Predation of beech seed by mice: Effects of numerical and functional responses

Summary 1. The functional response of post-dispersal seed predators (house mouse, Mus musculus ) to absolute densities of southern beech seed ( Nothofagus solandri var. cliffortioides ) was studied in laboratory and field trials. House mice showed a Type II (hyperbolic) functional response to seed availability and this was not modified by the presence of an alternative food source. 2. Maximum daily intake rate of beech seeds during field trials averaged 1042 seeds mouse − 1 . This is sufficient to provide house mice with both the energy and protein required for growth and reproduction. 3. We explicitly incorporated the functional response into the numerical response of house mice to beech seed, measured for field populations monitored in a New Zealand beech forest. House mice showed a strong numerical response to beech seed intake rate that was modified by some density-dependent mechanism(s). 4. We developed a model that simulated seedfall, house mouse population growth and seed reserve depletion over one year. We found that the previously reported decline in house-mouse populations in beech forests during spring and summer is likely to be related to spring beech seed germination that renders seed no longer available as a food source for house mice. 5. From our simulation model it does not appear that house-mouse populations can completely eat-out beech seed reserves prior to germination in a year of large seedfall. ‘Masting’ behaviour in New Zealand native beech trees is therefore sufficient to satiate an eruptive population of an exotic mammalian omnivore, despite the lack of a long co-evolutionary interaction.

[1]  G. Singleton,et al.  Models for Predicting Plagues of House Mice ( Mus domesticus ) in Australia , 1999 .

[2]  D. Choquenot,et al.  Mouse population eruptions in New Zealand forests: the role of population density and seedfall. , 2000 .

[3]  R. Allen,et al.  Annual seedfall variation in Nothofagus solandri (Fagaceae), Canterbury, New Zealand , 1990 .

[4]  D. Rogers,et al.  Random search and insect population models , 1972 .

[5]  L. Tinbergen.  The natural control of insects in pinewoods. I. Factors influencing the intensity of predation by songbirds , 1960 .

[6]  D. Towns,et al.  Advances in New Zealand mammalogy 1990–2000: Pacific rat , 2001 .

[7]  M. V. Price,et al.  Effects of body size, seed density, and soil characteristics on rates of seed harvest by heteromyid rodents , 1984, Oecologia.

[8]  S. Richardson,et al.  A house mouse (Mus musculus) population eruption in response to rimu (Dacrydium cupressinum) seedfall in southern New Zealand , 2004 .

[9]  Zhibin Zhang,et al.  Effect of rodents on acorn dispersal and survival of the Liaodong oak (Quercus liaotungensis Koidz.) , 2003 .

[10]  D. Janzen.  Seed Predation by Animals , 1971 .

[11]  Charles D. Canham,et al.  NEIGHBORHOOD ANALYSES OF SMALL‐MAMMAL DYNAMICS: IMPACTS ON SEED PREDATION AND SEEDLING ESTABLISHMENT , 2004 .

[12]  D. Choquenot,et al.  Seed production, predators and house mouse populations eruptions in New Zealand beech forests. , 2003 .

[13]  Dr. Karl Theiler.  The House Mouse , 1989, Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

[14]  T. White.  Outbreaks of house mice in Australia: limitation by a key resource , 2002 .

[15]  E. Murphy,et al.  ECOLOGY OF THE STOAT IN NOTHOFAGUS FOREST: HOME RANGE, HABITAT USE AND DIET AT DIFFERENT STAGES OF THE BEECH MAST CYCLE , 1995 .

[16]  H. Akaike,et al.  Information Theory and an Extension of the Maximum Likelihood Principle , 1973 .

[17]  D. Whitehead,et al.  CLIMATE AND NET CARBON AVAILABILITY DETERMINE TEMPORAL PATTERNS OF SEED PRODUCTION BY NOTHOFAGUS , 2005 .

[18]  C. O’Donnell,et al.  Predicting the incidence of mohua predation from the seedfall, mouse, and predator fluctuations in beech forests , 1996 .

[19]  C. S. Holling.  The components of prédation as revealed by a study of small-mammal prédation of the European pine sawfly. , 1959 .

[20]  L. Ginzburg,et al.  The nature of predation: prey dependent, ratio dependent or neither? , 2000, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[21]  Ostfeld,et al.  Pulsed resources and community dynamics of consumers in terrestrial ecosystems. , 2000, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[22]  M. W. Miller,et al.  The ecology of yeast flora associated with cactiphilic Drosophila and their host plants in the Sonoran desert , 1976, Microbial Ecology.

[23]  C. Krebs.  Demographic Changes in Fluctuating Populations of Microtus californicus , 1966 .

[24]  V. S. Ivlev,et al.  Experimental ecology of the feeding of fishes , 1962 .

[25]  C. S. Holling.  The functional response of invertebrate predators to prey density , 1966 .

[26]  Grant Norbury,et al.  Trophic Interactions Among Native and Introduced Animal Species , 2006 .

[27]  David R. Anderson,et al.  Model Selection and Inference: A Practical Information-Theoretic Approach , 2001 .

[28]  Susan K. Wiser,et al.  Strategies to estimate national forest carbon stocks from inventory data: the 1990 New Zealand baseline , 2001 .

[29]  G. Nugent.  Forage availability and the diet of fallow deer (Dama dama) in the Blue Mountains, Otago. , 1990 .

[30]  C. Krebs,et al.  FUNCTIONAL RESPONSES OF COYOTES AND LYNX TO THE SNOWSHOE HARE CYCLE , 1998 .

[31]  D. Choquenot,et al.  Landscape complementation and food limitation of large herbivores: habitat-related constraints on the foraging efficiency of wild pigs , 2003 .

[32]  M. J. Daniel,et al.  Factors affecting the numbers of house mice (Mus musculus) in hard beech (Nothofagus truncata) forest , 1996 .

[33]  P. Bayliss,et al.  The numerical response: rate of increase and food limitation in herbivores and predators. , 2002, Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences.

[34]  Fabian M Jaksic,et al.  Delayed density-dependent and rainfall effects on reproductive parameters of an irruptive rodent in semiarid Chile , 1998 .

[35]  M. Crawley.  Herbivory: the Dynamics of Animal-plant Interactions , 1984 .

[36]  I. Noy‐Meir.  Stability in simple grazing models: effects of explicit functions. , 1978, Journal of theoretical biology.

[37]  G. Singleton,et al.  Abundance estimators and truth: Accounting for individual heterogeneity in wild house mice , 2003 .

[38]  C. Krebs,et al.  Are big mammals simply little mammals writ large? , 1983, Oecologia.

[39]  T. Higham,et al.  Using rat-gnawed seeds to independently date the arrival of Pacific rats and humans in New Zealand , 2004 .

[40]  T. S. Jensen.  Seed production and outbreaks of non-cyclic rodent populations in deciduous forests , 1982, Oecologia.

[41]  Erkki Korpimäki,et al.  Predation and Population Cycles of Small Mammals A reassessment of the predation hypothesis , 1996 .

[42]  Philip E. Hulme,et al.  HERBIVORY, PLANT REGENERATION, AND SPECIES COEXISTENCE , 1996 .

[43]  F. Messier,et al.  UNGULATE POPULATION MODELS WITH PREDATION: A CASE STUDY WITH THE NORTH AMERICAN MOOSE' , 1994 .

[44]  C. King.  THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN BEECH (NOTHOFAGUS SP.) SEEDFALL AND POPULATIONS OF MICE (MUS MUSCULUS), AND THE DEMOGRAPHIC AND DIETARY RESPONSES OF STOATS (MUSTELA ERMINEA), IN THREE NEW ZEALAND FORESTS , 1983 .

[45]  P. Hulme,et al.  Rodent post‐dispersal seed predation in deciduous woodland: predator response to absolute and relative abundance of prey , 1999 .

[46]  M. Hassell.  The dynamics of arthropod predator-prey systems. , 1979, Monographs in population biology.

[47]  C. S. Holling.  Some Characteristics of Simple Types of Predation and Parasitism , 1959, The Canadian Entomologist.

[48]  B. Dale,et al.  Functional response of wolves preying on barren-ground caribou in a multiple-prey ecosystem , 1994 .

[49]  J. F. Gilliam,et al.  FUNCTIONAL RESPONSES WITH PREDATOR INTERFERENCE: VIABLE ALTERNATIVES TO THE HOLLING TYPE II MODEL , 2001 .

