Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-s22k5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-27T08:06:40.878Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

18 - The functional response of generalist predators and its implications for the monitoring of marine ecosystems

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 July 2009

C. J. Camphuysen
By
C. Asseburg ,
J. Harwood ,
J. Matthiopoulos  and
S. Smout
Edited by
I. L. Boyd  and
S. Wanless
C. J. Camphuysen
Affiliation:
Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research
C. Asseburg
Affiliation:
Centre for Conservation Science, University of St Andrews, St Andrews, Fife KY16 9LZ, UK
J. Harwood
Affiliation:
Centre for Conservation Science and Sea Mammal Research Unit, University of St Andrews, St Andrews, Fife KY16 8LB, UK
J. Matthiopoulos
Affiliation:
Sea Mammal Research Unit and Centre for Research into Ecological and Environmental Modelling, University of St Andrews, St Andrews, Fife KY16 8LB, UK
S. Smout
Affiliation:
Centre for Conservation Science and Sea Mammal Research Unit, University of St Andrews, St Andrews, Fife KY16 8LB, UK
I. L. Boyd
Affiliation:
University of St Andrews, Scotland
S. Wanless
Affiliation:
NERC Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, UK
Get access

Summary

It is often suggested that changes in the population biology of higher predators can be used as proxies for other processes within marine ecosystems, such as changes in the size of prey populations. However, such predators are almost always generalists, which are likely to respond to changes in the abundances of more than one prey species. Using data from a terrestrial generalist predator, we show that the form of the relationship between energy intake and the abundance of a focal prey species can vary greatly depending on the abundance of alternative prey, and that such proxies may have insufficient statistical power to detect even substantial changes in prey abundance. We then consider whether alternative approaches to analysing the data collected by higher-predator monitoring schemes might provide more reliable information on ecosystem processes.

An increasing number of nations and intergovernmental organizations have accepted the principle that the exploitation of living resources should be conducted using an ecosystem-based approach (e.g. the 1996 amendment to the US Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act or the United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement (United Nations 1995), see also Aqorau (2003)). The objectives of such an approach are rarely clearly defined, but they usually involve ensuring that the ‘health’ or ‘integrity’ of an ecosystem is maintained. For example, the United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement states that one aim of fisheries management is to ‘maintain the integrity of marine ecosystems and minimize the risk of long-term or irreversible effects of fishing operations’ (United Nations 1995).

Type
Chapter
Information
Top Predators in Marine Ecosystems
Their Role in Monitoring and Management
 , pp. 262 - 274
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2006

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aqorau, T. (2003). Obligations to protect marine ecosystems under international conventions and other legal instruments. In Responsible Fisheries in the Marine Ecosystem, eds. Sinclair, M. & Valdimarsson, G.. Wallingford, UK: CABI Publishing, pp. 25–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Asseburg, C., (2005). Modelling uncertainty in multi-species predator–prey interactions. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of St Andrews.
Beddington, J.. (1976). The components of arthropod predation. II. The predator rate of increase. J. Anim. Ecol., 45, 165–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
CCAMLR (1982). Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources. http://www.ccamlr.org/pu.e/pubs/bd/pt1p2.htm.
CCAMLR (1985). CCAMLR Ecosystem Monitoring Program: Standard Methods (revised 2004). http:/www.ccamlr.org/pu/e/pubs/std-meth04.pdf
Constable, A. J. (2001). The ecosystem approach to managing fisheries: achieving conservation objectives for predators of fished species. CCAMLR Sci., 8, 37–64.Google Scholar
Constable, A. J.. (2000). Managing fisheries to conserve the Antarctic marine ecosystem: practical implementation of the Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR). ICES J. Mar. Sci., 57, 778–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Croxall, J. P., Reid, K. & Prince, P. (1999). Diet, provisioning and productivity responses of marine predators to differences in availability of Antarctic krill. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser., 177, 115–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davoren, G. K. & Montevecchi, W. A. (2003). Signals from seabirds indicate changing biology of capelin stocks. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser., 258, 253–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dierenfeld, E. S., Alcorn, M. L. & Jacobson, K. L. (2002). Nutrient Composition of Whole Vertebrate Prey (Excluding Fish) Fed in Zoos. Beltsville, MD: AWIC, US Department of Agriculture.Google Scholar
Gentleman, W., Leising, A., Frost, B., Strom, S. & Murray, J. W. (2003). Functional responses for zooplankton feeding on multiple resources: a review of assumptions and biological dynamics. Deep-Sea Res. II, 50, 2847–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geromont, H. F., de Oliveira, J. A. A., Johnston, S. J. & Cunningham, C. L. (1999). Development and application of management procedures for fisheries in southern Africa. ICES J. Mar. Sci., 56, 952–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ginzburg, L. R. (1998). Assuming reproduction to be a function of consumption raises doubts about some popular predator–prey models. J. Anim. Ecol., 67, 325–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harwood, J. & Stokes, K. (2003). Coping with uncertainty in ecological advice: lessons from fisheries. Trends Ecol. Evol., 18, 617–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Park, K. J., Hurley, M. M. & Hudson, P. J. (2002). Territorial status and survival in red grouse Lagopus lagopus scoticus: hope for the doomed surplus?J. Avian Biol., 33, 56–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Punt, A. E. & Hilborn, R. (1997). Fisheries stock assessment and decision analysis: the Bayesian approach. Rev. Fish Biol. Fish., 7, 35–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Punt, A. E. & Smith, A. D. H. (1999). Harvest strategy evaluation for the eastern stock of gemfish (Rexea solandri). ICES J. Mar. Sci., 56, 860–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Real, L. A. (1977). The kinetics of functional response. Am. Nat., 111, 289–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Redpath, S. & Thirgood, S. (1999). Numerical and functional responses in generalist predators: hen harriers and peregrines on Scottish grouse moors. J. Anim. Ecol., 68, 879–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reid, K. & Arnould, J. (1996). The diet of Antarctic fur seals Arctocephalus gazella during the breeding season at South Georgia. Polar Biol., 16, 104–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reid, K. & Croxall, J. P. (2001). Environmental response of upper trophic-level predators reveals a system change in an Antarctic marine ecosystem. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B, 268, 377–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stefansson, G. (2003). Multi-species and ecosystem models in a management context. In Responsible Fisheries in the Marine Ecosystem, eds. M. Sinclair, & Valdimarsson, G.. Wallingford, UK: CABI Publishing, pp. 171–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, R. B., Butterworth, D. S., Boyd, I. L. & Croxall, J. P. (2000). Modeling the consequences of Antarctic krill harvesting on Antarctic fur seals. Ecol. Applic., 10, 1806–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turchin, P. (2003). Complex Population Dynamics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
United Nations (1995). The United Nations Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks (in force as from 11 December 2001) (http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention agreements/convention overview fish stocks.htm)
Yodzis, P. (1998). Local trophodynamics and the interaction of marine mammals and fisheries in the Benguela ecosystem. J. Anim. Ecol., 67, 635–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×