Intraguild predation

Last updated
Rolf Peterson investigating the carcass of a coyote killed by a wolf in Yellowstone National Park, January 1996 Wolfkilledcoyote.jpg
Rolf Peterson investigating the carcass of a coyote killed by a wolf in Yellowstone National Park, January 1996

Intraguild predation, or IGP, is the killing and sometimes eating of a potential competitor of a different species. [1] [2] [3] This interaction represents a combination of predation and competition, because both species rely on the same prey resources and also benefit from preying upon one another. Intraguild predation is common in nature and can be asymmetrical, in which one species feeds upon the other, or symmetrical, in which both species prey upon each other. [1] Because the dominant intraguild predator gains the dual benefits of feeding and eliminating a potential competitor, IGP interactions can have considerable effects on the structure of ecological communities.

Contents

Types

Intraguild predation can be classified as asymmetrical or symmetrical. In asymmetrical interactions one species consistently preys upon the other, while in symmetrical interactions both species prey equally upon each other. [1] Intraguild predation can also be age structured, in which case the vulnerability of a species to predation is dependent on age and size, so only juveniles or smaller individuals of one of the predators are fed upon by the other. [1] A wide variety of predatory relationships are possible depending on the symmetry of the interaction and the importance of age structure. IGP interactions can range from predators incidentally eating parasites attached to their prey to direct predation between two apex predators. [1]

Ecology of intraguild predation

Intraguild predation is common in nature and widespread across communities and ecosystems. [2] Intraguild predators must share at least one prey species and usually occupy the same trophic guild, and the degree of IGP depends on factors such as the size, growth, and population density of the predators, as well as the population density and behavior of their shared prey. [1] When creating theoretical models for intraguild predation, the competing species are classified as the "top predator" or the "intermediate predator," (the species more likely to be preyed upon). In theory, intraguild predation is most stable if the top predator benefits strongly from killing off or feeding on the intermediate predator, and if the intermediate predator is a better competitor for the shared prey resource. [3]

The ecological effects of intraguild predation include direct effects on the survival and distribution of the competing predators, as well as indirect effects on the abundance and distribution of prey species and other species within the community. Because they are so common, IGP interactions are important in structuring communities. [2] Intraguild predation may actually benefit the shared prey species by lowering overall predation pressure, particularly if the intermediate predator consumes more of the shared prey. [4] Intraguild predation can also dampen the effects of trophic cascades by providing redundancy in predation: if one predator is removed from the ecosystem, the other is still consuming the same prey species. [5] [6] Asymmetrical IGP can be a particularly strong influence on habitat selection. Often, intermediate predators will avoid otherwise optimal habitat because of the presence of the top predator. [7] Behavioral changes in intermediate predator distribution due to increased risk of predation can influence community structure more than direct mortality caused by the top predators. [8]

Examples

Terrestrial

Intraguild predation is well documented in terrestrial arthropods such as insects and arachnids. [9] [10] Hemipteran insects and larval lacewings both prey upon aphids, but the competing predators can cause high enough mortality among the lacewings to effectively relieve predation upon the aphids. [9] Several species of centipede are considered to be intraguild predators. [10]

Among the most dramatic examples of intraguild predation are those between large mammalian carnivores. Large canines and felines are the mammal groups most often involved in IGP, with larger species such as lions and gray wolves preying upon smaller species such as foxes and cheetah. [11] In North America, coyotes function as intraguild predators of gray foxes and bobcats, and may exert a strong influence over the population and distribution of gray foxes. [12] However, in areas where wolves have been reintroduced, coyotes become an intermediate predator and experience increased mortality and a more restricted range. [13]

