Humans Strengthen Bottom-Up Effects and Weaken Trophic Cascades in a Terrestrial Food Web

Ongoing debate about whether food webs are primarily regulated by predators or by primary plant productivity, cast as top-down and bottom-up effects, respectively, may becoming superfluous. Given that most of the world's ecosystems are human dominated we broadened this dichotomy by considering human effects in a terrestrial food-web. We studied a multiple human-use landscape in southwest Alberta, Canada, as opposed to protected areas where previous terrestrial food-web studies have been conducted. We used structural equation models (SEMs) to assess the strength and direction of relationships between the density and distribution of: (1) humans, measured using a density index; (2) wolves (Canis lupus), elk (Cervus elpahus) and domestic cattle (Bos taurus), measured using resource selection functions, and; (3) forage quality, quantity and utilization (measured at vegetation sampling plots). Relationships were evaluated by taking advantage of temporal and spatial variation in human density, including day versus night, and two landscapes with the highest and lowest human density in the study area. Here we show that forage-mediated effects of humans had primacy over predator-mediated effects in the food web. In our parsimonious SEM, occurrence of humans was most correlated with occurrence of forage (β = 0.637, p<0.0001). Elk and cattle distribution were correlated with forage (elk day: β = 0.400, p<0.0001; elk night: β = 0.369, p<0.0001; cattle day: β = 0.403, p<0.0001; cattle, night: β = 0.436, p<0.0001), and the distribution of elk or cattle and wolves were positively correlated during daytime (elk: β = 0.293, p <0.0001, cattle: β = 0.303, p<0.0001) and nighttime (elk: β = 0.460, p<0.0001, cattle: β = 0.482, p<0.0001). Our results contrast with research conducted in protected areas that suggested human effects in the food web are primarily predator-mediated. Instead, human influence on vegetation may strengthen bottom-up predominance and weaken top-down trophic cascades in ecosystems. We suggest that human influences on ecosystems may usurp top-down and bottom-up effects.

[1]  Bill Shipley,et al.  Cause and Correlation in Biology: A User''s Guide to Path Analysis , 2016 .

[2]  M. Proctor,et al.  ESTIMATING GRIZZLY BEAR DISTRIBUTION AND ABUNDANCE RELATIVE TO HABITAT AND HUMAN INFLUENCE , 2004 .

[3]  Glenn D. Davis.  College Station, Texas , 2011 .

[4]  R. Paine.  Food webs : linkage, interaction strength and community infrastructure , 1980 .

[5]  E. Visalberghi,et al.  Wolf Depredation Trends and the Use of Fladry Barriers to Protect Livestock in Western North America , 2003 .

[6]  J. Bailey,et al.  Responses of National Park Elk to Human Activity , 1978 .

[7]  W. Ripple,et al.  Trophic cascades among wolves, elk and aspen on Yellowstone National Park’s northern range , 2001 .

[8]  M. Boyce,et al.  Evaluating resource selection functions , 2002 .

[9]  Bruce D. Smith.  The Ultimate Ecosystem Engineers , 2007, Science.

[10]  G. Likens,et al.  Technical Report: Human Alteration of the Global Nitrogen Cycle: Sources and Consequences , 1997 .

[11]  James B. Grace,et al.  Structural Equation Modeling and Natural Systems , 2006 .

[12]  E. K. Pikitch,et al.  Trophic Downgrading of Planet Earth , 2011, Science.

[13]  M. Adamič,et al.  Predation has a greater impact in less productive environments: variation in roe deer, Capreolus capreolus, population density across Europe , 2009 .

[14]  Tim W. Clark,et al.  Carnivores in Ecosystems: The Yellowstone Experience , 2002 .

[15]  R. Powell,et al.  An Evaluation of the Accuracy of Kernel Density Estimators for Home Range Analysis , 1996 .

[16]  Christopher C. Wilmers,et al.  Human predators outpace other agents of trait change in the wild , 2009, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[17]  R. Hall,et al.  Remote sensing and forest inventory for wildlife habitat assessment , 2009 .

[18]  Mark S Boyce,et al.  Correlation and studies of habitat selection: problem, red herring or opportunity? , 2010, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[19]  S. Carpenter,et al.  Global Consequences of Land Use , 2005, Science.

[20]  Mark Hebblewhite,et al.  Modelling wildlife–human relationships for social species with mixed‐effects resource selection models , 2007 .

[21]  N. Pettorelli,et al.  Using the satellite-derived NDVI to assess ecological responses to environmental change. , 2005, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[22]  RYAN M. NIELSON,et al.  Winter Habitat Selection of Mule Deer Before and During Development of a Natural Gas Field , 2006 .

[23]  E. Bork,et al.  Viewpoint: Implications of spatial variability for estimating forage use , 1999 .

[24]  D. Ludwig,et al.  Conservation in the real world. , 2000, Science.

[25]  A. Barnosky,et al.  Assessing the Causes of Late Pleistocene Extinctions on the Continents , 2004, Science.

[26]  S. Lele.  A New Method for Estimation of Resource Selection Probability Function , 2009 .

[27]  M. Naeth,et al.  Grass utilization and grazing distribution within intensively managed fields in central Alberta , 1995 .

[28]  E. Kelloway.  Using LISREL for Structural Equation Modeling: A Researcher′s Guide , 1998 .

[29]  Chris J. Johnson,et al.  Resource Selection Functions Based on Use–Availability Data: Theoretical Motivation and Evaluation Methods , 2006 .

[30]  G. Polis,et al.  Why Are Parts of the World Green? Multiple Factors Control Productivity and the Distribution of Biomass , 1999 .

[31]  C. Krebs,et al.  Impact of Food and Predation on the Snowshoe Hare Cycle , 1995, Science.

[32]  M. Hebblewhite,et al.  HUMAN ACTIVITY MEDIATES A TROPHIC CASCADE CAUSED BY WOLVES , 2005, Ecology.

[33]  M. Hebblewhite,et al.  Differential risk effects of wolves on wild versus domestic prey have consequences for conservation , 2010 .