, Volume 94, Issue 4, pp 516–527

Predictions of species interactions from consumer-resource theory: experimental tests with grasshoppers and plants

  • Mark E. Ritchie
  • David Tilman
Original Papers


We tested the ability of consumer-resource theory to predict direct and indirect interactions among species, using an experimental system of insect herbivores and herbaceous plants. Specifically, we examined interactions among three species of grasshoppers (Melanoplus femur-rubrum, Spharagemon collare, andPhoetaliotes nebrascensis; Orthoptera, Acrididae) and herbaceous plants in experimental field cages placed over existing fertilized or unfertilized vegetation in a Minnesota old field. For the conditions inside these cages, we addressed whether (1) grasshopper diet predicted the presence of competition among grasshopper species, and (2) direct effects of grasshoppers on plants produced indirect interactions among plants, grasshoppers and soil nitrogen. Overall,M. femur-rubrum ate a greater proportion of forbs in cages, while the other two species ate primarily grasses. As expected, a pair of grasshopper species competed if they had similar diets. However, there were important exceptions that could be explained from observed indirect effects, although alternative explanations were also possible. First, all three grasshopper species significantly shifted their diets in the presence of other species, and these shifts occurred most often when competition was expected or occurred. Second, the two grassfeeding species reduced the biomass of the dominant grass (Schizachyrium scoparium) and increased available soil nitrogen and biomass of forbs. This effect may explain why the grass-feedingP. nebrascensis had a positive effect on the forb-feedingM. femur-rubrum on unfertilized plots. Overall, we show that direct effects of consumers on resources can predict competition and other important indirect interactions within a community.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Abrams PA (1984) Foraging time optimization and interactions in food webs. Am Nat 124:80–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Abrams PA (1986) Character displacement and niche shift analyzed using consumer-resource models of competition. Theor Pop Biol 29:107–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Abrams PA (1987) Indirect interactions between species that share a predator. In: Kerfoot CJ, Sih A (eds) Predation: direct and indirect impacts on aquatic communities. Univ Press New England, Honaver, MassachusettsGoogle Scholar
  4. Abrams PA (1988) Resource productivity-consumer species diversity: simple models of competition in spatially heterogeneous environments. Ecology 69:1418–1433Google Scholar
  5. Abrams PA (1990) Adaptive responses of generalist herbivores to competition: convergence or divergence. Evol Ecol 4:103–114Google Scholar
  6. Belovsky GE (1986a) Generalist herbivore foraging and its role in competitive interactions. Am Zool 26:51–69Google Scholar
  7. Belovsky GE (1986b) Optimal foraging and community structure: implications for a guild of generalist herbivores. Oecologia 80:35–52Google Scholar
  8. Belsky AJ (1987) The effects of grazing: confounding of ecosystem, community and organism scales. Am Nat 129:777–783CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brown JH, Heske EJ (1990) Control of a desert-grassland transition by a keystone rodent guild. Science 250:1705–1707Google Scholar
  10. Brown JH, Davidson DW, Munger JC, Inouye RS (1986) Experimental community ecology: the desert granivore system. In: Diamond J, Case TJ (eds) Community ecology. Harper and Row, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  11. Bryant JP, Chapin FS III, Klein DJ (1983) Carbon/nutrient balance of boreal plants in relation to vertebrate herbivory. Oikos 40:357–368Google Scholar
  12. Campbell JB, Arnett WH, Lambley JD, Jantz OK, Knutson H (1974) Grasshoppers (Acrididae) of the Flint Hills native tallgrass prairie in Kansas. Kansas Agric Exper Sta Res Paper 19:Google Scholar
  13. Chapin FS III, Vitousek PM, Van Cleve K (1986) The nature of nutrient limitation in plant communities. Am Nat 127:48–58Google Scholar
  14. Coley PD, Bryant JP, Chapin FS III (1985) Resource availability and plant antiherbivory defense. Science 230:895–899Google Scholar
  15. Connell JH (1980) Diversity and the coevolution of competitors, or the ghost of competition past. Oikos 35:131–138Google Scholar
  16. Connell JH (1983) On the prevalence and relative importance of interspecific competition. Am Nat 122:661–696CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Evans EW (1989) Interspecific interactions among phytophagous insects of tallgrass prairie: an experimental test. Ecology 70:435–444Google Scholar
  18. Faeth SH (1986) Indirect interactions between temporally separated herbivores mediated by the host plant. Ecology 67:479–494Google Scholar
  19. Hardin G (1960) The competitive exclusion principle. Science 131:1292–1297PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Hibert DW, Swift DM, Detling JK, Dyer MI (1981) Relative growth rates and the grazing optimization process. Oecologia 51:14–18Google Scholar
  21. Holt RD (1977) Predation, apparent competition and the structure of prey communities. Theor Pop Biol 12: 197–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Holt RD (1984) Spatial heterogeneity, indirect effects, and coexistence of prey species. Am Nat 124:377–406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Huntly NJ, Inouye RS (1988) Pocket gophers in ecosystems: patterns and mechanisms. Bioscience 38:786–793Google Scholar
  24. Inouye RS, Huntly NJ, Tilman D, Tester JR (1987) Pocket gophers, vegetation and soil nitrogen along a succession sere in east central Minnesota. Oecologia 72:178–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Isely FB (1946) Differential feeding in relation to local distribution of grasshopers. Ecology 27:128–138Google Scholar
  26. Joern A (1979) Feeding patterns in grasshoppers (Orthoptera: Acrididae): factors influencing diet specialization. Oecologia 38:325–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Joern A, Lawlor LR (1980) Arid grassland grasshopper community structure: comparisons with neutral models. Ecology 61:591–597Google Scholar
  28. Joern A, Lawlor LR (1981) Guild structure in grasshopper assemblages based on food and microhabitat resources. Oikos 37:93–104Google Scholar
  29. Karban R (1989) Community organization ofErigeron glaucus folivores: effects of competition, predation, and host plant. Ecology 70:1028–1039Google Scholar
  30. Kerfoot C, Sih A (eds) (1987) Predation: direct and indirect impacts on aquatic communities. Univ Press New England, Hanover, MassachusettsGoogle Scholar
  31. Lawlor LR (1979) Direct and indirect effects of n-species competition. Oecologia 43:355–364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lawton JH, Strong DH Jr (1981) Community patterns and competition in folivorous insects. Am Nat 118:317–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Levine SH (1976) Competition interactions in ecosystems. Am Nat 110:903–910CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Levins R (1968) Evolution in changing environments. Princeton Univ Press, Princeton, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  35. Louda SM, Keeler KH, Holt RD (1990) Herbivore influences on plant performance and competitive interactions. In: Grace J, Tilman D (eds) Perspectives on plant competition. Academic Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  36. Maschinski J, Whitham TG (1989) The continuum of plant responses to herbivory: The influence of plant association, nutrient availability and timing. Am Nat 134:1–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. May RM (1982) Mutualistic interactions among species. Nature 296:803–804Google Scholar
  38. McNaughton SJ (1985) Ecology of a grazing system: the Serengeti. Ecol Monogr 53:291–320Google Scholar
  39. Miller RG (1981) Simultaneous statistical inference. McGraw-Hill, New York Mulkern GB (1967) Food selection by grasshoppers. Ann Rev Entomol 12:59–78Google Scholar
  40. Mulkern GB, Pruess KP, Knutson H, Hagen AF, Campbell JB; Lambley JD (1969) Food habits and preferences of grassland grasshoppers (Acrididae) of the North Central Great Plains. N Dakota St Univ Agric Exper Sta Bull 481Google Scholar
  41. Power ME (1990) Effects of fish in river food webs. Science 250:811–814Google Scholar
  42. Pulliam HR (1985) Foraging efficiency, resource partitioning, and the coexistence of sparrow species. Ecology 66:1829–1836Google Scholar
  43. Rice WR (1989) Analyzing tables of statistical tests. Evolution 43:223–225Google Scholar
  44. Ritchie ME (1988) Individual variation in the ability of Columbian ground squirrels to select an optimal diet. Evol Ecol 2:232–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Ritchie ME, Tilman D (1992) Interspecific competition among grasshoppers and their effect on plant abundance in experimental field environments. Oecologia 89:524–532Google Scholar
  46. Rothhaupt KO (1988) Mechanistic resource competition theory applied to laboratory experiments with zooplankton. Nature 333:660–662CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Sale PF (1974) Overlap in resource use and interspecific competition. Oecologia 17:245–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Schmitt RJ (1987) Indirect interactions between prey: apparent competition, predator aggregation, and habitat segregation. Ecology 68:1887–1897Google Scholar
  49. Schoener TW (1974) Some methods for calculating competition coefficients from resource utilization spectra. Am Nat 108:322–340Google Scholar
  50. Schoener TW (1976) Alternatives to Lotka-Volterra competition: models of intermediate complexity. Theor Popul Biol 10:309–333PubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Schoener TW (1978) Effects of density-restricted food encounter on some single-level competition models. Theoretical Population Biology 13:365–381CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Schoener TW (1983) Field experiments on interspecific competition. Am Nat 122:240–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Smith AD, Shandruk LJ (1979) Comparison of fecal, rumen, and utilization methods for estimating pronghorn diet. J Range Manage 32:275–279Google Scholar
  54. Sokal RR, FJ Rohlf (1980) Biometry. Freeman Press, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  55. Sparks DR, Malechek JC (1968) Estimating percentage dry weight in diets using a microscopic technique. J Range Manage 21:264–265Google Scholar
  56. Tilman D (1976) Ecological competition between algae: experimental confirmation of resource-based competition theory. Science 192:463–465Google Scholar
  57. Tilman D (1980) Resources: a graphical-mechanistic approach to competition and predation. Am Nat 116:362–393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Tilman D (1982) Resource competition and community structure. Princeton Univ Press, Princeton, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  59. Tilman D (1988) Plant strategies and the dynamics and structure of plant communities. Princeton Univ Press, Princeton, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  60. Tilman D, Wedin D (1991) Plant traits and resource reduction for five grasses growing on a nitrogen gradient. Ecology 72:683–698Google Scholar
  61. Vandermeer JH (1980) Indirect mutualism: variations on a theme by Stephen Levine. Am Nat 116:441–448CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Wilson SD, Tilman D (1991) Components of plant competition along an experimental gradient of nitrogen availability. Ecology 72:1050–1065Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mark E. Ritchie
    • 1
  • David Tilman
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Fisheries and WildlifeUtah State UniversityLoganUSA
  2. 2.Department of Ecology, Evolution and BehaviorUniversity of MinnesotaSt. PaulUSA

Personalised recommendations