1 / 22

Indirect Effects in and on Communities

Indirect Effects in and on Communities. Main Categories Primary Mechanisms Detection  Experimental Design and Statistical Analysis Apparent Competition in Nature?. Hierarchy of Higher-Order Interactions. 1st-order interactions involving 2 species

lewis
Download Presentation

Indirect Effects in and on Communities

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Indirect Effects in and on Communities • Main Categories • Primary Mechanisms • Detection  Experimental Design and Statistical Analysis • Apparent Competition in Nature?

  2. Hierarchy of Higher-Order Interactions • 1st-order interactions involving 2 species • direct effects (e.g., competition, predation) • additive • 2nd-order interactions involving 3 species • most reported indirect effects including mutualisms • non-additive • “Higher-order” interactions involving 3 or more species. • rarely documented • non-additive

  3. Scenarios of 2nd-Order Indirect Effects:Apparent Competition • One scenario • presence of a non-competing prey species (R1) increases predation pressure by consumer (C) on R2 (i.e. R1 subsidizes predation by C on R2) • Alternate scenario • selective predation of R2 by C suppresses R2 more than R1. • Third scenario - selective predation of R2 by C stimulates R1 by increasing its resource availability • = apparent competition?

  4. Apparent Competition vs Apparent Mutualism • Apparent Competition • A species negatively affects another via a shared enemy (i.e. predator). • Interspecific competition is not required. • Apparent Mutualism • A species positively affects another via a shared enemy • mutualism not required. +

  5. Scenarios of Higher-Order Indirect Effects:Apparent Mutualism • One scenario • Consumers (C1 and C2) each show selective predation, which enhances prey availability for both by suppressing competition between prey (R1 vs R2). • Alternate scenario • Consumers (C1 and C2) each prey selectively on different non-competing species (R1 or R2). • = potentially apparent mutualism?

  6. Density-Dependent Indirect Effects • Indirect effect = “donor” species (C ) affects a “receiver” species (B) via its effect on a “transmitter” species (A). • indirect effects = dashed vectors • direct effects = solid vectors • Magnitude of effect is each species shown by change in size of nodes. • Category of indirect effect  “interaction chain indirect effect” • = a density-dependent change in abundance of the transmitter species (A).

  7. Density-Independent Indirect Effects • Category of indirect effect  “Interaction Modification Indirect Effect” • = indirect effect of C on B via modifying some trait of the transmitter species (A). • no net change in abundance of A. • = Non-density dependent, per-capita effect by C on B • i.e. A Trait Mediated Interaction (TMIs)

  8. R D T Experimental Detection of Indirect Effects I -5 -4 • Indirect or Non-Additive Model = Donor species modifies the effect of the Transmitter species on a Receiver species. • Here, combined impact of species D + T is greater than the sum of their individual effects on R. • D amplifies the effect of T • e.g., commenalism or mutualism • Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) results • significant interaction (D x T) • ignore significance of direct effects of D and T +

  9. R D T Experimental Detection of Indirect Effects II +2 -4 • Here, a non-additive model shows that the combined impact of D and T is less than the sum of their individual effects on R. • D antagonizes the negative effect of T on R • competition or predation? • Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) results • significant interaction (D x T) • ignore significance of direct effects of D and T -

  10. R D T -2 -4 Experimental Detection of Direct Effects • Direct or Additive Model = Each species exerts an independent effect on a target species. • Combined impact of species D + T equals the sum of their individual effects on species R. • Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) results • no significant interaction (D x T) • significant direct effect of D • significant direct effect of T

  11. How Prevalent is Apparent Competition in Nature? • Hypothesized environmental factors affecting apparent competition • A mathematical model • Field experiments -

  12. Where is Apparent Competition Expected to Exist? • Low-diversity ecosystems • strong predator-prey interactions not diluted by complex foodwebs • low prey diversity and densities • = weak density-dependent interspecific competition • High-diversity ecosystems • strong predator-prey interactions owing to high predator densities • specialized prey + abundant resource base • apparent > actual interspecific resource competition

  13. Apparent Competition or Apparent Mutualism? • Abrams et al. (1998) model a 3-species (1 predator + 2 non-competing prey) to test for density- dependent indirect effects. • (+) y = apparent competition • (-) y = apparent mutualism • Apparent competition occurs when • predation pressure is strong. • prey are not checked by resource limitation (large ). • Apparent mutualism replaces apparent competition when • predation pressure is weak • prey are strongly resource-limited (small ).

  14. Apparent Competition in a Highly Productive Tropical Food Web • Morris et al. (2004) asked “do specialist herbivores interact via a shared enemy (i.e. apparent competition)?” • Experimental removal of two species from a community of specialized leaf-mining insects exposed to shared parasites. • Here, parasitoid wasps attack non-competing herbivorous leaf-mining dipterans (flies) and coleopterans (beetles).

  15. Potential for Apparent Competition - Parasitoid Wasps Shared by Leaf-Miner Species • Morris et al. (2004)  84 parasitoid wasp species attack a total of 93 herbivorous insects (linkage size = strength of interaction). • Shared enemies among leaf-mining fly larvae dipterans shown in orange. • Shared enemies among leaf-mining beetles shown in blue.

  16. Experimental Removal of Host Plant and Leaf-Miners • Experimental removal of the tree species that hosts both the dipteran (Calcomyza) and beetle (Pentispa). • removal of these two species should stimulate other leaf-mining that share enemy but inhabit other tree species • Removal of these two species reduced parasitism of other leaf-miners species (no effect, odds ratio = 1).

  17. Long-Term Biomass Response • Removal of flies had a greater impact on the total abundance of other dipterans than did removal of the beetle from coleopteran biomass. • Confounding effects of experimental manipulation? • host plant only constituted 0.01% of total biomass in experimental plots. • Does apparent competition lead to the eventual extinction of a prey species, or promote co-existence?

  18. Cross-Ecosystem Prey Subsidies and Apparent Competition _ _ ?

  19. Indirect Positive Effect of Aquatic Prey on Terrestrial Prey Species • Sabo and Power (2002) report that shielding of forest plots (S) from aquatic invertebrates amplifies the predatory effect of lizards on ground-dwelling insects and spiders (Arctosa). • In other words, aquatic insects subsidize lizards’ diets, releasing terrestrial prey from predation pressure. • Given • 1) non-competing prey • 2) positive effect of aquatic prey on terrestrial prey • 3) potentially no effect of terrestrial prey on aquatic species • apparent ........................?

  20. Do Shared Predators Have Negative, Positive, or Neutral Effects on Prey Species? _ _ ?

  21. Positive Indirect Effect of a Shared Predator • a,c) Webster and Almany (2002) show presence of Cardinal fish stimulated recruitment and final abundance of other prey fish species (e.g., damsel fish) • piscivorous Chocolate Cod fed more heavily on Cardinal fish, releasing other prey species from predation pressure. • b) No direct effect of cardinalfish on mortality of other prey fish, nor did these species affect cardinalfish. • Apparent ....................?

  22. Take-Home Messages • Increasing higher-order species interactions = more complex non-additive indirect effects involving several species. • Indirect effects are density-dependent or density-independent. • Indirect effects can vary in magnitude and direction across different communities.

More Related