Advertisement

Ecosystems

, Volume 21, Issue 1, pp 153–165 | Cite as

Strength of a Trophic Cascade Between an Apex Predator, Mammalian Herbivore and Grasses in a Desert Ecosystem Does Not Vary with Temporal Fluctuations in Primary Productivity

  • Mike LetnicEmail author
  • Anna Feit
  • David M. Forsyth
Article

Abstract

There has long been debate regarding the primacy of bottom-up and top-down effects as factors shaping ecosystems. The exploitation ecosystems hypothesis (EEH) predicts that predators indirectly benefit plants because their top-down effects limit herbivores’ consumption of plants, and that the strength of trophic cascade increases with increasing primary productivity. However, in arid environments, pulses of primary productivity produced by irregular rainfall events could decouple herbivore–plant and predator–prey dynamics if high conversion efficiency from seed biomass to consumers allows the rapid build-up of consumer populations. Here, we test predictions of the EEH in an arid environment. We measured activity/abundances of dingoes, red kangaroos and grasses, and diet of dingoes, in landscapes where dingoes were culled or not culled over 3 years. Dingo activity was correlated with rainfall, and their tracks were less frequent at culled sites. Kangaroo abundance was greater at sites where dingoes were culled and increased with rainfall in the previous 6 months. Grass cover was greater at sites where dingoes were not culled and increased with rainfall in the previous 3 months. During a period of average rainfall, dingoes primarily consumed rodents and increased their consumption of kangaroos during a period of drier conditions. Our results are consistent with the hypothesis that suppression of an apex predator triggers a trophic cascade, but are at odds with the EEH’s prediction that the magnitude of trophic cascades should increase with primary productivity. Our study demonstrates that temporal fluctuations in primary productivity can have effects on biomasses of plants and consumers which are in many ways analogous to those observed along spatial gradients of primary productivity.

Keywords

trophic cascade arid apex predator herbivore vegetation top down bottom up 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The Australian Research Council funded this research. We thank Brenton von Takach Dukai, James Rees, Georgeanna Story, Bush Heritage Australia, North Australian Pastoral Company, Chris Dickman and Bobby Tamayo for their assistance. Comments by B. Bestelmeyer and two anonymous reviewers greatly improved this paper.

Supplementary material

10021_2017_141_MOESM1_ESM.docx (22 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 22 kb)

