Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35600676›Full record

ArticleEcology and evolution2022

Resource competition explains rare cannibalism in the wild in livebearing fishes.

Rüdiger Riesch, Márcio S Araújo, Stuart Bumgarner, Caitlynn Filla, Laura Pennafort, Taylor R Goins, Darlene Lucion, Amber M Makowicz, Ryan A Martin, Sara Pirroni and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Ecology and evolution, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 14% of its field
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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.

Rüdiger RieschDepartment of Biological Sciences Centre for Ecology, Evolution and Behaviour Royal Holloway University of London Egham UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0223-1254
Márcio S AraújoInstituto de Biociências Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP) Rio Claro Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3533-744X
Stuart BumgarnerDepartment of Biological Sciences North Carolina State University Raleigh North Carolina USA.
Caitlynn FillaDepartment of Biological Sciences North Carolina State University Raleigh North Carolina USA.
Laura PennafortDepartment of Biological Sciences Centre for Ecology, Evolution and Behaviour Royal Holloway University of London Egham UK.
Taylor R GoinsDepartment of Biological Sciences North Carolina State University Raleigh North Carolina USA.
Darlene LucionDepartment of Biological Sciences Centre for Ecology, Evolution and Behaviour Royal Holloway University of London Egham UK.
Amber M MakowiczDepartment of Biological Sciences Florida State University Tallahassee Florida USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1208-2117
Ryan A MartinDepartment of Biology Case Western Reserve University Cleveland Ohio USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7448-5907
Sara PirroniDepartment of Biological Sciences Centre for Ecology, Evolution and Behaviour Royal Holloway University of London Egham UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6780-798X
R Brian LangerhansDepartment of Biological Sciences North Carolina State University Raleigh North Carolina USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6864-2163
North Carolina State University · USRoyal Holloway University of London · GBCase Western Reserve University · USFlorida State University · USUniversidade Estadual Paulista (Unesp) · BR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cannibalism, the act of preying on and consuming a conspecific, is taxonomically widespread, and putatively important in the wild, particularly in teleost fishes. Nonetheless, most studies of cannibalism in fishes have been performed in the laboratory. Here, we test four predictions for the evolution of cannibalism by conducting one of the largest assessments of cannibalism in the wild to date coupled with a mesocosm experiment. Focusing on mosquitofishes and guppies, we examined 17 species (11,946 individuals) across 189 populations in the wild, spanning both native and invasive ranges and including disparate types of habitats. We found cannibalism to be quite rare in the wild: most populations and species showed no evidence of cannibalism, and the prevalence of cannibalism was typically less than 5% within populations when it occurred. Most victims were juveniles (94%; only half of these appeared to have been newborn offspring), with the remaining 6% of victims being adult males. Females exhibited more cannibalism than males, but this was only partially explained by their larger body size, suggesting greater energetic requirements of reproduction likely play a role as well. We found no evidence that dispersal-limited environments had a lower prevalence of cannibalism, but prevalence was greater in populations with higher conspecific densities, suggesting that more intense resource competition drives cannibalistic behavior. Supporting this conclusion, our mesocosm experiment revealed that cannibalism prevalence increased with higher conspecific density and lower resource levels but was not associated with juvenile density or strongly influenced by predation risk. We suggest that cannibalism in livebearing fishes is rare in the wild because preying on conspecifics is energetically costly and only becomes worth the effort when competition for other food is intense. Due to the artificially reduced cost of capturing conspecifics within confined spaces, cannibalism in captive settings can be much more frequent.

Indexed as

Gambusiaintraspecific competitionoptimal foraging theoryPoecilia reticulatapopulation densitysize difference

Identifiers

PMID35600676
PMCPMC9109233
OpenAlexW4280571636

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.