Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Herbivore species richness, composition and community structure mediate predator richness effects and top-down control of herbivore biomass

  • Community ecology - Original research
  • Published:
Oecologia Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Changes in predator species richness can have important consequences for ecosystem functioning at multiple trophic levels, but these effects are variable and depend on the ecological context in addition to the properties of predators themselves. Here, we report an experimental study to test how species identity, community attributes, and community structure at the herbivore level moderate the effects of predator richness on ecosystem functioning. Using mesocosms containing predatory insects and aphid prey, we independently manipulated species richness at both predator and herbivore trophic levels. Community structure was also manipulated by changing the distribution of herbivore species across two plant species. Predator species richness and herbivore species richness were found to negatively interact to influence predator biomass accumulation, an effect which is hypothesised to be due to the breakdown of functional complementarity among predators in species-rich herbivore assemblages. The strength of predator suppression of herbivore biomass decreased as herbivore species richness and distribution across host plants increased, and positive predator richness effects on herbivore biomass suppression were only observed in herbivore assemblages of relatively low productivity. In summary, the study shows that the species richness, productivity and host plant distribution of prey communities can all moderate the general influence of predators and the emergence of predator species richness effects on ecosystem functioning.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Asiry KAM (2010) The impacts of cereal-legume intercropping on biological control of cereal aphids within temperate agro-ecosystems. PhD thesis, School of Agriculture Policy and Development, University of Reading, Reading

  • Byrnes JE, Stachowicz JJ (2009) The consequences of consumer diversity loss: different answers from different experimental designs. Ecology 90:2879–2888

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cardinale BJ et al (2006a) Effects of biodiversity on the functioning of trophic groups and ecosystems. Nature 443:989–992

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Cardinale BJ, Weis JJ, Forbes AE, Tilmon KJ, Ives AR (2006b) Biodiversity as both a cause and consequence of resource availability: a study of reciprocal causality in a predator–prey system. J Anim Ecol 75:497–505

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Casula P (2006) Evaluating hypotheses about dispersal in a vulnerable butterfly. Ecol Res 21:263–270

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crawley MJ (2007) The R Book. Wiley, Chichester

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Douglass JG, Duffy JE, Bruno JF (2008a) Herbivore and predator diversity interactively affect ecosystem properties in an experimental marine community. Ecol Lett 11:598–608

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Douglass JG, Duffy JE, Bruno JF, Gilchrist GW (2008b) Correction of statistical miscalculation slightly alters conclusions about diversity effects for Douglass et al. (2008). Ecol Lett 11:E9–E10

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Duffy JE (2003) Biodiversity loss, trophic skew and ecosystem functioning. Ecol Lett 6:680–687

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duffy JE, Richardson J, Canuel E (2003) Grazer diversity effects on ecosystem functioning in seagrass beds. Ecol Lett 6:637–645

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evans EW (1991) Intra versus interspecific interactions of ladybeetles (Coleoptera, Coccinellidae) attacking aphids. Oecologia 87:401–408

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finke DL, Denno RF (2005) Predator diversity and the functioning of ecosystems: the role of intraguild predation in dampening trophic cascades. Ecol Lett 8:1299–1306

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finke DL, Snyder WE (2008) Niche partitioning increases resource exploitation by diverse communities. Science 321:1488–1490

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Finke DL, Snyder WE (2010) Conserving the benefits of predator biodiversity. Biol Conserv 143:2260–2269

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gamfeldt L, Hillebrand H, Jonsson PR (2005) Species richness changes across two trophic levels simultaneously affect prey and consumer biomass. Ecol Lett 8:696–703

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Griffen BD, Byers JE (2006) Intraguild predation reduces redundancy of predator species in multiple predator assemblage. J Anim Ecol 75:959–966

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Griffiths GJK, Wilby A, Crawley MJ, Thomas MB (2008) Density-dependent effects of predator species-richness in diversity–function studies. Ecology 89:2986–2993

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hassel M (1981) Arthropod predator–prey systems In: May R (ed) Theoretical ecology: principles and applications. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 105–131

  • Hector A, von Felten S, Schmid B (2010) Analysis of variance with unbalanced data: an update for ecology & evolution. J Anim Ecol 79:308–316

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hillebrand H, Cardinale BJ (2004) Consumer effects decline with prey diversity. Ecol Lett 7:192–201

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huston MA (1997) Hidden treatments in ecological experiments: re-evaluating the ecosystem function of biodiversity. Oecologia 110:449–460

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ives AR, Cardinale BJ (2004) Food-web interactions govern the resistance of communities after non-random extinctions. Nature 429:174–177

