability. Oecologia 76: 496–503Google Scholar
  5. Bechara JA, Moreau G, Hare L (1993) The impact of brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) on an experimental stream benthic community: the role of spatial and size refugia. J Anim Ecol 62: 451–464Google Scholar
  6. Cohen J (1988) Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJGoogle Scholar
  7. Cooper SD, Walde SJ, Peckarsky BL (1990) Prey exchange rates and the impact of predators on prey populations in streams. Ecology 71: 1503–1514Google Scholar
  8. Connell JH (1961) The influence of interspecific competition and other factors on the distribution of the barnacle Chthamalus stellatus. Ecology 42: 710–723Google Scholar
  9. Culp JM (1986) Experimental evidence that stream macroinvertebrate community structure is unaffected by different densities of coho salmon fry. J North Am Benthol Soc 5: 140–149Google Scholar
  10. Dudgeon D (1991) An experimental study of the effects of predatory fish on macroinvertebrates in a Hong Kong stream. Fresh-waterBiol 25: 321–330Google Scholar
  11. Feltmate BW, Williams DD (1989) Influence of rainbow trout (Oncorhyncus mykiss) on density and feeding behaviour of a perlid stonefly. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 46: 1575–1580Google Scholar
  12. Feltmate BW, Williams DD (1991) Evaluation of predator-induced stress on field populations of stoneflies (Plecoptera). Ecology 72: 1800–1806Google Scholar
  13. Flecker AS (1984) The effects of predation and detritus on the structure of a stream insect community: a field test. Oecologia 64: 300–305Google Scholar
  14. Flecker AS (1992) Fish trophic guilds and the structure of a tropical stream: weak vs strong indirect effects. Ecology 73: 927–940Google Scholar
  15. Flecker AS, Allan JD (1984) The importance of predation, substrate and spatial refugia in determining lotic insect distributions. Oecologia 64: 306–313Google Scholar
  16. Fuller RL, Rand PS (1990) Influence of substrate type on vulnerability of prey to predacious aquatic insects. J North Am Benthol Soc 9: 1–8Google Scholar
  17. Fuller RL, Stewart KW (1979) Stonefly (Plecoptera) food habits and prey preference in the Dolores River, Colorado. Am Midl Nat 86: 170–181Google Scholar
  18. Gilliam JF, Fraser DF, Sabat AM (1989) Strong effects of foraging minnows on a stream benthic invertebrate community. Ecology 70: 445–452Google Scholar
  19. Gurevitch J, Hedges LV (1993) Meta-analysis: combining the results of independent experiments. In: Scheiner SM, Gurevitch J (eds) Design and analysis of ecological experiments. Chapman and Hall, London, pp 378–398Google Scholar
  20. Gurevitch J, Morrow LL, Wallace A, Walsh JS (1992) A meta-analysis of competition in field experiments. Am Nat 140: 539–572Google Scholar
  21. Hall SJ, Raffaelli D, Turrell WR (1990) Predator-caging experiments in marine systems: a reexamination of their value. Am Nat 136: 657–672Google Scholar
  22. Harvey BC, Hill WR (1991) Effects of snail and fish on benthic invertebrate assemblages in a headwater stream. J N Am Benthol Soc 10: 263–270Google Scholar
  23. Hedges LV, Olkin I (1985) Statistical methods for meta-analysis. Academic Press, OrlandoGoogle Scholar
  24. Hildrew AG, Townsend CR (1987) Organization in freshwater benthic communities. In: Gee JHR, Giller PS (eds) Organization of communities: past and present. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 347–371Google Scholar
  25. Holomuzki JR, Stevenson RJ (1992) Role of predatory fish in community dynamics of an ephemeral stream. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 49: 2322–2330Google Scholar
  26. Lancaster J (1990) Predation and drift of lotic macroinvertebrates during colonization. Oecologia 85: 48–56Google Scholar
  27. Lancaster J, Hildrew AG, Townsend CR (1990) Stream flow and predation effects on the spatial dynamics of benthic invertebrates. Hydrobiologia 203: 177–190Google Scholar
  28. Merritt RW, Cummins KW (1984) An introduction to the aquatic insects of North America, 2nd edn. Kendall Hunt, Dubuque, IowaGoogle Scholar
  29. Michael DI, Culver DA (1986) Influence of plecopteran and megalopteran predators on Hydropsyche (Trichoptera: Hydropsychidae) microdistribution and behavior. J North Am Benthol Soc 6: 46–55Google Scholar