Aquatic and marine

Intraguild predation is also important in aquatic and marine ecosystems. As top predators in most marine environments, sharks show strong IGP interactions, both between species of sharks and with other top predators like toothed whales. In tropical areas where multiple species of sharks may have significantly overlapping diets, the risk of injury or predation can determine the local range and available prey resources for different species. [14] Large pelagic species such as blue and mako sharks are rarely observed feeding in the same areas as great white sharks, and the presence of white sharks will prevent other species from scavenging on whale carcasses. [15] Intraguild predation between sharks and toothed whales usually involves large sharks preying upon dolphins and porpoises while also competing with them for fish prey, but orcas reverse this trend by preying upon large sharks while competing for large fish and seal prey. [16] Intraguild predation can occur in freshwater systems as well. For example, invertebrate predators such as insect larvae and predatory copepods and cladocerans can act as intraguild prey, with planktivorous fish the interguild predator and herbivorous zooplankton acting as the basal resource. [5]

Importance to management and conservation

The presence and intensity of intraguild predation is important to both management and conservation of species. [8] [13] [17] Human influence on communities and ecosystems can affect the balance of these interactions, and the direct and indirect effects of IGP may have economic consequences.

Fisheries managers have only recently begun to understand the importance of intraguild predation on the availability of fish stocks as they attempt to move towards ecosystem-based management. IGP interactions between sharks and seals may prevent seals from feeding in areas where commercially important fish species are abundant, which may indirectly make more of these fish available to fishermen. [18] However, IGP may also negatively influence fisheries. Intraguild predation by spiny dogfish and various skate species on economically important fishes like cod and haddock have been cited as a possible reason for the slow recovery of the groundfish fishery in the western North Atlantic. [17]

Intraguild predation is also an important consideration for restoring ecosystems. Because the presence of top predators can so strongly affect the distribution and abundance of both intermediate predator and prey species, efforts to either restore or control predator populations can have significant and often unintended ecological consequences. In Yellowstone National Park, the reintroduction of wolves caused them to become intraguild predators of coyotes, which had far-reaching effects on both the animal and plant communities in the park. [13] Intraguild predation is an important ecological interaction, and conservation and management measures will need to take it into consideration. [8]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Theoretical ecology</span>

Theoretical ecology is the scientific discipline devoted to the study of ecological systems using theoretical methods such as simple conceptual models, mathematical models, computational simulations, and advanced data analysis. Effective models improve understanding of the natural world by revealing how the dynamics of species populations are often based on fundamental biological conditions and processes. Further, the field aims to unify a diverse range of empirical observations by assuming that common, mechanistic processes generate observable phenomena across species and ecological environments. Based on biologically realistic assumptions, theoretical ecologists are able to uncover novel, non-intuitive insights about natural processes. Theoretical results are often verified by empirical and observational studies, revealing the power of theoretical methods in both predicting and understanding the noisy, diverse biological world.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Predation</span> Biological interaction where a predator kills and eats a prey organism

Predation is a biological interaction where one organism, the predator, kills and eats another organism, its prey. It is one of a family of common feeding behaviours that includes parasitism and micropredation and parasitoidism. It is distinct from scavenging on dead prey, though many predators also scavenge; it overlaps with herbivory, as seed predators and destructive frugivores are predators.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ecological niche</span> Fit of a species living under specific environmental conditions

In ecology, a niche is the match of a species to a specific environmental condition. It describes how an organism or population responds to the distribution of resources and competitors and how it in turn alters those same factors. "The type and number of variables comprising the dimensions of an environmental niche vary from one species to another [and] the relative importance of particular environmental variables for a species may vary according to the geographic and biotic contexts".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Keystone species</span> Species with a large effect on its environment

A keystone species is a species that has a disproportionately large effect on its natural environment relative to its abundance, a concept introduced in 1969 by the zoologist Robert T. Paine. Keystone species play a critical role in maintaining the structure of an ecological community, affecting many other organisms in an ecosystem and helping to determine the types and numbers of various other species in the community. Without keystone species, the ecosystem would be dramatically different or cease to exist altogether. Some keystone species, such as the wolf, are also apex predators.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Biological interaction</span> Effect that organisms have on other organisms

In ecology, a biological interaction is the effect that a pair of organisms living together in a community have on each other. They can be either of the same species, or of different species. These effects may be short-term, or long-term, both often strongly influence the adaptation and evolution of the species involved. Biological interactions range from mutualism, beneficial to both partners, to competition, harmful to both partners. Interactions can be direct when physical contact is established or indirect, through intermediaries such as shared resources, territories, ecological services, metabolic waste, toxins or growth inhibitors. This type of relationship can be shown by net effect based on individual effects on both organisms arising out of relationship.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Apex predator</span> Predator at the top of a food chain

An apex predator, also known as a top predator, is a predator at the top of a food chain, without natural predators of its own.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Competition (biology)</span> Interaction where the fitness of one organism is lowered by the presence of another organism

Competition is an interaction between organisms or species in which both require a resource that is in limited supply. Competition lowers the fitness of both organisms involved since the presence of one of the organisms always reduces the amount of the resource available to the other.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Humpback smooth-hound</span> Species of shark

The humpback smooth-hound is a species of houndshark and a part of the family Triakidae.The most noticeable difference between Mustelus whitneyi and its relatives, is the slight curvature, causing a "humpback" appearance located in front of its primary dorsal fin. It is found on the continental shelves of the tropical southeast Pacific, from Peru to southern Chile, between latitudes 3° S and 54° S. These sharks are demersal feeders but range from depths between 15 and 210 metres. Humpback smooth-hound sharks are small sharks, reaching a maximum size of 118cm in total length. Mustelus whitneyi typically feed on teleosts and invertebrates in the benthic and pelagic ecosystems, most important prey being the peruvian anchovy. These humpback smooth-hound sharks are placental viviparious sharks, meaning that the embryo forms inside the mother tethered by the placental cord. The threats currently causing population decline to humpback smooth-hound sharks surround issues with local fisheries and management.

Trophic cascades are powerful indirect interactions that can control entire ecosystems, occurring when a trophic level in a food web is suppressed. For example, a top-down cascade will occur if predators are effective enough in predation to reduce the abundance, or alter the behavior of their prey, thereby releasing the next lower trophic level from predation.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Community (ecology)</span> Associated populations of species in a given area

In ecology, a community is a group or association of populations of two or more different species occupying the same geographical area at the same time, also known as a biocoenosis, biotic community, biological community, ecological community, or life assemblage. The term community has a variety of uses. In its simplest form it refers to groups of organisms in a specific place or time, for example, "the fish community of Lake Ontario before industrialization".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Mesopredator release hypothesis</span> Ecological theory

The mesopredator release hypothesis is an ecological theory used to describe the interrelated population dynamics between apex predators and mesopredators within an ecosystem, such that a collapsing population of the former results in dramatically increased populations of the latter. This hypothesis describes the phenomenon of trophic cascade in specific terrestrial communities.

Ecological extinction is "the reduction of a species to such low abundance that, although it is still present in the community, it no longer interacts significantly with other species".

An ecological network is a representation of the biotic interactions in an ecosystem, in which species (nodes) are connected by pairwise interactions (links). These interactions can be trophic or symbiotic. Ecological networks are used to describe and compare the structures of real ecosystems, while network models are used to investigate the effects of network structure on properties such as ecosystem stability.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Mesocarnivore</span> Organism that eats mostly animal tissue

A mesocarnivore is an animal whose diet consists of 50–70% meat with the balance consisting of non-vertebrate foods which may include insects, fungi, fruits, other plant material and any food that is available to them. Mesocarnivores are from a large family group of mammalian carnivores and vary from small to medium sized, which are less than fifteen kilograms. Mesocarnivores are seen today among the Canidae, Viverridae (civets), Mustelidae, Procyonidae, Mephitidae (skunks), and Herpestidae. The red fox is also the most common of the mesocarnivores in Europe and has a high population density in the areas they reside.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Planktivore</span> Aquatic organism that feeds on planktonic food

A planktivore is an aquatic organism that feeds on planktonic food, including zooplankton and phytoplankton. Planktivorous organisms encompass a range of some of the planet's smallest to largest multicellular animals in both the present day and in the past billion years; basking sharks and copepods are just two examples of giant and microscopic organisms that feed upon plankton. Planktivory can be an important mechanism of top-down control that contributes to trophic cascades in aquatic and marine systems. There is a tremendous diversity of feeding strategies and behaviors that planktivores utilize to capture prey. Some planktivores utilize tides and currents to migrate between estuaries and coastal waters; other aquatic planktivores reside in lakes or reservoirs where diverse assemblages of plankton are present, or migrate vertically in the water column searching for prey. Planktivore populations can impact the abundance and community composition of planktonic species through their predation pressure, and planktivore migrations facilitate nutrient transport between benthic and pelagic habitats.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Mesopredator</span> Predator that is preyed upon

A Mesopredator is a predator that occupies a mid-ranking trophic level in a food web. There is no standard definition of a mesopredator, but mesopredators are usually medium-sized carnivorous or omnivorous animals, such as raccoons, foxes, or coyotes. They are often defined by contrast from apex predators or prey in a particular food web. Mesopredators typically prey on smaller animals.

Predator–prey reversal is a biological interaction where an organism that is typically prey in the predation interaction instead acts as the predator. A variety of interactions are considered a role reversal. One type is where the prey confronts its predator and the interaction ends with no feeding. Two competing predators may interact and the larger predator will prey on the smaller. Smaller organisms may prey on larger organisms. Changing population densities may trigger a role reversal. In addition, adult prey may attack juvenile predators.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Benthic-pelagic coupling</span> Processes that connect the benthic and pelagic zones of a body of water

Benthic-pelagic coupling are processes that connect the benthic zone and the pelagic zone through the exchange of energy, mass, or nutrients. These processes play a prominent role in both freshwater and marine ecosystems and are influenced by a number of chemical, biological, and physical forces that are crucial to functions from nutrient cycling to energy transfer in food webs.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ecology of fear (concept)</span> Psychological impact induced by predators

The ecology of fear is a conceptual framework describing the psychological impact that predator-induced stress experienced by animals has on populations and ecosystems. Within ecology, the impact of predators has been traditionally viewed as limited to the animals that they directly kill, while the ecology of fear advances evidence that predators may have a far more substantial impact on the individuals that they predate, reducing fecundity, survival and population sizes. To avoid being killed, animals that are preyed upon will employ anti-predator defenses which aid survival but may carry substantial costs.

Eco-evolutionary dynamics refers to the reciprocal effects that ecology and evolution have on each other. The effects of ecology on evolutionary processes are commonly observed in studies, but the realization that evolutionary changes can be rapid led to the emergence of eco-evolutionary dynamics. The idea that evolutionary processes can occur quickly and on one timescale with ecological processes led scientists to begin studying the influence evolution has on ecology along with the affects ecology has on evolution. Recent studies have documented eco-evolutionary dynamics and feedback, which is the cyclic interaction between evolution and ecology, in natural and laboratory systems at different levels of biological organization, such as populations, communities, and ecosystems.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Gary A. Polis; Christopher A. Myers. "THE ECOLOGY AND EVOLUTION OF INTRAGUILD PREDATION: Potential Competitors That Eat Each Other" (PDF). Department of General Biology, Vanderbilt University. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2014-03-08. Retrieved 2014-02-18.
  2. 1 2 3 Matıas Arim & Pablo A. Marquet. "Intraguild predation: a widespread interaction related to species biology" (PDF). Bio.puv.cl. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2014-01-13. Retrieved 2014-02-18.
  3. 1 2 Robert D. Holt; Gary A. Polis. "A Theoretical Framework for Intraguild Predation" (PDF). People.biology.ufl.edu. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2014-03-27. Retrieved 2014-02-18.
  4. ↑ Gary A. Polis & Robert D. Holt (1992). "Intraguild Predation: the dynamics of complex trophic interactions". Trends in Ecology & Evolution. 7 (5): 151–154. doi:10.1016/0169-5347(92)90208-s. PMID   21235990.
  5. 1 2 Deborah R.Hart (2002). "Intraguild Predation, Invertebrate Predators, and Trophic Cascades in Lake Food Webs". Journal of Theoretical Biology. 218 (1): 111–128. Bibcode:2002JThBi.218..111H. doi:10.1006/jtbi.2002.3053. PMID   12297074.
  6. ↑ Deborah L. Finke & Robert F. Denno (2005). "Predator diversity and the functioning of ecosystems: the role of intraguild predation in dampening trophic cascades". Ecology Letters. 8 (12): 1299–1306. doi: 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2005.00832.x .
  7. ↑ Michael R. Heithuas (2001). "Habitat Selection by Predators and Prey in Communities with Asymmetrical Intraguild Predation". Oikos. 92 (3): 542–554. doi:10.1034/j.1600-0706.2001.920315.x. JSTOR   3547171.
  8. 1 2 3 Lawrence M. Dill; Michael R. Heithaus; Carl J. Walters (2003). "Behaviorally Mediated Indirect Interactions in Marine Communities and Their Conservation Implications". Ecology. 84 (5): 1151–1157. doi:10.1890/0012-9658(2003)084[1151:bmiiim]2.0.co;2. JSTOR   3107923.
  9. 1 2 Jay A. Rosenheim; Lawrence R. Wilhoit & Christine A. Armer (1993). "Influence of intraguild predation among generalist insect predators on the suppression of an herbivore population". Oecologia. 96 (3): 439–449. Bibcode:1993Oecol..96..439R. doi:10.1007/BF00317517. PMID   28313662. S2CID   21465593.
  10. 1 2 Cari-Ann Hickerson (1970-01-01). "Edge effects and intraguild predation in native and introduced centipedes: evidence from the field and from laboratory microcosms". Johncarroll.academia.edu. Retrieved 2014-02-18.{{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  11. ↑ F. Palomares & T.M. Claro. "Interspecific Killing among Mammalian Carnivores" (PDF). Ebd.csic.es. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2012-03-21. Retrieved 2014-02-18.
  12. ↑ Jose M. Fedriani; Todd K. Fuller; Raymond M. Sauvajot & Eric C. York (2000). "Competition and intraguild predation among three sympatric carnivores". Oecologia. 125 (2): 258–270. Bibcode:2000Oecol.125..258F. doi:10.1007/s004420000448. hdl: 10261/54628 . PMID   24595837. S2CID   24289407.
  13. 1 2 3 T. Adam Switalski. "Coyote foraging ecology and vigilance in response to gray wolf reintroduction in Yellowstone National Park". Article.pubs.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2004-08-14. Retrieved 2014-02-18.
  14. ↑ Yannis P. Papastamatiou; Bradley M. Wetherbee; Christopher G. Lowe & Gerald L. Crow. "Distribution and diet of four species of carcharhinid shark in the Hawaiian Islands: evidence for resource partitioning and competitive exclusion" (PDF). Uri.edu. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2012-10-05. Retrieved 2014-02-18.
  15. ↑ Harold L. Pratt Jr.; John. G. Casey & Robert B. Conklin. "OBSERVATIONS ON LARGE WHITE SHARKS, CARCHARODON CARCHARIAS, OFF LONG ISLAND, NEW YORK" (PDF). Fishbull,noaa.gov. Retrieved 2014-02-18.
  16. ↑ Michael R. Heithaus (2001). "Predator-prey and competitive interactions between sharks (order Selachii) and dolphins (suborder Odontoceti): a review". Journal of Zoology. 253: 53–68. CiteSeerX   10.1.1.404.130 . doi:10.1017/S0952836901000061 . Retrieved 2014-02-18.
  17. 1 2 Michael J. Fogarty; Steven A. Murawski (1998). "Large-Scale Disturbance and the Structure of Marine Systems : Fishery Impacts on Georges Bank". Ecological Applications. 8: S6–S22. doi: 10.1890/1051-0761(1998)8[s6:ldatso]2.0.co;2 .
  18. ↑ Alejandro Frid; Gregory G. Baker & Lawrence M. Dill (2008). "Do shark declines create fear-released systems?". Oikos. 117 (2): 191–201. doi:10.1111/j.2007.0030-1299.16134.x.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.