Testing food web theory in a large lake: The role of body size in habitat coupling in Lake Michigan.

The landscape theory of food web architecture (LTFWA) describes relationships among body size, trophic position, mobility, and energy channels that serve to couple heterogenous habitats, which in turn promotes long-term system stability. However, empirical tests of the LTFWA are rare and support differs among terrestrial, freshwater, and marine systems. Further, it is unclear whether the theory applies in highly altered ecosystems dominated by introduced species such as the Laurentian Great Lakes. Here, we provide an empirical test of the LTFWA by relating body size, trophic position, and the coupling of different energy channels using stable isotope data from species throughout the Lake Michigan food web. We found that body size was positively related to trophic position, but for a given trophic position, organisms predominately supported by pelagic energy had smaller body sizes than organisms predominately supported by nearshore benthic energy. We also found a hump-shaped trophic relationship in the food web where there is a gradual increase in the coupling of pelagic and nearshore energy channels with larger body sizes as well as higher trophic positions. This highlights the important role of body size and connectivity among habitats in structuring food webs. However, important deviations from expectations are suggestive of how species introductions and other anthropogenic impacts can affect food web structure in large lakes. First, native top predators appear to be flexible couplers that may provide food web resilience, whereas introduced top predators may confer less stability when they specialize on a single energy pathway. Second, some smaller bodied prey fish and invertebrates, in addition to mobile predators, coupled energy from pelagic and nearshore energy channels, which suggests that some prey species may also be important integrators of energy pathways in the system. We conclude that patterns predicted by the LTFWA are present in the face of species introductions and other anthropogenic stressors to a degree, but time-series evaluations are needed to fully understand the mechanisms that promote stability.

Experimental evidence that ecological effects of an invasive fish are reduced at high densities.

Understanding the relationship between invasive species density and ecological impact is a pressing topic in ecology, with implications for environmental management and policy. Although it is widely assumed that invasive species impact will increase with density, theory suggests interspecific competition may diminish at high densities due to increased intraspecific interactions. To test this theory, we experimentally examined intra- and interspecific interactions between a globally invasive fish, round goby (Neogobius melanostomus), and three native species at different round goby densities in a tributary of the Laurentian Great Lakes. Eighteen 2.25 m(2) enclosures were stocked with native fish species at natural abundances, while round gobies were stocked at three different densities: 0 m(-2), 2.7 m(-2), and 10.7 m(-2). After 52 days, native fish growth rate was significantly reduced in the low density goby treatment, while growth in the high density goby treatment mirrored the goby-free treatment for two of three native species. Invertebrate density and gut content weight of native fishes did not differ among treatments. Conversely, gut content weight and growth of round gobies were lower in the high goby density treatment, suggesting interactions between round gobies and native fishes are mediated by interference competition amongst gobies. Our experiment provides evidence that invasive species effects may diminish at high densities, possibly due to increased intraspecific interactions. This is consistent with some ecological theory, and cautions against the assumption that invasive species at moderate densities have low impact.

Commonly rare and rarely common: comparing population abundance of invasive and native aquatic species.

Invasive species are leading drivers of environmental change. Their impacts are often linked to their population size, but surprisingly little is known about how frequently they achieve high abundances. A nearly universal pattern in ecology is that species are rare in most locations and abundant in a few, generating right-skewed abundance distributions. Here, we use abundance data from over 24,000 populations of 17 invasive and 104 native aquatic species to test whether invasive species differ from native counterparts in statistical patterns of abundance across multiple sites. Invasive species on average reached significantly higher densities than native species and exhibited significantly higher variance. However, invasive and native species did not differ in terms of coefficient of variation, skewness, or kurtosis. Abundance distributions of all species were highly right skewed (skewness>0), meaning both invasive and native species occurred at low densities in most locations where they were present. The average abundance of invasive and native species was 6% and 2%, respectively, of the maximum abundance observed within a taxonomic group. The biological significance of the differences between invasive and native species depends on species-specific relationships between abundance and impact. Recognition of cross-site heterogeneity in population densities brings a new dimension to invasive species management, and may help to refine optimal prevention, containment, control, and eradication strategies.