Advertisement

Intra- and intercontinental variation in the functional responses of a high impact alien invasive fish

  • Pieter BoetsEmail author
  • Ciaran Laverty
  • Shinji Fukuda
  • Hugo Verreycken
  • Kyle Green
  • Robert J. Britton
  • Joe Caffrey
  • Peter L. M. Goethals
  • Josephine Pegg
  • Vincent Médoc
  • Jaimie T. A. Dick
Original Paper

Abstract

Recently, a body of literature has indicated the utility of comparisons among introduced and native species of their functional responses, that is, the relationship between resource use (e.g. predator consumption rate) and resource availability (e.g. prey density) to predict their impact. However, a key feature of this methodology, that has not yet been examined, is the degree to which the functional response curves of an introduced species differ within and between its native and introduced geographical ranges. Information on the variation in functional responses is key to make robust assessments on the ecological impact and to assess possible differences between native and invasive species. Here, we examine the predatory functional responses in multiple native and introduced populations of a globally high impact alien invasive fish, the topmouth gudgeon (Pseudorasbora parva). In standardised aquaria and with two prey species, significant differences in the functional responses among and between different populations occurring in the native and the invaded range were found. Among populations in the native range, the functional response indicated little variation, and fish always showed a Type II response, irrespective of the type of prey used. In the introduced range, populations showed a Type II response when fed chironomid larvae as prey, while a Type III response was observed when feeding Daphnia magna. Populations in the invaded range consumed overall more prey when fed D. magna compared to the populations in the native range. When feeding chironomid larvae, no consistent trend was observed. Context dependencies as well as species-specific traits and fish density most likely play an important role when comparing the functional response between populations occurring in their native and invaded ranges.