[50]  A. Miller.  Ecological energetics of feral house mice (Mus musculus) inhabiting coastal sand dunes , 1999 .

[51]  Dave Kelly,et al.  MAST SEEDING IN PERENNIAL PLANTS: Why, How, Where? , 2002 .

[52]  P. Hulme.  Post-dispersal seed predation: consequences for plant demography and evolution , 1998 .

[53]  A. Newsome.  A POPULATION STUDY OF HOUSE-MICE TEMPORARILY INHABITING A SOUTH AUSTRALIAN WHEATFIELD , 1969 .

[54]  E. Murphy.  THE EFFECTS OF A NATURAL INCREASE IN FOOD SUPPLY ON A WILD POPULATION OF HOUSE MICE , 1992 .

[55]  Jeff Short.  Factors affecting food intake of rangelands herbivores , 1987 .

[56]  Jeff Short.  The functional response of kangaroos, sheep and rabbits in an arid grazing system , 1985 .

[57]  I. Noy-Meir,et al.  Stability of Grazing Systems: An Application of Predator-Prey Graphs , 1975 .

[58]  Per Lundberg,et al.  Functional response of a small mammalian herbivore: the disc equation revisited , 1988 .

[59]  T. Riney,et al.  Lake monk expedition : an ecological study in Southern Fiordland , 1959 .

[60]  J. Parkes,et al.  Setting thresholds for pest control: how does pest density affect resource viability? , 2001 .

[61]  G. Caughley.  Kangaroos: Ecological relationships , 1987 .

[62]  M. V. Price,et al.  CHAPTER 5 – Rodents as Seed Consumers and Dispersers , 1986 .

[63]  G. Caughley,et al.  Kangaroos: Their Ecology and Management in the Sheep Rangelands of Australia. , 1988 .

[64]  C. S. Holling,et al.  The functional response of predators to prey density and its role in mimicry and population regulation. , 1965 .

[65]  W. Heed,et al.  Factors Affecting Host Plant Selection in Desert-Adapted Cactiphilic Drosophila , 1972 .

[66]  M. Bhaskara Rao,et al.  Model Selection and Inference , 2000, Technometrics.

[67]  D. Norton,et al.  Mast seeding over 33 years by Dacrydium cupressinum Lamb. (rimu) (Podocarpaceae) in New Zealand: the importance of economies of scale , 1988 .

[68]  D. Choquenot,et al.  A comparison of population estimates and abundance indices for house mice inhabiting beech forests in New Zealand , 2001 .

[69]  C. Krebs,et al.  Chapter 3 – The Secret World of Wild Mice , 2007 .

[70]  R. Macarthur,et al.  Graphical Representation and Stability Conditions of Predator-Prey Interactions , 1963, The American Naturalist.

[71]  A. Sinclair,et al.  Population regulation in animals , 1989 .

[72]  Joseph Travis,et al.  How can the functional response best be determined? , 2004, Oecologia.

[73]  L. Tinbergen.  The Natural Control of Insects in Pinewoods , 1960 .

[74]  Graeme Caughley,et al.  Wildlife Ecology and Management , 1994 .

[75]  J. Wardle.  The New Zealand beeches: Ecology, utilisation, and management , 1984 .

[76]  B. Jędrzejewska,et al.  Rodent population dynamics in a primeval deciduous forest (Białowieża National Park) in relation to weather, seed crop, and predation , 1993 .

[77]  M. Saunders,et al.  Plant-Provided Food for Carnivorous Insects: a Protective Mutualism and Its Applications , 2009 .

[78]  Stan Boutin,et al.  Predation and Moose Population Dynamics: A Critique , 1992 .

[79]  J. M. Cherrett,et al.  Ecological Concepts: The Contribution of Ecology to an Understanding of the Natural World , 1989 .

[80]  C. Elton,et al.  Natural Control of Animal Populations , 1955, Nature.

[81]  James E. Hines,et al.  Stochastic seasonality and nonlinear density-dependent factors regulate population size in an African rodent , 1997, Nature.

[82]  Jonathan Silvertown,et al.  The evolutionary ecology of mast seeding in trees , 1980 .

[83]  J. Knapka.  Chapter 4 – Nutrition , 1983 .