Multiple Predator Interactions and Food-Web Connectance: Implications for Biological Control

  • Robert F. Denno
  • Deborah L. Finke


The use of single versus multiple natural enemies in biological control remains controversial, largely due to the possibility for antagonistic interactions among predators (e.g., intraguild predation and cannibalism) that can reduce the potential for the top-down control of pest herbivores. Using a natural system, Spartina cordgrass and its associated community of arthropods (herbivores, strict predators and intraguild predators), we created 29 different treatment combinations of predators that varied in richness (number of predator species) and trophic composition (proportion of strict to intraguild predators) and measured the ability of each to reduce the density of a key herbivore (the planthopper Prokelisia dolus) in the system. We then calculated food-web connectance (the fraction of all possible directed feeding links that are realized in a food web) for each of the experimental food webs. Notably, food-web connectance is enhanced by predator-predator interactions such as intraguild predation and cannibalism. We found a significant negative relationship between food-web connectance and the ability of the predator complex to reduce prey populations. Specifically, well-connected food webs comprised of mostly intraguild predator species were far less effective at suppressing herbivores than webs consisting largely of strict predators. Importantly, trophic composition of the food web was more influential than predator richness in affecting top-down control. We also discovered that a food web comprised of multiple predators was more effective in suppressing herbivores when the structural complexity of the habitat was increased, a result that was attributable to spatial refuges for intraguild prey and relaxed intraguild predation. Thus, in this system, habitat structure has the potential to transform a well-connected food web into a less-connected one by reducing feeding links resulting from intraguild predation and cannibalism. Because of the remarkable similarity of the Spartina system to tropical Asian rice, this finding provides encouragement that the effectiveness of the predator complex can be enhanced by management practices that increase the structural complexity of the habitat and thereby dampen intraguild predation. Last, we discuss how food-web analyses might be used to evaluate particular combinations of predators for more effective biological control.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Arim, M., and Marquet, P.A., 2004, Intraguild predation: A widespread interaction related to species biology, Ecol. Lett. 7: 557-564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Berlow, E.L., Navarrete, S.A., Briggs, C.J., Power, M.E., and Menge, B.A., 1999, tQuantifying variation in the strengths of species interactions. Ecology 80: 2206-2224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Berlow, E.L., Neutel, A-M, Cohen, J.E., de Ruiter, P.C., Benjamin, B., Emmerson, M., Fox, J.W., Jansen, V.A.A., Jones, J.I., Kokkoris, G.D. , Logofet, D.O. , McKane, A.J. , Montoya, J.M., and Petchey. O., 2004, Interaction strengths in food webs: Issues and opportunities, J. Ecol. 73: 585-598.Google Scholar
  4. Bertness, M.D., 1991, Zonation of Spartina patens and Spartina alterniflora in a New England salt marsh, Ecology 72: 138-148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bertness, M.D., and Pennings, S.C., 2000, Spatial variation in process and pattern in salt marsh plant communities in eastern North America, in: Concepts and Controversies in Tidal Marsh Ecology, M.P. Weinstein and D.A. Kreeger, eds., Kluwar Academic Publishers, Boston, pp. 39-57.Google Scholar
  6. Cardinale, B.J., Harvey, C.T., Gross, K., and Ives, A.R., 2003, Biodiversity and biocontrol: Emergent impacts of a multi-enemy assemblage on pest suppression and crop yield in an agroecosystem, Ecol. Lett. 6: 857-865.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chalcraft, D.R., and Resetarits. W.J.J., 2003, Predator identity and ecological impacts: Functional redundancy or functional diversity? Ecology 84: 2407-2418.Google Scholar
  8. Chang, G.C., 1996, Comparison of single versus multiple species of generalist predators for biological control, Environ. Entomol. 25: 207-212.Google Scholar
