Oecologia

, Volume 147, Issue 4, pp 596–605 | Cite as

Variation in predation pressure as a mechanism underlying differences in numerical abundance between populations of the poeciliid fish Heterandria formosa

  • Jean M. L. Richardson
  • Margaret S. Gunzburger
  • Joseph Travis
Population Ecology

Abstract

We explored whether a variation in predation and habitat complexity between conspecific populations can drive qualitatively different numerical dynamics in those populations. We considered two disjunct populations of the least killifish, Heterandria formosa, that exhibit long-term differences in density, top fish predator species, and dominant aquatic vegetation. Monthly censuses over a 3-year period found that in the higher density population, changes in H. formosa density exhibited a strong negative autocorrelation structure: increases (decreases) at one census tended to be followed by decreases (increases) at the next one. However, no such correlation was present in the lower density population. Monthly census data also revealed that predators, especially Lepomis sp., were considerably more abundant at the site with lower H. formosa densities. Experimental studies showed that the predation by Lepomis gulosus occurred at a much higher rate than predation by two other fish and two dragonfly species, although L. gulosus and L. punctatus had similar predation rates when the amount of vegetative cover was high. The most effective predator, L. gulosus, did not discriminate among life stages (males, females, and juveniles) of H. formosa. Increased predation rates by L. gulosus could keep H. formosa low in one population, thereby eliminating strong negative density-dependent regulation. In support of this, changes in H. formosa density were positively correlated with changes in vegetative cover for the population with a history of lower density, but not for the population with a history of higher density. Our results are consistent with the hypothesis that the observed differences among natural populations in numerical abundance and dynamics are caused in part by the differences in habitat complexity and the predator community.

Keywords

Density Habitat complexity Population dynamics Population limitation Species-specific predation 

References

  1. Almany GR (2004) Does increased habitat complexity reduce predation and competition in coral reef fish assemblages? Oikos 106:275–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baer CF (1998) Population structure in a south-eastern US freshwater fish, Heterandria formosa. II. Gene flow and biogeography within the St. Johns River drainage. Heredity 81:404–411CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beukers JS, Jones GP (1997) Habitat complexity modifies the impact of piscivores on a coral reef fish population. Oecologia 114:50–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Box GEP, Jenkins GM, Reinsel GC (1994) Time series analysis, forecasting and control, 3rd edn. Prentice-Hall, Englewood CliffsGoogle Scholar
  5. Bradshaw W, Holzapfel C (1989) Life-historical consequences of density-dependent selection in the pitcher plant mosquito, Wyeomia smithii. Am Nat 133:869–887CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Charlesworth B (1994) Evolution in age-structured populations. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  7. Chatfield C (1996) The analysis of time series, an introduction. Chapman and Hall/CRC Press, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  8. Cooper G (2001) Must there be a balance of nature? Biol Philos 16:481–506CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. De Roos AM, Persson L (2002) Size-dependent life-history traits promote catastrophic collapses of top predators. Proc Natl Acad Sci 99:12907–12912PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. De Roos AM, Persson L, McCauley E (2003a) The influence of size-dependent life-history traits on the structure and dynamics of populations and communities. Ecol Lett 6:473–487CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. De Roos AM, Persson L, Thieme HR (2003b) Emergent Allee effects in top predators feeding on structured prey populations. Proc R Soc Lond B 270:611–618CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dionne M, Folt CL (1991) An experimental analysis of macrophyte growth forms as fish foraging habitat. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 48:123–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ellner S, Turchin P (1995) Chaos in a noisy world-new methods and evidence from time-series analysis. Am Nat 145:343–375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Flynn AJ, Ritz DA (1999) Effect of habitat complexity and predatory style on the capture success of fish feeding on aggregated prey. J Mar Biol Assoc UK 79:487–494CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gunzburger MS, Travis J (2004) Evaluating predation pressure on green treefrog larvae across a habitat gradient. Oecologia 140:422–429PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hassell MP, Lawton JH, May RM (1976) Patterns of dynamical behaviour in single-species populations. J Anim Ecol 45:471–486CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jordon F (2002) Field and laboratory evaluation of habitat use by rainwater killifish (Lucania parva) in the St. Johns River Estuary, Florida. Estuaries 25:291–298Google Scholar
  18. Kendall BE, Prendergast J, Bjornstad ON (1998) The macroecology of population dynamics: taxonomic and biogeographic patterns in population cycles. Ecol Lett 1:160–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Law R, Bradshaw A, Putwain P (1977) Life-history variation in Poa annua. Evolution 31:233–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Leips J, Travis J (1999) The comparative expression of life-history traits and its relationship to the numerical dynamics of four populations of least killifish. J Anim Ecol 68:595–616CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Leips J, Travis J, Rodd FH (2000) Genetic influences on experimental population dynamics of the least killifish. Ecol Monogr 70:289–309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Mueller LD (1997) Theoretical and empirical examination of density-dependent selection. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 28:269–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ohgushi T (1995) Adaptive behavior produces population stability in herbivorous lady beetle populations. In: Cappuccino N, Price P (eds) Population dynamics: new approaches and synthesis. Academic, San Diego, pp 303–320Google Scholar
  24. Pankratz A (1991) Forecasting with dynamic regression models. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  25. Persson L, Eklov P (1995) Prey refuges affecting interactions between piscivorous perch and juvenile perch and roach. Ecology 76:70–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Persson L, Leonardsson K, De Roos AM, Gyllenberg M, Christensen B (1998) Ontogenetic scaling of foraging rates and the dynamics of a size-structured consumer-resource model. Theor Popul Biol 54:270–293PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Post JR, Parkinson EA, Johnston NT (1999) Density-dependent processes in structured fish populations: interaction strengths in whole-lake experiments. Ecol Monogr 69:155–175Google Scholar
  28. Primack RB, Antonovics J (1982) Experimental ecological genetics in plantago. 7. Reproductive effort in populations of Plantago lanceolata L. Evolution 36:742–752CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Rossiter M (1995) Impact of life-history evolution on population dynamics: predicting the presence of maternal effects. In: Cappuccino N, Price P (eds) Population dynamics: new approaches and synthesis. Academic, San Diego, pp 251–275Google Scholar
  30. Sale PF, Tolimieri N (2000) Density dependence at some time and place? Oecologia 124:166–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Sinclair ARE (1989) Population regulation in animals. In: Cherret JM (ed) Ecological concepts, the contribution of ecology to an understanding of the natural world. In: 29th symposium of the British Ecological Society. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 197–241Google Scholar
  32. Soucy S, Travis J (2003) Multiple paternity and population genetic structure in natural populations of the poeciliid fish, Heterandria formosa. J Evol Biol 16:1328–1336PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Travis J, Farr JA, Henrich S, Cheong RT (1987) Testing theories of clutch overlap with the reproductive ecology of Heterandria formosa. Ecology 68:611–623CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jean M. L. Richardson
    • 1
    • 2
  • Margaret S. Gunzburger
    • 1
    • 3
  • Joseph Travis
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Biological ScienceFlorida State UniversityTallahasseeUSA
  2. 2.Department of Biological SciencesBrock UniversitySt. CatharinesCanada
  3. 3.United States Geological Survey, Florida Integrated Science CenterMexicoUSA

Personalised recommendations