ArticlePloS one2019
Multi-trophic native and non-native prey naïveté shape marine invasion success.
Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Invasive predators have caused rapid declines in many native prey species across the globe. Predator invasion success may be attributed to prey naïveté, or the absence of anti-predator behavior between native and non-native species. An understanding of the effects of naïveté at different timescales since introduction and across multiple trophic levels is lacking, however, particularly in marine systems. Given the central role of trophic interactions in invasion dynamics, this knowledge gap limits the ability to predict high impact predator invasions. Naïveté was examined across three trophic levels of marine invertebrates: a native basal prey (hard clam), two non-native intermediate predators (the recently-introduced Asian shore crab and the long-established European green crab), a native intermediate predator (juvenile blue crabs), and a native top predator (adult blue crab). We hypothesized that naïveté would be more pronounced in trophic interactions involving the recently-introduced non-native predator in comparison to the long-established non-native and native intermediate predators. We further hypothesized that the recently-introduced intermediate predator would both benefit from naïveté of the native basal prey and be hindered by higher mortality through its own naïveté to the native top predator. To test these hypotheses, three laboratory experiments and a field experiment were used. Consistent with our hypotheses, basal prey naïveté was most pronounced with the recently-introduced intermediate predator, and this increased the predator's foraging success. This recently-introduced intermediate predator, however, exhibited an ineffective anti-predator response to the native top predator, and was also preyed upon more in the field than its long-established and native counterparts. Therefore, despite direct benefits from basal prey naïveté, the recently-introduced intermediate predator's naïveté to its own predators may limit its invasion success. These results highlight the importance of a multi-trophic perspective on predator-prey dynamics to more fully understand the consequences of naïveté in invasion biology.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.