Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
In size—structured populations, interactions are strongly dependent on size—specific foraging and anti—predator capacities of the organism. Conflicting size—specific selection pressures over the ontogeny often have different effects on different species leading to asymmetries in competitive and predator—prey interactions. Habitat complexity is likely to affect such asymmetric interactions due to species/size—specific competitive abilities in different habitats and due to the fact that habitat structural complexity may act differently as a prey refuge for different species. We experimentally analyzed the impact of a piscivorous predator (adult perch, Perca fluviatilis) on performance of juvenile perch and roach (Rutilus rutilus) at different levels of structural complexity (no structure, structure forming a partial refuge, and structure forming a complete refuge) in enclosures in an experimental pond. We measured predator diet and growth, prey fish habitat use, survival, diet and growth, and prey resource levels in different habitats. Prey fish (perch and roach) were found in the diet of piscivorous perch in no refuge and partial refuge treatments. Growth rate of the piscivorous perch decreased with increased refuge efficiency. Juvenile perch increased their proportional use of the structurally complex refuges in the presence of piscivorous perch and the survival increased with increased refuge efficiency (from partial to complete refuge). The diet of juvenile perch changed from predominantly cyclopoid copeponds in the absence of predators to predominantly macroinvertebrates in the presence of predators. There was no effect of predator—induced habitat restriction on growth of juvenile perch. Roach survival also increased with increased refuge efficiency in the presence of predators, and roach survival in the refuge treatments did not differ from each other or from the treatments with predators absent. Predator—induced habitat restriction in roach was associated with a decreased growth of roach. Our results suggest that, compared to juvenile roach, juvenile perch may compensate more for lost foraging opportunity in the open water via increased exploitation of structure—associated prey in refuges. As a result, predation—induced habitat shifts by juvenile perch and roach may alter competitive interactions between the species. On the other hand, structural complexity may form an almost complete refuge for juvenile roach from predators and thereby affect the predator—prey relationships between piscivorous perch and juvenile perch and roach to the advantage of juvenile roach. The demonstrated effects of structural complexity on competitive and predator—prey interactions between perch and roach can be related to the two species' distributions in lakes with different degrees of structural complexity.
Persson et al. (Sun,) studied this question.