Predation intensity in a rocky intertidal community
The predation intensity exerted by populations of the gastropod Thais lapillus at different study areas in the rocky intertidal community of New England is unrelated to predator density. Specifically, very similar intensities are exerted by populations differing in density by at least an order of magnitude. Predation intensity is, in part, a joint function of individual rates of prey consumption and various environmental characteristics. Major factors potentially affecting the individual feeding rates of Thais are (1) prey abundance and productivity, (2) other predators, (3) canopy-forming algae, (4) wave shock, (5) desiccation and (6) snail phenotype and/or history. The effects of the first two of these factors seem unimportant. The effects of the latter 4 on prey consumption rates were studied by estimating field feeding rates of snails held in cages with prey in microhabitats which were characterized by one of two alternative states of each factor. For example, microhabitats could be exposed or protected, at higher or lower levels in the mid intertidal, or under a canopy or not. In addition, exposed-phenotype or protected-phenotype snails were used in each experiment.
All of factors (3) to (6) had statistically significant effects except wave shock. The latter would probably also have had a significant effect if the experiments had been performed in the stormier part of the year as well as late summer. The results indicate that sparse populations of Thais can exert intense predation pressure on their prey if they are in protected sites covered with a dense canopy (i.e. in cool, moist habitats in calm waters). Areas with sparser canopy (i.e. greater desiccation stress) and more severe wave shock or both apparently reduce average feeding rates of snails. This appears to explain the paradoxical lack of correlation between predation intensity and snail density.
An unexpected result with potentially major implications is the nonlinear response of Thais feeding rates to combinations of factors (3) to (6). Four-way analyses of variance on experiments at exposed and protected sites indicate that 7 of 14 1st-order interactions, 2 of 8 2nd-order interactions, and even 1 of 2 3rd-order interactions are statistically significant. These results suggest that individual predators cannot be assumed to be identical, and that socalled “higher order” interactions cannot be safely ignored in models of interacting multi-species systems. Hence, it appears that to obtain a thorough understanding of the organization of natural communities, both field and theoretical ecologists alike should begin to grapple with such complexities of nature rather than ignore them.
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Anonymous: Local climatological data for Boston, Mass., National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Environmental Data Service (1975)Google Scholar
- Bayne, B.L.: Primary and secondary settlement in Mytilus edulis L. (Mollusca). J. Anim. Ecol. 33, 513–523 (1964)Google Scholar
- Binder, A.M.: Considerations of the place of assumptions in correlational analysis. Am. Psychol. 14, 504–510 (1959)Google Scholar
- Boneau, C.A.: The effects of violations of assumptions underlying the t-test. Psychol. Bulletin 57, 49–64 (1960)Google Scholar
- Cochran, W.G.: some consequences when the assumptions for the anova are not satisfied. Biometrics 3, 22–38 (1947)Google Scholar
- Connell, J.H.: Effects of competition, predation by Thais lapillus, and other factors on natural populations of the barnacle Balanus balanoides. Ecol. Monogr. 31, 61–104 (1961a)Google Scholar
- Connell, J.H.: The influence of interspecific competition and other factors on the distribution of the barnacle Chthamalus stellatus. Ecology 42, 710–723 (1961b)Google Scholar
- Connell, J.H.: A predator-prey system in the marine intertidal region. I. Balanus glandula and several predator species of Thais. Ecol. Monogr. 40, 49–78 (1970)Google Scholar
- Connell, J.H.: Some mechanisms producing structure in natural communities. In: Ecology and evolution of communities (M.L. Cody, J.M. Diamond, eds.), pp. 460–490. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press 1975Google Scholar
- Donaldson, T.S.: Robustness of the F-test to errors of both kinds and the correlation between the numerator and denominator of the F-ratio. J. Am. Stat. Assn. 63, 660–676 (1968)Google Scholar
- Lubchenco, J. (formerly Menge, J. Lubchenco): Plant species diversity in a marine intertidal community: importance of herbivore food preference and algal competitive abilities. Am. Nat. 112 (in press, 1978)Google Scholar
- Lubchenco, J., Menge, B.A.: Community development and presistence in a low rocky intertidal zone. Ecol. Monogr. (in press, 1978)Google Scholar
- Menge, B.A.: Organization of the New England rocky intertidal community: role of predatoon, competition and environmental heterogeneity. Ecol. Monogr. 46, 355–393 (1976)Google Scholar
- Menge, B.A.: Predation intensity in a rocky intertidal community. Relation between predator foraging activity and environmental harshness. Oecologia (Berl.) 34, 1–16 (1978)Google Scholar
- Menge, B.A., Sutherland, J.P.: Species diversity gradients: synthesis of the roles of predation, competition and temporal heterogeneity. Am. Nat. 110, 351–369 (1976)Google Scholar
- Menge, J.L.: Effect of herbivores on community structure of the New England rocky intertidal region: distribution, abundance and diversity of algae. Ph. D. Thesis, Harvard Univ., Cambridge, Mass., 164 pp. (1975)Google Scholar
- Moore, H.B.: The biology of Purpura lapillus. Part 1. Shell variation in relation to the environment. J. Mar. Biol. Assoc. U.K. 21, 61–89 (1936)Google Scholar
- Neill, W.E.: The community matrix and interdependence of the competition coefficients. Am. Nat. 108, 399–408 (1974)Google Scholar
- Osborne, C.: Ecology of shell color polyphenism in Thais lapillus. Ph. D. Thesis, Yale Univ., New Haven, Conn., 337 pp. (1977)Google Scholar
- Paine, R.T.: Intertidal community structure. Experimental studies on the relationship between a dominant competitor and its principal predator. Oecologia (Berl.) 15, 93–120 (1974)Google Scholar
- Seed, R.: Marine mussels: ecology. In: Marine mussels: their ecology and physiology, IBP publ. no. 10 (B.L. Bayne, ed.), pp. 13–65, 506 pp. Cambridge, England: Cambridge Univ. Press 1976Google Scholar
- Sokal, R.R., Rohlf, F.J.: Biometry, 776 pp. San Francisco: Freeman 1969Google Scholar
- Staiger, H.: Geretical and morphological variation in Purpura lapillus with respect to local and regional differentiation of population groups. Annee Biol. 33, 251–258 (1957)Google Scholar
- Vermeij, G.J.: Interoceanic differences in vulnerability of shelled prey to crab predation. Nature 260, 135–136 (1976)Google Scholar
- Wilbur, H.M.: Competition, predation, and the structure of the Ambystoma-Rana sylvatica community. Ecology 53, 3–21 (1972)Google Scholar