, Volume 190, Issue 1, pp 159–168 | Cite as

Consumptive effects and mismatch in predator–prey turnover rates cause inversion of biomass pyramids

  • Paula M. de OmenaEmail author
  • Diane S. Srivastava
  • Gustavo Q. Romero
Community ecology – original research


The mismatch between the turnover rates of predators and prey is one of the oldest explanations for the existence of inverted trophic pyramids. To date, the hypotheses regarding trophic pyramids have all been based on consumptive trophic links between predators and prey, and the relative contribution of non-consumptive effects is still unknown. In this study, we investigated if the inversion of pyramids in bromeliad ecosystems is driven by (i) a rapid colonization of organisms having short cohort interval production (CPI), and (ii) the prevalence of consumptive or non-consumptive effects of top predators. We used a manipulative experiment to investigate the patterns of prey colonization and to partition the net effects of the dominant predator (damselfly larvae) on biomass pyramids into consumptive (uncaged damselfly larvae) and non-consumptive effects (caged damselfly larvae). Consumptive effects of damselflies strengthened the inversion of trophic pyramids. Non-consumptive effects, however, did not affect the shape of biomass pyramids. Instead, the rapid colonization of organisms with predominantly short CPI sustained the large biomass of top predators found in natural bromeliad ecosystems. Prey colonized bromeliads rapidly, but this high production was never visible as standing stock because damselflies reduce prey densities by more than a magnitude through direct consumption. Our study adds to the growing evidence that there are a variety of possible ways that biomass can be trophically structured. Moreover, we suggest that the strength of biomass pyramids inversion may change with the time of ecological succession as prey communities become more equitable.


Apex predator Predator–prey ratio Macroinvertebrate Top-heavy pyramid Top–down control 



The authors thank T. N. Bernabé, M. R. Braga, A. Degressi, C. Vieira, G. C. O. Piccoli, G. H. Migliorini, N. A. C. Marino for field assistance; the staff of the “Parque Estadual da Ilha do Cardoso” for the logistic support. P. M. de Omena received fellowship from São Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP: 2009/51702-0), “Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior” and Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Canada (CAPES-DFAIT: BEX 8377/12-0), and “Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior” (PNPD-CAPES; 2014/04603-4). G. Q. Romero was supported by the “Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico” (CNPq) research grant, and D.S. Srivastava by Natural Science and Engineering Research Council (Canada) Discovery and Accelerator Grants. This study was also supported by CESAB-FRB as part of the activities of the FunctionalWebs Working Group.

Author contribution statement

PMO, DSS, GQR conceived the study. PMO performed the field experiment, insect identification and biomass estimations. PMO, DSS and GQR interpreted the data. PMO wrote the paper with the assistance of DSS and GQR.

Data availability

All data analysed during this study are available as electronic supplementary material.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All applicable institutional and/or national guidelines for care and use of animals were followed.

Supplementary material

442_2019_4394_MOESM1_ESM.xls (50 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (XLS 50 kb)
442_2019_4394_MOESM2_ESM.xls (48 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (XLS 48 kb)
442_2019_4394_MOESM3_ESM.docx (239 kb)
Supplementary material 3 (DOCX 238 kb)


  1. Amundrud SL, Srivastava DS (2015) Drought sensitivity predicts habitat size sensitivity in an aquatic ecosystem. Ecology 96:1957–1965. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Armbruster P, Hutchinson RA, Cotgreave P (2002) Factors influencing community structure in a South American tank bromeliad fauna. Oikos 96:225–234. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barry M (1994) The costs of crest induction for Daphnia carinata. Oecologia 97:278–288. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Benke AC, Huryn AD (2007) Secondary production of macroinvertebrates. In: Hauer FR, Lamberti G (eds) Methods in stream ecology. Academic Press, Elsevier, pp 691–710Google Scholar
  5. Benke AC, Van Arsdall TC, Gillespie DM, Parrish FK (1984) Invertebrate productivity in a subtropical blackwater river: the importance of habitat and life history. Ecol Monogr 54:25–63. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bernabé TN, de Omena PM, Santos VPD, de Siqueira VM, de Oliveira VM, Romero GQ (2018) Warming weakens facilitative interactions between decomposers and detritivores, and modifies freshwater ecosystem functioning. Glob Chang Biol 24:3170–3186. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Breviglieri CPB, Romero GQ (2017) Terrestrial vertebrate predators drive the structure and functioning of aquatic food webs. Ecology 98:2069–2080. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Brown JH, Gillooly JF, Allen AP, Savage VM, West GB (2004) Toward a metabolic theory of ecology. Ecology 7:1771–1789. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Buck KR, Chavez FP, Campbell L (1996) Basin-wide distributions of living carbon components and the inverted trophic pyramid of the central gyre of the North Atlantic Ocean, summer 1993. Aquat Microb Ecol 10:283–298. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Buskirk JV (2000) The costs of an inducible defense in anuran larvae. Ecology 10:2813–2821.;2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. de Omena PM, Srivastava DS, Romero GQ (2017) Does the strength of cross-ecosystem trophic cascade vary with ecosystem size? A test using a natural microcosm. Freshw Biol 62:724–736. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Del Giorgio PA, Cole JJ, Caraco NF, Peters RH (1999) Linking planktonic biomass and metabolism to net gas fluxes in northern temperate lakes. Ecology 80:1422–1424.;2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dézerald O, Céréghino R, Corbara B, Dejean A, Leroy C (2015) Temperature: diet interactions affect survival through foraging behavior in a bromeliad-dwelling predator. Biotropica 47:569–578. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dézerald O, Leroy C, Corbara DB, Talaga S, Céréghino R (2017) Environmental drivers of invertebrate population dynamics in Neotropical tank bromeliads. Freshw Biol 62:229–242. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dézerald O, Leroy C, Corbara B et al (2018) Tank bromeliads sustain high secondary production in neotropical forests. Aquat Sci 80:14. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Downes S (2001) Trading heat and food for safety: costs of predator avoidance in a lizard. Ecology 82:2870–2881.;2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Drake EF, Bishop BP (1971) Life cycle and laboratory diet for Atrichopogon jacobsoni (de Meijere) (Diptera: Ceratopogonidae). Proc Hawaii Entomol Soc 21:63–66Google Scholar
  18. Elser JJ, Fagan WF, Denno RF, Dobberfuhl DR, Folarin A, Huberty A, Interlandi S, Kilham SS, McCauley E, Schulz KL, Siemann EH, Sterner RW (2000) Nutritional constraints in terrestrial and freshwater food webs. Nature 408:578–580. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Elton C (1927) Animal ecology. Macmillan, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  20. Farjalla VF, González AL, Céréghino R, Dézeral O, Marino NAC, Piccoli GCO, Richardson BA, Richardsion MJ, Romero GQ, Srivastava DS (2016) Terrestrial support of aquatic food webs depends on light inputs: a geographically-replicated test using tank bromeliads. Ecology 97:2147–2156. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Gasol JM, Del Giorgio PA, Duarte CM (1997) Biomass distribution in marine planktonic communities. Limnol Oceanogr 42:1353–1363. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gilbert B, Tunney TD, McCann KS, DeLong JP, Vasseur DA, Savage V, Shurin JB, Dell AI, Barton BT, Harley CDG, Kharouba HM, Kratina P, Blanchard JL, Clements C, Winder M, Greig HS, O’Connor MI (2014) A bioenergetics framework for the temperature dependence of trophic interactions. Ecol Lett 17:902–914. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Hammill E, Atwood TB, Corvalan P, Srivastava DS (2015a) Behavioural responses to predation may explain shifts in community structure. Freshw Biol 60:125–135. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hammill E, Atwood TB, Srivastava DS (2015b) Predation threat alters composition and functioning of bromeliad ecosystems. Ecosystems 18:857–866. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hatton IA, McCann KS, Fryxell JM, Davies TJ, Smerlak M, Sinclair ARE, Loreau M (2015) The predator-prey power law: biomass scaling across terrestrial and aquatic biomes. Science 344:aac6284. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hedström I, Sahlén G (2001) A key to the adult Costa Rican “helicopter” damselflies (Odonata: Pseudostigmatidae) with notes on their phenology and life zone preferences. Rev Biol Trop 49:1037–1056PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Hothorn T, Bretz F, Westfall P (2008) Simultaneous inference in general parametric models. Biom J 50:346–363. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Huryn AD, Benke AC (2007) Relationship between biomass turnover and body size for stream communities. Body size: the structure and function of aquatic ecosystems. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 55–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kitching RL (2004) Food webs and container habitats: the natural history and ecology of phytotelmata. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  30. Marino NAC, Guariento RD, Dib V, Azevedo FD, Farjalla VF (2011) Habitat size determine algae biomass in tank-bromeliads. Hydrobiologia 678:191–199. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Marino NAC, Srivastava DS, Farjalla VF (2015) Predator kairomone change food web structure and function, regardless of cues from consumed prey. Oikos 125:1017–1026. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. McCauley DJ, Gellner G, Martinez ND, Williams RJ, Sandin SA, Micheli F, Mumby PJ, McCann KS (2018) On the prevalence and dynamics of inverted trophic pyramids and otherwise top-heavy communities. Ecol Lett. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Merritt RW, Cummings KW (1996) An introduction to the aquatic insects of North America, 3rd edn. Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company, DubuqueGoogle Scholar
  34. Morrison L (1999) Indirect effects of phorid fly parasitoids on the mechanisms of interspecific competition among ants. Oecologia 121:113–122. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Mourier J, Maynard J, Parravicini V, Ballesta L, Clua E, Domeier ML, Planes S (2016) Extreme inverted trophic pyramid of reef sharks supported by spawning groupers. Curr Biol 26(201):1–2016. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Moustaka-Gouni M, Vardaka E, Michaloudi E, Tryfon E, Mihalatou H, Gkelis S, Lanaras T (2006) Plankton food web structure in a eutrophic polymictic lake with a history of toxic cyanobacterial blooms. Limnol Oceanogr 51:715–727. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Ngai JT, Srivastava DS (2006) Predators accelerate nutrient cycling in a bromeliad ecosystem. Science 314:963. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. O’Neill RV (1976) Ecosystem persistence and heterotrophic regulation. Ecology 57:1244–1253. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Odum EP (1971) Fundamentals of Ecology, 3rd edn. WB Saunders Co, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  40. Petermann JS, Farjalla VF, Jocque M, Kratina P, MacDonald AAM, Marino NAC, de Omena PM, Piccoli GC, Richardson BA, Richardson MJ, Romero GQ, Videla M, Srivastava DS (2015) Dominant predators mediate the impact of habitat size on trophic structure in bromeliad invertebrate communities. Ecology 96:428–439. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Preisser EL, Blonick DI, Bernard MF (2005) Scared to death? The effects of intimidation and consumption in predator-prey interactions. Ecology 86:501–509. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Relyea RA (2001) Morphological and behavioral plasticity of larval anurans in response to different predators. Ecology 82:523–540. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Romero GQ, Srivastava DS (2010) Food-web composition affects cross-ecosystem interactions and subsidies. J Anim Ecol 79:1122–1131. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Romero GQ, Piccoli GCO, de Omena PM, Gonçalves-Souza T (2016) Food web structure shaped by habitat size and climate across a latitudinal gradient. Ecology 97:2705–2715. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Sandin SA, Smith JE, DeMartini EE, Dinsdale EA, Donner SD, Friedlander AM, Konotchick T, Malay M, Maragos JE, Obura D, Pantos O, Paulay G, Richie M, Rohwer F, Schroeder RE, Walsh S, Jackson JBC, Knowlton N, Sala E (2008) Baselines and degradation of coral reefs in the Northern Line Islands. PLoS One 3:e1548. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  46. Schmitz OJ (1998) Direct and indirect effects of predation and predation risk in old-field interaction webs. Am Nat 151:327–342. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Schmitz OJ (2008) Effects of predator hunting mode on grassland ecosystem function. Science 319:952–954. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Schmitz OJ, Krivan V, Ovadia O (2004) Trophic cascades: the primacy of trait-mediated indirect interactions. Ecol Lett 7:153–163. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Shurin JB, Gruner DS, Hillebrand H (2006) All wet or dried up? Real differences between aquatic and terrestrial food webs. Proc R Soc B 273:1–9. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Shurin JB, Clasen JL, Greig HS, Kratina P, Thompson PL (2012) Warming shifts top–down and bottom–up control of pond food web structure and function. Phil Trans R Soc B 367:3008–3017. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Srivastava DS (2006) Habitat structure, trophic structure and ecosystem function: interactive effects in a bromeliad–insect community. Oecologia 149:493–504. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Srivastava DS, Trzcinski MK, Richardson BA, Gilbert B (2008) Why are predators more sensitive to habitat size than their prey? Insights from bromeliad insect food webs. Am Nat 172:761–771. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Trebilco R, Baum JK, Salomon AK, Dulvy NK (2013) Ecosystem ecology: size-based constraints on the pyramids of life. Trends Ecol Evol 28:423–431. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Tunney TD, McCann KS, Lester NP, Shuter BJ (2012) Food web expansion and contraction in response to changing environmental conditions. Nat Comm 3:1105. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Vonesh JR, Kraus JM, Rosenberg JS, Chase JM (2009) Predator effects on aquatic community assembly: disentangling the roles of habitat selection and post-colonization processes. Oikos 118:1219–1229. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Wang H, Morrison W, Singh A, Weiss HH (2009) Modeling inverted biomass pyramids and refuges in ecosystems. Ecol Model 220:1376–1382. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Werner EE, Peacor SD (2003) A review of trait-mediated indirect interactions in ecological communities. Ecology 84:1083–1100.;2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Zuur AF, Ieno EN, Walker NJ, Saveliev AA, Smith GM (2009) Mixed effects models and extensions in ecology with R. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Departamento de Biologia Animal, Instituto de BiologiaUniversidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP)CampinasBrazil
  2. 2.Department of Zoology and Biodiversity Research CentreUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada

Personalised recommendations