Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29488012›Full record

ArticleOecologia2018

System productivity alters predator sorting of a size-structured mixed prey community.

Andrew T Davidson, Nathan J Dorn

Erratum issuedAbstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Oecologia, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Andrew T DavidsonDepartment of Biological Sciences, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, 23284, USA. davidsonat@mymail.vcu.edu.ORCID 0000-0001-6589-4699
Nathan J DornDepartment of Biological Sciences, Florida Atlantic University, Davie, FL, 33314, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Predator-prey interactions are often size-structured and focused on smaller vulnerable size classes. Predators are also predicted to sort prey communities according to relative vulnerabilities. Increased system productivity and juvenile growth may benefit some species more than others, making relative vulnerability non-static and growth-mediated. We hypothesized that increased system productivity would weaken juvenile-stage predation generally, and potentially shift the community sorting effects of a predator. Using replicated wetland mesocosms we quantified the effects of a generalist size-specific crayfish predator (Procambarus fallax) on juveniles of two species of apple snails (Pomacea spp.) under two levels of system productivity (low vs. high). After 6 weeks of exposure, we quantified predator and productivity effects on snail survival, biomass, and composition of the assemblage. Crayfish depressed the final density and biomass of snails, and sorted the assemblage, selectively favoring survival of the native P. paludosa over the intrinsically more vulnerable invasive P. maculata. Both snails grew faster at higher productivity, but growth differentially increased survival of the invasive snail in the presence of crayfish and weakened the sorting effect. The native P. paludosa hatches at a larger less vulnerable size than the invasive P. maculata, but higher productivity reduced the relative advantage of P. paludosa. Our results are inconsistent with predictions about the sorting effects of predators across productivity gradients because the more resistant prey dominated at low productivity. Our findings highlight that the relative vulnerabilities of prey to a common predator are not always fixed, but can be growth-mediated.

Indexed as

Predatory BehaviorWetlandsAnimalsAstacoideaBiomassCrayfish-snail predationKeystone predationPomaceaSize refugeSize-structured predation

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.