ArticleOecologia2016
Top predators affect the composition of naive protist communities, but only in their early-successional stage.
Article in Oecologia, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Dynamic interplay: disentangling the temporal variability of fish effects on coral recruitment.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Consumers decrease variability across space and turnover through time during coral reef succession.Oecologia · 2023Article
- The effects of temperature and dispersal on species diversity in natural microbial metacommunities.Scientific reports · 2019Article
- Convergence between the microcosms of Southeast Asian and North American pitcher plants.eLife · 2018Article
- Mismatch in microbial food webs: predators but not prey perform better in their local biotic and abiotic conditions.Ecology and evolution · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduced top predators have the potential to disrupt community dynamics when prey species are naive to predation. The impact of introduced predators may also vary depending on the stage of community development. Early-succession communities are likely to have small-bodied and fast-growing species, but are not necessarily good at defending against predators. In contrast, late-succession communities are typically composed of larger-bodied species that are more predator resistant relative to small-bodied species. Yet, these aspects are greatly neglected in invasion studies. We therefore tested the effect of top predator presence on early- and late-succession communities that were either naive or non-naive to top predators. We used the aquatic community held within the leaves of Sarracenia purpurea. In North America, communities have experienced the S. purpurea top predator and are therefore non-naive. In Europe, this predator is not present and its niche has not been filled, making these communities top-predator naive. We collected early- and late-succession communities from two non-naive and two naive sites, which are climatically similar. We then conducted a common-garden experiment, with and without the presence of the top predator, in which we recorded changes in community composition, body size spectra, bacterial density, and respiration. We found that the top predator had no statistical effect on global measures of community structure and functioning. However, it significantly altered protist composition, but only in naive, early-succession communities, highlighting that the state of community development is important for understanding the impact of invasion.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26501772What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.