  30. Milstead B, Threlkeld ST (1986) An experimental analysis of darter predation on Hyalella azteca using semipermeable enclosures. J North Am Benthol Soc 5: 311–318Google Scholar
  31. Oberndorfer RY, McArthur JV, Barnes JR, Dixon J (1984) The effect of invertebrate predators on leaf litter processing in an alpine stream. Ecology 65: 1325–1331Google Scholar
  32. Paine RT (1980) Food webs: linkage, interaction strength and community infrastructure. J Anim Ecol 49: 667–685Google Scholar
  33. Parker MS (1993) Size-selective predation on benthic macroinvertebrates by stream-dwelling salamander larvae. Arch Hydrobiol 128: 385–400Google Scholar
  34. Peckarsky BL (1985) Do predaceous stoneflies and siltation affect the structure of stream insect communities colonizing enclosures? Can J Zool 63: 1519–1530Google Scholar
  35. Peckarsky BL (1991) A field test of resource depression by predatory stonefly larvae. Oikos 61: 3–10Google Scholar
  36. Peckarsky BL, Dodson SI (1980) Do stonefly predators influence benthic distributions in streams? Ecology 61: 1275–1282Google Scholar
  37. Peckarsky BL, Penton MA (1990) Effects of enclosures on stream microhabitats and invertebrate community structure. J North Am Benthol Soc 9: 249–261Google Scholar
  38. Power ME (1992) Habitat heterogeneity and the functional significance of fish in river food webs. Ecology 73: 1675–1688Google Scholar
  39. Reice SR (1983) Predation and substratum: factors in lotic community structure. In: Fontaine TD, Bartell SM (eds) Dynamics of lotic ecosystems. Ann Arbor Science Publishers, Ann Arbor, Mich, pp 325–345Google Scholar
  40. Reice SR (1991) Effects of detritus loading and fish predation on leafpack breakdown and benthic macroinvertebrates in a woodland stream. J North Am Benthol Soc 10: 42–56Google Scholar
  41. Reice SR, Edwards RL (1986) The effect of vertebrate predation on lotic macroinvertebrate communities in Quebec, Canada. Can J Zool 64: 1930–1936Google Scholar
  42. Schlosser IJ, Ebel KK (1989) Effects of flow regime and cyprinid predation on a headwater stream. Ecol Monogr 59: 41–57Google Scholar
  43. Schoener TW (1983) Field experiments on interspecific competition. Am Nat 122: 240–285Google Scholar
  44. Sih A, Wooster D (1994) Prey behavior, prey dispersal and predator impacts on stream prey. Ecology, (in press)Google Scholar
  45. Skinner WD (1985) Size selection of food by cutthroat trout, Salmo clarki, in an Idaho stream. Great Basin Nat 45: 327–331Google Scholar
  46. Sih A, Crowley P, McPeek M, Petranka J, Strohmeier K (1985) Predation, competition, and prey communities: a review of field experiments. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 16: 269–311Google Scholar
  47. Soluk DA (1993) Multiple predator effects: predicting combined functional response of stream fish and invertebrate predators. Ecology 74: 219–225Google Scholar
  48. Soluk DA, Collins NC (1988a) Synergistic interactions between fish and stoneflies: facilitation and interference among stream predators. Oikos 52: 94–100Google Scholar
  49. Soluk DA, Collins NC (1988b) A mechanism for interference between stream predators: responses of the stonefly Agnetina capitata to the presence of sculpins. Oecologia 76: 630–632Google Scholar
  50. Soluk DA, Collins NC (1988c) Balancing risks? Responses and non-responses of mayfly larvae to fish and stonefly predators. Oecologia 77: 370–374Google Scholar
  51. Thorp JH (1986) Two distinct roles for predators in freshwater assemblages. Oikos 47: 75–82Google Scholar
  52. Townsend CR (1989) The patch dynamics concept of stream community ecology. J North Am Benthol Soc 8: 36–50Google Scholar
  53. Walde SJ (1986) Effect of an abiotic disturbance on a lotic predator-prey interaction. Oecologia 69: 243–247Google Scholar
  54. Walde SJ, Davies RW (1984) Invertebrate predation and lotic prey communities: evaluation of in situ enclosure/exclosure experiments. Ecology 65: 1206–1213Google Scholar
  55. Wolf FM (1986) Meta-analysis: quantitative methods for research synthesis. Sage, Beverly HillsGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Verlag 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • David Wooster
    • 1
  1. 1.Center for Evolutionary Ecology, T.H. Morgan School of Biological SciencesUniversity of KentuckyLexingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations