JAE-2009-00584 Supporting Information
1
2
3
Supporting Information
4
Figure S1
Multiple predators in prey metacommunities
5
6
7
A
B
C α
α
β
γ
8
9
10
11
Figure S1. Predator-prey metacommunities under (a) low and (b) high prey dispersal. (c) Each
12
metacommunity replicate consisted of three pond mesocosm communities representing a spatial
13
and temporal prey refuge from functionally dissimilar invertebrate predators. Two communities
14
maintained constant predation and supported either Gyrinus sp. (Coleoptera) or Notonecta
15
ungulata (Hemiptera) predators generating a spatial refuge for zooplankton prey while the third
16
community supported alternating predation from Gyrinus sp. and N. ungulata generating a
17
temporal prey refuge. Regional (γ), local (α), and beta diversity (β) of prey was measured for
18
each metacommunity.
1
JAE-2009-00584 Supporting Information
19
Multiple predators in prey metacommunities
Figure S2
20
Bosmina
-1
log density (no. L )
2
(a)
G
(b)
N
(c)
G-N
(d)
G
(e)
N
(f)
G-N
(g)
G
(h)
N
(i)
G-N
1
0
Chydorus
-1
log density (no. L )
2
1
0
Daphnia
-1
log density (no. L )
2
1
N
is
p
D
o
D
is
p
,N
o
Pr
+ ed
D + P Pre
is
p re d
D +P d(
is
p r e 1)
D +P d(
is
p r e 2)
D +P d(
is
p r e 3)
D +P d(
is
p red 4)
+
Pr (5
ed )
(6
)
N
o
D
is
p,
N
o
Pr
D
e
is
p +P d
+
D
is Pr red
p e
D +P d(
is
p r e 1)
D +P d(
is
p r e 2)
D +P d(
is
p r e 3)
D +P d(
is
p red 4)
+
Pr (5
ed )
(6
)
N
o
D
is
p,
N
o
Pr
D
e
is
p +P d
D + P re
is
p re d
D +P d(
is
p r e 1)
D +P d(
is
p r e 2)
D +P d(
is
p r e 3)
D +P d(
is
p red 4)
+
Pr (5
ed )
(6
)
0
Time (wk)
Time (wk)
Spatial
Time (wk)
Temporal
21
22
Figure S2. Density of indicator species in spatial and temporal prey refuges through time.
23
Bosmina density in low prey dispersal (closed circles) and high prey dispersal (open circles)
24
communities under (a) Gyrinus sp. (G) (b) Notonecta ungulata (N) and (c) Gyrinus sp.-
25
Notonecta ungulata (G-N) predation. (d-f) Chydorus and (g-i) Daphnia. Treatment sequence
26
through time (week; left to right): no predation and no dispersal; predation and no dispersal;
27
predation and dispersal for weeks 1 through 6. Values are mean log10(x+1) density + 1 SE, n =
28
4.
2
D
,N
is
p
30
D
is
p
Simocephalus
-1
log density (no. L )
Scapholeberis
log density (no. L-1)
Cyclopoid
log density (no. L-1)
Ceriodaphnia
log density (no. L-1)
Calanoid
log density (no. L-1)
Alona
log density (no. L-1)
29
o
Pr
+ ed
D + P Pre
is
p re d
D +P d(
is
p re 1)
D +P d(
is
p re 2)
D +P d(
is
p re 3)
D +P d(
is
p red 4)
+
Pr (5
ed )
N
(6
o
)
D
is
p,
N
o
Pr
D
e
is
p + d
D + P Pre
is
p red d
D +P (
is
p re 1)
D +P d(
is
p re 2)
D +P d(
is
p re 3)
D +P d(
is
p red 4)
+
Pr (5
ed )
(6
N
)
o
D
is
p,
N
o
Pr
D
e
is
p +P d
+
D
is Pr red
p
e
D +P d(
is
p re 1)
D +P d(
is
p re 2)
D +P d(
is
p re 3)
D +P d(
is
p red 4)
+
Pr (5
ed )
(6
)
o
N
JAE-2009-00584 Supporting Information
Multiple predators in prey metacommunities
Figure S3
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
2.0
(a)
G
(b)
N
(c)
G-N
(d)
G
(e)
N
(f)
G-N
(g)
G
(h)
N
(i)
G-N
(j)
G
(k)
N
(l)
G-N
(m)
G
(n)
N
(o)
G-N
1.5
(p)
G
(q)
N
(r)
G-N
1.0
0.5
0.0
Time (wk)
Time (wk)
Spatial
Time (wk)
Temporal
3
JAE-2009-00584 Supporting Information
Multiple predators in prey metacommunities
31
Figure S3. Density of non-indicator species in spatial and temporal prey refuges through time.
32
Alona density in low prey dispersal (closed circles) and high prey dispersal (open circles)
33
communities under (a) Gyrinus sp. (G) (b) Notonecta ungulata (N) and (c) Gyrinus sp.-
34
Notonecta ungulata (G-N) predation. (d-f) Calanoid; (g-i) Ceriodaphnia; (j-l) Cyclopoid; (m-o)
35
Scapholeberis and (p-r) Simocephalus. Treatment sequence through time (week; left to right): no
36
predation and no dispersal; predation and no dispersal; predation and dispersal for weeks 1
37
through 6. Values are mean log10(x+1) density + 1 SE, n = 4.
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
4
JAE-2009-00584 Supporting Information
Multiple predators in prey metacommunities
69
Table S1. Effects of prey dispersal rate on prey species density in the spatial refuge within low
70
and high dispersal metacommunities. Species densities were contrasted between the two
71
communities which differed in the constant presence of Gyrinus sp. and Notonecta ungulata
72
predators within each metacommunity. Density data (log10 (x+1)) were generated from mean
73
weeks 3-6, n = 4. Prey are ranked by mean size from smallest (Chydorus) to largest (Daphnia).
74
Results reported from one-tailed Welch’s t-tests calculated in the R statistical environment (R
75
Development Core Team 2006). Significance levels for probability values: † P < 0.1; * P <
76
0.05.
77
Species
low dispersal
high dispersal
d.f.
t
P
d.f.
t
P
Chydorus
6.00
1.67
0.07†
5.65
0.18
0.43
Alona
3.44
1.08
0.18
5.94
-0.01
0.50
Bosmina
4.46
-1.00
0.18
3.33
0.82
0.23
Scapholeberis
6.00
1.78
0.06†
5.59
0.65
0.27
Ceriodaphnia
5.08
0.27
0.40
5.99
-0.05
0.48
Cyclopoid
3.98
0.51
0.32
3.59
-0.46
0.33
Simocephalus
5.89
0.99
0.18
3.61
2.89
0.03*
Calanoid
5.10
-0.78
0.24
5.88
-0.16
0.44
Daphnia
5.43
2.87
0.02*
3.46
0.50
0.32
78
79
80
81
82
5
JAE-2009-00584 Supporting Information
Multiple predators in prey metacommunities
83
Table S2. Effects of prey dispersal rate on prey species density in the temporal refuge within low
84
and high dispersal metacommunities. Species densities were contrasted within the cyclical
85
predation community which differed in the presence of Gyrinus sp. and Notonecta ungulata
86
predators through time. Density data (log10(x+1)) were generated from mean weeks 3-4 and 5-6,
87
n = 4. Prey are ranked by mean size from smallest (Chydorus) to largest (Daphnia). Results
88
reported from one-tailed Welch’s t-tests calculated in the R statistical environment. Significance
89
levels for probability values: † P < 0.1; * P < 0.05.
90
Species
low dispersal
high dispersal
d.f.
t
P
d.f.
t
P
Chydorus
5.89
0.28
0.39
3.00
-1.00
0.20
Alona
5.83
-0.44
0.34
3.50
-0.96
0.20
Bosmina
5.73
-0.06
0.48
3.62
-1.03
0.18
Scapholeberis
3.11
-0.58
0.30
6.00
0.18
0.43
Ceriodaphnia
5.50
0.18
0.43
5.87
-0.34
0.37
Cyclopoid
5.73
-0.25
0.41
5.74
-1.32
0.12
Simocephalus
4.13
-0.98
0.19
5.26
-0.20
0.42
Calanoid
5.67
0.12
0.46
5.97
0.48
0.32
Daphnia
5.38
-0.68
0.26
5.76
-0.06
0.48
91
92
93
94
95
6
JAE-2009-00584 Supporting Information
Multiple predators in prey metacommunities
96
Table S3. Differences in zooplankton mean body size in metacommunities and Gyrinus sp.,
97
Notonecta ungulata, and Gyrinus sp.-Notonecta ungulata communities prior to the initiation of
98
dispersal and predation treatments (no dispersal, no predation) and after the imposition of
99
treatments (dispersal, predation). For each set of comparisons, body sizes were contrasted
100
between low and high dispersal treatments. Body sizes in the region were calculated from the
101
sum of individual body sizes across the three communities of each metacommunity. Values for
102
body size under dispersal and predation treatments were generated from mean body size values
103
from weeks 3-6 and weeks 5-6, n = 4. Results reported from one-tailed Welch’s t-tests
104
calculated in the R statistical environment. Significance levels for probability values: † P < 0.1; *
105
P < 0.05.
106
no dispersal, no predation
Response variable
d.f.
t
P
dispersal, predation
d.f.
t
P
d.f.
wk 3 to 6
107
108
109
110
111
t
P
wk 5 to 6
Region
3.21
0.73
0.51
5.07
0.59
0.29
4.69
-0.15
0.44
Gyrinus
3.50
0.65
0.56
5.52
1.09
0.16
4.87
0.27
0.40
Notonecta
5.78
-1.73
0.14
5.80
2.25
0.03*
3.31
1.88
0.07†
Gyrinus-Notonecta
3.76
0.70
0.53
4.20
-0.57
0.30
4.17
-1.13
0.16
Literature Cited
R Development Core Team (2006) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R
112
Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. Available at: http://www.R-
113
project.org.
7