Habitat fragmentation and the stability of predator–prey interactions (original) (raw)

Nature volume 326, pages 388–390 (1987)Cite this article

Abstract

Mathematical models1–3, field observations4,5, and laboratory studies6 all suggest that habitat patchiness (or 'fragmentation') profoundly affects species interactions. One especially widely cited idea is that patchiness stabilizes predator–prey dynamics7,8. I performed the first test of this idea in a natural community by experimentally manipulating the degree of patchiness in goldenrod fields that were the setting for a predator–prey interaction between ladybird beetles and aphids. Contrary to conventional wisdom, I found that increasing patchiness led to more frequent local explosions of aphid populations and thus less stable dynamics. These results can be understood by examining the effects of patchiness on the searching and aggregation behaviour of ladybird predators. It appears that the effects of habitat fragmentation depend on the specific behaviour of the organisms using the habitats. Thus, instead of making robust generalizations about habitat fragmentation (such as "patchiness is stabilizing") we should seek predictions that are based on the details of an organism's dispersal behaviour and demography9.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Subscribe to this journal

Receive 51 print issues and online access

$199.00 per year

only $3.90 per issue

Buy this article

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Additional access options:

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Hastings, A. Theor. Populat. Biology 12, 37–48 (1978).
    Article Google Scholar
  2. Levin, S. A. Rev. ecol. Syst. 7, 287–310 (1976).
    Article Google Scholar
  3. Maynard Smith, J. in Models in Ecology, 69–83 (Cambridge University Press, 1974).
    MATH Google Scholar
  4. Elton, C. J. Ecol. 37, 1–23 (1949).
    Article Google Scholar
  5. Hanski, I. & Ranta, E. J. Anim. Ecol. 52, 263–279 (1983).
    Article Google Scholar
  6. Huffaker, C. B. Hilgardia 27, 343–383 (1958).
    Article Google Scholar
  7. Begon, M., Harper, J. & Townsend, C. in Ecology, 337–339 (Sinauer, Massachusetts, 1986).
    Google Scholar
  8. May, R. J. Anim. Ecol. 47, 833–843 (1978).
    Article Google Scholar
  9. Hassell, M. & Ma, R. in Behavioural Ecology (eds Sibly, R. & Smith, R.) 137–154 (Blackwell, Oxford, 1985).
    Google Scholar
  10. Kareiva, P. Lect. Notes Biomath. 54, 368–389 (1984).
    Article MathSciNet Google Scholar
  11. Kareiva, P. in Community Ecology (eds Diamond, J. & Case, T.) 196–206 (Harper & Row, New York, 1985).
    Google Scholar
  12. Kareiva, P. & Odell, G. Am. Nat (in the press).
  13. Hassell, M. & Ma, R. J. Anim. Ecol. 43, 567–594 (1974).
    Article Google Scholar
  14. Heads, P. & Lawton, J. Oikos 40, 267–276 (1981).
    Article Google Scholar
  15. Wilcox, D., McClellan, C. & Dobson, A. in Conservation Biology (ed. Soule, M.) 237–256 (Sinauer, Massachusetts, 1986).
    Google Scholar
  16. Pickett, S. & Thompson, J. Biol. Cons. 13, 27–37 (1978).
    Article Google Scholar

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Zoology NJ-15, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, 98195, USA
    P. Kareiva

Authors

  1. P. Kareiva
    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kareiva, P. Habitat fragmentation and the stability of predator–prey interactions.Nature 326, 388–390 (1987). https://doi.org/10.1038/326388a0

Download citation

This article is cited by