DOCSLIB.ORG

A Synthesis of Subdisciplines: Predator–Prey Interactions, and Biodiversity and Ecosystem Functioning

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
A Synthesis of Subdisciplines: Predator–Prey Interactions, and Biodiversity and Ecosystem Functioning Ecology Letters, (2005) 8: 102–116 doi: 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2004.00698.x REVIEW A synthesis of subdisciplines: predator–prey interactions, and biodiversity and ecosystem functioning Abstract Anthony R. Ives,1* Bradley J. The last 15 years has seen parallel surges of interest in two research areas that have rarely Cardinale1,2 and William E. intersected: biodiversity and ecosystem functioning (BEF), and multispecies predator– Snyder3 prey interactions (PPI). Research addressing role of biodiversity in ecosystem 1 Department of Zoology, UW- functioning has focused primarily on single trophic-level systems, emphasizing additive Madison, Madison, WI 53706, effects of diversity that manifest through resource partitioning and the sampling effect. USA Conversely, research addressing predator–prey interactions has focused on two trophic- 2Department of Ecology, level systems, emphasizing indirect and non-additive interactions among species. Here, Evolution and Marine Biology, we use a suite of consumer-resource models to organize and synthesize the ways in UC-Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, CA 93106, USA which consumer species diversity affects the densities of both resources and consumer 3Department of Entomology, species. Specifically, we consider sampling effects, resource partitioning, indirect effects Washington State University, caused by intraguild interactions and non-additive effects. We show that the relationship Pullman, WA 99164-6382, USA between consumer diversity and the density of resources and consumer species are *Correspondence: E-mail: broadly similar for systems with one vs. two trophic levels, and that indirect and non- [email protected] additive interactions generally do little more than modify the impacts of diversity established by the sampling effect and resource partitioning. The broad similarities between systems with one vs. two trophic levels argue for greater communication between researchers studying BEF, and researchers studying multispecies PPI. Keywords Biodiversity, indirect effect, intraguild predation, resource partitioning, sampling effect, 1 trophic interactions. Ecology Letters (2005) 8: 102–116 ecology focused on multispecies predator–prey systems, INTRODUCTION which we term PPI. There is a long and rich history of ecological studies that Another subdiscipline generating much recent attention examine predator–prey interactions (PPI) and the role of focuses on the role that biodiversity plays in ecosystem predators in the suppression of prey populations (Hair- functioning (Chapin et al. 1998; Tilman 1999; Loreau et al. ston et al. 1960; Paine 1966; Hassell & May 1986; 2001; Naeem 2002), or biodiversity and ecosystem Murdoch & Briggs 1997; Polis 1999). Much of this work function (BEF). While community ecology has historically has been motivated by biological control efforts, in which focused on how ecological processes maintain species predators or herbivores are introduced to suppress pest diversity, the central question of BEF is how diversity species. While there is long-standing appreciation that affects, rather than responds to, ecological processes. predator diversity potentially affects prey density (Walsh While BEF has not developed in strict isolation from PPI & Riley 1868; Pimentel 1961; Root 1973; Snyder et al. (Wilby & Thomas 2002; Cardinale et al. 2003; Chalcraft & 2004), in the last 15 years there has been an explosion of Resetarits 2003), the two research areas clearly have interest in the complexities that arise from interactions distinct histories and different emphases (Duffy 2002). within diverse predator–prey assemblages (Polis 1991; Studies of BEF generally focus on additive mechanisms of Polis & Holt 1992; Rosenheim 1998; Sih et al. 1998). diversity where the per capita effects of all species are This, in turn, has spawned a growing subdiscipline in assumed to be independent of the number of species in a Ó2004 Blackwell Publishing Ltd/CNRS Diversity in consumer-resource systems 103 "# community. In contrast, PPI studies have focused more on XN indirect interactions among predator species, and the yj ðt þ 1Þ¼yj ðtÞ exp cj bij xi ðtÞd ; ð1Þ nonlinearities that exist in PPI. i¼1 The aim of this article is to show that the emphases of where x (t) and y (t) are the densities of each resource BEF and PPI are complementary and can be merged into a i j i (i ¼ 1,…,N) and consumer species j ( j ¼ 1,…,M) at