Movatterモバイル変換

[0]ホーム
URL:

Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Advertisement

Nature
  • Letter
  • Published:

The interaction between predation and competition

Naturevolume 456, pages235–238 (2008)Cite this article

Abstract

Competition and predation are the most heavily investigated species interactions in ecology, dominating studies of species diversity maintenance. However, these two interactions are most commonly viewed highly asymmetrically. Competition for resources is seen as the primary interaction limiting diversity, with predation modifying what competition does1, although theoretical models have long supported diverse views1,2,3,4,5. Here we show, using a comprehensive three-trophic-level model, that competition and predation should be viewed symmetrically: these two interactions are equally able to either limit or promote diversity. Diversity maintenance requires within-species density feedback loops to be stronger than between-species feedback loops. We quantify the contributions of predation and competition to these loops in a simple, interpretable form, showing their equivalent potential to strengthen or weaken diversity maintenance. Moreover, we show that competition and predation can undermine each other, with the tendency of the stronger interaction to promote or limit diversity prevailing. The past failure to appreciate the symmetrical effects and interactions of competition and predation has unduly restricted diversity maintenance studies. A multitrophic perspective should be adopted to examine a greater variety of possible effects of predation than generally considered in the past. Conservation and management strategies need to be much more concerned with the implications of changes in the strengths of trophic interactions.

This is a preview of subscription content,access via your institution

Access options

Access through your institution

Subscription info for Japanese customers

We have a dedicated website for our Japanese customers. Please go tonatureasia.com to subscribe to this journal.

Buy this article

  • Purchase on SpringerLink
  • Instant access to the full article PDF.

￥ 4,980

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1:Simplified three-trophic-level food web.
Figure 2:Coexistence and exclusion regions.
Figure 3:Niches of two focal species in terms of resources and predators.
Figure 4:Niche overlap as a function of relative predation intensity.

Similar content being viewed by others

ArticleOpen access04 December 2023

References

  1. Chase, J. M. et al. The interaction between predation and competition: a review and synthesis.Ecol. Lett.5, 302–315 (2002)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Holt, R. D. Spatial heterogeneity, indirect interactions, and the coexistence of prey species.Am. Nat.124, 377–406 (1984)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Kotler, B. P. & Holt, R. D. Predation and competition: the interaction of two types of species interactions.Oikos54, 256–260 (1989)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Grover, J. P. & Holt, R. D. Disentangling resource and apparent competition: realistic models for plant-herbivore communities.J. Theor. Biol.191, 353–376 (1998)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Krivan, V. Competitive co-existence by adaptive predators.Evol. Ecol. Res.5, 1163–1182 (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  6. MacArthur, R. Species packing and competitive equilibrium for many species.Theor. Popul. Biol.1, 1–11 (1970)

    Article CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Chesson, P. MacArthur’s consumer–resource model.Theor. Popul. Biol.37, 26–38 (1990)

    Article MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  8. Chesson, P. Mechanisms of maintenance of species diversity.Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst.31, 343–366 (2000)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Chesson, P. & Huntly, N. The roles of harsh and fluctuating conditions in the dynamics of ecological communities.Am. Nat.150, 519–553 (1997)

    Article CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Holt, R. D., Grover, J. & Tilman, D. Simple rules for interspecific dominance in systems with exploitative and apparent competition.Am. Nat.144, 741–771 (1994)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Abrams, P. A. High competition with low similarity and low competition with high similarity: exploitative and apparent competition in consumer-resource systems.Am. Nat.152, 114–128 (1998)

    Article CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Chesson, P. inUnity in Diversity: Reflections on Ecology after the Legacy of Ramon Margalef (eds Valladares, F. et al.) 119–164 (Fundacion BBVA, 2008)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Holt, R. D. Predation, apparent competition, and the structure of prey communities.Theor. Popul. Biol.12, 197–229 (1977)

    Article MathSciNet CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Haygood, R. Coexistence in MacArthur-style consumer–resource models.Theor. Popul. Biol.61, 215–223 (2002)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Kuang, J. J. & Chesson, P. Predation–competition interactions for seasonally recruiting species.Am. Nat.171, E119–E133 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Hutchinson, G. E. Homage to Santa Rosalia or why are there so many kinds of animals?Am. Nat.93, 145–159 (1959)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Kuang, J. J. & Chesson, P. Coexistence of annual plants: generalist seed predation weakens the storage effect.Ecology (in the press)

  18. Soule, M. E. & Terborgh, J. Conserving nature at regional and continental scales—a scientific program for North America.Bioscience49, 809–817 (1999)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Sala, E. Top predators provide insurance against climate change.Trends Ecol. Evol.21, 479–480 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Schmitz, O. J. Predators have large effects on ecosystem properties by changing plant diversity, not plant biomass.Ecology87, 1432–1437 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Johnson, C. N., Isaac, J. L. & Fisher, D. O. Rarity of a top predator triggers continent-wide collapse of mammal prey: dingoes and marsupials in Australia.Proc. R. Soc. B274, 341–346 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Borrvall, C. & Ebenman, B. Early onset of secondary extinctions in ecological communities following the loss of top predators.Ecol. Lett.9, 435–442 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Myers, R. A., Baum, J. K., Shepherd, T. D., Powers, S. P. & Peterson, C. H. Cascading effects of the loss of apex predatory sharks from a coastal ocean.Science315, 1846–1850 (2007)

    Article ADS CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Heithaus, M. R., Frid, A., Wirsing, A. J. & Worm, B. Predicting ecological consequences of marine top predator declines.Trends Ecol. Evol.23, 202–210 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by National Science Foundation grants DEB-0542991 and DEB-0717222.

Author Contributions P.C. and J.J.K. jointly developed the model. P.C. derived the coexistence conditions and wrote the first draft of the manuscript. P.C. and J.J.K. jointly prepared the figures and all revisions of the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona 85721, USA,

    Peter Chesson & Jessica J. Kuang

Authors
  1. Peter Chesson
  2. Jessica J. Kuang

Corresponding authors

Correspondence toPeter Chesson orJessica J. Kuang.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

The file contains Supplementary Notes. (PDF 170 kb)

Rights and permissions

About this article

This article is cited by

Access through your institution
Buy or subscribe

Editorial Summary

Species in it together

Understanding how interactions between species contributes to the maintenance of species diversity is a fundamental question in ecology. New theoretical results presented by Peter Chesson and Jessica Kuang highlight the mutually interdependent roles of predation and competition in governing coexistence. They find that each mechanism can promote diversity through diverse relationships with the particular species, or limit diversity through narrow relationships that pit certain species against each other. Each mechanism can also undercut the effects of the other, or work together promoting diversity, depending on the circumstances.

Advertisement

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for theNature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox.Sign up for Nature Briefing
[8]ページ先頭
©2009-2025 Movatter.jp