4.7 Article

When phenology matters: age-size truncation alters population response to trophic mismatch

出版社

ROYAL SOC
DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2014.0938

关键词

age-size truncation; climate change; density dependence; phenological mismatch; population variability

资金

  1. The Natural Environment Research Council of the UK
  2. Research Council of Norway
  3. NERC [NE/J02080X/1, NE/H000208/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  4. Natural Environment Research Council [NE/J02080X/1, NE/H000208/1] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Climate-induced shifts in the timing of life-history events are a worldwide phenomenon, and these shifts can de-synchronize species interactions such as predator-prey relationships. In order to understand the ecological implications of altered seasonality, we need to consider how shifts in phenology interact with other agents of environmental change such as exploitation and disease spread, which commonly act to erode the demographic structure of wild populations. Using long-term observational data on the phenology and dynamics of a model predator-prey system (fish and zooplankton in Windermere, UK), we show that age-size truncation of the predator population alters the consequences of phenological mismatch for offspring survival and population abundance. Specifically, age-size truncation reduces intra-specific density regulation due to competition and cannibalism, and thereby amplifies the population sensitivity to climate-induced predator-prey asynchrony, which increases variability in predator abundance. High population variability poses major ecological and economic challenges as it can diminish sustainable harvest rates and increase the risk of population collapse. Our results stress the importance of maintaining within-population age-size diversity in order to buffer populations against phenological asynchrony, and highlight the need to consider interactive effects of environmental impacts if we are to understand and project complex ecological outcomes.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据