Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Spatial heterogeneity and functional response: an experiment in microcosms with varying obstacle densities

  • Population ecology - Original Paper
  • Published:
Oecologia Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Spatial heterogeneity of the environment has long been recognized as a major factor in ecological dynamics. Its role in predator–prey systems has been of particular interest, where it can affect interactions in two qualitatively different ways: by providing (1) refuges for the prey or (2) obstacles that interfere with the movements of both prey and predators. There have been relatively fewer studies of obstacles than refuges, especially studies on their effect on functional responses. By analogy with reaction–diffusion models for chemical systems in heterogeneous environments, we predict that obstacles are likely to reduce the encounter rate between individuals, leading to a lower attack rate (predator–prey encounters) and a lower interference rate (predator–predator encounters). Here, we test these predictions under controlled conditions using collembolans (springtails) as prey and mites as predators in microcosms. The effect of obstacle density on the functional response was investigated at the scales of individual behavior and of the population. As expected, we found that increasing obstacle density reduces the attack rate and predator interference. Our results show that obstacles, like refuges, can reduce the predation rate because obstacles decrease the attack rate. However, while refuges can increase predator dependence, we suggest that obstacles can decrease it by reducing the rate of encounters between predators. Because of their opposite effect on predator dependence, obstacles and refuges could modify in different ways the stability of predator–prey communities.

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.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abrams PA, Ginzburg LR (2000) The nature of predation: Prey dependent, ratio dependent or neither? Trends Ecol Evol 15:337–341

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Arditi R, Akçakaya HR (1990) Underestimation of mutual interference of predators. Oecologia 83:358–361

    Google Scholar 

  • Arditi R, Ginzburg LR (1989) Coupling in predator-prey dynamics: ratio-dependence. J Theor Biol 139:311–326

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arditi R, Ginzburg LR, Akçakaya HR (1991) Variation in plankton densities among lakes: a case for ratio-dependent predation models. Am Nat 138:1287–1296

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arditi R, Tyutyunov Y, Morgulis A, Govorukhin V, Senina I (2001) Directed movement of predators and the emergence of density-dependence in predator–prey models. Theor Popul Biol 59:207–221

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Beddington JR (1975) Mutual interference between parasites or predators and its effect on searching efficiency. J Anim Ecol 44:331–340

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berry H (2002) Monte Carlo simulations of enzyme reactions in two dimensions: Fractal kinetics and spatial segregation. Biophys J 83:1891–1901

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bouchaud J, Georges A (1990) Anomalous diffusion in disordered media: statistical mechanisms, models and physical applications. Phys Rep 195:127–293

    Google Scholar 

  • Burnham KP, Anderson DR (2002) Model selection and multi-model inference: a practical information-theoretic approach, 2nd edn. Springer, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Cosner C, DeAngelis DL, Ault JS, Olson DB (1999) Effects of spatial grouping on the functional response of predators. Theor Popul Biol 56:65–75

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Crowley PH (1978) Effective size and the persistence of ecosystems. Oecologia 35:185–195

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeAngelis DL, Goldstein RA, O’Neill RV (1975) A model for trophic interaction. Ecology 56:881–892

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Folsom TC, Collins NC (1984) The diet and foraging behavior of the larval dragonfly anax junius (aeshnidae), with an assessment of the role of refuges and prey activity. Oikos 42:105–113

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fox GA (2001) Failure-time analysis––studying times to events and rates at which events occur. In: Scheiner SM, Gurevitch J (eds) Design and analysis of ecological experiments. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 235–266

    Google Scholar 

  • Fussmann GF, Weithoff G, Yoshida T (2005) A direct, experimental test of resource versus consumer dependence. Ecology 86:2924–2930

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gross T, Ebenhöh W, Feudel U (2004) Enrichment and foodchain stability: the impact of different forms of predator–prey interaction. J Theor Biol 227:349–358

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hanski I, Gilpin ME (1991) Metapopulation dynamics: brief history and conceptual domain. Biol J Linn Soc 42:3–16

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hassell MP (1978) The dynamics of arthropod predator–prey systems. Princeton, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Hassell MP (2000) The spatial and temporal dynamics of host-parasitoid interactions. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Hassell MP, Varley GC (1969) New inductive population model for insect parasites and its bearing on biological control. Nature 223:1133–1135

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hildrew AG, Townsend CR (1977) The influence of substrate on the functional response of Plectrocnemia conspersa (curtis) larvae (trichoptera: Polycentropodidae). Oecologia 31:21–26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hildrew AG, Townsend CR (1982) Predators and prey in a patchy environment: a freshwater study. J Anim Ecol 51:797–815