  9. Closs, G.P., Balcombe, S.R., and Shirley, M.J., 1999, Generalist predators, interaction strength and food-web stability, Adv. Ecol. Res. 28: 93-126.Google Scholar
  10. Cook, A., and Denno, R.F., 1994, Planthopper-plant interactions: Feeding behavior, plant nutrition, plant defense, and host plant specialization, in: Planthoppers: Their Ecology and Management, R..F. Denno and T.J. Perfect, eds., Chapman and Hall, New York, pp. 114-139.Google Scholar
  11. Cronin, J.T., Haynes, K.J., and Dillemuth, F., 2004, Spider effects on planthopper mortality, dispersal, and spatial population dynamics, Ecology 85: 2134-2143.Google Scholar
  12. Denno, R.F., 1983, Tracking variable host plants in space and time, in: Variable Plants and Herbivores in Natural and Managed Systems, R.F. Denno and M.S. McClure, eds., Academic Press, New York, pp. 291-341.Google Scholar
  13. Denno, R.F., Finke, D.L., and Langellotto, G.A., 2005a, Direct and indirect effects of vegetation structure and habitat complexity on predator-prey and predator-predator interactions, in Ecology of Predator-Prey Interactions, P. Barbosa and I. Castellanos, eds., Oxford University Press, London, pp. 211-239.Google Scholar
  14. Denno, R.F., Gratton, C., Döbel, H., and Finke, D.L., 2003, Predation risk affects relative strength of top-down and bottom-up impacts on insect herbivores, Ecology 84: 1032-1044.Google Scholar
  15. Denno, R.F., Gratton, C., Peterson, M.A., Langellotto, G.A., Finke, D.L., and Huberty, A.F., 2002, Bottom-up forces mediate natural-enemy impact in a phytophagous insect community, Ecology 83: 1443-1458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Denno, R.F., and Grissell, E.E., 1979, The adaptiveness of wing- dimorphism in the salt marsh-inhabiting planthopper, Prokelisia marginata (Homoptera: Delphacidae), Ecology 60: 221-36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Denno, R.F., Lewis, D., and Gratton, C., 2005 b, Spatial variation in the relative strength of top-down and bottom-up forces: causes and consequences for phytophagous insect populations, Annal. Zool. Fenn. 42: 295-311.Google Scholar
  18. Denno, R.F., Mitter, M.S., Langellotto, G.A., Gratton, C., and Finke, D.L., 2004, Interactions between a hunting spider and a web-builder: Consequences of intraguild predation and cannibalism for prey suppression, Ecol. Entomol. 29: 566-577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Denno, R.F., and Peterson, M.A., 2000, Caught between the devil and the deep blue sea, mobile planthoppers elude natural enemies and deteriorating host plants, Am. Entomol. 46: 95-109.Google Scholar
  20. Denno, R.F., Peterson, M.A., Gratton, C., Cheng, J., Langellotto, G.A., Huberty, A.F., and Finke, D.L., 2000, Feeding-induced changes in plant quality mediate interspecific competition between sap-feeding herbivores, Ecology 81: 1814-1827.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Denno, R.F., Roderick, G.K., Peterson, M.A., Huberty, A.F., Döbel, H.G., Eubanks, M.D., Losey, J.E., and Langellotto, G.A., 1996, Habitat persistence underlies the intraspecific dispersal strategies of planthoppers, Ecol. Mono. 66: 389-408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Denoth, M., Frid, L., and Myers, J.H., 2002, Multiple agents in biological control: improving the odds? Biol. Cont. 24: 20-30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Döbel, H.G., and Denno, R.F., 1994, Predator-planthopper interactions, in: Planthoppers: Their Ecology and Management, R.F. Denno and T.J. Perfect, eds., Chapman and Hall, New York, pp. 325-399.Google Scholar
  24. Downing, A.L., and Leibold, M.A., 2002, Ecosystem consequences of species richness and composition in pond food webs, Nature 416: 837-841.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Dunne, J.A., Williams, R.J., and Martinez, N.D., 2002, Food web structure and network theory: role of connectance and size, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA, 99: 12917-12922.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Eubanks, M.D., 2001, Estimates of the direct and indirect effects of red imported fire ants on biological control in field crops, Biol. Cont. 21: 35-43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Fagan, W.F., 1997, Omnivory as a stabilizing feature of natural communities, Am. Nat. 150: 554-567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Fagan, W.F., Hakim, A.L., Ariawan, H., and Yuliyantiningsih, S., 1998, Interactions between biological control efforts and insecticide applications in tropical rice agroecosystems: The potential role of intraguild predation, Biol. Cont. 13: 121-126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Finke, D.L., 2005, Predator diversity, habitat complexity and the strength of terrestrial trophic cascades, Doctoral dissertation, Department of Entomology, University of Maryland, College Park.Google Scholar
  30. Finke, D.L., and Denno, R.F., 2002, Intraguild predation diminished in complex-structured vegetation: Implications for prey suppression, Ecology 83: 643-652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Finke, D. L., and Denno, R. F., 2003, Intra-guild predation relaxes natural enemy impacts on herbivore populations, Ecol. Entomol. 28: 67-73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Finke, D.L., and Denno, R.F., 2004, Predator diversity dampens trophic cascades, Nature 429: 407-410.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Finke, D.L., and Denno, R.F., 2005, Predator diversity and the functioning of ecosystems: The role of intraguild predation in dampening trophic cascades, Ecol. Lett. 8: 1299-1306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Gallagher, J.L., Somers, G.F., Grant, D.M., and Seliskar, D.M., 1988, Persistent differences in two forms of Spartina alterniflora: a common garden experiment. Ecology 69: 1005-1008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hart, D.R. 2002. Intraguild predation, invertebrate predators, and trophic cascades in lake food webs, J. Theor. Biol. 218: 111-128.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hawkins, B.A., Mills, N.J., Jervis, M.A., and Price, P.W., 1999, Is the biological control of insects a natural phenomenon? Oikos 86: 493-506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Heinz, K.M., and Nelson, J.M., 1996, Interspecific interactions among natural enemies of Bemisia in an inundative biological control program, Biol. Cont. 6: 384-393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Heong, K.L., and Schoenly, K.G., 1998, Impact of insecticides on herbivore-natural enemy communities in tropical rice ecosystems, in: Ecotoxicology: Pesticides and Beneficial Organisms, P.T. Haskell and P. McEwen, eds, Chapman and Hall, London, pp. 381-403.Google Scholar
  39. Hochberg, M.E., 1996, Consequences for host population levels of increasing natural enemy species richness in classical biological control, Am. Nat. 147: 307-318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Hodge, M.A., 1999, The implications of intraguild predation for the role of spiders in biological control, J. Arach. 27: 351-362.Google Scholar
  41. Huston, M.A., 1997, Hidden treatments in ecological experiments: re-evaluating the ecosystem function of biodiversity, Oecologia 110: 449-460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Jolliffe, P.A., 2000, The replacement series, J. Ecol. 88: 371-385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Kenmore, P.E., Cariño, F.O., Perez, C.A., Dyck, V.A., and Gutierrez, A.P., 1984, Population regulation of the rice brown planthopper (Nilaparvata lugens) within rice fields in the Philippines, J. Plant Prot. Trop. 1: 19-37.Google Scholar
  44. Langellotto, G., 2002, The aggregation of invertebrate predators in complex habitats: Ecological mechanisms and practical applications, Doctoral Dissertation, Department of Entomology, University of Maryland, College Park, MD.Google Scholar
  45. Langellotto, G.A., and Denno, R.F., 2004, Responses of invertebrate natural enemies to complex-structured habitats: A meta-analytical synthesis, Oecologia 139: 1-10.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Lima, S.L., 1998, Stress and decision making under the risk of predation: recent developments from behavioral, reproductive, and ecological perspectives, Adv. Stud. Behav. 27: 215-290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Losey, J.E., and Denno, R.F., 1998, Positive predator-predator interactions: Enhanced predation rates and synergistic suppression of aphid populations, Ecology 79: 2143-2152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Losey, J.E., and Denno, R.F., 1999, Factors facilitating synergistic predation: The central role of synchrony, Ecol. Appl. 9: 378-386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Lucas, E., Coderre, D., and Brodeur, J., 1998, Intraguild predation among aphid predators: Characterization and influence of extraguild prey, Ecology 79: 1084-1092.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Magnhagen, C., 1991, Predation risk as a cost of reproduction, Trends Ecol. Evol. 6: 183-186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Matsumura, M., Trafelet-Smith, G.M., Gratton, C., Finke, D.L., Fagan, W.F., and Denno, R.F., 2004, Does intraguild predation enhance predator performance? A stoichiometric perspective, Ecology 89: 2601-2615.Google Scholar
  52. May, R.M., 1973, Stability and Complexity in Model Ecosystems, Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.Google Scholar
  53. McCann, K.S., 2000, The diversity-stability debate, Nature 405: 228-233.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. McCann, K.S., and Hastings, A., 1997, Re-valuating the omnivory-stability relationship in food webs, Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. B 264: 1249-1254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. McCann, K S., Hastings, A., and Huxel, G.R., 1998, Weak trophic interactions and the balance of nature, Nature 395: 794-798.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Melián, C.J. and Bascompte, J., 2004, Food web cohesion, Ecology 85: 352-358.Google Scholar
  57. Montoya, J.M., Rodríguez, M.A., and Hawkins, B.A., 2003, Food web complexity and higher-level ecosystem services, Ecol. Lett. 6: 587-593.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Morin, P.J., 1999, Community Ecology, Blackwell Science, Inc., London, UK.Google Scholar
  59. Naeem, S., and Li, S., 1997, Biodiversity enhances ecosystem reliability, Nature 390: 507-509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Ohgushi, T., Craig, A., and Price, P.W., eds, in press, Indirect Interaction Webs: Nontrophic Linkages Through Induced Plant Traits, Cambridge University Press, London, UK.Google Scholar
  61. Ornes, W.H., and Kaplan, D.I., 1989, Macronutrient status of tall and short forms of Spartina alterniflorain a South Carolina salt marsh, Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 55: 63-72.Google Scholar
  62. Parsons, M.H., Walker, S.E., and Rypstra, A.L., 2002, Fitness costs and benefits of antipredator behaviour mediated by chemotactical cues in the wolf spider Pardosa milvina (Araneae: Lycosidae), Beh. Ecol. 13: 386-392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Pimm, S.L., Lawton, J.H., and Cohen, J.E., 1991, Food web patterns and their consequences, Nature 350: 669-674.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Phoofolo, M.W., and Obrycki, J.J., 1998, Potential for intraguild predation and competition among predatory Coccinellidae and Chrysopidae, Entomol. Exp. Appl. 89: 47-55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Polis, G., 1998, Stability is woven by complex webs, Nature 395: 744-745.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Polis, G., Myers, C., and Holt, R., 1989, The ecology and evolution of intraguild predation: Potential competitors that eat each other, Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 20: 297-330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Polis, G., and Strong, D.R., 1996, Food web complexity and community dynamics, Am. Nat. 147: 813-846.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Prasad, R.P., and Snyder, W.E., 2004, Predator interference limits fly egg biological control by a guild of ground-active beetles, Biol. Cont. 31: 428-437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Redfield, A. C., 1972, Development of a New England salt marsh, Ecol. Mono. 42: 201-237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Riechert, S.E. and Bishop, L., 1990, Prey control by an assemblage of generalist predators: Spiders in a garden test system, Ecology 71: 1441-1450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Riechert, S.E. and Lawrence, K., 1997, Test for predation effects of single versus multiple species of generalist predators: spiders and their insect prey, Entomol. Exp. Appl. 84: 147-155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Rosenheim J.A., 1998, Higher order predators and the regulation of insect herbivore populations, Ann. Rev. Entomol. 43: 421-447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Rosenheim, J.A., Glik, T.E., Goeriz, R.E., and Rämert, B., 2004, Linking a predator’s foraging behavior with its effects on herbivore population suppression, Ecology 85: 3362-3372.Google Scholar
