Source of data? Reference Line # System (freshwater, marine, terrestrial) Habitat Study type (cage, enclosure, aquarium, cattle tank, natural unit) Field or lab? Study Length (in days) Replicates/treatment Individuals/replicate Notes on replication Food chain (verbal description) Predator class Predator spp. Prey class Prey spp. Resource class Resource spp. Response variable How is response measured? pre-experiment: mean pre-experiment: SE pre-experiment: SD Control (ie. Risk-free trt): verbal description Control: mean Control: SE Control: SD (for meta-analysis, figured using total # ind/trt) Control: replicates/trt Control: individuals/replicate Control: total individuals Predator consumption only, AKA CE, verbal description of treatment CE only: mean CE only: SE CE only: SD (for meta-analysis, figured using total # ind/trt) CE only: replicates/trt CE only: individuals/replicate CE only: total individuals predator risk only AKA NCE, verbal description of treatment NCE only: mean NCE only: SE NCE only: SD (for meta-analysis, figured using total # ind/trt) NCE only: replicates/trt NCE only: individuals/replicate NCE only: total individuals lethal predator AKA total AKA CE+NCE verbal description of treatment CE+NCE: mean CE+NCE: SE CE+NCE: SD (for meta-analysis, figured using total # ind/trt) CE+NCE: replicates/trt CE+NCE: individuals/replicate CE+NCE: total individuals Trophic level on which response is measured (Predator, Prey, Resource) Type of response variable response variable increase represents Benefit (1) Detriment (-1) Measured CE? Measured NCE? Measured TOTAL? **Factors measured (1=NCE only, 2= 2 of 3 terms, 3 = all)**(must be checked manually for zero values in any entry) # trophic steps (1 or 2) linked to any other lines in this reference? If so, which? Notes Figure 2 Abjornsson et al 2002 Freshwater Biology 47: 1489-1495 Abj02-01 freshwater pond cattle tank/ wading pool field 84 5 1 no # individuals given. Used one ind/rep as most conservative estimate predator-prey Actinopterygii Perca fluviatilis, Eurasian perch Insecta non-predatory insects Growth g DW no predator 0.93 0.09 0.2 5 1 5 caged fish 1.31 0.06 0.13 5 1 5 lethal fish 0.04 0.01 0.02 5 1 5 Prey Growth 1 0 1 1 2 1 none Figure 2 Abjornsson et al 2002 Freshwater Biology 47: 1489-1495 Abj02-02 freshwater pond cattle tank/ wading pool field 84 5 1 no # individuals given. Used one ind/rep as most conservative estimate predator-prey Actinopterygii Perca fluviatilis, Eurasian perch Insecta predatory insects Growth g DW no predator 0.58 0.13 0.28 5 1 5 caged fish 0.09 0.02 0.04 5 1 5 lethal fish 0.29 0.03 0.07 5 1 5 Prey Growth 1 0 1 1 2 1 none Figure 2 Allouche & Gaudin 2001 Oikos 94: 481-492 All01-01 freshwater stream natural unit field 10 2 15 11 Aves Phalacrocorax pygmaeus, pygmy cormorant (stuffed) Actinopterygii Leuciscus cephalus, chub Growth Specific growth rate (percent increase in mass per day) no predator threat 0.26 0.14 0.79 2 15 30 stuffed predator flown over stream 0.12 0.09 0.49 2 15 30 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 All01-01, All01-07 low flow Figure 2 Allouche & Gaudin 2001 Oikos 94: 481-492 All01-02 freshwater stream natural unit field 10 2 15 11 Aves Phalacrocorax pygmaeus, pygmy cormorant (stuffed) Actinopterygii Leuciscus cephalus, chub Growth Specific growth rate (percent increase in mass per day) no predator threat 0.23 0.15 0.84 2 15 30 stuffed predator flown over stream 0.09 0.06 0.33 2 15 30 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 All01-02, All01-08 low flow Figure 2 Allouche & Gaudin 2001 Oikos 94: 481-492 All01-03 freshwater stream natural unit field 10 2 15 11 Aves Phalacrocorax pygmaeus, pygmy cormorant (stuffed) Actinopterygii Leuciscus cephalus, chub Growth Specific growth rate (percent increase in mass per day) no predator threat 0.27 0.18 0.98 2 15 30 stuffed predator flown over stream 0.18 0.08 0.42 2 15 30 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 All01-03, All01-09 low flow Figure 2 Allouche & Gaudin 2001 Oikos 94: 481-492 All01-04 freshwater stream natural unit field 10 2 15 11 Aves Phalacrocorax pygmaeus, pygmy cormorant (stuffed) Actinopterygii Leuciscus cephalus, chub Growth Specific growth rate (percent increase in mass per day) no predator threat 0.09 0.17 0.91 2 15 30 stuffed predator flown over stream 0.07 0.04 0.23 2 15 30 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 All01-04, All01-10 high flow Figure 2 Allouche & Gaudin 2001 Oikos 94: 481-492 All01-05 freshwater stream natural unit field 10 2 15 11 Aves Phalacrocorax pygmaeus, pygmy cormorant (stuffed) Actinopterygii Leuciscus cephalus, chub Growth Specific growth rate (percent increase in mass per day) no predator threat 0.11 0.12 0.65 2 15 30 stuffed predator flown over stream 0.05 0.09 0.5 2 15 30 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 All01-05, All01-11 high flow Figure 2 Allouche & Gaudin 2001 Oikos 94: 481-492 All01-06 freshwater stream natural unit field 10 2 15 11 Aves Phalacrocorax pygmaeus, pygmy cormorant (stuffed) Actinopterygii Leuciscus cephalus, chub Growth Specific growth rate (percent increase in mass per day) no predator threat 0.19 0.13 0.71 2 15 30 stuffed predator flown over stream 0.1 0.07 0.38 2 15 30 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 All01-06, All01-12 high flow Figure 3b Allouche & Gaudin 2001 Oikos 94: 481-492 All01-07 freshwater stream natural unit field 0.04 2 5 11 Aves Phalacrocorax pygmaeus, pygmy cormorant (stuffed) Actinopterygii Leuciscus cephalus, chub Activity distance travelled (m) no predator threat 25.35 1.44 4.54 2 5 10 stuffed predator flown over stream 15.74 1.44 4.54 2 5 10 Prey Activity 1 0 1 0 1 1 All01-01, All01-07 low flow Figure 3b Allouche & Gaudin 2001 Oikos 94: 481-492 All01-08 freshwater stream natural unit field 0.04 2 5 11 Aves Phalacrocorax pygmaeus, pygmy cormorant (stuffed) Actinopterygii Leuciscus cephalus, chub Activity distance travelled (m) no predator threat 20.77 1.07 3.37 2 5 10 stuffed predator flown over stream 6.45 1.32 4.16 2 5 10 Prey Activity 1 0 1 0 1 1 All01-02, All01-08 low flow Figure 3b Allouche & Gaudin 2001 Oikos 94: 481-492 All01-09 freshwater stream natural unit field 0.04 2 5 11 Aves Phalacrocorax pygmaeus, pygmy cormorant (stuffed) Actinopterygii Leuciscus cephalus, chub Activity distance travelled (m) no predator threat 23.06 0.81 2.56 2 5 10 stuffed predator flown over stream 7.6 0.7 2.2 2 5 10 Prey Activity 1 0 1 0 1 1 All01-03, All01-09 low flow Figure 3b Allouche & Gaudin 2001 Oikos 94: 481-492 All01-10 freshwater stream natural unit field 0.04 2 5 11 Aves Phalacrocorax pygmaeus, pygmy cormorant (stuffed) Actinopterygii Leuciscus cephalus, chub Activity distance travelled (m) no predator threat 17.01 2.3 7.29 2 5 10 stuffed predator flown over stream 12.06 1.08 3.43 2 5 10 Prey Activity 1 0 1 0 1 1 All01-04, All01-10 high flow Figure 3b Allouche & Gaudin 2001 Oikos 94: 481-492 All01-11 freshwater stream natural unit field 0.04 2 5 11 Aves Phalacrocorax pygmaeus, pygmy cormorant (stuffed) Actinopterygii Leuciscus cephalus, chub Activity distance travelled (m) no predator threat 20.34 0.71 2.26 2 5 10 stuffed predator flown over stream 1.55 0.41 1.31 2 5 10 Prey Activity 1 0 1 0 1 1 All01-05, All01-11 high flow Figure 3b Allouche & Gaudin 2001 Oikos 94: 481-492 All01-12 freshwater stream natural unit field 0.04 2 5 11 Aves Phalacrocorax pygmaeus, pygmy cormorant (stuffed) Actinopterygii Leuciscus cephalus, chub Activity distance travelled (m) no predator threat 15.97 1.15 3.64 2 5 10 stuffed predator flown over stream 3.75 0.55 1.74 2 5 10 Prey Activity 1 0 1 0 1 1 All01-06, All01-12 high flow Figure 1a Altwegg 2002 Ecology 83(9): 2542-2551 Alt02-01 freshwater pond, ephemeral aquarium lab until metamorphosis complete 7 10 11 Insecta Anax imperator, dragonfly Amphibia Rana lessonae, pool frog Development Time to metamorphosis (days) no predator cues 60.74 0.68 5.65 7 10 70 caged predator 71.47 1.35 11.29 7 10 70 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Alt02-01, Alt02-02, Alt02-03 Seasonality expt (early tadpoles, hatching date gives longest time for development) Figure 1c Altwegg 2002 Ecology 83(9): 2542-2551 Alt02-02 freshwater pond, ephemeral aquarium lab until metamorphosis complete 7 10 11 Insecta Anax imperator, dragonfly Amphibia Rana lessonae, pool frog Growth Mass at metamorphosis (mg) no predator cues 485 37.3 312.07 7 10 70 caged predator 530 27.1 226.73 7 10 70 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Alt02-01, Alt02-02, Alt02-03 Seasonality expt (early tadpoles, hatching date gives longest time for development) Figure 2a Altwegg 2002 Ecology 83(9): 2542-2551 Alt02-03 freshwater pond, ephemeral aquarium lab 34 7 10 11 Insecta Anax imperator, dragonfly Amphibia Rana lessonae, pool frog Activity proportion active on day 34 no predator cues 0.51 0.08 0.64 7 10 70 caged predator 0.2 0.05 0.43 7 10 70 Prey Activity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Alt02-01, Alt02-02, Alt02-03 Seasonality expt (early tadpoles, hatching date gives longest time for development) Figure 1a Altwegg 2002 Ecology 83(9): 2542-2551 Alt02-04 freshwater pond, ephemeral aquarium lab until metamorphosis complete 7 10 11 Insecta Anax imperator, dragonfly Amphibia Rana lessonae, pool frog Development Time to metamorphosis (days) no predator cues 60.74 1.01 8.48 7 10 70 caged predator 67.89 1.35 11.29 7 10 70 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Alt02-04, Alt02-05, Alt02-06 Seasonality expt (delayed tadpoles, hatching date gives less time for development) Figure 1c Altwegg 2002 Ecology 83(9): 2542-2551 Alt02-05 freshwater pond, ephemeral aquarium lab until metamorphosis complete 7 10 11 Insecta Anax imperator, dragonfly Amphibia Rana lessonae, pool frog Growth Mass at metamorphosis (mg) no predator cues 413 27.1 226.73 7 10 70 caged predator 521 47.4 396.58 7 10 70 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Alt02-04, Alt02-05, Alt02-06 Seasonality expt (delayed tadpoles, hatching date gives less time for development) Figure 2a Altwegg 2002 Ecology 83(9): 2542-2551 Alt02-06 freshwater pond, ephemeral aquarium lab 34 7 10 11 Insecta Anax imperator, dragonfly Amphibia Rana lessonae, pool frog Activity proportion active on day 34 no predator cues 0.41 0.06 0.48 7 10 70 caged predator 0.25 0 0.02 7 10 70 Prey Activity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Alt02-04, Alt02-05, Alt02-06 Seasonality expt (delayed tadpoles, hatching date gives less time for development) Figure 1a Altwegg 2002 Ecology 83(9): 2542-2551 Alt02-07 freshwater pond, ephemeral aquarium lab until metamorphosis complete 7 10 11 Insecta Anax imperator, dragonfly Amphibia Rana lessonae, pool frog Development Time to metamorphosis (days) no predator cues 61.18 1.69 14.12 7 10 70 caged predator 65.21 1.35 11.29 7 10 70 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Alt02-07, Alt02-08, Alt02-09 Seasonality expt (late tadpoles, hatching date gives least time for development) Figure 1c Altwegg 2002 Ecology 83(9): 2542-2551 Alt02-08 freshwater pond, ephemeral aquarium lab until metamorphosis complete 7 10 11 Insecta Anax imperator, dragonfly Amphibia Rana lessonae, pool frog Growth Mass at metamorphosis (mg) no predator cues 413 23.7 198.29 7 10 70 caged predator 485 23.7 198.29 7 10 70 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Alt02-07, Alt02-08, Alt02-09 Seasonality expt (late tadpoles, hatching date gives least time for development) Figure 2a Altwegg 2002 Ecology 83(9): 2542-2551 Alt02-09 freshwater pond, ephemeral aquarium lab 34 7 10 11 Insecta Anax imperator, dragonfly Amphibia Rana lessonae, pool frog Activity proportion active on day 34 no predator cues 0.34 0.02 0.19 7 10 70 caged predator 0.26 0.05 0.43 7 10 70 Prey Activity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Alt02-07, Alt02-08, Alt02-09 Seasonality expt (late tadpoles, hatching date gives least time for development) Figure 1b Altwegg 2002 Ecology 83(9): 2542-2551 Alt02-10 freshwater pond, ephemeral aquarium lab 68 7 10 11 Insecta Anax imperator, dragonfly Amphibia Rana lessonae, pool frog Development # of individuals metamorphosed before day 68 no predator cues 4.67 0.5 4.21 7 10 70 caged predator 4.36 0.62 5.18 7 10 70 Prey Development 1 0 1 0 1 1 Alt02-10, Alt02-11, Alt02-12 Pond-drying expt (constant water levels) Figure 1d Altwegg 2002 Ecology 83(9): 2542-2551 Alt02-11 freshwater pond, ephemeral aquarium lab until metamorphosis complete 7 10 11 Insecta Anax imperator, dragonfly Amphibia Rana lessonae, pool frog Growth Mass (mg) no predator cues 523 50.2 420 7 10 70 caged predator 514 21.4 179.05 7 10 70 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Alt02-10, Alt02-11, Alt02-12 Pond-drying expt (constant water levels) Figure 2b Altwegg 2002 Ecology 83(9): 2542-2551 Alt02-12 freshwater pond, ephemeral aquarium lab 36 7 10 11 Insecta Anax imperator, dragonfly Amphibia Rana lessonae, pool frog Activity proportion active on day 36 no predator cues 0.48 0.05 0.43 7 10 70 caged predator 0.27 0.07 0.56 7 10 70 Prey Activity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Alt02-10, Alt02-11, Alt02-12 Pond-drying expt (constant water levels) Figure 1b Altwegg 2002 Ecology 83(9): 2542-2551 Alt02-13 freshwater pond, ephemeral aquarium lab 68 7 10 11 Insecta Anax imperator, dragonfly Amphibia Rana lessonae, pool frog Development # of individuals metamorphosed before day 68 no predator cues 5.79 0.74 6.15 7 10 70 caged predator 4.56 0.05 0.45 7 10 70 Prey Development 1 0 1 0 1 1 Alt02-13, Alt02-14, Alt02-15 Pond-drying expt (pond dries slowly) Figure 1d Altwegg 2002 Ecology 83(9): 2542-2551 Alt02-14 freshwater pond, ephemeral aquarium lab until metamorphosis complete 7 10 11 Insecta Anax imperator, dragonfly Amphibia Rana lessonae, pool frog Growth Mass (mg) no predator cues 461 33.4 279.44 7 10 70 caged predator 381 16.7 139.72 7 10 70 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Alt02-13, Alt02-14, Alt02-15 Pond-drying expt (pond dries slowly) Figure 2b Altwegg 2002 Ecology 83(9): 2542-2551 Alt02-15 freshwater pond, ephemeral aquarium lab 36 7 10 11 Insecta Anax imperator, dragonfly Amphibia Rana lessonae, pool frog Activity proportion active on day 36 no predator cues 0.34 0.1 0.8 7 10 70 caged predator 0.29 0.07 0.56 7 10 70 Prey Activity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Alt02-13, Alt02-14, Alt02-15 Pond-drying expt (pond dries slowly) Figure 1b Altwegg 2002 Ecology 83(9): 2542-2551 Alt02-16 freshwater pond, ephemeral aquarium lab 68 7 10 11 Insecta Anax imperator, dragonfly Amphibia Rana lessonae, pool frog Development # of individuals metamorphosed before day 68 no predator cues 6.72 0.54 4.53 7 10 70 caged predator 5.38 0.46 3.88 7 10 70 Prey Development 1 0 1 0 1 1 Alt02-16, Alt02-17, Alt02-18 Pond-drying expt (pond dries quickly) Figure 1d Altwegg 2002 Ecology 83(9): 2542-2551 Alt02-17 freshwater pond, ephemeral aquarium lab until metamorphosis complete 7 10 11 Insecta Anax imperator, dragonfly Amphibia Rana lessonae, pool frog Growth Mass (mg) no predator cues 372 20.1 168.17 7 10 70 caged predator 346 10 83.67 7 10 70 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Alt02-16, Alt02-17, Alt02-18 Pond-drying expt (pond dries quickly) Figure 2b Altwegg 2002 Ecology 83(9): 2542-2551 Alt02-18 freshwater pond, ephemeral aquarium lab 36 7 10 11 Insecta Anax imperator, dragonfly Amphibia Rana lessonae, pool frog Activity proportion active on day 36 no predator cues 0.26 0.06 0.52 7 10 70 caged predator 0.25 0.05 0.42 7 10 70 Prey Activity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Alt02-16, Alt02-17, Alt02-18 Pond-drying expt (pond dries quickly) Table 2 Altwegg 2002 Evol Ecol Res 4: 519-536 Alt02B-01 freshwater pond cattle tank/ wading pool field larval period 5 30 11 Insecta Aeshna cyanea, dragonfly Amphibia Rana esculenta, common European frog Development days no predator 56.4 0.98 12.05 5 30 150 predator risk 61.2 0.89 10.95 5 30 150 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Alt02B-01, 04 (body mass for A. cyanea estimated by taking dry mass and multiplying by 3.5 to get wet mass) Table 2 Altwegg 2002 Evol Ecol Res 4: 519-536 Alt02B-02 freshwater pond cattle tank/ wading pool field larval period 5 60 11 Insecta Anax imperator, dragonfly Amphibia Rana esculenta, common European frog Development days no predator 68.1 2.82 48.8 5 60 300 predator risk 70.4 2.19 37.96 5 60 300 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Alt02B-02, 05 Table 2 Altwegg 2002 Evol Ecol Res 4: 519-536 Alt02B-03 freshwater pond cattle tank/ wading pool field larval period 5 90 11 Insecta Anax imperator, dragonfly Amphibia Rana esculenta, common European frog Development days no predator 74.8 3.35 71.06 5 90 450 predator risk 76.2 2 42.43 5 90 450 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Alt02B-03, 06 Table 2 Altwegg 2002 Evol Ecol Res 4: 519-536 Alt02B-04 freshwater pond cattle tank/ wading pool field larval period 5 30 11 Insecta Anax imperator, dragonfly Amphibia Rana esculenta, common European frog Growth mg no predator 1238 106.88 1309.06 5 30 150 predator risk 1269 117.62 1440.51 5 30 150 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Alt02B-01, 04 I don't think that mass in this case is the best measure, since it is not in a per-day format…larval period is probably better Table 2 Altwegg 2002 Evol Ecol Res 4: 519-536 Alt02B-05 freshwater pond cattle tank/ wading pool field larval period 5 60 11 Insecta Anax imperator, dragonfly Amphibia Rana esculenta, common European frog Growth mg no predator 803 84.52 1463.99 5 60 300 predator risk 844 40.7 704.88 5 60 300 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Alt02B-02, 05 I don't think that mass in this case is the best measure, since it is not in a per-day format…larval period is probably better Table 2 Altwegg 2002 Evol Ecol Res 4: 519-536 Alt02B-06 freshwater pond cattle tank/ wading pool field larval period 5 90 11 Insecta Anax imperator, dragonfly Amphibia Rana esculenta, common European frog Growth mg no predator 589 50.98 1081.45 5 90 450 predator risk 680 52 1103.09 5 90 450 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Alt02B-03, 06 I don't think that mass in this case is the best measure, since it is not in a per-day format…larval period is probably better Table 2 Altwegg 2002 Evol Ecol Res 4: 519-536 Alt02B-07 freshwater pond cattle tank/ wading pool field larval period 5 30 11 Insecta Anax imperator, dragonfly Amphibia Rana lessonae, pool frog Development days no predator 47.9 0.98 12.05 5 30 150 predator risk 54.8 0.54 6.57 5 30 150 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Alt02B-07, 10 Table 2 Altwegg 2002 Evol Ecol Res 4: 519-536 Alt02B-08 freshwater pond cattle tank/ wading pool field larval period 5 60 11 Insecta Anax imperator, dragonfly Amphibia Rana lessonae, pool frog Development days no predator 51.9 0.89 15.49 5 60 300 predator risk 54.2 1.83 31.76 5 60 300 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Alt02B-08, 11 Table 2 Altwegg 2002 Evol Ecol Res 4: 519-536 Alt02B-09 freshwater pond cattle tank/ wading pool field larval period 5 90 11 Insecta Anax imperator, dragonfly Amphibia Rana lessonae, pool frog Development days no predator 55.2 2.28 48.38 5 90 450 predator risk 60 3 63.56 5 90 450 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Alt02B-09, 12 Table 2 Altwegg 2002 Evol Ecol Res 4: 519-536 Alt02B-10 freshwater pond cattle tank/ wading pool field larval period 5 30 11 Insecta Anax imperator, dragonfly Amphibia Rana lessonae, pool frog Growth mg no predator 1182 68.87 843.49 5 30 150 predator risk 1204 80.95 991.38 5 30 150 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Alt02B-07, 10 I don't think that mass in this case is the best measure, since it is not in a per-day format…larval period is probably better Table 2 Altwegg 2002 Evol Ecol Res 4: 519-536 Alt02B-11 freshwater pond cattle tank/ wading pool field larval period 5 60 11 Insecta Anax imperator, dragonfly Amphibia Rana lessonae, pool frog Growth mg no predator 750 427.54 7405.14 5 60 300 predator risk 803 64.85 1123.23 5 60 300 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Alt02B-08, 11 I don't think that mass in this case is the best measure, since it is not in a per-day format…larval period is probably better Table 2 Altwegg 2002 Evol Ecol Res 4: 519-536 Alt02B-12 freshwater pond cattle tank/ wading pool field larval period 5 90 11 Insecta Anax imperator, dragonfly Amphibia Rana lessonae, pool frog Growth mg no predator 658 59.03 1252.26 5 90 450 predator risk 710 70.21 1489.38 5 90 450 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Alt02B-09, 12 I don't think that mass in this case is the best measure, since it is not in a per-day format…larval period is probably better Figure 2 Alvarez & Nicieza 2003 J Fish Biol 63: 1565-1577 Alv03-01 freshwater stream cattle tank/ wading pool lab 0.13 8 8 11 Actinopterygii Salmo trutta, brown trout Actinopterygii Salmo trutta, brown trout Habitat use # exposed no predator 6.43 0.28 2.24 8 8 64 predator risk 6.33 0.12 0.95 8 8 64 Prey Habitat use 1 0 1 0 1 1 none juvenile fish during day, population with no previous exposure to predators (hatchery) Figure 2 Alvarez & Nicieza 2003 J Fish Biol 63: 1565-1577 Alv03-02 freshwater stream aquarium lab 0.13 8 8 11 Actinopterygii Salmo trutta, brown trout Actinopterygii Salmo trutta, brown trout Habitat use # exposed no predator 6.73 0.24 1.91 8 8 64 predator risk 6.03 0.57 4.56 8 8 64 Prey Habitat use 1 0 1 0 1 1 none juvenile fish during day, wild population Figure 2 Alvarez & Nicieza 2003 J Fish Biol 63: 1565-1577 Alv03-03 freshwater stream aquarium lab 0.13 8 8 11 Actinopterygii Salmo trutta, brown trout Actinopterygii Salmo trutta, brown trout Habitat use # exposed no predator 6.82 0.25 2.02 8 8 64 predator risk 5.81 0.49 3.89 8 8 64 Prey Habitat use 1 0 1 0 1 1 none juvenile fish during night, wild population Figure 3 Alvarez & Nicieza 2003 J Fish Biol 63: 1565-1577 Alv03-04 freshwater stream aquarium lab 0.13 11 8 11 Actinopterygii Salmo trutta, brown trout Actinopterygii Salmo trutta, brown trout Habitat use # exposed no predator 6.4 0.31 2.95 11 8 88 predator risk 5.27 0.36 3.37 11 8 88 Prey Habitat use 1 0 1 0 1 1 none juvenile fish during day, wild population (Comeya River) Figure 3 Alvarez & Nicieza 2003 J Fish Biol 63: 1565-1577 Alv03-05 freshwater stream aquarium lab 0.13 11 8 11 Actinopterygii Salmo trutta, brown trout Actinopterygii Salmo trutta, brown trout Habitat use # exposed no predator 6.85 0.2 1.9 11 8 88 predator risk 6.24 0.3 2.78 11 8 88 Prey Habitat use 1 0 1 0 1 1 none juvenile fish during night, wild population (Comeya River) Figure 3 Alvarez & Nicieza 2003 J Fish Biol 63: 1565-1577 Alv03-06 freshwater stream aquarium lab 0.13 11 8 11 Actinopterygii Salmo trutta, brown trout Actinopterygii Salmo trutta, brown trout Habitat use # exposed no predator 6.56 0.28 2.66 11 8 88 predator risk 5.46 0.48 4.5 11 8 88 Prey Habitat use 1 0 1 0 1 1 none juvenile fish during day, wild population (Santianes river) Figure 3 Alvarez & Nicieza 2003 J Fish Biol 63: 1565-1577 Alv03-07 freshwater stream aquarium lab 0.13 11 8 11 Actinopterygii Salmo trutta, brown trout Actinopterygii Salmo trutta, brown trout Habitat use # exposed no predator 6.65 0.25 2.33 11 8 88 predator risk 5.61 0.38 3.56 11 8 88 Prey Habitat use 1 0 1 0 1 1 none juvenile fish during night, wild population (Santianes River) Figure 3 Alvarez & Nicieza 2003 J Fish Biol 63: 1565-1577 Alv03-08 freshwater stream aquarium lab 0.13 11 8 11 Actinopterygii Salmo trutta, brown trout Actinopterygii Salmo trutta, brown trout Habitat use # exposed no predator 6.4 0.13 1.17 11 8 88 predator risk 6.06 0.29 2.71 11 8 88 Prey Habitat use 1 0 1 0 1 1 none juvenile fish during day, population with no previous exposure to predators (hatchery) Figure 3 Alvarez & Nicieza 2003 J Fish Biol 63: 1565-1577 Alv03-09 freshwater stream aquarium lab 0.13 11 8 11 Actinopterygii Salmo trutta, brown trout Actinopterygii Salmo trutta, brown trout Habitat use # exposed no predator 5.51 0.2 1.85 11 8 88 predator risk 4.98 0.32 2.97 11 8 88 Prey Habitat use 1 0 1 0 1 1 none juvenile fish during night, population with no previous exposure to predators (hatchery population) Text, p. 578 Alvarez & Peckarsky 2005 Oecologia 142: 576-587 Alv05-01 freshwater stream artificial stream field 21 varies 1 11 Actinopterygii Salvelinus fontinalis, brook trout Insecta Baetis bicaudatus, mayfly Growth Mass at end of expt (mg) no fish cues present 0.62 0.05 0.41 67 1 67 fish cues present 0.53 0.05 0.37 56 1 56 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Alv05-01, -02, -03, -04 Experiment 1 Figure 2 Alvarez & Peckarsky 2005 Oecologia 142: 576-587 Alv05-02 freshwater stream artificial stream field 15 10 12 11 Actinopterygii Salvelinus fontinalis, brook trout Insecta Baetis bicaudatus, mayfly Emigration # drifting per minute no fish cues present 0.33 0.07 0.72 10 12 120 fish cues present 0.04 0.07 0.75 10 12 120 Prey Emigration -1 0 1 0 1 1 Alv05-01, -02, -03, -04 Experiment 1, during day Figure 2 Alvarez & Peckarsky 2005 Oecologia 142: 576-587 Alv05-03 freshwater stream artificial stream field 15 10 12 11 Actinopterygii Salvelinus fontinalis, brook trout Insecta Baetis bicaudatus, mayfly Emigration # drifting per minute no fish cues present 1.94 0.27 2.95 10 12 120 fish cues present 0.75 0.21 2.32 10 12 120 Prey Emigration -1 0 1 0 1 1 Alv05-01, -02, -03, -04 Experiment 1, during night Figure 3A Alvarez & Peckarsky 2005 Oecologia 142: 576-587 Alv05-04 freshwater stream artificial stream field 21 10 1 no # individuals given. Used one ind/rep as most conservative estimate 111 Actinopterygii Salvelinus fontinalis, brook trout Insecta Baetis bicaudatus, mayfly Autotroph Algae Biomass mean algal Chl A (ug cm-2) no fish cues present 5.45 0.98 3.11 10 1 10 fish cues present 5.55 0.83 2.63 10 1 10 Resource Biomass 1 0 1 0 1 1 Alv05-01, -02, -03, -04 Experiment 1 Text, p. 583 Alvarez & Peckarsky 2005 Oecologia 142: 576-587 Alv05-05 freshwater stream artificial stream field 21 varies 1 11 Actinopterygii Salvelinus fontinalis, brook trout Insecta Baetis bicaudatus, mayfly Growth Mass at end of expt (mg) no fish cues present 0.74 0.03 0.16 28 1 28 fish cues present 0.5 0.04 0.22 29 1 29 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Experiment 2, Heterogeneous envt Figure 5A Alvarez & Peckarsky 2005 Oecologia 142: 576-587 Alv05-06 freshwater stream artificial stream field 20 6 1 no # individuals given. Used one ind/rep as most conservative estimate 111 Actinopterygii Salvelinus fontinalis, brook trout Insecta Baetis bicaudatus, mayfly Autotroph Algae Biomass mean algal Chl A (ug cm-2) no fish cues present 4.12 0.21 0.52 6 1 6 fish cues present 4.27 0.37 0.9 6 1 6 Resource Biomass 1 0 1 0 1 1 Experiment 2, Heterogeneous envt, low Baetis density (6/replicate) Figure 5A Alvarez & Peckarsky 2005 Oecologia 142: 576-587 Alv05-07 freshwater stream artificial stream field 20 6 1 no # individuals given. Used one ind/rep as most conservative estimate 111 Actinopterygii Salvelinus fontinalis, brook trout Insecta Baetis bicaudatus, mayfly Autotroph Algae Biomass mean algal Chl A (ug cm-2) no fish cues present 2.94 0.08 0.2 6 1 6 fish cues present 3.09 0.22 0.53 6 1 6 Resource Biomass 1 0 1 0 1 1 Experiment 2, Heterogeneous envt, high Baetis density (12/replicate) Text, p. 582 Alvarez & Peckarsky 2005 Oecologia 142: 576-587 Alv05-08 freshwater stream artificial stream field 21 varies 1 11 Actinopterygii Salvelinus fontinalis, brook trout Insecta Baetis bicaudatus, mayfly Growth Mass at end of expt (mg) no fish cues present 0.64 0.03 0.23 57 1 57 fish cues present 0.54 0.03 0.23 59 1 59 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Experiment 2, Homogeneous envt Figure 5C Alvarez & Peckarsky 2005 Oecologia 142: 576-587 Alv05-09 freshwater stream artificial stream field 20 6 1 no # individuals given. Used one ind/rep as most conservative estimate 111 Actinopterygii Salvelinus fontinalis, brook trout Insecta Baetis bicaudatus, mayfly Autotroph Algae Biomass mean algal Chl A (ug cm-2) no fish cues present 7.03 0.28 0.68 6 1 6 fish cues present 6.6 0.13 0.31 6 1 6 Resource Biomass 1 0 1 0 1 1 Experiment 2, Homogeneous envt, low Baetis density (6/replicate) Figure 5C Alvarez & Peckarsky 2005 Oecologia 142: 576-587 Alv05-10 freshwater stream artificial stream field 20 6 1 no # individuals given. Used one ind/rep as most conservative estimate 111 Actinopterygii Salvelinus fontinalis, brook trout Insecta Baetis bicaudatus, mayfly Autotroph Algae Biomass mean algal Chl A (ug cm-2) no fish cues present 5.31 0.06 0.14 6 1 6 fish cues present 5.22 0.18 0.44 6 1 6 Resource Biomass 1 0 1 0 1 1 Experiment 2, Homogeneous envt, high Baetis density (12/replicate) Figure 1 Anderson & Petranka 2003 J Herp 37(1): 65-71 And03-01 freshwater pond aquarium lab until all eggs have hatched 8 8 11 Insecta Anax junius, dragonfly Amphibia Ambystoma maculatum, spotted salamander Development time to egg hatching (hours) no predator cue present 297 7.5 60 8 8 64 cue from Anax fed nothing 308 3.5 28 8 8 64 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 And03-01 through And03-04 Figure 1 Anderson & Petranka 2003 J Herp 37(1): 65-71 And03-02 freshwater pond aquarium lab until all eggs have hatched 8 8 11 Insecta Anax junius, dragonfly Amphibia Ambystoma maculatum, spotted salamander Development time to egg hatching (hours) no predator cue present 297 7.5 60 8 8 64 cue from Anax fed conspecific tadpoles 302.5 4 32 8 8 64 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 And03-01 through And03-04 Figure 1 Anderson & Petranka 2003 J Herp 37(1): 65-71 And03-03 freshwater pond aquarium lab until all eggs have hatched 8 8 11 Insecta Anax junius, dragonfly Amphibia Ambystoma maculatum, spotted salamander Development Gossner stage at hatching no predator cue present 41.8 0.15 1.18 8 8 64 cue from Anax fed nothing 41.8 0.18 1.42 8 8 64 Prey Development 1 0 1 0 1 1 And03-01 through And03-04 Figure 1 Anderson & Petranka 2003 J Herp 37(1): 65-71 And03-04 freshwater pond aquarium lab until all eggs have hatched 8 8 11 Insecta Anax junius, dragonfly Amphibia Ambystoma maculatum, spotted salamander Development Gossner stage at hatching no predator cue present 41.8 0.15 1.18 8 8 64 cue from Anax fed conspecific tadpoles 42.01 0.12 0.95 8 8 64 Prey Development 1 0 1 0 1 1 And03-01 through And03-04 Figure 1 Anderson & Petranka 2003 J Herp 37(1): 65-71 And03-05 freshwater pond aquarium lab until all eggs have hatched 9 15 11 Insecta Anax junius, dragonfly Amphibia Rana sylvatica, wood frog Development time to egg hatching (hours) no predator cue present 39.5 0.84 9.76 9 15 135 cue from Anax fed nothing 40.9 1.54 17.89 9 15 135 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 And03-05 through And03-08 Figure 1 Anderson & Petranka 2003 J Herp 37(1): 65-71 And03-06 freshwater pond aquarium lab until all eggs have hatched 9 15 11 Insecta Anax junius, dragonfly Amphibia Rana sylvatica, wood frog Development time to egg hatching (hours) no predator cue present 39.5 0.84 9.76 9 15 135 cue from Anax fed conspecific tadpoles 40.48 1.4 16.27 9 15 135 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 And03-05 through And03-08 Figure 1 Anderson & Petranka 2003 J Herp 37(1): 65-71 And03-07 freshwater pond aquarium lab until all eggs have hatched 9 15 11 Insecta Anax junius, dragonfly Amphibia Rana sylvatica, wood frog Development Gossner stage at hatching no predator cue present 20.25 0.39 4.53 9 15 135 cue from Anax fed nothing 20.21 0.29 3.37 9 15 135 Prey Development 1 0 1 0 1 1 And03-05 through And03-08 Figure 1 Anderson & Petranka 2003 J Herp 37(1): 65-71 And03-08 freshwater pond aquarium lab until all eggs have hatched 9 15 11 Insecta Anax junius, dragonfly Amphibia Rana sylvatica, wood frog Development Gossner stage at hatching no predator cue present 20.25 0.39 4.53 9 15 135 cue from Anax fed conspecific tadpoles 20.17 0.34 3.95 9 15 135 Prey Development 1 0 1 0 1 1 And03-05 through And03-08 Figure 6 Anholt et al 2000 Ecology 81(12): 3509-3521 Anh00-01 freshwater pond aquarium lab 5 4 10 11 Insecta Anax junius, dragonfly Amphibia Rana catesbeiana, bullfrog Growth % mass gain/day no predator -0.71 0.42 2.64 4 10 40 three caged predators 0.58 0.58 3.69 4 10 40 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 none Figure 6 Anholt et al 2000 Ecology 81(12): 3509-3521 Anh00-02 freshwater pond aquarium lab 5 4 10 11 Insecta Anax junius, dragonfly Amphibia Rana catesbeiana, bullfrog Growth % mass gain/day no predator 0.6 0.67 4.22 4 10 40 three caged predators 2.04 0.89 5.64 4 10 40 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 none Figure 6 Anholt et al 2000 Ecology 81(12): 3509-3521 Anh00-03 freshwater pond aquarium lab 5 4 10 11 Insecta Anax junius, dragonfly Amphibia Rana catesbeiana, bullfrog Growth % mass gain/day no predator 4.48 0.88 5.59 4 10 40 three caged predators 2.83 1.28 8.07 4 10 40 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 none Figure 6 Anholt et al 2000 Ecology 81(12): 3509-3521 Anh00-04 freshwater pond aquarium lab 5 4 10 11 Insecta Anax junius, dragonfly Amphibia Rana catesbeiana, bullfrog Growth % mass gain/day no predator 8.69 0.78 4.9 4 10 40 three caged predators 8.09 0.83 5.27 4 10 40 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 none Figure 6 Anholt et al 2000 Ecology 81(12): 3509-3521 Anh00-05 freshwater pond aquarium lab 5 4 10 11 Insecta Anax junius, dragonfly Amphibia Rana clamitans, green frog Growth % mass gain/day no predator 3.34 0.82 5.17 4 10 40 three caged predators 5.28 0.63 4.01 4 10 40 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 none Figure 6 Anholt et al 2000 Ecology 81(12): 3509-3521 Anh00-06 freshwater pond aquarium lab 5 4 10 11 Insecta Anax junius, dragonfly Amphibia Rana clamitans, green frog Growth % mass gain/day no predator 5.13 0.83 5.27 4 10 40 three caged predators 6.36 0.58 3.69 4 10 40 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 none Figure 6 Anholt et al 2000 Ecology 81(12): 3509-3521 Anh00-07 freshwater pond aquarium lab 5 4 10 11 Insecta Anax junius, dragonfly Amphibia Rana clamitans, green frog Growth % mass gain/day no predator 9.19 0.76 4.8 4 10 40 three caged predators 8.76 0.64 4.06 4 10 40 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 none Figure 6 Anholt et al 2000 Ecology 81(12): 3509-3521 Anh00-08 freshwater pond aquarium lab 5 4 10 11 Insecta Anax junius, dragonfly Amphibia Rana clamitans, green frog Growth % mass gain/day no predator 11.9 0.83 5.27 4 10 40 three caged predators 12.26 0.58 3.69 4 10 40 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 none Figure 6 Anholt et al 2000 Ecology 81(12): 3509-3521 Anh00-09 freshwater pond aquarium lab 5 4 10 11 Insecta Anax junius, dragonfly Amphibia Rana pipiens, leopard frog Growth % mass gain/day no predator -0.13 0.42 2.64 4 10 40 three caged predators 1.99 0.73 4.64 4 10 40 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 none Figure 6 Anholt et al 2000 Ecology 81(12): 3509-3521 Anh00-10 freshwater pond aquarium lab 5 4 10 11 Insecta Anax junius, dragonfly Amphibia Rana pipiens, leopard frog Growth % mass gain/day no predator 4.67 0.7 4.43 4 10 40 three caged predators 4.69 0.84 5.33 4 10 40 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 none Figure 6 Anholt et al 2000 Ecology 81(12): 3509-3521 Anh00-11 freshwater pond aquarium lab 5 4 10 11 Insecta Anax junius, dragonfly Amphibia Rana pipiens, leopard frog Growth % mass gain/day no predator 8.55 0.75 4.75 4 10 40 three caged predators 7.33 0.54 3.43 4 10 40 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 none Figure 6 Anholt et al 2000 Ecology 81(12): 3509-3521 Anh00-12 freshwater pond aquarium lab 5 4 10 11 Insecta Anax junius, dragonfly Amphibia Rana pipiens, leopard frog Growth % mass gain/day no predator 13.79 0.71 4.48 4 10 40 three caged predators 11.12 0.71 4.48 4 10 40 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 none Figure 6 Anholt et al 2000 Ecology 81(12): 3509-3521 Anh00-13 freshwater pond aquarium lab 5 4 10 11 Insecta Anax junius, dragonfly Amphibia Rana sylvatica, wood frog Growth % mass gain/day no predator 5.46 1.23 7.8 4 10 40 three caged predators 5.94 1.18 7.49 4 10 40 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 none Figure 6 Anholt et al 2000 Ecology 81(12): 3509-3521 Anh00-14 freshwater pond aquarium lab 5 4 10 11 Insecta Anax junius, dragonfly Amphibia Rana sylvatica, wood frog Growth % mass gain/day no predator 8.85 1.14 7.22 4 10 40 three caged predators 8.76 1.07 6.75 4 10 40 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 none Figure 6 Anholt et al 2000 Ecology 81(12): 3509-3521 Anh00-15 freshwater pond aquarium lab 5 4 10 11 Insecta Anax junius, dragonfly Amphibia Rana sylvatica, wood frog Growth % mass gain/day no predator 13.12 1.07 6.75 4 10 40 three caged predators 12.75 0.98 6.22 4 10 40 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 none Figure 6 Anholt et al 2000 Ecology 81(12): 3509-3521 Anh00-16 freshwater pond aquarium lab 5 4 10 11 Insecta Anax junius, dragonfly Amphibia Rana sylvatica, wood frog Growth % mass gain/day no predator 14.66 0.71 4.48 4 10 40 three caged predators 13.39 1.02 6.43 4 10 40 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 none Figure 2 Anholt & Werner 1998 Evol Ecol 12: 729-738 Anh98-01 freshwater pond cattle tank/ wading pool field 2 4 100 11 Insecta Anax junius, dragonfly Amphibia Rana sylvatica, wood frog Survival # one feeding predator 72.87 1.1 21.93 4 100 400 one feeding predator + 7 caged predators 73.66 1.86 37.29 4 100 400 Prey Survival 1 0 1 0 1 1 none Figure 2 Anholt & Werner 1998 Evol Ecol 12: 729-738 Anh98-02 freshwater pond cattle tank/ wading pool field 2 4 100 11 Insecta Anax junius, dragonfly Amphibia Rana sylvatica, wood frog Survival # one feeding predator 72.43 3.96 79.16 4 100 400 one feeding predator + 7 caged predators 79.36 4.49 89.73 4 100 400 Prey Survival 1 0 1 0 1 1 none Figure 2 Anholt & Werner 1998 Evol Ecol 12: 729-738 Anh98-03 freshwater pond cattle tank/ wading pool field 2 4 100 11 Insecta Anax junius, dragonfly Amphibia Rana sylvatica, wood frog Survival # one feeding predator 77.51 1.88 37.59 4 100 400 one feeding predator + 7 caged predators 79.92 2.37 47.36 4 100 400 Prey Survival 1 0 1 0 1 1 none Figure 2 Anholt & Werner 1998 Evol Ecol 12: 729-738 Anh98-04 freshwater pond cattle tank/ wading pool field 2 4 100 11 Insecta Anax junius, dragonfly Amphibia Rana sylvatica, wood frog Survival # one feeding predator 78.92 2.26 45.16 4 100 400 one feeding predator + 7 caged predators 83.32 3.79 75.87 4 100 400 Prey Survival 1 0 1 0 1 1 none Figure 2 Anholt & Werner 1998 Evol Ecol 12: 729-738 Anh98-05 freshwater pond cattle tank/ wading pool field 2 4 100 11 Insecta Anax junius, dragonfly Amphibia Rana sylvatica, wood frog Survival # one feeding predator 82.95 3.41 68.3 4 100 400 one feeding predator + 7 caged predators 87.14 2.02 40.38 4 100 400 Prey Survival 1 0 1 0 1 1 none Figure 3A Appleton & Palmer 1988 PNAS 85: 4387-4391 App88-01 marine intertidal aquarium lab 76 2 10 11 Malacostraca Cancer productus, red rock crab Gastropoda Nucella lamellosa, gastropod Growth final apertural tooth height (mm) no predator 0.15 0.02 0.1 2 10 20 scent from predator fed N. lamellosa 0.28 0.03 0.14 2 10 20 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 none Initially thin-shelled, large prey Figure 3A Appleton & Palmer 1988 PNAS 85: 4387-4391 App88-02 marine intertidal aquarium lab 76 2 10 11 Malacostraca Cancer productus, red rock crab Gastropoda Nucella lamellosa, gastropod Growth final apertural tooth height (mm) no predator 0.03 0.02 0.09 2 10 20 scent from predator fed N. lamellosa 0.25 0.05 0.25 2 10 20 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 none Initially thin-shelled, large prey Figure 3B Appleton & Palmer 1988 PNAS 85: 4387-4391 App88-03 marine intertidal aquarium lab 76 2 10 11 Malacostraca Cancer productus, red rock crab Gastropoda Nucella lamellosa, gastropod Growth final apertural tooth height (mm) no predator 0.31 0.03 0.13 2 10 20 scent from predator fed N. lamellosa 0.33 0.03 0.15 2 10 20 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 none Initially thick-shelled, large prey Figure 3B Appleton & Palmer 1988 PNAS 85: 4387-4391 App88-04 marine intertidal aquarium lab 76 2 10 11 Malacostraca Cancer productus, red rock crab Gastropoda Nucella lamellosa, gastropod Growth final apertural tooth height (mm) no predator 0.15 0.05 0.21 2 10 20 scent from predator fed N. lamellosa 0.33 0 0.02 2 10 20 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 none Initially thick-shelled, large prey Figure 3B Appleton & Palmer 1988 PNAS 85: 4387-4391 App88-05 marine intertidal aquarium lab 76 2 10 11 Malacostraca Cancer productus, red rock crab Gastropoda Nucella lamellosa, gastropod Growth final apertural tooth height (mm) no predator 0.13 0.05 0.2 2 10 20 scent from predator fed N. lamellosa 0.31 0.08 0.34 2 10 20 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 none Initially thick-shelled, large prey Figure 3C Appleton & Palmer 1988 PNAS 85: 4387-4391 App88-06 marine intertidal aquarium lab 76 2 10 11 Malacostraca Cancer productus, red rock crab Gastropoda Nucella lamellosa, gastropod Growth final apertural tooth height (mm) no predator 0.06 0.01 0.06 2 10 20 scent from predator fed N. lamellosa 0.07 0.02 0.11 2 10 20 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 none Initially thin-shelled, small prey Figure 3C Appleton & Palmer 1988 PNAS 85: 4387-4391 App88-07 marine intertidal aquarium lab 76 2 10 11 Malacostraca Cancer productus, red rock crab Gastropoda Nucella lamellosa, gastropod Growth final apertural tooth height (mm) no predator 0.01 0.01 0.02 2 10 20 scent from predator fed N. lamellosa 0.1 0.06 0.26 2 10 20 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 none Initially thin-shelled, small prey Figure 3C Appleton & Palmer 1988 PNAS 85: 4387-4391 App88-08 marine intertidal aquarium lab 76 2 10 11 Malacostraca Cancer productus, red rock crab Gastropoda Nucella lamellosa, gastropod Growth final apertural tooth height (mm) no predator 0.01 0.01 0.06 2 10 20 scent from predator fed N. lamellosa 0.14 0.04 0.16 2 10 20 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 none Initially thin-shelled, small prey Figure 3D Appleton & Palmer 1988 PNAS 85: 4387-4391 App88-09 marine intertidal aquarium lab 76 2 10 11 Malacostraca Cancer productus, red rock crab Gastropoda Nucella lamellosa, gastropod Growth final apertural tooth height (mm) no predator 0.16 0.03 0.12 2 10 20 scent from predator fed N. lamellosa 0.21 0.02 0.1 2 10 20 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 none Initially thick-shelled, small prey Figure 3D Appleton & Palmer 1988 PNAS 85: 4387-4391 App88-10 marine intertidal aquarium lab 76 2 10 11 Malacostraca Cancer productus, red rock crab Gastropoda Nucella lamellosa, gastropod Growth final apertural tooth height (mm) no predator 0.04 0.04 0.18 2 10 20 scent from predator fed N. lamellosa 0.16 0.02 0.09 2 10 20 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 none Initially thick-shelled, small prey Figure 3D Appleton & Palmer 1988 PNAS 85: 4387-4391 App88-11 marine intertidal aquarium lab 76 2 10 11 Malacostraca Cancer productus, red rock crab Gastropoda Nucella lamellosa, gastropod Growth final apertural tooth height (mm) no predator 0.01 0.01 0.04 2 10 20 scent from predator fed N. lamellosa 0.11 0.07 0.33 2 10 20 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 none Initially thick-shelled, small prey Figure 1B Babbitt, K. J. 2001. Can. J. Zoology. 79: 809-814 Bab01-01 freshwater pond, ephemeral aquarium lab until metamorphosis complete 6 4 11 Insecta Anax junius, dragonfly Amphibia Rana spenocephala, Southern leopard frog Development Time to metamorphosis (days) no predator 52.91 1.16 5.69 6 4 24 predator risk 54.95 1.8 8.83 6 4 24 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Bab01-04, 06 Figure 1B Babbitt, K. J. 2001. Can. J. Zoology. 79: 809-814 Bab01-02 freshwater pond, ephemeral aquarium lab until metamorphosis complete 6 4 11 Insecta Anax junius, dragonfly Amphibia Rana spenocephala, Southern leopard frog Development Time to metamorphosis (days) no predator 59.51 1.57 7.69 6 4 24 predator risk 62.82 1.22 5.98 6 4 24 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Bab01-03, 05 Figure 1C Babbitt, K. J. 2001. Can. J. Zoology. 79: 809-814 Bab01-03 freshwater pond, ephemeral aquarium lab until metamorphosis complete 6 4 11 Insecta Anax junius, dragonfly Amphibia Rana spenocephala, Southern leopard frog Growth mg/day no predator 0.43 0 0.02 6 4 24 predator risk 0.48 0 0.02 6 4 24 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Bab01-02, 05 Figure 1C Babbitt, K. J. 2001. Can. J. Zoology. 79: 809-814 Bab01-04 freshwater pond, ephemeral aquarium lab until metamorphosis complete 6 4 11 Insecta Anax junius, dragonfly Amphibia Rana spenocephala, Southern leopard frog Growth mg/day no predator 0.72 0.01 0.04 6 4 24 predator risk 0.66 0.01 0.04 6 4 24 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Bab01-01, 06 Figure 2B Babbitt, K. J. 2001. Can. J. Zoology. 79: 809-814 Bab01-05 freshwater pond, ephemeral aquarium lab 28 6 18 observations of 4 individuals/replicate 11 Insecta Anax junius, dragonfly Amphibia Rana spenocephala, Southern leopard frog Activity % active no predator 18.63 2.01 9.87 6 4 24 predator risk 9.66 1.75 8.59 6 4 24 Prey Activity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Bab01-02, 03 Figure 2B Babbitt, K. J. 2001. Can. J. Zoology. 79: 809-814 Bab01-06 freshwater pond, ephemeral aquarium lab 28 6 18 observations of 4 individuals/replicate 11 Insecta Anax junius, dragonfly Amphibia Rana spenocephala, Southern leopard frog Activity % active no predator 33.62 5.33 26.1 6 4 24 predator risk 11.47 3.39 16.61 6 4 24 Prey Activity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Bab01-01, 04 Fig. 1 Ball & Baker 1995 Freshwater Biology 34:1-12 Bal95-01 freshwater pond aquarium lab until emergence 10 50 11 Actinopterygii Lepomis gibbosus, pumpkinseed sunfish Insecta Chironomus tentans, midge Development % maturing no predator 17.16 3.87 86.64 10 50 500 predator risk 9.87 1.61 35.92 10 50 500 Prey Development 1 0 1 0 1 1 Bal95-01, 04, 07, 10 Fig. 1 Ball & Baker 1995 Freshwater Biology 34:1-12 Bal95-02 freshwater pond aquarium lab until emergence 10 50 11 Actinopterygii Lepomis gibbosus, pumpkinseed sunfish Insecta Chironomus tentans, midge Development % maturing no predator 57.28 7.7 172.13 10 50 500 predator risk 50.36 5.06 113.22 10 50 500 Prey Development 1 0 1 0 1 1 Bal95-02, 05, 08, 11 Fig. 1 Ball & Baker 1995 Freshwater Biology 34:1-12 Bal95-03 freshwater pond aquarium lab until emergence 10 50 11 Actinopterygii Lepomis gibbosus, pumpkinseed sunfish Insecta Chironomus tentans, midge Development % maturing no predator 80.28 3.51 78.45 10 50 500 predator risk 59.23 5.01 111.93 10 50 500 Prey Development 1 0 1 0 1 1 Bal95-03, 06, 09, 12 Figure 5a Ball & Baker 1995 Freshwater Biology 34:1-12 Bal95-04 freshwater pond aquarium lab until emergence 10 50 11 Actinopterygii Lepomis gibbosus, pumpkinseed sunfish Insecta Chironomus tentans, midge Development Time to maturity for males (days) no predator 30.99 3.74 83.54 10 50 500 predator risk 38.43 3.88 86.68 10 50 500 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Bal95-01, 04, 07, 10 Figure 5a Ball & Baker 1995 Freshwater Biology 34:1-12 Bal95-05 freshwater pond aquarium lab until emergence 10 50 11 Actinopterygii Lepomis gibbosus, pumpkinseed sunfish Insecta Chironomus tentans, midge Development Time to maturity for males (days) no predator 26.02 3.77 84.38 10 50 500 predator risk 34.93 7.78 173.99 10 50 500 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Bal95-02, 05, 08, 11 Figure 5a Ball & Baker 1995 Freshwater Biology 34:1-12 Bal95-06 freshwater pond aquarium lab until emergence 10 50 11 Actinopterygii Lepomis gibbosus, pumpkinseed sunfish Insecta Chironomus tentans, midge Development Time to maturity for males (days) no predator 20.94 1.83 40.83 10 50 500 predator risk 26.07 3.47 77.68 10 50 500 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Bal95-03, 06, 09, 12 Figure 2d Ball & Baker 1995 Freshwater Biology 34:1-12 Bal95-07 freshwater pond aquarium lab until emergence 10 50 11 Actinopterygii Lepomis gibbosus, pumpkinseed sunfish Insecta Chironomus tentans, midge Growth male dry mass at emergence (mg) no predator 0.53 0.05 1.05 10 50 500 predator risk 0.49 0.02 0.42 10 50 500 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Bal95-01, 04, 07, 10 Figure 2d Ball & Baker 1995 Freshwater Biology 34:1-12 Bal95-08 freshwater pond aquarium lab until emergence 10 50 11 Actinopterygii Lepomis gibbosus, pumpkinseed sunfish Insecta Chironomus tentans, midge Growth male dry mass at emergence (mg) no predator 0.71 0.03 0.58 10 50 500 predator risk 0.6 0.01 0.26 10 50 500 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Bal95-02, 05, 08, 11 Figure 2d Ball & Baker 1995 Freshwater Biology 34:1-12 Bal95-09 freshwater pond aquarium lab until emergence 10 50 11 Actinopterygii Lepomis gibbosus, pumpkinseed sunfish Insecta Chironomus tentans, midge Growth male dry mass at emergence (mg) no predator 0.93 0.02 0.41 10 50 500 predator risk 0.76 0.02 0.42 10 50 500 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Bal95-03, 06, 09, 12 Figure 3d Ball & Baker 1995 Freshwater Biology 34:1-12 Bal95-10 freshwater pond aquarium lab until emergence 10 50 11 Actinopterygii Lepomis gibbosus, pumpkinseed sunfish Insecta Chironomus tentans, midge Growth female dry mass at emergence (mg) no predator 0.47 0 0 10 50 500 predator risk 0.32 0 0 10 50 500 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Bal95-01, 04, 07, 10 Figure 3d Ball & Baker 1995 Freshwater Biology 34:1-12 Bal95-11 freshwater pond aquarium lab until emergence 10 50 11 Actinopterygii Lepomis gibbosus, pumpkinseed sunfish Insecta Chironomus tentans, midge Growth female dry mass at emergence (mg) no predator 0.61 0.28 6.19 10 50 500 predator risk 0.44 0.24 5.35 10 50 500 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Bal95-02, 05, 08, 11 Figure 3d Ball & Baker 1995 Freshwater Biology 34:1-12 Bal95-12 freshwater pond aquarium lab until emergence 10 50 11 Actinopterygii Lepomis gibbosus, pumpkinseed sunfish Insecta Chironomus tentans, midge Growth female dry mass at emergence (mg) no predator 0.92 0.29 6.49 10 50 500 predator risk 0.6 0.24 5.3 10 50 500 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Bal95-03, 06, 09, 12 Table 2 Ball & Baker 1996 Ecology 77:1116-1124 Bal96-01 freshwater pond aquarium lab until emergence 10 50 11 Actinopterygii Lepomis gibbosus, pumpkinseed sunfish Insecta Chironomus tentans, midge Development time to emergence for females that laid eggs (days) no predator 23.81 2.07 46.3 10 50 500 predator with mouth sewn shut 30.3 1.73 38.72 10 50 500 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Bal96-01, 03, 05 Mouth sewn shut on Lepomis gibbosus Table 2 Ball & Baker 1996 Ecology 77:1116-1124 Bal96-02 freshwater pond aquarium lab until emergence 10 50 11 Actinopterygii Lepomis gibbosus, pumpkinseed sunfish Insecta Chironomus tentans, midge Development time to emergence for females that laid eggs (days) no predator 26.32 1.32 29.42 10 50 500 predator risk 33.33 2.08 46.58 10 50 500 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Bal96-02, 04, 06 Mouth sewn shut on Lepomis gibbosus Table 2 Ball & Baker 1996 Ecology 77:1116-1124 Bal96-03 freshwater pond aquarium lab until emergence 10 50 11 Actinopterygii Lepomis gibbosus, pumpkinseed sunfish Insecta Chironomus tentans, midge Growth mass of females laying eggs (mg) no predator 1.33 0.14 3.18 10 50 500 predator with mouth sewn shut 0.76 0.07 1.48 10 50 500 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Bal96-01, 03, 05 Mouth sewn shut on Lepomis gibbosus Table 2 Ball & Baker 1996 Ecology 77:1116-1124 Bal96-04 freshwater pond aquarium lab until emergence 10 50 11 Actinopterygii Lepomis gibbosus, pumpkinseed sunfish Insecta Chironomus tentans, midge Growth mass of females laying eggs (mg) no predator 0.8 0.05 1.2 10 50 500 predator risk 0.77 0.07 1.56 10 50 500 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Bal96-02, 04, 06 Mouth sewn shut on Lepomis gibbosus Figure 2 Ball & Baker 1996 Ecology 77:1116-1124 Bal96-05 freshwater pond aquarium lab until emergence 10 50 11 Actinopterygii Lepomis gibbosus, pumpkinseed sunfish Insecta Chironomus tentans, midge Growth mg/d for 4th instar fly larvae no predator 0.15 0.02 0.45 10 50 500 predator with mouth sewn shut 0.07 0.01 0.27 10 50 500 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Bal96-01, 03, 05 Mouth sewn shut on Lepomis gibbosus Figure 2 Ball & Baker 1996 Ecology 77:1116-1124 Bal96-06 freshwater pond aquarium lab until emergence 10 50 11 Actinopterygii Lepomis gibbosus, pumpkinseed sunfish Insecta Chironomus tentans, midge Growth mg/d for 4th instar fly larvae no predator 0.1 0.01 0.22 10 50 500 predator risk 0.04 0.01 0.27 10 50 500 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Bal96-02, 04, 06 Mouth sewn shut on Lepomis gibbosus Figure 2 Ball & Baker 1996 Ecology 77:1116-1124 Bal96-07 freshwater pond aquarium lab until emergence 10 50 11 Actinopterygii Lepomis gibbosus, pumpkinseed sunfish Insecta Chironomus tentans, midge Growth mg/d for 4th instar fly larvae no predator 0.04 0.02 0.4 10 50 500 predator risk 0.02 0.01 0.17 10 50 500 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 none Mouth sewn shut on Lepomis gibbosus Fig. 3 Banks & Powell 2004 Oikos 106:176-184 Ban04-01 terrestrial field enclosure field 119 2 varies 11 Mammalia Vulpes vulpes, red fox Mammalia Mus domesticus, house mouse Density minimum # of mice known to be alive 6 0 2 without predator feces 117.7 5.9 90.64 2 118 236 with predator feces 113.1 27.7 416.42 2 113 226 Prey Density 1 0 1 0 1 1 Ban04-03 normal maternal condition Fig. 3 Banks & Powell 2004 Oikos 106:176-184 Ban04-02 terrestrial field enclosure field 119 2 varies 11 Mammalia Vulpes vulpes, red fox Mammalia Mus domesticus, house mouse Density minimum # of mice known to be alive 6 0 2 without predator feces 110.8 18.5 275.64 2 111 222 with predator feces 133.8 27.7 453.47 2 134 268 Prey Density 1 0 1 0 1 1 Ban04-04 excellent maternal condition Table 1 Banks & Powell 2004 Oikos 106:176-184 Ban04-03 terrestrial field enclosure field 119 2 varies 11 Mammalia Vulpes vulpes, red fox Mammalia Mus domesticus, house mouse Fecundity # embryos without predator feces 5.5 0.5 3.16 2 20 40 with predator feces 5.3 0.5 3 2 18 36 Prey Fecundity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Ban04-01 normal maternal condition Table 1 Banks & Powell 2004 Oikos 106:176-184 Ban04-04 terrestrial field enclosure field 119 2 varies 11 Mammalia Vulpes vulpes, red fox Mammalia Mus domesticus, house mouse Fecundity # embryos without predator feces 4.7 0.4 3.05 2 29 58 with predator feces 5.9 0.7 3.13 2 10 20 Prey Fecundity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Ban04-02 excellent maternal condition Figure 1A Barry 2000 Oecologia 124: 396-401 Bar00-01 freshwater pond aquarium lab until instar complete 10 10 11 Insecta Anisops gratus, backswimmer Branchiopoda Daphnia carinata Growth length at maturity of first reproductive instar (mm) no predator cue 2.42 0.06 0.63 10 10 100 insect chemical cue 2.43 0.04 0.42 10 10 100 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Bar00-01, Bar00-05, Bar00-09 measured at first instar Figure 1A Barry 2000 Oecologia 124: 396-401 Bar00-02 freshwater pond aquarium lab until instar complete 10 10 11 Insecta Anisops stali, backswimmer Branchiopoda Daphnia carinata Growth length at maturity of first reproductive instar (mm) no predator cue 2.42 0.06 0.63 10 10 100 insect chemical cue 2.46 0.04 0.4 10 10 100 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Bar00-02, Bar00-06, Bar00-10 measured at first instar Figure 1B Barry 2000 Oecologia 124: 396-401 Bar00-03 freshwater pond aquarium lab until instar complete 10 10 11 Insecta Anisops gratus, backswimmer Branchiopoda Daphnia longicephala Growth length at maturity of first reproductive instar (mm) no predator cue 2.72 0.07 0.7 10 10 100 insect chemical cue 2.9 0.06 0.57 10 10 100 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Bar00-03, Bar00-07, Bar00-11 measured at first instar Figure 1B Barry 2000 Oecologia 124: 396-401 Bar00-04 freshwater pond aquarium lab until instar complete 10 10 11 Insecta Anisops stali, backswimmer Branchiopoda Daphnia longicephala Growth length at maturity of first reproductive instar (mm) no predator cue 2.72 0.07 0.7 10 10 100 insect chemical cue 3.13 0.03 0.3 10 10 100 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Bar00-04, Bar00-08, Bar00-12 measured at first instar Figure 2A Barry 2000 Oecologia 124: 396-401 Bar00-05 freshwater pond aquarium lab until instar complete 10 10 11 Insecta Anisops gratus, backswimmer Branchiopoda Daphnia carinata Fecundity # offspring of first reproductive instar no predator cue 25.85 1.4 13.98 10 10 100 insect chemical cue 27.46 1.32 13.19 10 10 100 Prey Fecundity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Bar00-01, Bar00-05, Bar00-09 measured at first instar Figure 2A Barry 2000 Oecologia 124: 396-401 Bar00-06 freshwater pond aquarium lab until instar complete 10 10 11 Insecta Anisops stali, backswimmer Branchiopoda Daphnia carinata Fecundity # offspring of first reproductive instar no predator cue 25.85 1.4 13.98 10 10 100 insect chemical cue 29.91 1.11 11.08 10 10 100 Prey Fecundity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Bar00-02, Bar00-06, Bar00-10 measured at first instar Figure 2B Barry 2000 Oecologia 124: 396-401 Bar00-07 freshwater pond aquarium lab until instar complete 10 10 11 Insecta Anisops gratus, backswimmer Branchiopoda Daphnia longicephala Fecundity # offspring of first reproductive instar no predator cue 21.26 2.53 25.32 10 10 100 insect chemical cue 27.14 2.56 25.59 10 10 100 Prey Fecundity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Bar00-03, Bar00-07, Bar00-11 measured at first instar Figure 2B Barry 2000 Oecologia 124: 396-401 Bar00-08 freshwater pond aquarium lab until instar complete 10 10 11 Insecta Anisops stali, backswimmer Branchiopoda Daphnia longicephala Fecundity # offspring of first reproductive instar no predator cue 21.26 2.53 25.32 10 10 100 insect chemical cue 30.89 2.53 25.32 10 10 100 Prey Fecundity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Bar00-04, Bar00-08, Bar00-12 measured at first instar Figure 2C Barry 2000 Oecologia 124: 396-401 Bar00-09 freshwater pond aquarium lab until instar complete 10 10 11 Insecta Anisops gratus, backswimmer Branchiopoda Daphnia carinata Development Time to reproduction (first reproductive instar) no predator cue 7.46 0.2 2.01 10 10 100 insect chemical cue 7.46 0.2 2.01 10 10 100 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Bar00-01, Bar00-05, Bar00-09 measured at first instar Figure 2C Barry 2000 Oecologia 124: 396-401 Bar00-10 freshwater pond aquarium lab until instar complete 10 10 11 Insecta Anisops stali, backswimmer Branchiopoda Daphnia carinata Development Time to reproduction (first reproductive instar) no predator cue 7.46 0.2 2.01 10 10 100 insect chemical cue 7.46 0.2 2.01 10 10 100 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Bar00-02, Bar00-06, Bar00-10 measured at first instar Figure 2D Barry 2000 Oecologia 124: 396-401 Bar00-11 freshwater pond aquarium lab until instar complete 10 10 11 Insecta Anisops gratus, backswimmer Branchiopoda Daphnia longicephala Development Time to reproduction (first reproductive instar) no predator cue 8.95 0.25 2.46 10 10 100 insect chemical cue 9.52 0.25 2.55 10 10 100 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Bar00-03, Bar00-07, Bar00-11 measured at first instar Figure 2D Barry 2000 Oecologia 124: 396-401 Bar00-12 freshwater pond aquarium lab until instar complete 10 10 11 Insecta Anisops stali, backswimmer Branchiopoda Daphnia longicephala Development Time to reproduction (first reproductive instar) no predator cue 8.95 0.25 2.46 10 10 100 insect chemical cue 9.18 0.35 3.46 10 10 100 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Bar00-04, Bar00-08, Bar00-12 measured at first instar Figure 2A Barnett & Richardson 2002 Oecologia 132: 436-444 Bar02-01 freshwater pond, ephemeral cattle tank/ wading pool lab larval period 4 50 11 Insecta Aeshna palmata, paddle-tailed darner Amphibia Rana aurora, red-legged frog Growth Mass at metamorphosis (g) no predator 0.43 0.01 0.1 4 50 200 predator risk 0.48 0.01 0.16 4 50 200 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Bar02-01 to Bar02-08 (body mass for A. palmata estimated by taking dry mass and multiplying by 3.5 to get wet mass) Figure 2A Barnett & Richardson 2002 Oecologia 132: 436-444 Bar02-02 freshwater pond, ephemeral cattle tank/ wading pool lab larval period 4 50 11 Insecta Aeshna palmata, paddle-tailed darner Amphibia Rana aurora, red-legged frog Growth Mass at metamorphosis (g) no predator 0.49 0.03 0.36 4 50 200 predator risk 0.51 0.01 0.09 4 50 200 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Bar02-01 to Bar02-08 (body mass for A. palmata estimated by taking dry mass and multiplying by 3.5 to get wet mass) Figure 2A Barnett & Richardson 2002 Oecologia 132: 436-444 Bar02-03 freshwater pond, ephemeral cattle tank/ wading pool lab larval period 6 100 11 Insecta Aeshna palmata, paddle-tailed darner Amphibia Rana aurora, red-legged frog Growth Mass at metamorphosis (g) no predator 0.33 0.01 0.23 6 100 600 predator risk 0.39 0.02 0.44 6 100 600 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Bar02-01 to Bar02-08 (body mass for A. palmata estimated by taking dry mass and multiplying by 3.5 to get wet mass) Figure 2B Barnett & Richardson 2002 Oecologia 132: 436-444 Bar02-04 freshwater pond, ephemeral cattle tank/ wading pool lab larval period 4 50 11 Insecta Aeshna palmata, paddle-tailed darner Amphibia Rana aurora, red-legged frog Development Time to metamorphosis (days) no predator 84.79 1.69 23.85 4 50 200 predator risk 89.28 1.6 22.65 4 50 200 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Bar02-01 to Bar02-08 (body mass for A. palmata estimated by taking dry mass and multiplying by 3.5 to get wet mass) Figure 2B Barnett & Richardson 2002 Oecologia 132: 436-444 Bar02-05 freshwater pond, ephemeral cattle tank/ wading pool lab larval period 4 50 11 Insecta Aeshna palmata, paddle-tailed darner Amphibia Rana aurora, red-legged frog Development Time to metamorphosis (days) no predator 74.78 1.55 21.86 4 50 200 predator risk 80.04 1.26 17.88 4 50 200 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Bar02-01 to Bar02-08 (body mass for A. palmata estimated by taking dry mass and multiplying by 3.5 to get wet mass) Figure 2B Barnett & Richardson 2002 Oecologia 132: 436-444 Bar02-06 freshwater pond, ephemeral cattle tank/ wading pool lab larval period 6 100 11 Insecta Aeshna palmata, paddle-tailed darner Amphibia Rana aurora, red-legged frog Development Time to metamorphosis (days) no predator 93.27 3.46 84.67 6 100 600 predator risk 99.23 3.99 97.75 6 100 600 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Bar02-01 to Bar02-08 (body mass for A. palmata estimated by taking dry mass and multiplying by 3.5 to get wet mass) Figure 3A Barnett & Richardson 2002 Oecologia 132: 436-444 Bar02-07 freshwater pond, ephemeral cattle tank/ wading pool lab larval period 4 50 11 Insecta Aeshna palmata, paddle-tailed darner Amphibia Rana pretiosa, Oregon spotted frog Growth Mass at metamorphosis (g) no predator 0.78 0.13 1.78 4 50 200 predator risk 0.58 0.02 0.3 4 50 200 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Bar02-01 to Bar02-08 (body mass for A. palmata estimated by taking dry mass and multiplying by 3.5 to get wet mass) Figure 3A Barnett & Richardson 2002 Oecologia 132: 436-444 Bar02-08 freshwater pond, ephemeral cattle tank/ wading pool lab larval period 4 50 11 Insecta Aeshna palmata, paddle-tailed darner Amphibia Rana pretiosa, Oregon spotted frog Growth Mass at metamorphosis (g) no predator 0.63 0.04 0.58 4 50 200 predator risk 0.73 0.03 0.41 4 50 200 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Bar02-01 to Bar02-08 (body mass for A. palmata estimated by taking dry mass and multiplying by 3.5 to get wet mass) Figure 3A Barnett & Richardson 2002 Oecologia 132: 436-444 Bar02-09 freshwater pond, ephemeral cattle tank/ wading pool lab larval period 6 100 11 Insecta Aeshna palmata, paddle-tailed darner Amphibia Rana pretiosa, Oregon spotted frog Growth Mass at metamorphosis (g) no predator 0.56 0.06 1.48 6 100 600 predator risk 0.66 0.06 1.44 6 100 600 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Bar02-09 to Bar02-12 (body mass for A. palmata estimated by taking dry mass and multiplying by 3.5 to get wet mass) Figure 3B Barnett & Richardson 2002 Oecologia 132: 436-444 Bar02-10 freshwater pond, ephemeral cattle tank/ wading pool lab larval period 4 50 11 Insecta Aeshna palmata, paddle-tailed darner Amphibia Rana pretiosa, Oregon spotted frog Development Time to metamorphosis (days) no predator 113.21 2.16 30.53 4 50 200 predator risk 137.55 3.24 45.8 4 50 200 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Bar02-09 to Bar02-12 (body mass for A. palmata estimated by taking dry mass and multiplying by 3.5 to get wet mass) Figure 3B Barnett & Richardson 2002 Oecologia 132: 436-444 Bar02-11 freshwater pond, ephemeral cattle tank/ wading pool lab larval period 4 50 11 Insecta Aeshna palmata, paddle-tailed darner Amphibia Rana pretiosa, Oregon spotted frog Development Time to metamorphosis (days) no predator 131.02 2.66 37.64 4 50 200 predator risk 133.76 1.53 21.59 4 50 200 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Bar02-09 to Bar02-12 (body mass for A. palmata estimated by taking dry mass and multiplying by 3.5 to get wet mass) Figure 3B Barnett & Richardson 2002 Oecologia 132: 436-444 Bar02-12 freshwater pond, ephemeral cattle tank/ wading pool lab larval period 6 100 11 Insecta Aeshna palmata, paddle-tailed darner Amphibia Rana pretiosa, Oregon spotted frog Development Time to metamorphosis (days) no predator 147.62 1.3 31.92 6 100 600 predator risk 140.44 1.32 32.37 6 100 600 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Bar02-09 to Bar02-12 (body mass for A. palmata estimated by taking dry mass and multiplying by 3.5 to get wet mass) Figure 1A Barnett & Richardson 2002 Oecologia 132: 436-444 Bar02-13 freshwater pond, ephemeral aquarium lab 28 4 10 11 Insecta Aeshna palmata, paddle-tailed darner Amphibia Rana aurora, red-legged frog Activity % active no predator 36.35 3.43 21.7 4 10 40 predator risk 8.47 0.82 5.21 4 10 40 Prey Activity 1 0 1 0 1 1 none (body mass for A. palmata estimated by taking dry mass and multiplying by 3.5 to get wet mass) Figure 1A Barnett & Richardson 2002 Oecologia 132: 436-444 Bar02-14 freshwater pond, ephemeral aquarium lab 28 4 10 11 Insecta Aeshna palmata, paddle-tailed darner Amphibia Rana pretiosa, Oregon spotted frog Activity % active no predator 25.38 0.44 2.78 4 10 40 predator risk 7.96 1.31 8.28 4 10 40 Prey Activity 1 0 1 0 1 1 none (body mass for A. palmata estimated by taking dry mass and multiplying by 3.5 to get wet mass) Text, p. 281 Barry 1994 Oecologia 97:278-288 Bar94-01 freshwater pond aquarium lab 24 3 20 11 Insecta Anisops gratus, backswimmer Branchiopoda Daphnia carinata Density r no crest induced 0.44 0 0.01 3 20 60 crest induced 0.39 0.03 0.23 3 20 60 Prey Density 1 0 1 0 1 1 none Figure 2a Beckerman et al 1997 PNAS 94: 10735-10738 Bec97-01 terrestrial field enclosure field 60 20 1 no # individuals given. Used one ind/rep as most conservative estimate 111 Arachnida Pisurina mira, nursery-web hunting spider Insecta Melanoplus femurrubrum, red-legged grasshopper Autotroph Grass Plant damage Percent damage ((control plant Biomass - trt plant Biomass)/control plant Biomass) no predator 57.52 7.55 33.76 20 1 20 non-lethal predator 16.01 12.1 54.1 20 1 20 lethal predator 16.16 11.46 51.26 20 1 20 Resource Plant damage -1 0 1 1 2 2 none Figure 2b Beckerman et al 1997 PNAS 94: 10735-10738 Bec97-02 terrestrial field enclosure field 60 20 1 no # individuals given. Used one ind/rep as most conservative estimate 111 Arachnida Pisurina mira, nursery-web hunting spider Insecta Melanoplus femurrubrum, red-legged grasshopper Autotroph Herbs Plant damage Percent damage ((control plant Biomass - trt plant Biomass)/control plant Biomass) no predator 28.81 5.7 25.5 20 1 20 non-lethal predator 53.69 11.22 50.18 20 1 20 lethal predator 58.96 8.78 39.27 20 1 20 Resource Plant damage -1 0 1 1 2 2 none Table 1 Beckerman et al 1997 PNAS 94: 10735-10738 Bec97-03 terrestrial field enclosure field 60 20 6 11 Arachnida Pisurina mira, nursery-web hunting spider Insecta Melanoplus femurrubrum, red-legged grasshopper Survival # grasshoppers/cage surviving to end of experiment no predator 2.9 0.5 5.48 20 6 120 non-lethal predator 3.1 0.5 5.48 20 6 120 lethal predator 3.2 0.5 5.48 20 6 120 Prey Survival 1 0 1 1 2 1 none Figure 3 Belk 1998 Oecologia 113:203-209 Bel98-01 freshwater lake & pond aquarium lab 90 18 2 11 Actinopterygii Micropterus salmoides, largemouth bass Actinopterygii Lepomis macrochirus, bluegill Growth mm Control: no exposure to bass 7.03 0.49 2.96 18 2 36 visual exposure to bass 6.59 0.49 2.96 18 2 36 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Bel98-01 to Bel98-02, Bel98-07 to Bel98-08 South Carolina population : high natural predation Figure 3 Belk 1998 Oecologia 113:203-209 Bel98-02 freshwater lake & pond aquarium lab 90 18 2 11 Actinopterygii Micropterus salmoides, largemouth bass Actinopterygii Lepomis macrochirus, bluegill Growth mm Control: no exposure to bass 7.03 0.49 2.96 18 2 36 Visual+olfactory exposure to bass 5.45 0.49 2.96 18 2 36 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Bel98-01 to Bel98-02, Bel98-07 to Bel98-08 South Carolina population : high natural predation Figure 3 Belk 1998 Oecologia 113:203-209 Bel98-03 freshwater lake & pond aquarium lab 90 18 2 11 Actinopterygii Micropterus salmoides, largemouth bass Actinopterygii Lepomis macrochirus, bluegill Growth mm Control: no exposure to bass 7.86 0.49 2.94 18 2 36 visual exposure to bass 8.4 0.49 2.94 18 2 36 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Bel98-03 to Bel98-04, Bel98-09 to Bel98-10 Utah population : low natural predation Figure 3 Belk 1998 Oecologia 113:203-209 Bel98-04 freshwater lake & pond aquarium lab 90 18 2 11 Actinopterygii Micropterus salmoides, largemouth bass Actinopterygii Lepomis macrochirus, bluegill Growth mm Control: no exposure to bass 7.86 0.49 2.94 18 2 36 Visual+olfactory exposure to bass 7.05 0.49 2.94 18 2 36 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Bel98-03 to Bel98-04, Bel98-09 to Bel98-10 Utah population : low natural predation Figure 3 Belk 1998 Oecologia 113:203-209 Bel98-05 freshwater lake & pond aquarium lab 90 20 2 11 Actinopterygii Micropterus salmoides, largemouth bass Actinopterygii Lepomis macrochirus, bluegill Growth mm Control: no exposure to bass 18.06 1.54 9.73 20 2 40 olfactory exposure to bass 17.62 1.54 9.73 20 2 40 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Bel98-05 to Bel98-06, Bel98-11 to Bel98-12 hatchery population: no natural predation Figure 3 Belk 1998 Oecologia 113:203-209 Bel98-06 freshwater lake & pond aquarium lab 90 20 2 11 Actinopterygii Micropterus salmoides, largemouth bass Actinopterygii Lepomis macrochirus, bluegill Growth mm Control: no exposure to bass 18.06 1.54 9.73 20 2 40 Visual+olfactory exposure to bass 19.3 1.54 9.73 20 2 40 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Bel98-05 to Bel98-06, Bel98-11 to Bel98-12 hatchery population: no natural predation Figure 5 Belk 1998 Oecologia 113:203-209 Bel98-07 freshwater lake & pond aquarium lab 90 18 2 11 Actinopterygii Micropterus salmoides, largemouth bass Actinopterygii Lepomis macrochirus, bluegill Fecundity relative gonad mass Control: no exposure to bass 0.56 0.07 0.43 18 2 36 visual exposure to bass 0.51 0.08 0.48 18 2 36 Prey Fecundity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Bel98-01 to Bel98-02, Bel98-07 to Bel98-08 South Carolina population : high natural predation Figure 5 Belk 1998 Oecologia 113:203-209 Bel98-08 freshwater lake & pond aquarium lab 90 18 2 11 Actinopterygii Micropterus salmoides, largemouth bass Actinopterygii Lepomis macrochirus, bluegill Fecundity relative gonad mass Control: no exposure to bass 0.56 0.07 0.43 18 2 36 Visual+olfactory exposure to bass 0.3 0.09 0.53 18 2 36 Prey Fecundity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Bel98-01 to Bel98-02, Bel98-07 to Bel98-08 South Carolina population : high natural predation Figure 5 Belk 1998 Oecologia 113:203-209 Bel98-09 freshwater lake & pond aquarium lab 90 18 2 11 Actinopterygii Micropterus salmoides, largemouth bass Actinopterygii Lepomis macrochirus, bluegill Fecundity relative gonad mass Control: no exposure to bass 0.36 0.16 0.96 18 2 36 visual exposure to bass 0.27 0.12 0.72 18 2 36 Prey Fecundity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Bel98-03 to Bel98-04, Bel98-09 to Bel98-10 Utah population : low natural predation Figure 5 Belk 1998 Oecologia 113:203-209 Bel98-10 freshwater lake & pond aquarium lab 90 18 2 11 Actinopterygii Micropterus salmoides, largemouth bass Actinopterygii Lepomis macrochirus, bluegill Fecundity relative gonad mass Control: no exposure to bass 0.36 0.16 0.96 18 2 36 Visual+olfactory exposure to bass 0.46 0.17 1.03 18 2 36 Prey Fecundity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Bel98-03 to Bel98-04, Bel98-09 to Bel98-10 Utah population : low natural predation Figure 5 Belk 1998 Oecologia 113:203-209 Bel98-11 freshwater lake & pond aquarium lab 90 20 2 11 Actinopterygii Micropterus salmoides, largemouth bass Actinopterygii Lepomis macrochirus, bluegill Fecundity relative gonad mass Control: no exposure to bass 0.87 0.05 0.32 20 2 40 olfactory exposure to bass 0.94 0.06 0.39 20 2 40 Prey Fecundity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Bel98-05 to Bel98-06, Bel98-11 to Bel98-12 hatchery population: no natural predation Figure 5 Belk 1998 Oecologia 113:203-209 Bel98-12 freshwater lake & pond aquarium lab 90 20 2 11 Actinopterygii Micropterus salmoides, largemouth bass Actinopterygii Lepomis macrochirus, bluegill Fecundity relative gonad mass Control: no exposure to bass 0.87 0.05 0.32 20 2 40 Visual+olfactory exposure to bass 0.95 0.06 0.37 20 2 40 Prey Fecundity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Bel98-05 to Bel98-06, Bel98-11 to Bel98-12 hatchery population: no natural predation Figure 2 Belk 1998 Oecologia 113:203-209 Bel98-13 freshwater lake & pond aquarium lab 14 18 2 11 Actinopterygii Micropterus salmoides, largemouth bass Actinopterygii Lepomis macrochirus, bluegill Habitat use % exposed Control: no exposure to bass 0.99 0.03 0.16 18 2 36 visual exposure to bass 0.99 0.03 0.17 18 2 36 Prey Habitat use 1 0 1 0 1 1 Bel98-13 to Bel98-14 South Carolina population : high natural predation Figure 2 Belk 1998 Oecologia 113:203-209 Bel98-14 freshwater lake & pond aquarium lab 14 18 2 11 Actinopterygii Micropterus salmoides, largemouth bass Actinopterygii Lepomis macrochirus, bluegill Habitat use % exposed Control: no exposure to bass 0.99 0.03 0.16 18 2 36 Visual+olfactory exposure to bass 0.67 0.08 0.47 18 2 36 Prey Habitat use 1 0 1 0 1 1 Bel98-13 to Bel98-14 South Carolina population : high natural predation Figure 2 Belk 1998 Oecologia 113:203-209 Bel98-15 freshwater lake & pond aquarium lab 14 18 2 11 Actinopterygii Micropterus salmoides, largemouth bass Actinopterygii Lepomis macrochirus, bluegill Habitat use % exposed Control: no exposure to bass 0.94 0.05 0.31 18 2 36 visual exposure to bass 0.96 0.05 0.27 18 2 36 Prey Habitat use 1 0 1 0 1 1 Bel98-15 to Bel98-16 Utah population : low natural predation Figure 2 Belk 1998 Oecologia 113:203-209 Bel98-16 freshwater lake & pond aquarium lab 14 18 2 11 Actinopterygii Micropterus salmoides, largemouth bass Actinopterygii Lepomis macrochirus, bluegill Habitat use % exposed Control: no exposure to bass 0.94 0.05 0.31 18 2 36 Visual+olfactory exposure to bass 0.8 0.08 0.45 18 2 36 Prey Habitat use 1 0 1 0 1 1 Bel98-15 to Bel98-16 Utah population : low natural predation Text, P. 72 Benard & Fordyce 2003 Ecology 84(1): 68-78 Ben03-01 freshwater pond aquarium lab until metamorphosis complete varies 10 11 simulated ground tadpole mixed in water :( yeck! Amphibia Bufo boreas, Western toad Growth Mass at metamorphosis (g) no ground tadpole cue 1.5 0.45 6.04 18 10 180 ground tadpole cue 1.12 0.46 6 17 10 170 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Ben03-01, Ben03-02, Ben03-03 Text, P. 72 Benard & Fordyce 2003 Ecology 84(1): 68-78 Ben03-02 freshwater pond aquarium lab until metamorphosis complete varies 10 11 simulated ground tadpole mixed in water :( yeck! Amphibia Bufo boreas, Western toad Development Time to metamorphosis (days) no ground tadpole cue 65.91 0.61 8.18 18 10 180 ground tadpole cue 64.75 0.63 8.21 17 10 170 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Ben03-01, Ben03-02, Ben03-03 Text, P. 72 Benard & Fordyce 2003 Ecology 84(1): 68-78 Ben03-03 freshwater pond aquarium lab until metamorphosis complete varies 10 11 simulated ground tadpole mixed in water :( yeck! Amphibia Bufo boreas, Western toad Survival # of larvae surviving until the first individual metamorphosed no ground tadpole cue 4.33 0.49 6.57 18 10 180 ground tadpole cue 4.21 0.49 6.75 19 10 190 Prey Survival 1 0 1 0 1 1 Ben03-01, Ben03-02, Ben03-03 Figure 3A,B Bernot & Turner 2001 Oecologia 129:139-146 Ber01-01 freshwater pond aquarium lab 8 10 20 11 Malacostraca Orconectes rusticus, crayfish Gastropoda Physella integra, snail Habitat use % snails under cover minus % at surface no predator -0.05 0.04 0.49 10 20 200 caged crayfish -0.33 0.03 0.47 10 20 200 Prey Habitat use -1 0 1 0 1 1 none Figure 3A,B Bernot & Turner 2001 Oecologia 129:139-146 Ber01-02 freshwater pond aquarium lab 8 10 20 11 Actinopterygii Lepomis gibbosus, pumpkinseed sunfish Gastropoda Physella integra, snail Habitat use % snails under cover minus % at surface no predator -0.05 0.04 0.49 10 20 200 caged sunfish 0.41 0.03 0.47 10 20 200 Prey Habitat use -1 0 1 0 1 1 none Figure 4A Bernot & Turner 2001 Oecologia 129:139-146 Ber01-03 freshwater pond aquarium lab 8 10 20 111 Malacostraca Orconectes rusticus, crayfish Gastropoda Physella integra, snail Autotroph Periphyton Biomass ash free dry mass/cm3 no predator 1.11 0.4 5.71 10 20 200 caged crayfish 1.8 0.37 5.28 10 20 200 Resource Biomass 1 0 1 0 1 2 Ber01-03, Ber01-05, Ber01-07 periphyton under cover Figure 4A Bernot & Turner 2001 Oecologia 129:139-146 Ber01-04 freshwater pond aquarium lab 8 10 20 111 Actinopterygii Lepomis gibbosus, pumpkinseed sunfish Gastropoda Physella integra, snail Autotroph Periphyton Biomass ash free dry mass/cm3 no predator 1.11 0.4 5.71 10 20 200 caged sunfish 0.61 0.36 5.02 10 20 200 Resource Biomass 1 0 1 0 1 2 Ber01-04, Ber01-06, Ber01-08 periphyton under cover Figure 4B Bernot & Turner 2001 Oecologia 129:139-146 Ber01-05 freshwater pond aquarium lab 8 10 20 111 Malacostraca Orconectes rusticus, crayfish Gastropoda Physella integra, snail Autotroph Periphyton Biomass ash free dry mass/cm3 no predator 3.82 0.93 13.11 10 20 200 caged crayfish 2.19 0.61 8.63 10 20 200 Resource Biomass 1 0 1 0 1 2 Ber01-03, Ber01-05, Ber01-07 periphyton under cover Figure 4B Bernot & Turner 2001 Oecologia 129:139-146 Ber01-06 freshwater pond aquarium lab 8 10 20 111 Actinopterygii Lepomis gibbosus, pumpkinseed sunfish Gastropoda Physella integra, snail Autotroph Periphyton Biomass ash free dry mass/cm3 no predator 3.82 0.93 13.11 10 20 200 caged sunfish 4.35 1.31 18.53 10 20 200 Resource Biomass 1 0 1 0 1 2 Ber01-04, Ber01-06, Ber01-08 periphyton under cover Figure 4C Bernot & Turner 2001 Oecologia 129:139-146 Ber01-07 freshwater pond aquarium lab 8 10 20 111 Malacostraca Orconectes rusticus, crayfish Gastropoda Physella integra, snail Autotroph Periphyton Biomass ash free dry mass/cm3 no predator 2.59 0.54 7.67 10 20 200 caged crayfish 2.48 1.03 14.5 10 20 200 Resource Biomass 1 0 1 0 1 2 Ber01-03, Ber01-05, Ber01-07 periphyton under cover Figure 4C Bernot & Turner 2001 Oecologia 129:139-146 Ber01-08 freshwater pond aquarium lab 8 10 20 111 Actinopterygii Lepomis gibbosus, pumpkinseed sunfish Gastropoda Physella integra, snail Autotroph Periphyton Biomass ash free dry mass/cm3 no predator 2.59 0.54 7.67 10 20 200 caged sunfish 6.86 0.7 9.83 10 20 200 Resource Biomass 1 0 1 0 1 2 Ber01-04, Ber01-06, Ber01-08 periphyton under cover Figure 2A,B Bernot & Turner 2001 Oecologia 129:139-146 Ber01-09 freshwater pond natural unit field 8 6 10 11 Malacostraca Orconectes rusticus, crayfish Gastropoda Physella integra, snail Habitat use % snails under cover minus % at surface no predator 0.11 0.05 0.37 6 10 60 caged crayfish -0.24 0.08 0.63 6 10 60 Prey Habitat use -1 0 1 0 1 1 none Figure 2A,B Bernot & Turner 2001 Oecologia 129:139-146 Ber01-10 freshwater pond natural unit field 8 6 10 11 Actinopterygii Lepomis gibbosus, pumpkinseed sunfish Gastropoda Physella integra, snail Habitat use % snails under cover minus % at surface no predator 0.11 0.05 0.37 6 10 60 caged sunfish 0.54 0.08 0.59 6 10 60 Prey Habitat use -1 0 1 0 1 1 none Figure 1 Binckley et al 2002 Oecologia 130:157-161 Bin02-01 freshwater pond, ephemeral cattle tank/ wading pool lab 33 8 1 no # individuals given. Used one ind/rep as most conservative estimate 11 Actinopterygii Enneacanthus obesus, banded sunfish Amphibia Hyla squirella, squirrel treefrog Fecundity # amplexing pairs in pool no predator 3.44 0.99 2.79 8 1 8 caged predator 0.38 1 2.83 8 1 8 Prey Fecundity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Bin02-01 to Bin01-02 Figure 2 Binckley et al 2002 Oecologia 130:157-161 Bin02-02 freshwater pond, ephemeral cattle tank/ wading pool lab 33 8 1 no # individuals given. Used one ind/rep as most conservative estimate 11 Actinopterygii Enneacanthus obesus, banded sunfish Amphibia Hyla squirella, squirrel treefrog Fecundity # eggs no predator 3988.89 702.78 1987.76 8 1 8 caged predator 230.56 80.56 227.85 8 1 8 Prey Fecundity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Bin02-01 to Bin01-02 Fig 2 Binckley & Resetarits 2003 Oikos 102:623-629 Bin03-01 freshwater pond, ephemeral cattle tank/ wading pool field 65 5 1 no # individuals given. Used one ind/rep as most conservative estimate 11 Actinopterygii Aphredoderus sayanus, pirate perch Amphibia Hyla chrysoscelis, Cope's gray treefrog Fecundity # of eggs oviposited in experimental pools no predator cue present 3961.66 794.37 1776.25 5 1 5 caged predator present 1864.65 1067.38 2386.74 5 1 5 Prey Fecundity 1 0 1 0 1 1 none Fig 2 Binckley & Resetarits 2003 Oikos 102:623-629 Bin03-02 freshwater pond, ephemeral cattle tank/ wading pool field 65 5 1 no # individuals given. Used one ind/rep as most conservative estimate 11 Actinopterygii Umbra pygmaea, Eastern mudminnow Amphibia Hyla chrysoscelis, Cope's gray treefrog Fecundity # of eggs oviposited in experimental pools no predator cue present 3961.66 794.37 1776.25 5 1 5 caged predator present 0 0 0 5 1 5 Prey Fecundity 1 0 1 0 1 1 none Fig 2 Binckley & Resetarits 2003 Oikos 102:623-629 Bin03-03 freshwater pond, ephemeral cattle tank/ wading pool field 65 5 1 no # individuals given. Used one ind/rep as most conservative estimate 11 Actinopterygii Esox americanus, redfin pickerel Amphibia Hyla chrysoscelis, Cope's gray treefrog Fecundity # of eggs oviposited in experimental pools no predator cue present 3961.66 794.37 1776.25 5 1 5 caged predator present 0 0 0 5 1 5 Prey Fecundity 1 0 1 0 1 1 none Fig 2 Binckley & Resetarits 2003 Oikos 102:623-629 Bin03-04 freshwater pond, ephemeral cattle tank/ wading pool field 65 5 1 no # individuals given. Used one ind/rep as most conservative estimate 11 Actinopterygii Enneacanthus gloriosus, blue-spotted sunfish Amphibia Hyla chrysoscelis, Cope's gray treefrog Fecundity # of eggs oviposited in experimental pools no predator cue present 3961.66 794.37 1776.25 5 1 5 caged predator present 0 0 0 5 1 5 Prey Fecundity 1 0 1 0 1 1 none Fig 2 Binckley & Resetarits 2003 Oikos 102:623-629 Bin03-05 freshwater pond, ephemeral cattle tank/ wading pool field 65 5 1 no # individuals given. Used one ind/rep as most conservative estimate 11 Actinopterygii Gambusia affinis, western mosquitofish Amphibia Hyla chrysoscelis, Cope's gray treefrog Fecundity # of eggs oviposited in experimental pools no predator cue present 3961.66 794.37 1776.25 5 1 5 caged predator present 399.36 319.49 714.4 5 1 5 Prey Fecundity 1 0 1 0 1 1 none Fig 2a Binckley & Resetarits 2005 Biology Letters 1: 370-374 Bin05-01 freshwater pond cattle tank/ wading pool field 21 4 1 no # individuals given. Used one ind/rep as most conservative estimate 11 Actinopterygii Enneacanthus obesus, banded sunfish Insecta beetles of various sorts Density # of beetles/pool no predator present 28.99 3.4 6.8 4 1 4 1 caged predator in water 12.93 1.45 2.91 4 1 4 Prey Density 1 0 1 0 1 1 none experiment 1 Fig 2a Binckley & Resetarits 2005 Biology Letters 1: 370-374 Bin05-02 freshwater pond cattle tank/ wading pool field 17 6 1 no # individuals given. Used one ind/rep as most conservative estimate 11 Actinopterygii Enneacanthus gloriosus, blue-spotted sunfish Insecta beetles of various sorts Density # of beetles/pool no predator present 48.56 11.26 27.58 6 1 6 2 caged predators in water 7.79 2.69 6.6 6 1 6 Prey Density 1 0 1 0 1 1 none experiment 2 Table 1 Black & Dodson 1990 Oecologia 83: 117-122 Bla90-01 freshwater lake aquarium lab varies varies 1 11 Insecta Chaoborus americanus, phantom midge Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Fecundity # offspring/female no predator cue present 39.5 5 19.36 15 1 15 Chaoborus cues present 25.5 3.8 15.2 16 1 16 Prey Fecundity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Bla90-01, Bla90-02, Bla90-03 experiment 1 Table 1 Black & Dodson 1990 Oecologia 83: 117-122 Bla90-02 freshwater lake aquarium lab varies varies 1 11 Insecta Chaoborus americanus, phantom midge Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Development time to first reproduction (hours) no predator cue present 159 6 23.24 15 1 15 Chaoborus cues present 184 3 12 16 1 16 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Bla90-01, Bla90-02, Bla90-03 experiment 1 Table 1 Black & Dodson 1990 Oecologia 83: 117-122 Bla90-03 freshwater lake aquarium lab varies varies 1 11 Insecta Chaoborus americanus, phantom midge Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Growth length at first reproduction (mm) no predator cue present 1.73 0.03 0.12 15 1 15 Chaoborus cues present 1.71 0.02 0.08 16 1 16 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Bla90-01, Bla90-02, Bla90-03 experiment 1 Table 1 Black & Dodson 1990 Oecologia 83: 117-122 Bla90-04 freshwater lake aquarium lab varies 10 1 11 Insecta Chaoborus americanus, phantom midge Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Fecundity # offspring/female no predator cue present 49.1 3.4 10.75 10 1 10 Chaoborus cues present 36.1 6 18.97 10 1 10 Prey Fecundity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Bla90-04, Bla90-05, Bla90-06 experiment 2 Table 1 Black & Dodson 1990 Oecologia 83: 117-122 Bla90-05 freshwater lake aquarium lab varies 10 1 11 Insecta Chaoborus americanus, phantom midge Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Development time to first reproduction (hours) no predator cue present 163 6 18.97 10 1 10 Chaoborus cues present 183 3 9.49 10 1 10 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Bla90-04, Bla90-05, Bla90-06 experiment 2 Table 1 Black & Dodson 1990 Oecologia 83: 117-122 Bla90-06 freshwater lake aquarium lab varies 10 1 11 Insecta Chaoborus americanus, phantom midge Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Growth length at first reproduction (mm) no predator cue present 1.98 0.05 0.16 10 1 10 Chaoborus cues present 1.91 0.03 0.09 10 1 10 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Bla90-04, Bla90-05, Bla90-06 experiment 2 Table 1 Black & Dodson 1990 Oecologia 83: 117-122 Bla90-07 freshwater lake aquarium lab varies 10 1 11 Insecta Chaoborus americanus, phantom midge Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Fecundity # offspring/female no predator cue present 66.3 7 22.14 10 1 10 Chaoborus cues present 61.6 11.4 36.05 10 1 10 Prey Fecundity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Bla90-07, Bla90-08, Bla90-09 experiment 2 Table 1 Black & Dodson 1990 Oecologia 83: 117-122 Bla90-08 freshwater lake aquarium lab varies 10 1 11 Insecta Chaoborus americanus, phantom midge Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Development time to first reproduction (hours) no predator cue present 150 4 12.65 10 1 10 Chaoborus cues present 170 3 9.49 10 1 10 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Bla90-07, Bla90-08, Bla90-09 experiment 2 Table 1 Black & Dodson 1990 Oecologia 83: 117-122 Bla90-09 freshwater lake aquarium lab varies 10 1 11 Insecta Chaoborus americanus, phantom midge Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Growth length at first reproduction (mm) no predator cue present 2.05 0.02 0.06 10 1 10 Chaoborus cues present 1.92 0.5 1.58 10 1 10 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Bla90-07, Bla90-08, Bla90-09 experiment 2 Table 1 Black 1993 Limnol Oceanography 38(5): 986-996 Bla93-01 freshwater pond aquarium lab until instar complete varies 1 11 Insecta Chaoborus americanus, phantom midge Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Development Time to reproduction (first reproductive instar) (hours) no predator cue 154 1.53 5.07 11 1 11 Chaoborus chemical cue 160 0.89 2.81 10 1 10 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Bla93-01, Bla93-04, Bla93-07 Table 1 Black 1993 Limnol Oceanography 38(5): 986-996 Bla93-02 freshwater pond aquarium lab until instar complete varies 1 11 Insecta Notonecta undulata, backswimmer Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Development Time to reproduction (first reproductive instar) (hours) no predator cue 154 1.53 5.07 11 1 11 Notonecta chemical cue 148 0.34 1.08 10 1 10 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Bla93-02, Bla93-05, Bla93-08 Table 1 Black 1993 Limnol Oceanography 38(5): 986-996 Bla93-03 freshwater pond aquarium lab until instar complete varies 1 11 Insecta Chaoborus americanus, midge, and Notonecta undulata, backswimmer Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Development Time to reproduction (first reproductive instar) (hours) no predator cue 154 1.53 5.07 11 1 11 Chaoborus and Notonecta chemical cue 157 0.6 1.9 10 1 10 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Bla93-03, Bla93-06, Bla93-09 Figure 3 Black 1993 Limnol Oceanography 38(5): 986-996 Bla93-04 freshwater pond aquarium lab until instar complete varies 1 11 Insecta Chaoborus americanus, phantom midge Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Fecundity # offspring of first reproductive instar no predator cue 5.91 0.75 2.49 11 1 11 Chaoborus chemical cue 8.01 0.55 1.75 10 1 10 Prey Fecundity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Bla93-01, Bla93-04, Bla93-07 Figure 3 Black 1993 Limnol Oceanography 38(5): 986-996 Bla93-05 freshwater pond aquarium lab until instar complete varies 1 11 Insecta Notonecta undulata, backswimmer Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Fecundity # offspring of first reproductive instar no predator cue 5.91 0.75 2.49 11 1 11 Notonecta chemical cue 8.55 0.64 2.01 10 1 10 Prey Fecundity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Bla93-02, Bla93-05, Bla93-08 Figure 3 Black 1993 Limnol Oceanography 38(5): 986-996 Bla93-06 freshwater pond aquarium lab until instar complete varies 1 11 Insecta Chaoborus americanus, midge, and Notonecta undulata, backswimmer Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Fecundity # offspring of first reproductive instar no predator cue 5.91 0.75 2.49 11 1 11 Chaoborus and Notonecta chemical cue 6.56 0.81 2.57 10 1 10 Prey Fecundity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Bla93-03, Bla93-06, Bla93-09 Table 2 Black 1993 Limnol Oceanography 38(5): 986-996 Bla93-07 freshwater pond aquarium lab until instar complete 11 1 11 Insecta Chaoborus americanus, phantom midge Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Growth length at maturity of first reproductive instar (mm) no predator cue 1.83 0.01 0.04 11 1 11 Chaoborus chemical cue 2 0.01 0.04 11 1 11 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Bla93-01, Bla93-04, Bla93-07 Table 2 Black 1993 Limnol Oceanography 38(5): 986-996 Bla93-08 freshwater pond aquarium lab until instar complete 11 1 11 Insecta Notonecta undulata, backswimmer Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Growth length at maturity of first reproductive instar (mm) no predator cue 1.83 0.01 0.04 11 1 11 Notonecta chemical cue 2.06 0.02 0.05 11 1 11 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Bla93-02, Bla93-05, Bla93-08 Table 2 Black 1993 Limnol Oceanography 38(5): 986-996 Bla93-09 freshwater pond aquarium lab until instar complete varies 1 11 Insecta Chaoborus americanus, midge, and Notonecta undulata, backswimmer Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Growth length at maturity of first reproductive instar (mm) no predator cue 1.83 0.01 0.04 11 1 11 Chaoborus and Notonecta chemical cue 1.85 0.01 0.03 10 1 10 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Bla93-03, Bla93-06, Bla93-09 Figure 1 Blaustein 1997 Oecologia 110:212-217 Bla97-01 freshwater pond aquarium lab 50 varies 1 no # individuals given. Used one ind/rep as most conservative estimate 11 Amphibia Salamandra infraimmaculata, fire salamander Branchiopoda Ceriodaphnia quadrangula Density # individuals in 3 sweeps of a net No salamander 372.81 36.36 89.06 6 1 6 caged salamander 65.14 23.78 47.57 4 1 4 free foraging salamander 42.87 0.76 1.69 5 1 5 Prey Density 1 0 1 1 2 1 none Figure 1 Blaustein 1997 Oecologia 110:212-217 Bla97-02 freshwater pond aquarium lab 50 varies 1 no # individuals given. Used one ind/rep as most conservative estimate 11 Amphibia Salamandra infraimmaculata, fire salamander Maxillopoda Arctodiaptomus similis, calanoid copepod Density # individuals in 3 sweeps of a net No salamander 126.38 22.45 54.98 6 1 6 caged salamander 4.96 2.29 4.59 4 1 4 free foraging salamander 4.96 2.29 5.13 5 1 5 Prey Density 1 0 1 1 2 1 none Figure 1 Blaustein 1997 Oecologia 110:212-217 Bla97-03 freshwater pond aquarium lab 50 varies 1 no # individuals given. Used one ind/rep as most conservative estimate 11 Amphibia Salamandra infraimmaculata, fire salamander Malacostraca Cyzicus sp, clam shrimp Density # individuals in 3 sweeps of a net No salamander 21.58 4.36 10.69 6 1 6 caged salamander 0.25 0.75 1.5 4 1 4 free foraging salamander 0 0.75 1.68 5 1 5 Prey Density 1 0 1 1 2 1 none Figure 1 Brodin & Johansson 2002 Oecologia 132:316-322 Bro02-01 freshwater pond aquarium lab 70 6 10 111 Actinopterygii Perca fluviatilis, Eurasian perch Insecta Lestes sponsa, damselfly Branchiopoda Daphnia magna Density #/m3 10 6 fish absent 19.16 6.2 48.02 6 10 60 caged fish 8.04 2.29 17.74 6 10 60 fish predation 74.5 24.64 190.86 6 10 60 Resource Density 1 0 1 1 2 2 Bro02-01 to Bro02-05 Figure 3 Brodin & Johansson 2002 Oecologia 132:316-322 Bro02-02 freshwater pond aquarium lab 104 6 33 11 Actinopterygii Perca fluviatilis, Eurasian perch Insecta Lestes sponsa, damselfly Growth size at emergence (mm) fish absent 4.42 0.01 0.14 6 33 198 caged fish 4.47 0.02 0.28 6 33 198 fish predation 4.56 0.03 0.42 6 33 198 Prey Growth 1 0 1 1 2 1 Bro02-01 to Bro02-05 Figure 4 Brodin & Johansson 2002 Oecologia 132:316-322 Bro02-03 freshwater pond aquarium lab 104 6 33 11 Actinopterygii Perca fluviatilis, Eurasian perch Insecta Lestes sponsa, damselfly Development Time to maturity (days) fish absent 26.8 0.7 9.85 6 33 198 caged fish 23.97 1.54 21.67 6 33 198 fish predation 21.1 1.21 17.03 6 33 198 Prey Development -1 0 1 1 2 1 Bro02-01 to Bro02-05 Text, p. 319 Brodin & Johansson 2002 Oecologia 132:316-322 Bro02-04 freshwater pond aquarium lab 104 6 33 11 Actinopterygii Perca fluviatilis, Eurasian perch Insecta Lestes sponsa, damselfly Survival # emerging as adults fish absent 11.5 1.52 21.39 6 33 198 caged fish 11.67 0.61 8.58 6 33 198 fish predation 4.33 0.49 6.89 6 33 198 Prey Survival 1 0 1 1 2 1 Bro02-01 to Bro02-05 Figure 2 Brodin & Johansson 2002 Oecologia 132:316-322 Bro02-05 freshwater pond aquarium lab 0.01 6 2 11 Actinopterygii Perca fluviatilis, Eurasian perch Insecta Lestes sponsa, damselfly Activity PC of # swimming events, total distance swum, mean swimming distance, # walking events, total walking distance, mean walking distance fish absent 0.4 0.31 1.09 6 2 12 caged fish 0.61 0.17 0.6 6 2 12 fish predation -1.01 0.33 1.14 6 2 12 Prey Activity 1 0 1 1 2 1 Bro02-01 to Bro02-05 June 29 data Text. p. 2929 Brodin & Johansson 2004 Ecology 85(11): 2927-2932 Bro04-01 freshwater pond aquarium lab 78 varies 1 11 Insecta Aeshna juncea, dragonfly Insecta Coenagrion hastulatum, damselfly Activity movements/individual no predator 4.68 0.32 3.05 91 1 91 caged predator 3.08 0.44 3.14 51 1 51 Prey Activity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Bro04-2 (body mass for A. juncea estimated by taking dry mass and multiplying by 3.5 to get wet mass) Text. p. 2929 Brodin & Johansson 2004 Ecology 85(11): 2927-2932 Bro04-02 freshwater pond aquarium lab 78 varies 1 11 Insecta Aeshna juncea, dragonfly Insecta Coenagrion hastulatum, damselfly Growth larval head width no predator 2.66 0.06 0.57 91 1 91 caged predator 2.4 0.09 0.64 51 1 51 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Bro04-1 (body mass for A. juncea estimated by taking dry mass and multiplying by 3.5 to get wet mass) Figure 2A Brodin et al 2006 Oecologia 148: 162-169 Bro06-01 freshwater pond aquarium lab 105 35 1 11 Insecta Aeshna juncea, dragonfly Insecta Coenagrion hastulatum, damselfly Growth weight at end of expt. (mg) no predator scent 2.64 0.35 2.1 35 1 35 cue from predator eating zooplankton 2.34 0.55 3.23 35 1 35 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Bro06-01, Bro06-03 (body mass for A. juncea estimated by taking dry mass and multiplying by 3.5 to get wet mass) Figure 2A Brodin et al 2006 Oecologia 148: 162-169 Bro06-02 freshwater pond aquarium lab 105 35 1 11 Insecta Aeshna juncea, dragonfly Insecta Coenagrion hastulatum, damselfly Growth weight at end of expt. (mg) no predator scent 2.64 0.35 2.1 35 1 35 cue from predator eating conspecifics 1.79 0.16 0.97 35 1 35 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Bro06-02, Bro06-04 (body mass for A. juncea estimated by taking dry mass and multiplying by 3.5 to get wet mass) Figure 2A Brodin et al 2006 Oecologia 148: 162-169 Bro06-03 freshwater pond aquarium lab 89 35 1 11 Insecta Aeshna juncea, dragonfly Insecta Coenagrion hastulatum, damselfly Activity # moves per individual no predator scent 8.43 1.56 9.25 35 1 35 cue from predator eating zooplankton 7.2 1.6 9.48 35 1 35 Prey Activity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Bro06-01, Bro06-03 (body mass for A. juncea estimated by taking dry mass and multiplying by 3.5 to get wet mass) Figure 2A Brodin et al 2006 Oecologia 148: 162-169 Bro06-04 freshwater pond aquarium lab 89 35 1 11 Insecta Aeshna juncea, dragonfly Insecta Coenagrion hastulatum, damselfly Activity # moves per individual no predator scent 8.43 1.56 9.25 35 1 35 cue from predator eating conspecifics 5.83 1.88 11.11 35 1 35 Prey Activity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Bro06-02, Bro06-04 (body mass for A. juncea estimated by taking dry mass and multiplying by 3.5 to get wet mass) Figure 2B Brodin et al 2006 Oecologia 148: 162-169 Bro06-05 freshwater pond aquarium lab 105 35 1 11 Insecta Aeshna juncea, dragonfly Insecta Coenagrion hastulatum, damselfly Growth weight at end of expt. (mg) no predator scent 4.5 0.49 2.9 35 1 35 cue from predator eating zooplankton 3.49 0.47 2.8 35 1 35 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Bro06-05, Bro06-07 (body mass for A. juncea estimated by taking dry mass and multiplying by 3.5 to get wet mass) Figure 2B Brodin et al 2006 Oecologia 148: 162-169 Bro06-06 freshwater pond aquarium lab 105 35 1 11 Insecta Aeshna juncea, dragonfly Insecta Coenagrion hastulatum, damselfly Growth weight at end of expt. (mg) no predator scent 4.5 0.49 2.9 35 1 35 cue from predator eating conspecifics 3.34 0.43 2.53 35 1 35 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Bro06-06, Bro06-08 (body mass for A. juncea estimated by taking dry mass and multiplying by 3.5 to get wet mass) Figure 2B Brodin et al 2006 Oecologia 148: 162-169 Bro06-07 freshwater pond aquarium lab 89 35 1 11 Insecta Aeshna juncea, dragonfly Insecta Coenagrion hastulatum, damselfly Activity # moves per individual no predator scent 9.73 1.37 8.1 35 1 35 cue from predator eating zooplankton 8.56 1.59 9.39 35 1 35 Prey Activity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Bro06-05, Bro06-07 (body mass for A. juncea estimated by taking dry mass and multiplying by 3.5 to get wet mass) Figure 2B Brodin et al 2006 Oecologia 148: 162-169 Bro06-08 freshwater pond aquarium lab 89 35 1 11 Insecta Aeshna juncea, dragonfly Insecta Coenagrion hastulatum, damselfly Activity # moves per individual no predator scent 9.73 1.37 8.1 35 1 35 cue from predator eating conspecifics 7.23 1.83 10.85 35 1 35 Prey Activity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Bro06-06, Bro06-08 (body mass for A. juncea estimated by taking dry mass and multiplying by 3.5 to get wet mass) Text, p. 5 Brodin et al 2006 Oecologia 148: 162-169 Bro06-09 freshwater pond aquarium lab 105 15 1 11 Insecta Aeshna juncea, dragonfly Insecta Coenagrion hastulatum, damselfly Habitat use Mean distance from predator-containing cup (except in control, when cup has no predator) no predator scent (cup has no predator in it) 3.75 0.36 1.39 15 1 15 cup has predator eating zooplankton in it 6.28 0.4 1.55 15 1 15 Prey Habitat use 1 0 1 0 1 1 Bro06-01, Bro06-03, Bro06-05, Bro06-07, Bro06-09 no effect of food treatment on these values, so article pooled high and low food responses (body mass for A. juncea estimated by taking dry mass and multiplying by 3.5 to get wet mass) Text, p. 5 Brodin et al 2006 Oecologia 148: 162-169 Bro06-10 freshwater pond aquarium lab 105 15 1 11 Insecta Aeshna juncea, dragonfly Insecta Coenagrion hastulatum, damselfly Habitat use Mean distance from predator-containing cup (except in control, when cup has no predator) no predator scent (cup has no predator in it) 3.75 0.36 1.39 15 1 15 cup has predator eating conspecifics in it 8.55 0.37 1.43 15 1 15 Prey Habitat use 1 0 1 0 1 1 Bro06-02, Bro06-04, Bro06-06, Bro06-08, Bro06-10 no effect of food treatment on these values, so article pooled high and low food responses (body mass for A. juncea estimated by taking dry mass and multiplying by 3.5 to get wet mass) Fig 2A Burks et al 2000 Oikos 88: 139-147 Bur00-01 freshwater lake enclosure field 4 varies 1 11 Actinopterygii Rutilus rutilus, roach Branchiopoda Daphnia magna Growth um/day spring water 173.99 13.72 53.14 15 1 15 water from lake with fish 85.22 10.23 42.2 17 1 17 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 none Lake Stigsholm Fig 2B Burks et al 2000 Oikos 88: 139-147 Bur00-02 freshwater lake enclosure field 4 varies 1 11 Actinopterygii Rutilus rutilus, roach Branchiopoda Daphnia magna Growth um/day spring water 118.11 6.82 30.49 20 1 20 water with fish cue present 85.53 9.39 44.06 22 1 22 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 none Lake Torup Fig 3 Burks et al 2000 Oikos 88: 139-147 Bur00-03 freshwater lake aquarium lab 14 10 1 11 Actinopterygii Rutilus rutilus, roach Branchiopoda Daphnia magna Growth length (carapace, in mm) 0.68 0.4 10 spring water 1.87 0.04 0.12 10 1 10 water with fish cue present 1.54 0.08 0.24 10 1 10 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Bur00-03, Bur00-04, Bur00-05 Fig 4A Burks et al 2000 Oikos 88: 139-147 Bur00-04 freshwater lake aquarium lab varies 10 1 11 Actinopterygii Rutilus rutilus, roach Branchiopoda Daphnia magna Development Time to reproduction (days) spring water 11.28 0.51 1.6 10 1 10 water with fish cue present 11.45 0.54 1.7 10 1 10 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Bur00-03, Bur00-04, Bur00-05 Fig 4C Burks et al 2000 Oikos 88: 139-147 Bur00-05 freshwater lake aquarium lab varies 10 1 11 Actinopterygii Rutilus rutilus, roach Branchiopoda Daphnia magna Fecundity # eggs spring water 4.46 0.34 1.06 10 1 10 water with fish cue present 2.81 0.38 1.21 10 1 10 Prey Fecundity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Bur00-03, Bur00-04, Bur00-05 Fig 4b Byrnes et al 2006 Ecology Letters 9: 61-71 Byr06-01 marine intertidal aquarium lab 3 varies 1 no # individuals given. Used one ind/rep as most conservative estimate 111 Malacostraca Cancer productus, red rock crab Malacostraca Pugetttia producta, kelp crab Autotroph Macrocystis sp., giant kelp (algae) Biomass change in biomass from beginning to end of experiment (g) no predator cues present -22.41 4.81 12.73 7 1 7 predator physical, visual, and chemical cues present -11.8 3.96 10.46 7 1 7 Resource Biomass 1 0 1 0 1 2 none Fig 4b Byrnes et al 2006 Ecology Letters 9: 61-71 Byr06-02 marine intertidal aquarium lab 3 varies 1 no # individuals given. Used one ind/rep as most conservative estimate 111 Malacostraca Cancer magister, crab Malacostraca Pugetttia producta, kelp crab Autotroph Macrocystis sp., giant kelp (algae) Biomass change in biomass from beginning to end of experiment (g) no predator cues present -22.41 4.81 12.73 7 1 7 predator physical, visual, and chemical cues present -16.32 3.62 10.86 9 1 9 Resource Biomass 1 0 1 0 1 2 none Fig 4b Byrnes et al 2006 Ecology Letters 9: 61-71 Byr06-03 marine intertidal aquarium lab 3 varies 1 no # individuals given. Used one ind/rep as most conservative estimate 111 Asteroidea Pycnopodia helianthoides, sun star Malacostraca Pugetttia producta, kelp crab Autotroph Macrocystis sp., giant kelp (algae) Biomass change in biomass from beginning to end of experiment (g) no predator cues present -22.41 4.81 12.73 7 1 7 predator physical, visual, and chemical cues present -25.82 3.83 10.85 8 1 8 Resource Biomass 1 0 1 0 1 2 none Fig 4c Byrnes et al 2006 Ecology Letters 9: 61-71 Byr06-04 marine intertidal aquarium lab 3 varies 1 no # individuals given. Used one ind/rep as most conservative estimate 111 Malacostraca Cancer productus, red rock crab Echinoida Strongylocentrotus purpuratus, purple sea urchin Autotroph Macrocystis sp., giant kelp (algae) Biomass change in biomass from beginning to end of experiment (g) no predator cues present -12.38 1.72 4.54 7 1 7 predator physical, visual, and chemical cues present -12.15 1.46 3.86 7 1 7 Resource Biomass 1 0 1 0 1 2 none Fig 4c Byrnes et al 2006 Ecology Letters 9: 61-71 Byr06-05 marine intertidal aquarium lab 3 varies 1 no # individuals given. Used one ind/rep as most conservative estimate 111 Malacostraca Cancer magister, crab Echinoida Strongylocentrotus purpuratus, purple sea urchin Autotroph Macrocystis sp., giant kelp (algae) Biomass change in biomass from beginning to end of experiment (g) no predator cues present -12.38 1.72 4.54 7 1 7 predator physical, visual, and chemical cues present -13.98 1.56 4.67 9 1 9 Resource Biomass 1 0 1 0 1 2 none Fig 4c Byrnes et al 2006 Ecology Letters 9: 61-71 Byr06-06 marine intertidal aquarium lab 3 varies 1 no # individuals given. Used one ind/rep as most conservative estimate 111 Asteroidea Pycnopodia helianthoides, sun star Echinoida Strongylocentrotus purpuratus, purple sea urchin Autotroph Macrocystis sp., giant kelp (algae) Biomass change in biomass from beginning to end of experiment (g) no predator cues present -12.38 1.72 4.54 7 1 7 predator physical, visual, and chemical cues present -3.03 1.59 4.51 8 1 8 Resource Biomass 1 0 1 0 1 2 none Fig 5 Caro & Castilla 2004 MEPS 276: 115-123 Car04-01 marine intertidal, rocky aquarium lab 150 4 20 11 Gastropoda Nucella crassilabrum, gastropod Bivalvia Semimytilus algosus, mussel Growth Mass (g) no predator cues 9.56 0.11 0.99 4 20 80 waterborne cues from caged predator 4.22 0.11 0.99 4 20 80 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 none Fig 5 Caro & Castilla 2004 MEPS 276: 115-123 Car04-02 marine intertidal, rocky aquarium lab 150 4 20 11 Gastropoda Nucella crassilabrum, gastropod Bivalvia Semimytilus algosus, mussel Growth Mass (g) no predator cues 9.56 0.11 0.99 4 20 80 waterborne cues from caged predator that are eating mussels 3.78 0.11 0.99 4 20 80 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 none Fig 5 Caro & Castilla 2004 MEPS 276: 115-123 Car04-03 marine intertidal, rocky aquarium lab 150 4 20 11 Gastropoda Concholepas concholepas Bivalvia Semimytilus algosus, mussel Growth Mass (g) no predator cues 9.67 0.11 0.99 4 20 80 waterborne cues from caged predator 8.67 0.11 0.99 4 20 80 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 none Fig 5 Caro & Castilla 2004 MEPS 276: 115-123 Car04-04 marine intertidal, rocky aquarium lab 150 4 20 11 Gastropoda Concholepas concholepas Bivalvia Semimytilus algosus, mussel Growth Mass (g) no predator cues 9.67 0.11 0.99 4 20 80 waterborne cues from caged predator that are eating mussels 8.11 0.11 0.99 4 20 80 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 none Fig 5 Caro & Castilla 2004 MEPS 276: 115-123 Car04-05 marine intertidal, rocky aquarium lab 150 4 20 11 Malacostraca Acanthocyclus gayi, crab Bivalvia Semimytilus algosus, mussel Growth Mass (g) no predator cues 9.22 0.11 0.99 4 20 80 waterborne cues from caged predator 3 0.11 0.99 4 20 80 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 none Fig 5 Caro & Castilla 2004 MEPS 276: 115-123 Car04-06 marine intertidal, rocky aquarium lab 150 4 20 11 Malacostraca Acanthocyclus gayi, crab Bivalvia Semimytilus algosus, mussel Growth Mass (g) no predator cues 9.22 0.11 0.99 4 20 80 waterborne cues from caged predator that are eating mussels 0.89 0.11 0.99 4 20 80 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 none Table 4 Carlsen et al 1999 Oikos 87: 277-285 Car99-01 terrestrial field & forest cage lab 7 2 4 11 Mammalia Felix cattus, Vulpes vulpes, and Mustela vison Mammalia Microtus agrestis, field vole Growth mean individual mass change/g no predator scent -0.01 0.02 0.05 2 4 8 predator scents -0.16 0.02 0.06 2 4 8 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 none Expt 1 Table 4 Carlsen et al 1999 Oikos 87: 277-285 Car99-02 terrestrial field & forest cage lab 7 1 11 11 Mammalia Felix cattus, Vulpes vulpes, and Mustela vison Mammalia Microtus agrestis, field vole Growth mass gain over 6 days no predator scent 0.01 0.04 0.13 1 11 11 predator scents -0.04 0.03 0.11 1 11 11 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Car99-03 Expt 2 Table 4 Carlsen et al 1999 Oikos 87: 277-285 Car99-03 terrestrial field & forest cage lab 4 1 7 11 Mammalia Felix cattus, Vulpes vulpes, and Mustela vison Mammalia Microtus agrestis, field vole Growth mean individual mass change/g no predator scent -0.04 0.03 0.09 1 7 7 predator scents 0.03 0.03 0.08 1 7 7 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Car99-03 Expt 3 Figure 1b Carrascal & Polo 1999 Anim Behav 58: 281-285 Car99A-01 terrestrial field cage lab 3 1 6 11 simulated Homo sapiens (we run after them and scare them) Aves Parus ater, Coal tit Growth mass change (g) no humans chasing them 0.82 0.02 0.06 1 6 6 humans chasing them 0.74 0.02 0.06 1 6 6 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 none Figure 1 Caudill & Peckarsky 2003 Ecology 84(8): 2133-2144 Cau03-01 freshwater pond aquarium field until 10th imago emerged 6 10 11 Actinopterygii Salvelinus fontinalis, brook trout Insecta Callibaetis ferrugineus hageni, mayfly Development time to emergence of the 10th female subimago (days) no trout chemical cues 35.42 1.09 8.44 6 10 60 trout chemical cues present 34.66 1.53 11.85 6 10 60 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Cau03-01, Cau03-02 Figure 1 gives emergence date; I calculated number of days until emergence by subtracting when the expt started (7/15) from the mean emergence date given on the graph. Figure 2a Caudill & Peckarsky 2003 Ecology 84(8): 2133-2144 Cau03-02 freshwater pond aquarium field until 10th imago emerged 6 10 11 Actinopterygii Salvelinus fontinalis, brook trout Insecta Callibaetis ferrugineus hageni, mayfly Growth length of mesonotum of the first 10 female subimago larvae (mm) no trout chemical cues 2.22 0.03 0.26 6 10 60 trout chemical cues present 2.17 0.04 0.33 6 10 60 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Cau03-01, Cau03-02 Figure 2a Caudill & Peckarsky 2003 Ecology 84(8): 2133-2144 Cau03-03 freshwater pond aquarium field 26 6 100 11 Actinopterygii Salvelinus fontinalis, brook trout Insecta Callibaetis ferrugineus hageni, mayfly Growth Mean mesonotum length (mm) of female BWP larvae remaining in the experimental tanks at the end of the expt. no trout chemical cues 3.67 0.08 1.98 6 100 600 trout chemical cues present 3.52 0.11 2.66 6 100 600 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 none Calculated number of individuals /replicates as follows: P. 2136 says of 150 starting larvae, average of 96% survive, and at most 41 emerged from expt before ended on day 26. So, 150*.96 = 144, 144-41 = 103, round down to 100 individuals/replicate to be conservative Figure 3 Caudill & Peckarsky 2003 Ecology 84(8): 2133-2144 Cau03-04 freshwater pond aquarium field 4 6 4 11 Actinopterygii Salvelinus fontinalis, brook trout Insecta Callibaetis ferrugineus hageni, mayfly Habitat use # exposed no trout chemical cues 27.55 1.55 7.59 6 4 24 trout chemical cues present 32.81 2.17 10.63 6 4 24 Prey Habitat use 1 0 1 0 1 1 none Observations made at midnight during late observation period Figure 3 Caudill & Peckarsky 2003 Ecology 84(8): 2133-2144 Cau03-05 freshwater pond aquarium field 4 6 4 11 Actinopterygii Salvelinus fontinalis, brook trout Insecta Callibaetis ferrugineus hageni, mayfly Habitat use # exposed no trout chemical cues 7.43 0.62 3.04 6 4 24 trout chemical cues present 9.29 0.93 4.56 6 4 24 Prey Habitat use 1 0 1 0 1 1 none Observations made at noon during late observation period Figure 3 Caudill & Peckarsky 2003 Ecology 84(8): 2133-2144 Cau03-06 freshwater pond aquarium field 4 6 4 11 Actinopterygii Salvelinus fontinalis, brook trout Insecta Callibaetis ferrugineus hageni, mayfly Activity # swimming per minute no trout chemical cues 1.13 0.19 0.93 6 4 24 trout chemical cues present 0.73 0.18 0.88 6 4 24 Prey Activity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Cau03-06, Cau03-07 Observations made at midnight during late observation period Figure 3 Caudill & Peckarsky 2003 Ecology 84(8): 2133-2144 Cau03-07 freshwater pond aquarium field 4 6 4 11 Actinopterygii Salvelinus fontinalis, brook trout Insecta Callibaetis ferrugineus hageni, mayfly Activity # swimming per minute no trout chemical cues 0.67 0.19 0.93 6 4 24 trout chemical cues present 0.62 0.17 0.83 6 4 24 Prey Activity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Cau03-06, Cau03-07 Observations made at noon during late observation period Table 4 Cheung et al 2004 Marine Biology 144: 675-684 Che04-01 marine intertidal aquarium lab 84 4 8 11 Gastropoda Thais clavigera Bivalvia Perna viridis, green mussel Growth log final tissue dry mass no predator cue 0.85 0.02 0.14 4 8 32 visual and chemical cues from predator fed fish and held next to them 0.8 0.02 0.13 4 8 32 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Che04-01, -03 Table 4 Cheung et al 2004 Marine Biology 144: 675-684 Che04-02 marine intertidal aquarium lab 84 4 8 11 Malacostraca Thalamita danae, swimming crab Bivalvia Perna viridis, green mussel Growth log final tissue dry mass no predator cue 0.85 0.02 0.14 4 8 32 visual and chemical cues from predator fed fish and held next to them 0.87 0.03 0.15 4 8 32 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Che04-02, -04 Table 2 Cheung et al 2004 Marine Biology 144: 675-684 Che04-03 marine intertidal aquarium lab 84 4 8 11 Gastropoda Thais clavigera Bivalvia Perna viridis, green mussel Survival % dying no predator cue 13.8 4.6 26.02 4 8 32 visual and chemical cues from predator fed fish and held next to them 20 7.05 39.88 4 8 32 Prey Survival -1 0 1 0 1 1 Che04-01, -03 paper gives SD for Table 2 Table 2 Cheung et al 2004 Marine Biology 144: 675-684 Che04-04 marine intertidal aquarium lab 84 4 8 11 Malacostraca Thalamita danae, swimming crab Bivalvia Perna viridis, green mussel Survival % dying no predator cue 13.8 4.6 26.02 4 8 32 visual and chemical cues from predator fed fish and held next to them 27.5 3.55 20.08 4 8 32 Prey Survival -1 0 1 0 1 1 Che04-02, -04 paper gives SD for Table 2 Text p. 137 Chivers et al 2001 Oikos 92: 135-142 Chi01-01 freshwater pond aquarium lab until all eggs had either hatched or died 7 varies 11 Hirudinea Desserobdella picta, leech Amphibia Hyla regilla, Pacific treefrog Survival % of eggs hatching no predator cue present 95.3 2.69 27.56 7 15 105 caged leech present 96.9 2.57 31.89 7 22 154 Prey Survival 1 0 1 0 1 1 Chi01-01, Chi01-03, Chi01-05 experiment 1 Text p. 137 Chivers et al 2001 Oikos 92: 135-142 Chi01-02 freshwater pond aquarium lab until all eggs had either hatched or died 7 varies 11 Oligochaeta Lumbricus terrestris, earthworm (a 'sham' predator) Amphibia Hyla regilla, Pacific treefrog Survival % of eggs hatching no predator cue present 95.3 2.69 27.56 7 15 105 caged earthworm present 91.5 3.02 34.83 7 19 133 Prey Survival 1 0 1 0 1 1 Chi01-02, Chi01-04, Chi01-06 experiment 1 Fig 1 Chivers et al 2001 Oikos 92: 135-142 Chi01-03 freshwater pond aquarium lab until all eggs had either hatched or died 7 varies 11 Hirudinea Desserobdella picta, leech Amphibia Hyla regilla, Pacific treefrog Development Gossner stage at hatching no predator cue present 20.35 0.07 0.7 7 15 105 caged leech present 20.03 0.01 0.17 7 22 154 Prey Development 1 0 1 0 1 1 Chi01-01, Chi01-03, Chi01-05 experiment 1 Fig 1 Chivers et al 2001 Oikos 92: 135-142 Chi01-04 freshwater pond aquarium lab until all eggs had either hatched or died 7 varies 11 Oligochaeta Lumbricus terrestris, earthworm (a 'sham' predator) Amphibia Hyla regilla, Pacific treefrog Development Gossner stage at hatching no predator cue present 20.35 0.07 0.7 7 15 105 caged earthworm present 20.03 0.04 0.46 7 19 133 Prey Development 1 0 1 0 1 1 Chi01-02, Chi01-04, Chi01-06 experiment 1 Fig 1 Chivers et al 2001 Oikos 92: 135-142 Chi01-05 freshwater pond aquarium lab until all eggs had either hatched or died 7 varies 11 Hirudinea Desserobdella picta, leech Amphibia Hyla regilla, Pacific treefrog Growth length at hatching (mm) no predator cue present 7.08 0.17 1.74 7 15 105 caged leech present 6.8 0.17 2.06 7 22 154 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Chi01-01, Chi01-03, Chi01-05 experiment 1 Fig 1 Chivers et al 2001 Oikos 92: 135-142 Chi01-06 freshwater pond aquarium lab until all eggs had either hatched or died 7 varies 11 Oligochaeta Lumbricus terrestris, earthworm (a 'sham' predator) Amphibia Hyla regilla, Pacific treefrog Growth length at hatching (mm) no predator cue present 7.08 0.17 1.74 7 15 105 caged earthworm present 6.8 0.1 1.2 7 19 133 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Chi01-02, Chi01-04, Chi01-06 experiment 1 Text, p. 138 Chivers et al 2001 Oikos 92: 135-142 Chi01-07 freshwater pond aquarium lab until all eggs had either hatched or died 10 varies 11 Hirudinea Desserobdella picta, leech Amphibia Hyla regilla, Pacific treefrog Survival % of eggs hatching no predator cue present 87.3 4.91 190.16 10 150 1500 caged leech present 88.2 3.42 133.77 10 153 1530 Prey Survival 1 0 1 0 1 1 Chi01-07, Chi01-09, Chi01-11 experiment 2 Text, p. 138 Chivers et al 2001 Oikos 92: 135-142 Chi01-08 freshwater pond aquarium lab until all eggs had either hatched or died 10 varies 11 Oligochaeta Lumbricus terrestris, earthworm (a 'sham' predator) Amphibia Hyla regilla, Pacific treefrog Survival % of eggs hatching no predator cue present 87.3 4.91 190.16 10 150 1500 caged earthworm present 90.3 3.35 131.04 10 153 1530 Prey Survival 1 0 1 0 1 1 Chi01-08, Chi01-10, Chi01-12 experiment 2 Fig 2 Chivers et al 2001 Oikos 92: 135-142 Chi01-09 freshwater pond aquarium lab until all eggs had either hatched or died 10 varies 11 Hirudinea Desserobdella picta, leech Amphibia Hyla regilla, Pacific treefrog Development Gossner stage at hatching 14.3 for control, 14.5 for predator 0.6 for control, 0.3 for predator 10 no predator cue present 20.19 0.04 1.41 10 150 1500 caged leech present 19.8 0.04 1.46 10 153 1530 Prey Development 1 0 1 0 1 1 Chi01-07, Chi01-09, Chi01-11 experiment 2 Fig 2 Chivers et al 2001 Oikos 92: 135-142 Chi01-10 freshwater pond aquarium lab until all eggs had either hatched or died 10 varies 11 Oligochaeta Lumbricus terrestris, earthworm (a 'sham' predator) Amphibia Hyla regilla, Pacific treefrog Development Gossner stage at hatching 14.3 for control, 14.1 for predator 0.6 for control, 0.5 for predator 10 no predator cue present 20.19 0.04 1.41 10 150 1500 caged earthworm present 20.09 0.03 1.19 10 153 1530 Prey Development 1 0 1 0 1 1 Chi01-08, Chi01-10, Chi01-12 experiment 2 Fig 2 Chivers et al 2001 Oikos 92: 135-142 Chi01-11 freshwater pond aquarium lab until all eggs had either hatched or died 10 varies 11 Hirudinea Desserobdella picta, leech Amphibia Hyla regilla, Pacific treefrog Growth length at hatching (mm) no predator cue present 6.96 0.16 6.21 10 150 1500 caged leech present 6.52 0.19 7.4 10 153 1530 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Chi01-07, Chi01-09, Chi01-11 experiment 2 Fig 2 Chivers et al 2001 Oikos 92: 135-142 Chi01-12 freshwater pond aquarium lab until all eggs had either hatched or died 10 varies 11 Oligochaeta Lumbricus terrestris, earthworm (a 'sham' predator) Amphibia Hyla regilla, Pacific treefrog Growth length at hatching (mm) no predator cue present 6.96 0.16 6.21 10 150 1500 caged earthworm present 6.98 0.13 5.27 10 153 1530 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Chi01-08, Chi01-10, Chi01-12 experiment 2 Text p. 139 Chivers et al 2001 Oikos 92: 135-142 Chi01-13 freshwater pond aquarium lab until all eggs had either hatched or died 10 25 11 Hirudinea Desserobdella picta, leech Amphibia Rana cascadea, Cascades frog Survival % of eggs hatching no predator cue present 98 1.38 21.79 10 25 250 caged leech present 96 1.77 27.99 10 25 250 Prey Survival 1 0 1 0 1 1 Chi01-13, Chi01-15, Chi01-17 experiment 3 Text p. 139 Chivers et al 2001 Oikos 92: 135-142 Chi01-14 freshwater pond aquarium lab until all eggs had either hatched or died 10 25 11 Oligochaeta Lumbricus terrestris, earthworm (a 'sham' predator) Amphibia Rana cascadea, Cascades frog Survival % of eggs hatching no predator cue present 98 1.38 21.79 10 25 250 caged earthworm present 97.6 1.38 21.79 10 25 250 Prey Survival 1 0 1 0 1 1 Chi01-14, Chi01-16, Chi01-18 experiment 3 Fig 3 Chivers et al 2001 Oikos 92: 135-142 Chi01-15 freshwater pond aquarium lab until all eggs had either hatched or died 10 25 11 Hirudinea Desserobdella picta, leech Amphibia Rana cascadea, Cascades frog Development Gossner stage upon leaving jelly mass 16.8 0.53 8 no predator cue present 21.64 0.16 2.51 10 25 250 caged leech present 20.33 0.16 2.49 10 25 250 Prey Development 1 0 1 0 1 1 Chi01-13, Chi01-15, Chi01-17 experiment 3 Fig 3 Chivers et al 2001 Oikos 92: 135-142 Chi01-16 freshwater pond aquarium lab until all eggs had either hatched or died 10 25 11 Oligochaeta Lumbricus terrestris, earthworm (a 'sham' predator) Amphibia Rana cascadea, Cascades frog Development Gossner stage upon leaving jelly mass 16.8 0.53 8 no predator cue present 21.64 0.16 2.51 10 25 250 caged earthworm present 21.5 0.19 3.06 10 25 250 Prey Development 1 0 1 0 1 1 Chi01-14, Chi01-16, Chi01-18 experiment 3 Fig 3 Chivers et al 2001 Oikos 92: 135-142 Chi01-17 freshwater pond aquarium lab until all eggs had either hatched or died 10 25 11 Hirudinea Desserobdella picta, leech Amphibia Rana cascadea, Cascades frog Growth length upon leaving jelly mass (mm) no predator cue present 10.14 0.29 4.56 10 25 250 caged leech present 8.92 0.29 4.56 10 25 250 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Chi01-13, Chi01-15, Chi01-17 experiment 3 Fig 3 Chivers et al 2001 Oikos 92: 135-142 Chi01-18 freshwater pond aquarium lab until all eggs had either hatched or died 10 25 11 Oligochaeta Lumbricus terrestris, earthworm (a 'sham' predator) Amphibia Rana cascadea, Cascades frog Growth length upon leaving jelly mass (mm) no predator cue present 10.14 0.29 4.56 10 25 250 caged earthworm present 9.9 0.29 4.66 10 25 250 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Chi01-14, Chi01-16, Chi01-18 experiment 3 Text p. 2458 Chivers et al 1999 J Chem Ecol 25(11): 2455-2463 Chi99-01 freshwater lake aquarium lab until metamorphosis complete 4 12 11 Insecta Notonecta sp., backswimmer Amphibia Bufo boreas, Western toad Survival % survival to metamorphosis no predator cues (non-predatory insect present) 64.5 10.5 72.75 4 12 48 predator cues (caged predator present) 66.7 8.3 57.5 4 12 48 Prey Survival 1 0 1 0 1 1 Chi99-01 through Chi99-03 Figure 1a Chivers et al 1999 J Chem Ecol 25(11): 2455-2463 Chi99-02 freshwater lake aquarium lab until metamorphosis complete 4 12 11 Insecta Notonecta sp., backswimmer Amphibia Bufo boreas, Western toad Development Time to metamorphosis (days) no predator cues (non-predatory insect present) 41.05 5.66 39.21 4 12 48 predator cues (caged predator present) 32.68 3.33 23.07 4 12 48 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Chi99-01 through Chi99-03 Figure 1b Chivers et al 1999 J Chem Ecol 25(11): 2455-2463 Chi99-03 freshwater lake aquarium lab until metamorphosis complete 4 12 11 Insecta Notonecta sp., backswimmer Amphibia Bufo boreas, Western toad Growth Mass at metamorphosis (g) no predator cues (non-predatory insect present) 0.58 0.01 0.09 4 12 48 predator cues (caged predator present) 0.49 0.02 0.14 4 12 48 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Chi99-01 through Chi99-03 Fig. 4 Cronin et al 2004 Ecology 85(8): 2134-2143 Cro04-1 terrestrial field enclosure field 2 12 1 11 Arachnida multiple spider species Insecta Prokelisia crocea, planthopper Emigration % planthoppers recaptured after 2 days 100 12 spiders removed by D-vac for CE trt: 52.28; for total trt: 37.90 for CE trt: 5.47; for total trt: 3.37 18.981 for CE, 11.694 for total 12 1 12 with high spider density and cage around patch to prevent emigration (so planthopper density only reduced by predation) 38.42 4.91 17.02 12 1 12 with high spider density but no cage around patch (so both emigration and predation can reduce planthopper density) 5.39 1.38 4.78 12 1 12 Prey Emigration 1 1 0 1 2 1 none to analyze this paper, you've got to get the predation reduction first, then get the total reduction from the other trt Figure 2A Crowl & Covich 1990 Science 247: 949-951 Cro90-01 freshwater stream aquarium lab varies 6 3 11 Malacostraca Orconectes virilis, virile crayfish Gastropoda Physella virgata virgata, snail Growth length at first reproduction (mm) no predator cues 5.05 0.21 0.91 6 3 18 predator cues present 5.26 0.36 1.53 6 3 18 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Cro90-01, Cro90-13 Population C1: crayfish and snails co-occur (diagonally lined) Figure 2A Crowl & Covich 1990 Science 247: 949-951 Cro90-02 freshwater stream aquarium lab varies 6 3 11 Malacostraca Orconectes virilis, virile crayfish Gastropoda Physella virgata virgata, snail Growth length at first reproduction (mm) no predator cues 5.05 0.21 0.91 6 3 18 predator cues present 5.24 0.4 1.68 6 3 18 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Cro90-02, Cro90-14 Population C1: crayfish and snails co-occur (diagonally lined) Figure 2A Crowl & Covich 1990 Science 247: 949-951 Cro90-03 freshwater stream aquarium lab varies 6 3 11 Malacostraca Orconectes virilis, virile crayfish Gastropoda Physella virgata virgata, snail Growth length at first reproduction (mm) no predator cues 5.05 0.21 0.91 6 3 18 predator cues present 7.58 0.17 0.73 6 3 18 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Cro90-03, Cro90-15 Population C1: crayfish and snails co-occur (diagonally lined) Figure 2A Crowl & Covich 1990 Science 247: 949-951 Cro90-04 freshwater stream aquarium lab varies 6 3 11 Malacostraca Orconectes virilis, virile crayfish Gastropoda Physella virgata virgata, snail Growth length at first reproduction (mm) no predator cues 5.18 0.23 0.95 6 3 18 predator cues present 5.12 0.2 0.86 6 3 18 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Cro90-04, Cro90-16 Population C2: crayfish and snails co-occur (dotted) Figure 2A Crowl & Covich 1990 Science 247: 949-951 Cro90-05 freshwater stream aquarium lab varies 6 3 11 Malacostraca Orconectes virilis, virile crayfish Gastropoda Physella virgata virgata, snail Growth length at first reproduction (mm) no predator cues 5.18 0.23 0.95 6 3 18 predator cues present 5.14 0.3 1.26 6 3 18 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Cro90-05, Cro90-17 Population C2: crayfish and snails co-occur (dotted) Figure 2A Crowl & Covich 1990 Science 247: 949-951 Cro90-06 freshwater stream aquarium lab varies 6 3 11 Malacostraca Orconectes virilis, virile crayfish Gastropoda Physella virgata virgata, snail Growth length at first reproduction (mm) no predator cues 5.18 0.23 0.95 6 3 18 predator cues present 7.99 0.18 0.77 6 3 18 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Cro90-06, Cro90-18 Population C2: crayfish and snails co-occur (dotted) Figure 2A Crowl & Covich 1990 Science 247: 949-951 Cro90-07 freshwater stream aquarium lab varies 6 3 11 Malacostraca Orconectes virilis, virile crayfish Gastropoda Physella virgata virgata, snail Growth length at first reproduction (mm) no predator cues 5.25 0.25 1.08 6 3 18 predator cues present 5.23 0.21 0.88 6 3 18 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Cro90-07, Cro90-19 Population NC1: snail occur without crayfish (horozontally lined) Figure 2A Crowl & Covich 1990 Science 247: 949-951 Cro90-08 freshwater stream aquarium lab varies 6 3 11 Malacostraca Orconectes virilis, virile crayfish Gastropoda Physella virgata virgata, snail Growth length at first reproduction (mm) no predator cues 5.25 0.25 1.08 6 3 18 predator cues present 5.05 0.45 1.89 6 3 18 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Cro90-08, Cro90-20 Population NC1: snail occur without crayfish (horozontally lined) Figure 2A Crowl & Covich 1990 Science 247: 949-951 Cro90-09 freshwater stream aquarium lab varies 6 3 11 Malacostraca Orconectes virilis, virile crayfish Gastropoda Physella virgata virgata, snail Growth length at first reproduction (mm) no predator cues 5.25 0.25 1.08 6 3 18 predator cues present 7.98 0.32 1.35 6 3 18 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Cro90-09, Cro90-21 Population NC1: snail occur without crayfish (horozontally lined) Figure 2A Crowl & Covich 1990 Science 247: 949-951 Cro90-10 freshwater stream aquarium lab varies 6 3 11 Malacostraca Orconectes virilis, virile crayfish Gastropoda Physella virgata virgata, snail Growth length at first reproduction (mm) no predator cues 5.23 0.21 0.88 6 3 18 predator cues present 5.43 0.2 0.85 6 3 18 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Cro90-10, Cro90-22 Population NC2: snail occur without crayfish (black) Figure 2A Crowl & Covich 1990 Science 247: 949-951 Cro90-11 freshwater stream aquarium lab varies 6 3 11 Malacostraca Orconectes virilis, virile crayfish Gastropoda Physella virgata virgata, snail Growth length at first reproduction (mm) no predator cues 5.23 0.21 0.88 6 3 18 predator cues present 5.43 0.26 1.11 6 3 18 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Cro90-11, Cro90-23 Population NC2: snail occur without crayfish (black) Figure 2A Crowl & Covich 1990 Science 247: 949-951 Cro90-12 freshwater stream aquarium lab varies 6 3 11 Malacostraca Orconectes virilis, virile crayfish Gastropoda Physella virgata virgata, snail Growth length at first reproduction (mm) no predator cues 5.23 0.21 0.88 6 3 18 predator cues present 8.3 0.22 0.92 6 3 18 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Cro90-12, Cro90-24 Population NC2: snail occur without crayfish (black) Figure 2B Crowl & Covich 1990 Science 247: 949-951 Cro90-13 freshwater stream aquarium lab varies 6 3 11 Malacostraca Orconectes virilis, virile crayfish Gastropoda Physella virgata virgata, snail Development Time to first reproduction (days) no predator cues 40.22 3.22 13.66 6 3 18 predator cues present 42.22 4.57 19.38 6 3 18 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Cro90-01, Cro90-13 Population C1: crayfish and snails co-occur (diagonally lined) Figure 2B Crowl & Covich 1990 Science 247: 949-951 Cro90-14 freshwater stream aquarium lab varies 6 3 11 Malacostraca Orconectes virilis, virile crayfish Gastropoda Physella virgata virgata, snail Development Time to first reproduction (days) no predator cues 40.22 3.22 13.66 6 3 18 predator cues present 47.99 6.52 27.68 6 3 18 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Cro90-02, Cro90-14 Population C1: crayfish and snails co-occur (diagonally lined) Figure 2B Crowl & Covich 1990 Science 247: 949-951 Cro90-15 freshwater stream aquarium lab varies 6 3 11 Malacostraca Orconectes virilis, virile crayfish Gastropoda Physella virgata virgata, snail Development Time to first reproduction (days) no predator cues 40.22 3.22 13.66 6 3 18 predator cues present 65.08 3.22 13.66 6 3 18 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Cro90-03, Cro90-15 Population C1: crayfish and snails co-occur (diagonally lined) Figure 2B Crowl & Covich 1990 Science 247: 949-951 Cro90-16 freshwater stream aquarium lab varies 6 3 11 Malacostraca Orconectes virilis, virile crayfish Gastropoda Physella virgata virgata, snail Development Time to first reproduction (days) no predator cues 40.94 2.96 12.55 6 3 18 predator cues present 43.46 4.24 17.99 6 3 18 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Cro90-04, Cro90-16 Population C2: crayfish and snails co-occur (dotted) Figure 2B Crowl & Covich 1990 Science 247: 949-951 Cro90-17 freshwater stream aquarium lab varies 6 3 11 Malacostraca Orconectes virilis, virile crayfish Gastropoda Physella virgata virgata, snail Development Time to first reproduction (days) no predator cues 40.94 2.96 12.55 6 3 18 predator cues present 45.46 3.68 15.59 6 3 18 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Cro90-05, Cro90-17 Population C2: crayfish and snails co-occur (dotted) Figure 2B Crowl & Covich 1990 Science 247: 949-951 Cro90-18 freshwater stream aquarium lab varies 6 3 11 Malacostraca Orconectes virilis, virile crayfish Gastropoda Physella virgata virgata, snail Development Time to first reproduction (days) no predator cues 40.94 2.96 12.55 6 3 18 predator cues present 72.71 3.07 13.01 6 3 18 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Cro90-06, Cro90-18 Population C2: crayfish and snails co-occur (dotted) Figure 2B Crowl & Covich 1990 Science 247: 949-951 Cro90-19 freshwater stream aquarium lab varies 6 3 11 Malacostraca Orconectes virilis, virile crayfish Gastropoda Physella virgata virgata, snail Development Time to first reproduction (days) no predator cues 47.25 4.28 18.18 6 3 18 predator cues present 50.29 3.74 15.87 6 3 18 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Cro90-07, Cro90-19 Population NC1: snail occur without crayfish (horozontally lined) Figure 2B Crowl & Covich 1990 Science 247: 949-951 Cro90-20 freshwater stream aquarium lab varies 6 3 11 Malacostraca Orconectes virilis, virile crayfish Gastropoda Physella virgata virgata, snail Development Time to first reproduction (days) no predator cues 47.25 4.28 18.18 6 3 18 predator cues present 43.4 4.96 21.04 6 3 18 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Cro90-08, Cro90-20 Population NC1: snail occur without crayfish (horozontally lined) Figure 2B Crowl & Covich 1990 Science 247: 949-951 Cro90-21 freshwater stream aquarium lab varies 6 3 11 Malacostraca Orconectes virilis, virile crayfish Gastropoda Physella virgata virgata, snail Development Time to first reproduction (days) no predator cues 47.25 4.28 18.18 6 3 18 predator cues present 74.45 2.41 10.24 6 3 18 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Cro90-09, Cro90-21 Population NC1: snail occur without crayfish (horozontally lined) Figure 2B Crowl & Covich 1990 Science 247: 949-951 Cro90-22 freshwater stream aquarium lab varies 6 3 11 Malacostraca Orconectes virilis, virile crayfish Gastropoda Physella virgata virgata, snail Development Time to first reproduction (days) no predator cues 47.33 3.11 13.19 6 3 18 predator cues present 47.31 3.41 14.49 6 3 18 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Cro90-10, Cro90-22 Population NC2: snail occur without crayfish (black) Figure 2B Crowl & Covich 1990 Science 247: 949-951 Cro90-23 freshwater stream aquarium lab varies 6 3 11 Malacostraca Orconectes virilis, virile crayfish Gastropoda Physella virgata virgata, snail Development Time to first reproduction (days) no predator cues 47.33 3.11 13.19 6 3 18 predator cues present 53.1 5.76 24.45 6 3 18 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Cro90-11, Cro90-23 Population NC2: snail occur without crayfish (black) Figure 2B Crowl & Covich 1990 Science 247: 949-951 Cro90-24 freshwater stream aquarium lab varies 6 3 11 Malacostraca Orconectes virilis, virile crayfish Gastropoda Physella virgata virgata, snail Development Time to first reproduction (days) no predator cues 47.33 3.11 13.19 6 3 18 predator cues present 72.82 2.61 11.07 6 3 18 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Cro90-12, Cro90-24 Population NC2: snail occur without crayfish (black) Figure 1A Crowl & Covich 1990 Science 247: 949-951 Cro90-25 freshwater stream aquarium lab varies 12 3 11 Malacostraca Orconectes virilis, virile crayfish Gastropoda Physella virgata virgata, snail Growth length at first reproduction (mm) no predator cues 5.21 0.35 2.09 12 3 36 predator cues present 7.71 0.34 2.04 12 3 36 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Cr090-25, Cro90-29 Population C1: crayfish and snails co-occur (diagonally lined) Figure 1A Crowl & Covich 1990 Science 247: 949-951 Cro90-26 freshwater stream aquarium lab varies 12 3 11 Malacostraca Orconectes virilis, virile crayfish Gastropoda Physella virgata virgata, snail Growth length at first reproduction (mm) no predator cues 5.3 0.38 2.27 12 3 36 predator cues present 7.6 0.34 2.05 12 3 36 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Cr090-26, Cro90-30 Population C2: crayfish and snails co-occur (dotted) Figure 1A Crowl & Covich 1990 Science 247: 949-951 Cro90-27 freshwater stream aquarium lab varies 12 3 11 Malacostraca Orconectes virilis, virile crayfish Gastropoda Physella virgata virgata, snail Growth length at first reproduction (mm) no predator cues 5.19 0.22 1.31 12 3 36 predator cues present 7.44 0.22 1.33 12 3 36 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Cr090-27, Cro90-31 Population NC1: snail occur without crayfish (horozontally lined) Figure 1A Crowl & Covich 1990 Science 247: 949-951 Cro90-28 freshwater stream aquarium lab varies 12 3 11 Malacostraca Orconectes virilis, virile crayfish Gastropoda Physella virgata virgata, snail Growth length at first reproduction (mm) no predator cues 5.35 0.18 1.05 12 3 36 predator cues present 7.55 0.22 1.33 12 3 36 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Cr090-28, Cro90-32 Population NC2: snail occur without crayfish (black) Figure 1B Crowl & Covich 1990 Science 247: 949-951 Cro90-29 freshwater stream aquarium lab varies 12 3 11 Malacostraca Orconectes virilis, virile crayfish Gastropoda Physella virgata virgata, snail Development Time to first reproduction (days) no predator cues 44.84 2.36 14.13 12 3 36 predator cues present 65.18 2.3 13.8 12 3 36 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Cr090-25, Cro90-29 Population C1: crayfish and snails co-occur (diagonally lined) Figure 1B Crowl & Covich 1990 Science 247: 949-951 Cro90-30 freshwater stream aquarium lab varies 12 3 11 Malacostraca Orconectes virilis, virile crayfish Gastropoda Physella virgata virgata, snail Development Time to first reproduction (days) no predator cues 43.34 2.22 13.3 12 3 36 predator cues present 63.96 1.84 11.06 12 3 36 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Cr090-26, Cro90-30 Population C2: crayfish and snails co-occur (dotted) Figure 1B Crowl & Covich 1990 Science 247: 949-951 Cro90-31 freshwater stream aquarium lab varies 12 3 11 Malacostraca Orconectes virilis, virile crayfish Gastropoda Physella virgata virgata, snail Development Time to first reproduction (days) no predator cues 47.17 1.8 10.81 12 3 36 predator cues present 56.56 2.16 12.97 12 3 36 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Cr090-27, Cro90-31 Population NC1: snail occur without crayfish (horozontally lined) Figure 1B Crowl & Covich 1990 Science 247: 949-951 Cro90-32 freshwater stream aquarium lab varies 12 3 11 Malacostraca Orconectes virilis, virile crayfish Gastropoda Physella virgata virgata, snail Development Time to first reproduction (days) no predator cues 50.52 2.44 14.63 12 3 36 predator cues present 63.57 1.77 10.64 12 3 36 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Cr090-28, Cro90-32 Population NC2: snail occur without crayfish (black) Figure 4 Crowder et al 1997 Ecology 78:1796-1804 Cro97-01 marine estuary artificial pond field 15 8 395 predator interference; southern flounder and wading birds eat juvenile spot Mixed Paralichthys lethostigma, southern flounder, and wading birds Actinopterygii Leiostomus xanthurus, juvenile spot Growth % change in mass of spot spot growth alone june 17.69 0.28 15.7 8 395 3160 spot growth with flounder june 13.86 0.99 55.37 8 395 3160 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Cro00-01, Cro00-02, Cro00-05 Figure 4 Crowder et al 1997 Ecology 78:1796-1804 Cro97-02 marine estuary artificial pond field 15 8 395 predator interference; southern flounder and wading birds eat juvenile spot Mixed Paralichthys lethostigma, southern flounder, and wading birds Actinopterygii Leiostomus xanthurus, juvenile spot Growth % change in mass of spot spot growth alone july 2.12 0.87 48.76 8 395 3160 spot growth with flounder july -0.34 1.63 91.73 8 395 3160 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Cro00-01, Cro00-02, Cro00-05 Figure 4 Crowder et al 1997 Ecology 78:1796-1804 Cro97-03 marine estuary artificial pond field 15 8 395 predator interference; southern flounder and wading birds eat juvenile spot Mixed Paralichthys lethostigma, southern flounder, and wading birds Actinopterygii Leiostomus xanthurus, juvenile spot Growth % change in mass of spot spot growth alone june 17.69 0.28 15.7 8 395 3160 spot growth with birds june 15.44 5.26 295.45 8 395 3160 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Cro00-03 to Cro00-05 Figure 4 Crowder et al 1997 Ecology 78:1796-1804 Cro97-04 marine estuary artificial pond field 15 8 395 predator interference; southern flounder and wading birds eat juvenile spot Mixed Paralichthys lethostigma, southern flounder, and wading birds Actinopterygii Leiostomus xanthurus, juvenile spot Growth % change in mass of spot spot growth alone july 2.12 0.87 48.76 8 395 3160 spot growth with birds july 5.14 0.34 19.15 8 395 3160 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Cro00-03 to Cro00-05 Table 2 Crowder et al 1997 Ecology 78:1796-1804 Cro97-05 marine estuary artificial pond field 15 8 395 predator interference; southern flounder and wading birds eat juvenile spot Mixed Paralichthys lethostigma, southern flounder, and wading birds Actinopterygii Leiostomus xanthurus, juvenile spot Survival per capita Mortality per day of spot due to bird presence spot mortality rate (%/day) with no predators 0.01 0 0 8 395 3160 spot mortality due birds 0.02 0 0.01 4 395 1580 spot mortality: reduction in mortality caused by birds inhibiting flounder feeding 0.22 0.05 2.72 8 395 3160 Prey Survival -1 1 1 0 2 1 Cro00-01 to Cro00-04 Figure 3 Crowder et al 1997 Ecology 78:1796-1804 Cro97-06 marine estuary artificial pond field 15 8 395 predator interference; southern flounder and wading birds eat juvenile spot Actinopterygii Paralichthys lethostigma, southern flounder Actinopterygii Leiostomus xanthurus, juvenile spot Survival # of spot surviving with predatory flounder number eaten by flounder 160.92 32.38 1820.21 8 395 3160 number eaten by flounder with birds 98.15 52.86 2971.47 8 395 3160 Prey Survival 1 0 1 0 1 1 none additive SE's Figure 5 Crowder et al 1997 Ecology 78:1796-1804 Cro97-07 marine estuary artificial pond field 15 8 395 11 Actinopterygii Paralichthys lethostigma, southern flounder Actinopterygii Leiostomus xanthurus, juvenile spot Activity # visible number seen when alone 3.74 0.81 45.75 8 395 3160 number seen with fish 18.36 4.62 259.64 8 395 3160 Prey Activity 1 0 1 0 1 1 none Figure 5 Crowder et al 1997 Ecology 78:1796-1804 Cro97-08 marine estuary artificial pond field 15 8 395 11 Aves wading birds Actinopterygii Leiostomus xanthurus, juvenile spot Activity # visible number seen when alone 3.74 0.81 45.75 8 395 3160 number seen with birds 5.13 1.63 91.5 8 395 3160 Prey Activity 1 0 1 0 1 1 none Figure 2 Crumrine & Crowley 2003 Ecology 84(6): 1588-1597 Cru03-01 freshwater pond aquarium lab 5 4 30 21 Insecta Anax junius, dragonfly Actinopterygii Pimephales promelas, fathead minnow Survival # minnows dying/day no predator 0.02 0 0.03 4 30 120 (mortality due to Pl with risk-only Aj) - (mortality due to Pl alone) -0.12 0.01 0.14 4 30 120 mortality due to Anax when alone 0.3 0.02 0.18 4 30 120 Prey Survival -1 0 1 1 2 1 none Figure 2 Crumrine & Crowley 2003 Ecology 84(6): 1588-1597 Cru03-02 freshwater pond aquarium lab 5 4 30 21 Insecta Plathemis lydia, dragonfly Actinopterygii Pimephales promelas, fathead minnow Survival # minnows dying/day no predator 0.02 0 0.03 4 30 120 (mortality due to Aj with risk-only Pl) - (mortality due to Aj alone) -0.09 0.02 0.23 4 30 120 mortality due to plathemis when alone 0.21 0.01 0.13 4 30 120 Prey Survival -1 0 1 1 2 1 none Figure 3 Dahl & Peckarsky 2003 Oecologia 137:188-94 Dah03-01 freshwater stream enclosure lab 77 varies 1 11 Actinopterygii Rhinichthys cataractae, longnose dace; Etheostoma flabellare, fantail darters Insecta Ephemerella invaria, mayfly Growth mass at emergence (mg) no fish scent 2.5 0.11 0.57 26 1 26 fish scent cue 1.59 0.18 0.84 23 1 23 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Dah03-01 to Dah03-02 cascadilla creek population Figure 3 Dahl & Peckarsky 2003 Oecologia 137:188-94 Dah03-02 freshwater stream enclosure lab 77 varies 1 11 Actinopterygii Rhinichthys cataractae, longnose dace; Etheostoma flabellare, fantail darters Insecta Ephemerella invaria, mayfly Growth mass at emergence (mg) no fish scent 2.45 0.09 0.53 38 1 38 fish scent cue 1.49 0.15 0.8 27 1 27 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Dah03-01 to Dah03-02 Hunt hill creek population Text, pg. 429 Dahl 1998 Oecologia 116:426-432 Dah98-01 freshwater stream enclosure field 31 4 1 no # individuals given. Used one ind/rep as most conservative estimate 11 Actinopterygii Cottus gobio, bullhead Insecta Baetis rhodani, mayfly Emigration natural log of prey densities in the presence and absence of predators predator impact through direct predation 82 3.25 6.5 4 1 4 predator impact through increased drift when predator present 0 0 0 4 1 4 Prey Emigration 1 1 1 0 2 2 none Text, pg. 429 Dahl 1998 Oecologia 116:426-432 Dah98-02 freshwater stream enclosure field 31 4 1 no # individuals given. Used one ind/rep as most conservative estimate 11 Actinopterygii Cottus gobio, bullhead Insecta Leuctra sp., stonefly Emigration natural log of prey densities in the presence and absence of predators predator impact through direct predation 6.7 3.25 6.5 4 1 4 predator impact through increased drift when predator present 0 0 0 4 1 4 Prey Emigration 1 1 1 0 2 2 none Text, pg. 429 Dahl 1998 Oecologia 116:426-432 Dah98-03 freshwater stream enclosure field 31 4 1 no # individuals given. Used one ind/rep as most conservative estimate 11 Actinopterygii Cottus gobio, bullhead Malacostraca Pacifastacus leniusculus, signal crayfish Emigration natural log of prey densities in the presence and absence of predators predator impact through direct predation 133 30 60 4 1 4 predator impact through increased drift when predator present 0 0 0 4 1 4 Prey Emigration 1 1 1 0 2 2 none Text, pg. 429 Dahl 1998 Oecologia 116:426-432 Dah98-04 freshwater stream enclosure field 31 4 1 no # individuals given. Used one ind/rep as most conservative estimate 11 Actinopterygii Cottus gobio, bullhead Insecta Limnephilidae caddisfly larvae Emigration natural log of prey densities in the presence and absence of predators predator impact through direct predation 17.5 2.45 4.9 4 1 4 predator impact through increased drift when predator present 0 0 0 4 1 4 Prey Emigration 1 1 1 0 2 2 none Text, pg. 429 Dahl 1998 Oecologia 116:426-432 Dah98-05 freshwater stream enclosure field 31 4 1 no # individuals given. Used one ind/rep as most conservative estimate 11 Actinopterygii Cottus gobio, bullhead Malacostraca Gammarus pulex, amphipod Emigration natural log of prey densities in the presence and absence of predators predator impact through direct predation 38 8.15 16.3 4 1 4 predator impact through increased drift when predator present 56 4.1 8.2 4 1 4 Prey Emigration 1 1 1 0 2 2 none Text, pg. 429 Dahl 1998 Oecologia 116:426-432 Dah98-06 freshwater stream enclosure field 31 4 1 no # individuals given. Used one ind/rep as most conservative estimate 11 Actinopterygii Salmo trutta, brown trout Insecta Baetis rhodani, mayfly Emigration natural log of prey densities in the presence and absence of predators predator impact through direct predation 10 1.65 3.3 4 1 4 predator impact through increased drift when predator present 0 0 0 4 1 4 Prey Emigration 1 1 1 0 2 2 none Text, p. 775 Dahl & Greenberg 1999 Freshwater Biology 41: 771-780 Dah99-01 freshwater stream natural unit (stream with enclosures) field 30 4 1 no # individuals given. Used one ind/rep as most conservative estimate 11 Actinopterygii Salmo trutta, brown trout Insecta Capniidae, stonefly Emigration predator impact: % reduction in density due to either direct mortality or emigration % reduction in density due to predator consumption 1.8 1 2 4 1 4 % reduction in density due to emigration from treatment pools 0 0 0 4 1 4 Prey Emigration -1 1 1 0 2 1 none Text, p. 775 Dahl & Greenberg 1999 Freshwater Biology 41: 771-780 Dah99-02 freshwater stream natural unit (stream with enclosures) field 30 4 1 no # individuals given. Used one ind/rep as most conservative estimate 11 Actinopterygii Salmo trutta, brown trout Hirudinea Erpobdella octoculata, leech Emigration predator impact: % reduction in density due to either direct mortality or emigration % reduction in density due to predator consumption 13.6 5 10 4 1 4 % reduction in density due to emigration from treatment pools 0 0 0 4 1 4 Prey Emigration -1 1 1 0 2 1 none Text, p. 775 Dahl & Greenberg 1999 Freshwater Biology 41: 771-780 Dah99-03 freshwater stream natural unit (stream with enclosures) field 30 4 1 no # individuals given. Used one ind/rep as most conservative estimate 11 Actinopterygii Salmo trutta, brown trout Insecta Heptagenia sp., mayfly Emigration predator impact: % reduction in density due to either direct mortality or emigration % reduction in density due to predator consumption 4.3 2 4 4 1 4 % reduction in density due to emigration from treatment pools 0 0 0 4 1 4 Prey Emigration -1 1 1 0 2 1 none Text, p. 775 Dahl & Greenberg 1999 Freshwater Biology 41: 771-780 Dah99-04 freshwater stream natural unit (stream with enclosures) field 30 4 1 no # individuals given. Used one ind/rep as most conservative estimate 11 Actinopterygii Salmo trutta, brown trout Malacostraca Asellus aquaticus Emigration predator impact: % reduction in density due to either direct mortality or emigration % reduction in density due to predator consumption 8.5 3.5 7 4 1 4 % reduction in density due to emigration from treatment pools 0 0 0 4 1 4 Prey Emigration -1 1 1 0 2 1 none Text, p. 775 Dahl & Greenberg 1999 Freshwater Biology 41: 771-780 Dah99-05 freshwater stream natural unit (stream with enclosures) field 30 4 1 no # individuals given. Used one ind/rep as most conservative estimate 11 Actinopterygii Salmo trutta, brown trout Insecta Baetis rhodani, mayfly Emigration predator impact: % reduction in density due to either direct mortality or emigration % reduction in density due to predator consumption 19.6 8 16 4 1 4 % reduction in density due to emigration from treatment pools 25 15 30 4 1 4 Prey Emigration -1 1 1 0 2 1 none Text, p. 775 Dahl & Greenberg 1999 Freshwater Biology 41: 771-780 Dah99-06 freshwater stream natural unit (stream with enclosures) field 30 4 1 no # individuals given. Used one ind/rep as most conservative estimate 11 Actinopterygii Salmo trutta, brown trout Insecta Paraleptophlebia sp., mayfly Emigration predator impact: % reduction in density due to either direct mortality or emigration % reduction in density due to predator consumption 15.5 8.5 17 4 1 4 % reduction in density due to emigration from treatment pools 15.5 10.5 21 4 1 4 Prey Emigration -1 1 1 0 2 1 none Text, p. 775 Dahl & Greenberg 1999 Freshwater Biology 41: 771-780 Dah99-07 freshwater stream natural unit (stream with enclosures) field 30 4 1 no # individuals given. Used one ind/rep as most conservative estimate 11 Actinopterygii Salmo trutta, brown trout Malacostraca Gammarus pulex, amphipod Emigration predator impact: % reduction in density due to either direct mortality or emigration % reduction in density due to predator consumption 5.7 2.6 5.2 4 1 4 % reduction in density due to emigration from treatment pools 4.9 2.2 4.4 4 1 4 Prey Emigration -1 1 1 0 2 1 none Text, p. 775 Dahl & Greenberg 1999 Freshwater Biology 41: 771-780 Dah99-08 freshwater stream natural unit (stream with enclosures) field 30 4 1 no # individuals given. Used one ind/rep as most conservative estimate 11 Actinopterygii Salmo trutta, brown trout Insecta Chironomidae, midge Emigration predator impact: % reduction in density due to either direct mortality or emigration % reduction in density due to predator consumption 0.22 0.4 0.8 4 1 4 % reduction in density due to emigration from treatment pools 0.04 0.01 0.02 4 1 4 Prey Emigration -1 1 1 0 2 1 none Figure 1 Danner & Joern 2003 J Insect Behav 16(4): 453-464 Dan03-01 terrestrial field cage field 0.04 16 1 11 Arachnida Schizocosa sp., lycosid spider Insecta Ageneotettix deorum, grasshopper Feeding rate % of time spent feeding no predator 6.09 0.76 3.04 16 1 16 spider risk 0.18 0.12 0.5 16 1 16 real spider 0.12 0.08 0.3 16 1 16 Prey Feeding rate 1 0 1 1 2 1 none 3rd instar prey Figure 1 Danner & Joern 2003 J Insect Behav 16(4): 453-464 Dan03-02 terrestrial field cage field 0.04 16 1 11 Arachnida Schizocosa sp., lycosid spider Insecta Ageneotettix deorum, grasshopper Feeding rate % of time spent feeding no predator 6.5 0.72 2.88 16 1 16 spider risk 7.39 0.72 2.89 16 1 16 real spider 6.89 0.96 3.84 16 1 16 Prey Feeding rate 1 0 1 1 2 1 none 4th instar prey Figure 1 Danner & Joern 2003 J Insect Behav 16(4): 453-464 Dan03-03 terrestrial field cage field 0.04 16 1 11 Arachnida Schizocosa sp., lycosid spider Insecta Ageneotettix deorum, grasshopper Feeding rate % of time spent feeding no predator 17.21 0.63 2.52 16 1 16 spider risk 17.29 1.04 4.17 16 1 16 real spider 19.52 0.66 2.62 16 1 16 Prey Feeding rate 1 0 1 1 2 1 none 5th instar prey Figure 1 Danner & Joern 2003 J Insect Behav 16(4): 453-464 Dan03-04 terrestrial field cage field 0.04 16 1 11 Arachnida Schizocosa sp., lycosid spider Insecta Ageneotettix deorum, grasshopper Feeding rate % of time spent feeding no predator 19.78 1.2 4.79 16 1 16 spider risk 22.01 0.98 3.92 16 1 16 real spider 21.02 1.04 4.16 16 1 16 Prey Feeding rate 1 0 1 1 2 1 none adult prey Figure 3 Danner & Joern 2003 Oecologia 137(3): 352-359 Dan03A-01 terrestrial field cage field 25 18 7 11 Arachnida Schizocosa sp., lycosid spider Insecta Ageneotettix deorum, grasshopper Development days/instar no predator 7.54 0.24 2.64 18 7 126 predator risk 8.44 0.34 3.85 18 7 126 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 none 2001 Figure 3 Danner & Joern 2003 Oecologia 137(3): 352-359 Dan03A-02 terrestrial field cage field 25 18 7 11 Arachnida Schizocosa sp., lycosid spider Insecta Ageneotettix deorum, grasshopper Development days/instar no predator 8.51 0.3 3.42 18 7 126 predator risk 9.49 0.49 5.49 18 7 126 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 none 2001 Figure 3 Danner & Joern 2003 Oecologia 137(3): 352-359 Dan03A-03 terrestrial field cage field 25 30 7 11 Arachnida Schizocosa sp., lycosid spider Insecta Ageneotettix deorum, grasshopper Development days/instar no predator 7.89 0.06 0.91 30 7 210 predator risk 8.41 0.15 2.2 30 7 210 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 none 2002 Figure 3 Danner & Joern 2003 Oecologia 137(3): 352-359 Dan03A-04 terrestrial field cage field 25 30 7 11 Arachnida Schizocosa sp., lycosid spider Insecta Ageneotettix deorum, grasshopper Development days/instar no predator 8.44 0.14 2.1 30 7 210 predator risk 8.99 0.18 2.66 30 7 210 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 none 2002 Table 2 Dayton 1973 Am Nat 107:662-670 Day73-01 marine intertidal natural unit (field density manipulation, no enclosures) field none given control: 18; pisaster removal: 10; double normal pisaster density: 5; with foraging pycnopodia: 12 100 predator-predator interactions; Starfish (Pycnopodia) and anemone (Anthopleura) both eat mytilus and balanus Mixed Anthopleura xanthogrammica, sea anemone; Pycnopodia helianthoides, starfish Echinoida Strongylocentrotus purpuratus, purple sea urchin Feeding rate % of Anthopleura eating prey pycnopodia absent 0.3 0.5 21.21 18 100 1800 no density effect: prey eaten by pycnopodia do not reduce prey eaten by anthopleura 0 0 0 12 100 1200 pycnopodia added 63.9 9.3 322.16 12 100 1200 pycnopodia present 63.9 9.3 322.16 12 100 1200 Predator Feeding rate 1 0 1 1 2 1 none Table 2 Dayton 1973 Am Nat 107:662-670 Day73-02 marine intertidal natural unit (field density manipulation, no enclosures) field none given control: 18; pisaster removal: 10; double normal pisaster density: 5; with foraging pycnopodia: 12 100 predator facilitation; Anthopleura and Pisaster eat Mytilus/Balanus Mixed Anthopleura xanthogrammica, sea anemone; Pisaster ochraceus, starfish Bivalvia Mytilus californicus, Balanus glandula Feeding rate % of Anthopleura eating prey normal pisaster density 12.2 4.5 190.92 18 100 1800 no density effect: prey eaten by pisaster do not reduce prey eaten by anthopleura pisaster density doubled 32.7 8.3 185.59 5 100 500 pisaster density doubled 32.7 8.3 185.59 5 100 500 Predator Feeding rate 1 0 1 1 2 1 none Table 2 Dayton 1973 Am Nat 107:662-670 Day73-03 marine intertidal natural unit (field density manipulation, no enclosures) field none given control: 18; pisaster removal: 10; double normal pisaster density: 5; with foraging pycnopodia: 12 100 predator facilitation; Anthopleura and Pisaster eat Mytilus/Balanus Mixed Anthopleura xanthogrammica, sea anemone; Pisaster ochraceus, starfish Bivalvia Mytilus californicus, Balanus glandula Feeding rate % of Anthopleura eating prey normal pisaster density 12.2 4.5 190.92 18 100 1800 no density effect: prey eaten by pisaster do not reduce prey eaten by anthopleura pisaster removed 3.4 2.4 75.89 10 100 1000 pisaster removed 3.4 2.4 75.89 10 100 1000 Predator Feeding rate 1 0 1 1 2 1 none Table 2 Dayton 1973 Am Nat 107:662-670 Day73-04 marine intertidal natural unit (field density manipulation, no enclosures) field none given control: 18; pisaster removal: 10; double normal pisaster density: 5; with foraging pycnopodia: 12 100 predator-predator interactions; Starfish (Pycnopodia) and anemone (Anthopleura) both eat mytilus and balanus Mixed Anthopleura xanthogrammica, sea anemone; Pycnopodia helianthoides, starfish Bivalvia Mytilus californicus, Balanus glandula Feeding rate % of Anthopleura eating prey pycnopodia absent 12.2 4.5 190.92 18 100 1800 competition when pycnopodia present 2 1.1 38.11 12 100 1200 no mechanism for TMI to occur 0 0 0 12 100 1200 competition when pycnopodia present 2 1.1 38.11 12 100 1200 Predator Feeding rate 1 1 0 1 2 1 none Table 2 De Goeij et al 2001 Oecologia 126:500-506 DeG01-01 marine intertidal mudflat cattle tank/ wading pool lab 10 varies 18 (siphon nippers facilitate predation on bivalve by inducing decrease in burial depth) Actinopterygii Pleuronectes platessa, plaice (flatfish) Bivalvia Macoma balthica, tellinid bivalve Habitat use Burying depth in cm (related to vulnerability to bird predators) No plaice 3.87 0.15 2.46 16 18 288 plaice 3.21 0.15 2.5 16 18 288 Prey Habitat use 1 0 1 0 1 1 deG01-01 to deG01-02 May 1995 experiment Table 2 De Goeij et al 2001 Oecologia 126:500-506 DeG01-02 marine intertidal mudflat cattle tank/ wading pool lab 10 varies 18 (siphon nippers facilitate predation on bivalve by inducing decrease in burial depth) Actinopterygii Pleuronectes platessa, plaice (flatfish) Bivalvia Macoma balthica, tellinid bivalve Growth body mass index as total ash free dry mass per cubic shell length (mg /cm^3) No plaice 10.09 0.19 3.18 16 18 288 plaice 9.25 0.22 3.79 16 18 288 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 deG01-01 to deG01-02 May 1995 experiment Table 2 De Goeij et al 2001 Oecologia 126:500-506 DeG01-03 marine intertidal mudflat cattle tank/ wading pool lab 10 varies 18 (siphon nippers facilitate predation on bivalve by inducing decrease in burial depth) Actinopterygii Pleuronectes platessa, plaice (flatfish) Bivalvia Macoma balthica, tellinid bivalve Habitat use Burying depth in cm (related to vulnerability to bird predators) No plaice 5.92 0.23 3.86 15 18 270 plaice 5.91 0.24 3.99 15 18 270 Prey Habitat use 1 0 1 0 1 1 deG01-03 to deG01-04 May 1996 experiment Table 2 De Goeij et al 2001 Oecologia 126:500-506 DeG01-04 marine intertidal mudflat cattle tank/ wading pool lab 10 varies 18 (siphon nippers facilitate predation on bivalve by inducing decrease in burial depth) Actinopterygii Pleuronectes platessa, plaice (flatfish) Bivalvia Macoma balthica, tellinid bivalve Growth body mass index as total ash free dry mass per cubic shell length (mg /cm^3) No plaice 11.14 0.29 4.84 15 18 270 plaice 10.16 0.3 4.88 15 18 270 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 deG01-03 to deG01-04 May 1996 experiment Table 2 De Goeij et al 2001 Oecologia 126:500-506 DeG01-05 marine intertidal mudflat cattle tank/ wading pool lab 10 varies 18 (siphon nippers facilitate predation on bivalve by inducing decrease in burial depth) Actinopterygii Pleuronectes platessa, plaice (flatfish) Bivalvia Macoma balthica, tellinid bivalve Habitat use Burying depth in cm (related to vulnerability to bird predators) No plaice 3.51 0.11 1.78 16 18 288 plaice 3.23 0.13 1.95 13 18 234 Prey Habitat use 1 0 1 0 1 1 deG01-05 to deG01-06 August 1995 experiment Table 2 De Goeij et al 2001 Oecologia 126:500-506 DeG01-06 marine intertidal mudflat cattle tank/ wading pool lab 10 varies 18 (siphon nippers facilitate predation on bivalve by inducing decrease in burial depth) Actinopterygii Pleuronectes platessa, plaice (flatfish) Bivalvia Macoma balthica, tellinid bivalve Growth body mass index as total ash free dry mass per cubic shell length (mg /cm^3) No plaice 11.34 0.16 2.79 16 18 288 plaice 10.66 0.13 2.22 16 18 288 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 deG01-05 to deG01-06 August 1995 experiment Fig 5A Delgado et al 2002 Biol Bull 203: 112-120 Del02-01 marine sandy-bottom substrate aquarium lab 14 3 20 11 Malacostraca Panulirus argus, spiny lobster Gastropoda Strombus gigas, queen conch Growth shell growth (mm) no caged predator present 3.17 0.77 5.94 3 20 60 caged lobster present 0.66 0.31 2.42 3 20 60 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Del02-04 Fig 5B Delgado et al 2002 Biol Bull 203: 112-120 Del02-02 marine sandy-bottom substrate aquarium lab 7 2 20 11 Malacostraca Panulirus argus, spiny lobster Gastropoda Strombus gigas, queen conch Growth shell growth (mm) no caged predator present 2.1 0.99 6.23 2 20 40 caged lobster present 0.42 0.46 2.91 2 20 40 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 none Fig 5C Delgado et al 2002 Biol Bull 203: 112-120 Del02-03 marine sandy-bottom substrate aquarium lab 14 3 8 11 Malacostraca Panulirus argus, spiny lobster Gastropoda Strombus gigas, queen conch Growth shell growth (mm) no caged predator present 4.93 0.66 3.24 3 8 24 caged lobster present 2.6 0.98 4.82 3 8 24 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 none Fig 4 Delgado et al 2002 Biol Bull 203: 112-120 Del02-04 marine sandy-bottom substrate aquarium lab 14 3 7 11 Malacostraca Panulirus argus, spiny lobster Gastropoda Strombus gigas, queen conch Activity % active no caged predator present 2.12 0.27 1.24 3 7 21 caged lobster present 0.62 0.09 0.41 3 7 21 Prey Activity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Del02-01 Figure 1a De Vito et al 1998 Ethology 104: 185-193 Dev98-01 freshwater lake aquarium lab until metamorphosis complete 7 5 11 Reptilia Thamnophis sirtalis, common garter snake Amphibia Bufo boreas, Western toad Development time to egg hatching (hours) no snake 92.24 3.92 23.18 7 5 35 chemical and visula cues from snake 75.72 3.08 18.2 7 5 35 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 none Figure 2A De Vito et al 1999 J Herp 33(3): 504-507 Dev99-01 freshwater pond aquarium lab 39 5 5 11 Reptilia Thamnophis sirtalis, common garter snake Amphibia Hyla regilla, Pacific treefrog Development Time to metamorphosis (hours) no predator present 593.72 51.2 256.01 5 5 25 snake present on other side of divider 537.32 9.15 45.77 5 5 25 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 none Figure 4 Diehl et al 2000 Am Nat 156:293-313 Die00-01 freshwater stream enclosure field 66 2 1 no # individuals given. Used one ind/rep as most conservative estimate 11 Actinopterygii Salmo trutta, brown trout Insecta Baetis tricaudatus, mayfly Emigration Per capita daily emigration and mortality rate mean per capita baetid mortality rate in 2 channels with highest predator densities (fig 4I) 0.01 0 0 2 1 2 mean per capita baetid emigration rate in 2 channels with highest predator densities (fig 4F) 0.01 0 0 2 1 2 Prey Emigration -1 1 1 0 2 1 none got TM column by averaging the per capita baetid emigration rates from the two channels with the highest trout density on fig 4F; got DM column by averaging the per capita baetid mortality rates from the two channels with the highest trout density on fig 4I Figure 1C Diehl & Eklov 1995 Ecology 76(6): 1712-1726 Die95-01 freshwater lake enclosure field 43 4 75 11 Actinopterygii Esox lucius, pike Actinopterygii Perca fluviatilis, Eurasian perch Growth mass gain (g) no predator 2.91 0.18 3.19 4 75 300 pike present (to prevent density effects from confounding behavioral effects, all consumed young perch were replaced) 2.09 0.32 5.54 4 75 300 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 none size class 0+ Figure 1C Diehl & Eklov 1995 Ecology 76(6): 1712-1726 Die95-02 freshwater lake enclosure field 43 4 30 11 Actinopterygii Esox lucius, pike Actinopterygii Perca fluviatilis, Eurasian perch Growth mass gain (g) no predator 3.61 0.48 5.21 4 30 120 pike present (to prevent density effects from confounding behavioral effects, all consumed young perch were replaced) 2.67 0.34 3.72 4 30 120 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 none size class 1+ Figure 1C Diehl & Eklov 1995 Ecology 76(6): 1712-1726 Die95-03 freshwater lake enclosure field 43 4 75 11 Actinopterygii Perca fluviatilis, Eurasian perch Actinopterygii Perca fluviatilis, Eurasian perch Growth mass gain (g) no predator 2.91 0.18 3.19 4 75 300 predatory perch present (to prevent density effects from confounding behavioral effects, all consumed young perch were replaced) 2.32 0.4 6.89 4 75 300 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 none size class 0+ Figure 1C Diehl & Eklov 1995 Ecology 76(6): 1712-1726 Die95-04 freshwater lake enclosure field 43 4 30 11 Actinopterygii Perca fluviatilis, Eurasian perch Actinopterygii Perca fluviatilis, Eurasian perch Growth mass gain (g) no predator 3.61 0.48 5.21 4 30 120 predatory perch present (to prevent density effects from confounding behavioral effects, all consumed young perch were replaced) 4.14 0.78 8.51 4 30 120 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 none size class 1+ Figure 1B Diehl & Eklov 1995 Ecology 76(6): 1712-1726 Die95-05 freshwater lake enclosure field 43 4 75 11 Actinopterygii Esox lucius, pike Actinopterygii Perca fluviatilis, Eurasian perch Habitat use proportion exposed no predator 0.81 0.08 1.36 4 75 300 pike present (to prevent density effects from confounding behavioral effects, all consumed young perch were replaced) 0.63 0.05 0.94 4 75 300 Prey Habitat use 1 0 1 0 1 1 none size class 0+ Figure 1B Diehl & Eklov 1995 Ecology 76(6): 1712-1726 Die95-06 freshwater lake enclosure field 43 4 30 11 Actinopterygii Esox lucius, pike Actinopterygii Perca fluviatilis, Eurasian perch Habitat use proportion exposed no predator 0.87 0.09 1.04 4 30 120 pike present (to prevent density effects from confounding behavioral effects, all consumed young perch were replaced) 0.38 0.17 1.85 4 30 120 Prey Habitat use 1 0 1 0 1 1 none size class 1+ Figure 1B Diehl & Eklov 1995 Ecology 76(6): 1712-1726 Die95-07 freshwater lake enclosure field 43 4 75 11 Actinopterygii Perca fluviatilis, Eurasian perch Actinopterygii Perca fluviatilis, Eurasian perch Habitat use proportion exposed no predator 0.81 0.08 1.36 4 75 300 predatory perch present (to prevent density effects from confounding behavioral effects, all consumed young perch were replaced) 0.75 0.06 1.03 4 75 300 Prey Habitat use 1 0 1 0 1 1 none size class 0+ Figure 1B Diehl & Eklov 1995 Ecology 76(6): 1712-1726 Die95-08 freshwater lake enclosure field 43 4 30 11 Actinopterygii Perca fluviatilis, Eurasian perch Actinopterygii Perca fluviatilis, Eurasian perch Habitat use proportion exposed no predator 0.87 0.09 1.04 4 30 120 predatory perch present (to prevent density effects from confounding behavioral effects, all consumed young perch were replaced) 0.99 0.02 0.18 4 30 120 Prey Habitat use 1 0 1 0 1 1 none size class 1+ Figure 3A Diehl & Eklov 1995 Ecology 76(6): 1712-1726 Die95-09 freshwater lake enclosure field 43 4 1 no # individuals given. Used one ind/rep as most conservative estimate 111 Actinopterygii Esox lucius, pike Actinopterygii Perca fluviatilis, Eurasian perch Branchiopoda Cladocera Growth mass gain (g) no predator 156 99.4 198.8 4 1 4 pike present (to prevent density effects from confounding behavioral effects, all consumed young perch were replaced) 12.25 4.93 9.86 4 1 4 Resource Biomass 1 0 1 0 1 2 none young fish: in open habitat Figure 3A Diehl & Eklov 1995 Ecology 76(6): 1712-1726 Die95-10 freshwater lake enclosure field 43 4 1 no # individuals given. Used one ind/rep as most conservative estimate 111 Actinopterygii Esox lucius, pike Actinopterygii Perca fluviatilis, Eurasian perch Branchiopoda Cladocera Growth mass gain (g) no predator 60.4 18.5 37 4 1 4 pike present (to prevent density effects from confounding behavioral effects, all consumed young perch were replaced) 130.6 57.9 115.8 4 1 4 Resource Biomass 1 0 1 0 1 2 none young fish: in vegetation Figure 3A Diehl & Eklov 1995 Ecology 76(6): 1712-1726 Die95-11 freshwater lake enclosure field 43 4 1 no # individuals given. Used one ind/rep as most conservative estimate 111 Actinopterygii Perca fluviatilis, Eurasian perch Actinopterygii Perca fluviatilis, Eurasian perch Branchiopoda Cladocera Growth mass gain (g) no predator 156 99.4 198.8 4 1 4 predatory perch present (to prevent density effects from confounding behavioral effects, all consumed young perch were replaced) 128 113.3 226.6 4 1 4 Resource Biomass 1 0 1 0 1 2 none young fish: in open habitat Figure 3A Diehl & Eklov 1995 Ecology 76(6): 1712-1726 Die95-12 freshwater lake enclosure field 43 4 1 no # individuals given. Used one ind/rep as most conservative estimate 111 Actinopterygii Perca fluviatilis, Eurasian perch Actinopterygii Perca fluviatilis, Eurasian perch Branchiopoda Cladocera Growth mass gain (g) no predator 60.4 18.5 37 4 1 4 predatory perch present (to prevent density effects from confounding behavioral effects, all consumed young perch were replaced) 99.8 35.7 71.4 4 1 4 Resource Biomass 1 0 1 0 1 2 none young fish: in vegetation Figure 3B Diehl & Eklov 1995 Ecology 76(6): 1712-1726 Die95-13 freshwater lake enclosure field 43 4 1 no # individuals given. Used one ind/rep as most conservative estimate 111 Actinopterygii Esox lucius, pike Actinopterygii Perca fluviatilis, Eurasian perch Maxillopoda Copepoda Growth mass gain (g) no predator 451 355 710 4 1 4 pike present (to prevent density effects from confounding behavioral effects, all consumed young perch were replaced) 177 91.2 182.4 4 1 4 Resource Biomass 1 0 1 0 1 2 none young fish: in open habitat Figure 3B Diehl & Eklov 1995 Ecology 76(6): 1712-1726 Die95-14 freshwater lake enclosure field 43 4 1 no # individuals given. Used one ind/rep as most conservative estimate 111 Actinopterygii Esox lucius, pike Actinopterygii Perca fluviatilis, Eurasian perch Maxillopoda Copepoda Growth mass gain (g) no predator 350 254 508 4 1 4 pike present (to prevent density effects from confounding behavioral effects, all consumed young perch were replaced) 168 75 150 4 1 4 Resource Biomass 1 0 1 0 1 2 none young fish: in vegetation Figure 3B Diehl & Eklov 1995 Ecology 76(6): 1712-1726 Die95-15 freshwater lake enclosure field 43 4 1 no # individuals given. Used one ind/rep as most conservative estimate 111 Actinopterygii Perca fluviatilis, Eurasian perch Actinopterygii Perca fluviatilis, Eurasian perch Maxillopoda Copepoda Growth mass gain (g) no predator 451 355 710 4 1 4 predatory perch present (to prevent density effects from confounding behavioral effects, all consumed young perch were replaced) 458 451 902 4 1 4 Resource Biomass 1 0 1 0 1 2 none young fish: in open habitat Figure 3B Diehl & Eklov 1995 Ecology 76(6): 1712-1726 Die95-16 freshwater lake enclosure field 43 4 1 no # individuals given. Used one ind/rep as most conservative estimate 111 Actinopterygii Perca fluviatilis, Eurasian perch Actinopterygii Perca fluviatilis, Eurasian perch Maxillopoda Copepoda Growth mass gain (g) no predator 350 254 508 4 1 4 predatory perch present (to prevent density effects from confounding behavioral effects, all consumed young perch were replaced) 208.2 150.3 300.6 4 1 4 Resource Biomass 1 0 1 0 1 2 none young fish: in vegetation Figure 5A Diehl & Eklov 1995 Ecology 76(6): 1712-1726 Die95-17 freshwater lake enclosure field 43 4 1 no # individuals given. Used one ind/rep as most conservative estimate 111 Actinopterygii Esox lucius, pike Actinopterygii Perca fluviatilis, Eurasian perch Insecta Sialis lutaria, alderfly Density #/m2 no predator 132 29.1 58.2 4 1 4 pike present (to prevent density effects from confounding behavioral effects, all consumed young perch were replaced) 282 63 126 4 1 4 Resource Density 1 0 1 0 1 2 none young fish: in open habitat Figure 5A Diehl & Eklov 1995 Ecology 76(6): 1712-1726 Die95-18 freshwater lake enclosure field 43 4 1 no # individuals given. Used one ind/rep as most conservative estimate 111 Actinopterygii Esox lucius, pike Actinopterygii Perca fluviatilis, Eurasian perch Insecta Sialis lutaria, alderfly Density #/m2 no predator 238 22 44 4 1 4 pike present (to prevent density effects from confounding behavioral effects, all consumed young perch were replaced) 290 52.9 105.8 4 1 4 Resource Density 1 0 1 0 1 2 none young fish: in vegetation Figure 5A Diehl & Eklov 1995 Ecology 76(6): 1712-1726 Die95-19 freshwater lake enclosure field 43 4 1 no # individuals given. Used one ind/rep as most conservative estimate 111 Actinopterygii Perca fluviatilis, Eurasian perch Actinopterygii Perca fluviatilis, Eurasian perch Insecta Sialis lutaria, alderfly Density #/m2 no predator 132 29.1 58.2 4 1 4 predatory perch present (to prevent density effects from confounding behavioral effects, all consumed young perch were replaced) 184 18.5 37 4 1 4 Resource Density 1 0 1 0 1 2 none young fish: in open habitat Figure 5A Diehl & Eklov 1995 Ecology 76(6): 1712-1726 Die95-20 freshwater lake enclosure field 43 4 1 no # individuals given. Used one ind/rep as most conservative estimate 111 Actinopterygii Perca fluviatilis, Eurasian perch Actinopterygii Perca fluviatilis, Eurasian perch Insecta Sialis lutaria, alderfly Density #/m2 no predator 238 22 44 4 1 4 predatory perch present (to prevent density effects from confounding behavioral effects, all consumed young perch were replaced) 193 20.3 40.6 4 1 4 Resource Density 1 0 1 0 1 2 none young fish: in vegetation Figure 5B Diehl & Eklov 1995 Ecology 76(6): 1712-1726 Die95-21 freshwater lake enclosure field 43 4 1 no # individuals given. Used one ind/rep as most conservative estimate 111 Actinopterygii Esox lucius, pike Actinopterygii Perca fluviatilis, Eurasian perch Insecta Chironomidae Density #/m2 no predator 2866 393 786 4 1 4 pike present (to prevent density effects from confounding behavioral effects, all consumed young perch were replaced) 2348 491 982 4 1 4 Resource Density 1 0 1 0 1 2 none young fish: in open habitat Figure 5B Diehl & Eklov 1995 Ecology 76(6): 1712-1726 Die95-22 freshwater lake enclosure field 43 4 1 no # individuals given. Used one ind/rep as most conservative estimate 111 Actinopterygii Esox lucius, pike Actinopterygii Perca fluviatilis, Eurasian perch Insecta Chironomidae Density #/m2 no predator 3420 179 358 4 1 4 pike present (to prevent density effects from confounding behavioral effects, all consumed young perch were replaced) 1777 71 142 4 1 4 Resource Density 1 0 1 0 1 2 none young fish: in vegetation Figure 5B Diehl & Eklov 1995 Ecology 76(6): 1712-1726 Die95-23 freshwater lake enclosure field 43 4 1 no # individuals given. Used one ind/rep as most conservative estimate 111 Actinopterygii Perca fluviatilis, Eurasian perch Actinopterygii Perca fluviatilis, Eurasian perch Insecta Chironomidae Density #/m2 no predator 2866 393 786 4 1 4 predatory perch present (to prevent density effects from confounding behavioral effects, all consumed young perch were replaced) 2652 643 1286 4 1 4 Resource Density 1 0 1 0 1 2 none young fish: in open habitat Figure 5B Diehl & Eklov 1995 Ecology 76(6): 1712-1726 Die95-24 freshwater lake enclosure field 43 4 1 no # individuals given. Used one ind/rep as most conservative estimate 111 Actinopterygii Perca fluviatilis, Eurasian perch Actinopterygii Perca fluviatilis, Eurasian perch Insecta Chironomidae Density #/m2 no predator 3420 179 358 4 1 4 predatory perch present (to prevent density effects from confounding behavioral effects, all consumed young perch were replaced) 2795 411 822 4 1 4 Resource Density 1 0 1 0 1 2 none young fish: in vegetation Table 2 Dixon & Baker 1987 Can J Zool 64:2276-2279 Dix87-01 freshwater lake aquarium lab 0.17 7 2 111 Actinopterygii Lepomis gibbosus, pumpkinseed sunfish Insecta Ischnura verticalis, damselfly Branchiopoda Daphnia magna Feeding rate (11) or Survival (111) # daphnia eaten no predator 1.61 0.32 1.19 7 2 14 predator risk 1.29 0.37 1.38 7 2 14 Prey (11) or Resource (111) Feeding rate (11) or Survival (111) 1/-1 0 1 0 1 2 none (got wet mass for I. verticalis by multiplying dry mass by 3.5) Table 2 Dixon & Baker 1987 Can J Zool 64:2276-2279 Dix87-02 freshwater lake aquarium lab 0.17 7 2 111 Actinopterygii Lepomis gibbosus, pumpkinseed sunfish Insecta Ischnura verticalis, damselfly Branchiopoda Daphnia magna Feeding rate (11) or Survival (111) # daphnia eaten no predator 2.21 0.47 1.76 7 2 14 predator risk 2.42 0.43 1.61 7 2 14 Prey (11) or Resource (111) Feeding rate (11) or Survival (111) 1/-1 0 1 0 1 2 none (got wet mass for I. verticalis by multiplying dry mass by 3.5) Table 3 Dixon & Baker 1987 Can J Zool 64:2276-2279 Dix87-03 freshwater lake aquarium lab until moulting 4 1 11 Actinopterygii Lepomis gibbosus, pumpkinseed sunfish Insecta Ischnura verticalis, damselfly Development length of first instar (days) no predator 23.5 5.4 10.8 4 1 4 predator risk 31.5 4.4 8.8 4 1 4 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 none instar 1 (got wet mass for I. verticalis by multiplying dry mass by 3.5) Table 3 Dixon & Agarwala 1999 Proc Roy Soc Lond Ser B 266: 1549-1553 Dix99-01 terrestrial agricultural cage lab 2 10 1 11 Insecta Adalia bipunctata Insecta Acyrthosiphon pisum, green form of pea aphid Fecundity fecundity over 2 days no predator cues 14.5 0.82 2.59 10 1 10 aphid on plant that has been walked on by predator 11 0.57 1.8 10 1 10 Prey Fecundity 1 0 1 0 1 1 none Table 3 Dixon & Agarwala 1999 Proc Roy Soc Lond Ser B 266: 1549-1553 Dix99-02 terrestrial agricultural cage lab 2 10 1 11 Insecta Adalia bipunctata Insecta Acyrthosiphon pisum, red form of pea aphid Fecundity fecundity over 2 days no predator cues 13.7 0.52 1.64 10 1 10 aphid on plant that has been walked on by predator 10 0.75 2.37 10 1 10 Prey Fecundity 1 0 1 0 1 1 none Table 3 Dixon & Agarwala 1999 Proc Roy Soc Lond Ser B 266: 1549-1553 Dix99-03 terrestrial agricultural cage lab 2 10 1 11 Insecta Adalia bipunctata Insecta Aphis fabae fabae, black bean aphid Fecundity fecundity over 2 days no predator cues 5.3 0.58 1.83 10 1 10 aphid on plant that has been walked on by predator 5 0.5 1.58 10 1 10 Prey Fecundity 1 0 1 0 1 1 none Table 3 Dixon & Agarwala 1999 Proc Roy Soc Lond Ser B 266: 1549-1553 Dix99-04 terrestrial agricultural cage lab 2 10 1 11 Insecta Adalia bipunctata Insecta Meguora viciae, vetch aphid Fecundity fecundity over 2 days no predator cues 8.3 0.67 2.12 10 1 10 aphid on plant that has been walked on by predator 8 0.75 2.37 10 1 10 Prey Fecundity 1 0 1 0 1 1 none Figure 2a Dodson & Havel 1988 Limnol Oceanography 33(6, part 1): 1274-1285 Dod88-01 freshwater pond aquarium lab until instar complete 3 10 11 Insecta Notonecta undulata, backswimmer Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Growth length at first reproduction (mm) no predator cues 1.64 0.04 0.19 3 10 30 insect chemical cues present 1.51 0.04 0.19 3 10 30 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Dod88-02, Dod88-03 can only do fig 2a b/c no se for rest of graphs Figure 2a Dodson & Havel 1988 Limnol Oceanography 33(6, part 1): 1274-1285 Dod88-02 freshwater pond aquarium lab until instar complete 3 10 11 Insecta Notonecta undulata, backswimmer Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Growth length at first reproduction (mm) no predator cues 2.07 0.04 0.19 3 10 30 insect chemical cues present 1.66 0.04 0.19 3 10 30 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Dod88-01, Dod88-03 can only do fig 2a b/c no se for rest of graphs Figure 2a Dodson & Havel 1988 Limnol Oceanography 33(6, part 1): 1274-1285 Dod88-03 freshwater pond aquarium lab until instar complete 3 10 11 Insecta Notonecta undulata, backswimmer Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Growth length at first reproduction (mm) no predator cues 2.05 0.04 0.19 3 10 30 insect chemical cues present 1.7 0.04 0.19 3 10 30 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Dod88-01, Dod88-02 can only do fig 2a b/c no se for rest of graphs Table 2 Downes 2001 Ecology 82(10):2870-2881 Dow01-01 terrestrial field cage lab 418 3 20 11 Reptilia Demansia psammophis, yellow-faced whip snake Reptilia Lampropholis guichenoti, garden skink Growth g/time no predator 1.98 0.04 0.31 3 20 60 snake scent (but no snake) 1.82 0.04 0.31 3 20 60 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Dow01-01 to Dow01-03 Figure 1A Downes 2001 Ecology 82(10):2870-2881 Dow01-02 terrestrial field cage lab 418 3 20 11 Reptilia Demansia psammophis, yellow-faced whip snake Reptilia Lampropholis guichenoti, garden skink Activity % active (moving lizards/hr) no predator 9.13 0.36 2.77 3 20 60 snake scent (but no snake) 6.19 0.41 3.18 3 20 60 Prey Activity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Dow01-01 to Dow01-03 Figure 1B Downes 2001 Ecology 82(10):2870-2881 Dow01-03 terrestrial field cage lab 418 3 20 11 Reptilia Demansia psammophis, yellow-faced whip snake Reptilia Lampropholis guichenoti, garden skink Activity # active lizards/h no predator 46.66 4.41 34.18 3 20 60 snake scent (but no snake) 45.69 8.12 62.93 3 20 60 Prey Activity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Dow01-01 to Dow01-03 Figure 1, 2 Duvall & Williams 1995 Arch fur Hydrobiol 133(3): 273-286 Duv95-01 freshwater stream aquarium lab 77 9 1 11 Actinopterygii Oncorhynchus mykiss, rainbow trout Insecta Agnetina capitata, stonefly Growth Mass (g) control: 0.055, risk: 0.0496 control: 0.0249, risk: 0.0308 9 no predator cues 0.05 0.01 0.03 9 1 9 presence of non-lethal predator (fish with mouth sewn shut) 0.04 0 0.01 9 1 9 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Duv95-01 through Duv95-04 Figure 3 Duvall & Williams 1995 Arch fur Hydrobiol 133(3): 273-286 Duv95-02 freshwater stream aquarium lab 77 9 1 11 Actinopterygii Oncorhynchus mykiss, rainbow trout Insecta Agnetina capitata, stonefly Insecta Baetis tricaudatus, mayfly Feeding rate (11) or Survival (111) mass (g) of mayflies consumed over 11 weeks no predator cues 0.01 0 0 9 1 9 presence of non-lethal predator (fish with mouth sewn shut) 0.01 0 0 9 1 9 Prey (11) or Resource (111) Feeding rate (11) or Survival (111) 1/-1 0 1 0 1 1 Duv95-01 through Duv95-03 Text p. 276 Duvall & Williams 1995 Arch fur Hydrobiol 133(3): 273-286 Duv95-03 freshwater stream aquarium lab 77 9 1 11 Actinopterygii Oncorhynchus mykiss, rainbow trout Insecta Agnetina capitata, stonefly Survival % of nymphs dying before the end of the experiment no predator cues 0 0 0 9 1 9 presence of non-lethal predator (fish with mouth sewn shut) 56 0 0 9 1 9 Prey Survival -1 0 1 0 1 1 Duv95-01 through Duv95-03 Figure 6 Duvall & Williams 1995 Arch fur Hydrobiol 133(3): 273-286 Duv95-04 freshwater stream aquarium lab 0.16 20 1 11 Actinopterygii Oncorhynchus mykiss, rainbow trout Insecta Agnetina capitata, stonefly Activity time spent moving per activity episode no predator cues 9.41 1.42 6.35 20 1 20 presence of non-lethal predator (fish with mouth sewn shut) 8.52 1.54 6.89 20 1 20 Prey Activity 1 0 1 0 1 1 none Text, p. 140 Ejdung 1998 MEPS 165: 137-144 Edj98-01 marine benthic aquarium lab 0.92 6 1 11 Actinopterygii Myxocephalus scorpius, short-horned sculpin Isopoda Saduria entomon, isopod Habitat use % of time foraging on sediment surface no chemical cues from fish 7.9 3.3 8.08 6 1 6 chemical cues from fish 0.8 0.3 0.73 6 1 6 Prey Habitat use 1 0 1 0 1 1 Edj98-01, Edj98-02 fish expt Text, p. 140 Ejdung 1998 MEPS 165: 137-144 Edj98-02 marine benthic aquarium lab 3 8 30 111 Actinopterygii Myxocephalus scorpius, short-horned sculpin Isopoda Saduria entomon, isopod Malacostraca Monoporeia affinis, amphipod Survival # of amphipods surviving for three days isopod present with no chemical cues from top predator 19 2 30.98 8 30 240 isopod present with chemical cues from top predator 26 1 15.49 8 30 240 Resource Survival 1 0 1 0 1 2 Edj98-01, Edj98-02 fish expt Text, p. 141 Ejdung 1998 MEPS 165: 137-144 Edj98-03 marine benthic aquarium lab 0.92 6 30 11 Isopoda Saduria entomon, isopod Malacostraca Monoporeia affinis, amphipod Activity % of time spent swimming no chemical cues from unfed isopod 82 1 13.42 6 30 180 chemical cues from unfed isopod 83 2 26.83 6 30 180 Prey Activity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Edj98-03 through Edj98-06 unfed isopod expt Text, p. 141 Ejdung 1998 MEPS 165: 137-144 Edj98-04 marine benthic aquarium lab 3 8 30 11 Isopoda Saduria entomon, isopod Malacostraca Monoporeia affinis, amphipod Survival % of amphipods surviving for three days no chemical cues from unfed isopod 97 1 15.49 8 30 240 chemical cues from unfed isopod 97 1 15.49 8 30 240 Prey Survival 1 0 1 0 1 1 Edj98-03 through Edj98-06 unfed isopod expt Text, p. 141 Ejdung 1998 MEPS 165: 137-144 Edj98-05 marine benthic aquarium lab 0.92 6 30 11 Isopoda Saduria entomon, isopod Malacostraca Monoporeia affinis, amphipod Activity % of time spent swimming no chemical cues from isopods 72 6 80.5 6 30 180 chemical cues from isopod fed amphipods 16 4 53.67 6 30 180 Prey Activity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Edj98-03 through Edj98-06 fed isopod expt Text, p. 141 Ejdung 1998 MEPS 165: 137-144 Edj98-06 marine benthic aquarium lab 3 8 30 11 Isopoda Saduria entomon, isopod Malacostraca Monoporeia affinis, amphipod Survival % of amphipods surviving for three days no chemical cues from isopods 100 0 0 8 30 240 chemical cues from isopod fed amphipods 96 2 30.98 8 30 240 Prey Survival 1 0 1 0 1 1 Edj98-03 through Edj98-06 fed isopod expt Figure 1 Eitam et al 2002 Hydrobiologia 485:183-189 Eit02-01 freshwater pond, ephemeral aquarium field 11 6 45 11 Insecta Anisops sardea, backswimmer Insecta Culiseta longiareolata, mosquito Density # larvae + pupa no predators 29.18 2.72 44.69 6 45 270 predator risk 15.92 1.83 30.07 6 45 270 predators 0.35 0.25 4.06 6 45 270 Prey Density 1 0 1 1 2 1 none Figure 2 Eitam et al 2002 Hydrobiologia 485:183-189 Eit02-02 freshwater pond, ephemeral aquarium field 11 6 30 11 Insecta Anisops sardea, backswimmer Insecta Culex laticinctus, mosquito Density # larvae + pupa no predators 15.78 2.3 30.86 6 30 180 predator risk 10.94 5.04 67.61 6 30 180 predators 8.5 5.09 68.31 6 30 180 Prey Density 1 0 1 1 2 1 none Figure 3 Eitam et al 2002 Hydrobiologia 485:183-189 Eit02-03 freshwater pond, ephemeral aquarium field 25 6 1 no # individuals given. Used one ind/rep as most conservative estimate 11 Insecta Anisops sardea, backswimmer Insecta Forcipomyia sp., Ceratopogonid fly Density # pupa no predators 82.7 42.16 103.28 6 1 6 predator risk 437.83 114.32 280.03 6 1 6 predators 182.43 70.54 172.79 6 1 6 Prey Density 1 0 1 1 2 1 none Figure 4 Eitam et al 2002 Hydrobiologia 485:183-189 Eit02-04 freshwater pond, ephemeral aquarium field 25 6 1 no # individuals given. Used one ind/rep as most conservative estimate 11 Insecta Anisops sardea, backswimmer Insecta Chironomus riparius, midge Density # pupal cases no predators 12.64 8.24 20.18 6 1 6 predator risk 3.49 1.5 3.67 6 1 6 predators 3.87 2.43 5.96 6 1 6 Prey Density 1 0 1 1 2 1 none Figure 5 Eitam et al 2002 Hydrobiologia 485:183-189 Eit02-05 freshwater pond, ephemeral aquarium field 22 6 1 no # individuals given. Used one ind/rep as most conservative estimate 11 Insecta Anisops sardea, backswimmer Branchiopoda Ceriodaphnia sp. Density change in daphnia # in treatment from control no predators 290.54 53.47 130.98 6 1 6 predator risk 81.22 29.76 72.9 6 1 6 predators 0.2 0 0 6 1 6 Prey Density 1 0 1 1 2 1 none Figure 1 Eklov & Werner 2000 Oikos 88:250-258 Ekl00-01 freshwater pond aquarium lab 1 4 10 11 Actinopterygii Lepomis macrochirus, bluegill Amphibia Rana clamitans, green frog Survival # consumed out of 10 no predator 0 0 0 4 10 40 Lethal bluegill 4.37 0.52 3.31 4 10 40 (lethal anax + non-lethal bluegill) - (lethal anax) -1.42 1.15 7.25 4 10 40 Prey Survival -1 1 1 0 2 1 none size 1 (smallest) Figure 1 Eklov & Werner 2000 Oikos 88:250-258 Ekl00-02 freshwater pond aquarium lab 8 4 10 11 Insecta Anax sp., dragonfly Amphibia Rana clamitans, green frog Survival # consumed out of 10 no predator 0 0 0 4 10 40 Lethal Anax 7.99 0.64 4.05 4 10 40 (lethal bluegill + non-lethal anax) - (lethal bluegill) -3 0.56 3.52 4 10 40 Prey Survival -1 1 1 0 2 1 none size 1 (smallest) Figure 1 Eklov & Werner 2000 Oikos 88:250-258 Ekl00-03 freshwater pond aquarium lab 1 4 10 11 Actinopterygii Lepomis macrochirus, bluegill Amphibia Rana clamitans, green frog Survival # consumed out of 10 no predator 0 0 0 4 10 40 Lethal bluegill 1.37 0.2 1.28 4 10 40 (lethal anax + non-lethal bluegill) - (lethal anax) -4.06 0.67 4.27 4 10 40 Prey Survival -1 1 1 0 2 1 none size 2 Figure 1 Eklov & Werner 2000 Oikos 88:250-258 Ekl00-04 freshwater pond aquarium lab 1 4 10 11 Insecta Anax sp., dragonfly Amphibia Rana clamitans, green frog Survival # consumed out of 10 no predator 0 0 0 4 10 40 Lethal Anax 7.98 0.02 0.11 4 10 40 (lethal bluegill + non-lethal anax) - (lethal bluegill) -0.79 0.32 2.03 4 10 40 Prey Survival -1 1 1 0 2 1 none size 2 Figure 1 Eklov & Werner 2000 Oikos 88:250-258 Ekl00-05 freshwater pond aquarium lab 1 4 10 11 Actinopterygii Lepomis macrochirus, bluegill Amphibia Rana clamitans, green frog Survival # consumed out of 10 no predator 0 0 0 4 10 40 Lethal bluegill 1.35 0.47 2.99 4 10 40 (lethal anax + non-lethal bluegill) - (lethal anax) -1.77 0.56 3.52 4 10 40 Prey Survival -1 1 1 0 2 1 none size 3 Figure 1 Eklov & Werner 2000 Oikos 88:250-258 Ekl00-06 freshwater pond aquarium lab 1 4 10 11 Insecta Anax sp., dragonfly Amphibia Rana clamitans, green frog Survival # consumed out of 10 no predator 0 0 0 4 10 40 Lethal Anax 4.15 0.74 4.69 4 10 40 (lethal bluegill + non-lethal anax) - (lethal bluegill) -0.79 0.56 3.52 4 10 40 Prey Survival -1 1 1 0 2 1 none size 3 Figure 1 Eklov & Werner 2000 Oikos 88:250-258 Ekl00-07 freshwater pond aquarium lab 1 4 10 11 Actinopterygii Lepomis macrochirus, bluegill Amphibia Rana clamitans, green frog Survival # consumed out of 10 no predator 0 0 0 4 10 40 Lethal bluegill 1.72 0.44 2.77 4 10 40 (lethal anax + non-lethal bluegill) - (lethal anax) -0.34 0.46 2.88 4 10 40 Prey Survival -1 1 1 0 2 1 none size 4 Figure 1 Eklov & Werner 2000 Oikos 88:250-258 Ekl00-08 freshwater pond aquarium lab 1 4 10 11 Insecta Anax sp., dragonfly Amphibia Rana clamitans, green frog Survival # consumed out of 10 no predator 0 0 0 4 10 40 Lethal Anax 2.19 0.34 2.13 4 10 40 (lethal bluegill + non-lethal anax) - (lethal bluegill) 0.71 0.44 2.77 4 10 40 Prey Survival -1 1 1 0 2 1 none size 4 Figure 1 Eklov & Werner 2000 Oikos 88:250-258 Ekl00-09 freshwater pond aquarium lab 1 4 10 11 Actinopterygii Lepomis macrochirus, bluegill Amphibia Rana catesbeiana, bullfrog Survival # consumed out of 10 no predator 0 0 0 4 10 40 Lethal bluegill 0.44 0.27 1.71 4 10 40 (lethal anax + non-lethal bluegill) - (lethal anax) 0 0.64 4.05 4 10 40 Prey Survival -1 1 1 0 2 1 none size 1 (smallest) Figure 1 Eklov & Werner 2000 Oikos 88:250-258 Ekl00-10 freshwater pond aquarium lab 1 4 10 11 Actinopterygii Lepomis macrochirus, bluegill Amphibia Rana catesbeiana, bullfrog Survival # consumed out of 10 no predator 0 0 0 4 10 40 Lethal bluegill 0 0 0 4 10 40 (lethal anax + non-lethal bluegill) - (lethal anax) -2.77 0.14 0.85 4 10 40 Prey Survival -1 1 1 0 2 1 none size 2 Figure 1 Eklov & Werner 2000 Oikos 88:250-258 Ekl00-11 freshwater pond aquarium lab 1 4 10 11 Insecta Anax sp., dragonfly Amphibia Rana catesbeiana, bullfrog Survival # consumed out of 10 no predator 0 0 0 4 10 40 Lethal Anax 10 0 0 4 10 40 (lethal bluegill + non-lethal anax) - (lethal bluegill) 0 0 0 4 10 40 Prey Survival -1 1 1 0 2 1 none size 2 Figure 1 Eklov & Werner 2000 Oikos 88:250-258 Ekl00-12 freshwater pond aquarium lab 1 4 10 11 Actinopterygii Lepomis macrochirus, bluegill Amphibia Rana catesbeiana, bullfrog Survival # consumed out of 10 no predator 0 0 0 4 10 40 Lethal bluegill 0 0 0 4 10 40 (lethal anax + non-lethal bluegill) - (lethal anax) -3.34 0.56 3.52 4 10 40 Prey Survival -1 0 1 0 1 1 none size 3 Figure 1 Eklov & Werner 2000 Oikos 88:250-258 Ekl00-13 freshwater pond aquarium lab 1 4 10 11 Insecta Anax sp., dragonfly Amphibia Rana catesbeiana, bullfrog Survival # consumed out of 10 no predator 0 0 0 4 10 40 Lethal Anax 9.04 0.44 2.77 4 10 40 (lethal bluegill + non-lethal anax) - (lethal bluegill) 0 0 0 4 10 40 Prey Survival -1 1 1 0 2 1 none size 3 Figure 1 Eklov & Werner 2000 Oikos 88:250-258 Ekl00-14 freshwater pond aquarium lab 1 4 10 11 Actinopterygii Lepomis macrochirus, bluegill Amphibia Rana catesbeiana, bullfrog Survival # consumed out of 10 no predator 0 0 0 4 10 40 Lethal bluegill 0 0 0 4 10 40 (lethal anax + non-lethal bluegill) - (lethal anax) -5.09 0.34 2.13 4 10 40 Prey Survival -1 1 1 0 2 1 none size 4 Figure 1 Eklov & Werner 2000 Oikos 88:250-258 Ekl00-15 freshwater pond aquarium lab 1 4 10 11 Insecta Anax sp., dragonfly Amphibia Rana catesbeiana, bullfrog Survival # consumed out of 10 no predator 0 0 0 4 10 40 Lethal Anax 9.06 0.13 0.85 4 10 40 (lethal bluegill + non-lethal anax) - (lethal bluegill) 0 0 0 4 10 40 Prey Survival -1 1 1 0 2 1 none size 4 Figure 1 Eklov & Werner 2000 Oikos 88:250-258 Ekl00-16 freshwater pond aquarium lab 1 4 10 11 Actinopterygii Lepomis macrochirus, bluegill Amphibia Rana catesbeiana, bullfrog Survival # consumed out of 10 no predator 0 0 0 4 10 40 Lethal bluegill 0 0 0 4 10 40 (lethal anax + non-lethal bluegill) - (lethal anax) -1.26 0.4 2.56 4 10 40 Prey Survival -1 1 1 0 2 1 none size 5 Figure 1 Eklov & Werner 2000 Oikos 88:250-258 Ekl00-17 freshwater pond aquarium lab 1 4 10 11 Insecta Anax sp., dragonfly Amphibia Rana catesbeiana, bullfrog Survival # consumed out of 10 no predator 0 0 0 4 10 40 Lethal Anax 2.92 0.15 0.96 4 10 40 (lethal bluegill + non-lethal anax) - (lethal bluegill) 0 0 0 4 10 40 Prey Survival -1 1 1 0 2 1 none size 5 Figure 1 Eklov & Werner 2000 Oikos 88:250-258 Ekl00-18 freshwater pond aquarium lab 4 4 10 11 Actinopterygii Lepomis macrochirus, bluegill Amphibia Rana clamitans, green frog Survival # consumed out of 10 no predator 0 0 0 4 10 40 Lethal bluegill 0 0 0 4 10 40 (lethal anax + non-lethal bluegill) - (lethal anax) -0.71 0.12 0.75 4 10 40 Prey Survival -1 0 1 0 1 1 none size 5 Figure 1 Eklov & Werner 2000 Oikos 88:250-258 Ekl00-19 freshwater pond aquarium lab 1 4 10 11 Insecta Anax sp., dragonfly Amphibia Rana clamitans, green frog Survival # consumed out of 10 no predator 0 0 0 4 10 40 Lethal Anax 1.37 0.39 2.45 4 10 40 (lethal bluegill + non-lethal anax) - (lethal bluegill) 0 0 0 4 10 40 Prey Survival -1 1 1 0 2 1 none size 5 Figure 1 Eklov & Werner 2000 Oikos 88:250-258 Ekl00-20 freshwater pond aquarium lab 1 4 10 11 Insecta Anax sp., dragonfly Amphibia Rana catesbeiana, bullfrog Survival # consumed out of 10 no predator 0 0 0 4 10 40 Lethal Anax 9.09 0.61 3.84 4 10 40 (lethal bluegill + non-lethal anax) - (lethal bluegill) -0.24 0.17 1.07 4 10 40 Prey Survival -1 1 1 0 2 1 none size 1 (smallest) Figure 2 Eklov 2000 Oecologia 123:192-199 Ekl00A-01 freshwater lake aquarium lab 1 4 50 predator interference; bluegill and anax eat bullfrog tadpoles Mixed Anax junius, dragonfly; Lepomis macrochirus, bluegill Amphibia Rana catesbeiana, bullfrog Survival # eaten (of 50), in one 24-hr period no predator 0 0 0 4 50 200 bluegill alone 1.02 0.51 7.22 4 50 200 bluegill reduces anax feeding by this amount by intimidating anax (thus the negative value) -4.77 2.49 35.19 4 50 200 Prey Survival -1 1 1 0 2 2 none Figure 3B Eklov 2000 Oecologia 123:192-199 Ekl00A-02 freshwater lake aquarium lab 21 4 20 11 Actinopterygii Lepomis macrochirus, bluegill Amphibia Rana catesbeiana, bullfrog Growth g no predator chemical cue 0.12 0.01 0.09 4 20 80 predator chemical cue 0.1 0 0.04 4 20 80 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Ekl00-02, 04 Figure 3B Eklov 2000 Oecologia 123:192-199 Ekl00A-03 freshwater lake aquarium lab 21 4 20 11 Insecta Anax junius, dragonfly Amphibia Rana catesbeiana, bullfrog Growth g no predator chemical cue 0.12 0.01 0.09 4 20 80 predator chemical cue 0.08 0.01 0.05 4 20 80 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Ekl00-03, 05 Figure 3A Eklov 2000 Oecologia 123:192-199 Ekl00A-04 freshwater lake aquarium lab 21 4 20 11 Actinopterygii Lepomis macrochirus, bluegill Amphibia Rana catesbeiana, bullfrog Activity proportion active no predator chemical cue 0.36 0.03 0.31 4 20 80 predator chemical cue 0.3 0.02 0.13 4 20 80 Prey Activity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Ekl00-02, 04 Figure 3A Eklov 2000 Oecologia 123:192-199 Ekl00A-05 freshwater lake aquarium lab 21 4 20 11 Insecta Anax junius, dragonfly Amphibia Rana catesbeiana, bullfrog Activity proportion active no predator chemical cue 0.36 0.03 0.31 4 20 80 predator chemical cue 0.14 0.01 0.06 4 20 80 Prey Activity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Ekl00-03, 05 Figure 1A Eklov & Van Kooten 2001 Ecology 82: 2486-2494 Ekl01-01 freshwater pond enclosure field 130 5 80 21 Actinopterygii Perca fluviatilis, Eurasian perch, and Esox lucius, pike Actinopterygii Rutilus rutilus, roach Survival Roach mortality mortality when roach alone 9.2 0.34 6.74 5 80 400 mortality of roach in presence of perch 28.84 12.83 256.57 5 80 400 increase in roach mortality caused by perch facilitation of pike predation 14.28 4.07 81.38 5 80 400 Prey Survival -1 1 1 0 2 1 none Figure 1B Eklov & Van Kooten 2001 Ecology 82: 2486-2494 Ekl01-02 freshwater pond enclosure field 130 5 4 21 Actinopterygii Perca fluviatilis, Eurasian perch, and Esox lucius, pike Actinopterygii Rutilus rutilus, roach Growth predator growth (change in grams) growth of perch alone 15.73 2.66 11.91 5 4 20 growth of perch with pike present 13.94 2.29 10.26 5 4 20 Competitor Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 none Figure 1B Eklov & Van Kooten 2001 Ecology 82: 2486-2494 Ekl01-03 freshwater pond enclosure field 130 5 4 21 Actinopterygii Perca fluviatilis, Eurasian perch, and Esox lucius, pike Actinopterygii Rutilus rutilus, roach Growth predator growth (change in grams) growth of pike alone -6.45 3.37 15.06 5 4 20 growth of pike with perch present 7.96 4.11 18.39 5 4 20 Competitor Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 none Figure 2 Eklov & Van Kooten 2001 Ecology 82: 2486-2494 Ekl01-04 freshwater pond enclosure field 130 5 80 21 Actinopterygii Esox lucius, pike Actinopterygii Rutilus rutilus, roach Growth g growth when roach alone 0.73 0.17 3.48 5 80 400 growth when with pike 0.6 0.11 2.29 5 80 400 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 none Figure 2 Eklov & Van Kooten 2001 Ecology 82: 2486-2494 Ekl01-05 freshwater pond enclosure field 130 5 80 21 Actinopterygii Perca fluviatilis, Eurasian perch Actinopterygii Rutilus rutilus, roach Growth g growth when roach alone 0.73 0.17 3.48 5 80 400 growth when with perch 0.81 0.04 0.7 5 80 400 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 none Text, p. 2490 Eklov & Van Kooten 2001 Ecology 82: 2486-2494 Ekl01-06 freshwater pond enclosure field 130 5 211 Actinopterygii Perca fluviatilis, Eurasian perch, and Esox lucius, pike Actinopterygii Rutilus rutilus, roach Branchiopoda Daphnia longispina Growth g r squared = percent of variance in daphnia biomass explained by changes in roach density 0.77 rsquare = percent of variance explained by changes in roach distribution 0.27 Resource Growth 1 1 1 0 2 2 none Figure 2 Feltmate & Williams 1989 Can J Fish Aq Sci 46: 1575-1580 Fel89-01 freshwater stream natural unit (stream with enclosures) field 4 3 1 no # individuals given. Used one ind/rep as most conservative estimate 111 Actinopterygii Oncorhynchus mykiss, rainbow trout Insecta Paragnetina media, stonefly Emigration # stoneflies in an enclosed stream section before predator added 112.99 13.29 23.02 3 1 3 density due to stonefly mortality only 99.17 3.9 5.52 2 1 2 Density due to stonefly emigration only 94.32 3.9 6.75 3 1 3 Prey Emigration 1 1 1 0 2 1 none Figure 3C Feltmate & Williams 1989 Can J Fish Aq Sci 46: 1575-1580 Fel89-02 freshwater stream aquarium lab 1 24 1 111 Actinopterygii Oncorhynchus mykiss, rainbow trout Insecta Paragnetina media, stonefly Oligochaeta Enchytraeidae, whiteworms Feeding rate (11) or Survival (111) # whiteworms consumed by stoneflies no predator 1.55 0.24 1.16 24 1 24 predator risk 0.83 0.22 1.08 24 1 24 Prey (11) or Resource (111) Feeding rate (11) or Survival (111) 1/-1 0 1 0 1 1 none small trout Figure 3C Feltmate & Williams 1989 Can J Fish Aq Sci 46: 1575-1580 Fel89-03 freshwater stream aquarium lab 1 24 1 111 Actinopterygii Oncorhynchus mykiss, rainbow trout Insecta Paragnetina media, stonefly Oligochaeta Enchytraeidae, whiteworms Feeding rate (11) or Survival (111) # whiteworms consumed by stoneflies no predator 1.55 0.24 1.16 24 1 24 predator risk 0.87 0.18 0.87 24 1 24 Prey (11) or Resource (111) Feeding rate (11) or Survival (111) 1/-1 0 1 0 1 1 none large trout Figure 3C Feltmate & Williams 1989 Can J Fish Aq Sci 46: 1575-1580 Fel89-04 freshwater stream aquarium lab 1 24 1 111 Actinopterygii Oncorhynchus mykiss, rainbow trout Insecta Paragnetina media, stonefly Oligochaeta Enchytraeidae, whiteworms Feeding rate (11) or Survival (111) # whiteworms consumed by stoneflies no predator 1.66 0.25 1.23 24 1 24 predator risk 0.61 0.21 1.04 24 1 24 Prey (11) or Resource (111) Feeding rate (11) or Survival (111) 1/-1 0 1 0 1 1 none small trout Figure 3C Feltmate & Williams 1989 Can J Fish Aq Sci 46: 1575-1580 Fel89-05 freshwater stream aquarium lab 1 24 1 111 Actinopterygii Oncorhynchus mykiss, rainbow trout Insecta Paragnetina media, stonefly Oligochaeta Enchytraeidae, whiteworms Feeding rate (11) or Survival (111) # whiteworms consumed by stoneflies no predator 1.66 0.25 1.23 24 1 24 predator risk 0.79 0.21 1.02 24 1 24 Prey (11) or Resource (111) Feeding rate (11) or Survival (111) 1/-1 0 1 0 1 1 none large trout Figures 1, 6 Forrester 1994 Ecology 75(5): 1208-1218 For94-01 freshwater stream enclosure field 1 3 1 no # individuals given. Used one ind/rep as most conservative estimate 11 Actinopterygii Salvelinus fontinalis, brook trout Insecta Baetis sp., mayfly Emigration % reduction in density/day no predator 0 for CE, 0.381 for NCE 0 for CE, 0.095 for NCE 0 for CE, 0.164 for NCE 3 1 3 % decrease in density due to predation 0.16 0 0 2 1 2 % decrease in density due to drift 1.42 0.64 1.11 3 1 3 Prey Emigration -1 1 1 0 2 1 For94-02 Figures 1, 6 Forrester 1994 Ecology 75(5): 1208-1218 For94-02 freshwater stream enclosure field 1 3 1 no # individuals given. Used one ind/rep as most conservative estimate 11 Actinopterygii Salvelinus fontinalis, brook trout Insecta Baetis sp., mayfly Emigration % reduction in density/day no predator 0 for DMI, 0.381 for TMI 0 for DMI, 0.095 for TMI 0 for CE, 0.164 for NCE 3 1 3 % decrease in density due to predation 0.22 0.16 0.23 2 1 2 % decrease in density due to drift 4.17 1.39 2.41 3 1 3 Prey Emigration -1 1 1 0 2 1 For94-01 Figures 1, 6 Forrester 1994 Ecology 75(5): 1208-1218 For94-03 freshwater stream enclosure field 1 3 1 no # individuals given. Used one ind/rep as most conservative estimate 11 Actinopterygii Salvelinus fontinalis, brook trout Insecta Ephemerella sp., mayfly Emigration % reduction in density/day no predator 0 for DMI, 1.679 for TMI 0 for DMI, 0.677 for TMI 0 for CE, 1.171 for NCE 3 1 3 % decrease in density due to predation 0.11 0.09 0.16 3 1 3 % decrease in density due to drift 2.48 0.58 1.01 3 1 3 Prey Emigration -1 1 1 0 2 1 For94-04 Figures 1, 6 Forrester 1994 Ecology 75(5): 1208-1218 For94-04 freshwater stream enclosure field 1 3 1 no # individuals given. Used one ind/rep as most conservative estimate 11 Actinopterygii Salvelinus fontinalis, brook trout Insecta Ephemerella sp., mayfly Emigration % reduction in density/day no predator 1 for DMI, 1.679 for TMI 1 for DMI, 0.677 for TMI 1.73 for CE, 1.171 for NCE 3 1 3 % decrease in density due to predation 0.5 0.25 0.44 3 1 3 % decrease in density due to drift 1.38 0.54 0.94 3 1 3 Prey Emigration -1 1 1 0 2 1 For94-03 Figures 1, 6 Forrester 1994 Ecology 75(5): 1208-1218 For94-05 freshwater stream enclosure field 1 3 1 no # individuals given. Used one ind/rep as most conservative estimate 11 Actinopterygii Salvelinus fontinalis, brook trout Insecta Eurylophella sp., mayfly Emigration % reduction in density/day no predator 0 for DMI, 7.345 for TMI 0 for DMI, 4.665 for TMI 0 for CE, 8.07 for NCE 3 1 3 % decrease in density due to predation 0.71 0.57 0.99 3 1 3 % decrease in density due to drift 7.58 2.2 3.82 3 1 3 Prey Emigration -1 1 1 0 2 1 For94-06 Figures 1, 6 Forrester 1994 Ecology 75(5): 1208-1218 For94-06 freshwater stream enclosure field 1 3 1 no # individuals given. Used one ind/rep as most conservative estimate 11 Actinopterygii Salvelinus fontinalis, brook trout Insecta Eurylophella sp., mayfly Emigration % reduction in density/day no predator 1 for DMI, 7.345 for TMI 1 for DMI, 4.665 for TMI 1.73 for CE, 8.07 for NCE 3 1 3 % decrease in density due to predation 0.55 0.55 0.94 3 1 3 % decrease in density due to drift 4.17 1.58 2.74 3 1 3 Prey Emigration -1 1 1 0 2 1 For94-05 Figures 1, 6 Forrester 1994 Ecology 75(5): 1208-1218 For94-07 freshwater stream enclosure field 1 3 1 no # individuals given. Used one ind/rep as most conservative estimate 11 Actinopterygii Salvelinus fontinalis, brook trout Insecta Paraleptophlebia sp., mayfly Emigration % reduction in density/day no predator 0 for DMI, 0.649 for TMI 0 for DMI, 0.238 for TMI 0 for CE, 0.412 for NCE 3 1 3 % decrease in density due to predation 0.07 0.05 0.09 3 1 3 % decrease in density due to drift 1.42 0.57 0.99 3 1 3 Prey Emigration -1 1 1 0 2 1 For94-08 Figures 1, 6 Forrester 1994 Ecology 75(5): 1208-1218 For94-08 freshwater stream enclosure field 1 3 1 no # individuals given. Used one ind/rep as most conservative estimate 11 Actinopterygii Salvelinus fontinalis, brook trout Insecta Paraleptophlebia sp., mayfly Emigration % reduction in density/day no predator 1 for DMI, 0.649 for TMI 1 for DMI, 0.238 for TMI 1.73 for CE, 0.4117 for NCE 3 1 3 % decrease in density due to predation 0.19 0.05 0.08 3 1 3 % decrease in density due to drift 1.4 0.49 0.84 3 1 3 Prey Emigration -1 1 1 0 2 1 For94-07 Figures 1, 6 Forrester 1994 Ecology 75(5): 1208-1218 For94-09 freshwater stream enclosure field 1 3 1 no # individuals given. Used one ind/rep as most conservative estimate 11 Actinopterygii Salvelinus fontinalis, brook trout Insecta Stenonema sp., mayfly Emigration % reduction in density/day no predator 0 for DMI, 0.153 for TMI 0 for DMI, 0.019 for TMI 0 for CE, 0.033 for NCE 3 1 3 % decrease in density due to predation 0.29 0.03 0.05 3 1 3 % decrease in density due to drift 0.32 0.09 0.15 3 1 3 Prey Emigration -1 1 1 0 2 1 For94-10 Figures 1, 6 Forrester 1994 Ecology 75(5): 1208-1218 For94-10 freshwater stream enclosure field 1 3 1 no # individuals given. Used one ind/rep as most conservative estimate 11 Actinopterygii Salvelinus fontinalis, brook trout Insecta Stenonema sp., mayfly Emigration % reduction in density/day no predator 1 for DMI, 0.153 for TMI 1 for DMI, 0.019 for TMI 1.73 for CE, 0.0329 for NCE 3 1 3 % decrease in density due to predation 0.57 0.06 0.1 3 1 3 % decrease in density due to drift 0.25 0.06 0.1 3 1 3 Prey Emigration -1 1 1 0 2 1 For94-09 Table 2 Forrester et al 1999 Limnol Oceanography 44(5): 1187-1197 For99-01 freshwater stream enclosure field 46 6 1 no # individuals given. Used one ind/rep as most conservative estimate 11 Actinopterygii Agosia chrysogaster, long-fin dace Insecta Baetidae, mayflies (spp are Fallceon quilleri (94% by mass) and Callibaetis montanus (6% by mass)) Emigration % reduction in density per day due to either direct mortality or emigration % reduction in density due to predator consumption 1.31 0.16 0.39 6 1 6 % reduction in density due to emigration from treatment pools 3.59 1.02 2.5 6 1 6 Prey Emigration -1 1 1 0 2 1 For99-01, For99-03 without nutrients Table 2 Forrester et al 1999 Limnol Oceanography 44(5): 1187-1197 For99-02 freshwater stream enclosure field 46 6 1 no # individuals given. Used one ind/rep as most conservative estimate 11 Actinopterygii Agosia chrysogaster, long-fin dace Insecta Baetidae, mayflies (spp are Fallceon quilleri (94% by mass) and Callibaetis montanus (6% by mass)) Emigration % reduction in density per day due to either direct mortality or emigration % reduction in density due to predator consumption 1.04 0.23 0.56 6 1 6 % reduction in density due to emigration from treatment pools 2.49 0.87 2.13 6 1 6 Prey Emigration -1 1 1 0 2 1 For99-02, For99-04 with nutrients Table 2 Forrester et al 1999 Limnol Oceanography 44(5): 1187-1197 For99-03 freshwater stream enclosure field 46 6 1 no # individuals given. Used one ind/rep as most conservative estimate 11 Actinopterygii Agosia chrysogaster, long-fin dace Insecta Chironomidae, midge Emigration % reduction in density per day due to either direct mortality or emigration % reduction in density due to predator consumption 2.03 0.35 0.86 6 1 6 % reduction in density due to emigration from treatment pools 0.99 0.18 0.44 6 1 6 Prey Emigration -1 1 1 0 2 1 For99-01, For99-03 without nutrients Table 2 Forrester et al 1999 Limnol Oceanography 44(5): 1187-1197 For99-04 freshwater stream enclosure field 46 6 1 no # individuals given. Used one ind/rep as most conservative estimate 11 Actinopterygii Agosia chrysogaster, long-fin dace Insecta Chironomidae, midge Emigration % reduction in density per day due to either direct mortality or emigration % reduction in density due to predator consumption 1.68 0.32 0.78 6 1 6 % reduction in density due to emigration from treatment pools 1.23 0.24 0.59 6 1 6 Prey Emigration -1 1 1 0 2 1 For99-02, For99-04 with nutrients Table 1 Fox & McCoy 2000 Oecologia 122: 327-334 Fox00-01 terrestrial field natural unit (number in each trt recaptured after 6 months) field 161 1 varies 11 simulated simulated Reptilia Uta stansburiana, lizard Survival % of lizards living after 6 months no autotomy 51.1 0.3 3.49 1 135 135 lizards lost tail 34.35 2.55 35.24 1 191 191 Prey Survival 1 0 1 0 1 1 none Figure 3 Fraser & Gilliam 1992 Ecology 73:959-970 Fra92-01 freshwater stream natural unit (stream pools and riffles) field 12 6 3 11 Actinopterygii Hoplias malabaricus, tiger fish Actinopterygii Rivulus hartii, jumping guabine Fecundity # eggs/day predator-free 5.36 1.14 4.84 6 3 18 predator present 1.04 1.14 4.84 6 3 18 Prey Fecundity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Fra92-01 to Fra92-03 downstream populations Figure 3 Fraser & Gilliam 1992 Ecology 73:959-970 Fra92-02 freshwater stream natural unit (stream pools and riffles) field 12 6 3 11 Actinopterygii Hoplias malabaricus, tiger fish Actinopterygii Rivulus hartii, jumping guabine Fecundity # eggs/day predator-free 5.79 2.53 10.73 6 3 18 predator present 2.29 1.84 7.81 6 3 18 Prey Fecundity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Fra92-01 to Fra92-03 middle-of-stream populations Figure 3 Fraser & Gilliam 1992 Ecology 73:959-970 Fra92-03 freshwater stream natural unit (stream pools and riffles) field 12 6 3 11 Actinopterygii Hoplias malabaricus, tiger fish Actinopterygii Rivulus hartii, jumping guabine Fecundity # eggs/day predator-free 7.12 1.88 7.98 6 3 18 predator present 6.71 2.31 9.8 6 3 18 Prey Fecundity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Fra92-01 to Fra92-03 upstream populations Figure 5 Fraser & Gilliam 1992 Ecology 73:959-970 Fra92-04 freshwater stream natural unit (stream pools and riffles) field varies 6 3 11 Actinopterygii Hoplias malabaricus, tiger fish Actinopterygii Rivulus hartii, jumping guabine Growth mass change per day (mg) predator-free 1.73 2.58 10.95 6 3 18 predator present 8.55 3.98 16.87 6 3 18 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 none large fish Figure 5 Fraser & Gilliam 1992 Ecology 73:959-970 Fra92-05 freshwater stream natural unit (stream pools and riffles) field varies 9 8 11 Actinopterygii Hoplias malabaricus, tiger fish Actinopterygii Rivulus hartii, jumping guabine Growth mass change per day (mg) predator-free 2.96 0.94 5.33 4 8 32 predator present 2.27 0.73 4.13 4 8 32 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 none small fish Table 1 Fraser & Gilliam 1992 Ecology 73:959-970 Fra92-06 freshwater stream natural unit field 1 4 8 11 Actinopterygii Hoplias malabaricus, tiger fish Actinopterygii Poecilia reticulata, guppy Emigration reduction in density in pool due to presence of predator predator-free 0 0 0 4 8 32 predator impact through direct predation 3.1 3.1 17.54 4 8 32 predator impact through increased drift when predator present 46.9 6 33.94 4 8 32 Prey Emigration -1 1 1 0 2 1 none large fish Table 1 Fraser & Gilliam 1992 Ecology 73:959-970 Fra92-07 freshwater stream natural unit field 1 4 8 11 Actinopterygii Hoplias malabaricus, tiger fish Actinopterygii Poecilia reticulata, guppy Emigration reduction in density in pool due to presence of predator predator-free 0 0 0 4 8 32 predator impact through direct predation 12.5 5.1 28.85 4 8 32 predator impact through increased drift when predator present 18.8 10.8 61.09 4 8 32 Prey Emigration -1 1 1 0 2 1 none small fish Table 1 Fraser & Gilliam 1992 Ecology 73:959-970 Fra92-08 freshwater stream natural unit field 1 2 4 11 Actinopterygii Hoplias malabaricus, tiger fish Actinopterygii Rivulus hartii, jumping guabine Emigration reduction in density in pool due to presence of predator predator-free 0 0 0 2 4 8 predator impact through direct predation 12.5 12.5 35.36 2 4 8 predator impact through increased drift when predator present 25 10.7 30.26 2 4 8 Prey Emigration -1 1 1 0 2 1 none large fish Table 1 Fraser & Gilliam 1992 Ecology 73:959-970 Fra92-09 freshwater stream natural unit field 1 4 8 11 Actinopterygii Hoplias malabaricus, tiger fish Actinopterygii Rivulus hartii, jumping guabine Emigration reduction in density in pool due to presence of predator predator-free 0 0 0 4 8 32 predator impact through direct predation 15.6 11.8 66.75 4 8 32 predator impact through increased drift when predator present 28.1 6 33.94 4 8 32 Prey Emigration -1 1 1 0 2 1 none small fish Table 7 Fritz 1983 Ecology 64(4): 789-797 Fri83-01 terrestrial field natural unit (tree branches) field 30 varies 1 111 Insecta Formica subsericea, ant Insecta Odontota dorsalis, locust leaf-mining beetle, and its predator, Nabicula subcoleoptrata, hemiptera Autotroph Robinia pseudoacacia, black locust Plant damage % of leaflets mined with >50% of surface area mined Locust with nabid bugs, beetle larvae, and no ants 66.1 5.31 28.6 29 1 29 Locust with nabid bugs, beetle larvae, and ants 81.1 3.86 19.68 26 1 26 Resource Plant damage -1 0 1 0 1 2 none Figure 2 Fuelling & Halle 2004 Oecologia 138: 151-159 Fue04-01 terrestrial tundra natural unit (unfenced plots) field 820 3 1 no # individuals given. Used one ind/rep as most conservative estimate 11 Mammalia Mustela nivalis nivalis, least weasel Mammalia Clethrionomys rufocanus, grey-sided vole Fecundity # juveniles/female no predator 6.81 1.7 2.94 3 1 3 predator scent 3.26 1.56 2.7 3 1 3 Prey Fecundity 1 0 1 0 1 1 none Figure 1 Gastreich 1999 Ecology 80(3): 1066-1070 Gas99-01 terrestrial tropical natural unit (total plant) field 37 varies 1 11 Arachnida Dipoena banksii, spider Insecta Pheidole bicornis, ant Emigration reduction in mean ant density/plant no predator 4 1 3 9 1 9 predator risk 3 1 2.83 8 1 8 Prey Density -1 0 1 0 1 1 none Text, p. 1067 Gastreich 1999 Ecology 80(3): 1066-1070 Gas99-02 terrestrial tropical forest natural unit (total plant) field 30 varies 1 111 Arachnida Dipoena banksii, spider Insecta Pheidole bicornis, ant Autotroph Piper obliquum Plant damage mean % leaf area lost b/c ants aren't guarding the plant no predator 100 interquartile range 0-0.6% 20 1 20 predator risk 99 interquartile range 0.3-1.1% 23 1 23 Resource Plant damage -1 0 1 0 1 2 none Figure 1 Gelwick 2000 Oecologia 125(4):573-583 Gel00-01 freshwater stream artificial stream field 30 3 30 111 Actinopterygii Micropterus salmoides, largemouth bass Malacostraca Orconectes virilis, virile crayfish Autotroph Algae Biomass height of algal crop (cm) crayfish only 2 0.67 6.31 3 30 90 crayfish and bass 3.15 1.05 9.96 3 30 90 Resource Biomass 1 0 1 0 1 2 Gel00-02 algae upstream Figure 1 Gelwick 2000 Oecologia 125(4):573-583 Gel00-02 freshwater stream artificial stream field 30 3 30 111 Actinopterygii Micropterus salmoides, largemouth bass Malacostraca Orconectes virilis, virile crayfish Autotroph Algae Biomass height of algal crop (cm) crayfish only 2.2 0.75 7.12 3 30 90 crayfish and bass 2.95 1.05 9.96 3 30 90 Resource Biomass 1 0 1 0 1 2 Gel00-01 algae downstream Figure 1 Gelwick 2000 Oecologia 125(4):573-583 Gel00-03 freshwater stream artificial stream field 30 3 30 111 Actinopterygii Micropterus salmoides, largemouth bass Actinopterygii Campostoma anomalum, minnow Autotroph Algae Biomass height of algal crop (cm) minnow only 2.06 0.53 5.03 3 30 90 minnow and bass 2.87 2.4 22.77 3 30 90 Resource Biomass 1 0 1 0 1 2 Gel00-04 algae upstream Figure 1 Gelwick 2000 Oecologia 125(4):573-583 Gel00-04 freshwater stream artificial stream field 30 3 30 111 Actinopterygii Micropterus salmoides, largemouth bass Actinopterygii Campostoma anomalum, minnow Autotroph Algae Biomass height of algal crop (cm) minnow only 2.19 0.56 5.31 3 30 90 minnow and bass 6.28 2.69 25.52 3 30 90 Resource Biomass 1 0 1 0 1 2 Gel00-03 algae downstream Table 1, Figure 1 Gliwicz 1994 Oecologia 97: 458-461 Gli94-01 freshwater lake aquarium lab 2 3 varies 11 Maxillopoda Acanthocyclops robustus, copepod Branchiopoda Ceriodaphnia reticulata Growth dry mass change per day: intercept of regression of growth rate on age No copepods 0.46 0.05 0.35 3 19 57 Copepods present 0.19 0.05 0.34 3 18 54 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 none Table 1, Figure 1 Gliwicz 1994 Oecologia 97: 458-461 Gli94-02 freshwater lake aquarium lab 2 3 varies 11 Maxillopoda Acanthocyclops robustus, copepod Branchiopoda Daphnia hyalina Growth dry mass change per day: intercept of regression of growth rate on age No copepods 0.35 0.05 0.43 3 29 87 Copepods present 0.21 0.05 0.44 3 30 90 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 none Table 1, Figure 1 Gliwicz 1994 Oecologia 97: 458-461 Gli94-03 freshwater lake aquarium lab 2 3 varies 11 Maxillopoda Acanthocyclops robustus, copepod Branchiopoda Daphnia magna Growth dry mass change per day: intercept of regression of growth rate on age No copepods 0.42 0.05 0.38 3 23 69 Copepods present 0.21 0.05 0.44 3 30 90 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 none Table 1, Figure 1 Gliwicz 1994 Oecologia 97: 458-461 Gli94-04 freshwater lake aquarium lab 2 3 varies 11 Maxillopoda Acanthocyclops robustus, copepod Branchiopoda Daphnia pulicaria Growth dry mass change per day: intercept of regression of growth rate on age No copepods 0.35 0.05 0.61 3 58 174 Copepods present 0.21 0.05 0.61 3 59 177 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 none Figure 4 Gotceitas 1990 Oecologia 83: 346-351 Got90-01 freshwater lake cattle tank/ wading pool lab 0 9 5 11 Actinopterygii Micropterus salmoides, largemouth bass Actinopterygii Lepomis macrochirus, bluegill Insecta Ischnura sp., damselfly Feeding rate (11) or Survival (111) prey foraging rate on resource (# of captures/second) no predator 0.27 0.02 0.13 9 5 45 predator risk 0.02 0 0.01 9 5 45 Prey (11) or Resource (111) Feeding rate (11) or Survival (111) 1/-1 0 1 0 1 1 Got90-01 to Got90-06 cover plot 100 with 500 Figure 4 Gotceitas 1990 Oecologia 83: 346-351 Got90-02 freshwater lake cattle tank/ wading pool lab 0 9 5 11 Actinopterygii Micropterus salmoides, largemouth bass Actinopterygii Lepomis macrochirus, bluegill Insecta Ischnura sp., damselfly Feeding rate (11) or Survival (111) prey foraging rate on resource (# of captures/second) no predator 0.19 0.02 0.15 9 5 45 predator risk 0.05 0 0.01 9 5 45 Prey (11) or Resource (111) Feeding rate (11) or Survival (111) 1/-1 0 1 0 1 1 Got90-01 to Got90-06 cover plot 500 with 100 Figure 4 Gotceitas 1990 Oecologia 83: 346-351 Got90-03 freshwater lake cattle tank/ wading pool lab 0 9 5 11 Actinopterygii Micropterus salmoides, largemouth bass Actinopterygii Lepomis macrochirus, bluegill Insecta Ischnura sp., damselfly Feeding rate (11) or Survival (111) prey foraging rate on resource (# of captures/second) no predator 0.21 0.01 0.09 9 5 45 predator risk 0.01 0 0.02 9 5 45 Prey (11) or Resource (111) Feeding rate (11) or Survival (111) 1/-1 0 1 0 1 1 Got90-01 to Got90-06 cover plot 250 with 500 Figure 4 Gotceitas 1990 Oecologia 83: 346-351 Got90-04 freshwater lake cattle tank/ wading pool lab 0 9 5 11 Actinopterygii Micropterus salmoides, largemouth bass Actinopterygii Lepomis macrochirus, bluegill Insecta Ischnura sp., damselfly Feeding rate (11) or Survival (111) prey foraging rate on resource (# of captures/second) no predator 0.15 0.02 0.14 9 5 45 predator risk 0.04 0 0.02 9 5 45 Prey (11) or Resource (111) Feeding rate (11) or Survival (111) 1/-1 0 1 0 1 1 Got90-01 to Got90-06 cover plot 500 with 250 Figure 4 Gotceitas 1990 Oecologia 83: 346-351 Got90-05 freshwater lake cattle tank/ wading pool lab 0 9 5 11 Actinopterygii Micropterus salmoides, largemouth bass Actinopterygii Lepomis macrochirus, bluegill Insecta Ischnura sp., damselfly Feeding rate (11) or Survival (111) prey foraging rate on resource (# of captures/second) no predator 0.3 0.02 0.13 9 5 45 predator risk 0.02 0 0.02 9 5 45 Prey (11) or Resource (111) Feeding rate (11) or Survival (111) 1/-1 0 1 0 1 1 Got90-01 to Got90-06 cover plot 100 with 250 Figure 4 Gotceitas 1990 Oecologia 83: 346-351 Got90-06 freshwater lake cattle tank/ wading pool lab 0 9 5 11 Actinopterygii Micropterus salmoides, largemouth bass Actinopterygii Lepomis macrochirus, bluegill Insecta Ischnura sp., damselfly Feeding rate (11) or Survival (111) prey foraging rate on resource (# of captures/second) no predator 0.2 0.01 0.08 9 5 45 predator risk 0.02 0 0.03 9 5 45 Prey (11) or Resource (111) Feeding rate (11) or Survival (111) 1/-1 0 1 0 1 1 Got90-01 to Got90-06 cover plot 250 with 100 Table 1 Grabowski 2004 Ecology 85(4): 995-1004 Gra04-01 marine reef cattle tank/ wading pool lab 6 5 40 111 Actinopterygii Opsanus tau, oyster toadfish Malacostraca Panopeus herbstii, mud crab Bivalvia Crassostrea virginica, oyster Survival % oyster mortality/day mud crab feeding rate in absence of toadfish 0.74 0.07 0.99 5 40 200 Percent reduction in oyster mortality due to direct removal of mud crabs (so, in this case, 0.74*.044 (the value from toadfish effect 1 column) = .03256 0.03 0.01 0.17 5 40 200 Percent reduction in oyster mortality due to mud crab behavioral reductions in feeding (so, in this case, 0.74*.956 (the value from toadfish effect 2 column) = .7074 0.71 0.01 0.17 5 40 200 Resource Survival -1 1 1 0 2 2 Gra04-02 Simple habitat Table 1 Grabowski 2004 Ecology 85(4): 995-1004 Gra04-02 marine reef cattle tank/ wading pool lab 6 5 40 111 Actinopterygii Opsanus tau, oyster toadfish Malacostraca Panopeus herbstii, mud crab Bivalvia Crassostrea virginica, oyster Survival % oyster mortality/day mud crab feeding rate in absence of toadfish 0.46 0.08 1.13 5 40 200 Percent reduction in oyster mortality due to direct removal of mud crabs (so, in this case, 0.46*.018 (the value from toadfish effect 1 column) = 0.00828 0.01 0 0.05 5 40 200 Percent reduction in oyster mortality due to mud crab behavioral reductions in feeding (so, in this case, 0.46*.982 (the value from toadfish effect 2 column) = 0.45172 0.45 0 0.05 5 40 200 Resource Survival -1 1 1 0 2 2 Gra04-01 complex habitat Table 1 Grabowski & Kimbro 2005 Ecology 86(5): 1312-1319 Gra05-01 marine reef cattle tank/ wading pool lab 6 6 40 111 Actinopterygii Opsanus tau, oyster toadfish Malacostraca Panopeus herbstii, mud crab Bivalvia Mercenaria mercenaria, clam Survival % clam mortality/day mud crab feeding rate in absence of toadfish 4.27 0.49 7.59 6 40 240 Percent reduction in clam mortality due to direct removal of mud crabs (so, in this case, 4.27*.04 (the value from toadfish effect 1 column) = 0.1708 0.17 0.04 0.66 6 40 240 Percent reduction in clam mortality due to mud crab behavioral reductions in feeding (so, in this case, 4.27*.96 (the value from toadfish effect 2 column) = 4.0992 4.1 0.04 0.66 6 40 240 Resource Survival -1 1 1 0 2 2 none Figure 3c Grabowski & Kimbro 2005 Ecology 86(5): 1312-1319 Gra05-02 marine reef cattle tank/ wading pool lab 0.25 4 40 11 Actinopterygii Opsanus tau, oyster toadfish Malacostraca Panopeus herbstii, mud crab Habitat use % exposed toadfish absent 27.63 2.63 33.29 4 40 160 Toadfish present 9.21 2.63 33.29 4 40 160 Prey Habitat use 1 0 1 0 1 1 none Fig 2 Griffin & Thaler 2006 Ecology Letters 9: 338-346 Gri05-01 terrestrial agricultural cage lab 3 30 3 111 Insecta Podisus maculiventris, stinkbug Insecta Manduca sexta, tobacco hornworm Autotroph Solanum ptychanthum, Eastern black nightshade Plant damage % leaf area remaining per plant relative to plant with no herbivores on it (see notes for full explanation of how this was calculated) no predator present 84.38 1.88 17.82 30 3 90 herbivores removed by hand at rate = to that of predator removal 93.31 0.5 4.75 30 3 90 freely roaming predator unable to kill prey 96.4 0.89 8.47 30 3 90 lethal predator (able to kill and scare prey) 95.77 0.76 7.22 30 3 90 Resource Plant damage 1 1 1 1 3 2 none to get % leaf area remaining per plant relative to plant with no herbivores on it, subtract % leaf area damage with no herbivores (0.986) from the percent leaf damage in the various treatments. For each treatment, this gives % leaf area damage due to the treatment alone. Then subtract this number from 100 to get % leaf area remaining per plant relative to plant with no herbivores on it. The best paper of it's kind I've seen so far; make sure is in press before using this data in a published MS! Figure 4 Grill & Moore 1998 Oecologia 114: 274-282 Gri98-01 terrestrial field cage lab until development complete (18-24 days) 50 1 11 simulated simulated Insecta Harmonia axyridis, aposematic ladybird beetle Growth pronotum width of adults (mm) no predator 2.85 0.01 0.09 50 1 50 predator pokes larvae once 2.76 0.01 0.09 50 1 50 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Gri98-01 to Gri98-02 Experiment 1 Figure 4 Grill & Moore 1998 Oecologia 114: 274-282 Gri98-02 terrestrial field cage lab until development complete (18-24 days) 50 1 11 simulated simulated Insecta Harmonia axyridis, aposematic ladybird beetle Growth pronotum width of adults (mm) no predator 2.85 0.01 0.09 50 1 50 predator pokes larvae 2+ times 2.75 0.02 0.11 50 1 50 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Gri98-01 to Gri98-02 Experiment 1 Figure 4 Grill & Moore 1998 Oecologia 114: 274-282 Gri98-03 terrestrial field cage lab until development complete (18-24 days) 50 1 11 simulated simulated Insecta Harmonia axyridis, aposematic ladybird beetle Growth pronotum width of adults (mm) no predator 2.64 0.01 0.07 50 1 50 predator pokes larvae 2+ times 2.62 0.01 0.05 50 1 50 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 none Experiment 2 Figures 6, 7 Hansson 2000 Ecology 81:842-851 Han00-01 freshwater lake aquarium lab 5 4 1 no # individuals given. Used one ind/rep as most conservative estimate 11 Branchiopoda Daphnia magna Autotroph Anabaena sp., algae Density individuals per sq meter from benthos per day no daphnia 20202.02 0 0 4 1 4 dead daphnia 49543.05 0 0 4 1 4 daphnia 180856.18 0 0 4 1 4 Prey (autotroph) Density 1 0 1 1 2 1 Han00-01 to Han00-04 and Han00-13 Day 217 (1997) Figures 6, 7 Hansson 2000 Ecology 81:842-851 Han00-02 freshwater lake aquarium lab 5 4 1 no # individuals given. Used one ind/rep as most conservative estimate 11 Branchiopoda Daphnia magna Autotroph Anabaena sp., algae Density individuals per sq meter from benthos per day no daphnia 145743.15 54353.05 108706.11 4 1 4 dead daphnia 80808.08 0 0 4 1 4 daphnia 291967.29 58682.06 117364.12 4 1 4 Prey (autotroph) Density 1 0 1 1 2 1 Han00-01 to Han00-04 and Han00-13 Day 224 (1997) Figures 6, 7 Hansson 2000 Ecology 81:842-851 Han00-03 freshwater lake aquarium lab 5 4 1 no # individuals given. Used one ind/rep as most conservative estimate 11 Branchiopoda Daphnia magna Autotroph Anabaena sp., algae Density individuals per sq meter from benthos per day no daphnia 189033.19 46657.05 93314.09 4 1 4 dead daphnia 99567.1 0 0 4 1 4 daphnia 226070.23 99567.1 199134.2 4 1 4 Prey (autotroph) Density 1 0 1 1 2 1 Han00-01 to Han00-04 and Han00-13 Day 231 (1997) Figures 6, 7 Hansson 2000 Ecology 81:842-851 Han00-04 freshwater lake aquarium lab 5 4 1 no # individuals given. Used one ind/rep as most conservative estimate 11 Branchiopoda Daphnia magna Autotroph Anabaena sp., algae Density individuals per sq meter from benthos per day no daphnia 251082.25 85137.09 170274.17 4 1 4 dead daphnia 247234.25 70707.07 141414.14 4 1 4 daphnia 1639249.64 257816.26 515632.52 4 1 4 Prey (autotroph) Density 1 0 1 1 2 1 Han00-01 to Han00-04 and Han00-13 Day 245 (1997) Figures 6, 7 Hansson 2000 Ecology 81:842-851 Han00-05 freshwater lake aquarium lab 5 4 1 no # individuals given. Used one ind/rep as most conservative estimate 11 Branchiopoda Daphnia magna Autotroph Gonyostomum sp., algae Density individuals per sq meter from benthos per day no daphnia 21101.69 10223.97 20447.94 4 1 4 dead daphnia 7881.36 3069.01 6138.01 4 1 4 daphnia 1507.26 1035.11 2070.22 4 1 4 Prey (autotroph) Density 1 0 1 1 2 1 Han00-05 to Han00-10 and Han00-14 Day 191 (1996) Figures 6, 7 Hansson 2000 Ecology 81:842-851 Han00-06 freshwater lake aquarium lab 5 4 1 no # individuals given. Used one ind/rep as most conservative estimate 11 Branchiopoda Daphnia magna Autotroph Gonyostomum sp., algae Density individuals per sq meter from benthos per day no daphnia 7663.44 2996.37 5992.74 4 1 4 dead daphnia 16035.11 6446.73 12893.46 4 1 4 daphnia 5012.11 1325.67 2651.33 4 1 4 Prey (autotroph) Density 1 0 1 1 2 1 Han00-05 to Han00-10 and Han00-14 Day 205 (1996) Figures 6, 7 Hansson 2000 Ecology 81:842-851 Han00-07 freshwater lake aquarium lab 5 4 1 no # individuals given. Used one ind/rep as most conservative estimate 11 Branchiopoda Daphnia magna Autotroph Gonyostomum sp., algae Density individuals per sq meter from benthos per day no daphnia 3886.2 1543.58 3087.17 4 1 4 dead daphnia 3868.04 1434.62 2869.25 4 1 4 daphnia 1906.78 1343.83 2687.65 4 1 4 Prey (autotroph) Density 1 0 1 1 2 1 Han00-05 to Han00-10 and Han00-14 Day 231 (1996) Figures 6, 7 Hansson 2000 Ecology 81:842-851 Han00-08 freshwater lake aquarium lab 5 4 1 no # individuals given. Used one ind/rep as most conservative estimate 11 Branchiopoda Daphnia magna Autotroph Gonyostomum sp., algae Density individuals per sq meter from benthos per day no daphnia 22717.92 10986.68 21973.37 4 1 4 dead daphnia 8734.87 5121.07 10242.13 4 1 4 daphnia 7917.68 3286.92 6573.85 4 1 4 Prey (autotroph) Density 1 0 1 1 2 1 Han00-05 to Han00-10 and Han00-14 Day 247 (1996) Figures 6, 7 Hansson 2000 Ecology 81:842-851 Han00-09 freshwater lake aquarium lab 5 4 1 no # individuals given. Used one ind/rep as most conservative estimate 11 Branchiopoda Daphnia magna Autotroph Gonyostomum sp., algae Density individuals per sq meter from benthos per day no daphnia 43728.81 8934.62 17869.25 4 1 4 dead daphnia 12457.63 4122.28 8244.55 4 1 4 daphnia 4776.03 2306.3 4612.59 4 1 4 Prey (autotroph) Density 1 0 1 1 2 1 Han00-05 to Han00-10 and Han00-14 Day 261 (1996) Figures 6, 7 Hansson 2000 Ecology 81:842-851 Han00-10 freshwater lake aquarium lab 5 4 1 no # individuals given. Used one ind/rep as most conservative estimate 11 Branchiopoda Daphnia magna Autotroph Gonyostomum sp., algae Density individuals per sq meter from benthos per day no daphnia 7554.48 2469.73 4939.47 4 1 4 dead daphnia 1779.66 181.6 363.2 4 1 4 daphnia 1779.66 181.6 363.2 4 1 4 Prey (autotroph) Density 1 0 1 1 2 1 Han00-05 to Han00-10 and Han00-14 Day 275 (1996) Figures 6, 7 Hansson 2000 Ecology 81:842-851 Han00-11 freshwater lake aquarium lab 5 4 1 no # individuals given. Used one ind/rep as most conservative estimate 11 Branchiopoda Daphnia magna Autotroph Gonyostomum sp., algae Density individuals per sq meter from benthos per day no daphnia 6108297.15 2228051.13 4456102.27 4 1 4 dead daphnia 7250964.79 2740593.34 5481186.69 4 1 4 daphnia 105523.4 0 0 4 1 4 Prey (autotroph) Density 1 0 1 1 2 1 Han00-11 to Han00-12 and Han00-15 Day 210 (1997) Figures 6, 7 Hansson 2000 Ecology 81:842-851 Han00-12 freshwater lake aquarium lab 5 4 1 no # individuals given. Used one ind/rep as most conservative estimate 11 Branchiopoda Daphnia magna Autotroph Gonyostomum sp., algae Density individuals per sq meter from benthos per day no daphnia 1721538.83 919561.02 1839122.05 4 1 4 dead daphnia 817052.58 0 0 4 1 4 daphnia 108538.35 0 0 4 1 4 Prey (autotroph) Density 1 0 1 1 2 1 Han00-11 to Han00-12 and Han00-15 Day 217 (1997) Figures 6, 7 Hansson 2000 Ecology 81:842-851 Han00-13 freshwater lake aquarium lab 5 4 1 no # individuals given. Used one ind/rep as most conservative estimate 11 Branchiopoda Daphnia magna Autotroph Anabaena sp., algae Density individuals per sq meter from benthos per day no daphnia 81770.08 36556.04 73112.07 4 1 4 dead daphnia 0 0 0 4 1 4 daphnia 164502.16 0 0 4 1 4 Prey (autotroph) Density 1 0 1 1 2 1 Han00-01 to Han00-04 and Han00-13 Day 259 (1997) Figures 6, 7 Hansson 2000 Ecology 81:842-851 Han00-14 freshwater lake aquarium lab 5 4 1 no # individuals given. Used one ind/rep as most conservative estimate 11 Branchiopoda Daphnia magna Autotroph Gonyostomum sp., algae Density individuals per sq meter from benthos per day no daphnia 21573.85 10895.88 21791.77 4 1 4 dead daphnia 5702.18 2851.09 5702.18 4 1 4 daphnia 0 0 0 4 1 4 Prey (autotroph) Density 1 0 1 1 2 1 Han00-05 to Han00-10 and Han00-14 Day 218 (1996) Figures 6, 7 Hansson 2000 Ecology 81:842-851 Han00-15 freshwater lake aquarium lab 5 4 1 no # individuals given. Used one ind/rep as most conservative estimate 11 Branchiopoda Daphnia magna Autotroph Gonyostomum sp., algae Density individuals per sq meter from benthos per day no daphnia 2436082.97 1733598.65 3467197.3 4 1 4 dead daphnia 1567776.17 970815.24 1941630.49 4 1 4 daphnia 0 0 0 4 1 4 Prey (autotroph) Density 1 0 1 1 2 1 Han00-11 to Han00-12 and Han00-15 Day 224 (1997) Figures 6, 7 Hansson 2000 Ecology 81:842-851 Han00-16 freshwater lake aquarium lab 5 4 1 no # individuals given. Used one ind/rep as most conservative estimate 11 Branchiopoda Daphnia magna Autotroph Peridinium sp., algae Density individuals per sq meter from benthos per day no daphnia 8138.53 2126.02 4252.04 4 1 4 dead daphnia 529.1 0 0 4 1 4 daphnia 0 0 0 4 1 4 Prey (autotroph) Density 1 0 1 1 2 1 Han00-16 to Han00-19 Day 185 (1997) Figures 6, 7 Hansson 2000 Ecology 81:842-851 Han00-17 freshwater lake aquarium lab 5 4 1 no # individuals given. Used one ind/rep as most conservative estimate 11 Branchiopoda Daphnia magna Autotroph Peridinium sp., algae Density individuals per sq meter from benthos per day no daphnia 15420.88 6378.07 12756.13 4 1 4 dead daphnia 4819.62 3915.34 7830.69 4 1 4 daphnia 0 0 0 4 1 4 Prey (autotroph) Density 1 0 1 1 2 1 Han00-16 to Han00-19 Day 196 (1997) Figures 6, 7 Hansson 2000 Ecology 81:842-851 Han00-18 freshwater lake aquarium lab 5 4 1 no # individuals given. Used one ind/rep as most conservative estimate 11 Branchiopoda Daphnia magna Autotroph Peridinium sp., algae Density individuals per sq meter from benthos per day no daphnia 4598.36 4454.06 8908.13 4 1 4 dead daphnia 17671.96 17546.9 35093.8 4 1 4 daphnia 0 0 0 4 1 4 Prey (autotroph) Density 1 0 1 1 2 1 Han00-16 to Han00-19 Day 210 (1997) Figures 6, 7 Hansson 2000 Ecology 81:842-851 Han00-19 freshwater lake aquarium lab 5 4 1 no # individuals given. Used one ind/rep as most conservative estimate 11 Branchiopoda Daphnia magna Autotroph Peridinium sp., algae Density individuals per sq meter from benthos per day no daphnia 2135.64 2135.64 4271.28 4 1 4 dead daphnia 2135.64 2135.64 4271.28 4 1 4 daphnia 0 0 0 4 1 4 Prey (autotroph) Density 1 0 1 1 2 1 Han00-16 to Han00-19 Day 259 (1997) Table 1 Hanazato & Dodson 1992 J Plankton Res 14(12): 1743-1755 Han92-01 freshwater pond aquarium lab until instar complete varies 1 11 Insecta Chaoborus americanus, phantom midge Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Growth length at first reproduction (mm) no predator cues 1.67 0.04 0.12 10 1 10 insect chemical cues present 1.56 0.01 0.05 12 1 12 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Han92-01 through Han92-03 only zero-Carbaryl trt Table 1 Hanazato & Dodson 1992 J Plankton Res 14(12): 1743-1755 Han92-02 freshwater pond aquarium lab until instar complete varies 1 11 Insecta Chaoborus americanus, phantom midge Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Development Time to reproduction (days) no predator cues 5.2 0.13 0.41 10 1 10 insect chemical cues present 6.3 0.13 0.45 12 1 12 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Han92-01 through Han92-03 only zero-Carbaryl trt Table 1 Hanazato & Dodson 1992 J Plankton Res 14(12): 1743-1755 Han92-03 freshwater pond aquarium lab until instar complete varies 1 11 Insecta Chaoborus americanus, phantom midge Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Fecundity # eggs in first clutch no predator cues 4 0.47 1.49 10 1 10 insect chemical cues present 2.5 0.21 0.7 11 1 11 Prey Fecundity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Han92-01 through Han92-03 only zero-Carbaryl trt Table 1 Hanazato 1995 Jpn J Limnol 56(1): 27-32 Han95-01 freshwater lake aquarium lab until instar complete 10 1 11 Actinopterygii Lepomis macrochirus, bluegill Branchiopoda Daphnia galeata Growth length at first reproduction (mm) no predator cues 0.95 0.02 0.05 10 1 10 fish chemical cues present 0.94 0.02 0.05 10 1 10 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Han95-01 through Han95-03 Table 1 Hanazato 1995 Jpn J Limnol 56(1): 27-32 Han95-02 freshwater lake aquarium lab until instar complete 10 1 11 Actinopterygii Lepomis macrochirus, bluegill Branchiopoda Daphnia galeata Development Time to reproduction (days) no predator cues 4 0 0 10 1 10 fish chemical cues present 4 0 0 10 1 10 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Han95-01 through Han95-03 Table 1 Hanazato 1995 Jpn J Limnol 56(1): 27-32 Han95-03 freshwater lake aquarium lab until instar complete 10 1 11 Actinopterygii Lepomis macrochirus, bluegill Branchiopoda Daphnia galeata Fecundity # eggs in first clutch no predator cues 5.57 0.2 0.63 10 1 10 fish chemical cues present 6.88 0.23 0.73 10 1 10 Prey Fecundity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Han95-01 through Han95-03 Table 1 Hanazato 1995 Jpn J Limnol 56(1): 27-32 Han95-04 freshwater lake aquarium lab until instar complete 10 1 11 Actinopterygii Lepomis macrochirus, bluegill Branchiopoda Daphnia ambigua Growth length at first reproduction (mm) no predator cues 0.65 0.01 0.03 10 1 10 fish chemical cues present 0.6 0.02 0.05 10 1 10 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Han95-04 through Han95-06 Table 1 Hanazato 1995 Jpn J Limnol 56(1): 27-32 Han95-05 freshwater lake aquarium lab until instar complete 10 1 11 Actinopterygii Lepomis macrochirus, bluegill Branchiopoda Daphnia ambigua Development Time to reproduction (days) no predator cues 3.3 0.15 0.47 10 1 10 fish chemical cues present 3.11 0.11 0.35 10 1 10 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Han95-04 through Han95-06 Table 1 Hanazato 1995 Jpn J Limnol 56(1): 27-32 Han95-06 freshwater lake aquarium lab until instar complete 10 1 11 Actinopterygii Lepomis macrochirus, bluegill Branchiopoda Daphnia ambigua Fecundity # eggs in first clutch no predator cues 2.7 0.3 0.95 10 1 10 fish chemical cues present 3.11 0.35 1.11 10 1 10 Prey Fecundity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Han95-04 through Han95-06 Table 3 Harvey 1991 Oecologia 87:29-36 Har91-01 freshwater stream natural unit (natural barriers in stream only) field 1 2 100 111 Actinopterygii Micropterus salmoides, largemouth bass Actinopterygii Lepomis sp., sunfish (adult) Actinopterygii Lepomis sp, sunfish (juvenile) Survival # of 100 larvae added at outset of experiment surviving at the end of 24 hours No bass, small fish present 7.5 1.5 21.21 2 100 200 bass present so small fish reduce predation on larvae 61 10 141.42 2 100 200 Resource Survival 1 0 1 0 1 2 none large, shallow pool #3 Table 3 Harvey 1991 Oecologia 87:29-36 Har91-02 freshwater stream natural unit (natural barriers in stream only) field 1 2 100 111 Actinopterygii Micropterus salmoides, largemouth bass Actinopterygii Lepomis sp., sunfish (adult) Actinopterygii Lepomis sp, sunfish (juvenile) Survival # of 100 larvae added at outset of experiment surviving at the end of 24 hours No bass, small fish present 0 0 0 2 100 200 bass present so small fish reduce predation on larvae 60.5 22.5 318.2 2 100 200 Resource Survival 1 0 1 0 1 2 none large, shallow pool #6 Table 3 Harvey 1991 Oecologia 87:29-36 Har91-03 freshwater stream natural unit (natural barriers in stream only) field 1 2 100 111 Actinopterygii Micropterus salmoides, largemouth bass Actinopterygii Lepomis sp., sunfish (adult) Actinopterygii Lepomis sp, sunfish (juvenile) Survival # of 100 larvae added at outset of experiment surviving at the end of 24 hours No bass, small fish present 0 0 0 2 100 200 bass present so small fish reduce predation on larvae 62 16 226.27 2 100 200 Resource Survival 1 0 1 0 1 2 none small deep pool #7 Table 3 Harvey 1991 Oecologia 87:29-36 Har91-04 freshwater stream natural unit (natural barriers in stream only) field 1 2 100 111 Actinopterygii Micropterus salmoides, largemouth bass Actinopterygii Lepomis sp., sunfish (adult) Actinopterygii Lepomis sp, sunfish (juvenile) Survival # of 100 larvae added at outset of experiment surviving at the end of 24 hours No bass, small fish present 1.5 0.5 7.07 2 100 200 bass present so small fish reduce predation on larvae 70.5 6.5 91.92 2 100 200 Resource Survival 1 0 1 0 1 2 none small deep pool #9 Table 1 Havel & Dodson 1987 Hydrobiologia 150: 273-281 Hav87-01 freshwater pond aquarium lab until instar complete 7 10 11 Insecta Chaoborus americanus, phantom midge Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Development Time to reproduction (days) no predator cues 4.83 0.08 0.65 7 10 70 chemical cues from Chaoborus 5.02 0.09 0.72 7 10 70 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Hav87-01 through Hav87-03 Table 3 Havel & Dodson 1987 Hydrobiologia 150: 273-281 Hav87-02 freshwater pond aquarium lab until instar complete varies 5 11 Insecta Chaoborus americanus, phantom midge Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Growth length at first reproduction (mm) no predator cues 2 0.01 0.15 59 5 295 chemical cues from Chaoborus 1.95 0.01 0.23 61 5 305 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Hav87-01 through Hav87-03 Table 5 Havel & Dodson 1987 Hydrobiologia 150: 273-281 Hav87-03 freshwater pond aquarium lab until instar complete varies 5 11 Insecta Chaoborus americanus, phantom midge Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Fecundity # eggs in first clutch no predator cues 9.4 0.23 3.95 59 5 295 chemical cues from Chaoborus 8.7 0.2 3.49 61 5 305 Prey Fecundity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Hav87-01 through Hav87-03 Figure 5 Heads 1986 Ecol Ent 11: 369-377 Hea86-01 freshwater stream aquarium lab 0.21 9 20 111 Insecta Notonecta glauca, backswimmer Insecta Ischnura elegans, damselfly Branchiopoda Daphnia magna Feeding rate (11) or Survival (111) # Daphnia eaten by damselfly larvae no predator 4.2 0.83 11.14 9 20 180 predator risk 2.9 1.15 15.43 9 20 180 Prey (11) or Resource (111) Feeding rate (11) or Survival (111) 1/-1 0 1 0 1 2 none penultimate instar in light Figure 5 Heads 1986 Ecol Ent 11: 369-377 Hea86-02 freshwater stream aquarium lab 0.21 10 20 111 Insecta Notonecta glauca, backswimmer Insecta Ischnura elegans, damselfly Branchiopoda Daphnia magna Feeding rate (11) or Survival (111) # Daphnia eaten by damselfly larvae no predator 7.5 2.72 38.47 10 20 200 predator risk 4.6 1.77 25.03 10 20 200 Prey (11) or Resource (111) Feeding rate (11) or Survival (111) 1/-1 0 1 0 1 2 none final instar in light Figure 5 Heads 1986 Ecol Ent 11: 369-377 Hea86-03 freshwater stream aquarium lab 0.21 varies 20 111 Insecta Notonecta glauca, backswimmer Insecta Ischnura elegans, damselfly Branchiopoda Daphnia magna Feeding rate (11) or Survival (111) # Daphnia eaten by damselfly larvae no predator 10.2 1.71 22.94 9 20 180 predator risk 9 2.46 34.79 10 20 200 Prey (11) or Resource (111) Feeding rate (11) or Survival (111) 1/-1 0 1 0 1 2 none final instar in dark Figure 4 Heads 1986 Ecol Ent 11: 369-377 Hea86-04 freshwater stream aquarium lab 0.21 8 20 111 Insecta Notonecta glauca, backswimmer Insecta Ischnura elegans, damselfly Branchiopoda Daphnia magna Feeding rate (11) or Survival (111) # Daphnia eaten by damselfly larvae no predator 8.29 4.76 60.15 8 20 160 predator risk 6.77 2.39 30.28 8 20 160 Prey (11) or Resource (111) Feeding rate (11) or Survival (111) 1/-1 0 1 0 1 2 none penultimate instar Figure 4 Heads 1986 Ecol Ent 11: 369-377 Hea86-05 freshwater stream aquarium lab 0.21 8 20 111 Insecta Notonecta glauca, backswimmer Insecta Ischnura elegans, damselfly Branchiopoda Daphnia magna Feeding rate (11) or Survival (111) # Daphnia eaten by damselfly larvae no predator 11.32 2.62 33.11 8 20 160 predator risk 9.65 3.11 39.29 8 20 160 Prey (11) or Resource (111) Feeding rate (11) or Survival (111) 1/-1 0 1 0 1 2 none final instar Figure 4 Heads 1986 Ecol Ent 11: 369-377 Hea86-06 freshwater stream aquarium lab 0.21 7 20 111 Insecta Corixa punctata, water boatman Insecta Ischnura elegans, damselfly Branchiopoda Daphnia magna Feeding rate (11) or Survival (111) # Daphnia eaten by damselfly larvae no predator 8.29 4.76 56.26 7 20 140 predator risk 7.63 2.7 31.96 7 20 140 Prey (11) or Resource (111) Feeding rate (11) or Survival (111) 1/-1 0 1 0 1 2 none penultimate instar Figure 4 Heads 1986 Ecol Ent 11: 369-377 Hea86-07 freshwater stream aquarium lab 0.21 7 20 111 Insecta Corixa punctata, water boatman Insecta Ischnura elegans, damselfly Branchiopoda Daphnia magna Feeding rate (11) or Survival (111) # Daphnia eaten by damselfly larvae no predator 11.32 2.62 30.97 7 20 140 predator risk 10.72 3.05 36.07 7 20 140 Prey (11) or Resource (111) Feeding rate (11) or Survival (111) 1/-1 0 1 0 1 2 none final instar Figure 4 Heads 1986 Ecol Ent 11: 369-377 Hea86-08 freshwater stream aquarium lab 0.21 7 20 111 Actinopterygii Leuciscus cephalus, chub Insecta Ischnura elegans, damselfly Branchiopoda Daphnia magna Feeding rate (11) or Survival (111) # Daphnia eaten by damselfly larvae no predator 8.29 4.76 56.26 7 20 140 predator risk 6.41 3.56 42.15 7 20 140 Prey (11) or Resource (111) Feeding rate (11) or Survival (111) 1/-1 0 1 0 1 2 none penultimate instar Figure 4 Heads 1986 Ecol Ent 11: 369-377 Hea86-09 freshwater stream aquarium lab 0.21 7 20 111 Actinopterygii Leuciscus cephalus, chub Insecta Ischnura elegans, damselfly Branchiopoda Daphnia magna Feeding rate (11) or Survival (111) # Daphnia eaten by damselfly larvae no predator 11.32 2.62 30.97 7 20 140 predator risk 9.99 3.06 36.19 7 20 140 Prey (11) or Resource (111) Feeding rate (11) or Survival (111) 1/-1 0 1 0 1 2 none final instar Figure 1a Hechtel & Juliano 1997 Ecology 78(3): 838-851 Hec97-01 freshwater tree holes cage lab until pupation 6 75 11 Insecta Toxorhynchites rutilus, predatory mosquito Insecta Aedes triseriatus, tree-hole mosquito Growth Mass at pupation for females (mg) no predators 0.9 0.01 0.18 6 75 450 with predator(s), feeding in presence of larvae 0.89 0.01 0.22 6 75 450 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Hec97-01, 02, 09, 10 Figure 1a Hechtel & Juliano 1997 Ecology 78(3): 838-851 Hec97-02 freshwater tree holes cage lab until pupation 6 75 11 Insecta Toxorhynchites rutilus, predatory mosquito Insecta Aedes triseriatus, tree-hole mosquito Growth Mass at pupation for females (mg) no predators 0.9 0.01 0.18 6 75 450 with predator(s), not feeding in presence of larvae 0.91 0.01 0.25 6 75 450 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Hec97-01, 02, 09, 10 Figure 1a Hechtel & Juliano 1997 Ecology 78(3): 838-851 Hec97-03 freshwater tree holes cage lab until pupation 6 75 11 Insecta Toxorhynchites rutilus, predatory mosquito Insecta Aedes triseriatus, tree-hole mosquito Growth Mass at pupation for females (mg) no predators 0.9 0.01 0.18 6 75 450 with predator(s), feeding in presence of larvae 0.88 0.01 0.29 6 75 450 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Hec97-03, 04, 11, 12 Figure 1a Hechtel & Juliano 1997 Ecology 78(3): 838-851 Hec97-04 freshwater tree holes cage lab until pupation 6 75 11 Insecta Toxorhynchites rutilus, predatory mosquito Insecta Aedes triseriatus, tree-hole mosquito Growth Mass at pupation for females (mg) no predators 0.9 0.01 0.18 6 75 450 with predator(s), not feeding in presence of larvae 0.9 0.01 0.3 6 75 450 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Hec97-03, 04, 11, 12 Figure 1a Hechtel & Juliano 1997 Ecology 78(3): 838-851 Hec97-05 freshwater tree holes cage lab until pupation 6 75 11 Insecta Toxorhynchites rutilus, predatory mosquito Insecta Aedes triseriatus, tree-hole mosquito Growth Mass at pupation for females (mg) no predators 0.9 0.01 0.18 6 75 450 with predator(s) - feeding in presence of larvae 0.88 0.01 0.22 6 75 450 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Hec97-05, 06, 13, 14, 25, 26, 29, 30 Figure 1a Hechtel & Juliano 1997 Ecology 78(3): 838-851 Hec97-06 freshwater tree holes cage lab until pupation 6 75 11 Insecta Toxorhynchites rutilus, predatory mosquito Insecta Aedes triseriatus, tree-hole mosquito Growth Mass at pupation for females (mg) no predators 0.9 0.01 0.18 6 75 450 with predator(s), not feeding in presence of larvae 0.89 0.01 0.24 6 75 450 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Hec97-05, 06, 13, 14, 25, 26, 29, 30 Figure 1a Hechtel & Juliano 1997 Ecology 78(3): 838-851 Hec97-07 freshwater tree holes cage lab until pupation 6 75 11 Insecta Toxorhynchites rutilus, predatory mosquito Insecta Aedes triseriatus, tree-hole mosquito Growth Mass at pupation for females (mg) no predators 0.9 0.01 0.18 6 75 450 with predator(s) - feeding in presence of larvae 0.91 0.01 0.29 6 75 450 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Hec97-07, 08, 15, 16, 27, 28, 31, 32 Figure 1a Hechtel & Juliano 1997 Ecology 78(3): 838-851 Hec97-08 freshwater tree holes cage lab until pupation 6 75 11 Insecta Toxorhynchites rutilus, predatory mosquito Insecta Aedes triseriatus, tree-hole mosquito Growth Mass at pupation for females (mg) no predators 0.9 0.01 0.18 6 75 450 with predator(s), not feeding in presence of larvae 0.86 0.01 0.3 6 75 450 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Hec97-07, 08, 15, 16, 27, 28, 31, 32 Figure 1b Hechtel & Juliano 1997 Ecology 78(3): 838-851 Hec97-09 freshwater tree holes cage lab until pupation 6 75 11 Insecta Toxorhynchites rutilus, predatory mosquito Insecta Aedes triseriatus, tree-hole mosquito Development time to pupation for females (days) no predators 16.43 0.36 7.74 6 75 450 with predator(s) - feeding in presence of larvae 16.01 0.41 8.72 6 75 450 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Hec97-01, 02, 09, 10 Figure 1b Hechtel & Juliano 1997 Ecology 78(3): 838-851 Hec97-10 freshwater tree holes cage lab until pupation 6 75 11 Insecta Toxorhynchites rutilus, predatory mosquito Insecta Aedes triseriatus, tree-hole mosquito Development time to pupation for females (days) no predators 16.43 0.36 7.74 6 75 450 with predator(s), not feeding in presence of larvae 15.95 0.14 3.04 6 75 450 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Hec97-01, 02, 09, 10 Figure 1b Hechtel & Juliano 1997 Ecology 78(3): 838-851 Hec97-11 freshwater tree holes cage lab until pupation 6 75 11 Insecta Toxorhynchites rutilus, predatory mosquito Insecta Aedes triseriatus, tree-hole mosquito Development time to pupation for females (days) no predators 16.43 0.36 7.74 6 75 450 with predator(s) - feeding in presence of larvae 16.03 0.52 11.07 6 75 450 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Hec97-03, 04, 11, 12 Figure 1b Hechtel & Juliano 1997 Ecology 78(3): 838-851 Hec97-12 freshwater tree holes cage lab until pupation 6 75 11 Insecta Toxorhynchites rutilus, predatory mosquito Insecta Aedes triseriatus, tree-hole mosquito Development time to pupation for females (days) no predators 16.43 0.36 7.74 6 75 450 with predator(s), not feeding in presence of larvae 16.43 0.51 10.91 6 75 450 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Hec97-03, 04, 11, 12 Figure 1b Hechtel & Juliano 1997 Ecology 78(3): 838-851 Hec97-13 freshwater tree holes cage lab until pupation 6 75 11 Insecta Toxorhynchites rutilus, predatory mosquito Insecta Aedes triseriatus, tree-hole mosquito Development time to pupation for females (days) no predators 17.93 0.31 6.64 6 75 450 with predator(s) - feeding in presence of larvae 17.66 0.39 8.37 6 75 450 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Hec97-05, 06, 13, 14, 25, 26, 29, 30 Figure 1b Hechtel & Juliano 1997 Ecology 78(3): 838-851 Hec97-14 freshwater tree holes cage lab until pupation 6 75 11 Insecta Toxorhynchites rutilus, predatory mosquito Insecta Aedes triseriatus, tree-hole mosquito Development time to pupation for females (days) no predators 17.93 0.31 6.64 6 75 450 with predator(s), not feeding in presence of larvae 19.07 0.45 9.6 6 75 450 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Hec97-05, 06, 13, 14, 25, 26, 29, 30 Figure 1b Hechtel & Juliano 1997 Ecology 78(3): 838-851 Hec97-15 freshwater tree holes cage lab until pupation 6 75 11 Insecta Toxorhynchites rutilus, predatory mosquito Insecta Aedes triseriatus, tree-hole mosquito Development time to pupation for females (days) no predators 17.93 0.31 6.64 6 75 450 with predator(s) - feeding in presence of larvae 19.5 0.48 10.23 6 75 450 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Hec97-07, 08, 15, 16, 27, 28, 31, 32 Figure 1b Hechtel & Juliano 1997 Ecology 78(3): 838-851 Hec97-16 freshwater tree holes cage lab until pupation 6 75 11 Insecta Toxorhynchites rutilus, predatory mosquito Insecta Aedes triseriatus, tree-hole mosquito Development time to pupation for females (days) no predators 17.93 0.31 6.64 6 75 450 with predator(s), not feeding in presence of larvae 18.19 0.51 10.82 6 75 450 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Hec97-07, 08, 15, 16, 27, 28, 31, 32 Figure 2a Hechtel & Juliano 1997 Ecology 78(3): 838-851 Hec97-17 freshwater tree holes cage lab until pupation 8 75 11 Insecta Toxorhynchites rutilus, predatory mosquito Insecta Aedes triseriatus, tree-hole mosquito Growth Mass at pupation for females (mg) no predators 0.78 0.01 0.35 8 75 600 with predator(s) - feeding in presence of larvae 0.68 0.05 1.15 8 75 600 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Hec97-17, 18, 21, 22 Figure 2a Hechtel & Juliano 1997 Ecology 78(3): 838-851 Hec97-18 freshwater tree holes cage lab until pupation 8 75 11 Insecta Toxorhynchites rutilus, predatory mosquito Insecta Aedes triseriatus, tree-hole mosquito Growth Mass at pupation for females (mg) no predators 0.78 0.01 0.35 8 75 600 with predator(s), not feeding in presence of larvae 0.78 0.01 0.36 8 75 600 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Hec97-17, 18, 21, 22 Figure 2a Hechtel & Juliano 1997 Ecology 78(3): 838-851 Hec97-19 freshwater tree holes cage lab until pupation 8 75 11 Insecta Toxorhynchites rutilus, predatory mosquito Insecta Aedes triseriatus, tree-hole mosquito Growth Mass at pupation for females (mg) no predators 0.78 0.01 0.35 8 75 600 with predator(s) - feeding in presence of larvae 0.7 0.05 1.34 8 75 600 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Hec97-19, 20, 23, 24 Figure 2a Hechtel & Juliano 1997 Ecology 78(3): 838-851 Hec97-20 freshwater tree holes cage lab until pupation 8 75 11 Insecta Toxorhynchites rutilus, predatory mosquito Insecta Aedes triseriatus, tree-hole mosquito Growth Mass at pupation for females (mg) no predators 0.78 0.01 0.35 8 75 600 with predator(s), not feeding in presence of larvae 0.69 0.07 1.8 8 75 600 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Hec97-19, 20, 23, 24 Figure 2b Hechtel & Juliano 1997 Ecology 78(3): 838-851 Hec97-21 freshwater tree holes cage lab until pupation 8 75 11 Insecta Toxorhynchites rutilus, predatory mosquito Insecta Aedes triseriatus, tree-hole mosquito Development time to pupation for females (days) no predators 14.73 0.48 11.74 8 75 600 with predator(s) - feeding in presence of larvae 15.61 0.83 20.44 8 75 600 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Hec97-17, 18, 21, 22 Figure 2b Hechtel & Juliano 1997 Ecology 78(3): 838-851 Hec97-22 freshwater tree holes cage lab until pupation 8 75 11 Insecta Toxorhynchites rutilus, predatory mosquito Insecta Aedes triseriatus, tree-hole mosquito Development time to pupation for females (days) no predators 14.73 0.48 11.74 8 75 600 with predator(s), not feeding in presence of larvae 13.84 0.71 17.28 8 75 600 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Hec97-17, 18, 21, 22 Figure 2b Hechtel & Juliano 1997 Ecology 78(3): 838-851 Hec97-23 freshwater tree holes cage lab until pupation 8 75 11 Insecta Toxorhynchites rutilus, predatory mosquito Insecta Aedes triseriatus, tree-hole mosquito Development time to pupation for females (days) no predators 14.73 0.48 11.74 8 75 600 with predator(s) - feeding in presence of larvae 14.63 0.39 9.67 8 75 600 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Hec97-19, 20, 23, 24 Figure 2b Hechtel & Juliano 1997 Ecology 78(3): 838-851 Hec97-24 freshwater tree holes cage lab until pupation 8 75 11 Insecta Toxorhynchites rutilus, predatory mosquito Insecta Aedes triseriatus, tree-hole mosquito Development time to pupation for females (days) no predators 14.73 0.48 11.74 8 75 600 with predator(s), not feeding in presence of larvae 14.5 0.52 12.69 8 75 600 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Hec97-19, 20, 23, 24 Figure 2a Hechtel & Juliano 1997 Ecology 78(3): 838-851 Hec97-25 freshwater tree holes cage lab until pupation 8 75 11 Insecta Toxorhynchites rutilus, predatory mosquito Insecta Aedes triseriatus, tree-hole mosquito Growth Mass at pupation for females (mg) no predators 0.73 0.02 0.48 8 75 600 with predator(s) - feeding in presence of larvae 0.73 0.03 0.68 8 75 600 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Hec97-05, 06, 13, 14, 25, 26, 29, 30 Figure 2a Hechtel & Juliano 1997 Ecology 78(3): 838-851 Hec97-26 freshwater tree holes cage lab until pupation 8 75 11 Insecta Toxorhynchites rutilus, predatory mosquito Insecta Aedes triseriatus, tree-hole mosquito Growth Mass at pupation for females (mg) no predators 0.73 0.02 0.48 8 75 600 with predator(s), not feeding in presence of larvae 0.72 0.02 0.43 8 75 600 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Hec97-05, 06, 13, 14, 25, 26, 29, 30 Figure 2a Hechtel & Juliano 1997 Ecology 78(3): 838-851 Hec97-27 freshwater tree holes cage lab until pupation 8 75 11 Insecta Toxorhynchites rutilus, predatory mosquito Insecta Aedes triseriatus, tree-hole mosquito Growth Mass at pupation for females (mg) no predators 0.73 0.02 0.48 8 75 600 with predator(s) - feeding in presence of larvae 0.77 0.04 0.98 8 75 600 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Hec97-07, 08, 15, 16, 27, 28, 31, 32 Figure 2a Hechtel & Juliano 1997 Ecology 78(3): 838-851 Hec97-28 freshwater tree holes cage lab until pupation 8 75 11 Insecta Toxorhynchites rutilus, predatory mosquito Insecta Aedes triseriatus, tree-hole mosquito Growth Mass at pupation for females (mg) no predators 0.73 0.02 0.48 8 75 600 with predator(s), not feeding in presence of larvae 0.73 0.03 0.78 8 75 600 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Hec97-07, 08, 15, 16, 27, 28, 31, 32 Figure 2b Hechtel & Juliano 1997 Ecology 78(3): 838-851 Hec97-29 freshwater tree holes cage lab until pupation 8 75 11 Insecta Toxorhynchites rutilus, predatory mosquito Insecta Aedes triseriatus, tree-hole mosquito Development time to pupation for females (days) no predators 13.24 0.24 5.91 8 75 600 with predator(s) - feeding in presence of larvae 13.5 0.64 15.65 8 75 600 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Hec97-05, 06, 13, 14, 25, 26, 29, 30 Figure 2b Hechtel & Juliano 1997 Ecology 78(3): 838-851 Hec97-30 freshwater tree holes cage lab until pupation 8 75 11 Insecta Toxorhynchites rutilus, predatory mosquito Insecta Aedes triseriatus, tree-hole mosquito Development time to pupation for females (days) no predators 13.24 0.24 5.91 8 75 600 with predator(s), not feeding in presence of larvae 13.74 0.65 15.83 8 75 600 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Hec97-05, 06, 13, 14, 25, 26, 29, 30 Figure 2b Hechtel & Juliano 1997 Ecology 78(3): 838-851 Hec97-31 freshwater tree holes cage lab until pupation 8 75 11 Insecta Toxorhynchites rutilus, predatory mosquito Insecta Aedes triseriatus, tree-hole mosquito Development time to pupation for females (days) no predators 13.24 0.24 5.91 8 75 600 with predator(s) - feeding in presence of larvae 13.85 0.44 10.87 8 75 600 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Hec97-07, 08, 15, 16, 27, 28, 31, 32 Figure 2b Hechtel & Juliano 1997 Ecology 78(3): 838-851 Hec97-32 freshwater tree holes cage lab until pupation 8 75 11 Insecta Toxorhynchites rutilus, predatory mosquito Insecta Aedes triseriatus, tree-hole mosquito Development time to pupation for females (days) no predators 13.24 0.24 5.91 8 75 600 with predator(s), not feeding in presence of larvae 13.98 0.84 20.5 8 75 600 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Hec97-07, 08, 15, 16, 27, 28, 31, 32 Figure 5a Hechtel & Juliano 1997 Ecology 78(3): 838-851 Hec97-33 freshwater tree holes cage lab until pupation 20 75 11 Insecta Toxorhynchites rutilus, predatory mosquito Insecta Aedes triseriatus, tree-hole mosquito Growth Mass at pupation for females (mg) no predators 0.49 0.01 0.57 20 75 1500 with predator(s) - feeding in presence of larvae 0.49 0.01 0.54 20 75 1500 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Hec97-33, 37, 41 Experiment 5 Figure 5a Hechtel & Juliano 1997 Ecology 78(3): 838-851 Hec97-34 freshwater tree holes cage lab until pupation 20 75 11 Insecta Toxorhynchites rutilus, predatory mosquito Insecta Aedes triseriatus, tree-hole mosquito Growth Mass at pupation for females (mg) no predators 0.47 0.02 0.59 20 75 1500 with predator(s) - feeding in presence of larvae 0.46 0.01 0.51 20 75 1500 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Hec97-34, 38, 42 Experiment 5 Figure 5a Hechtel & Juliano 1997 Ecology 78(3): 838-851 Hec97-35 freshwater tree holes cage lab until pupation 20 75 11 Insecta Toxorhynchites rutilus, predatory mosquito Insecta Aedes triseriatus, tree-hole mosquito Growth Mass at pupation for females (mg) no predators 0.51 0.01 0.51 20 75 1500 with predator(s) - feeding in presence of larvae 0.5 0.01 0.56 20 75 1500 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Hec97-35, 39, 43 Experiment 5 Figure 5a Hechtel & Juliano 1997 Ecology 78(3): 838-851 Hec97-36 freshwater tree holes cage lab until pupation 20 75 11 Insecta Toxorhynchites rutilus, predatory mosquito Insecta Aedes triseriatus, tree-hole mosquito Growth Mass at pupation for females (mg) no predators 0.54 0.01 0.56 20 75 1500 with predator(s) - feeding in presence of larvae 0.52 0.01 0.57 20 75 1500 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Hec97-36, 40, 44 Experiment 5 Figure 5b Hechtel & Juliano 1997 Ecology 78(3): 838-851 Hec97-37 freshwater tree holes cage lab until pupation 20 75 11 Insecta Toxorhynchites rutilus, predatory mosquito Insecta Aedes triseriatus, tree-hole mosquito Development time to pupation for females (days) no predators 34.42 1.33 51.54 20 75 1500 with predator(s) - feeding in presence of larvae 37.75 1.27 49.21 20 75 1500 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Hec97-33, 37, 41 Experiment 5 Figure 5b Hechtel & Juliano 1997 Ecology 78(3): 838-851 Hec97-38 freshwater tree holes cage lab until pupation 20 75 11 Insecta Toxorhynchites rutilus, predatory mosquito Insecta Aedes triseriatus, tree-hole mosquito Development time to pupation for females (days) no predators 36.32 1.43 55.24 20 75 1500 with predator(s) - feeding in presence of larvae 39.44 1.26 48.72 20 75 1500 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Hec97-34, 38, 42 Experiment 5 Figure 5b Hechtel & Juliano 1997 Ecology 78(3): 838-851 Hec97-39 freshwater tree holes cage lab until pupation 20 75 11 Insecta Toxorhynchites rutilus, predatory mosquito Insecta Aedes triseriatus, tree-hole mosquito Development time to pupation for females (days) no predators 39.33 1.23 47.56 20 75 1500 with predator(s) - feeding in presence of larvae 40.58 1.38 53.49 20 75 1500 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Hec97-35, 39, 43 Experiment 5 Figure 5b Hechtel & Juliano 1997 Ecology 78(3): 838-851 Hec97-40 freshwater tree holes cage lab until pupation 20 75 11 Insecta Toxorhynchites rutilus, predatory mosquito Insecta Aedes triseriatus, tree-hole mosquito Development time to pupation for females (days) no predators 34.98 1.37 52.9 20 75 1500 with predator(s) - feeding in presence of larvae 37.17 1.39 53.78 20 75 1500 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Hec97-36, 40, 44 Experiment 5 Figure 6 Hechtel & Juliano 1997 Ecology 78(3): 838-851 Hec97-41 freshwater tree holes cage lab 0.006944 (done on day 9 of expt) 20 367 observations per replicate, 75 individuals per replicate 11 Insecta Toxorhynchites rutilus, predatory mosquito Insecta Aedes triseriatus, tree-hole mosquito Activity Proportion of time spent resting no predators 0.1 0.02 0.59 20 75 1500 with predator(s) - feeding in presence of larvae 0.1 0.01 0.43 20 75 1500 Prey Activity -1 0 1 0 1 1 Hec97-33, 37, 41 Experiment 5 Figure 6 Hechtel & Juliano 1997 Ecology 78(3): 838-851 Hec97-42 freshwater tree holes cage lab 0.006944 (done on day 9 of expt) 20 367 observations per replicate, 75 individuals per replicate 11 Insecta Toxorhynchites rutilus, predatory mosquito Insecta Aedes triseriatus, tree-hole mosquito Activity Proportion of time spent resting no predators 0.13 0.01 0.53 20 75 1500 with predator(s) - feeding in presence of larvae 0.13 0.01 0.42 20 75 1500 Prey Activity -1 0 1 0 1 1 Hec97-34, 38, 42 Experiment 5 Figure 6 Hechtel & Juliano 1997 Ecology 78(3): 838-851 Hec97-43 freshwater tree holes cage lab 0.006944 (done on day 9 of expt) 20 367 observations per replicate, 75 individuals per replicate 11 Insecta Toxorhynchites rutilus, predatory mosquito Insecta Aedes triseriatus, tree-hole mosquito Activity Proportion of time spent resting no predators 0.16 0.02 0.61 20 75 1500 with predator(s) - feeding in presence of larvae 0.12 0.01 0.47 20 75 1500 Prey Activity -1 0 1 0 1 1 Hec97-35, 39, 43 Experiment 5 Figure 6 Hechtel & Juliano 1997 Ecology 78(3): 838-851 Hec97-44 freshwater tree holes cage lab 0.006944 (done on day 9 of expt) 20 367 observations per replicate, 75 individuals per replicate 11 Insecta Toxorhynchites rutilus, predatory mosquito Insecta Aedes triseriatus, tree-hole mosquito Activity Proportion of time spent resting no predators 0.11 0.01 0.46 20 75 1500 with predator(s) - feeding in presence of larvae 0.1 0.01 0.45 20 75 1500 Prey Activity -1 0 1 0 1 1 Hec97-36, 40, 44 Experiment 5 Table 1 Heikkala et al 1993 Ann Zool Fennici 30:153-161 Hei93-01 terrestrial field & forest cage lab 11 varies 1 11 Mammalia Mustela nivalis nivalis, least weasel Mammalia Clethrionomys rutilus, red vole Fecundity Litter weight (g) stuffed predator 8.1 0.67 2.22 11 1 11 predator scent 6.1 0.57 1.7 9 1 9 Prey Fecundity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Hei93-01 and Hei93-02 Table 1 Heikkala et al 1993 Ann Zool Fennici 30:153-161 Hei93-02 terrestrial field & forest cage lab 11 varies 1 11 Mammalia Mustela nivalis nivalis, least weasel Mammalia Clethrionomys rutilus, red vole Growth mass of pregnant females (g) stuffed predator 37.4 0.83 2.76 11 1 11 predator scent 33.8 1.13 3.57 10 1 10 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Hei93-01 and Hei93-02 Table 2 Heikkala et al 1993 Ann Zool Fennici 30:153-161 Hei93-03 terrestrial field & forest cage lab 21 13 1 11 Mammalia Mustela nivalis nivalis, least weasel Mammalia Clethrionomys glareolus, bank vole Growth increase in female mass over 3 weeks stuffed predator 6.9 0.32 1.15 13 1 13 predator scent 4.9 0.32 1.15 13 1 13 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 none cyclic population Table 2 Heikkala et al 1993 Ann Zool Fennici 30:153-161 Hei93-04 terrestrial field & forest cage lab 21 14 1 11 Mammalia Mustela nivalis nivalis, least weasel Mammalia Clethrionomys glareolus, bank vole Growth increase in female mass over 3 weeks stuffed predator 6.4 0.44 1.65 14 1 14 predator scent 5.1 0.59 2.21 14 1 14 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 none non-cyclic population Table 2 Heikkala et al 1993 Ann Zool Fennici 30:153-161 Hei93-05 terrestrial field & forest cage lab 21 10 1 11 Mammalia Mustela nivalis nivalis, least weasel Mammalia Clethrionomys rufocanus, grey-sided vole Growth increase in female mass over 3 weeks stuffed predator 7 0.6 1.9 10 1 10 predator scent 5.6 0.5 1.58 10 1 10 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 none Table 2 Heikkala et al 1993 Ann Zool Fennici 30:153-161 Hei93-06 terrestrial field & forest cage lab 21 14 1 11 Mammalia Mustela nivalis nivalis, least weasel Mammalia Clethrionomys rutilus, red vole Growth increase in female mass over 3 weeks stuffed predator 8.4 0.91 3.4 14 1 14 predator scent 8.3 0.53 1.98 14 1 14 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 none Fig 2 Hellstedt et al 2002 Ann Zool Fenn 39: 257-265 Hel02-01 terrestrial field enclosure field 77 1 varies 11 Mammalia Mustela nivalis, least weasel Mammalia Microtus agrestis, field vole Growth mass of mature females no predator present 34.81 1.21 4.84 1 16 16 non-lethal predator present 34.73 2.3 9.2 1 16 16 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Hel02-01, Hel02-02, Hel02-03 Table 1 Hellstedt et al 2002 Ann Zool Fenn 39: 257-265 Hel02-02 terrestrial field enclosure field 77 1 varies 11 Mammalia Mustela nivalis, least weasel Mammalia Microtus agrestis, field vole Fecundity # new juveniles/trapping period no predator present 10.3 1.62 6.48 1 16 16 non-lethal predator present 7.8 1.8 7.2 1 16 16 Prey Fecundity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Hel02-01, Hel02-02, Hel02-03 Table 2 Hellstedt et al 2002 Ann Zool Fenn 39: 257-265 Hel02-03 terrestrial field enclosure field 77 1 3 11 Mammalia Mustela nivalis, least weasel Mammalia Microtus agrestis, field vole Activity 85% core convex polygon estimate of female vole home range size no predator present 0.03 0.01 0.01 1 3 3 non-lethal predator present 0.02 0.01 0.02 1 3 3 Prey Activity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Hel02-01, Hel02-02, Hel02-03 Figure 2 Hill & Lodge 1995 JNABS 14(2): 306-314 Hil95-01 freshwater lake cattle tank/ wading pool field 49 5 1 no # individuals given. Used one ind/rep as most conservative estimate 111 Actinopterygii Micropterus salmoides, largemouth bass Malacostraca Orconectes rusticus, O. propinquus, O. virilis, crayfish Turbellaria Tricladida, planarian Density # no predator 149.2 50.4 112.69 5 1 5 predator risk 125.33 14.59 32.62 5 1 5 Resource Density 1 0 1 0 1 2 none Figure 2 Hill & Lodge 1995 JNABS 14(2): 306-314 Hil95-02 freshwater lake cattle tank/ wading pool field 49 5 1 no # individuals given. Used one ind/rep as most conservative estimate 111 Actinopterygii Micropterus salmoides, largemouth bass Malacostraca Orconectes rusticus, O. propinquus, O. virilis, crayfish Insecta Diptera Density # no predator 50.4 13.26 29.66 5 1 5 predator risk 100.8 7.96 17.79 5 1 5 Resource Density 1 0 1 0 1 2 none Figure 2 Hill & Lodge 1995 JNABS 14(2): 306-314 Hil95-03 freshwater lake cattle tank/ wading pool field 49 5 1 no # individuals given. Used one ind/rep as most conservative estimate 111 Actinopterygii Micropterus salmoides, largemouth bass Malacostraca Orconectes rusticus, O. propinquus, O. virilis, crayfish Insecta Ephemeroptera Density # no predator 13.26 5.31 11.86 5 1 5 predator risk 47.08 10.61 23.72 5 1 5 Resource Density 1 0 1 0 1 2 none Figure 2 Hill & Lodge 1995 JNABS 14(2): 306-314 Hil95-04 freshwater lake cattle tank/ wading pool field 49 5 1 no # individuals given. Used one ind/rep as most conservative estimate 111 Actinopterygii Micropterus salmoides, largemouth bass Malacostraca Orconectes rusticus, O. propinquus, O. virilis, crayfish Insecta Coleoptera Density # no predator 41.11 7.96 17.79 5 1 5 predator risk 60.34 14.59 32.62 5 1 5 Resource Density 1 0 1 0 1 2 none Figure 2 Hill & Lodge 1995 JNABS 14(2): 306-314 Hil95-05 freshwater lake cattle tank/ wading pool field 49 5 1 no # individuals given. Used one ind/rep as most conservative estimate 111 Actinopterygii Micropterus salmoides, largemouth bass Malacostraca Orconectes rusticus, O. propinquus, O. virilis, crayfish Oligochaeta Oligocheata Density # no predator 92.18 35.15 78.59 5 1 5 predator risk 58.36 21.22 47.45 5 1 5 Resource Density 1 0 1 0 1 2 none Figure 2 Hill & Lodge 1995 JNABS 14(2): 306-314 Hil95-06 freshwater lake cattle tank/ wading pool field 49 5 1 no # individuals given. Used one ind/rep as most conservative estimate 111 Actinopterygii Micropterus salmoides, largemouth bass Malacostraca Orconectes rusticus, O. propinquus, O. virilis, crayfish Branchiopoda Cladocera Density # no predator 19.23 14.59 32.62 5 1 5 predator risk 230.77 52.39 117.14 5 1 5 Resource Density 1 0 1 0 1 2 none Figure 2 Hill & Lodge 1995 JNABS 14(2): 306-314 Hil95-07 freshwater lake cattle tank/ wading pool field 49 5 1 no # individuals given. Used one ind/rep as most conservative estimate 111 Actinopterygii Micropterus salmoides, largemouth bass Malacostraca Orconectes rusticus, O. propinquus, O. virilis, crayfish Gastropoda Gastropoda Density # no predator 275.2 33.82 75.62 5 1 5 predator risk 342.84 13.26 29.66 5 1 5 Resource Density 1 0 1 0 1 2 none Figure 2 Hill & Lodge 1995 JNABS 14(2): 306-314 Hil95-08 freshwater lake cattle tank/ wading pool field 49 5 1 no # individuals given. Used one ind/rep as most conservative estimate 111 Actinopterygii Micropterus salmoides, largemouth bass Malacostraca Orconectes rusticus, O. propinquus, O. virilis, crayfish Isopoda Isopoda Density # no predator 11.27 3.98 8.9 5 1 5 predator risk 16.58 3.32 7.41 5 1 5 Resource Density 1 0 1 0 1 2 none Figure 2 Hill & Lodge 1995 JNABS 14(2): 306-314 Hil95-09 freshwater lake cattle tank/ wading pool field 49 5 1 no # individuals given. Used one ind/rep as most conservative estimate 111 Actinopterygii Micropterus salmoides, largemouth bass Malacostraca Orconectes rusticus, O. propinquus, O. virilis, crayfish Malacostraca Amphipoda Density # no predator 2424.4 705.57 1577.7 5 1 5 predator risk 3310.34 228.12 510.08 5 1 5 Resource Density 1 0 1 0 1 2 none Figure 2 Hill & Lodge 1995 JNABS 14(2): 306-314 Hil95-10 freshwater lake cattle tank/ wading pool field 49 5 1 no # individuals given. Used one ind/rep as most conservative estimate 111 Actinopterygii Micropterus salmoides, largemouth bass Malacostraca Orconectes rusticus, O. propinquus, O. virilis, crayfish Insecta Odonata Density # no predator 2.65 1.33 2.97 5 1 5 predator risk 0 0 0 5 1 5 Resource Density 1 0 1 0 1 2 none Figure 3 Hill & Lodge 1995 JNABS 14(2): 306-314 Hil95-11 freshwater lake cattle tank/ wading pool field 49 5 190.8 111 Actinopterygii Micropterus salmoides, largemouth bass Malacostraca Orconectes rusticus, O. propinquus, O. virilis, crayfish Autotroph Macrophytic vegetation Plant damage Percent cover of plants remaining no predator 46.92 3.69 113.88 5 190.8 954 predator risk 63.12 2.49 76.97 5 190.8 954 Resource Plant damage 1 0 1 0 1 2 none individ/rep is in area, while experimental unit is in volume, area was 2.544m˛ Text, p. 309 Hill & Lodge 1995 JNABS 14(2): 306-314 Hil95-12 freshwater lake cattle tank/ wading pool field 49 5 60 11 Actinopterygii Micropterus salmoides, largemouth bass Malacostraca Orconectes rusticus, O. propinquus, O. virilis, crayfish Survival % of crayfish surviving no predator 58 6 103.92 5 60 300 predator risk 40 7 121.24 5 60 300 Prey Survival 1 0 1 0 1 1 none Figure 2 Hill & Lodge 1999 Ecol Appl 9(2): 678-690 Hil99-01 freshwater lake aquarium lab 49 5 60 11 Actinopterygii Micropterus salmoides, largemouth bass Malacostraca Orconectes propinquus, crayfish Survival mortality % increase due to predator presence no predator 57.91 5.54 95.9 5 60 300 risk predator 82.01 6.81 117.88 5 60 300 Prey Survival -1 0 1 0 1 1 Hil99-01, Hil99-04 females Figure 2 Hill & Lodge 1999 Ecol Appl 9(2): 678-690 Hil99-02 freshwater lake aquarium lab 49 5 60 11 Actinopterygii Micropterus salmoides, largemouth bass Malacostraca Orconectes rusticus, crayfish Survival mortality % increase due to predator presence no predator 17.88 4.73 81.91 5 60 300 risk predator 52.37 1.85 31.97 5 60 300 Prey Survival -1 0 1 0 1 1 Hil99-02 and Hil99-05 females Figure 2 Hill & Lodge 1999 Ecol Appl 9(2): 678-690 Hil99-03 freshwater lake aquarium lab 49 5 60 11 Actinopterygii Micropterus salmoides, largemouth bass Malacostraca Orconectes virilis, virile crayfish Survival mortality % increase due to predator presence no predator 57.68 8.54 147.85 5 60 300 risk predator 80.51 9.57 165.83 5 60 300 Prey Survival -1 0 1 0 1 1 Hil99-03 and Hil99-06 females Figure 3 Hill & Lodge 1999 Ecol Appl 9(2): 678-690 Hil99-04 freshwater lake aquarium lab 49 5 60 11 Actinopterygii Micropterus salmoides, largemouth bass Malacostraca Orconectes propinquus, crayfish Growth % mass gain no predator -3.05 1.77 30.73 5 60 300 risk predator -2.47 2.4 41.49 5 60 300 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Hil99-01, Hil99-04 Figure 3 Hill & Lodge 1999 Ecol Appl 9(2): 678-690 Hil99-05 freshwater lake aquarium lab 49 5 60 11 Actinopterygii Micropterus salmoides, largemouth bass Malacostraca Orconectes rusticus, crayfish Growth % mass gain no predator 7.3 2.76 47.76 5 60 300 risk predator 10.67 2.21 38.29 5 60 300 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Hil99-02 and Hil99-05 Figure 3 Hill & Lodge 1999 Ecol Appl 9(2): 678-690 Hil99-06 freshwater lake aquarium lab 49 5 60 11 Actinopterygii Micropterus salmoides, largemouth bass Malacostraca Orconectes virilis, virile crayfish Growth % mass gain no predator 6.67 2.88 49.94 5 60 300 risk predator 3.5 3.69 63.9 5 60 300 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Hil99-03 and Hil99-06 Figure 2 Hlivko & Rypstra 2003 Ann Ent Soc Am 96(6): 914-919 Hli03-01 terrestrial agricultural cage lab 1 20 1 11 Arachnida Pardosa milvina, wolf spider Insecta Popillia japonica, japanese beetle Autotroph Glycine max, soybean Biomass change in biomass (dry mass before - dry mass after), mg no predator cue 1.37 0.41 1.83 20 1 20 predator cue -1.24 0.71 3.15 20 1 20 Resource Biomass -1 0 1 0 1 2 none Figure 2 Hlivko & Rypstra 2003 Ann Ent Soc Am 96(6): 914-919 Hli03-02 terrestrial agricultural cage lab 1 20 1 11 Arachnida Rabidosa rabida, wolf spider Insecta Popillia japonica, japanese beetle Autotroph Glycine max, soybean Biomass change in biomass (dry mass before - dry mass after), mg no predator cue 1.37 0.41 1.83 20 1 20 predator cue -1.89 0.54 2.41 20 1 20 Resource Biomass -1 0 1 0 1 2 none Figure 2 Hlivko & Rypstra 2003 Ann Ent Soc Am 96(6): 914-919 Hli03-03 terrestrial agricultural cage lab 1 20 1 11 Arachnida Hogna helluo, wolf spider Insecta Popillia japonica, japanese beetle Autotroph Glycine max, soybean Biomass change in biomass (dry mass before - dry mass after), mg no predator cue 1.37 0.41 1.83 20 1 20 predator cue -4.3 0.54 2.4 20 1 20 Resource Biomass -1 0 1 0 1 2 none Text p 588 Holomuzki & Hatchett 1994 Freshwater Biology 32: 585-592 Hol94-01 freshwater stream aquarium lab 24 11 5 11 Actinopterygii Lepomis megalotis, longear sunfish Isopoda Lirceus fontinalis, isopod Growth mass gain over 24 days no fish cues present 1.12 0.14 1.04 11 5 55 fish cues present 0.86 0.32 2.37 11 5 55 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 none Figure 2 Huang & Sih 1991 Oecologia 85:530-536 Hua91-01 freshwater river cattle tank/ wading pool lab 0.25 4 300 predator-predator interactions; sunfish eat salamanders eat isopods Mixed Lepomis cyanellus, green sunfish Amphibia Ambystoma barbouri, streamside salamander Isopoda Lirceus fontinalis, isopod Survival # missing at end of 6 hour period direct effect of fish 64.8 16 554.26 4 300 1200 density effect of fish via reduced # of salamanders 33.3 3.8 131.64 4 300 1200 indirect effect of fish via reduced salamander activity 78.5 20.8 720.53 4 300 1200 total effect of fish on # isopods eaten 118.8 30.8 1066.94 4 300 1200 Resource Survival -1 1 1 1 3 2 Hua91-02 experiment 1 Figure 5 Huang & Sih 1991 Oecologia 85:530-536 Hua91-02 freshwater river cattle tank/ wading pool lab 0.25 4 300 predator-predator interactions; sunfish eat salamanders eat isopods Mixed Lepomis cyanellus, green sunfish Amphibia Ambystoma barbouri, streamside salamander Isopoda Lirceus fontinalis, isopod Feeding rate (11) or Survival (111) effect of fish on salamander feeding rate (# prey eaten/6 hours) fish absent 129 40 1385.64 4 300 1200 fish chemical cue 45.33 5.4 187.06 4 300 1200 freely moving predator 8.09 4 138.56 4 300 1200 Prey (11) or Resource (111) Feeding rate (11) or Survival (111) 1/-1 0 1 1 2 1 Hua91-01 experiment 2 Table 1 Hurd & Eisenberg 1984 J Animal Ecol 53: 269-281 Hur84-01 terrestrial field enclosure field 65 3 12595 11 Mixed old field predators in general - not specified Insecta Tenodera aridifolia sinensis, Chinese praying mantis Emigration Percent decrease in final density due to mortality and emigration (# of mantids) number initially present 3333 739.1 143668.95 3 12595 37785 number of mantids killed 3072 720 139956.22 3 12595 37785 number of mantids emigrating 211 5.68 1104.1 3 12595 37785 Prey Emigration -1 1 1 0 2 1 none Table 1 Hurd & Eisenberg 1984 J Animal Ecol 53: 269-281 Hur84-02 terrestrial field enclosure field 65 3 4189 11 Mixed old field predators in general - not specified Insecta Tenodera aridifolia sinensis, Chinese praying mantis Emigration decrease in final density due to mortality and emigration (# of mantids) number initially present 893.3 459 51455.11 3 4189 12567 number of mantids killed 834 423 47419.41 3 4189 12567 number of mantids emigrating 40.1 22.81 2557.06 3 4189 12567 Prey Emigration -1 1 1 0 2 1 none Table 1 Hurd & Eisenberg 1984 J Animal Ecol 53: 269-281 Hur84-03 terrestrial field enclosure field 65 3 1303 11 Mixed old field predators in general - not specified Insecta Tenodera aridifolia sinensis, Chinese praying mantis Emigration decrease in final density due to mortality and emigration (# of mantids) number initially present 653 202 12629.44 3 1303 3909 number of mantids killed 612 189.5 11847.92 3 1303 3909 number of mantids emigrating 23 10.1 631.47 3 1303 3909 Prey Emigration -1 1 1 0 2 1 none Table 1 Jackson & Semlitsch 1993 Ecology 74:342-350 Jac93-01 freshwater pond, ephemeral cattle tank/ wading pool field 186 5 12 11 Actinopterygii Lepomis macrochirus, bluegill Amphibia Ambystoma talpoideum, mole salamander Growth mm/day no predator 0.36 0.01 0.08 5 12 60 1 non-lethal fish 0.36 0.01 0.08 5 12 60 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Jac93-01, 09, 13 early predator addition Table 1 Jackson & Semlitsch 1993 Ecology 74:342-350 Jac93-02 freshwater pond, ephemeral cattle tank/ wading pool field 186 5 12 11 Actinopterygii Lepomis macrochirus, bluegill Amphibia Ambystoma talpoideum, mole salamander Growth mm/day no predator 0.36 0.01 0.08 5 12 60 2 non-lethal fish 0.38 0.02 0.15 5 12 60 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Jac93-02, 10, 14 early predator addition Table 1 Jackson & Semlitsch 1993 Ecology 74:342-350 Jac93-03 freshwater pond, ephemeral cattle tank/ wading pool field 124 5 12 11 Actinopterygii Lepomis macrochirus, bluegill Amphibia Ambystoma talpoideum, mole salamander Growth mm/day no predator 0.39 0.01 0.08 5 12 60 1 non-lethal fish 0.39 0.01 0.08 5 12 60 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Jac93-03, 11, 15 late predator addition Table 1 Jackson & Semlitsch 1993 Ecology 74:342-350 Jac93-04 freshwater pond, ephemeral cattle tank/ wading pool field 124 5 12 11 Actinopterygii Lepomis macrochirus, bluegill Amphibia Ambystoma talpoideum, mole salamander Growth mm/day no predator 0.39 0.01 0.08 5 12 60 2 non-lethal fish 0.4 0.01 0.08 5 12 60 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Jac93-04, 12, 16 late predator addition Table 1 Jackson & Semlitsch 1993 Ecology 74:342-350 Jac93-05 freshwater pond, ephemeral cattle tank/ wading pool field 186 5 1 no # individuals given. Used one ind/rep as most conservative estimate 111 Actinopterygii Lepomis macrochirus, bluegill Amphibia Ambystoma talpoideum, mole salamander zooplankton zooplankton Density #/litre no predator 492 207 462.87 5 1 5 1 non-lethal fish 332 83 185.59 5 1 5 Resource Density 1 0 1 0 1 2 none early predator addition Table 1 Jackson & Semlitsch 1993 Ecology 74:342-350 Jac93-06 freshwater pond, ephemeral cattle tank/ wading pool field 186 5 1 no # individuals given. Used one ind/rep as most conservative estimate 111 Actinopterygii Lepomis macrochirus, bluegill Amphibia Ambystoma talpoideum, mole salamander zooplankton zooplankton Density #/litre no predator 492 207 462.87 5 1 5 2 non-lethal fish 757 227 507.59 5 1 5 Resource Density 1 0 1 0 1 2 none early predator addition Table 1 Jackson & Semlitsch 1993 Ecology 74:342-350 Jac93-07 freshwater pond, ephemeral cattle tank/ wading pool field 124 5 1 no # individuals given. Used one ind/rep as most conservative estimate 111 Actinopterygii Lepomis macrochirus, bluegill Amphibia Ambystoma talpoideum, mole salamander zooplankton zooplankton Density #/litre no predator 164 50 111.8 5 1 5 1 non-lethal fish 744 241 538.89 5 1 5 Resource Density 1 0 1 0 1 2 none late predator addition Table 1 Jackson & Semlitsch 1993 Ecology 74:342-350 Jac93-08 freshwater pond, ephemeral cattle tank/ wading pool field 124 5 1 no # individuals given. Used one ind/rep as most conservative estimate 111 Actinopterygii Lepomis macrochirus, bluegill Amphibia Ambystoma talpoideum, mole salamander zooplankton zooplankton Density #/litre no predator 164 50 111.8 5 1 5 2 non-lethal fish 354 140 313.05 5 1 5 Resource Density 1 0 1 0 1 2 none late predator addition Table 2 Jackson & Semlitsch 1993 Ecology 74:342-350 Jac93-09 freshwater pond, ephemeral cattle tank/ wading pool field 186 5 12 11 Actinopterygii Lepomis macrochirus, bluegill Amphibia Ambystoma talpoideum, mole salamander Survival # of survivors out of 12 no predator 10.8 0.73 5.65 5 12 60 1 non-lethal fish 11.2 0.37 2.87 5 12 60 Prey Survival 1 0 1 0 1 1 Jac93-01, 09, 13 early predator addition Table 2 Jackson & Semlitsch 1993 Ecology 74:342-350 Jac93-10 freshwater pond, ephemeral cattle tank/ wading pool field 186 5 12 11 Actinopterygii Lepomis macrochirus, bluegill Amphibia Ambystoma talpoideum, mole salamander Survival # of survivors out of 12 no predator 10.8 0.73 5.65 5 12 60 2 non-lethal fish 10.6 0.4 3.1 5 12 60 Prey Survival 1 0 1 0 1 1 Jac93-02, 10, 14 early predator addition Table 2 Jackson & Semlitsch 1993 Ecology 74:342-350 Jac93-11 freshwater pond, ephemeral cattle tank/ wading pool field 124 5 12 11 Actinopterygii Lepomis macrochirus, bluegill Amphibia Ambystoma talpoideum, mole salamander Survival # of survivors out of 12 no predator 9.8 0.73 5.65 5 12 60 1 non-lethal fish 10.6 0.49 3.8 5 12 60 Prey Survival 1 0 1 0 1 1 Jac93-03, 11, 15 late predator addition Table 2 Jackson & Semlitsch 1993 Ecology 74:342-350 Jac93-12 freshwater pond, ephemeral cattle tank/ wading pool field 124 5 12 11 Actinopterygii Lepomis macrochirus, bluegill Amphibia Ambystoma talpoideum, mole salamander Survival # of survivors out of 12 no predator 9.8 0.73 5.65 5 12 60 2 non-lethal fish 10.6 0.51 3.95 5 12 60 Prey Survival 1 0 1 0 1 1 Jac93-04, 12, 16 late predator addition Table 2 Jackson & Semlitsch 1993 Ecology 74:342-350 Jac93-13 freshwater pond, ephemeral cattle tank/ wading pool field 186 5 12 11 Actinopterygii Lepomis macrochirus, bluegill Amphibia Ambystoma talpoideum, mole salamander Development proportion of prey that fail to mature by end of experiment no predator 0.38 0.08 0.62 5 12 60 1 non-lethal fish 0.33 0.1 0.77 5 12 60 Prey Development 1 0 1 0 1 1 Jac93-01, 09, 13 early predator addition Table 2 Jackson & Semlitsch 1993 Ecology 74:342-350 Jac93-14 freshwater pond, ephemeral cattle tank/ wading pool field 186 5 12 11 Actinopterygii Lepomis macrochirus, bluegill Amphibia Ambystoma talpoideum, mole salamander Development proportion of prey that fail to mature by end of experiment no predator 0.38 0.08 0.62 5 12 60 2 non-lethal fish 0.44 0.08 0.62 5 12 60 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Jac93-02, 10, 14 early predator addition Table 2 Jackson & Semlitsch 1993 Ecology 74:342-350 Jac93-15 freshwater pond, ephemeral cattle tank/ wading pool field 124 5 12 11 Actinopterygii Lepomis macrochirus, bluegill Amphibia Ambystoma talpoideum, mole salamander Development proportion of prey that fail to mature by end of experiment no predator 0.27 0.05 0.39 5 12 60 1 non-lethal fish 0.35 0.06 0.46 5 12 60 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Jac93-03, 11, 15 late predator addition Table 2 Jackson & Semlitsch 1993 Ecology 74:342-350 Jac93-16 freshwater pond, ephemeral cattle tank/ wading pool field 124 5 12 11 Actinopterygii Lepomis macrochirus, bluegill Amphibia Ambystoma talpoideum, mole salamander Development proportion of prey that fail to mature by end of experiment no predator 0.27 0.05 0.39 5 12 60 2 non-lethal fish 0.45 0.12 0.93 5 12 60 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Jac93-04, 12, 16 late predator addition Figure 3 Jackson & Semlitsch 1993 Ecology 74:342-350 Jac93-17 freshwater pond, ephemeral cattle tank/ wading pool lab 0.01 3 75 11 Actinopterygii Lepomis macrochirus, bluegill Amphibia Ambystoma talpoideum, mole salamander Habitat use percentage time in refuge no predator 17.25 9.07 136.12 3 75 225 predator risk (water from fish containing tank) 33.85 8.93 133.93 3 75 225 Prey Habitat use -1 0 1 0 1 1 none water from fish tank diluted to 33% fish water Figure 3 Jackson & Semlitsch 1993 Ecology 74:342-350 Jac93-18 freshwater pond, ephemeral cattle tank/ wading pool lab 0.01 3 75 11 Actinopterygii Lepomis macrochirus, bluegill Amphibia Ambystoma talpoideum, mole salamander Habitat use percentage time in refuge no predator 17.25 9.07 136.12 3 75 225 predator risk (water from fish containing tank) 52.57 9.88 148.27 3 75 225 Prey Habitat use -1 0 1 0 1 1 none water from fish tank diluted to 66% fish water Figure 3 Jackson & Semlitsch 1993 Ecology 74:342-350 Jac93-19 freshwater pond, ephemeral cattle tank/ wading pool lab 0.01 3 75 11 Actinopterygii Lepomis macrochirus, bluegill Amphibia Ambystoma talpoideum, mole salamander Habitat use percentage time in refuge no predator 17.25 9.07 136.12 3 75 225 predator risk (water from fish containing tank) 52.08 9.52 142.87 3 75 225 Prey Habitat use -1 0 1 0 1 1 none 100% water from fish tank Table 4 Jeffries 1990 Freshwater Biology 23: 191-196 Jef90-01 freshwater pond aquarium lab 0.42 varies 30 111 Insecta Aeshna juncea, dragonfly Insecta Enallagma cyathigerum, damselfly Branchiopoda Daphnia magna Survival 30 - mean # of daphnia killed no predator cue 22.19 1.48 32.32 16 30 480 predator visual and olfactory cue 24.55 1.42 25.74 11 30 330 Resource Survival 1 0 1 0 1 2 none (body mass for A. juncea estimated by taking dry mass and multiplying by 3.5 to get wet mass) Table 4 Jeffries 1990 Freshwater Biology 23: 191-196 Jef90-02 freshwater pond aquarium lab 0.42 varies 30 111 Insecta Aeshna juncea, dragonfly Insecta Lestes sponsa, damselfly Branchiopoda Daphnia magna Survival 30 - mean # of daphnia killed no predator cue 5.75 1.09 20.65 12 30 360 predator visual and olfactory cue 14.22 2.38 39.05 9 30 270 Resource Survival 1 0 1 0 1 2 none (body mass for A. juncea estimated by taking dry mass and multiplying by 3.5 to get wet mass) Figure 3 Johansson et al 2001 Ecology 82(7): 1857-1869 Joh01-01 freshwater pond aquarium lab until emergence 25 1 11 Actinopterygii Perca fluviatilis, Eurasian perch Insecta Lestes sponsa, damselfly Growth mg/day no predator 0.02 0 0 25 1 25 predator risk 0.02 0 0 25 1 25 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 none no time constraint Figure 3 Johansson et al 2001 Ecology 82(7): 1857-1869 Joh01-02 freshwater pond aquarium lab until emergence 25 1 11 Actinopterygii Perca fluviatilis, Eurasian perch Insecta Lestes sponsa, damselfly Growth mg/day no predator 0.02 0 0 25 1 25 predator risk 0.01 0 0 25 1 25 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 none time constraint Text, p. 946 Johansson 2002 Can J Zool 80: 944-950 Joh02-01 freshwater pond aquarium lab 353 varies 1 11 Actinopterygii Perca fluviatilis, Eurasian perch Insecta Leucorrhinia dubia, dragonfly Growth length (mm) dragonfly nymphs with no predator odor 5.09 0.02 0.08 15 1 15 dragonfly nymphs with predator visual, chemical, and mechanical cues 5.13 0.02 0.07 14 1 14 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 none Figure 2 Johnson et al 2003 Can J Zool 81: 1608-1613 Joh03-01 freshwater pond aquarium lab time for 1/2 of eggs to hatch 20 20 11 Malacostraca Procambarus nigrocinctus, crayfish Amphibia Rana spenocephala, Southern leopard frog Development time to egg hatching (days) no predator 75.08 4.21 84.29 20 20 400 unfed predator risk 64.4 3.49 69.86 20 20 400 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Joh03-01 and Joh03-04 Figure 2 Johnson et al 2003 Can J Zool 81: 1608-1613 Joh03-02 freshwater pond aquarium lab time for 1/2 of eggs to hatch 20 20 11 Insecta Anax junius, dragonfly Amphibia Rana spenocephala, Southern leopard frog Development time to egg hatching (days) no predator 75.08 4.21 84.29 20 20 400 unfed predator risk 73.96 3.99 79.7 20 20 400 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Joh03-02 and Joh03-05 Figure 2 Johnson et al 2003 Can J Zool 81: 1608-1613 Joh03-03 freshwater pond aquarium lab time for 1/2 of eggs to hatch 20 20 11 Insecta Cybister sp., dytiscid beetle Amphibia Rana spenocephala, Southern leopard frog Development time to egg hatching (days) no predator 75.08 4.21 84.29 20 20 400 unfed predator risk 69.99 3.3 65.93 20 20 400 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Joh03-03 to Joh03-06 Figure 3 Johnson et al 2003 Can J Zool 81: 1608-1613 Joh03-04 freshwater pond aquarium lab time for 1/2 of eggs to hatch 20 20 11 Malacostraca Procambarus nigrocinctus, crayfish Amphibia Rana spenocephala, Southern leopard frog Growth length of hatchlings (mm) no predator 5.67 0.15 2.93 20 20 400 unfed predator risk 5.13 0.12 2.3 20 20 400 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Joh03-01 and Joh03-04 Figure 3 Johnson et al 2003 Can J Zool 81: 1608-1613 Joh03-05 freshwater pond aquarium lab time for 1/2 of eggs to hatch 20 20 11 Insecta Anax junius, dragonfly Amphibia Rana spenocephala, Southern leopard frog Growth length of hatchlings (mm) no predator 5.67 0.15 2.93 20 20 400 unfed predator risk 5.5 0.16 3.15 20 20 400 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Joh03-02 and Joh03-05 Figure 3 Johnson et al 2003 Can J Zool 81: 1608-1613 Joh03-06 freshwater pond aquarium lab time for 1/2 of eggs to hatch 20 20 11 Insecta Cybister sp., dytiscid beetle Amphibia Rana spenocephala, Southern leopard frog Growth length of hatchlings (mm) no predator 5.67 0.15 2.93 20 20 400 unfed predator risk 5.4 0.12 2.41 20 20 400 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Joh03-03 to Joh03-06 Figure 3A Jones et al 2003 Oikos 102: 155-163 Jon03-01 freshwater river aquarium lab until emergence 8 70 11 Actinopterygii Lota lota, burbot Actinopterygii Salmo salar, atlantic salmon Development time to egg hatching no predator 11.27 0.17 4.01 8 70 560 predator risk 12.79 0.24 5.65 8 70 560 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Jon03-01 and Jon03-03 Figure 3A Jones et al 2003 Oikos 102: 155-163 Jon03-02 freshwater river aquarium lab until emergence 8 70 11 Actinopterygii Salmo trutta, brown trout Actinopterygii Salmo salar, atlantic salmon Development time to egg hatching no predator 11.27 0.17 4.01 8 70 560 predator risk 10.11 0.23 5.48 8 70 560 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Jon03-02 and Jon03-04 Figure 3B Jones et al 2003 Oikos 102: 155-163 Jon03-03 freshwater river aquarium lab until emergence 8 70 11 Actinopterygii Lota lota, burbot Actinopterygii Salmo salar, atlantic salmon Growth length of hatchlings (mm) no predator 25.24 0.04 0.88 8 70 560 predator risk 25.25 0.03 0.74 8 70 560 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Jon03-01 and Jon03-03 Figure 3B Jones et al 2003 Oikos 102: 155-163 Jon03-04 freshwater river aquarium lab until emergence 8 70 11 Actinopterygii Salmo trutta, brown trout Actinopterygii Salmo salar, atlantic salmon Growth length of hatchlings (mm) no predator 25.24 0.04 0.88 8 70 560 predator risk 24.98 0.04 0.83 8 70 560 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Jon03-02 and Jon03-04 Figure 2 Justome et al 1998 Veliger 41(2): 172-179 Jus98-01 marine intertidal aquarium lab 60 4 28 11 Asteroidea Leptasteria polaris, starfish Gastropoda Buccinum undatum, whelk Activity % foot contortions (movement in response to predator being placed close to the whelk) no predator cue 15.98 2.35 24.91 4 28 112 predator placed close to whelk 11.31 2.18 23.05 4 28 112 Prey Activity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Jus98-01, Jus98-05, Jus98-09 2-3 cm whelk Figure 2 Justome et al 1998 Veliger 41(2): 172-179 Jus98-02 marine intertidal aquarium lab 60 4 28 11 Asteroidea Leptasteria polaris, starfish Gastropoda Buccinum undatum, whelk Activity % foot contortions (movement in response to predator being placed close to the whelk) no predator cue 15.98 2.35 24.91 4 28 112 predator placed close to whelk 11.03 2.95 31.22 4 28 112 Prey Activity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Jus98-02, Jus98-06, Jus98-10 2-3 cm whelk Figure 2 Justome et al 1998 Veliger 41(2): 172-179 Jus98-03 marine intertidal aquarium lab 60 4 28 11 Asteroidea Leptasteria polaris, starfish Gastropoda Buccinum undatum, whelk Activity % foot contortions (movement in response to predator being placed close to the whelk) no predator cue 20.93 3.43 36.3 4 28 112 predator placed close to whelk 12.04 2.38 25.19 4 28 112 Prey Activity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Jus98-03, Jus98-07, Jus98-11 4-5 cm whelk Figure 2 Justome et al 1998 Veliger 41(2): 172-179 Jus98-04 marine intertidal aquarium lab 60 4 28 11 Asteroidea Leptasteria polaris, starfish Gastropoda Buccinum undatum, whelk Activity % foot contortions (movement in response to predator being placed close to the whelk) no predator cue 20.93 3.43 36.3 4 28 112 predator placed close to whelk 5.92 3.19 33.71 4 28 112 Prey Activity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Jus98-04, Jus98-08, Jus98-12 4-5 cm whelk Figure 3 Justome et al 1998 Veliger 41(2): 172-179 Jus98-05 marine intertidal aquarium lab 60 4 28 11 Asteroidea Leptasteria polaris, starfish Gastropoda Buccinum undatum, whelk Activity Escape time in response to presence of predator (s) no predator cue 48.35 2.87 30.4 4 28 112 predator placed close to whelk 52.31 2.45 25.97 4 28 112 Prey Activity -1 0 1 0 1 1 Jus98-01, Jus98-05, Jus98-09 2-3 cm whelk Figure 3 Justome et al 1998 Veliger 41(2): 172-179 Jus98-06 marine intertidal aquarium lab 60 4 28 11 Asteroidea Leptasteria polaris, starfish Gastropoda Buccinum undatum, whelk Activity Escape time in response to presence of predator (s) no predator cue 48.35 2.87 30.4 4 28 112 predator placed close to whelk 50.83 2.4 25.38 4 28 112 Prey Activity -1 0 1 0 1 1 Jus98-02, Jus98-06, Jus98-10 2-3 cm whelk Figure 3 Justome et al 1998 Veliger 41(2): 172-179 Jus98-07 marine intertidal aquarium lab 60 4 28 11 Asteroidea Leptasteria polaris, starfish Gastropoda Buccinum undatum, whelk Activity Escape time in response to presence of predator (s) no predator cue 44.31 4.76 50.37 4 28 112 predator placed close to whelk 52.97 5.18 54.79 4 28 112 Prey Activity -1 0 1 0 1 1 Jus98-03, Jus98-07, Jus98-11 4-5 cm whelk Figure 3 Justome et al 1998 Veliger 41(2): 172-179 Jus98-08 marine intertidal aquarium lab 60 4 28 11 Asteroidea Leptasteria polaris, starfish Gastropoda Buccinum undatum, whelk Activity Escape time in response to presence of predator (s) no predator cue 44.31 4.76 50.37 4 28 112 predator placed close to whelk 54.67 4.59 48.61 4 28 112 Prey Activity -1 0 1 0 1 1 Jus98-04, Jus98-08, Jus98-12 4-5 cm whelk Figure 5 Justome et al 1998 Veliger 41(2): 172-179 Jus98-09 marine intertidal aquarium lab 60 4 28 11 Asteroidea Leptasteria polaris, starfish Gastropoda Buccinum undatum, whelk Growth length (mm) no predator cue 3.15 0.28 2.99 4 28 112 predator placed close to whelk 2.88 0.28 3 4 28 112 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Jus98-01, Jus98-05, Jus98-09 2-3 cm whelk Figure 5 Justome et al 1998 Veliger 41(2): 172-179 Jus98-10 marine intertidal aquarium lab 60 4 28 11 Asteroidea Leptasteria polaris, starfish Gastropoda Buccinum undatum, whelk Growth length (mm) no predator cue 3.15 0.28 2.99 4 28 112 predator placed close to whelk 2.36 0.15 1.64 4 28 112 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Jus98-02, Jus98-06, Jus98-10 2-3 cm whelk Figure 5 Justome et al 1998 Veliger 41(2): 172-179 Jus98-11 marine intertidal aquarium lab 60 4 28 11 Asteroidea Leptasteria polaris, starfish Gastropoda Buccinum undatum, whelk Growth length (mm) no predator cue 0.95 0.32 3.36 4 28 112 predator placed close to whelk 0.94 0.17 1.78 4 28 112 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Jus98-03, Jus98-07, Jus98-11 4-5 cm whelk Figure 5 Justome et al 1998 Veliger 41(2): 172-179 Jus98-12 marine intertidal aquarium lab 60 4 28 11 Asteroidea Leptasteria polaris, starfish Gastropoda Buccinum undatum, whelk Growth length (mm) no predator cue 0.95 0.32 3.36 4 28 112 predator placed close to whelk 0.73 0.15 1.6 4 28 112 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Jus98-04, Jus98-08, Jus98-12 4-5 cm whelk Figure 6, text p. 1263 Kelly et al. 2002 Freshwater Biology 47: 1257-1268 Kel02-01 freshwater river aquarium lab 0.02 12 10 predator facilitation Actinopterygii Salmo salar, atlantic salmon Insecta Baetis rhodani, mayfly Survival # of surviving mayfly nymphs no predators 10 0 0 12 10 120 number of B. rhodani surviving in the presence of gammarus d. celticus alone 9.92 0 0 12 10 120 number of Br not eaten by fish in the presence of Gdc, minus the number of Br not eaten by fish in the absence of Gdc 6.93 0.47 5.16 12 10 120 Prey Survival 1 1 1 0 2 1 none Figure 6, text p. 1263 Kelly et al. 2002 Freshwater Biology 47: 1257-1268 Kel02-02 freshwater river aquarium lab 0.02 12 10 predator facilitation Actinopterygii Salmo salar, atlantic salmon Insecta Baetis rhodani, mayfly Feeding rate (11) or Survival (111) # mayfly nymphs in fish gut no predators 10 0 0 12 10 120 number of B. rhodani surviving in the presence of gammarus pulex alone 9.92 0 0 12 10 120 number of Br not eaten by fish in the presence of Gp, minus the number of Br not eaten by fish in the absence of Gp 7.02 0.66 7.2 12 10 120 Prey Feeding rate (11) or Survival (111) 1/-1 1 1 0 2 1 none Table 1 Ketola & Vuorinen 1989 Hydrobiologia 179: 149-155 Ket89-01 freshwater lake aquarium lab until instar complete varies 1 11 Insecta Chaoborus sp., midge Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Development Time to reproduction (days) no predator cues 6.23 0.04 0.23 35 1 35 chaoborus chemical cues 8.26 0.13 0.77 33 1 33 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Ket89-01 through Ket89-04 Figure 1 Ketola & Vuorinen 1989 Hydrobiologia 179: 149-155 Ket89-02 freshwater lake aquarium lab until instar complete varies 1 11 Insecta Chaoborus sp., midge Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Fecundity # offspring in first brood no predator cues 10.83 0.26 1.55 35 1 35 chaoborus chemical cues 5.36 0.45 1.67 14 1 14 Prey Fecundity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Ket89-01 through Ket89-04 Figure 2 Ketola & Vuorinen 1989 Hydrobiologia 179: 149-155 Ket89-03 freshwater lake aquarium lab 7 varies 1 11 Insecta Chaoborus sp., midge Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Growth length at maturity (mm) no predator cues 1779.19 10.1 59.77 35 1 35 chaoborus chemical cues 1667.16 56.14 97.23 3 1 3 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Ket89-01 through Ket89-04 individuals starting reproduction in fifth instar Figure 2 Ketola & Vuorinen 1989 Hydrobiologia 179: 149-155 Ket89-04 freshwater lake aquarium lab 7 varies 1 11 Insecta Chaoborus sp., midge Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Growth length at maturity (mm) no predator cues 1779.19 10.1 59.77 35 1 35 chaoborus chemical cues 1512.67 17.34 57.52 11 1 11 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Ket89-01 through Ket89-04 individuals starting reproduction in sixth instar Table 2 Ketola & Vuorinen 1989 Hydrobiologia 179: 149-155 Ket89-05 freshwater lake aquarium lab until instar complete varies 1 11 Insecta Chaoborus sp., midge Branchiopoda Daphnia magna Development Time to reproduction (days) no predator cues 8.5 0.07 0.23 10 1 10 chaoborus chemical cues 8.3 1.51 5.66 14 1 14 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Ket89-05, Ket89-06 Table 2 Ketola & Vuorinen 1989 Hydrobiologia 179: 149-155 Ket89-06 freshwater lake aquarium lab until instar complete varies 1 11 Insecta Chaoborus sp., midge Branchiopoda Daphnia magna Fecundity # offspring in first brood no predator cues 13 0.95 3 10 1 10 chaoborus chemical cues 12.4 0.88 3.3 14 1 14 Prey Fecundity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Ket89-05, Ket89-06 Fig 1 Kiesecker et al 2002 J Chem Ecol 28(5): 1017-1015 Kie02-01 freshwater pond aquarium lab until metamorphosis complete 6 12 11 Amphibia Taricha granulosa, rough-skinned newt Amphibia Rana aurora, red-legged frog Development Time to metamorphosis (days) no predator cue present 63.22 1.14 9.65 6 12 72 cue from predator fed tadpoles 57.06 0.76 6.44 6 12 72 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Kei01-02, Kei01-04 Fig 1 Kiesecker et al 2002 J Chem Ecol 28(5): 1017-1015 Kie02-02 freshwater pond aquarium lab until metamorphosis complete 6 12 11 Amphibia Taricha granulosa, rough-skinned newt Amphibia Rana aurora, red-legged frog Development Time to metamorphosis (days) no predator cue present 63.22 1.14 9.65 6 12 72 cue from predator fed caddisflies 62.3 1.56 13.22 6 12 72 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Kei01-01, Kei01-03 Fig 1 Kiesecker et al 2002 J Chem Ecol 28(5): 1017-1015 Kie02-03 freshwater pond aquarium lab until metamorphosis complete 6 12 11 Amphibia Taricha granulosa, rough-skinned newt Amphibia Rana aurora, red-legged frog Growth Mass at metamorphosis (g) no predator cue present 1.21 0.11 0.97 6 12 72 cue from predator fed tadpoles 1.02 0.06 0.5 6 12 72 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Kei01-02, Kei01-04 Fig 1 Kiesecker et al 2002 J Chem Ecol 28(5): 1017-1015 Kie02-04 freshwater pond aquarium lab until metamorphosis complete 6 12 11 Amphibia Taricha granulosa, rough-skinned newt Amphibia Rana aurora, red-legged frog Growth Mass at metamorphosis (g) no predator cue present 1.21 0.11 0.97 6 12 72 cue from predator fed caddisflies 1.27 0.09 0.79 6 12 72 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Kei01-01, Kei01-03 Table 1 Klemola et al 1998 Oecologia 115:149-153 Kle98-01 terrestrial field cage field 14 varies 1 11 Aves Falco tinnunculus, Eurasian kestrel Mammalia Clethrionomys glareolus, bank vole Fecundity pregnancy rate no kestrels in nest 0.36 0.13 0.48 14 1 14 kestrels in nest over cage 0.27 0.11 0.44 15 1 15 Prey Fecundity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Kle98-01 and Kle98-02 1993-1995 Table 1 Klemola et al 1998 Oecologia 115:149-153 Kle98-02 terrestrial field cage field 14 varies 1 11 Aves Falco tinnunculus, Eurasian kestrel Mammalia Clethrionomys glareolus, bank vole Fecundity clutch size no kestrels in nest 5.8 0.3 1.12 14 1 14 kestrels in nest over cage 5.4 0.5 1.94 15 1 15 Prey Fecundity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Kle98-01 and Kle98-02 1993-1995 Table 1 Klemola et al 1998 Oecologia 115:149-153 Kle98-03 terrestrial field cage field 14 varies 1 11 Aves Falco tinnunculus, Eurasian kestrel Mammalia Microtus agrestis, field vole Fecundity pregnancy rate no kestrels in nest 0.4 0.11 0.49 20 1 20 kestrels in nest over cage 0.36 0.1 0.48 22 1 22 Prey Fecundity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Kle98-03 and Kle98-04 1992 Table 1 Klemola et al 1998 Oecologia 115:149-153 Kle98-04 terrestrial field cage field 14 varies 1 11 Aves Falco tinnunculus, Eurasian kestrel Mammalia Microtus agrestis, field vole Fecundity clutch size no kestrels in nest 5.8 0.5 2.24 20 1 20 kestrels in nest over cage 4 1 4.69 22 1 22 Prey Fecundity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Kle98-03 and Kle98-04 1992 Figure 2B Kohler & McPeek 1989 Ecology 70(6): 1811-1825 Koh89-01 freshwater stream aquarium lab 0.11 3 10 11 Actinopterygii Cottus bairdi, mottled sculpin Insecta Baetis tricaudatus, mayfly Habitat use time feeding on top of surface (minutes) no predator 67.96 6.22 34.04 3 10 30 predator risk 37.18 6.95 38.09 3 10 30 Prey Habitat use 1 0 1 0 1 1 none Figure 2B Kohler & McPeek 1989 Ecology 70(6): 1811-1825 Koh89-02 freshwater stream aquarium lab 0.11 3 10 11 Actinopterygii Cottus bairdi, mottled sculpin Insecta Baetis tricaudatus, mayfly Habitat use time feeding on top of surface (minutes) no predator 70.42 5.16 28.26 3 10 30 predator risk 72.67 5.01 27.43 3 10 30 Prey Habitat use 1 0 1 0 1 1 none Figure 6 Kohler & McPeek 1989 Ecology 70(6): 1811-1825 Koh89-03 freshwater stream aquarium lab 0.11 3 10 11 Actinopterygii Cottus bairdi, mottled sculpin Insecta Glossosoma nigrior, caddisfly Activity moves/hour no predator 54.68 7.08 38.77 3 10 30 predator risk 39.54 4.97 27.21 3 10 30 Prey Activity 1 0 1 0 1 1 none Figure 6 Kohler & McPeek 1989 Ecology 70(6): 1811-1825 Koh89-04 freshwater stream aquarium lab 0.11 3 10 11 Actinopterygii Cottus bairdi, mottled sculpin Insecta Glossosoma nigrior, caddisfly Activity moves/hour no predator 44.63 6.21 34.01 3 10 30 predator risk 56.33 4.95 27.11 3 10 30 Prey Activity 1 0 1 0 1 1 none Figure 1 Koskela & Ylonen 1995 Behav Ecol 6(3): 311-315 Kos95-01 terrestrial field & forest cage lab 14 varies 1 11 Mammalia Mustela nivalis, least weasel, and Mustela vison, american mink Mammalia Microtus agrestis, field vole Fecundity proportion of females becoming pregnant no predator cue 0.82 0.1 0.39 17 1 17 predator olfactory cue 0.13 0.09 0.34 16 1 16 Prey Fecundity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Kos95-01, Kos95-02 Table 1 Koskela & Ylonen 1995 Behav Ecol 6(3): 311-315 Kos95-02 terrestrial field & forest cage lab 0.01 varies 1 11 Mammalia Mustela nivalis, least weasel, and Mustela vison, american mink Mammalia Microtus agrestis, field vole Activity general activity of females on day 1 no predator cue 57.33 7.74 31.91 17 1 17 predator olfactory cue 68 7.79 31.16 16 1 16 Prey Activity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Kos95-01, Kos95-02 Text, p. 560 Kraft et al 2005 Austral Ecology 30: 558-563 Kra05-01 freshwater wetlands aquarium lab 28 4 16 11 Insecta Anax brevistyla, dragonfly Amphibia Limnodynastes peronii, striped marsh frog Development Gossner stage at day 28 no predator present 37 0.9 7.2 4 16 64 caged predator fed conspecific tadpoles 34 1.3 10.4 4 16 64 Prey Development 1 0 1 0 1 1 Kra05-01, Kra05-02, Kra05-03 Text, p. 560 Kraft et al 2005 Austral Ecology 30: 558-563 Kra05-02 freshwater wetlands aquarium lab until metamorphosis 4 16 11 Insecta Anax brevistyla, dragonfly Amphibia Limnodynastes peronii, striped marsh frog Growth Mass at metamorphosis (g) no predator present 0.44 0.03 0.24 4 16 64 caged predator fed conspecific tadpoles 0.59 0.04 0.32 4 16 64 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Kra05-01, Kra05-02, Kra05-03 Fig 2b Kraft et al 2005 Austral Ecology 30: 558-563 Kra05-03 freshwater wetlands aquarium lab until metamorphosis 4 16 11 Insecta Anax brevistyla, dragonfly Amphibia Limnodynastes peronii, striped marsh frog Development Time to metamorphosis (days) no predator present 44.09 1.04 8.33 4 16 64 caged predator fed conspecific tadpoles 51.04 1.49 11.92 4 16 64 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Kra05-01, Kra05-02, Kra05-03 Figure 3 Kratz 1996 Ecology 77(5): 1573-1585 Kra96-01 freshwater stream enclosure field 1.5 2 100 11 Insecta Doroneuria baumanni, stonefly Insecta Baetis bicaudatus, mayfly Emigration reduction in prey density from beginning to end of expt. (per predator per day) prey response without predator 0 0 0 2 100 200 prey response due to direct mortality 0.02 0 0.05 2 100 200 prey response due to predator-induced emigration 0.01 0.01 0.08 2 100 200 Prey Emigration -1 1 1 0 2 1 none Figure 3 Kratz 1996 Ecology 77(5): 1573-1585 Kra96-02 freshwater stream enclosure field 1.5 2 200 11 Insecta Doroneuria baumanni, stonefly Insecta Baetis bicaudatus, mayfly Emigration reduction in prey density from beginning to end of expt. (per predator per day) prey response without predator 0 0 0 2 200 400 prey response due to direct mortality 0.02 0 0.08 2 200 400 prey response due to predator-induced emigration 0.04 0 0.03 2 200 400 Prey Emigration -1 1 1 0 2 1 none Figure 3 Kratz 1996 Ecology 77(5): 1573-1585 Kra96-03 freshwater stream enclosure field 1.5 2 300 11 Insecta Doroneuria baumanni, stonefly Insecta Baetis bicaudatus, mayfly Emigration reduction in prey density from beginning to end of expt. (per predator per day) prey response without predator 0 0 0 2 300 600 prey response due to direct mortality 0.03 0 0.05 2 300 600 prey response due to predator-induced emigration 0.04 0.01 0.22 2 300 600 Prey Emigration -1 1 1 0 2 1 none Figure 3 Kratz 1996 Ecology 77(5): 1573-1585 Kra96-04 freshwater stream enclosure field 1.5 2 400 11 Insecta Doroneuria baumanni, stonefly Insecta Baetis bicaudatus, mayfly Emigration reduction in prey density from beginning to end of expt. (per predator per day) prey response without predator 0 0 0 2 400 800 prey response due to direct mortality 0.07 0.01 0.22 2 400 800 prey response due to predator-induced emigration 0.03 0.02 0.61 2 400 800 Prey Emigration -1 1 1 0 2 1 none Figure 3 Kratz 1996 Ecology 77(5): 1573-1585 Kra96-05 freshwater stream enclosure field 1.5 2 800 11 Insecta Doroneuria baumanni, stonefly Insecta Baetis bicaudatus, mayfly Emigration reduction in prey density from beginning to end of expt. (per predator per day) prey response without predator 0 0 0 2 800 1600 prey response due to direct mortality 0.06 0.02 0.82 2 800 1600 prey response due to predator-induced emigration 0.02 0.01 0.32 2 800 1600 Prey Emigration -1 1 1 0 2 1 none Figure 3 Kratz 1996 Ecology 77(5): 1573-1585 Kra96-06 freshwater stream enclosure field 1.5 2 1600 11 Insecta Doroneuria baumanni, stonefly Insecta Baetis bicaudatus, mayfly Emigration reduction in prey density from beginning to end of expt. (per predator per day) prey response without predator 0 0 0 2 1600 3200 prey response due to direct mortality 0.05 0 0.07 2 1600 3200 prey response due to predator-induced emigration 0.05 0 0.06 2 1600 3200 Prey Emigration -1 1 1 0 2 1 none Figure 4 Kuhara et al 1999 Oikos 87: 27-35 Kuh99-01 freshwater stream aquarium lab Until emergence (10+ days) 3 10 predator-mediated competition Actinopterygii Cottus nozawae, freshwater sculpin Insecta Baetis thermicus, mayfly Growth final body mass (mg) in the presence of a non-feeding predator no predator: 10 Baetis, 10 Glossosoma 2.16 0.23 1.24 3 10 30 predator risk: 10 b, 10 g 1.39 0.16 0.87 3 10 30 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Kuh99-01 to 03, Kuh99-07 to 09 Figure 4 Kuhara et al 1999 Oikos 87: 27-35 Kuh99-02 freshwater stream aquarium lab Until emergence (10+ days) 3 10 predator-mediated competition Actinopterygii Cottus nozawae, freshwater sculpin Insecta Baetis thermicus, mayfly Growth final body mass (mg) in the presence of a non-feeding predator no predator: 10 Baetis, 20 Glossosoma 1.47 0.04 0.21 3 10 30 predator risk: 10 b, 20 g 1.2 0.16 0.86 3 10 30 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Kuh99-01 to 03, Kuh99-07 to 09 Figure 4 Kuhara et al 1999 Oikos 87: 27-35 Kuh99-03 freshwater stream aquarium lab Until emergence (10+ days) 3 10 predator-mediated competition Actinopterygii Cottus nozawae, freshwater sculpin Insecta Baetis thermicus, mayfly Growth final body mass (mg) in the presence of a non-feeding predator no predator: 10 Baetis, 30 Glossosoma 1.73 0.07 0.37 3 10 30 predator risk: 10 b, 30 g 1.3 0.09 0.52 3 10 30 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Kuh99-01 to 03, Kuh99-07 to 09 Figure 4 Kuhara et al 1999 Oikos 87: 27-35 Kuh99-04 freshwater stream aquarium lab Until emergence (10+ days) 3 10 predator-mediated competition Actinopterygii Cottus nozawae, freshwater sculpin Insecta Glossosoma sp., caddisfly Growth final body mass (mg) in the presence of a non-feeding predator no predator: 10 Glossosoma, 10 Baetis 1.38 0.11 0.61 3 10 30 predator risk: 10 g, 10 b 1.22 0.1 0.57 3 10 30 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Kuh99-04 to 06, Kuh99-10 to 12 Figure 4 Kuhara et al 1999 Oikos 87: 27-35 Kuh99-05 freshwater stream aquarium lab Until emergence (10+ days) 3 10 predator-mediated competition Actinopterygii Cottus nozawae, freshwater sculpin Insecta Glossosoma sp., caddisfly Growth final body mass (mg) in the presence of a non-feeding predator no predator: 10 Glossosoma, 20 Baetis 1.24 0.11 0.59 3 10 30 predator risk: 10 g, 20 b 1.12 0.1 0.54 3 10 30 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Kuh99-04 to 06, Kuh99-10 to 12 Figure 4 Kuhara et al 1999 Oikos 87: 27-35 Kuh99-06 freshwater stream aquarium lab Until emergence (10+ days) 3 10 predator-mediated competition Actinopterygii Cottus nozawae, freshwater sculpin Insecta Glossosoma sp., caddisfly Growth final body mass (mg) in the presence of a non-feeding predator no predator: 10 Glossosoma, 30 Baetis 1.01 0.07 0.39 3 10 30 predator risk: 10 g, 30 b 1.08 0.05 0.27 3 10 30 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Kuh99-04 to 06, Kuh99-10 to 12 Figure 5 Kuhara et al 1999 Oikos 87: 27-35 Kuh99-07 freshwater stream aquarium lab Until emergence (10+ days) 3 10 111 Actinopterygii Cottus nozawae, freshwater sculpin Insecta Baetis thermicus, mayfly Autotroph Periphyton Biomass Ash-free dry mass of periphyton (mg/cm2) no predator: 10 Baetis, 10 Glossosoma 0.31 0.1 0.53 3 10 30 predator risk: 10 b, 10 g 0.4 0.09 0.52 3 10 30 Resource Biomass 1 0 1 0 1 2 Kuh99-01 to 03, Kuh99-07 to 09 Figure 5 Kuhara et al 1999 Oikos 87: 27-35 Kuh99-08 freshwater stream aquarium lab Until emergence (10+ days) 3 10 111 Actinopterygii Cottus nozawae, freshwater sculpin Insecta Baetis thermicus, mayfly Autotroph Periphyton Biomass Ash-free dry mass of periphyton (mg/cm2) no predator: 10 Baetis, 20 Glossosoma 0.12 0.02 0.09 3 10 30 predator risk: 10 b, 20 g 0.26 0.07 0.37 3 10 30 Resource Biomass 1 0 1 0 1 2 Kuh99-01 to 03, Kuh99-07 to 09 Figure 5 Kuhara et al 1999 Oikos 87: 27-35 Kuh99-09 freshwater stream aquarium lab Until emergence (10+ days) 3 10 111 Actinopterygii Cottus nozawae, freshwater sculpin Insecta Baetis thermicus, mayfly Autotroph Periphyton Biomass Ash-free dry mass of periphyton (mg/cm2) no predator: 10 Baetis, 30 Glossosoma 0.1 0.03 0.19 3 10 30 predator risk: 10 b, 30 g 0.08 0.01 0.07 3 10 30 Resource Biomass 1 0 1 0 1 2 Kuh99-01 to 03, Kuh99-07 to 09 Figure 5 Kuhara et al 1999 Oikos 87: 27-35 Kuh99-10 freshwater stream aquarium lab Until emergence (10+ days) 3 10 111 Actinopterygii Cottus nozawae, freshwater sculpin Insecta Glossosoma sp., caddisfly Autotroph