2019:groups:g10:start
Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
Next revision | Previous revision | ||
2019:groups:g10:start [2018/12/10 19:35] – created mendes | 2019:groups:g10:start [2024/01/09 18:45] (current) – external edit 127.0.0.1 | ||
---|---|---|---|
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
**Group 10** | **Group 10** | ||
- | ====== Under construction ====== | + | < |
Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
If you are a group member login to edit this page, create new pages from it, and upload files. | If you are a group member login to edit this page, create new pages from it, and upload files. | ||
+ | |||
+ | ===== Introduction ===== | ||
+ | |||
+ | In a food chain, a top predator has a direct effect on the abundances of the species it preys on, but its presence might also result in other nonconsumptive effects (“NCEs”). For instance, intermediate consumers might change their foraging behaviour due to the risk of predation. The effect of predator presence thus propagates down the food-chain in many ways, and basal resources might also change their behaviour as a consequence of changes in higher trophic levels. | ||
+ | |||
+ | {{2019: | ||
+ | |||
+ | The green crab //Carcinus maenas// is an example of a top predator which provokes fear-induced behavioural changes in its prey, such as snails //Nucella lapillus//. These snails usually forage on barnacles (such as // | ||
+ | |||
+ | <WRAP clear></ | ||
+ | <WRAP third column left> | ||
+ | <WRAP clear></ | ||
+ | |||
+ | Experiments have been developed to assess the propagation of the nonconsumptive predator effects through food-chain and its interplay with intra-specific competition. The joint effect of competition, | ||
+ | |||
+ | Matassa et al. (2018) found that the competition among barnacles was dependent on the predation risk upon snails, suggesting a coupling between behaviours across trophic levels. The authors also assessed the competition among snails and verified that its intensity was dependent on NCE's from top predators, but not from prey availability. Additionally, | ||
+ | |||
+ | ===== Assignment ===== | ||
+ | Build a mathematical model of the dynamics of this biological system. Analyze the model and use it to formulate and answer questions you may find along the way. | ||
+ | |||
+ | ===== Suggested Questions ===== | ||
+ | |||
+ | * Does your model reproduce the non-consumptive effects on resource depletion found in experiments? | ||
+ | |||
+ | * What kind of dynamics can be predicted by a mathematical model of this interaction? | ||
+ | |||
+ | * By changing their behaviour, the snails favour a decrease in their mortality in face of an increased food intake. Does the model provide insights on this strategy? | ||
+ | |||
+ | * Considering a scenario in which the experiment performed by Matassa et al. (2018) (see ref. below) allowed for consumptive predator effects from the //C. maenas// upon the //N. lapillus//, what qualitative changes on dynamics could be expected? | ||
+ | |||
+ | ===== References ===== | ||
+ | |||
+ | - Matassa, C.M., Ewanchuk, P.J., Trussell, G.C., 2018. Cascading effects of a top predator on intraspecific competition at intermediate and basal trophic levels. Functional Ecology 32, 2241–2252. https:// | ||
+ | - Donelan, S.C., Grabowski, J.H., Trussell, G.C., 2017. Refuge quality impacts the strength of nonconsumptive effects on prey. Ecology 98, 403–411. https:// | ||
+ | - Matassa, C.M., Donelan, S.C., Luttbeg, B., Trussell, G.C., 2016. Resource levels and prey state influence antipredator behavior and the strength of nonconsumptive predator effects. Oikos 125, 1478–1488. https:// |
2019/groups/g10/start.1544470521.txt.gz · Last modified: 2024/01/09 18:45 (external edit)