Population responses of small mammals to food supply and predators: a global meta-analysis
1. The relative importance of food supply and predation as determinants of animal population density is a topic of enduring debate among ecologists. To address it, many studies have tested the potential effects of food on population density by experimentally supplementing natural populations, with m...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | The Journal of animal ecology 2013-09, Vol.82 (5), p.927-936 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 936 |
---|---|
container_issue | 5 |
container_start_page | 927 |
container_title | The Journal of animal ecology |
container_volume | 82 |
creator | Prevedello, Jayme A. Dickman, Chris R. Vieira, Marcus V. Vieira, Emerson M. |
description | 1. The relative importance of food supply and predation as determinants of animal population density is a topic of enduring debate among ecologists. To address it, many studies have tested the potential effects of food on population density by experimentally supplementing natural populations, with much focus on terrestrial vertebrates, especially small mammals. 2. Here we perform a meta-analysis of such experiments, testing two complementary hypotheses: (i) small mammal populations are bottom-up limited and (ii) population increases in response to food supplementation are constrained by predation, a top-down limitation. 3. In the 148 experiments recorded, food supplementation had an overall positive and significant effect, increasing population densities by 1·5-fold. Larger population increases occurred when predation was reduced and populations were open to immigration. Predation appeared to be unimportant when populations were closed to immigration. Immigration was the major mechanism underlying increases in abundance by increasing local population density and crowding. Contributions of increased reproductive rate could be detected, but were minor compared to immigration, and no effects were detected from survival. 4. Our analyses support the view that animal population density is determined by both bottom-up and top-down forces. They also suggest the possibility that food supplementation experiments might unintentionally create ecological traps by aggregating both prey and predators in small areas of the landscape. We suggest an alternative experimental design to increase the contribution that food supplementation experiments can make in future. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1111/1365-2656.12072 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>jstor_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1499134836</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><jstor_id>24034884</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>24034884</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c5232-70a95e69f7371f60bdde0d705c1029a43dd6f861901e1705bce01951edc07ce33</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkc1v1DAQxS0EokvhzAlkCSFxSTu2EzvurarKlyrgABcultd2UFZOHDyJ0P73OOy2lbiALyONfu95Zh4hzxmcsfLOmZBNxWUjzxgHxR-QzV3nIdkAcFa1SsMJeYK4AygIiMfkhItGgm7Yhnz_kqYl2rlPI80BpzRiQJo6ioONkQ52KBXpnGiXkqe4TFPcUzt6OuXg7ZwyXlBLf8S0tQUPs63saOMee3xKHnVFG54d6yn59vb669X76ubzuw9XlzeVa7jglQKrmyB1p4RinYSt9wG8gsYx4NrWwnvZtZJpYIGV9tYFYGX24B0oF4Q4JW8OvlNOP5eAsxl6dCFGO4a0oGG11kzUrZD_gXJVjqb06vrqL3SXllxWWynWspa3wAt1fqBcTog5dGbK_WDz3jAwa0JmzcOseZg_CRXFy6Pvsh2Cv-NvIynA6yNg0dnYZTu6Hu85JWuhRFM4eeB-9THs__Wv-Xj56fp2ghcH4Q5LfPfGNZQjtbX4DbhSr3g</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1418182802</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Population responses of small mammals to food supply and predators: a global meta-analysis</title><source>Jstor Complete Legacy</source><source>Wiley Free Content</source><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><creator>Prevedello, Jayme A. ; Dickman, Chris R. ; Vieira, Marcus V. ; Vieira, Emerson M.</creator><creatorcontrib>Prevedello, Jayme A. ; Dickman, Chris R. ; Vieira, Marcus V. ; Vieira, Emerson M.</creatorcontrib><description>1. The relative importance of food supply and predation as determinants of animal population density is a topic of enduring debate among ecologists. To address it, many studies have tested the potential effects of food on population density by experimentally supplementing natural populations, with much focus on terrestrial vertebrates, especially small mammals. 2. Here we perform a meta-analysis of such experiments, testing two complementary hypotheses: (i) small mammal populations are bottom-up limited and (ii) population increases in response to food supplementation are constrained by predation, a top-down limitation. 