time general theoretical framework that describes the influence of t. The per capita capture rate of consumer j on resource i is consumer diversity in consumer-resource systems. Here, we b , the assimilation efficiency by which consumer j converts use the terms ÔconsumerÕ and ÔresourceÕ broadly to ij resource into new consumers is c , and the per capita encompass systems such as predators feeding on herbivores, j consumer death rate is d, which is assumed to be the same herbivores feeding on plants, or plants ÔconsumingÕ (i.e. for all species. Although we will refer to the values of x (t) absorbing) nutrients. To highlight the similarities and i and y (t) as densities, they could equally well be considered differences between PPI and BEF studies, we compare j biomasses or any similar measure of abundance or standing systems with two trophic levels, in which the resources have stock. density-dependent dynamics, to systems where non-dynamic To compare systems with one vs. two trophic levels, we resources effectively render a single trophic level of use two different equations to describe resources. For consumers. The former is the mainstay of PPI studies, resources having density-dependent dynamics, such as whereas the latter is typical of BEF studies of plants would occur in two trophic-level (i.e., predator–prey) consuming nutrients (Tilman et al. 1996; Hector et al. 1999) systems, we use or detritivores consuming detritus (Jonsson & Malmqvist "# XM 2000; Duffy et al. 2001; Cardinale et al. 2002). x ðtÞ x ðt þ 1Þ¼x ðtÞ exp r 1 À i À b y ðtÞ ð2Þ We centre our discussion on two related questions. First, i i K ij j how does consumer diversity affect the total density (or j¼1 biomass) of resources? This question has its roots in PPI where r is the intrinsic rate of increase and K is the carrying and biological control where the primary objective is often capacity, both of which are assumed to be the same for all pest suppression. Second, how does consumer diversity resources. For non-dynamic resources producing one influence the combined density (or biomass) of consumers? trophic-level (plant–nutrient) systems, we use This question resonates with the BEF tradition, in which the () production of biomass at the consumer trophic level is XM typically the response variable of interest. We structure our xi ðtÞ¼max R À bij yj ðtÞ; 0 ; ð3Þ discussion around a set of models that illustrate four j¼1 mechanisms through which consumer diversity can influ- where R is the renewal rate assumed to be the same for all ence the combined densities of consumer species and their resources and xi(t) is constrained to be non-negative. In eqn resources: (i) the sampling effect, (ii) resource partitioning, (3) the density of resources is simply that proportion of new (iii) indirect effects caused by intraguild interactions, and resources renewed at each time step that remains following (iv) non-additive effects. Mechanisms (i) and (ii) dominate consumption. Note that resource densities xi(t) are simple the BEF literature, while (iii) and (iv) dominate the PPI functions of consumer densities yj(t); thus, eqn (3) can be literature. Following each model we synthesize ideas from used to remove explicit dependence on resource densities theoretical and empirical studies of PPI and BEF, acknow- from eqn (1) leading to a model with a single trophic level. ledging that our review of the literature is not exhaustive; A key feature of these basic models (eqns 1–3) is that the comprehensive reviews of PPI and BEF as separate per capita population growth rate of any species (or subdisciplines are published elsewhere (Polis et al. 1989; resource) depends on a linear combination of the densities Rosenheim et al. 1995; Johnson et al. 1996; Sih et al. 1998; of the other species with which it interacts. In other words, Schmid et al. 2001; Holt & Loreau 2002). we assume that species have additive effects on per capita population growth rates. In the discussion that follows, we consider several modifications to this basic model that Base models illustrate four different ways in which consumer diversity As we designed the models to provide a scaffolding for the can influence both resource and consumer densities. article, they do not contain the details needed to depict any specific, real system. They do, however, contain many The sampling effect qualitative features that apply broadly across consumer- resource systems. The basic model uses discrete time Lotka- We begin by mathematically describing what is perhaps the Volterra-like equations, with the dynamics of M consumer simplest mechanism by which consumer diversity can species using N different resources given by impact consumer and resource densities. The mechanism Ó2004 Blackwell Publishing Ltd/CNRS 104 A. R. Ives, B. J. Cardinale and W. E. Snyder has been called the ÔsamplingÕ, ÔselectionÕ or Ôselection- species differ in their assimilation efficiencies cj, the most probabilityÕ effect in the BEF literature (Huston 1997; successful consumer is the species that most efficiently Tilman 1999; Fridley 2001; Loreau et al. 2001), and the converts resources into new biomass, ultimately outcom- Ôlottery modelÕ in biological control (Denoth et al. 2002). To peting other species because it achieves a high population illustrate how the mechanism works, consider a scenario in density. This leads to a positive effect of consumer diversity which there is a single resource, and m consumer species are m on consumer density (Fig. 1b). Conversely, if consumers chosen randomly from a pool of M possible consumers. differ in their capture rates, bj, then the competitively Given the assumption that consumers have additive effects superior species is the one that has the greatest per capita on resource abundance, only a single consumer species can impact on resource density.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Effects of a Low Head Dam on a Dominant Detritivore and Detrital Processing in a Headwater Stream
    EFFECTS OF A LOW HEAD DAM ON A DOMINANT DETRITIVORE AND DETRITAL PROCESSING IN A HEADWATER STREAM. A Thesis by BRETT MATTHEW TORNWALL Submitted to the Graduate School Appalachian State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE May 2011 Department of Biology EFFECTS OF A LOW HEAD DAM ON A DOMINANT DETRITIVORE AND DETRITAL PROCESSING IN A HEADWATER STREAM. A Thesis By BRETT MATTHEW TORNWALL May 2011 APPROVED BY: ____________________________________ Robert Creed Chairperson, Thesis Committee ____________________________________ Michael Gangloff Member, Thesis Committee ____________________________________ Michael Madritch Member, Thesis Committee ____________________________________ Steven Seagle Chairperson, Department of Biology ____________________________________ Edelma D. Huntley Dean, Research and Graduate Studies Copyright by Brett Matthew Tornwall 2011 All Rights Reserved FOREWARD The research detailed in this thesis will be submitted to Oikos, an international peer-reviewed journal owned by John Wiley and Sons Inc. and published by the John Wiley and Sons Inc. Press. The thesis has been prepared according to the guidelines of this journal. ABSTRACT EFFECTS OF A LOW HEAD DAM ON A DOMINANT DETRITIVORE AND DETRITAL PROCESSING IN A HEADWATER STREAM. (May 2011) Brett Matthew Tornwall, B.S., University of Florida M.S., Appalachian State University Chairperson: Robert Creed The caddisfly Pycnopsyche gentilis is a dominant detritivore in southern Appalachian streams. A dam on Sims Creek selectively removes P. gentilis from downstream reaches. I evaluated the breakdown of yellow birch leaves in the presence and absence of P. gentilis using a leaf pack breakdown experiment. Leaf packs were placed in reaches above the dam where P. gentilis is present and below the dam where it is essentially absent.
    [Show full text]
  • Coral Reef Food Web ×
    This website would like to remind you: Your browser (Apple Safari 4) is out of date. Update your browser for more × security, comfort and the best experience on this site. Illustration MEDIA SPOTLIGHT Coral Reef Food Web Journey Through the Trophic Levels of a Food Web For the complete illustrations with media resources, visit: http://education.nationalgeographic.com/media/coral-reef-food-web/ A food web consists of all the food chains in a single ecosystem. Each living thing in an ecosystem is part of multiple food chains. Each food chain is one possible path that energy and nutrients may take as they move through the ecosystem. Not all energy is transferred from one trophic level to another. Energy is used by organisms at each trophic level, meaning that only part of the energy available at one trophic level is passed on to the next level. All of the interconnected and overlapping food chains in an ecosystem make up a food web. Similarly, a single organism can serve more than one role in a food web. For example, a queen conch can be both a consumer and a detritivore, or decomposer. Food webs consist of different organism groupings called trophic levels. In this example of a coral reef, there are producers, consumers, and decomposers. Producers make up the first trophic level. A producer, or autotroph, is an organism that can produce its own energy and nutrients, usually through photosynthesis or chemosynthesis. Consumers are organisms that depend on producers or other consumers to get their food, energy, and nutrition. There are many different types of consumers.