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Jonsson M, Johansson F, Karlsson C, Brodin T (2007) Intermediate predator impact on consumers weakens with increasing predator diversity in the presence of a top-predator. Acta Oecol Int J Ecol 31:79–85

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kalushkov P (1999) The effect of aphid prey quality on searching behaviour of Adalia bipunctata and its susceptibility to insecticides. Entomol Exp Appl 92:277–282

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Letourneau DK, Jedlicka JA, Bothwell SG, Moreno CR (2009) Effects of natural enemy biodiversity on the suppression of arthropod herbivores in terrestrial ecosystems. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 40:573–592

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loreau M (2004) Does functional redundancy exist? Oikos 104:606–611

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loreau M, Mouquet N, Gonzales A (2003) Biodiversity as spatial insurance in heterogeneous landscapes. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 100:12765–12770

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Losey JE, Denno RF (1998) Positive predator–predator interactions: enhanced predation rates and synergistic suppression of aphid populations. Ecology 79:2143–2152

    Google Scholar 

  • McKinney ML (1997) Extinction vulnerability and selectivity: combining ecological and paleontological views. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 28:495–516

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Narwani A, Mazumder A (2010) Community composition and consumer identity determine the effect of resource species diversity on rates of consumption. Ecology 91:3441–3447

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Northfield TD, Snyder GB, Ives AR, Snyder WE (2010) Niche saturation reveals resource partitioning among consumers. Ecol Lett 13:338–348

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • O’Gorman EJ, Enright RA, Emmerson MC (2008) Predator diversity enhances secondary production and decreases the likelihood of trophic cascades. Oecologia 158:557–567

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • R Development Core Team (2007). R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna. Austria. (http://www.r-project.org)

  • Rana JS, Dixon AFG, Jarosik V (2002) Costs and benefits of prey specialization in a generalist insect predator. J Anim Ecol 71:15–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schellhorn NA, Andow DA (2005) Response of coccinellids to their aphid prey at different spatial scales. Popul Ecol 47:71–76

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmitz OJ, Hamback PA, Beckerman AP (2000) Trophic cascades in terrestrial systems: a review of the effects of carnivore removals on plants. Am Nat 155:141–153

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Snyder GB, Finke DL, Snyder WE (2008) Predator biodiversity strengthens aphid suppression across single- and multiple-species prey communities. Biol Control 44:52–60

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Straub CS, Finke DL, Snyder WE (2008) Are the conservation of natural enemy biodiversity and biological control compatible goals? Biol Control 45:225–237

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tylianakis JM, Romo CM (2010) Natural enemy diversity and biological control: making sense of the context-dependency. Basic Appl Ecol 11:657–668

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vance-Chalcraft HD, Soluk DA, Ozburn N (2004) Is prey predation risk influenced more by increasing predator density or predator species richness in stream enclosures? Oecologia 139:117–122

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wilby A, Thomas MB (2002a) Are the ecological concepts of assembly and function of biodiversity useful frameworks for understanding natural pest control? Agric For Entomol 4:237–243

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilby A, Thomas MB (2002b) Natural enemy diversity and natural pest control: patterns of pest emergence with agricultural intensification. Ecol Lett 5:353–360

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilby A, Thomas MB (2007) Diversity and pest management in agro-ecosystems—some perspectives from ecology. In: Jarvis DI, Padoch C, Cooper HD (eds) Managing biodiversity in agricultural ecosystems. Columbia University Press, New York, pp 225–269

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilby A, Villareal S, Lan L, Heong K, Thomas M (2005) Functional benefits of predator species diversity depend on prey identity. Ecol Entomol 30:497–501

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wojdak JM, Luttbeg B (2005) Relative strengths of trait-mediated and density-mediated indirect effects of a predator vary with resource levels in a freshwater food chain. Oikos 111:592–598

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Worm B, Duffy JE (2003) Biodiversity, productivity and stability in real food webs. Trends Ecol Evol 18:628–632

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank Carys Hutton, Liz Wheeldon and Matt Naish for their considerable efforts in helping us run these experiments, and to two anonymous reviewers for their constructive criticism of the paper. This work was funded by the NERC project NE\G010226\1 awarded to A. Wilby and K. Orwin.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Lancaster Environment Centre, University of Lancaster, Bailrigg, Lancaster, LA1 4YQ, UK

    Andrew Wilby & Kate H. Orwin

Authors
  1. Andrew Wilby
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kate H. Orwin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andrew Wilby.

Additional information

Communicated by Jason Tylianakis.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Wilby, A., Orwin, K.H. Herbivore species richness, composition and community structure mediate predator richness effects and top-down control of herbivore biomass. Oecologia 172, 1167–1177 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-012-2573-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-012-2573-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation