Advertisement

Biological Invasions

, Volume 17, Issue 6, pp 1761–1770 | Cite as

Differential ecological impacts of invader and native predatory freshwater amphipods under environmental change are revealed by comparative functional responses

  • Ciaran Laverty
  • Jaimie T. A. Dick
  • Mhairi E. Alexander
  • Frances E. Lucy
Original Paper

Abstract

Predicting the ecological impacts of damaging invasive species under relevant environmental contexts is a major challenge, for which comparative functional responses (the relationship between resource availability and consumer uptake rate) have great potential. Here, the functional responses of Gammarus pulex, an ecologically damaging invader in freshwaters in Ireland and other islands, were compared with those of a native trophic equivalent Gammarus duebeni celticus. Experiments were conducted at two dissolved oxygen concentrations (80 and 50 % saturation), representative of anthropogenic water quality changes, using two larval prey, blackfly (Simuliidae spp.) and mayfly (Baetis rhodani). Overall, G. pulex had higher Type II functional responses and hence predatory impacts than G. d. celticus and the functional responses of both predators were reduced by lowered oxygen concentration. However, this reduction was of lower magnitude for the invader as compared to the native. Further, the invader functional response at low oxygen was comparable to that of the native at high oxygen. Attack rates of the two predators were similar, with low oxygen reducing these attack rates, but this effect occurred more strongly for blackfly than mayfly prey. Handling times were significantly lower for the invader compared with the native, and significantly higher at low oxygen, however, the effect of lowered oxygen on handling times was minimal for the invader and pronounced for the native. Maximum feeding rates were significantly greater for the invader compared with the native, and significantly reduced at low oxygen, with this effect again lesser for the invader as compared to the native. The greater functional responses of the invader corroborate with its impacts on recipient macroinvertebrate communities when it replaces the native. Further, our experiments predict that the impact of the invader will be less affected than the native under altered oxygen regimes driven by anthropogenic influences.

Keywords

Invasive species Type II functional responses Climate change Oxygen Impact prediction Predator–prey 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank the Department of Employment and Learning (DEL) for funding the Ph.D., with support from ITSligo and the DST-NRF Centre of Excellence for Invasion Biology.

References

  1. Abrams PA (2000) The evolution of predator–prey interactions: theory and evidence. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 31:79–105CrossRefGoogle 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 468:191–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alexander ME, Dick JTA, Weyl OLF, Robinson TB, David M, Robinson B, Richardson DM (2014) Existing and emerging high impact invasive species are characterized by higher functional responses than natives. Biol Lett 10:2–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Allan JD (2004) Landscapes and riverscapes: the influence of land use on stream ecosystems. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 35:257–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ansa-Asare OD, Marr IL, Cresser MS (2000) Evaluation of modelled and measured patterns of dissolved oxygen in a freshwater lake as an indicator of the presence of biodegradable organic pollution. Water Res 34(4):1079–1088CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barrios-O’Neill D, Dick JTA, Emmerson M, Ricciardi A, MacIsaac HJ, Alexander ME (2014) Fortune favours the bold: a higher predator reduces the impact of a native but not an invasive intermediate predator. J Anim Ecol 83:693–701CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bergelson JM (1985) A mechanistic interpretation of prey selection by Anax junius larvae (Odonata: Aeschnidae). Ecol Soc Am 66(6):1699–1705Google Scholar
  8. Biological Monitoring Working Party (1978) Final report: assessment and presentation of the biological quality of rivers in Great Britain, December 1978. Water Data Unit, Department of the Environment, LondonGoogle Scholar
  9. Bolker BM (2008) Ecological models and data in R. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  10. Bollache L, Dick JTA, Farnsworth KD, Montgomery WI (2008) Comparison of the functional responses of invasive and native amphipods. Biol Lett 4:166–169CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Carlton JT (1979) History, biogeography, and ecology of the introduced marine and estuarine invertebrates of the Pacific coast of North America Ph.D. dissertation. University of California, Davis, p 904Google Scholar
  12. Colton TF (1987) Extending functional response models to include a second prey type: an experimental test. Ecology 68:900–912CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Davies L, Smith CD (1958) The distribution and growth of Prosimulium larvae (Diptera: Simuliidae) in hill streams in Northern England. J Anim Ecol 27:335–348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dennert HG (1974) Tolerance differences and interspecific competition in three members of the amphipod genus Gammarus. Bijd Dierk 44(1):83–99Google Scholar
  15. Development Core Team R (2013) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R foundation for statistical computing, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  16. Dick JTA, Irvine DE, Elwood RW (1990) Differential predation by males on moulted females may explain the competitive displacement of Gammarus duebeni by G. pulex (Amphipoda). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 26:41–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dick JTA, Gallagher K, Avlijas S, Clarke HC, Lewis SE, Leung S, Minchin D, Caffrey J, Alexander ME, Maguire C, Harrod C, Reid N, Haddaway NR, Farnsworth KD, Penk M, Ricciardi A (2013) Ecological impacts of an invasive predator explained and predicted by comparative functional responses. Biol Invaions 15:837–846CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dick JTA, Alexander ME, Jeschke JM, Ricciardi A, MacIsaac HJ, Robinson TB, Kumschick S, Weyl OLF, Dunn AM, Hatcher MJ, Paterson RA, Farnsworth KD, Richardson DM (2014) Advancing impact prediction and hypothesis testing in invasion ecology using a comparative functional response approach. Biol Invasions 16(4):735–753CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dodd JA, Dick JTA, Alexander ME, MacNeil C, Dunn AM, Aldridge DC (2014) Predicting the ecological impacts of a new freshwater invader: functional responses and prey selectivity of the “killer shrimp”, Dikerogammarus villosus, compared to the native Gammarus pulex. Freshw Biol 59(2):337–352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Francis-Floyd R (2003) Dissolved oxygen for fish production (FA27). University of Florida Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, Gainesville. http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/DLN. Accessed 19 May 2014
  21. Gallardo B, Aldridge DC (2013a) Priority setting for invasive species management: risk assessment of Ponto-Caspian invasive species into Great Britain. Ecol Appl 23(2):352–364CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Gallardo B, Aldridge DC (2013b) The “dirty dozen”: socio-economic factors amplify the invasion potential of 12 high-risk aquatic invasive species in Great Britain and Ireland. J Appl Ecol 50(3):757–766CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hassell MP (1978) The dynamics of arthropod predator–prey systems. Princeton University Press, Princeton, pp 28–49Google Scholar
  24. Hassell MP, May RM (1973) Stability in insect host-parasite models. J Anim Ecol 42:693–726CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Holling CS (1959) Some characteristics of simple types of predation and parasitism. Can Entomol 91:385–398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hossie TJ, Murray DL (2010) You can’t run but you can hide: refuge use in frog tadpoles elicits density-dependent predation by dragonfly larvae. Oecologia 163:395–404Google Scholar
  27. Iacarella JC, Dick JTA, Alexander ME, Ricciardi A (in press) Ecological impacts of invasive alien species along temperature gradients: testing the role of environmental matching. Ecol ApplGoogle Scholar
  28. Jazdzewski K, Konopacka A, Grabowski M (2004) Recent drastic changes in the gammarid fauna (Crustacea, Amphipoda) of the Vistula River deltaic system in Poland caused by alien invaders. Divers Distrib 10:81–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Jeschke JM, Kopp M, Tollrian R (2002) Predator functional responses: discriminating between handling and digesting prey. Ecol Monogr 72(1):95–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 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, Oxford, pp 178–196Google Scholar
  31. Kelly DW, Dick JTA, Montgomery WI (2002) The functional role of Gammarus (Crustacea, Amphipoda): shredders, predators or both? Hydrobiologia 485:199–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kelly DW, Dick JTA, Montgomery WI, MacNeil C (2003) Differences in composition of macroinvertebrate communities with invasive and native Gammarus spp. (Crustacea: Amphipoda). Freshw Biol 48:306–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kelly DW, Bailey RJE, MacNeil C, Dick JTA, McDonald RA (2006) Invasion by the amphipod Gammarus pulex alters community composition of native freshwater macroinvertebrates. Divers Distrib 12:525–534CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kurtak DC (1978) Efficiency of filter feeding of black fly larvae (Diptera: Simuliidae). Can J Zool 56(7):1608–1623CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Long WC, Seitz RD (2008) Trophic interactions under stress: hypoxia enhances foraging in an estuarine food web. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 362:59–68Google Scholar
  36. Long WC, Whitefleet-Smith L (2013) Cannibalism in red king crab: habitat, ontogeny, and the predator functional response. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 449:142–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Long WC, Seitz RD, Brylawski BJ, Lipcius RN (2014) Individual, population and ecosystem effects of hypoxia on a dominant benthic bivalve in Chesapeake Bay. Ecol Monogr 84:303–327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. MacNeil C, Montgomery WI, Dick JTA, Elwood RW (2001) Factors influencing the distribution of native and introduced Gammarus spp. in Irish river systems. Arch Hydrobiol 151:353–368Google Scholar
  39. MacNeil C, Prenter J, Briffa M, Fielding NJ, Dick JTA, Riddell GE, Hatcher MJ, Dunn AM (2004) The replacement of a native freshwater amphipod by an invader: roles for environmental degradation and intraguild predation. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 61:1627–1635CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. MacNeil C, Dick JTA, Gell FR, Selman R, Lenartowicz P, Hynes HBN (2009) A long-term study (1949–2005) of experimental introductions to an island; freshwater amphipods (Crustacea) in the Isle of Man (British Isles). Divers Distrib 15:232–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. MacNeil C, Dick JTA, Alexander ME, Dodd JA, Ricciardi A (2013) Predators vs. alien: differential biotic resistance to an invasive species by two resident predators. NeoBiota 19:1–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 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
  43. Murdoch WW (1969) Switching in general predators: experiments on predator specificity and stability of prey populations. Ecol Monogr 39(4):335–354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Murdoch WW, Oaten A (1975) Predation and population stability. Adv Ecol Res 9:1–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Nestlerode J, Diaz R (1998) Effects of periodic environmental hypoxia on predation of a tethered polychaete, Glycera americana:implications for trophic dynamics. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 172:185–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Ozaki N, Fukushima T, Harasawa H, Kojiri T, Kawashima K, Ono M (2003) Statistical analyses on the effects of air temperature fluctuations on river water qualities. Hydrol Process 17:2837–2853CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Parkhill KL, Gulliver JS (2002) Effect of inorganic sediment on whole-stream productivity. Hydrobiologia 472:5–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Paterson RA, Dick JTA, Pritchard DW, Ennis M, Hatcher MJ, Dunn AM (2014) Predicting invasive species impacts: a community module functional response approach reveals context dependencies. J Anim EcolGoogle Scholar
  49. Piscart C, Manach A, Copp GH, Marmonier P (2007) Distribution and microhabitats of native and non-native gammarids (Amphipoda, Crustacea) in Brittany, with particular reference to the endangered endemic sub-species Gammarus duebeni celticus. J Biogeogr 34(3):524–533CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Pörtner HO, Knust R (2007) Climate change affects marine fishes through the oxygen limitation of thermal tolerance. Science 315:95–97CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Raddum GG, Fjellheim A (1993) Life cycle and production of Baetis rhodani in a regulated river in Western Norway: comparison of pre- and post-regulation conditions. Regul Rivers Res Manag 8:49–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Ricciardi A (2003) Predicting the impacts of an introduced species from its invasion history: an empirical approach applied to zebra mussel invasions. Freshw Biol 48(6):972–981CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Ricciardi A, Hoopes MF, Marchetti MP, Lockwood JL (2013) Progress toward understanding the ecological impacts of non-native species. Ecol Monog 83:263–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Rodda GH, Fritts TH, Conry PJ (1992) Origin and population growth of the brown tree snake, Boiga irregularis, on Guam. Pac Sci 46:46–57Google Scholar
  55. Roy HE, Peyton J, Aldridge DC, Bantock T, Blackburn TM, Britton R et al (2014) Horizon scanning for invasive alien species with the potential to threaten biodiversity in Great Britain. Glob Change Biol 20(12):3859–3871CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Sandberg E (1997) Does oxygen deficiency modify the functional response of Saduria entomon (Isopoda) to Bathyporeia pilosa (Amphipoda)? Mar Biol 129(3):499–504CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Savidge JA (1987) Extinction of an island forest avifauna by an introduced snake. Ecology 68:660–668CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Seitz RD, Marshall L, Hines A, Clark K (2003) Effects of hypoxia on predator–prey dynamics of the blue crab Callinectes sapidus and the Baltic clam Macoma balthica in Chesapeake Bay. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 257:179–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Shoji J, Masuda R, Yamashita Y, Tanaka M (2005) Effect of low dissolved oxygen concentrations on behavior and predation rates on red sea bream Pagrus major larvae by the jellyfish Aurelia aurita and by juvenile Spanish mackerel Scomberomorus niphonius. Mar Biol 147:863–868CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Simberloff D, Martin J-L, Genovesi P, Maris V, Wardle DA, Aronson J, Courchamp F, Galil B, Garcıa-Berthou E, Pascal M, Pyšek P, Sousa R, Tabacchi E, Vila M (2013) Impacts of biological invasions: what’s what and the way forward. Trends Ecol Evol 28:58–66CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. Smout S, Rindorf A, Wanless S, Daunt F, Harris MP, Matthiopoulos J (2013) Seabirds maintain offspring provisioning rate despite fluctuations in prey abundance: a multi-species functional response for guillemots in the North Sea (S. Votier, Ed.). J Appl Ecol 50(4):1071–1079CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Strange CD, Glass GB (1979) The distribution of freshwater Gammarids in Northern Ireland. Proc R Ir Acad 79(11):145–153Google Scholar
  63. 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
  64. Thomsen MS, Wernberg T, Olden JD, Griffin JN, Silliman BR (2011) A framework to study the context-dependent impacts of marine invasions. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 400:322–327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Trexler JC, McCullough CE, Travis J (1988) How can the functional response best be determined? Oecologia 76:206–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Twardochleb LA, Novak M, Moore JW (2012) Using the functional response of a consumer to predict biotic resistance to invasive prey. Ecol Appl 22:1162–1171CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. Walther G-R, Roques A, Hulme PE, Sykes MT, Pysek P, Kühn I et al (2009) Alien species in a warmer world: risks and opportunities. Trends Ecol Evol 24(12):686–693CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. Whitehead PG, Wilby RL, Battarbee RW, Kernan M, Wade AJ (2009) A review of the potential impacts of climate change on surface water quality. Hydrol Sci 54(1):101–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Wittmann MJ, Gabriel W, Harz E-M, Laforsch C, Jeschke JM (2013) Can Daphnia lumholtzi invade European lakes? NeoBiota 16:39–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ciaran Laverty
    • 1
  • Jaimie T. A. Dick
    • 1
  • Mhairi E. Alexander
    • 2
  • Frances E. Lucy
    • 3
  1. 1.School of Biological Sciences, Institute for Global Food SecurityQueen’s University BelfastBelfastIreland
  2. 2.Department of Botany and Zoology, Centre for Invasion BiologyStellenbosch UniversityMatielandSouth Africa
  3. 3.Department of Environmental Science, Centre for Environmental Research Innovation and SustainabilityInstitute of TechnologySligoIreland

Personalised recommendations