    [Show full text]
  • Nature's Garbage Collectors
    R3 Nature’s Garbage Collectors You’ve already learned about producers, herbivores, carnivores and omnivores. Take a moment to think or share with a partner: what’s the difference between those types of organisms? You know about carnivores, which are animals that eat other animals. An example is the sea otter. You’ve also learned about herbivores, which only eat plants. Green sea turtles are herbivores. And you’re very familiar with omnivores, animals that eat both animals and plants. You are probably an omnivore! You might already know about producers, too, which make their food from the sun. Plants and algae are examples of producers. Have you ever wondered what happens to all the waste that everything creates? As humans, when we eat, we create waste, like chicken bones and banana peels. Garbage collectors take this waste to landfills. And after our bodies have taken all the energy and vitamins we need from food, we defecate (poop) the leftovers that we can’t use. Our sewerage systems take care of this waste. But what happens in nature? Sea otters and sea turtles don’t have landfills or toilets. Where does their waste go? There are actually organisms in nature that take care of these leftovers and poop. How? Instead of eating fresh animals or plants, these organisms consume waste to get their nutrients. There are three types of these natural garbage collectors -- scavengers, detritivores, and decomposers. You’ve probably already met (and maybe even eaten) a few of them. Scavengers Scavengers are animals that eat dead, decaying animals and plants.
    [Show full text]
  • And Detritus-Based Food Chain in the Micro-Food Web of an Arable Soil by Plant Removal
    RESEARCH ARTICLE Disentangling the root- and detritus-based food chain in the micro-food web of an arable soil by plant removal Olena Glavatska1, Karolin MuÈ ller2, Olaf Butenschoen3, Andreas Schmalwasser4, Ellen Kandeler2, Stefan Scheu3,5, Kai Uwe Totsche4, Liliane Ruess1* 1 Institute of Biology, Ecology Group, Humboldt-UniversitaÈt zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany, 2 Institute of Soil Science and Land Evaluation, Soil Biology Department, University of Hohenheim, Stuttgart, Germany, 3 J.F. Blumenbach Institute of Zoology and Anthropology, Georg August University of GoÈttingen, GoÈttingen, a1111111111 Germany, 4 Institute of Geosciences, Hydrogeology Section, Friedrich Schiller University of JenaJena, a1111111111 Germany, 5 Centre of Biodiversity and Sustainable Land Use, University of GoÈttingen, GoÈttingen, Germany a1111111111 a1111111111 * [email protected] a1111111111 Abstract Soil food web structure and function is primarily determined by the major basal resources, OPEN ACCESS which are living plant tissue, root exudates and dead organic matter. A field experiment was Citation: Glavatska O, MuÈller K, Butenschoen O, performed to disentangle the interlinkage of the root-and detritus-based soil food chains. An Schmalwasser A, Kandeler E, Scheu S, et al. (2017) arable site was cropped either with maize, amended with maize shoot litter or remained Disentangling the root- and detritus-based food chain in the micro-food web of an arable soil by bare soil, representing food webs depending on roots, aboveground litter and soil organic plant removal. PLoS ONE 12(7): e0180264. https:// matter as predominant resource, respectively. The soil micro-food web, i.e. microorganisms doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0180264 and nematodes, was investigated in two successive years along a depth transect.
    [Show full text]
  • The Role of Microbes in the Nutrition of Detritivorous
    The role of microbes in the nutrition of detritivorous invertebrates: A stoichiometric analysis Thomas Anderson2*, David Pond1, Daniel J. Mayor2 1 2 Natural Environment Research Council, United Kingdom, National Oceanography Centre, United Kingdom Submitted to Journal: Frontiers in Microbiology Specialty Section: Aquatic Microbiology ISSN: 1664-302X Article type: Original Research Article Received on: 07 Nov 2016 Accepted on: 14 Dec 2016 Provisional PDF published on: 14 Dec 2016 Frontiers website link: www.frontiersin.org Citation: Anderson T, Pond D and Mayor DJ(2016) The role of microbes in the nutrition of detritivorous Provisionalinvertebrates: A stoichiometric analysis. Front. Microbiol. 7:2113. doi:10.3389/fmicb.2016.02113 Copyright statement: © 2016 Anderson, Pond and Mayor. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution and reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms. This Provisional PDF corresponds to the article as it appeared upon acceptance, after peer-review. Fully formatted PDF and full text (HTML) versions will be made available soon. Frontiers in Microbiology | www.frontiersin.org 1 1 The role of microbes in the nutrition of detritivorous 2 invertebrates: A stoichiometric analysis 3 4
    [Show full text]
  • Weeds Mediate the Level of Intraguild Predation in Arthropod Food Webs P
    J. Appl. Entomol. ORIGINAL CONTRIBUTION Weeds mediate the level of intraguild predation in arthropod food webs P. Tixier1,2, D. Dagneaux1, G. Mollot1, F. Vinatier1,3 & P-F. Duyck1,4 1 CIRAD, UPR 26, Martinique, France 2 Departamento de Agricultura y Agroforesteria, CATIE, Turrialba, Costa Rica 3 INRA, UMR1221 LISAH, Montpellier Cedex, France 4 CIRAD, UMR PVBMT, CIRAD/UniversitedeLaR eunion, Pole^ de Protection des Plantes, La Reunion, France Keywords Abstract banana agroecosystem, diet flexibility, omnivory Intraguild predation, which is common for generalist predators, is a specific form of omnivory that may suppress the biological control of a pest. The Correspondence dietary flexibility of a given organism depends on the choice of the C3 Philippe Tixier (corresponding author), CIRAD, (banana crop) and the C4 (weeds) pathways they use and on the trophic UPR 26, Quartier Petit Morne, BP 214, F-97285 level on which they feed. Understanding the conditions in which intraguild Le Lamentin, Martinique, France. E-mail: predation decreases biological control is a major issue in agroecosystems. [email protected] We tested whether the contribution of different primary producer path- Received: November 10, 2012; accepted: ways in diets of generalist predators mediates the level of intraguild preda- April 1, 2013. tion. We studied 10 agroecosystems in which banana plants (C3 metabolism) were diversely associated with weeds (C4 metabolism). Diver- doi: 10.1111/jen.12060 sity in litter macrofauna was relatively low, with a mean between three and eight species per trap. Measurement of stable isotopes showed a signifi- cant decrease in the d15N values of generalist predators when the C4 path- way contributed more than the C3 pathway to their diet.
    [Show full text]
  • Title: the Detritus-Based Microbial-Invertebrate Food Web
    1 Title: 2 3 The detritus-based microbial-invertebrate food web contributes disproportionately 4 to carbon and nitrogen cycling in the Arctic 5 6 7 8 Authors: 9 Amanda M. Koltz1*, Ashley Asmus2, Laura Gough3, Yamina Pressler4 and John C. 10 Moore4,5 11 1. Department of Biology, Washington University in St. Louis, Box 1137, St. 12 Louis, MO 63130 13 2. Department of Biology, University of Texas at Arlington, Arlington, TX 14 76109 15 3. Department of Biological Sciences, Towson University, Towson, MD 16 21252 17 4. Natural Resource Ecology Laboratory, Colorado State University, Ft. 18 Collins, CO 80523 USA 19 5. Department of Ecosystem Science and Sustainability, Colorado State 20 University, Ft. Collins, CO 80523 USA 21 *Correspondence: Amanda M. Koltz, tel. 314-935-8794, fax 314-935-4432, 22 e-mail: [email protected] 23 24 25 26 Type of article: 27 Submission to Polar Biology Special Issue on “Ecology of Tundra Arthropods” 28 29 30 Keywords: 31 Food web structure, energetic food web model, nutrient cycling, C mineralization, 32 N mineralization, invertebrate, Arctic, tundra 33 1 34 Abstract 35 36 The Arctic is the world's largest reservoir of soil organic carbon and 37 understanding biogeochemical cycling in this region is critical due to the potential 38 feedbacks on climate. However, our knowledge of carbon (C) and nitrogen (N) 39 cycling in the Arctic is incomplete, as studies have focused on plants, detritus, 40 and microbes but largely ignored their consumers. Here we construct a 41 comprehensive Arctic food web based on functional groups of microbes (e.g., 42 bacteria and fungi), protozoa, and invertebrates (community hereafter referred to 43 as the invertebrate food web) residing in the soil, on the soil surface and within 44 the plant canopy from an area of moist acidic tundra in northern Alaska.