3. In the 148 experiments recorded, food supplementation had an overall positive and significant effect, increasing population densities by 1·5-fold. Larger population increases occurred when predation was reduced and populations were open to immigration. Predation appeared to be unimportant when populations were closed to immigration. Immigration was the major mechanism underlying increases in abundance by increasing local population density and crowding. Contributions of increased reproductive rate could be detected, but were minor compared to immigration, and no effects were detected from survival. 4. Our analyses support the view that animal population density is determined by both bottom-up and top-down forces. They also suggest the possibility that food supplementation experiments might unintentionally create ecological traps by aggregating both prey and predators in small areas of the landscape. We suggest an alternative experimental design to increase the contribution that food supplementation experiments can make in future.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0021-8790</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1365-2656</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/1365-2656.12072</identifier><identifier>PMID: 23560951</identifier><identifier>CODEN: JAECAP</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Oxford: Blackwell Publishing</publisher><subject>Animal and plant ecology ; Animal ecology ; Animal Migration ; Animal populations ; Animal, plant and microbial ecology ; Animals ; Biological and medical sciences ; Body Weight - physiology ; Dietary supplements ; Ecology ; Feeding Behavior - physiology ; Food Chain ; Food chains ; Food supply ; Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology ; General aspects ; Herbivory - physiology ; Mammals ; Mammals - physiology ; Meta-analysis ; Mortality ; pantry effect ; Population Density ; Population Dynamics - trends ; Population ecology ; Population growth ; population limitation ; population regulation ; Population size ; Predation ; Predators ; predator‐prey interactions ; Research Design ; resources</subject><ispartof>The Journal of animal ecology, 2013-09, Vol.82 (5), p.927-936</ispartof><rights>2013 British Ecological Society</rights><rights>2013 The Authors. Journal of Animal Ecology © 2013 British Ecological Society</rights><rights>2014 INIST-CNRS</rights><rights>2013 The Authors. Journal of Animal Ecology © 2013 British Ecological Society.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c5232-70a95e69f7371f60bdde0d705c1029a43dd6f861901e1705bce01951edc07ce33</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c5232-70a95e69f7371f60bdde0d705c1029a43dd6f861901e1705bce01951edc07ce33</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/24034884$$EPDF$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/24034884$$EHTML$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,799,1411,1427,27901,27902,45550,45551,46384,46808,57992,58225</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=27643735$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23560951$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Prevedello, Jayme A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dickman, Chris R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vieira, Marcus V.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vieira, Emerson M.</creatorcontrib><title>Population responses of small mammals to food supply and predators: a global meta-analysis</title><title>The Journal of animal ecology</title><addtitle>J Anim Ecol</addtitle><description>1. The relative importance of food supply and predation as determinants of animal population density is a topic of enduring debate among ecologists. To address it, many studies have tested the potential effects of food on population density by experimentally supplementing natural populations, with much focus on terrestrial vertebrates, especially small mammals. 2. Here we perform a meta-analysis of such experiments, testing two complementary hypotheses: (i) small mammal populations are bottom-up limited and (ii) population increases in response to food supplementation are constrained by predation, a top-down limitation. 3. In the 148 experiments recorded, food supplementation had an overall positive and significant effect, increasing population densities by 1·5-fold. Larger population increases occurred when predation was reduced and populations were open to immigration. Predation appeared to be unimportant when populations were closed to immigration. Immigration was the major mechanism underlying increases in abundance by increasing local population density and crowding. Contributions of increased reproductive rate could be detected, but were minor compared to immigration, and no effects were detected from survival. 4. Our analyses support the view that animal population density is determined by both bottom-up and top-down forces. They also suggest the possibility that food supplementation experiments might unintentionally create ecological traps by aggregating both prey and predators in small areas of the landscape. We suggest an alternative experimental design to increase the contribution that food supplementation experiments can make in future.</description><subject>Animal and plant ecology</subject><subject>Animal ecology</subject><subject>Animal Migration</subject><subject>Animal populations</subject><subject>Animal, plant and microbial ecology</subject><subject>Animals</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Body Weight - physiology</subject><subject>Dietary supplements</subject><subject>Ecology</subject><subject>Feeding Behavior - physiology</subject><subject>Food Chain</subject><subject>Food chains</subject><subject>Food supply</subject><subject>Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology</subject><subject>General aspects</subject><subject>Herbivory - physiology</subject><subject>Mammals</subject><subject>Mammals - physiology</subject><subject>Meta-analysis</subject><subject>Mortality</subject><subject>pantry effect</subject><subject>Population Density</subject><subject>Population Dynamics - trends</subject><subject>Population ecology</subject><subject>Population growth</subject><subject>population limitation</subject><subject>population regulation</subject><subject>Population size</subject><subject>Predation</subject><subject>Predators</subject><subject>predator‐prey interactions</subject><subject>Research Design</subject><subject>resources</subject><issn>0021-8790</issn><issn>1365-2656</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2013</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqNkc1v1DAQxS0EokvhzAlkCSFxSTu2EzvurarKlyrgABcultd2UFZOHDyJ0P73OOy2lbiALyONfu95Zh4hzxmcsfLOmZBNxWUjzxgHxR-QzV3nIdkAcFa1SsMJeYK4AygIiMfkhItGgm7Yhnz_kqYl2rlPI80BpzRiQJo6ioONkQ52KBXpnGiXkqe4TFPcUzt6OuXg7ZwyXlBLf8S0tQUPs63saOMee3xKHnVFG54d6yn59vb669X76ubzuw9XlzeVa7jglQKrmyB1p4RinYSt9wG8gsYx4NrWwnvZtZJpYIGV9tYFYGX24B0oF4Q4JW8OvlNOP5eAsxl6dCFGO4a0oGG11kzUrZD_gXJVjqb06vrqL3SXllxWWynWspa3wAt1fqBcTog5dGbK_WDz3jAwa0JmzcOseZg_CRXFy6Pvsh2Cv-NvIynA6yNg0dnYZTu6Hu85JWuhRFM4eeB-9THs__Wv-Xj56fp2ghcH4Q5LfPfGNZQjtbX4DbhSr3g</recordid><startdate>201309</startdate><enddate>201309</enddate><creator>Prevedello, Jayme A.</creator><creator>Dickman, Chris R.</creator><creator>Vieira, Marcus V.</creator><creator>Vieira, Emerson M.</creator><general>Blackwell Publishing</general><general>Blackwell</general><general>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</general><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QG</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7SS</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>RC3</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201309</creationdate><title>Population responses of small mammals to food supply and predators: a global meta-analysis</title><author>Prevedello, Jayme A. ; Dickman, Chris R. ; Vieira, Marcus V. ; Vieira, Emerson M.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c5232-70a95e69f7371f60bdde0d705c1029a43dd6f861901e1705bce01951edc07ce33</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2013</creationdate><topic>Animal and plant ecology</topic><topic>Animal ecology</topic><topic>Animal Migration</topic><topic>Animal populations</topic><topic>Animal, plant and microbial ecology</topic><topic>Animals</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Body Weight - physiology</topic><topic>Dietary supplements</topic><topic>Ecology</topic><topic>Feeding Behavior - physiology</topic><topic>Food Chain</topic><topic>Food chains</topic><topic>Food supply</topic><topic>Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology</topic><topic>General aspects</topic><topic>Herbivory - physiology</topic><topic>Mammals</topic><topic>Mammals - physiology</topic><topic>Meta-analysis</topic><topic>Mortality</topic><topic>pantry effect</topic><topic>Population Density</topic><topic>Population Dynamics - trends</topic><topic>Population ecology</topic><topic>Population growth</topic><topic>population limitation</topic><topic>population regulation</topic><topic>Population size</topic><topic>Predation</topic><topic>Predators</topic><topic>predator‐prey interactions</topic><topic>Research Design</topic><topic>resources</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Prevedello, Jayme A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dickman, Chris R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vieira, Marcus V.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vieira, Emerson M.</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Animal Behavior Abstracts</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Entomology Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>The Journal of animal ecology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Prevedello, Jayme A.</au><au>Dickman, Chris R.</au><au>Vieira, Marcus V.</au><au>Vieira, Emerson M.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Population responses of small mammals to food supply and predators: a global meta-analysis</atitle><jtitle>The Journal of animal ecology</jtitle><addtitle>J Anim Ecol</addtitle><date>2013-09</date><risdate>2013</risdate><volume>82</volume><issue>5</issue><spage>927</spage><epage>936</epage><pages>927-936</pages><issn>0021-8790</issn><eissn>1365-2656</eissn><coden>JAECAP</coden><abstract>1. The relative importance of food supply and predation as determinants of animal population density is a topic of enduring debate among ecologists. To address it, many studies have tested the potential effects of food on population density by experimentally supplementing natural populations, with much focus on terrestrial vertebrates, especially small mammals. 2. Here we perform a meta-analysis of such experiments, testing two complementary hypotheses: (i) small mammal populations are bottom-up limited and (ii) population increases in response to food supplementation are constrained by predation, a top-down limitation. 3. In the 148 experiments recorded, food supplementation had an overall positive and significant effect, increasing population densities by 1·5-fold. Larger population increases occurred when predation was reduced and populations were open to immigration. Predation appeared to be unimportant when populations were closed to immigration. Immigration was the major mechanism underlying increases in abundance by increasing local population density and crowding. Contributions of increased reproductive rate could be detected, but were minor compared to immigration, and no effects were detected from survival. 4. Our analyses support the view that animal population density is determined by both bottom-up and top-down forces. They also suggest the possibility that food supplementation experiments might unintentionally create ecological traps by aggregating both prey and predators in small areas of the landscape. We suggest an alternative experimental design to increase the contribution that food supplementation experiments can make in future.</abstract><cop>Oxford</cop><pub>Blackwell Publishing</pub><pmid>23560951</pmid><doi>10.1111/1365-2656.12072</doi><tpages>10</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0021-8790 |
ispartof | The Journal of animal ecology, 2013-09, Vol.82 (5), p.927-936 |
issn | 0021-8790 1365-2656 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1499134836 |
source | Jstor Complete Legacy; Wiley Free Content; MEDLINE; Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete; Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals |
subjects | Animal and plant ecology Animal ecology Animal Migration Animal populations Animal, plant and microbial ecology Animals Biological and medical sciences Body Weight - physiology Dietary supplements Ecology Feeding Behavior - physiology Food Chain Food chains Food supply Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology General aspects Herbivory - physiology Mammals Mammals - physiology Meta-analysis Mortality pantry effect Population Density Population Dynamics - trends Population ecology Population growth population limitation population regulation Population size Predation Predators predator‐prey interactions Research Design resources |
title | Population responses of small mammals to food supply and predators: a global meta-analysis |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-13T06%3A49%3A01IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-jstor_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Population%20responses%20of%20small%20mammals%20to%20food%20supply%20and%20predators:%20a%20global%20meta-analysis&rft.jtitle=The%20Journal%20of%20animal%20ecology&rft.au=Prevedello,%20Jayme%20A.&rft.date=2013-09&rft.volume=82&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=927&rft.epage=936&rft.pages=927-936&rft.issn=0021-8790&rft.eissn=1365-2656&rft.coden=JAECAP&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/1365-2656.12072&rft_dat=%3Cjstor_proqu%3E24034884%3C/jstor_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1418182802&rft_id=info:pmid/23560951&rft_jstor_id=24034884&rfr_iscdi=true |