, Volume 148, Issue 4, pp 702–709 | Cite as

Detecting emergent effects of multiple predator species

Community Ecology


When foraging together, multiple predator species that share a single prey often cause prey mortality that cannot be predicted based on knowledge of predation by each species separately. Modeling and managing the effects of multiple predator species depend on accurately assessing these combined effects. Two methods are currently used to experimentally examine combined predation by multiple predator species: the additive and substitutive experimental designs. I simultaneously employed both experimental designs to examine predation by two crab species on shared mussel prey. I show that the two methods yield results that disagree both quantitatively and qualitatively, leading to very different conclusions about the way that predator species combine to affect prey mortality. This discrepancy occurred because the two methods examine complimentary, but not interchangeable questions. I advocate using an experimental design that incorporates both additive and substitutive designs to achieve a more complete understanding of the combined effects of multiple predator species.


Additive Predator interference Replacement series Risk enhancement Risk reduction 


  1. Abrams PA, Ginzburg LR (2000) The nature of predation: prey dependent, ratio dependent or neither? Trends Ecol Evol 15:337–341PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arditi R, Ginzburg LR (1989) Coupling in predator-prey dynamics: ratio dependence. J Theor Biol 139:311–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beddington JR (1975) Mutual interference between parasites or predators and its effect on searching efficiency. J Anim Ecol 44:331–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Billick I, Case TJ (1994) Higher-order interactions in ecological communities: what are they and how can they be detected? Ecology 75:1529–1543CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bourdeau PE, O’Connor JN (2003) Predation by the nonindigenous Asian shore crab Hemigrapsus sanguineus on macroalgae and molluscs. Northeastern Nat 10:319–334Google Scholar
  6. Brousseau DJ, Filipowicz A, Baglivo JA (2001) Laboratory investigations of the effects of predator sex and size on prey selection by the Asian crab, Hemigrapsus sanguineus. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 262:199–210PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cardinale BJ, Harvey CT, Gross K, Ives AR (2003) Biodiversity and biocontrol: emergent impacts of a multi-enemy assemblage on pest suppression and crop yield in an agroecosystem. Ecol Lett 6:857–865CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Clark ME, Wolcott TG, Wolcott DL, Hines AH (1999) Intraspecific interference among foraging blue crabs Callinectes sapidus: interactive effects of predator density and prey patch distribution. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 178:69–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cousens R (1991) Aspects of the design and interpretation of competition (interference) experiments. Weed Technol 5:664–673Google Scholar
  10. Crumrine PW, Crowley PH (2003) Partitioning components of risk reduction in a dragonfly-fish intraguild predation system. Ecology 84:1588–1597CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. DeWitt TJ, Langerhans RB (2003) Multiple prey traits, multiple predators: keys to understanding complex community dynamics. J Sea Res 49:143–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Eklöv P (2000) Chemical cues from multiple predator–prey interactions induce changes in behavior and growth of anuran larvae. Oecologia 123:192–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Eklöv P, VanKooten T (2001) Facilitation among piscivorous predators: effects of prey habitat use. Ecology 82:2486–2494Google Scholar
  14. Eklöv P, Werner EE (2000) Multiple predator effects on size-dependent behavior and mortality of two species of anuran larvae. Oikos 88:250–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Evans EW (1991) Intra- versus interspecific interactions of ladybeetles (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae) attacking aphids. Oecologia 87:401–408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Finke DL, Denno RF (2002) Intraguild predation diminished in complex-structured vegetation: implications for prey suppression. Ecology 83:643–652Google Scholar
  17. Gibson DJ, Connolly J, Harnett DC, Weidenhamer D (1999) Designs for greenhouse studies of interactions between plants. J Ecol 87:1–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Griffen BD, Byers JE (2005) Partitioning mechanisms of predator interference in different habitats. Oecologia 146:608–614CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Griffen BD, Byers JE (2006) Intraguild predation reduces redundancy of predator species in multiple predator assemblage. (In review)Google Scholar
  20. Harvey BC, White JL, Nakamoto RJ (2004) An emergent multiple predator effect may enhance biotic resistance in a stream fish assemblage. Ecology 85:127–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hassel MP (1978) The dynamics of arthropod predator–prey systems. Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J.Google Scholar