    [Show full text]
  • Coral Reef Food Web
    R E S O U R C E L I B R A R Y A RT I C L E Coral Reef Food Web Illustration Gallery. Investigate the trophic levels of a coral reef food web. G R A D E S 3 - 12+ S U B J E C T S Biology, Ecology, Earth Science, Oceanography C O N T E N T S 7 Images, 1 PDF For the complete illustrations with media resources, visit: http://www.nationalgeographic.org/media/coral-reef-food-web/ A food web consists of all the food chains in a single ecosystem. Each living thing in an ecosystem is part of multiple food chains. Each food chain is one possible path that energy and nutrients may take as they move through the ecosystem. Not all energy is transferred from one trophic level to another. Energy is used by organisms at each trophic level, meaning that only part of the energy available at one trophic level is passed on to the next level. All of the interconnected and overlapping food chains in an ecosystem make up a food web. Similarly, a single organism can serve more than one role in a food web. For example, a queen conch can be both a consumer and a detritivore, or decomposer. Food webs consist of different organism groupings called trophic levels. In this example of a coral reef, there are producers, consumers, and decomposers. Producers make up the first trophic level. A producer, or autotroph, is an organism that can produce its own energy and nutrients, usually through photosynthesis or chemosynthesis.
    [Show full text]
  • Trophic Basis of Production of Stream Detritivores Shifts with Reduced Forest Inputs
    Hydrobiologia (2020) 847:3091–3101 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-020-04317-8 (0123456789().,-volV)( 0123456789().,-volV) PRIMARY RESEARCH PAPER Trophic basis of production of stream detritivores shifts with reduced forest inputs Susan L. Eggert . J. Bruce Wallace . Judy L. Meyer . Jackson R. Webster Received: 25 September 2019 / Revised: 23 May 2020 / Accepted: 27 May 2020 / Published online: 6 June 2020 Ó This is a U.S. government work and not under copyright protection in the U.S.; foreign copyright protection may apply 2020 Abstract Estimating changes in organic matter flow declined after 3 years of litter exclusion. After wood from resource to consumer using trophic basis of removal, production of detritivores declined again. production (TBP) is a way to examine resource Steepest declines in Pycnopsyche gentilis production limitation effects on ecosystem function. We exam- occurred within year 1. Tipula spp. and Tallaperla spp. ined diet shifts and production of insect detritivores to production declined after wood removal. Diets shifted assess changes with reduced detrital inputs to a from leaves to wood to fine particulate organic matter forested headwater stream. Organic matter was (FPOM) for Tipula spp. and Tallaperla spp., but not excluded for 7 years using a canopy net. Small and for P. gentilis. Resource flows to detritivores shifted in large wood were removed from the stream after the 3rd the exclusion stream from leaves to wood to FPOM and 5th year, respectively. Detritivore production after leaf standing crops declined and wood removal. Small wood was an important food resource. TBP results showed shifts in food resource use by two Handling editor: Marcelo S.
    [Show full text]
  • Intraguild Predation of Orius Tristicolor by Geocoris Spp. and the Paradox of Irruptive Spider Mite Dynamics in California Cotton
    Biological Control 32 (2005) 172–179 www.elsevier.com/locate/ybcon Intraguild predation of Orius tristicolor by Geocoris spp. and the paradox of irruptive spider mite dynamics in California cotton Jay A. Rosenheim¤ Department of Entomology, University of California, One Shields Avenue, Davis, CA 95616, United States Received 12 May 2004; accepted 15 September 2004 Abstract It is paradoxical when a community of several natural enemies fails to control a pest population when it can be shown experimen- tally that single members of the natural enemy community are eVective control agents when tested individually. This is the case for spider mites, Tetranychus spp., in California cotton. Spider mites exhibit irruptive population dynamics despite that fact that experi- ments have shown that there are at least four predators (Galendromus occidentalis, Frankliniella occidentalis, Orius tristicolor, and Geocoris spp.) that, when tested singly, can suppress mite populations. One possible explanation for the paradox is intraguild preda- tion, wherein one predator consumes another. Here, I evaluate the hypothesis that intraguild predation is a strong interaction among spider mite predators. I report manipulative Weld experiments, focal observations of freely foraging predators in the Weld, and popu- lation survey data that suggest that the minute pirate bug O. tristicolor, is subject to strong predation by other members of the pred- ator community, and in particular by Geocoris spp. These results, combined with the results of prior work, suggest that pervasive intraguild predation among spider mite predators may explain the pest status of Tetranychus spp. in cotton. 2004 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Keywords: Intraguild predation; Predator–predator interactions; Herbivore population suppression; Spider mites; Orius tristicolor; Geocoris pallens; Geocoris punctipes; Tetranychus spp.; Chrysoperla spp.; Nabis spp.; Zelus renardii 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Detritivore Diversity Or Dominant Species: What Drives Detrital Processing?