Keywords

Topmouth gudgeon Alien species Pseudorasbora parva Impact assessment Functional response 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Pieter Boets was supported by a postdoctoral fellowship from the Fund for Scientific Research (FWO Vlaanderen, Belgium). This study was supported in part by the JSPS Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (A) (26250044) and the JSPS Grant-in-Aid for Challenging Exploratory Research (70437771). Ciaran Laverty, Kyle D. Green and Jaimie T.A. Dick were funded by the Department of Employment and Learning (DEL) N. Ireland, the ITSligo President’s Award and Inland Fisheries Ireland.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Abrams PA (1990) The effects of adaptive behavior on the Type-II functional response. Ecology 71:877–885CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alexander ME, Dick JTA, O’Connor NE, Haddaway NR, Farnsworth KD (2012) Functional responses of the intertidal amphipod Echinogammarus marinus: effects of prey supply, model selection and habitat complexity. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 468:191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alexander ME, Dick JTA, Weyl OL, Robinson TB, Richardson DM (2014) Existing and emerging high impact invasive species are characterized by higher functional responses than natives. Biol Let 10:20130946CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Alexander ME, Kaiser H, Weyl OLF, Dick JTA (2015) Habitat simplification increases the impact of a freshwater invasive fish. Environ Biol Fishes 98:477–486CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Azzurro E, Tuset VM, Lombarte A, Maynou F, Simberloff D, Rodríguez-Pérez A, Solé RV (2014) External morphology explains the success of biological invasions. Ecol Lett 17:1455–1463CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barrios-O’Neill D, Dick JTA, Emmerson MC et al (2014) Fortune favours the bold: a higher predator reduces the impact of a native but not an invasive intermediate predator. J Anim Ecol 83:693–701.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2656.12155 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Boets P, Pauwels IS, Lock K, Goethals PLM (2013) Using an integrated modelling approach for risk assessment of the ‘killer shrimp’ Dikerogammarus villosus. River Res Appl 4:403–412Google Scholar
  8. Bollache L, Dick JTA, Farnsworth KD, Montgomery WI (2008) Comparison of the functional responses of invasive and native amphipods. Biol Let 4(2):166–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Britton JR, Davies GD, Brazier M, Pinder AC (2007) A case study on the population ecology of a topmouth gudgeon (Pseudorasbora parva) population in the UK and the implications for native fish communities. Aquat Conserv: Mar Freshw Ecosyst 17(7):749–759CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Britton JR, Davies GD, Harrod C (2010) Trophic interactions and consequent impacts of the invasive fish Pseudorasbora parva in a native aquatic foodweb: a field investigation in the UK. Biol Invasions 12(6):1533–1542CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cuthbert RN, Dalu T, Wasserman RJ, Dick JTA, Mofu L, Callaghan A, Weyl OLF (2018). Intermediate predator naïveté and sex-skewed vulnerability predict the impact of an invasive higher predator. Sci Rep. vol 8, Article number: 14282Google Scholar
  12. Declerck S, Louette G, De Bie T, De Meester L (2002) Patterns of diet overlap between populations of non-indigenous and native fishes in shallow ponds. J Fish Biol 61:1182–1197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dick JTA, Gallagher K, Avlijas S, Clarke HC, Lewis SE, Leung S et al (2013) Ecological impacts of an invasive predator explained and predicted by comparative functional responses. Biol Invasions 15(4):837–846CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dick JTA, Alexander ME, Jeschke JM, Ricciardi A, MacIsaac HJ, Robinson TB et al (2014) Advancing impact prediction and hypothesis testing in invasion ecology using a comparative functional response approach. Biol Invasions 16(4):735–753CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dick JTA, Laverty C, Lennon JJ, Barrios-O’Neill D, Mensink PJ, Britton JR, Medoc V, Boets P et al (2017) Invader relative impact potential: a new metric to understand and predict the ecological impacts of existing, emerging and future invasive alien species. J Appl Ecol 154(4):259–1267Google Scholar
  16. Gallardo B, Aldridge DC (2013) Priority setting for invasive species management: risk assessment of Ponto-Caspian invasive species into Great Britain. Ecol Appl 23(2):352–364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gozlan RE, Andreou D, Asaeda T, Beyer K, Bouhadad R, Burnard D, Caiola N, Cakic P, Djikanovic V, Esmaeili HR, Falka I, Golicher D, Harka A, Jeney G, Kováč V, Musil J, Nocita A, Povz M, Poulet N, Virbickas T, Wolter C, Serhan Tarkan A, Tricarico E, Trichkova T, Verreycken H, Witkowski A, Guang Zhang C, Zweimueller I, Britton RJ (2010) Pan-continental invasion of Pseudorasbora parva: towards a better understanding of freshwater fish invasions. Fish Fish 11:315–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Guisan A, Thuiller W (2005) Predicting species distribution: offering more than simple habitat models. Ecol Lett 8(9):993–1009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hanazato T, Yasuno M (1989) Zooplankton community structure driven by vertebrate and invertebrate predators. Oecologia 81:450–458CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hardouin EA, Andreou D, Zhao Y, Chevret P, Fletcher DH, Britton JR, Gozlan RE (2018) Reconciling the biogeography of an invader through recent and historic genetic patterns: the case of topmouth gudgeon Pseudorasbora parva. Biol Invasions 20:2157–2171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hassell MP (1978) Functional responses. In: Hassell MP (ed) The dynamics of arthropod predator-prey systems. Princeton University Press, Princeton, pp 28–49Google Scholar
