Functional Responses Shape Node and Network Level Properties of a Simplified Boreal Food Web

Ecological communities are fundamentally connected through a network of trophic interactions that are often complex and difficult to model. Substantial variation exists in the nature and magnitude of these interactions across various predators and prey and through time. However, the empirical data needed to characterize these relationships are difficult to obtain in natural systems, even for relatively simple food webs. Consequently, prey-dependent relationships and specifically the hyperbolic form (Holling’s Type II), in which prey consumption increases with prey density but ultimately becomes saturated or limited by the time spent handling prey, are most widely used albeit often without knowledge of their appropriateness. Here, we investigate the sensitivity of a simplified food web model for a natural, boreal system in the Kluane region of the Yukon, Canada to the type of functional response used. Intensive study of this community has permitted best-fit functional response relationships to be determined, which comprise linear (type I), hyperbolic (type II), sigmoidal (type III), prey- and ratio-dependent relationships, and inverse relationships where kill rates of alternate prey are driven by densities of the focal prey. We compare node- and network-level properties for a food web where interaction strengths are estimated using best-fit functional responses to one where interaction strengths are estimated exclusively using prey-dependent hyperbolic functional responses. We show that hyperbolic functional responses alone fail to capture important ecological interactions such as prey switching, surplus killing and caching, and predator interference, that in turn affect estimates of cumulative kill rates, vulnerability of prey, generality of predators, and connectance. Exclusive use of hyperbolic functional responses also affected trends observed in these metrics over time and underestimated annual variation in several metrics, which is important given that interaction strengths are typically estimated over relatively short time periods. Our findings highlight the need for more comprehensive research aimed at characterizing functional response relationships when modeling predator-prey interactions and food web structure and function, as we work toward a mechanistic understanding linking food web structure and community dynamics in natural systems.

[1]  J. Whittington,et al.  Density estimates for Canada lynx vary among estimation methods , 2021, Ecosphere.

[2]  Damon B. Lesmeister,et al.  The Rapid Rise of Next-Generation Natural History , 2021, Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution.

[3]  Sunil Kumar,et al.  Mathematical analysis of the influence of prey escaping from prey herd on three species fractional predator-prey interaction model , 2021, Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications.

[4]  D. Boukal,et al.  Disentangling the nonlinear effects of habitat complexity on functional responses. , 2021, The Journal of animal ecology.

[5]  M. Loreau,et al.  A macro‐ecological approach to predation density‐dependence , 2021 .

[6]  Takuya Sato,et al.  The effects of resource subsidy duration in a detritus-based stream ecosystem: a mesocosm experiment. , 2021, The Journal of animal ecology.

[7]  G. Englund,et al.  Predator–prey overlap in three dimensions: cod benefit from capelin coming near the seafloor , 2021, Ecography.

[8]  Mark W. Chynoweth,et al.  Spatially Explicit Capture-Recapture Through Camera Trapping: A Review of Benchmark Analyses for Wildlife Density Estimation , 2020, Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution.

[9]  J. Sarasola,et al.  Raptors, doves and fragmented landscapes: Overabundance of native birds elicit numerical and functional responses of avian top predators , 2020 .

[10]  John F. Simms,et al.  The Purr‐fect Catch: Using accelerometers and audio recorders to document kill rates and hunting behaviour of a small prey specialist , 2020, Methods in Ecology and Evolution.

[11]  G. Gauthier,et al.  Derivation of predator functional responses using a mechanistic approach in a natural system , 2020, bioRxiv.

[12]  H. Wittmer,et al.  Predator-mediated allee effects in multi-prey systems. , 2020, Ecology.

[13]  Daniel B. Stouffer,et al.  Systematic bias in studies of consumer functional responses , 2020, bioRxiv.

[14]  J. Delong,et al.  Estimating predator functional responses using the times between prey captures , 2020, bioRxiv.

[15]  Laurel A. Smith,et al.  Multispecies functional responses reveal reduced predation at high prey densities and varied responses among and within trophic groups , 2020 .

[16]  J. Belant,et al.  Identification of carnivore kill sites is improved by verified accelerometer data , 2020, Animal Biotelemetry.

[17]  Wojciech Uszko,et al.  Fitting functional response surfaces to data: a best practice guide , 2020 .

[18]  Michael J. Wisdom,et al.  Evaluating and integrating spatial capture–recapture models with data of variable individual identifiability , 2020, bioRxiv.

[19]  John P. DeLong,et al.  Functional responses are maximized at intermediate temperatures. , 2020, Ecology.

[20]  C. Krebs,et al.  Demography of snowshoe hare population cycles. , 2020, Ecology.

[21]  J. Mills Flemming,et al.  Validation of close‐kin mark–recapture (CKMR) methods for estimating population abundance , 2019, Methods in Ecology and Evolution.

[22]  Olivier Gimenez,et al.  Fitting stochastic predator-prey models using both population density and kill rate data. , 2019, Theoretical population biology.

[23]  Daniel B. Stouffer,et al.  Community dynamics and sensitivity to model structure: towards a probabilistic view of process-based model predictions , 2018, Journal of the Royal Society Interface.

