Naturwissenschaften

, Volume 95, Issue 9, pp 839–844 | Cite as

Habitat segregation mediates predation by the benthic fish Cottus gobio on the exotic amphipod species Gammarus roeseli

  • Nicolas Kaldonski
  • Clément Lagrue
  • Sébastien Motreuil
  • Thierry Rigaud
  • Loïc Bollache
Original Paper
First Online:
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:

Abstract

Predation is often considered as one of the most important biotic factor determining the success of exotic species. The freshwater amphipod Gammarus roeseli has widely colonized Western Europe, where it is frequently found in sympatry with the native species (Gammarus pulex). Previous laboratory experiments revealed that G. roeseli may have an advantage over G. pulex through differential predation by native fish (brown trout). Morphological anti-predator defences (spines) were found responsible for lower rates of predation on the invasive G. roeseli. Here, using both field surveys and laboratory experiments, we tested if a differential of predation exists with other fish predators naturally encountered by gammarids. The main predators present in our field site were nocturnal benthic feeders (mainly bullheads, Cottus gobio). Fish diet analysis showed that, compared to its global availability in the river, G. roeseli was less consumed than G. pulex. In the field, however, G. roeseli was found mainly in the aquatic vegetation whereas G. pulex was found in all habitat types. Laboratory experiments in microcosms revealed that G. roeseli was less prone to predation by C. gobio only when vegetation was present. Depending on the type of predator, the differential of predation could therefore be mediated by antipredator behaviour, and a better usage of refuges, rather than by morphological defences.

Keywords

Anti-predator behaviour Biological invasion Predation 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

This study was funded by the program “Invasions Biologiques” of the French Ministère de l’Ecologie et du Développement Durable (grant #01121), and by a grant from the Conseil Régional de Bourgogne. We thank Bernard Rousseau, Philippe Baran, Pascal Compagnat (Conseil Supérieur de la Pêche) for the help in electric fishing, and Laurent Dutal for the help during field work. All experiments therein have been conducted in accordance with the current laws in France.

References

  1. Abrams PA (2001) Predator-prey interactions. In: Fox CW, Roff DA, Fairbairn DJ (eds) Evolutionary ecology. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, pp 277–289Google Scholar
  2. Andersson K, Brönmark GC, Herrmann J, Malmqvist B, Otto C, Sjörström P (1986) Presence of sculpins (Cottus gobio) reduces drift and activity of Gammarus pulex (Amphipoda). Hydrobiologia 133:209–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Andreasson S (1971) Feeding habits of the sculpin (Cottus gobio) population. Reports of the Swedish State Institute of Freshwater Research. Drottingholm 51:1–30Google Scholar
  4. Baumgärtner D, Jungbluth AD, Koch U, Von Elert E (2002) Effects of infochemicals on microhabitat choice by the freshwater amphipod Gammarus roeseli. Arch Hydrobiol 155:353–367Google Scholar
  5. Baumgärtner D, Koch U, Rothhaupt KO (2003) Alteration of kairomone-induced antipredator response of the freshwater amphipod Gammarus roeseli by sediment type. J Chem Ecol 29:1391–1401PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Beaumont WRC, Taylor AAL, Lee MJ, Welton JS (2002) Guidelines for electric fishing best practice, RandD technical report W2–054/TR. Environment Agency, BristolGoogle Scholar
  7. Bollache L, Gambade G, Cézilly F (2000) The influence of micro-habitat segregation on size-assortative pairing in Gammarus pulex (L.) (Crustacea, Amphipoda). Arch Hydrobiol 147:547–558Google Scholar
  8. Bollache L, Kaldonski N, Troussard J-P, Lagrue C, Rigaud T (2006) Spines and behaviour against fish predation in an invasive freshwater amphipod. Anim Behav 72:627–633CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Byers JE (2002) Physical habitat attribute mediates biotic resistance to non-indigenous species invasion. Oecologia 130:146–156Google Scholar
  10. Çelik K, Schindler JE, Foris WJ, Knight JC (2002) Predator-mediated coexistence of exotic and native crustaceans in a freshwater lake. Biological Invasions 4:451–454CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chaneton EJ, Bonsall, MB (2000) Enemy-mediated apparent competition: empirical patterns and the evidence. Oikos 88:380–394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chevreux E, Fage L (1925) Faune de France, Amphipodes. Paul Lechevallier, ParisGoogle Scholar
  13. Dahl J (1998) Effects of a benthivorous and a drift-feeding fish on a benthic stream assemblage. Oecologia 116:426–432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dick JTA, Montgomery WI, et al. (1999) Intraguild predation may explain an amphipod replacement: evidence from laboratory populations. J Zool 249:463–633Google Scholar
  15. Edmunds M (1974) Defence in animals: a survey of anti-predator defences. Longman, HarlowGoogle Scholar
  16. Fischer P (2004) Nocturnal foraging in the stone loach (Barbatula barbatula): fixed or environmentally mediated behavior? J Freshw Ecol 19:77–85Google Scholar
  17. Friberg N, Andersen TH, Hansen HO, Iversen TM, Jacobsen D, Krøjgaard L, Larsen SE (1994) The effect of brown trout (Salmo trutta L.) on stream invertebrate drift, with special reference to Gammarus pulex L. Hydrobiologia 294:105–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gonzalez MJ, Burkart GA (2004) Effects of food type, habitat, and fish predation on the relative abundance of two amphipod species, Gammarus fasciatus and Echinogammarus ischnus. J Great Lakes Res 30(1):100–113Google Scholar
  19. Harrison S, Bradley D, Harris I (2005) Uncoupling strong predator–prey interactions in streams: the role of marginal macrophytes. Oikos 108:433–448CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hazlett BA, Burba A, Gherardi F, Acquistapace P (2003) Invasive species of crayfish use a broader range of predation-risk cues than native species. Biological Invasions 5:223–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Henry KS, Danielopol DL (1999) Oxygen dependent habitat selection in surface and hyporheic environments by Gammarus roeseli Gervais (Crustacea, Amphipoda): experimental evidence. Hydrobiologia 309:51–60Google Scholar
  22. Holomuzki JR, Hoyle JD (1990) Effect of predatory fish on habitat use and diel movement of the stream amphipod, Gammarus minus. Freshw Biol 24:509–517CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Holway DA, Suarez AV (1999) Animal behaviour: an essential component of invasion biology. Trends Ecol Evol 14:328–330PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Jazdzewski K (1980) Range extensions of some gammaridean species in European inland waters caused by human activity. Crustaceana Suppl 6:84–107Google Scholar
  25. Karaman GS, Pinkster S (1977) Freshwater Gammarus species from Europe, North Africa and adjacent regions of Asia (Crustacea-Amphipoda) Part II. Gammarus roeseli-group and related species. Bijdr dierkd 47:165–196Google Scholar
  26. Keith P, Allardi J (2001) Atlas des poissons d’eau douce de France. Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, ParisGoogle Scholar
  27. Kerfoot WC, Sih A (1987) Predation: direct and indirect impacts on aquatic communities. University Press of New England, HanoverGoogle Scholar
  28. Kinzler W, Maier G (2006) Selective predation by fish: a further reason for the decline of native gammarids in the presence of invasives? J Limnol 65:27–34Google Scholar
  29. Lagrue C, Bollache L (2006) Effects of temperature on persistence times of native and invasive gammarid species in the stomachs of bullhead, Cottus gobio. J Fish Biol 68:318–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lagrue C, Kaldonski N, et al. (2007) Modification of hosts’ behavior by a parasite: Field evidence for adaptive manipulation. Ecology 88(11):2839–2847Google Scholar
  31. Lodge DM (1993) Biological invasions: lessons for ecology. Trends Ecol Evol 3:133–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. MacNeil C, Dick JTA, Elwood RW (1997) The trophic ecology of freshwater Gammarus spp. (Crustacea: Amphipoda): problems and perspectives concerning the functional feeding group concept. Biol Rev 72:349–364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. MacNeil C, Elwood RW, Dick JTA (1999) Predator–prey interaction between brown trout Salmo trutta and native and introduced amphipods; their implication for fish diets. Ecography 22:686–696CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. MacNeil C, Dick JTA, Hatcher MJ, Dunn AM (2003) Differential drift and parasitism in invading and native Gammarus spp. (Crustacea: Amphipoda). Ecography 26:467–473CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Meijering MPD (1991) Lack of oxygen and low pH as limiting factors for Gammarus in Hessian brooks and rivers. Hydrobiologia 223:159–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Mooney HA, Cleland EE (2001) The evolutionary impact of invasive species. Proc Natl Acad Sci. US Am 98:5446–5451CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Phillips BL, Shine R (2006) An invasive species induces rapid adaptive change in a native predator: cane toads and black snakes in Australia. Proc R Soc Lond B 273:1545–1550CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Reusch TBH (1998) Native predators contribute to invasion resistance to the non-indigenous bivalve Musculista senhousia in southern California, USA. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 170:159–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Ricciardi A, MacIsaac HJ (2000) Recent mass invasion of the North American Great Lakes by Ponto-Caspian species. Trends Ecol Evol 15:62–65PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Robinson JV, Wellborn GA (1988) Ecological resistance to the invasion of a freshwater clam, Corbicula fluminea: fish predation effects. Oecologia 77:445–452CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Ruff H, Maier G (2000) Calcium carbonate deposits reduce predation pressure on Gammarus fossarum from salamander larvae. Freshw Biol 43:99–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Sakai AK, Allendorf FW, Holt JS, Lodge DM, Molofsky J, With KA, Baughman S, Cabin RJ, Cohen JE, Ellstrand NC, McCauley DE, O’Neil P, Parker IM, Thompson JN, Weller SG (2001) The population biology of invasive species. Ann Rev Ecolog Syst 32:305–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Shea K, Chesson P (2002) Community ecology theory as a framework for biological invasions. Trends Ecol Evol 17:170–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Starry O, Wanzenboeck J, Danielopol DL (1998) Tendency of the amphipod Gammarus roeseli Gervais to colonize coarse sediment habitats under fish predation pressure. Int Rev Hydrobiol 83:5–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Shurin JR (2001) Interactive effect of predation and dispersal on zooplankton communities. Ecology 82:3404–3416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Siegel S, Castellan NJ (1988) Nonparametric statistics for the behavioral sciences, 2nd edn. McGraw-Hill, New York, p 399Google Scholar
  47. Tollrian R, Harvell CD (1999) The ecology and evolution of inducible defence. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJGoogle Scholar
  48. Witt JDS, Hebert PDN, Morton WB (1997) Echinogammarus ischnus: another crustacean invader in the Laurentian Great Lakes basin. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 54:264–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Wolfe LM (2002) Why alien invaders succeed: support for the escape-from-enemy-hypothesis. The American Naturalist 160:705–711PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nicolas Kaldonski
    • 1
  • Clément Lagrue
    • 1
  • Sébastien Motreuil
    • 1
  • Thierry Rigaud
    • 1
  • Loïc Bollache
    • 1
  1. 1.Equipe Ecologie Evolutive, UMR CNRS 5561 BiogéosciencesUniversité de BourgogneDijonFrance

Personalised recommendations