Predator–prey dynamics in environments rich and poor in nutrients

STABLE predator–prey models with a tension between the stabilizing effect of prey density-dependence and the destabilizing effect of predators generally become unstable when the nutrient environment of the prey is enriched1–3. This 'paradox of enrichment' occurs in a wide range of models incorporating realistic features4–6. Enriched models quickly produce cycles with enormous amplitude and increased periods2,3,6–8. In real systems, however, there have been few tests for 'paradox' behaviour, and the few results are equivocal9–12. We have now tested for paradox behaviour in populations of the freshwater zooplankter Daphnia and their algal prey. In lakes and ponds these populations show both stable and cyclic dynamics13,14 caused by the interaction between the populations. The cycles are not driven by external forces14,15, but do not seem to be of the paradox-of-enrichment type: their amplitude is small, their period (equal to a Daphnia generation) is short, and there is good evidence that they are caused by the developmental delay of Daphnia14,15. Stage-structured models of the Daphnia–algae interaction indicate that such single-generation 'time-lag' cycles occur in the progression of instability from stable equilibrium to paradox cycles6,7, and that this progression may be driven by increasing nutrient levels7. We show here, however, that enrichment does not lead to paradox cycles, either in field or experimental Daphnia–algae systems. We suggest that concomitant changes in the predator–prey interaction accompanying enrichment could account for the absence of paradox behaviour.

[1]  F. H. Rigler,et al.  The phosphorus‐chlorophyll relationship in lakes1,2 , 1974 .

[2]  W. Murdoch,et al.  Three distinct types of dynamic behaviour shown by a single planktonic system , 1985, Nature.

[3]  Edward McCauley,et al.  Sigmoid relationships between nutrients and chlorophyll among lakes , 1989 .

[4]  A. Hastings,et al.  Age structure in predator-prey systems. I. A general model and a specific example , 1982 .

[5]  William D. Taylor,et al.  Growth Model of Daphnia , 1982 .

[6]  E. Mccauley,et al.  Contrasting Patterns of Net- and Nanoplankton Production and Biomass among Lakes , 1988 .

[7]  M. Rosenzweig Paradox of Enrichment: Destabilization of Exploitation Ecosystems in Ecological Time , 1971, Science.

[8]  Robert M. May,et al.  Limit Cycles in Predator-Prey Communities , 1972, Science.

[9]  M E Gilpin,et al.  Enriched predator-prey systems: theoretical stability. , 1972, Science.

[10]  R. Peters,et al.  A Simple Reflectance Method for the Measurement of Particulate Pigment in Lake Water and its Application to Phosphorus–Chlorophyll–Seston Relationships , 1980 .

[11]  S. Hsu,et al.  A Contribution to the Theory of Competing Predators , 1978 .

[12]  James T. Tanner,et al.  THE STABILITY AND THE INTRINSIC GROWTH RATES OF PREY AND PREDATOR POPULATIONS , 1975 .

[13]  W. Murdoch,et al.  Cyclic and Stable Populations: Plankton as Paradigm , 1987, The American Naturalist.

[14]  L. Luckinbill The Effects of Space and Enrichment on a Predator‐Prey System , 1974 .

[15]  William W. Murdoch,et al.  Simple Models and Variation in Plankton Densities Among Lakes , 1988, The American Naturalist.

[16]  S. Watson,et al.  Relationships between Nannoplankton and Lake Trophic Status , 1981 .

[17]  M. Rosenzweig,et al.  Stability of enriched aquatic ecosystems. , 1972, Science.

[18]  Robert M. May,et al.  Time‐Delay Versus Stability in Population Models with Two and Three Trophic Levels , 1973 .

[19]  William Gurney,et al.  Structured population models: a tool for linking effects at individual and population level , 1989 .