  74. Rosenheim, J.A., Kaya, H.K., Ehler, L.E., Marois, J.J., and Jaffee, B.A., 1995, Intraguild predation among biological-control agents: theory and evidence, Biol. Cont. 5: 303-335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Rosenheim J.A., and Wilhoit, L.R., 1993, Predators that eat other predators disrupt cotton aphid control, Cal. Ag. 47: 7-9.Google Scholar
  76. Rosenheim J.A., Wilhoit, L.R., and Armer, C.A., 1993, Influence of intraguild predation among generalist insect predators on the suppression of an herbivore population, Oecologia 96: 439-449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. SAS Institute, 2000, JMP Statistics and Graphics Guide, SAS Institute, Cary, North Carolina. Schmitz, O.J., 1998, Direct and indirect effects of predation and predation risk in old-field interaction webs, Am. Nat., 151: 327-342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Schmitz, O.J., Beckerman, A.P., and O’Brien, K.M., 1997, Behaviorally mediated trophic cascades: Effects of predation risk on food web interactions, Ecology 78: 1388-1399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Schoenly, K., Beaver, R.A., and Heumier, T.A., 1991, On the trophic relations of insects: A food-web approach, Am. Nat. 137: 597-638.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Schoenly, K.G., Justo, H.D., Barrion, A.T., Harris, M.K., and Bottrell, D.G., 1998, Analysis of invertebrate biodiversity in a Philippine farmer’s irrigated rice field, Environ. Entomol. 27: 1125-1136.Google Scholar
  81. Settle, W. H., Ariawan, H., Astuti, E. T., Cahyana, W., Hakim, A. L., Hindayana, D., Lestari, A. S., and Sartanto, P., 1996, Managing tropical rice pests through conservation of generalist natural enemies and alternative prey, Ecology 77: 1975-1988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Sih, A., Englund, G., and Wooster, D., 1998, Emergent impacts of multiple predators on prey, Trends Ecol. Evol. 13: 350-355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Snyder, W.E., Chang, G.C., and Prasad, R.P., 2005, Conservation biological control: Biodiversity influences the effectiveness of predators, in: Ecology of Predator-Prey Interactions, P. Barbosa and I. Castellanos, eds., Oxford University Press, London, pp. 324-343.Google Scholar
  84. Snyder, W.E., and Ives, A.R., 2001, Generalist predators disrupt biological control by a specialist parasitoid, Ecology 82: 1571-1583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Snyder, W.E., and Wise, D.H., 1999, Predator interference and the establishment of generalist predators populations for biocontrol, Biol. Cont. 15: 283-292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Straub, C.S., and Snyder, W.E., 2006, Species identity dominates the relationship between predator biodiversity and herbivore suppression, Ecology.Google Scholar
  87. Strauss, S. Y., 1991, Indirect effects in community ecology: Their definition, study and importance, Trends Ecol. Evol. 6: 206-210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Symondson, W.O.C, Sunderland, K.D., and Greenstone, M.H., 2002, Can generalist predators be effective biocontrol agents? Ann. Rev. Entomol. 47: 561-594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Walde, S.J., Hardman, M., and Magagula, C.N., 1997, Direct and indirect species interactions influencing within-season dynamics of apple rust mite, Aculus schlechtendali (Acari: Eriophyidae), Exp. Appl. Acar. 21: 587-614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Wilby, A., and Thomas, M.B., 2002, Natural enemy diversity and pest control: patterns of pest emergence with agricultural intensification, Ecol. Lett. 5: 353-360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Winemiller, K.O., 1990, Spatial variation in tropical fish networks, Ecol. Mono. 60: 331-367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Robert F. Denno
    • 1
  • Deborah L. Finke
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of EntomologyUniversity of MarylandMaryland, 20742
  2. 2.Department of EntomologyWashington State UniversityWashington, 99164

Personalised recommendations