  22. Jensen GC, McDonald PS, Armstrong DA (2002) East meets west: competitive interactions between green crab Carcinus maenas, and native and introduced shore crab Hemigrapsus spp. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 225:251–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jollife PA (2000) The replacement series. J Ecol 88:371–385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lang A (2003) Intraguild interference and biocontrol effects of generalist predators in a winter wheat field. Oecologia 134:144–153PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lima SL (1998) Stress and decision making under the risk of predation: recent developments from behavioral, reproductive, and ecological perspectives. Adv Study Behav 27:215–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lohrer AM, Whitlatch RB (2002) Relative impacts of two exotic brachyuran species on blue mussel populations in Long Island Sound. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 227:135–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Losey JE, Denno RF (1998) Positive predator-predator interactions: enhanced predation rates and synergistic suppression of aphid populations. Ecology 79:2143–2152Google Scholar
  28. Mansour RA, Lipcius RN (1991) Density-dependent foraging and mutual interference in blue crabs preying upon infaunal clams. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 72:239–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. McDermott JJ (1998) The western Pacific brachyuran (Hemigrapsus sanguineus: Grapsidae), in its new habitat along the Atlantic coast of the United States: geographic distribution and ecology. J Mar Sci 55:289–298Google Scholar
  30. Mistri M (2003) Foraging behaviour and mutual interference in the Mediterranean shore crab, Carcinus aestuarii, preying upon the immigrant mussel Musulista senhousia. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci 56:155–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Peckarsky BL (1991) Mechanisms of intraspecific and interspecific interference between larval stoneflies. Oecologia 85:521–529CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Rosenheim JA (1998) Higher-order predators and the regulation of insect herbivore populations. Annu Rev Entomol 43:421–447CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Schmitz OJ, Sokol-Hessner L (2002) Linearity in the aggregate effects of multiple predators in a food web. Ecol Lett 5:168–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Siddon CE, Witman JD (2004) Behavioral indirect interactions: multiple predator effects and prey switching in the rocky subtidal. Ecology 85:2938–2954CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Sietz RD, Lipcius RN, Hines AH, Eggleston DB (2001) Density-dependent predation, habitat variation, and the persistence of marine bivalve prey. Ecology 82:2435–2451CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Sih A, Crowley P, McPeek M, Petranka J, Strohmeier K (1985) Predation, competition, and prey communities. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 16:269–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sih A, Englund G, Wooster D (1998) Emergent impacts of multiple predators on prey. Trends Ecol Evol 13:350–355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Snaydon RW (1991) Replacement or additive designs for competition studies? J Appl Ecol 28:930–946CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Sokol-Hessner L, Schmitz OJ (2002) Aggregate effects of multiple predator species on a shared prey. Ecology 83:2367–2372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Soluk DA (1993) Multiple predator effects—predicting combined functional-response of stream fish and invertebrate predators. Ecology 74:219–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Swisher BJ, Soluk DA, Wahl DH (1998) Non-additive predation in littoral habitats: influences of habitat complexity. Oikos 81:30–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Taylor DL, Eggleston DB (2000) Effects of hypoxia on an estuarine predator–prey interaction: foraging behavior and mutual interference in the blue crab Callinectes sapidus and the infaunal clam prey Mya arenaria. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 196:221–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Tyrrell MC, Harris LG (1999) Potential impact of the introduced Asian shore crab Hemigrapsus sanguineus, in northern New England: diet, feeding preferences, and overlap with the green crab, Carcinus maenas. In: Pederson J (ed) Proceedings of the National Conference on Marine Bioinvasions, pp 208–220Google Scholar
  44. Vance-Chalcraft HD, Soluk DA (2005a) Estimating the prevalence and strength of non-independent predator effects. Oecologia 146:452–460CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Vance-Chalcraft HD, Soluk DA (2005b) Multiple predator effects result in risk reduction for prey across multiple prey densities. Oecologia 144:472–480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Vance-Chalcraft HD, Soluk DA, Ozburn N (2004) Is prey predation risk influenced more by increasing predator density or predator species richness in stream enclosures? Oecologia 139:117–122CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Vonesh JR, Osenberg CW (2003) Multi-predator effects across life-history stages: non-additivity of egg- and larval-stage predation in an African treefrog. Ecol Lett 6:503–508CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Warfe DM, Barmuta LA (2004) Habitat structural complexity mediates the foraging success of multiple predator species. Oecologia 141:171–178PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Zoology DepartmentUniversity of New HampshireDurhamUSA

Personalised recommendations