Body‐size determinants of niche overlap and intraguild predation within a complex food web

Abstract

SummaryBody‐size may be an important feature of the structure of food webs. Detailed food web data are however scarce, particularly those including ontogenetic dietary shifts within species. We examined the predator guild in a well characterized food web, that of Broadstone Stream (UK), to assess the importance of body‐size within and among species in relation to intraguild predation and niche overlap.In agreement with recent food web theory, mutual predation and cannibalism were frequent and occurred in many pairwise permutations. This intraguild predation was strongly asymmetric, being determined by relative body‐size within and among species, and seasonal ‘ontogenetic reversals’ in trophic status arose when generations overlapped.Predator size determined dietary overlap, with ontogenetic shifts often outweighing taxonomic differences. Small predators had the narrowest diets, regardless of species, and were limited to feeding on a restricted subset of the total prey size‐spectrum. Niche overlap decreased as pairwise differences in body‐size increased among and within species. Overlap in diet also tracked seasonal changes in resource availability, being highest in summer, when prey were abundant and small, and declining progressively over time, as prey became scarcer and/or larger. The small predators also became more detritivorous as prey abundance declined and the larger prey species attained size‐refugia.The body‐size constraints driving feeding relationships within the predator guild, in terms of both resource partitioning and intraguild predation, lend support to recent niche models of food web structure (Warren 1996;Williams & Martinez 2000). The highly interconnected food web of Broadstone Stream appeared to be structured by relatively simple rules, with seasonal and ontogenetic shifts in the size‐spectrum accounting for most of the changes in predator diet and trophic position. Encounter rate in time (prey and predator mobility) and space (microhabitat use) and foraging mode also influenced prey vulnerability and niche overlap, but were secondary to the effect of body‐size.