Laboratory and field experiments show structural complexity promotes age-class diversity and growth in fish, suggesting a vital conservation strategy.
Structurally-complex habitats harbour more taxonomically-diverse and more productive communities, a phenomenon generally ascribed to habitat complexity relaxing the strength of inter-specific predation and competition. Here, we extend this classical, community-centred view by showing that positive complexity-diversity and complexity-productivity relationships may also emerge from between-age-class, intra-specific interactions at a single-population level. In the laboratory, we show that medaka fish ( Oryzias latipes ) are strongly cannibalistic in complexity-free habitats, and that cannibalism may occur over a wide range of victim/cannibal body size ratios. In replicated outdoor pond populations, we manipulated habitat structural complexity using floating artificial structures, which selectively hampered movements of large-bodied medaka. Habitat complexity relaxed the strength of cannibalism, resulting in (1) increased survival of age-0+ individuals, (2) elevated age-class diversity, (3) increased population growth rate, and (4) dampened negative density-dependence in the stock-recruitment relationship reflecting elevated habitat carrying capacity. The resultant higher population density in complex habitats was associated with increased competition for food among both age-0+ and age-1+ individuals. Our results highlight that positive complexity-diversity and complexity-productivity relationships may be considered as a generally-emergent property of size-structured populations and communities in which a larger body size brings a predation or interference advantage. Hence, enhancement of habitat structural complexity may be seen as a pivotal management strategy not only in favour of taxonomic diversity, but also to increase the productivity and resilience of exploited populations and to improve the conservation status of endangered species.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Édeline et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: