Advertisement

Biology and Fertility of Soils

, Volume 41, Issue 6, pp 419–427 | Cite as

Predator–prey interaction in soil food web: functional response, size-dependent foraging efficiency, and the influence of soil texture

  • Karin HohbergEmail author
  • Walter Traunspurger
Original Paper

Abstract

In a series of laboratory experiments, we presented carnivorous Macrobiotus richtersi (Tardigrada, Macrobiotidae) with nematode prey to assess their importance as predator. We investigated consumption rate for (a) different prey densities (10–400 prey individuals), (b) different prey biomasses (22–80 ng), (c) different prey species (Pelodera teres, Rhabditidae, versus Acrobeloides nanus, Cephalobidae) and (d) different environments (2-D agar surface versus 3-D sand fractions of three different textures). M. richtersi consumed up to 4.6 μg nematode prey in 4 h, that is, 43% of the tardigrade’s body mass. Predation rate was positively correlated with prey density. The optimal prey in the present investigation was the biggest prey because it yielded the highest biomass uptake per time. In addition, the size of M. richtersi played an important role in consumption rate. Bacterivorous nematodes reacted differently to attack. Even in a water film on stiff agar where nematode agility was limited, a vigorous undulation reaction of P. teres led to a measurable reduction in consumption rate. A. nanus, in contrast, showed little response to attack. Microcosm experiments with sands of different particle size demonstrated that M. richtersi is able to chase and consume small bacterivorous nematodes in a 3-D soil matrix. However, consumption rate in sand microcosms was significantly reduced compared with pure agar. The sand matrix improved nematode agility and possibly provided small pores as refuge for the nematodes. The lowest consumption rate was observed in fine sand. Effects of predatory tardigrades on nematode numbers in the field are discussed.

Keywords

Soil fauna Nematoda Optimal prey Tardigrada 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank Hartmut Greven and Jonathan M. Jeschke who commented on earlier versions of this paper. The experiments comply with the current laws of Germany.

References

  1. Anderson JM (1995) Soil organisms as engineers: microsite modulation of macroscale processes. In: Jones CG, Lawton JK (eds) Linking species and ecosystems. Chapman and Hall, New York, pp 94–106Google Scholar
  2. Andrássy I (1956) Die Rauminhalts- und Gewichtsbestimmung der Fadenwürmer (Nematoden). Acta Zool 2:1–15Google Scholar
  3. Beier S, Bolley M, Traunspurger W (2004) Predator–prey interactions between Dugesia gonocephala and free-living nematodes. Freshw Biol 49:77–86Google Scholar
  4. Bengtsson J, Wei Zheng D, Agren GI, Persson T (1995) Food webs in soil: an interface between population and ecosystem ecology. In: Jones CG, Lawton JK (eds) Linking species and ecosystems. Chapman and Hall, New York, pp 159–165Google Scholar
  5. Bilgrami AL (1992) Resistance and susceptibility of prey nematodes to predation and strike rate of the predators, Mononchus aquaticus, Dorylaimus stagnalis and Aquatides thornei. Fundam Appl Nematol 15:265–270Google Scholar
  6. Bilgrami AL (1993) Analysis of the predation by Aporcelaimellus nivalis on prey nematodes from different prey trophic categories. Nematologica 39:356–365Google Scholar
  7. Bouwman LA, Hoenderboom GHJ, Van der Maas KJ, De Ruiter PC (1996) Effects of nematophagous fungi on numbers and death rates of bacterivorous nematodes in arable soil. J Nematol 28:26–35Google Scholar
  8. Cogni R, Freitas AVL, Amaral Filho BF (2002) Influence of prey size on predation success by Zelus longipes L. (Het., Reduviidae). J Appl Entomol 126:74–78Google Scholar
  9. Coleman DC, Anderson RV, Cole CV, McClellan JF, Woods LE, Trofymow JA, Elliott ET (1984) Roles of protozoa and nematodes in nutrient cycling. In: Giddens SE, Todd RL (eds) Microbial–plant interactions. ASA, Madison, pp 17–28Google Scholar
  10. De Ruiter PC, Van Veen JA, Moore C, Brussaard L, Hunt HW (1993) Calculation of nitrogen mineralization in soil food webs. Plant Soil 157:263–273Google Scholar
  11. Diehl S, Feißel M (2000) Effects of enrichment on three-level food chains with omnivory. Am Nat 155:200–218Google Scholar
  12. Doncaster CC, Hooper DJ (1961) Nematodes attacked by protozoa and tardigrades. Nematologica 6:333–335Google Scholar
  13. Eibye-Jacobsen J (2001) A new method for making SEM preparations of the tardigrade buccopharyngeal apparatus. Zool Anz 240:309–319Google Scholar
  14. Elliott ET, Anderson RV, Coleman DC, Cole CV (1980) Habitable pore space and microbial trophic interactions. Oikos 35:327–335Google Scholar
  15. Freckman DW (1988) Bacterivorous nematodes and organic-matter decomposition. Agric Ecosyst Environ 24:195–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gange AC, Brown VK (2002) Soil food web components affect plant community structure during early succession. Ecol Res 17:217–227Google Scholar
  17. González-Olivares E, Ramos-Jiliberto R (2003) Dynamic consequences of prey refuges in a simple model system: more prey, fewer predators and enhanced stability. Ecol Model 166:135–146Google Scholar
  18. Grootaert P, Jaques A, Small RW (1977) Prey selection in Butlerius sp. (Rhabditida, Diplogasteridae). Meded Fac Landbouwwet Rijksuniv Gent 24:1559–1563Google Scholar
  19. Hallas TE, Yeates GW (1972) Tardigrada of the soil and litter of a Danish beach forest. Pedobiologia 12:287–304Google Scholar
  20. Hohberg K (2003) Soil nematode fauna of afforested mine sites: genera distribution, trophic structure and functional guilds. Appl Soil Ecol 22:113–126Google Scholar
  21. Holling CS (1959) The components of predation as revealed by a study of small-mammal predation of the European pine sawfly. Can Entomol 91:293–320Google Scholar
  22. Huhta V, Sulkava P, Viberg K (1998) Interactions between enchytraeid (Cognettia spagnetorum), microarthropod and nematode populations in forest soil at different moistures. Appl Soil Ecol 9:53–58Google Scholar
  23. Hunt HW, Wall DH, DeCrapeo NM, Brenner JS (2001) A model for nematode locomotion in soil. Nematology 3:705–716Google Scholar
  24. Hyvönen R, Persson T (1996) Effects of fungivorous and predatory arthropods on nematodes and tardigrades in microcosms with coniferous forest soil. Biol Fertil Soils 21:121–127Google Scholar
  25. Hyvönen R, Andersson S, Clarholm M, Persson T (1994) Effects of lumbricids and enchytraeids on nematodes in limed and unlimed coniferous mor humus. Biol Fertil Soils 17:201–205Google Scholar
  26. Ilieva-Makulec K, Makulec G (2002) Effect of the earthworm Lumbricus rubellus on the nematode community in a peat meadow soil. Eur J Soil Biol 38:59–62Google Scholar
  27. Jeschke JM, Tollrian R (2000) Density-dependent effects of prey defences. Oecologia 123:391–396Google Scholar
  28. Jeschke JM, Kopp M, Tollrian R (2004) Consumer-food systems: why type I functional responses are exclusive to filter feeders. Biol Rev 79:337–349Google Scholar
  29. Keeling MJ, Wilson BH, Pacala SW (2000) Reinterpreting space, time lags, and functional responses in ecological models. Science 290:1758–1764Google Scholar
  30. Khan Z, Bilgrami AL, Jairajpuri MS (1995) A comparative study on the predation by Allodorylaimus americanus and Discolaimus silvicolus (Nematoda: Dorylaimida) on different species of plant parasitic nematodes. Fundam Appl Nematol 18:99–108Google Scholar
  31. Koehler HH (1997) Mesostigmata (Gamasina, Uropodina), efficient predators in agroecosystems. Agric Ecosyst Environ 62:105–117Google Scholar
  32. Laakso J, Setälä H (1999) Population- and ecosystem-level effects of predation on microbial-feeding nematodes. Oecologia 120:279–286Google Scholar
  33. Manly BFJ, Jamieson CD (1999) Functional response and parallel curve analysis. Oikos 85:523–528Google Scholar
  34. Martikainen E, Huhta V (1990) Interactions between nematodes and predatory mites in raw humus soil: a microcosm experiment. Rev Ecol Biol Sol 27:13–20Google Scholar
  35. McKee MH, Wrona FJ, Scrimgeour GJ, Culp JM (1997) Importance of consumptive and non-consumptive prey mortality in a coupled predator–prey system. Freshw Biol 38:193–201Google Scholar
  36. Mikola J, Setälä H (1998a) No evidence of trophic cascades in an experimental microbial-based soil food web. Ecology 79:153–164Google Scholar
  37. Mikola J, Setälä H (1998b) Productivity and trophic-level biomasses in a microbial-based soil food web. Oikos 82:158–168Google Scholar
  38. Mikola J, Sulkava P (2001) Responses of microbial-feeding nematodes to organic matter distribution and predation in experimental soil habitat. Soil Biol Biochem 33:811–817Google Scholar
  39. Moens T, Verbeeck L, Vines M (1999) Feeding biology of a predatory and a facultatively predatory nematode (Enoploides longispiculosus and Adoncholaimus fuscus). Mar Biol 134:585–593Google Scholar
  40. Moens T, Herman P, Verbeeck L, Steyaert M, Vincx M (2000) Predation rates and prey selectivity in two predacious estuarine nematode species. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 205:185–193Google Scholar
  41. Moore JC, De Ruiter PC (1997) Compartmentalisation of resource utilisation within soil ecosystems. In: Gange AC, Brown VK (eds) Multitrophic interactions in terrestrial systems. Blackwell Science, Oxford, pp 375–393Google Scholar
  42. Murdoch WW, Oaten A (1975) Predation and population stability. Adv Ecol Res 9:1–131Google Scholar
  43. Murphy IW, Doncaster CC (1957) A culture method for soil meiofauna and its application to the study of nematode predators. Nematologica 2:202–214Google Scholar
  44. Nelson DR (2002) Current status of the Tardigrada: evolution and ecology. Integr Comp Biol 42:652–659Google Scholar
  45. Nelson DR, Marley NJ (2000) The biology and ecology of lotic Tardigrada. Freshw Biol 44:93–108Google Scholar
  46. Nelson DR, McInnes SJ (2002) Tardigrada. In: Rundle SD, Robertson AL, Schmid-Araya JM (eds) Freshwater meiofauna: biology and ecology. Backhuys Publishers, Leiden, Netherlands, pp 177–215Google Scholar
  47. Nicholas WL (1975) The biology of free-living nematodes. Clarendon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  48. Parmelee RW (1995) Soil fauna: linking different levels of the ecological hierarchy. In: Jones CG, Lawton JK (eds) Linking species and ecosystems. Chapman and Hall, New York, pp 107–117Google Scholar
  49. Pastorok RA (1981) Prey vulnerability and size selection by Chaoborus larvae. Ecology 62:1311–1324Google Scholar
  50. Philips DA, Ferris H, Cook DR, Strong DR (2003) Molecular control points in rhizosphere food webs. Ecology 84:816–826Google Scholar
  51. Rogers D (1972) Random search and insect population models. J Anim Ecol 41:369–383Google Scholar
  52. Sayre RM (1969) A method of culturing a predacious tardigrade on the nematode Panagrellus redivivus. Trans Am Microsc Soc 88:266–274Google Scholar
  53. Scheu S (2002) The soil food web: structure and perspectives. Eur J Soil Biol 38:11–20Google Scholar
  54. Schmid-Araya JM, Schmid PE (2000) Trophic relationships: integrating meiofauna into a realistic benthic food web. Freshw Biol 44:149–163Google Scholar
  55. Sih A (1987) Prey refuges and predator–prey stability. Theor Popul Biol 31:1–12Google Scholar
  56. Small RW (1987) A review of the prey of predatory soil nematodes. Pedobiologia 30:179–206Google Scholar
  57. Small RW, Grootaert P (1983) Observations on the predation abilities of some soil dwelling predatory nematodes. Nematol 29:109–118Google Scholar
  58. Sohlenius B (1979) A carbon budget for nematodes, rotifers and tardigrades in a Swedish coniferous forest soil. Holarct Ecol 2:30–40Google Scholar
  59. Sohlenius B (1980) Abundance, biomass and contribution to energy flow by soil nematodes in terrestrial ecosystems. Oikos 34:186–194Google Scholar
  60. Traunspurger W (2002) Nematoda. In: Rundle SD, Robertson AL, Schmid-Araya JM (eds) Freshwater meiofauna: biology and ecology. Backhuys Publishers, Leiden, Netherlands, pp 63–104Google Scholar
  61. Traunspurger W, Bergtold M, Goedkopp W (1997) The effects of nematodes on bacterial activity and abundance in a freshwater sediment. Oecologia 112:118–122Google Scholar
  62. Wahlström E, Persson L, Diehl S, Byström P (2000) Size-dependent foraging efficiency, cannibalism and zooplankton community structure. Oecologia 123:138–148Google Scholar
  63. Wallace HR (1958) Movement of eelworms. Ann Appl Biol 46:662–668Google Scholar
  64. Walter DE, Hudgens RA, Freckman DW (1986) Consumption of nematodes by fungivorous mites, Tyrophagus spp (Acarina: Astigmata: Acaridae). Oecologia 70:357–361Google Scholar
  65. Wardle DA (1995) Impacts of disturbance on detritus food webs in agro-ecosystems of contrasting tillage and weed management practices. Adv Ecol Res 26:105–185Google Scholar
  66. Wasilewska L (2000) The effect of macroarthropods patrolling soil surface on soil nematodes: a field experiment in a mown meadow. Pol J Ecol 48:327–338Google Scholar
  67. Yeates GW (1969) Predation by Mononchoides potohikus (Nematoda: Diplogateridae) in laboratory culture. Nematologica 15:1–9Google Scholar
  68. Yeates GW (1987) Nematode feeding and activity: the importance of development stages. Biol Fertil Soils 3:143–146Google Scholar
  69. Yeates GW, Foissner W (1995) Testate amoebae as predators of nematodes. Biol Fertil Soils 20:1–7Google Scholar
  70. Yeates GW, Wardle DA (1996) Nematodes as predators and prey: relationships to biological control and soil processes. Pedobiologia 40:43–50Google Scholar
  71. Yeates GW, Bongers T, De Goede RGM, Freckman DW, Georgieva SS (1993) Feeding habits in soil nematode families and genera—an outline for soil ecologists. J Nematol 25:315–331Google Scholar
  72. Yeates GW, Dando JL, Shepherd TG (2002) Pressure plate studies to determine how moisture affects access of bacterial-feeding nematodes to food in soil. Eur J Soil Sci 53:355–365Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.State Museum of Natural HistoryGoerlitzGermany
  2. 2.University Bielefeld, Animal EcologyBielefeldGermany

Personalised recommendations