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by The University of North Carolina at Greensboro DETRITIVORE DIVERSITY OR DOMINANT SPECIES: WHAT DRIVES DETRITAL PROCESSING? A Thesis by MARK ALAN ROLLINS Submitted to the Graduate School Appalachian State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE August 2010 Department of Biology DETRITIVORE DIVERSITY OR DOMINANT SPECIES: WHAT DRIVES DETRITAL PROCESSING? A Thesis by MARK ALAN ROLLINS August 2010 APPROVED BY: Robert Creed Chairperson, Thesis Committee Michael Gangloff Member, Thesis Committee Lynn Siefferman Member, Thesis Committee Steven Seagle Chairperson, Department of Biology Edelma Huntley Dean, Research and Graduate Studies Copyright by Mark Alan Rollins 2010 All Rights Reserved ABSTRACT DETRITIVORE DIVERSITY OR DOMINANT SPECIES: WHAT DRIVES DETRITAL PROCESSING? (August 2010) Mark Alan Rollins, B.S., Wingate University M.S., Appalachian State University Chairperson: Robert Creed Researchers have been assessing the role that biodiversity plays in maintaining ecosystem functioning for almost two decades. Previous research suggested that a dominant species (the caddisfly Pycnopsyche gentilis) and not detritivore diversity determined leaf breakdown in a southern Appalachian stream. However, in these previous studies the effects of other large detritivores (the stonefly Tallaperla and the crane fly Tipula) could not be directly compared to that of Pycnopsyche. Here I report the results of a field experiment in which I created monocultures of these three species as well as 2- and 3-species combinations and examined their effect on leaf breakdown. This experimental design allowed me to determine if these other taxa facilitated the effect of Pycnopsyche, inhibited it, or had no effect whatsoever.
    [Show full text]
  • Lesson 2 Everybody Has a Role in a Coral Reef
    G5 U1 LOVR2 Everybody Has a Role in a Coral Reef LESSON 2 Lesson at a Glance Students will examine coral reef ecosystems and identify different animals, plants and bacteria that live there. They will determine the roles different organisms play and defi ne food chains and food webs found within the coral reef ecosystem. Lesson Duration One 45-minute period Related HCPSIII Benchmark(s): Essential Question(s) Science SC 5.2.1 What are the roles organisms play in a coral reef ecosystem? Use models or simulations How does energy fl ow and matter cycle within a coral reef ecosystem? to represent and investigate features of objects, events and Key Concepts processes in the real world. • A coral reef ecosystem has a variety of plants, animals and bacteria Science SC. 5.3.1 that live together. These organisms have specifi c roles in the Describe the cycle of energy functioning of the coral reef ecosystem. among producers, consumers, • Food chains and food webs are diagrams scientists use to visualize and decomposers the feeding relationships of organisms in an ecosystem. In a food Science SC.5.3.2 chain you will fi nd herbivores, carnivores, omnivores, detritivores, Describe the interdependent and predator/prey relationships connected with the arrows. relationships among producers, • The direction of the arrows in a food chain diagram refl ects the consumers, & decomposers in an ecosystem in terms of the fl ow of energy among organisms in the reef ecosystem. cycles of matter. • Matter cycles as producers, consumers, and decomposers interact in the reef ecosystem. Instructional Objectives • I can create a food chain using images of coral reef organisms.
    [Show full text]