References

  1. Allen L, Engeman R, Krupa H. 1996. Evaluation of three relative abundance indices for assessing dingo populations. Wildl Res 23:197–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Borer E, Seabloom E, Shurin J, Anderson K, Blanchette C, Broitman B, Cooper S, Halpern B. 2008. What determines the strength of a trophic cascade? Ecology 86:528–537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Burnham KP, Anderson DR. 2002. Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical information-theoretic approach. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  4. Caughley G, Grigg GC, Caughley J, Hill GJE. 1980. Does dingo predation control the densities of kangaroos and emus? Aust Wildl Res 7:1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Caughley G, Shepherd N. 1987. Kangaroos: their ecology and management in the sheep rangelands of Australia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Choquenot D, Forsyth DM. 2013. Exploitation ecosystems and trophic cascades in non-equilibrium systems: pasture–red kangaroo–dingo interactions in arid Australia. Oikos 122:1292–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Clarke K, Gorley R. 2006. PRIMER v6: user manual/tutorial (Plymouth routines in multivariate ecological research). Plymouth: Primer-E Ltd.Google Scholar
  8. Corbett L, Newsome A. 1987. The feeding ecology of the dingo. Oecologia 74:215–27.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Crête M. 1999. The distribution of deer biomass in North America supports the hypothesis of exploitation ecosystems. Ecol Lett 2:223–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cupples JB, Crowther MS, Story G, Letnic M. 2011. Dietary overlap and prey selectivity among sympatric carnivores: could dingoes suppress foxes through competition for prey? J Mammal 92:590–600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. DaVanon KA, Howard LK, Mabry KE, Schooley RL, Bestelmeyer BT. 2016. Effects of exurban development on trophic interactions in a desert landscape. Landsc Ecol 31:2343–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Edwards G, De Preu N, Shakeshaft B, Crealy I. 2000. An evaluation of two methods of assessing feral cat and dingo abundance in central Australia. Wildl Res 27:143–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Elmhagen B, Ludwig G, Rushton SP, Helle P, Lindén H. 2010. Top predators, mesopredators and their prey: interference ecosystems along bioclimatic productivity gradients. J Anim Ecol 79:785–94.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Estes JA, Duggins DO. 1995. Sea otters and kelp forests in Alaska: generality and variation in a community ecological paradigm. Ecol Monogr 65:75–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Estes JA, Terborgh J, Brashares JS, Power ME, Berger J, Bond WJ, Carpenter SR, Essington TE, Holt RD, Jackson JB. 2011. Trophic downgrading of planet Earth. Science 333:301–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Ford AT, Goheen JR. 2015. Trophic cascades by large carnivores: a case for strong inference and mechanism. Trends Ecol Evol 30:725–35.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Ford AT, Goheen JR, Otieno TO, Bidner L, Isbell LA, Palmer TM, Ward D, Woodroffe R, Pringle RM. 2014. Large carnivores make savanna tree communities less thorny. Science 346:346–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Greenville AC, Wardle GM, Tamayo B, Dickman CR. 2014. Bottom-up and top-down processes interact to modify intraguild interactions in resource-pulse environments. Oecologia 175:1349–58.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Grueber C, Nakagawa S, Laws R, Jamieson I. 2011. Multimodel inference in ecology and evolution: challenges and solutions. J Evolut Biol 24:699–711.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hopcraft JGC, Olff H, Sinclair A. 2010. Herbivores, resources and risks: alternating regulation along primary environmental gradients in savannas. Trends Ecol Evol 25:119–28.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Landsberg J, James CD, Morton SR, Muller WJ, Stol J. 2003. Abundance and composition of plant species along grazing gradients in Australian rangelands. J Appl Ecol 40:1008–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Letnic M, Dickman CR. 2006. Boom means bust: interactions between the El Nino/Southern Oscillation (ENSO), rainfall and the processes threatening mammal species in arid Australia. Biodivers Conserv 15:3847–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Letnic M, Dickman CR. 2010. Resource pulses and mammalian dynamics: conceptual models for hummock grasslands and other Australian desert habitats. Biol Rev 85:501–21.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Letnic M, Koch F, Gordon C, Crowther MS, Dickman CR. 2009. Keystone effects of an alien top-predator stem extinctions of native mammals. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 276:3249–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Letnic M, Ritchie EG, Dickman CR. 2012. Top predators as biodiversity regulators: the dingo Canis lupus dingo as a case study. Biol Rev 87:390–413.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Letnic M, Tamayo B, Dickman CR. 2005. The responses of mammals to La Niña (El Niño Southern Oscillation)-associated rainfall, predation, and wildfire in central Australia. J Mammal 86:689–703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Letnic M, Tischler M, Gordon C. 2013. Desert small mammal responses to wildfire and predation in the aftermath of a La Nińa driven resource pulse. Aust Ecol 38:841–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Melis C, Jędrzejewska B, Apollonio M, Bartoń KA, Jędrzejewski W, Linnell JDC, Kojola I, Kusak J, Adamic M, Ciuti S, Delehan I, Dykyy I, Krapinec K, Mattioli L, Sagaydak A, Samchuk N, Schmidt K, Shkvyrya M, Sidorovich VE, Zawadzka B, Zhyla S. 2009. Predation has a greater impact in less productive environments: variation in roe deer, Capreolus capreolus, population density across Europe. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 18:724–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Meserve PL, Kelt DA, Milstead WB, Gutierrez JR. 2003. Thirteen years of shifting top-down and bottom-up control. Bioscience 53:633–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Newsome AE, Catling PC, Cooke BD, Smyth R. 2001. Two ecological universes separated by the Dingo Barrier Fence in semi-arid Australia: interactions between landscapes, herbivory and carnivory, with and without dingoes. Rangel J 23:71–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Newsome TM, Ballard GA, Dickman CR, Fleming PJ, van de Ven R. 2013. Home range, activity and sociality of a top predator, the dingo: a test of the Resource Dispersion Hypothesis. Ecography 36:914–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Oksanen L, Fretwell SD, Arruda J, Niemela P. 1981. Exploitation ecosystems in gradients of primary productivity. Am Nat 118:240–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Oksanen L, Oksanen T. 2000. The logic and realism of the hypothesis of exploitation ecosystems. Am Nat 155:703–23.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Pace ML, Cole JJ, Carpenter SR, Kitchell JF. 1999. Trophic cascades revealed in diverse ecosystems. Trends Ecol Evol 14:483–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Pople AR, Grigg GC, Cairns SC, Beard LA, Alexander P. 2000. Trends in the numbers of red kangaroos and emus on either side of the South Australian dingo fence: evidence for predator regulation? Wildl Res 27:269–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Priddel D, Shepherd N, Wellard G. 1988. Home ranges of sympatric red kangaroos Macropus rufus, and western grey kangaroos Macropus fuliginosus, in western New-South-Wales. Wildl Res 15:405–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Ripple WJ, Beschta RL. 2012. Large predators limit herbivore densities in northern forest ecosystems. Eur J Wildl Res 58:733–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Ripple WJ, Estes JA, Beschta RL, Wilmers CC, Ritchie EG, Hebblewhite M, Berger J, Elmhagen B, Letnic M, Nelson MP, Schmitz OJ. 2014. Status and ecological effects of the world’s largest carnivores. Science 343:1241484.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Ripple WJ, Estes JA, Schmitz OJ, Constant V, Kaylor MJ, Lenz A, Motley JL, Self KE, Taylor DS, Wolf C. 2016. What is a trophic cascade? Trends Ecol Evol 31:842–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Schmitz OJ, Hambäck PA, Beckerman AP. 2000. Trophic cascades in terrestrial systems: a review of the effects of carnivore removals on plants. Am Nat 155:141–53.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Shepherd N. 1981. Predation of red kangaroos, Macropus rufus, by the dingo, Canis familiaris dingo (Blumenbach) in North-Western New South Wales. Wildl Res 8:255–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Thomson P, Rose K, Kok N. 1992. The behavioural ecology of dingoes in north-western Australia. V. Population dynamics and variation in the soical system. Wildl Res 19:565–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Zuur A, Ieno E, Walker N, Saveliev A, Smith G. 2009. Mixed effects models and extensions in ecology with R. Gail M, Krickeberg K, Samet JM, Tsiatis A, Wong W, editors. New York (NY): Spring Science and Business Media.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Biological, Earth and Environmental SciencesUniversity of New South WalesSydneyAustralia
  2. 2.Vertebrate Pest Research UnitDepartment of Primary IndustriesOrangeAustralia

Personalised recommendations