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holling CS (1959a) The components of predation as revealed by a study of small-mammal predation of the European pine sawfly. Can Entomol 91:293–320

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holling CS (1959b) Some characteristics of simple types of predation and parasitism. Can Entomol 91:385–398

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holyoak M, Leibold MA, Holt RD (2005) Metacommunities: spatial dynamics and ecological communities. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Hulot FD, Lacroix G, Lescher-Moutoue FO, Loreau M (2000) Functional diversity governs ecosystem response to nutrient enrichment. Nature 405:340–344

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ihaka R, Gentleman R (1996) R: a language for data analysis and graphics. Comput Graph Stat 5:299–314

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Juliano SA (2001) Nonlinear curve fitting––predation and functional response curves. In: Scheiner SM, Gurevitch J (eds) Design and analysis of ecological experiments. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 178–196

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaiser H (1983) Small-scale spatial heterogeneity influences predation success in an unexpected way––model experiments on the functional-response of predatory mites (acarina). Oecologia 56:249–256

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kratina P, Vos M, Anholt BR (2007) Species diversity modulates predation. Ecology 88:1917–1923

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kratina P, Vos M, Bateman A, Anholt BR (2009) Functional responses modified by predator density. Oecologia 159:425–433

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Li HB, Reynolds JF (1994) A simulation experiment to quantify spatial heterogeneity in categorical maps. Ecology 75:2446–2455

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lipcius RN, Hines AH (1986) Variable functional responses of a marine predator in dissimilar homogeneous microhabitats. Ecology 67:1361–1371

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murdoch WW, Oaten A (1975) Predation and population stability. Adv Ecol Res 9:1–132

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oksanen L, Fretwell SD, Arruda J, Niemela P (1981) Exploitation ecosystems in gradients of primary productivity. Am Nat 118:240–261

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ottoni EB (2000) EthoLog 2.2: a tool for the transcription and timing of behavior observation sessions. Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput 32:446–449

    Google Scholar 

  • Pietrewicz AT, Kamil AC (1979) Search image-formation in the Blue jay (Cyanocitta cristata). Science 204:1332–1333

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Real LA (1977) Kinetics of functional response. Am Nat 111:289–300

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rickers S, Scheu S (2005) Cannibalism in Pardosa palustris (araneae, lycosidae): Effects of alternative prey, habitat structure, and density. Basic Appl Ecol 6:471–478

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenzweig ML (1971) Paradox of enrichment: destabilization of exploitation ecosystems in ecological time. Science 171:385–387

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Savino JF, Stein RA (1982) Predator-prey interaction between largemouth bass and bluegills as influenced by simulated, submersed vegetation. Trans Am Fish Soc 111:255–266

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saxton MJ (1994) Anomalous diffusion due to obstacles: a Monte Carlo study. Biophys J 66:394–401

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schenk D, Bersier L, Bacher S (2005) An experimental test of the nature of predation: Neither prey- nor ratio-dependent. J Anim Ecol 74:86–91

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Solomon ME (1949) The natural control of animal populations. J Anim Ecol 18:1–35

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tully T, Cassey P, Ferrière R (2005) Functional response: rigorous estimation and sensitivity to genetic variation in prey. Oikos 111:479–487

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tully T, D’Haese CA, Richard M, Ferriere R (2006) Two major evolutionary lineages revealed by molecular phylogeny in the parthenogenetic collembola species Folsomia candida. Pedobiologia 50:95–104

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Tyutyunov Y, Titova L, Arditi R (2008) Predator interference emerging from trophotaxis in predator–prey systems: an individual-based approach. Ecol Complex 5:48–58

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wei QC, Walde SJ (1997) The functional response of Typhlodromus pyri to its prey, Panonychus ulmi: the effect of pollen. Exp Appl Acarol 21:677–684

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank A.-S. Barbero, K. Jaouannet and Q. Renault for their technical assistance. We are grateful to CEREEP for providing an excellent working environment at the field station where this work was carried out. We thank M. van Baalen for stimulating discussions and Monika Ghosh for assistance with the English. C.H. thanks R.A. for funding this research during a short postdoc at AgroParisTech. This research complies with all applicable regulatory requirements.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Céline Hauzy.

Additional information

Communicated by Stefan Scheu.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hauzy, C., Tully, T., Spataro, T. et al. Spatial heterogeneity and functional response: an experiment in microcosms with varying obstacle densities. Oecologia 163, 625–636 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-010-1585-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-010-1585-5

Keywords

Navigation