Skip to main content
Log in

Prey-Dependent Mortality Rate: A Critical Parameter in Microbial Models

  • Microbiology of Aquatic Systems
  • Published:
Microbial Ecology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

    We’re sorry, something doesn't seem to be working properly.

    Please try refreshing the page. If that doesn't work, please contact support so we can address the problem.

Abstract

Protozoa are key components of a wide range of ecosystems, but ecological models that incorporate these microbes often suffer from poor parameterisation, specifically of top-level predator loss rates. We (1) suggest that top-level predator mortality is prey-dependent, (2) provide a novel approach to assess this response, and (3) illustrate the ecological relevance of these findings. Ciliates, Paramecium caudatum (prey) and Didinium nasutum (predator), were used to evaluate predator mortality at varying prey levels. To assess mortality, multiple (>100) predators were individually examined (in 2-ml wells), daily (for 3 days), between 0 and 120 preys ml−1. Data were used to determine non-linear mortality and growth responses over a range of prey abundances. The responses, plus literature data were then used to parameterise a predator–prey model, based on the Rosenzweig–MacArthur structure. The model assessed the impact of variable and three levels of constant (high, average and low) mortality rates on P. caudatum–D. nasutum population dynamics. Our method to determine variable mortality rate revealed a strong concave decline in mortality with increasing prey abundance. The model indicated: (1) high- and low-constant mortality rates yielded dynamics that deviate substantially from those obtained from a variable rate; (2) average mortality rate superficially produced dynamics similar to the variable rate, but there were differences in the period of predator–prey cycles, and the lowest abundance of prey and predators (by ~2 orders of magnitude). The differences between incorporating variable and constant mortality rate indicate that including a variable rate could substantially improve microbial-based ecological models.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. ASTM (1989) Standard guide for conducting acute toxicity tests with fishes, macroinvertebrates and amphibians. Annual Book of ASTM Standards, vol. 11.04. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA. pp 379–397

  2. Azam F, Fenchel T, Field JG, Gray JS, Meyer-Reil LA, Thingstad F (1983) The ecological role of water-column microbes in the sea. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 10:257–263

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Blackford JC, Allen JI, Gilbert FJ (2004) Ecosysem dynamics at six contrasting sites: a generic modelling study. J Mar Syst 52:191–215

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Calbet A (2008) The trophic roles of microzooplankton in marine systems. ICES J Mar Sci 65:325–331

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Dodson SI (1972) Mortality in a population of Daphnia rosea. Ecology 53:1011–1023

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Edwards AM, Brindley J (1996) Oscilatory behaviour in a three component plankton population model. Dyn Stab Syst 11:347–369

    Google Scholar 

  7. Fenton A, Spencer M, Montagnes DJS (2010) Parameterising variable assimilation efficiency in predator–prey models. Oikos 119:1000–1010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Fukuwaka M, Suzuki T (2002) Early sea mortality of mark-recaptured juvenile chum salmon in open coastal waters. J Fish Biol 60:3–12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Fulton EA, Smith ADM, Johnson CR (2002) Mortality and predation in ecosystem models: is it important how these are expressed? Ecol Model 169:157–178

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Gause GF (1934) Experimental analysis of Vito Volterra’s mathematical theory of the struggle for existence. Science 79:16–17

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Gerhard GS (2001) Caloric restriction in nonmammalian models. J Anti-Aging Sci 4:205–213

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Ginzberg LR (1998) Assuming reproduction to be a function of consumption raises doubts about some popular-predator prey models. J Anim Ecol 67:325–327

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Harrison GW (1995) Comparing predator-prey models to Luckinbill’s experiment with Didinium and Paramecium. Ecology 76:357–374

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Hewett SW (1980) Prey dependent cell size in a protozoan predator. J Protozool 27:311–313

    Google Scholar 

  15. Hewett SW (1988) Predation by Didinium nasutum: effects of predator and prey size. Ecology 69:135–145

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Luckinbill LS (1972) Coexistence in laboratory populations of Paramecium aurelia and its predator Didinium nasutum. Ecology 54:1320–1327

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. MacLulich DA (1937) Fluctuations in the numbers of the varying hare (Lepus americanus). Univ Tor Stud Biol Ser 43:1–136

    Google Scholar 

  18. Ratsak CH, Maarsen KA, Kooijman SALM (1996) Effects of protozoa on carbon mineralization in activated sludge. Water Res 30:1–12

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Steel JH, Henderson EW (1981) A simple plankton model. Am Nat 117:676–691

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Turchin P (2003) Complex population dynamics: a theoretical/empirical synthesis. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Matt Spencer for statistical advice the students of BIOL 761 “Dynamic Population Modelling” at Liverpool University who critically evaluated this work. The study was supported by a British Ecological Society Small Project Grant (3061/3769), awarded to AF.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David J. S. Montagnes.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Minter, E.J.A., Fenton, A., Cooper, J. et al. Prey-Dependent Mortality Rate: A Critical Parameter in Microbial Models. Microb Ecol 62, 155–161 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00248-011-9836-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00248-011-9836-5

Keywords

Navigation