Advertisement

Oecologia

, Volume 173, Issue 2, pp 331–341 | Cite as

Plant production and alternate prey channels impact the abundance of top predators

  • Ali Arab
  • Gina M. Wimp
Methods

Abstract

While numerous studies have examined the effects of increased primary production on higher trophic levels, most studies have focused primarily on the grazing food web and have not considered the importance of alternate prey channels. This has happened despite the fact that fertilization not only increases grazing herbivore abundance, but other types of consumers such as detritivores that serve as alternate prey for generalist predators. Alternate prey channels can sustain generalist predators at times when prey abundance in the grazing food web is low, thus increasing predator densities and the potential for trophic cascades. Using arthropod data from a fertilization experiment, we constructed a hierarchical Bayesian model to examine the direct and indirect effects of plant production and alternate prey channels on predators in a salt marsh. We found that increased plant production positively affected the density of top predators via effects on lower trophic level herbivores and mesopredators. Additionally, while the abundance of algivores and detritivores positively affected mesopredators and top predators, respectively, the effects of alternate prey were relatively weak. Because previous studies in the same system have found that mesopredators and top predators rely on alternate prey such as algivores and detritivores, future studies should examine whether fertilization shifts patterns of prey use by predators from alternate channels to the grazing channel. Finally, the hierarchical Bayesian model used in this study provided a useful method for exploring trophic relationships in the salt marsh food web, especially where causal relationships among trophic groups were unknown.

Keywords

Hierarchical Bayesian models Species interactions Multichannel omnivory Trophic levels Food web 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank members of the DC PIG, a plant–insect discussion group composed of members from DC-area universities and institutions, for comments that improved this manuscript, as well as Stephen Baker, Scott Collins, Matthew Hamilton, Danny Lewis, Eric Mooring, Martha Weiss, Mark Wilber, Scott Williams, Elise Zipkin and three anonymous reviewers. Robert F. Denno, Deborah L. Finke, and Andrea F. Huberty assisted with data collection. Ali Arab’s research was partially supported by a Georgetown University Junior Faculty Research Fellowship. The experiments were conducted in Tuckerton, NJ, USA, and comply with the current laws of the United States. Ken Able at the Rutgers University Marine Station facilitated our research at the Tuckerton field site.

Supplementary material

442_2013_2618_MOESM1_ESM.doc (474 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOC 473 kb)

References

  1. Agusti N, Shayler SP, Harwood JD, Vaughan IP, Sunderland KD, Symondson WOC (2003) Collembola as alternative prey sustaining spiders in arable ecosystems: prey detection within predators using molecular markers. Mol Ecol 12:3467–3475PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson WB, Polis GA (2004) Allochthonous nutrient and food inputs: consequences for temporal stability. In: Polis GA, Power ME, Huxel GR (eds) Food webs at the landscape level. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 82–95Google Scholar
  3. Arhonditsis GB et al (2006) Exploring ecological patterns with structural equation modeling and Bayesian analysis. Ecol Model 192:385–409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Berliner LM (1996) Hierarchical Bayesian time series models. In: Hanson KM, Silver RN (eds) Maximum entropy and Bayesian methods. Kluwer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  5. Cardinale BJ, Bennett DM, Nelson CE, Gross K (2009) Does productivity drive diversity or vice versa? A test of the multivariate productivity-diversity hypothesis in streams. Ecology 90:1227–1241PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Carlin BP, Clark JS, Gelfand AE (2006) Elements of hierarchical Bayesian inference. In: Clark JS, Gelfand AE (eds) Hierarchical modelling for the environmental sciences. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  7. Cebrian J et al (2009) Producer nutritional quality controls ecosystem trophic structure. PLoS ONE 4:1–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Clark JS (2005) Why environmental scientists are becoming Bayesians. Ecol Lett 8:2–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cressie N, Calder CA, Clark JS, Ver Hoef JM, Wikle CK (2009) Accounting for uncertainty in ecological analysis: the strengths and limitations of hierarchical statistical modeling (with discussion). Ecol Appl 19:553–570Google Scholar
  10. Denno RF (1976) Ecological significance of wing-polymorphism in Fulgoroidea which inhabit tidal salt marshes. Ecol Entomol 1:257–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Denno RF, Gratton C, Peterson MA, Langellotto GA, Finke DL, Huberty AF (2002) Bottom–up forces mediate natural-enemy impact in a phytophagous insect community. Ecology 83:1443–1458CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Denno RF, Gratton C, Döbel HG, Finke DL (2003) Predation risk affects relative strength of top–down and bottom–up impacts on insect herbivores. Ecology 84:1032–1044CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Döbel HG, Denno RF (1994) Predator planthopper interactions. In: Denno RF, Perfect TJ (eds) Planthoppers: their ecology and management. Chapman and Hall, New York, pp 325–399Google Scholar
  14. Ferrenberg SM, Denno RF (2003) Competition as a factor underlying the abundance of an uncommon phytophagous insect, the salt marsh planthopper Delphacodes penedetecta. Ecol Entomol 29:58–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Finke DL, Denno RF (2002) Intraguild predation diminished in complex-structured vegetation: implications for prey suppression. Ecology 83:643–652CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Finke DL, Denno RF (2004) Predator diversity dampens trophic cascades. Nature 429:407–410PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Forkner RE, Hunter MD (2000) What goes up must come down? Nutrient addition and predation pressure on oak herbivores. Ecology 81:1588–1600CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gelfand A (1996) Model determination using sampling based methods. In: Gilks W, Richardson S, Spiegelhalter D (eds) Markov Chain Monte Carlo in practice. Chapman and Hall, Boca Raton, pp 145–161 Google Scholar
  19. Gratton C, Denno RF (2003) Inter-year carryover effects of a nutrient pulse on Spartina plants, herbivores, and natural enemies. Ecology 84:2692–2707CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gruner DS et al (2008) A cross-system synthesis of consumer and nutrient resource control on producer biomass. Ecol Lett 11:740–755PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Haddad NM, Haarstad J, Tilman D (2000) The effects of long-term nitrogen loading on grassland insect communities. Oecologia 124:73–84Google Scholar
  22. Hirucki-Raring L, Ver Hoef JM, Boveng PL, Bengtson JL (2012) A Bayesian hierarchical model of Antarctic fur seal foraging and pup growth related to sea ice and prey abundance. Ecol Appl 22:668–684Google Scholar
  23. Kirchner T (1977) The effects of resource enrichment on the diversity of plants and arthropods in a shortgrass prairie. Ecology 58:1334–1344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kuusk A-K, Ekbom B (2010) Lycosid spiders and alternative food: feeding behavior and implications for biological control. Biol Control 55:20–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lee S-Y (2007) Structural equation modeling: a Bayesian approach. Wiley, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. McCann K, Hastings A, Huxel GR (1998) Weak trophic interactions and the balance of nature. Nature 395:794–798CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. McCann KS, Rasmussen JB, Umbanhower J (2005) The dynamics of spatially coupled food webs. Ecol Lett 8:513–523PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Miyashita T, Takada M (2007) Habitat provisioning for aboveground predators decreases detritivores. Ecology 88:2803–2809PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Murphy SM, Wimp GM, Lewis D, Denno RF (2012) Nutrient presses and pulses differentially impact plants, herbivores, detritivores and their natural enemies. PLoS ONE 7:e43929PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Oelbermann K, Scheu S (2009) Control of aphids on wheat by generalist predators: effets of predator density and the presence of alternative prey. Entomol Exp Appl 132:225–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Oelbermann K, Langel R, Scheu S (2008) Utilization of prey from a decomposer system by generalist predators of grassland. Oecologia 155:605–617PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ogle K (2009) Hierarchical Bayesian statistics: merging experimental and modeling approaches in ecology. Ecol Appl 19:577–581PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Pickney J, Zingmark RG (1993) Biomass and production of benthic microalgal communities in estuarine habitats. Estuaries 16:887–897CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Polis GA, Strong DR (1996) Food web complexity and community dynamics. Am Nat 147:813–846CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Royle JA, Dorazio R (2008) Hierarchical modeling and inference in ecology. Academic, San DiegoGoogle Scholar
  36. Settle WH et al (1996) Managing tropical rice pests through conservation of generalist natural enemies and alternative prey. Ecology 77:1975–1988CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Shimazaki A, Miyashita T (2005) Variable dependence on detrital and grazing food webs by generalist predators: aerial insects and web spiders. Ecography 28:485–494CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Siemann E (1998) Experimental tests of effects of plant productivity and diversity on grassland arthropod diversity. Ecology 79:2057–2070Google Scholar
  39. Singer MS, Farkas TE, Skorik CM, Mooney KA (2012) Tritrophic interactions at a community level: effects of host plant species quality on bird predation of caterpillars. Am Nat 179:363–374PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Spiegelhalter DJ, Best NG, Carlin BP, Van der Linde A (2002) Bayesian measures of model complexity and fit (with discussion). J R Stat Soc B 64:583–616CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Spiegelhalter D, Thomas A, Best N, Lunn D (2003) WinBUGS user manual. Cambridge: MRC Biostatistics UnitGoogle Scholar
  42. Strauss SY (1987) Direct and indirect effects of host-plant fertilization on an insect community. Ecology 68:1670–1678CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Sullivan MJ, Moncreiff CA (1988) Primary production of edaphic algal communities in a Mississippi salt marsh. J Phycol 24:49–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Valiela I, Cole ML (2002) Comparative evidence that salt marshes and mangroves may protect seagrass meadows from land-derived nitrogen loads. Ecosystems 5:92–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Van Raalte CD, Valiela I, Teal JM (1976) Production of epibenthic salt marsh algae: Light and nutrient limitation. Limnol Oceanogr 21:862–872Google Scholar
  46. Vince SW, Valiela I (1981) An experimental study of the structure of herbivorous insect communities in a salt marsh. Ecology 62:1662–1678CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Vitousek PM et al (1997) Human alteration of the global nitrogen cycle: sources and consequences. Ecol Appl 7:737–750Google Scholar
  48. von Berg K, Thies C, Tscharntke T, Scheu S (2010) Changes in herbivore control in arable fields by detrital subsidies depend on predator species and vary in space. Oecologia 163:1033–1042CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. White GC, Bennetts RE (1996) Analysis of frequency count data using the negative binomial distribution. Ecology 77:2549–2557CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Wikle CK (2003) Hierarchical models in environmental science. Int Stat Rev 71:181–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Wimp GM et al (2013) Predator hunting mode influences patterns of prey use from grazing and epigeic food webs. Oecologia 171:505–515Google Scholar
  52. Wimp GM, Murphy SM, Finke DL, Huberty AF, Denno RF (2010) Increased primary production shifts the structure and composition of a terrestrial arthropod community. Ecology 91:3303–3311PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Wise DH, Snyder WE, Tuntibunpakul P, Halaj J (1999) Spiders in decomposition food webs of agroecosystems: theory and practice. J Arachnol 27:363–370Google Scholar
  54. Wise DH, Moldenhauer DM, Halaj J (2006) Using stable isotopes to reveal shifts in prey consumption by generalist predators. Ecol Appl 16:865–876PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Mathematics and Statistics DepartmentGeorgetown UniversityWashingtonUSA
  2. 2.Biology DepartmentGeorgetown UniversityWashingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations