Abstract
Recent theoretical work suggests that predator impact on local prey density will be the result of interactions between prey emigration responses to predators and predator consumption of prey. Whether prey increase or decrease their movement rates in response to predators will greatly influence the impact that predators have on prey density. In stream systems the type of predator, benthic versus water-column, is expected to influence whether prey increase or decrease their movement rates. Experiments were conducted to examine the response of amphipods (Gammarus minus) to benthic and water-column predators and to examine the interplay between amphipod response to predators and predator consumption of prey in determining prey density. Amphipods did not respond to nor were they consumed by the benthic predator. Thus, this predator had no impact on amphipod density. In contrast, amphipods did respond to two species of water-column predators (the predatory fish bluegills, Lepomis macrochirus, and striped shiners, Luxilus chrysocephalus) by decreasing their activity rates. This response led to similar positive effects on amphipod density at night by both species of predatory fish. However, striped shiners did not consume many amphipods, suggesting their impact on the whole amphipod “population” was zero. In contrast, bluegills consumed a significant number of amphipods, and thus had a negative impact on the amphipod “population”. These results lend support to theoretical work which suggests that prey behavioral responses to predators can mask the true impact that predators have on prey populations when experiments are conducted at small scales.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
Received: 21 March 1997 / Accepted: 15 December 1997
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Wooster, D. Amphipod (Gammarus minus) responses to predators and predator impact on amphipod density. Oecologia 115, 253–259 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1007/s004420050514
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s004420050514