[24]  D. Boukal,et al.  On the use of functional responses to quantify emergent multiple predator effects , 2018, Scientific Reports.

[25]  C. Drovandi,et al.  Sequential experimental design for predator–prey functional response experiments , 2018, Journal of the Royal Society Interface.

[26]  T. Kypraios,et al.  Optimal experimental design for predator–prey functional response experiments , 2018, Journal of The Royal Society Interface.

[27]  Michio Kondoh,et al.  Density-dependent interspecific interactions and the complexity–stability relationship , 2018, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[28]  M. Novak,et al.  What drives interaction strengths in complex food webs? A test with feeding rates of a generalist stream predator , 2018, bioRxiv.

[29]  M. Humphries,et al.  To Everything There Is a Season: Summer-to-Winter Food Webs and the Functional Traits of Keystone Species. , 2017, Integrative and comparative biology.

[30]  S. Boutin,et al.  Improving the assessment of predator functional responses by considering alternate prey and predator interactions. , 2017, Ecology.

[31]  M. Galan,et al.  Metabarcoding for the parallel identification of several hundred predators and their preys: application to bat species diet analysis , 2017, bioRxiv.

[32]  Mark Novak,et al.  Quantifying predator dependence in the functional response of generalist predators. , 2017, Ecology letters.

[33]  Terrie M. Williams,et al.  Energetics‐informed behavioral states reveal the drive to kill in African leopards , 2017 .

[34]  D. E. Spalinger,et al.  Determining kill rates of ungulate calves by brown bears using neck-mounted cameras , 2017 .

[35]  Mark V Bravington,et al.  Absolute abundance of southern bluefin tuna estimated by close-kin mark-recapture , 2016, Nature Communications.

[36]  Dennis L Murray,et al.  Spatial arrangement of prey affects the shape of ratio-dependent functional response in strongly antagonistic predators. , 2016, Ecology.

[37]  D. Boukal,et al.  Thermal acclimation modulates the impacts of temperature and enrichment on trophic interaction strengths and population dynamics , 2015, Global change biology.

[38]  Christopher C Wilmers,et al.  The golden age of bio-logging: how animal-borne sensors are advancing the frontiers of ecology. , 2015, Ecology.

[39]  Sergei Petrovskii,et al.  Feeding on Multiple Sources: Towards a Universal Parameterization of the Functional Response of a Generalist Predator Allowing for Switching , 2013, PloS one.

[40]  Florian D. Schneider,et al.  Body masses, functional responses and predator-prey stability. , 2013, Ecology letters.

[41]  T. Okuyama On selection of functional response models: Holling’s models and more , 2013, BioControl.

[42]  Lawrence N. Hudson,et al.  Cheddar: analysis and visualisation of ecological communities in R , 2013 .

[43]  E. Merrill,et al.  Time‐to‐kill: measuring attack rates in a heterogenous landscape with multiple prey types , 2012 .

[44]  M. Hebblewhite,et al.  Predicting prey population dynamics from kill rate, predation rate and predator-prey ratios in three wolf-ungulate systems. , 2011, The Journal of animal ecology.

[45]  Björn C. Rall,et al.  The Allometry of Prey Preferences , 2011, PloS one.

[46]  Ezio Venturino,et al.  Modeling herd behavior in population systems , 2011 .

[47]  C. Krebs Of lemmings and snowshoe hares: the ecology of northern Canada , 2011, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[48]  Håkan Sand,et al.  Building a mechanistic understanding of predation with GPS-based movement data , 2010, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[49]  J. Harwood,et al.  The Functional Response of a Generalist Predator , 2010, PloS one.

[50]  D. Murray,et al.  You can’t run but you can hide: refuge use in frog tadpoles elicits density-dependent predation by dragonfly larvae , 2010, Oecologia.

[51]  Stéphane Legendre,et al.  Predator foraging behaviour drives food-web topological structure. , 2009, The Journal of animal ecology.

[52]  Hao Wang,et al.  The roles of predator maturation delay and functional response in determining the periodicity of predator-prey cycles. , 2009, Mathematical biosciences.

[53]  D L Borchers,et al.  Spatially Explicit Maximum Likelihood Methods for Capture–Recapture Studies , 2008, Biometrics.

[54]  O. Liberg,et al.  Summer kill rates and predation pattern in a wolf–moose system: can we rely on winter estimates? , 2008, Oecologia.

[55]  Ulrich Brose,et al.  Food‐web connectance and predator interference dampen the paradox of enrichment , 2008 .

[56]  Craig Packer,et al.  Group formation stabilizes predator–prey dynamics , 2007, Nature.

[57]  O. Liberg,et al.  Wolf Movement Patterns: a Key to Estimation of Kill Rate? , 2007 .

[58]  S. Ellner,et al.  Effects of rapid prey evolution on predator–prey cycles , 2006, Journal of mathematical biology.

[59]  P. Pepin Fisheries Ecology and Management , 2005 .

[60]  Ralph Tollrian,et al.  Consumer‐food systems: why type I functional responses are exclusive to filter feeders , 2004, Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society.

[61]  Owen L. Petchey,et al.  Interaction strengths in food webs: issues and opportunities , 2004 .

[62]  Barbara Drossel,et al.  The impact of nonlinear functional responses on the long-term evolution of food web structure. , 2004, Journal of theoretical biology.

[63]  M. Hochberg,et al.  Defence against multiple enemies , 2003, Journal of evolutionary biology.

[64]  Michio Kondoh,et al.  Foraging Adaptation and the Relationship Between Food-Web Complexity and Stability , 2003, Science.

[65]  Robert D. Holt,et al.  Food webs in space: On the interplay of dynamic instability and spatial processes , 2002, Ecological Research.

[66]  Jonathan M. Jeschke,et al.  PREDATOR FUNCTIONAL RESPONSES: DISCRIMINATING BETWEEN HANDLING AND DIGESTING PREY , 2002 .

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

[68]  V. Křivan,et al.  Alternative Food, Switching Predators, and the Persistence of Predator‐Prey Systems , 2001, The American Naturalist.

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

[70]  D. Murray A geographic analysis of snowshoe hare population demography , 2000 .

[71]  D. DeAngelis,et al.  Effects of spatial grouping on the functional response of predators. , 1999, Theoretical population biology.

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

[73]  C. Krebs,et al.  Behavioural responses of coyotes and lynx to the snowshoe hare cycle , 1998 .

[74]  P. Abrams Evolutionary responses of foraging-related traits in unstable predator–prey systems , 1997, Evolutionary Ecology.

[75]  Stan Boutin,et al.  Numerical responses of coyotes and lynx to the snowshoe hare cycle , 1997 .

[76]  C. Walters,et al.  Structuring dynamic models of exploited ecosystems from trophic mass-balance assessments , 1997, Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries.

[77]  C. Rohner Non-territorial ‘floaters’ in great horned owls: space use during a cyclic peak of snowshoe hares , 1997, Animal Behaviour.

[78]  Dennis L. Murray,et al.  Population changes of the vertebrate community during a snowshoe hare cycle in Canada’s boreal forest , 1995 .

[79]  Erkki Korpimäki,et al.  Regulation of multiannual vole cycles by density-dependent avian and mammalian predation? , 1993 .

[80]  G. Ruxton,et al.  Interference and Generation Cycles , 1992 .

[81]  E. Korpimäki,et al.  Numerical and Functional Responses of Kestrels, Short‐Eared Owls, and Long‐Eared Owls to Vole Densities , 1991 .

[82]  R. Arditi,et al.  Coupling in predator-prey dynamics: Ratio-Dependence , 1989 .

[83]  P. Abrams,et al.  Complexity, Stability, and Functional Response , 1982, The American Naturalist.

[84]  David R. Anderson,et al.  Statistical inference from capture data on closed animal populations , 1980 .

[85]  L. Nunney The Stability of Complex Model Ecosystems , 1980, The American Naturalist.

[86]  G. Evans Functional Response and Stability , 1977, The American Naturalist.

[87]  William W. Murdoch,et al.  Functional Response and Stability in Predator-Prey Systems , 1975, The American Naturalist.

[88]  W. Murdoch Switching in General Predators: Experiments on Predator Specificity and Stability of Prey Populations , 1969 .

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

[90]  C. S. Holling The Components of Predation as Revealed by a Study of Small-Mammal Predation of the European Pine Sawfly , 1959, The Canadian Entomologist.

[91]  C. Krebs,et al.  Using experimentation to understand the 10‐year snowshoe hare cycle in the boreal forest of North America , 2018, The Journal of animal ecology.

[92]  Melissa Hill Great Horned Owls , 2015 .

[93]  Olof Liberg,et al.  Predator-dependent functional response in wolves: from food limitation to surplus killing. , 2015, The Journal of animal ecology.

[94]  N. Pettorelli,et al.  Chapter two - individual variability: the missing component to our understanding of predator–prey interactions , 2015 .

[95]  R. Boonstra,et al.  The Role of Red Squirrels and Arctic Ground Squirrels , 2014 .

[96]  Erlend B. Nilsen,et al.  Habitat heterogeneity and mammalian predator–prey interactions , 2012 .

[97]  T. Okuyama Flexible components of functional responses. , 2012, The Journal of animal ecology.

[98]  Ludek Berec,et al.  Impacts of Foraging Facilitation Among Predators on Predator-prey Dynamics , 2010, Bulletin of mathematical biology.

[99]  Sang Joon Kim,et al.  A Mathematical Theory of Communication , 2006 .

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

[101]  C. Krebs,et al.  Ecosystem Dynamics of the Boreal Forest: The Kluane Project , 2001 .

[102]  Stan Boutin,et al.  Power analysis of wolf-moose functional responses , 1999 .

[103]  T. Royama Snowshoe hare demography , 1992 .

[104]  M. F. Curtis,et al.  Energy Flow through the Marine Ecosystem of the Lancaster Sound Region, Arctic Canada , 1992 .