  22. Hierro JL, Maron JL, Callaway RM (2005) A biogeographical approach to plant invasions: the importance of studying exotics in their introduced and native range. J Ecol 93(1):5–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hollander J, Bordeau PE (2016) Evidence of weaker phenotypic plasticity by prey to novel cues from non-native predators. Ecol Evol 6:5358–5365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Holling CS (1959) Some characteristics of simple types of predation and parasitism. Can Entomol 91:385–398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Iacarella JC, Dick JT, Ricciardi A (2015) A spatio-temporal contrast of the predatory impact of an invasive freshwater crustacean. Divers Distrib 21:803–812CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Jackson MC, Ruiz-Navarro A, Britton JR (2014) Population density modifies the ecological impacts of invasive species. Oikos 124:880–887CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Juliano SA (2001) Non-linear curve fitting: predation and functional response curves. In: Scheiner SM, Gurevitch J (eds) Design and analysis of ecological experiments. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  28. Kolar CS, Lodge DM (2001) Progress in invasion biology: predicting invaders. Trends Ecol Evol 16(4):199–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Konishi M, Hosoya K, Takata K (2003) Natural hybridization between endangered and introduced species of Pseudorasbora, with their genetic relationships and characteristics inferred from allozyme analyses. J Fish Biol 63:213–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kumschick S, Gaertner M, Vilà M, Essl F, Jeschke JM, Pyšek P, Bacher S, Blackburn TM, Dick JTA, Evans T, Hulme PE, Kühn I, Mrugała A, Pergl J, Rabitsch W, Ricciardi A, Richardson DM, Sendek A, Winter M (2015) Ecological impacts of alien species: quantification, scope, caveats and recommendations. Bioscience 65:55–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Laverty C, Green KD, Dick JTA, Barrios-O’Neill D, Mensink PJ, Medoc V, Spataro T, Cafrrey JM, Lucy FE, Boets P, Britton JR, Pegg J, Gallagher C (2017) Assessing the ecological impacts of invasive species based on their functional responses and abundances. Biol Invasions 19(5):1653–1665CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Levine JM, Adler PB, Yelenik SG (2004) A meta-analysis of biotic resistance to exotic plant invasions. Ecol Lett 7(10):975–989CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Médoc V, Spataro T, Arditi R (2013) Prey: predator ratio dependence in the functional response of a freshwater amphipod. Freshw Biol 58:858–865CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Médoc V, Thuillier L, Spataro T (2018) Opportunistic omnivory impairs our ability to predict invasive species impacts from functional response comparisons. Biol Invasions.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-017-1628-5 Google Scholar
  35. Murdoch WW, Oaten A (1975) Predation and population stability. Adv Ecol Res 9:1–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Murray GP, Stillman RA, Gozlan RE, Britton JR (2013) Experimental predictions of the functional response of a freshwater fish. Ethology 119(9):751–761CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Parker IM, Simberloff D, Lonsdale WM, Goodell K, Wonham M, Kareiva PM et al (1999) Impact: toward a framework for understanding the ecological effects of invaders. Biol Invasions 1(1):3–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Pinder AC, Gozlan RE, Britton JR (2005) Dispersal of the invasive topmouth gudgeon Pseudorasbora parva in the UK: a vector for an emergent infectious disease. Fish Manage Ecol 12:411–414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Pritchard DW, Paterson RB, Helene C, Barrios-O’Neill D (2017) FRAIR: an R package for fitting and comparing consumer functional responses. Methods Ecol Evol 8:1528–1534CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. R Core Team (2014) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. http://www.R-project.org/
  41. Ricciardi A, Rasmussen JB (1998) Predicting the identity and impact of future biological invaders: a priority for aquatic resource management. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 55(7):1759–1765CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Sakai AK, Allendorf FW, Holt JS, Lodge DM, Molofsky J, With KA et al (2001) The population biology of invasive species. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 32:305–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Statzner B, Bonada N, Dolédec S (2008) Biological attributes discriminating invasive from native European stream macroinvertebrates. Biol Invasions 10(4):517–530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Torchin ME, Lafferty KD, Dobson AP, McKenzie VJ, Kuris AM (2003) Introduced species and their missing parasites. Nature 421(6923):628–630CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Van Kleunen M, Weber E, Fischer M (2010) A meta-analysis of trait differences between invasive and non-invasive plant species. Ecol Lett 13(2):235–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Verreycken H, Anseeuw D, Van Thuyne G, Quataert P, Belpaire C (2007) The non-indigenous freshwater fishes of Flanders (Belgium): review, status and trends over the last decade. J Fish Biol 71(Supplement D):1–13Google Scholar
  47. Vilà M, Espinar JL, Hejda M, Hulme PE, Jarošík V, Maron JL et al (2011) Ecological impacts of invasive alien plants: a meta-analysis of their effects on species, communities and ecosystems. Ecol Lett 14(7):702–708CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Vila-Gispert A, Alcaraz C, García-Berthou E (2005) Life-history traits of invasive fish in small Mediterranean streams. Biol Invasions 7(1):107–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Xie S, Cui Y, Zhang T, Li Z (2000) Seasonal patterns in feeding ecology of three small fishes in the Biandantang Lake, China. J Fish Biol 57:867–880CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Yalçın-Özdilek Ş, Kırankaya ŞG, Ekmekçi FG (2013) Feeding ecology of the topmouth gudgeon Pseudorasbora parva (Temminck and Schlegel, 1846) in the Gelingüllü Reservoir. Turk J Fish Aquat Sci 13(1):87–94Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pieter Boets
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Ciaran Laverty
    • 3
  • Shinji Fukuda
    • 4
  • Hugo Verreycken
    • 5
  • Kyle Green
    • 3
  • Robert J. Britton
    • 6
  • Joe Caffrey
    • 7
  • Peter L. M. Goethals
    • 1
  • Josephine Pegg
    • 6
  • Vincent Médoc
    • 8
  • Jaimie T. A. Dick
    • 3
  1. 1.Laboratory of Environmental Toxicology and Aquatic EcologyGhent UniversityGhentBelgium
  2. 2.Provincial Centre of Environmental ResearchGhentBelgium
  3. 3.Institute for Global Food Security, School of Biological Sciences, Medical and Biological CentreQueen’s University BelfastBelfastUK
  4. 4.Institute of AgricultureTokyo University of Agriculture and TechnologyFuchuJapan
  5. 5.Team Monitoring and Restoration of Aquatic FaunaResearch Institute for Nature and Forest (INBO)BrusselsBelgium
  6. 6.Department of Life and Environmental SciencesBournemouth UniversityPooleUK
  7. 7.INVAS BiosecurityDublin 12Ireland
  8. 8.Equipe Neuro-Ethologie Sensorielle, ENES/Neuro-PSI, CNRS UMR 9197Université de Lyon/Saint-EtienneSaint-Etienne Cedex 2France

Personalised recommendations