Periphyton Biomass Ash-free dry mass of periphyton (mg/cm2) no predator: 10 Glossosoma, 10 Baetis 0.32 0.09 0.47 3 10 30 predator risk: 10 g, 10 b 0.4 0.09 0.48 3 10 30 Resource Biomass 1 0 1 0 1 2 Kuh99-04 to 06, Kuh99-10 to 12 Figure 5 Kuhara et al 1999 Oikos 87: 27-35 Kuh99-11 freshwater stream aquarium lab Until emergence (10+ days) 3 10 111 Actinopterygii Cottus nozawae, freshwater sculpin Insecta Glossosoma sp., caddisfly Autotroph Periphyton Biomass Ash-free dry mass of periphyton (mg/cm2) no predator: 10 Glossosoma, 20 Baetis 0.08 0.03 0.15 3 10 30 predator risk: 10 g, 20 b 0.3 0.08 0.45 3 10 30 Resource Biomass 1 0 1 0 1 2 Kuh99-04 to 06, Kuh99-10 to 12 Figure 5 Kuhara et al 1999 Oikos 87: 27-35 Kuh99-12 freshwater stream aquarium lab Until emergence (10+ days) 3 10 111 Actinopterygii Cottus nozawae, freshwater sculpin Insecta Glossosoma sp., caddisfly Autotroph Periphyton Biomass Ash-free dry mass of periphyton (mg/cm2) no predator: 10 Glossosoma, 30 Baetis 0.1 0.05 0.25 3 10 30 predator risk: 10 g, 30 b 0.24 0.1 0.55 3 10 30 Resource Biomass 1 0 1 0 1 2 Kuh99-04 to 06, Kuh99-10 to 12 Figure 2A Kunert & Weisser 2003 Oecologia 135:304-312 Kun03-01 terrestrial agricultural cage lab 3 varies 20 11 Insecta Episyrphus balteatus, hoverfly (larvae) Insecta Acyrthosiphon pisum, pea aphid Emigration % winged morph predator absent 43.51 4.86 94.74 19 20 380 predator present 55.09 3.85 75.14 19 20 380 Prey Emigration -1 0 1 0 1 1 none period 1 Figure 2A Kunert & Weisser 2003 Oecologia 135:304-312 Kun03-02 terrestrial agricultural cage lab 3 varies 20 11 Insecta Episyrphus balteatus, hoverfly (larvae) Insecta Acyrthosiphon pisum, pea aphid Emigration % winged morph predator absent 23.84 3.23 57.71 16 20 320 predator present 57.33 5.93 106.05 16 20 320 Prey Emigration -1 0 1 0 1 1 none period 2 Figure 2B Kunert & Weisser 2003 Oecologia 135:304-312 Kun03-03 terrestrial agricultural cage lab 3 varies 20 11 Insecta Chrysoperla carnea, lacewing (larvae) Insecta Acyrthosiphon pisum, pea aphid Emigration % winged morph predator absent 33.22 3.9 88.85 26 20 520 predator present 51.72 4.52 103.18 26 20 520 Prey Emigration -1 0 1 0 1 1 none period 1 Figure 2B Kunert & Weisser 2003 Oecologia 135:304-312 Kun03-04 terrestrial agricultural cage lab 3 varies 20 11 Insecta Chrysoperla carnea, lacewing (larvae) Insecta Acyrthosiphon pisum, pea aphid Emigration % winged morph predator absent 25.28 3.25 74.04 26 20 520 predator present 72.73 3.98 90.76 26 20 520 Prey Emigration -1 0 1 0 1 1 none period 2 Fig. 3 Kusch & Chivers 2004 Can. J. Zool. 82: 917-921 Kus04-01 freshwater lake aquarium lab until hatching complete varies 1 11 Malacostraca Orconectes virilis, virile crayfish Actinopterygii Pimephales promelas, fathead minnow Growth length at hatching (mm) tap water without fish cues present 5.08 0.04 0.32 82 1 82 tap water with cue from crayfish fed fathead minnow eggs 4.83 0.01 0.08 85 1 85 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Kus04-2 Fig. 3 Kusch & Chivers 2004 Can. J. Zool. 82: 917-921 Kus04-02 freshwater lake aquarium lab until hatching complete varies 1 11 Malacostraca Orconectes virilis, virile crayfish Actinopterygii Pimephales promelas, fathead minnow Growth length at hatching (mm) tap water without fish cues present 5.08 0.04 0.32 82 1 82 tap water with cue from crayfish fed aquatic plants 5.02 0.01 0.05 76 1 76 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Kus04-1 Fig 1a LaFiandra & Babbitt 2004 Oecologia 138: 350-359 Laf04-01 freshwater pond aquarium lab 49 5 4 11 Insecta Anax junius, dragonfly Amphibia Hyla femoralis, pinewoods treefrog Development Gossner stage at day 49 26 0 5 no predator cues present 34.63 1.19 5.34 5 4 20 olfactory predator cues present 29.85 1.19 5.34 5 4 20 Prey Development 1 0 1 0 1 1 Laf04-01,-05,-09 Fig 1a LaFiandra & Babbitt 2004 Oecologia 138: 350-359 Laf04-02 freshwater pond aquarium lab 49 5 4 11 Insecta Anax junius, dragonfly Amphibia Hyla femoralis, pinewoods treefrog Development Gossner stage at day 49 26 0 5 no predator cues present 34.63 1.19 5.34 5 4 20 visual and olfactory predator cues present 27.46 0.9 4 5 4 20 Prey Development 1 0 1 0 1 1 Laf04-02,-06,-10 Fig 1a LaFiandra & Babbitt 2004 Oecologia 138: 350-359 Laf04-03 freshwater pond aquarium lab 49 5 4 11 Insecta Anax junius, dragonfly Amphibia Hyla femoralis, pinewoods treefrog Development Gossner stage at day 49 26 0 5 no predator cues present 37.01 1.19 5.34 5 4 20 olfactory predator cues present 33.43 1.19 5.34 5 4 20 Prey Development 1 0 1 0 1 1 Laf04-03,-07,-11 Fig 1a LaFiandra & Babbitt 2004 Oecologia 138: 350-359 Laf04-04 freshwater pond aquarium lab 49 5 4 11 Insecta Anax junius, dragonfly Amphibia Hyla femoralis, pinewoods treefrog Development Gossner stage at day 49 26 0 5 no predator cues present 37.01 1.19 5.34 5 4 20 visual and olfactory predator cues present 27.46 0.9 4 5 4 20 Prey Development 1 0 1 0 1 1 Laf04-04,-08,-12 Fig 1b LaFiandra & Babbitt 2004 Oecologia 138: 350-359 Laf04-05 freshwater pond aquarium lab 49 5 4 11 Insecta Anax junius, dragonfly Amphibia Hyla femoralis, pinewoods treefrog Growth wet mass (g) no predator cues present 0.48 0.07 0.33 5 4 20 olfactory predator cues present 0.38 0.05 0.23 5 4 20 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Laf04-01,-05,-09 Fig 1b LaFiandra & Babbitt 2004 Oecologia 138: 350-359 Laf04-06 freshwater pond aquarium lab 49 5 4 11 Insecta Anax junius, dragonfly Amphibia Hyla femoralis, pinewoods treefrog Growth wet mass (g) no predator cues present 0.48 0.07 0.33 5 4 20 visual and olfactory predator cues present 0.25 0.06 0.28 5 4 20 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Laf04-02,-06,-10 Fig 1b LaFiandra & Babbitt 2004 Oecologia 138: 350-359 Laf04-07 freshwater pond aquarium lab 49 5 4 11 Insecta Anax junius, dragonfly Amphibia Hyla femoralis, pinewoods treefrog Growth wet mass (g) no predator cues present 0.59 0.05 0.23 5 4 20 olfactory predator cues present 0.5 0.05 0.23 5 4 20 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Laf04-03,-07,-11 Fig 1b LaFiandra & Babbitt 2004 Oecologia 138: 350-359 Laf04-08 freshwater pond aquarium lab 49 5 4 11 Insecta Anax junius, dragonfly Amphibia Hyla femoralis, pinewoods treefrog Growth wet mass (g) no predator cues present 0.59 0.05 0.23 5 4 20 visual and olfactory predator cues present 0.26 0.06 0.28 5 4 20 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Laf04-04,-08,-12 Fig 1c LaFiandra & Babbitt 2004 Oecologia 138: 350-359 Laf04-09 freshwater pond aquarium lab 49 5 4 11 Insecta Anax junius, dragonfly Amphibia Hyla femoralis, pinewoods treefrog Survival % surviving no predator cues present 83.58 8.96 40.05 5 4 20 olfactory predator cues present 74.63 8.96 40.05 5 4 20 Prey Survival 1 0 1 0 1 1 Laf04-01,-05,-09 Fig 1c LaFiandra & Babbitt 2004 Oecologia 138: 350-359 Laf04-10 freshwater pond aquarium lab 49 5 4 11 Insecta Anax junius, dragonfly Amphibia Hyla femoralis, pinewoods treefrog Survival % surviving no predator cues present 83.58 8.96 40.05 5 4 20 visual and olfactory predator cues present 59.7 8.96 40.05 5 4 20 Prey Survival 1 0 1 0 1 1 Laf04-02,-06,-10 Fig 1c LaFiandra & Babbitt 2004 Oecologia 138: 350-359 Laf04-11 freshwater pond aquarium lab 49 5 4 11 Insecta Anax junius, dragonfly Amphibia Hyla femoralis, pinewoods treefrog Survival % surviving no predator cues present 77.61 8.96 40.05 5 4 20 olfactory predator cues present 77.61 8.96 40.05 5 4 20 Prey Survival 1 0 1 0 1 1 Laf04-03,-07,-11 Fig 1c LaFiandra & Babbitt 2004 Oecologia 138: 350-359 Laf04-12 freshwater pond aquarium lab 49 5 4 11 Insecta Anax junius, dragonfly Amphibia Hyla femoralis, pinewoods treefrog Survival % surviving no predator cues present 77.61 8.96 40.05 5 4 20 visual and olfactory predator cues present 47.76 8.96 40.05 5 4 20 Prey Survival 1 0 1 0 1 1 Laf04-04,-08,-12 Figure 5a Lane & Mahoney 2002 J Animal Ecol 71: 780-792 Lan02A-01 freshwater pond, ephemeral aquarium lab until metamorphosis 6 20 11 Actinopterygii Gambusia holbrookii, mosquitofish Amphibia Crinia signifera, eastern brown froglet Development # metamorphosing (out of 20) no predator 18.41 0.58 6.34 6 20 120 caged Gambusia 16.6 1.36 14.92 6 20 120 Prey Development 1 0 1 0 1 1 Lan02A-01, 05, 09, 13, 17 constant water volume Figure 5a Lane & Mahoney 2002 J Animal Ecol 71: 780-792 Lan02A-02 freshwater pond, ephemeral aquarium lab until metamorphosis 6 20 11 Actinopterygii Gambusia holbrookii, mosquitofish Amphibia Crinia signifera, eastern brown froglet Development # metamorphosing (out of 20) no predator 16.88 0.95 10.45 6 20 120 caged Gambusia 17.49 1.19 12.99 6 20 120 Prey Development 1 0 1 0 1 1 Lan02A-02, 06, 10, 14, 18 decreasing water volume Figure 5b Lane & Mahoney 2002 J Animal Ecol 71: 780-792 Lan02A-03 freshwater pond, permanent aquarium lab until metamorphosis 6 20 11 Actinopterygii Gambusia holbrookii, mosquitofish Amphibia Limnodynastes tasmaniensis, spotted marsh frog Development # metamorphosing (out of 20) no predator 15.63 0.85 9.29 6 20 120 caged Gambusia 15.34 0.94 10.25 6 20 120 Prey Development 1 0 1 0 1 1 Lan02A-03, 07, 11, 15, 19 constant water volume Figure 5b Lane & Mahoney 2002 J Animal Ecol 71: 780-792 Lan02A-04 freshwater pond, permanent aquarium lab until metamorphosis 6 20 11 Actinopterygii Gambusia holbrookii, mosquitofish Amphibia Limnodynastes tasmaniensis, spotted marsh frog Development # metamorphosing (out of 20) no predator 7.33 1.31 14.36 6 20 120 caged Gambusia 8.27 0.87 9.54 6 20 120 Prey Development 1 0 1 0 1 1 Lan02A-04, 08, 12, 16, 20 decreasing water volume Figure 6a Lane & Mahoney 2002 J Animal Ecol 71: 780-792 Lan02A-05 freshwater pond, ephemeral aquarium lab until metamorphosis 6 20 11 Actinopterygii Gambusia holbrookii, mosquitofish Amphibia Crinia signifera, eastern brown froglet Growth Mass at metamorphosis (g) no predator 0.1 0 0.05 6 20 120 caged Gambusia 0.1 0.01 0.07 6 20 120 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Lan02A-01, 05, 09, 13, 17 constant water volume Figure 6a Lane & Mahoney 2002 J Animal Ecol 71: 780-792 Lan02A-06 freshwater pond, ephemeral aquarium lab until metamorphosis 6 20 11 Actinopterygii Gambusia holbrookii, mosquitofish Amphibia Crinia signifera, eastern brown froglet Growth Mass at metamorphosis (g) no predator 0.08 0 0.05 6 20 120 caged Gambusia 0.08 0 0.02 6 20 120 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Lan02A-02, 06, 10, 14, 18 decreasing water volume Figure 6b Lane & Mahoney 2002 J Animal Ecol 71: 780-792 Lan02A-07 freshwater pond, ephemeral aquarium lab until metamorphosis 6 20 11 Actinopterygii Gambusia holbrookii, mosquitofish Amphibia Limnodynastes tasmaniensis, spotted marsh frog Growth Mass at metamorphosis (g) no predator 0.65 0.02 0.25 6 20 120 caged Gambusia 0.69 0.02 0.17 6 20 120 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Lan02A-03, 07, 11, 15, 19 constant water volume Figure 6b Lane & Mahoney 2002 J Animal Ecol 71: 780-792 Lan02A-08 freshwater pond, ephemeral aquarium lab until metamorphosis 6 20 11 Actinopterygii Gambusia holbrookii, mosquitofish Amphibia Limnodynastes tasmaniensis, spotted marsh frog Growth Mass at metamorphosis (g) no predator 0.46 0.01 0.15 6 20 120 caged Gambusia 0.47 0.02 0.17 6 20 120 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Lan02A-04, 08, 12, 16, 20 decreasing water volume Figure 7a Lane & Mahoney 2002 J Animal Ecol 71: 780-792 Lan02A-09 freshwater pond, ephemeral aquarium lab until metamorphosis 6 20 11 Actinopterygii Gambusia holbrookii, mosquitofish Amphibia Crinia signifera, eastern brown froglet Development Time to metamorphosis (days) no predator 31.12 0.7 7.66 6 20 120 caged Gambusia 30.64 1.82 19.91 6 20 120 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Lan02A-01, 05, 09, 13, 17 constant water volume Figure 7a Lane & Mahoney 2002 J Animal Ecol 71: 780-792 Lan02A-10 freshwater pond, ephemeral aquarium lab until metamorphosis 6 20 11 Actinopterygii Gambusia holbrookii, mosquitofish Amphibia Crinia signifera, eastern brown froglet Development Time to metamorphosis (days) no predator 28.78 1.47 16.12 6 20 120 caged Gambusia 27.59 0.81 8.9 6 20 120 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Lan02A-02, 06, 10, 14, 18 decreasing water volume Figure 7b Lane & Mahoney 2002 J Animal Ecol 71: 780-792 Lan02A-11 freshwater pond, ephemeral aquarium lab until metamorphosis 6 20 11 Actinopterygii Gambusia holbrookii, mosquitofish Amphibia Limnodynastes tasmaniensis, spotted marsh frog Development Time to metamorphosis (days) no predator 122.89 7 76.68 6 20 120 caged Gambusia 128.38 6.65 72.81 6 20 120 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Lan02A-03, 07, 11, 15, 19 constant water volume Figure 7b Lane & Mahoney 2002 J Animal Ecol 71: 780-792 Lan02A-12 freshwater pond, ephemeral aquarium lab until metamorphosis 6 20 11 Actinopterygii Gambusia holbrookii, mosquitofish Amphibia Limnodynastes tasmaniensis, spotted marsh frog Development Time to metamorphosis (days) no predator 122.5 7.8 85.47 6 20 120 caged Gambusia 120.99 4.01 43.97 6 20 120 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Lan02A-04, 08, 12, 16, 20 decreasing water volume Figure 8a Lane & Mahoney 2002 J Animal Ecol 71: 780-792 Lan02A-13 freshwater pond, ephemeral aquarium lab until metamorphosis 6 20 11 Actinopterygii Gambusia holbrookii, mosquitofish Amphibia Crinia signifera, eastern brown froglet Survival Proportion of metamorphs surviving to day 90 no predator 0.25 0.03 0.33 6 20 120 caged Gambusia 0.4 0.06 0.7 6 20 120 Prey Survival 1 0 1 0 1 1 Lan02A-01, 05, 09, 13, 17 constant water volume Figure 8a Lane & Mahoney 2002 J Animal Ecol 71: 780-792 Lan02A-14 freshwater pond, ephemeral aquarium lab until metamorphosis 6 20 11 Actinopterygii Gambusia holbrookii, mosquitofish Amphibia Crinia signifera, eastern brown froglet Survival Proportion of metamorphs surviving to day 90 no predator 0.02 0.01 0.1 6 20 120 caged Gambusia 0.04 0.04 0.39 6 20 120 Prey Survival 1 0 1 0 1 1 Lan02A-02, 06, 10, 14, 18 decreasing water volume Figure 8b Lane & Mahoney 2002 J Animal Ecol 71: 780-792 Lan02A-15 freshwater pond, ephemeral aquarium lab until metamorphosis 6 20 11 Actinopterygii Gambusia holbrookii, mosquitofish Amphibia Limnodynastes tasmaniensis, spotted marsh frog Survival Proportion of metamorphs surviving to day 275 no predator 0.22 0.04 0.43 6 20 120 caged Gambusia 0.3 0.07 0.73 6 20 120 Prey Survival 1 0 1 0 1 1 Lan02A-03, 07, 11, 15, 19 constant water volume Figure 8b Lane & Mahoney 2002 J Animal Ecol 71: 780-792 Lan02A-16 freshwater pond, ephemeral aquarium lab until metamorphosis 6 20 11 Actinopterygii Gambusia holbrookii, mosquitofish Amphibia Limnodynastes tasmaniensis, spotted marsh frog Survival Proportion of metamorphs surviving to day 275 no predator 0.3 0.1 1.06 6 20 120 caged Gambusia 0.16 0.05 0.58 6 20 120 Prey Survival 1 0 1 0 1 1 Lan02A-04, 08, 12, 16, 20 decreasing water volume Figure 4a Lane & Mahoney 2002 J Animal Ecol 71: 780-792 Lan02A-17 freshwater pond, ephemeral aquarium lab until metamorphosis 6 20 11 Actinopterygii Gambusia holbrookii, mosquitofish Amphibia Crinia signifera, eastern brown froglet Feeding rate proportion of time spent feeding no predator 0.29 0.03 0.38 6 20 120 caged Gambusia 0.28 0.04 0.46 6 20 120 Prey Feeding rate 1 0 1 0 1 1 Lan02A-01, 05, 09, 13, 17 constant water volume Figure 4a Lane & Mahoney 2002 J Animal Ecol 71: 780-792 Lan02A-18 freshwater pond, ephemeral aquarium lab until metamorphosis 6 20 11 Actinopterygii Gambusia holbrookii, mosquitofish Amphibia Crinia signifera, eastern brown froglet Feeding rate proportion of time spent feeding no predator 0.17 0.03 0.35 6 20 120 caged Gambusia 0.22 0.05 0.54 6 20 120 Prey Feeding rate 1 0 1 0 1 1 Lan02A-02, 06, 10, 14, 18 decreasing water volume Figure 4b Lane & Mahoney 2002 J Animal Ecol 71: 780-792 Lan02A-19 freshwater pond, ephemeral aquarium lab until metamorphosis 6 20 11 Actinopterygii Gambusia holbrookii, mosquitofish Amphibia Limnodynastes tasmaniensis, spotted marsh frog Feeding rate proportion of time spent feeding no predator 0.1 0.06 0.7 6 20 120 caged Gambusia 0.06 0.03 0.31 6 20 120 Prey Feeding rate 1 0 1 0 1 1 Lan02A-03, 07, 11, 15, 19 constant water volume Figure 4b Lane & Mahoney 2002 J Animal Ecol 71: 780-792 Lan02A-20 freshwater pond, ephemeral aquarium lab until metamorphosis 6 20 11 Actinopterygii Gambusia holbrookii, mosquitofish Amphibia Limnodynastes tasmaniensis, spotted marsh frog Feeding rate proportion of time spent feeding no predator 0.06 0.03 0.29 6 20 120 caged Gambusia 0.11 0.04 0.41 6 20 120 Prey Feeding rate 1 0 1 0 1 1 Lan02A-04, 08, 12, 16, 20 decreasing water volume Figure 1 Langerhans & Dewitt 2002 Evol Ecol Res 6: 857-870 Lan02B-01 freshwater pond aquarium lab 42 2 10 11 Actinopterygii Lepomis cyanellus, green sunfish Gastropoda Physella virgata, snail Growth body size at end of experiment no predator 2.01 0.08 0.36 2 10 20 predator present 1.2 0.07 0.31 2 10 20 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 none Figure 1 Langerhans & Dewitt 2002 Evol Ecol Res 6: 857-870 Lan02B-02 freshwater pond aquarium lab 42 2 10 11 Actinopterygii Lepomis gibbosus, pumpkinseed sunfish Gastropoda Physella virgata, snail Growth body size at end of experiment no predator 2.01 0.08 0.36 2 10 20 predator present 1.66 0.07 0.32 2 10 20 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 none Figure 1 Langerhans & Dewitt 2002 Evol Ecol Res 6: 857-870 Lan02B-03 freshwater pond aquarium lab 42 2 10 11 Actinopterygii Lepomis macrochirus, bluegill Gastropoda Physella virgata, snail Growth body size at end of experiment no predator 2.01 0.08 0.36 2 10 20 predator present 1.76 0.07 0.31 2 10 20 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 none Figure 1 Langerhans & Dewitt 2002 Evol Ecol Res 6: 857-870 Lan02B-04 freshwater pond aquarium lab 42 2 10 11 Actinopterygii Lepomis megalotis, longear sunfish Gastropoda Physella virgata, snail Growth body size at end of experiment no predator 2.01 0.08 0.36 2 10 20 predator present 1.6 0.08 0.34 2 10 20 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 none Figure 1 Langerhans & Dewitt 2002 Evol Ecol Res 6: 857-870 Lan02B-05 freshwater pond aquarium lab 42 2 10 11 Actinopterygii Lepomis microlophus, redear sunfish Gastropoda Physella virgata, snail Growth body size at end of experiment no predator 2.01 0.08 0.36 2 10 20 predator present 1.72 0.09 0.39 2 10 20 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 none Figure 1 Langerhans & Dewitt 2002 Evol Ecol Res 6: 857-870 Lan02B-06 freshwater pond aquarium lab 42 2 10 11 Actinopterygii Micropterus salmoides, largemouth bass Gastropoda Physella virgata, snail Growth body size at end of experiment no predator 2.01 0.08 0.36 2 10 20 predator present 1.66 0.07 0.31 2 10 20 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 none Table 3, figure 3A, text page 56 Lancaster 1990 Oecologia 85:48-56 Lan90-01 freshwater stream natural unit (stream channels) field 25 2 1 no # individuals given. Used one ind/rep as most conservative estimate 11 Insecta Doroneuria baumanni, stonefly Insecta Baetis sp., mayfly Emigration daily per capita Mortality and drift percent change from control predator absent 0 0 0 2 1 2 % reduction in density due to drift 9 0.1 0.14 2 1 2 Total % reduction in density 19 0.5 0.71 2 1 2 Prey Emigration -1 0 1 1 2 1 none Table 3, figure 3B, text page 56 Lancaster 1990 Oecologia 85:48-56 Lan90-02 freshwater stream natural unit (stream channels) field 25 2 1 no # individuals given. Used one ind/rep as most conservative estimate 11 Insecta Doroneuria baumanni, stonefly Insecta Chironomidae, midge Emigration daily per capita Mortality and drift percent change from control predator absent 0 0 0 2 1 2 % reduction in density due to drift 0 0 0 2 1 2 Total % reduction in density 15 2 2.83 2 1 2 Prey Emigration -1 0 1 1 2 1 none Table 4 Lardner 2000 Oikos 88:169-180 Lar00-01 freshwater lake & pond cattle tank/ wading pool field until metamorphosis complete 6 10 11 Insecta Dytiscus marginalis, diving beetle Amphibia Bufo bufo, common toad Development Time to metamorphosis (days) tank without caged predator 49.95 0.88 6.82 6 10 60 tank with caged predator 48.49 0.25 1.94 6 10 60 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Lar00-2 Table 4 Lardner 2000 Oikos 88:169-180 Lar00-02 freshwater lake & pond cattle tank/ wading pool field until metamorphosis complete 6 10 11 Insecta Dytiscus marginalis, diving beetle Amphibia Bufo bufo, common toad Growth mg/day tank without caged predator 4.6 0.45 3.49 6 10 60 tank with caged predator 3.82 0.16 1.24 6 10 60 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Lar00-1 Table 4 Lardner 2000 Oikos 88:169-180 Lar00-03 freshwater pond, ephemeral cattle tank/ wading pool field until metamorphosis complete 6 10 11 Insecta Dytiscus marginalis, diving beetle Amphibia Bufo calamita, natterjack toad Development Time to metamorphosis (days) tank without caged predator 51.89 2.19 16.96 6 10 60 tank with caged predator 50.68 2.34 18.13 6 10 60 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Lar00-4 Table 4 Lardner 2000 Oikos 88:169-180 Lar00-04 freshwater pond, ephemeral cattle tank/ wading pool field until metamorphosis complete 6 10 11 Insecta Dytiscus marginalis, diving beetle Amphibia Bufo calamita, natterjack toad Growth mg/day tank without caged predator 1.86 0.15 1.16 6 10 60 tank with caged predator 1.98 0.14 1.08 6 10 60 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Lar00-3 Table 4 Lardner 2000 Oikos 88:169-180 Lar00-05 freshwater pond, semi-permanent w/o fish cattle tank/ wading pool field until metamorphosis complete 6 10 11 Insecta Dytiscus marginalis, diving beetle Amphibia Hyla arborea, common treefrog Development Time to metamorphosis (days) tank without caged predator 84.56 0.42 3.25 6 10 60 tank with caged predator 83.72 0.66 5.11 6 10 60 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Lar00-6 Table 4 Lardner 2000 Oikos 88:169-180 Lar00-06 freshwater pond, semi-permanent w/o fish cattle tank/ wading pool field until metamorphosis complete 6 10 11 Insecta Dytiscus marginalis, diving beetle Amphibia Hyla arborea, common treefrog Growth mg/day tank without caged predator 5.68 0.27 2.09 6 10 60 tank with caged predator 5.44 0.33 2.56 6 10 60 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Lar00-5 Table 4 Lardner 2000 Oikos 88:169-180 Lar00-07 freshwater lake & pond cattle tank/ wading pool field until metamorphosis complete 6 10 11 Insecta Dytiscus marginalis, diving beetle Amphibia Pelobates fuscus, garlic toad Development Time to metamorphosis (days) tank without caged predator 101.15 2.7 20.91 6 10 60 tank with caged predator 104.84 2.88 22.31 6 10 60 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Lar00-8 Table 4 Lardner 2000 Oikos 88:169-180 Lar00-08 freshwater lake & pond cattle tank/ wading pool field until metamorphosis complete 6 10 11 Insecta Dytiscus marginalis, diving beetle Amphibia Pelobates fuscus, garlic toad Growth mg/day tank without caged predator 12.53 0.43 3.33 6 10 60 tank with caged predator 11.89 0.54 4.18 6 10 60 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Lar00-7 Table 4 Lardner 2000 Oikos 88:169-180 Lar00-09 freshwater pond cattle tank/ wading pool field until metamorphosis complete 6 10 11 Insecta Dytiscus marginalis, diving beetle Amphibia Rana arvalis, moor frog Development Time to metamorphosis (days) tank without caged predator 62.66 1.25 9.68 6 10 60 tank with caged predator 66.67 1.61 12.47 6 10 60 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Lar00-10 Table 4 Lardner 2000 Oikos 88:169-180 Lar00-10 freshwater pond cattle tank/ wading pool field until metamorphosis complete 6 10 11 Insecta Dytiscus marginalis, diving beetle Amphibia Rana arvalis, moor frog Growth mg/day tank without caged predator 5.11 0.41 3.18 6 10 60 tank with caged predator 4.65 0.29 2.25 6 10 60 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Lar00-9 Table 4 Lardner 2000 Oikos 88:169-180 Lar00-11 freshwater lake & pond cattle tank/ wading pool field until metamorphosis complete 6 10 11 Insecta Dytiscus marginalis, diving beetle Amphibia Rana dalmatina, agile frog Development Time to metamorphosis (days) tank without caged predator 77.82 4.11 31.84 6 10 60 tank with caged predator 81.9 2.3 17.82 6 10 60 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Lar00-12 Table 4 Lardner 2000 Oikos 88:169-180 Lar00-12 freshwater lake & pond cattle tank/ wading pool field until metamorphosis complete 6 10 11 Insecta Dytiscus marginalis, diving beetle Amphibia Rana dalmatina, agile frog Growth mg/day tank without caged predator 4.61 0.46 3.56 6 10 60 tank with caged predator 3.74 0.28 2.17 6 10 60 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Lar00-11 Table 4 Lardner 2000 Oikos 88:169-180 Lar00-13 freshwater pond cattle tank/ wading pool field until metamorphosis complete 6 10 11 Insecta Dytiscus marginalis, diving beetle Amphibia Rana temporaria, common frog Development Time to metamorphosis (days) tank without caged predator 58.33 0.6 4.65 6 10 60 tank with caged predator 60.53 1.47 11.39 6 10 60 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Lar00-14 Table 4 Lardner 2000 Oikos 88:169-180 Lar00-14 freshwater pond cattle tank/ wading pool field until metamorphosis complete 6 10 11 Insecta Dytiscus marginalis, diving beetle Amphibia Rana temporaria, common frog Growth mg/day tank without caged predator 5.36 0.18 1.39 6 10 60 tank with caged predator 4.19 0.25 1.94 6 10 60 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Lar00-13 Figure 1 Laurila et al 2002 Oecologia 132: 524-530 Lau02-01 freshwater pond aquarium lab until hatching complete 50 10 11 Hirudinea Haemopis sanguisuga, leech, an egg predator Amphibia Rana temporaria, common frog Development Gossner stage at hatching conspecific tadpole present in cage, not predator 21.51 0.11 2.52 50 10 500 caged predator present 21.35 0.1 2.13 50 10 500 Prey Development 1 0 1 0 1 1 none Figure 1 Laurila et al 2002 Oecologia 132: 524-530 Lau02-02 freshwater pond aquarium lab until hatching complete 50 10 11 Insecta Aeshna sp., dragonfly Amphibia Rana temporaria, common frog Development Gossner stage at hatching conspecific tadpole present in cage, not predator 21.51 0.11 2.52 50 10 500 caged predator present 21.93 0.1 2.34 50 10 500 Prey Development 1 0 1 0 1 1 none Figure 1 Laurila et al 2002 Oecologia 132: 524-530 Lau02-03 freshwater pond aquarium lab until hatching complete 50 10 11 Actinopterygii Gasterosteus aculeatus, three-spined stickleback Amphibia Rana temporaria, common frog Development Gossner stage at hatching conspecific tadpole present in cage, not predator 21.51 0.11 2.52 50 10 500 caged predator present 21.79 0.11 2.54 50 10 500 Prey Development 1 0 1 0 1 1 none Figure 1 Laurila et al 2002 Oecologia 132: 524-530 Lau02-04 freshwater pond aquarium lab until hatching complete 50 10 11 Hirudinea Haemopis sanguisuga, leech, an egg predator Amphibia Rana arvalis, moor frog Development Gossner stage at hatching conspecific tadpole present in cage, not predator 21.43 0.14 3.04 50 10 500 caged predator present 20.91 0.13 2.94 50 10 500 Prey Development 1 0 1 0 1 1 none Gotland population Figure 1 Laurila et al 2002 Oecologia 132: 524-530 Lau02-05 freshwater pond aquarium lab until hatching complete 50 10 11 Insecta Aeshna sp., dragonfly Amphibia Rana arvalis, moor frog Development Gossner stage at hatching conspecific tadpole present in cage, not predator 21.43 0.14 3.04 50 10 500 caged predator present 20.93 0.18 3.93 50 10 500 Prey Development 1 0 1 0 1 1 none Gotland population Figure 1 Laurila et al 2002 Oecologia 132: 524-530 Lau02-06 freshwater pond aquarium lab until hatching complete 50 10 11 Actinopterygii Gasterosteus aculeatus, three-spined stickleback Amphibia Rana arvalis, moor frog Development Gossner stage at hatching conspecific tadpole present in cage, not predator 21.43 0.14 3.04 50 10 500 caged predator present 20.85 0.16 3.66 50 10 500 Prey Development 1 0 1 0 1 1 none Gotland population Figure 1 Laurila et al 2002 Oecologia 132: 524-530 Lau02-07 freshwater pond aquarium lab until hatching complete 50 10 11 Hirudinea Haemopis sanguisuga, leech, an egg predator Amphibia Rana arvalis, moor frog Development Gossner stage at hatching conspecific tadpole present in cage, not predator 22.29 0.17 3.8 50 10 500 caged predator present 21.59 0.13 3 50 10 500 Prey Development 1 0 1 0 1 1 none Uppland population Figure 1 Laurila et al 2002 Oecologia 132: 524-530 Lau02-08 freshwater pond aquarium lab until hatching complete 50 10 11 Insecta Aeshna sp., dragonfly Amphibia Rana arvalis, moor frog Development Gossner stage at hatching conspecific tadpole present in cage, not predator 22.29 0.17 3.8 50 10 500 caged predator present 21.37 0.18 4.01 50 10 500 Prey Development 1 0 1 0 1 1 none Uppland population Figure 1 Laurila et al 2002 Oecologia 132: 524-530 Lau02-09 freshwater pond aquarium lab until hatching complete 50 10 11 Actinopterygii Gasterosteus aculeatus, three-spined stickleback Amphibia Rana arvalis, moor frog Development Gossner stage at hatching conspecific tadpole present in cage, not predator 22.29 0.17 3.8 50 10 500 caged predator present 21.23 0.18 4.09 50 10 500 Prey Development 1 0 1 0 1 1 none Uppland population Figure 2C Laurila et al 2004 Oikos 107:90-99 Lau04-01 freshwater pond aquarium lab 24 1 14 11 Insecta Aeshna sp., dragonfly Amphibia Rana temporaria, common frog Activity proportion active on day 24 tank without caged predator 0.12 0.02 0.08 1 14 14 tank with caged predator 0.02 0.02 0.08 1 14 14 Prey Activity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Lau04-01, Lau04-04, Lau04-07 Figure 2C Laurila et al 2004 Oikos 107:90-99 Lau04-02 freshwater both temporary and permanent ponds aquarium lab 24 1 14 11 Insecta Aeshna sp., dragonfly Amphibia Rana temporaria, common frog Activity proportion active on day 24 tank without caged predator 0.12 0.02 0.08 1 14 14 tank with caged predator 0.01 0.02 0.07 1 14 14 Prey Activity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Lau04-02, Lau04-05, Lau04-08 Figure 2C Laurila et al 2004 Oikos 107:90-99 Lau04-03 freshwater both temporary and permanent ponds aquarium lab 24 1 14 11 Insecta Aeshna sp., dragonfly Amphibia Rana temporaria, common frog Activity proportion active on day 24 tank without caged predator 0.12 0.02 0.08 1 14 14 tank with caged predator 0.02 0.02 0.07 1 14 14 Prey Activity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Lau04-03, Lau04-06, Lau04-09 Figure 4A Laurila et al 2004 Oikos 107:90-99 Lau04-04 freshwater both temporary and permanent ponds aquarium lab until metamorphosis complete 1 14 11 Insecta Aeshna sp., dragonfly Amphibia Rana temporaria, common frog Development larval period (days) tank without caged predator 29.27 0.53 1.97 1 14 14 tank with caged predator 30.02 0.48 1.8 1 14 14 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Lau04-01, Lau04-04, Lau04-07 Figure 4A Laurila et al 2004 Oikos 107:90-99 Lau04-05 freshwater both temporary and permanent ponds aquarium lab until metamorphosis complete 1 14 11 Insecta Aeshna sp., dragonfly Amphibia Rana temporaria, common frog Development larval period (days) tank without caged predator 29.27 0.53 1.97 1 14 14 tank with caged predator 30.08 0.5 1.86 1 14 14 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Lau04-02, Lau04-05, Lau04-08 Figure 4A Laurila et al 2004 Oikos 107:90-99 Lau04-06 freshwater both temporary and permanent ponds aquarium lab until metamorphosis complete 1 14 11 Insecta Aeshna sp., dragonfly Amphibia Rana temporaria, common frog Development larval period (days) tank without caged predator 29.27 0.53 1.97 1 14 14 tank with caged predator 32.67 0.48 1.81 1 14 14 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Lau04-03, Lau04-06, Lau04-09 Figure 4B Laurila et al 2004 Oikos 107:90-99 Lau04-07 freshwater both temporary and permanent ponds aquarium lab until metamorphosis complete 1 14 11 Insecta Aeshna sp., dragonfly Amphibia Rana temporaria, common frog Growth body length at metamorphosis (mm) tank without caged predator 13.77 0.12 0.45 1 14 14 tank with caged predator 13.56 0.12 0.44 1 14 14 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Lau04-01, Lau04-04, Lau04-07 Figure 4B Laurila et al 2004 Oikos 107:90-99 Lau04-08 freshwater both temporary and permanent ponds aquarium lab until metamorphosis complete 1 14 11 Insecta Aeshna sp., dragonfly Amphibia Rana temporaria, common frog Growth body length at metamorphosis (mm) tank without caged predator 13.77 0.12 0.45 1 14 14 tank with caged predator 13.43 0.13 0.5 1 14 14 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Lau04-02, Lau04-05, Lau04-08 Figure 4B Laurila et al 2004 Oikos 107:90-99 Lau04-09 freshwater both temporary and permanent ponds aquarium lab until metamorphosis complete 1 14 11 Insecta Aeshna sp., dragonfly Amphibia Rana temporaria, common frog Growth body length at metamorphosis (mm) tank without caged predator 13.77 0.12 0.45 1 14 14 tank with caged predator 13.7 0.13 0.5 1 14 14 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Lau04-03, Lau04-06, Lau04-09 Figure 1 Laurila et al 2006 Oecologia 147(4): 585-595 Lau06-01 freshwater pond cattle tank/ wading pool field 32 5 12 observations per replicate of 22 individuals per replicate 11 Amphibia Triturus vulgaris, smooth newt Amphibia Rana arvalis, moor frog Activity Proportion active no predator present 0.05 0.02 0.17 5 22 110 caged newt present 0.03 0.02 0.17 5 22 110 Prey Activity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Lau05-01, Lau05-07, Lau05-13 Gotland prey population Figure 1 Laurila et al 2006 Oecologia 147(4): 585-595 Lau06-02 freshwater pond cattle tank/ wading pool field 32 5 12 observations per replicate of 22 individuals per replicate 11 Actinopterygii Gasterosteus aculeatus, three-spined stickleback Amphibia Rana arvalis, moor frog Activity Proportion active no predator present 0.05 0.02 0.17 5 22 110 caged stickleback present 0.08 0.01 0.14 5 22 110 Prey Activity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Lau05-02, Lau05-08, Lau05-14 Gotland prey population Figure 1 Laurila et al 2006 Oecologia 147(4): 585-595 Lau06-03 freshwater pond cattle tank/ wading pool field 32 5 12 observations per replicate of 22 individuals per replicate 11 Insecta Aeshna cyanea, dragonfly Amphibia Rana arvalis, moor frog Activity Proportion active no predator present 0.05 0.02 0.17 5 22 110 caged dragonfly present 0.01 0.02 0.2 5 22 110 Prey Activity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Lau05-03, Lau05-09, Lau05-15 Gotland prey population (body mass for A. cyanea estimated by taking dry mass and multiplying by 3.5 to get wet mass) Figure 1 Laurila et al 2006 Oecologia 147(4): 585-595 Lau06-04 freshwater pond cattle tank/ wading pool field 32 5 12 observations per replicate of 22 individuals per replicate 11 Amphibia Triturus vulgaris, smooth newt Amphibia Rana arvalis, moor frog Activity Proportion active no predator present 0.23 0.02 0.17 5 22 110 caged newt present 0.13 0.02 0.2 5 22 110 Prey Activity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Lau05-04, Lau05-10, Lau05-16 Uppland prey population Figure 1 Laurila et al 2006 Oecologia 147(4): 585-595 Lau06-05 freshwater pond cattle tank/ wading pool field 32 5 12 observations per replicate of 22 individuals per replicate 11 Actinopterygii Gasterosteus aculeatus, three-spined stickleback Amphibia Rana arvalis, moor frog Activity Proportion active no predator present 0.23 0.02 0.17 5 22 110 caged stickleback present 0.09 0.01 0.15 5 22 110 Prey Activity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Lau05-05, Lau05-11, Lau05-17 Uppland prey population Figure 1 Laurila et al 2006 Oecologia 147(4): 585-595 Lau06-06 freshwater pond cattle tank/ wading pool field 32 5 12 observations per replicate of 22 individuals per replicate 11 Insecta Aeshna cyanea, dragonfly Amphibia Rana arvalis, moor frog Activity Proportion active no predator present 0.23 0.02 0.17 5 22 110 caged dragonfly present 0.11 0.02 0.17 5 22 110 Prey Activity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Lau05-06, Lau05-12, Lau05-18 Uppland prey population (body mass for A. cyanea estimated by taking dry mass and multiplying by 3.5 to get wet mass) Figure 3C Laurila et al 2006 Oecologia 147(4): 585-595 Lau06-07 freshwater pond cattle tank/ wading pool field until metamorphosis 5 14 11 Amphibia Triturus vulgaris, smooth newt Amphibia Rana arvalis, moor frog Growth mass at metamorphosis (g) no predator present 0.43 0.02 0.18 5 14 70 caged newt present 0.49 0.02 0.17 5 14 70 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Lau05-01, Lau05-07, Lau05-13 Gotland prey population Figure 3C Laurila et al 2006 Oecologia 147(4): 585-595 Lau06-08 freshwater pond cattle tank/ wading pool field until metamorphosis 5 14 11 Actinopterygii Gasterosteus aculeatus, three-spined stickleback Amphibia Rana arvalis, moor frog Growth mass at metamorphosis (g) no predator present 0.43 0.02 0.18 5 14 70 caged stickleback present 0.45 0.02 0.14 5 14 70 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Lau05-02, Lau05-08, Lau05-14 Gotland prey population Figure 3C Laurila et al 2006 Oecologia 147(4): 585-595 Lau06-09 freshwater pond cattle tank/ wading pool field until metamorphosis 5 14 11 Insecta Aeshna cyanea, dragonfly Amphibia Rana arvalis, moor frog Growth mass at metamorphosis (g) no predator present 0.43 0.02 0.18 5 14 70 caged dragonfly present 0.46 0.02 0.17 5 14 70 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Lau05-03, Lau05-09, Lau05-15 Gotland prey population (body mass for A. cyanea estimated by taking dry mass and multiplying by 3.5 to get wet mass) Figure 3C Laurila et al 2006 Oecologia 147(4): 585-595 Lau06-10 freshwater pond cattle tank/ wading pool field until metamorphosis 5 14 11 Amphibia Triturus vulgaris, smooth newt Amphibia Rana arvalis, moor frog Growth mass at metamorphosis (g) no predator present 0.4 0.02 0.19 5 14 70 caged newt present 0.46 0.02 0.2 5 14 70 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Lau05-04, Lau05-10, Lau05-16 Uppland prey population Figure 3C Laurila et al 2006 Oecologia 147(4): 585-595 Lau06-11 freshwater pond cattle tank/ wading pool field until metamorphosis 5 14 11 Actinopterygii Gasterosteus aculeatus, three-spined stickleback Amphibia Rana arvalis, moor frog Growth mass at metamorphosis (g) no predator present 0.4 0.02 0.19 5 14 70 caged stickleback present 0.44 0.02 0.13 5 14 70 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Lau05-05, Lau05-11, Lau05-17 Uppland prey population Figure 3C Laurila et al 2006 Oecologia 147(4): 585-595 Lau06-12 freshwater pond cattle tank/ wading pool field until metamorphosis 5 14 11 Insecta Aeshna cyanea, dragonfly Amphibia Rana arvalis, moor frog Growth mass at metamorphosis (g) no predator present 0.4 0.02 0.19 5 14 70 caged dragonfly present 0.49 0.02 0.18 5 14 70 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Lau05-06, Lau05-12, Lau05-18 Uppland prey population (body mass for A. cyanea estimated by taking dry mass and multiplying by 3.5 to get wet mass) Figure 3D Laurila et al 2006 Oecologia 147(4): 585-595 Lau06-13 freshwater pond cattle tank/ wading pool field until metamorphosis 5 14 11 Amphibia Triturus vulgaris, smooth newt Amphibia Rana arvalis, moor frog Development Larval period (days) no predator present 61.43 0.87 7.3 5 14 70 caged newt present 62.52 0.85 7.11 5 14 70 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Lau05-01, Lau05-07, Lau05-13 Gotland prey population Figure 3D Laurila et al 2006 Oecologia 147(4): 585-595 Lau06-14 freshwater pond cattle tank/ wading pool field until metamorphosis 5 14 11 Actinopterygii Gasterosteus aculeatus, three-spined stickleback Amphibia Rana arvalis, moor frog Development Larval period (days) no predator present 61.43 0.87 7.3 5 14 70 caged stickleback present 62.91 0.69 5.81 5 14 70 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Lau05-02, Lau05-08, Lau05-14 Gotland prey population Figure 3D Laurila et al 2006 Oecologia 147(4): 585-595 Lau06-15 freshwater pond cattle tank/ wading pool field until metamorphosis 5 14 11 Insecta Aeshna cyanea, dragonfly Amphibia Rana arvalis, moor frog Development Larval period (days) no predator present 61.43 0.87 7.3 5 14 70 caged dragonfly present 61.55 0.83 6.94 5 14 70 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Lau05-03, Lau05-09, Lau05-15 Gotland prey population (body mass for A. cyanea estimated by taking dry mass and multiplying by 3.5 to get wet mass) Figure 3D Laurila et al 2006 Oecologia 147(4): 585-595 Lau06-16 freshwater pond cattle tank/ wading pool field until metamorphosis 5 14 11 Amphibia Triturus vulgaris, smooth newt Amphibia Rana arvalis, moor frog Development Larval period (days) no predator present 52.85 0.78 6.5 5 14 70 caged newt present 55.93 0.81 6.75 5 14 70 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Lau05-04, Lau05-10, Lau05-16 Uppland prey population Figure 3D Laurila et al 2006 Oecologia 147(4): 585-595 Lau06-17 freshwater pond cattle tank/ wading pool field until metamorphosis 5 14 11 Actinopterygii Gasterosteus aculeatus, three-spined stickleback Amphibia Rana arvalis, moor frog Development Larval period (days) no predator present 52.85 0.78 6.5 5 14 70 caged stickleback present 56.53 0.63 5.23 5 14 70 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Lau05-05, Lau05-11, Lau05-17 Uppland prey population Figure 3D Laurila et al 2006 Oecologia 147(4): 585-595 Lau06-18 freshwater pond cattle tank/ wading pool field until metamorphosis 5 14 11 Insecta Aeshna cyanea, dragonfly Amphibia Rana arvalis, moor frog Development Larval period (days) no predator present 52.85 0.78 6.5 5 14 70 caged dragonfly present 56.99 0.82 6.86 5 14 70 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Lau05-06, Lau05-12, Lau05-18 Uppland prey population (body mass for A. cyanea estimated by taking dry mass and multiplying by 3.5 to get wet mass) Table 2 Laurila et al 1998 Oikos 83: 307-317 Lau98-01 freshwater pond, ephemeral aquarium lab until metamorphosis 4 10 11 Insecta Aeshna juncea, dragonfly Amphibia Bufo bufo, common toad Survival % surviving no predator 87.5 4.8 30.36 4 10 40 predator risk 86.7 6.7 42.37 4 10 40 Prey Survival 1 0 1 0 1 1 Lau98-01, 03, 05 (body mass for A. juncea estimated by taking dry mass and multiplying by 3.5 to get wet mass) Table 2 Laurila et al 1998 Oikos 83: 307-317 Lau98-02 freshwater pond, ephemeral aquarium lab until metamorphosis 4 10 11 Insecta Aeshna juncea, dragonfly Amphibia Bufo bufo, common toad Survival % surviving no predator 92.5 4.8 30.36 4 10 40 predator risk 92.5 2.5 15.81 4 10 40 Prey Survival 1 0 1 0 1 1 Lau98-02, 04, 06 (body mass for A. juncea estimated by taking dry mass and multiplying by 3.5 to get wet mass) Table 2 Laurila et al 1998 Oikos 83: 307-317 Lau98-03 freshwater pond, ephemeral aquarium lab until metamorphosis 4 10 11 Insecta Aeshna juncea, dragonfly Amphibia Bufo bufo, common toad Growth Mass at metamorphosis (g) no predator 181 6.3 39.84 4 10 40 predator risk 171 5.6 35.42 4 10 40 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Lau98-01, 03, 05 (body mass for A. juncea estimated by taking dry mass and multiplying by 3.5 to get wet mass) Table 2 Laurila et al 1998 Oikos 83: 307-317 Lau98-04 freshwater pond, ephemeral aquarium lab until metamorphosis 4 10 11 Insecta Aeshna juncea, dragonfly Amphibia Bufo bufo, common toad Growth Mass at metamorphosis (g) no predator 205.5 5.6 35.42 4 10 40 predator risk 198.7 3.8 24.03 4 10 40 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Lau98-02, 04, 06 (body mass for A. juncea estimated by taking dry mass and multiplying by 3.5 to get wet mass) Table 2 Laurila et al 1998 Oikos 83: 307-317 Lau98-05 freshwater pond, ephemeral aquarium lab until metamorphosis 4 10 11 Insecta Aeshna juncea, dragonfly Amphibia Bufo bufo, common toad Development Time to metamorphosis (days) no predator 60.8 0.8 5.06 4 10 40 predator risk 57.2 1 6.32 4 10 40 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Lau98-01, 03, 05 (body mass for A. juncea estimated by taking dry mass and multiplying by 3.5 to get wet mass) Table 2 Laurila et al 1998 Oikos 83: 307-317 Lau98-06 freshwater pond, ephemeral aquarium lab until metamorphosis 4 10 11 Insecta Aeshna juncea, dragonfly Amphibia Bufo bufo, common toad Development Time to metamorphosis (days) no predator 38.2 0.3 1.9 4 10 40 predator risk 36.3 0.6 3.79 4 10 40 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Lau98-02, 04, 06 (body mass for A. juncea estimated by taking dry mass and multiplying by 3.5 to get wet mass) Table 2 Laurila et al 1998 Oikos 83: 307-317 Lau98-07 freshwater pond, ephemeral aquarium lab until metamorphosis 4 10 11 Insecta Aeshna juncea, dragonfly Amphibia Rana temporaria, common frog Survival % surviving no predator 87.5 2.5 15.81 4 10 40 predator risk 82.5 6.3 39.84 4 10 40 Prey Survival 1 0 1 0 1 1 Lau98-07, 09, 11 (body mass for A. juncea estimated by taking dry mass and multiplying by 3.5 to get wet mass) Table 2 Laurila et al 1998 Oikos 83: 307-317 Lau98-08 freshwater pond, ephemeral aquarium lab until metamorphosis 4 10 11 Insecta Aeshna juncea, dragonfly Amphibia Rana temporaria, common frog Survival % surviving no predator 97.5 2.5 15.81 4 10 40 predator risk 95 2.9 18.34 4 10 40 Prey Survival 1 0 1 0 1 1 Lau98-08, 10, 12 (body mass for A. juncea estimated by taking dry mass and multiplying by 3.5 to get wet mass) Table 2 Laurila et al 1998 Oikos 83: 307-317 Lau98-09 freshwater pond, ephemeral aquarium lab until metamorphosis 4 10 11 Insecta Aeshna juncea, dragonfly Amphibia Rana temporaria, common frog Growth Mass at metamorphosis (g) no predator 313 8.5 53.76 4 10 40 predator risk 332 5.2 32.89 4 10 40 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Lau98-07, 09, 11 (body mass for A. juncea estimated by taking dry mass and multiplying by 3.5 to get wet mass) Table 2 Laurila et al 1998 Oikos 83: 307-317 Lau98-10 freshwater pond, ephemeral aquarium lab until metamorphosis 4 10 11 Insecta Aeshna juncea, dragonfly Amphibia Rana temporaria, common frog Growth Mass at metamorphosis (g) no predator 372.2 13.1 82.85 4 10 40 predator risk 416.5 16.7 105.62 4 10 40 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Lau98-08, 10, 12 (body mass for A. juncea estimated by taking dry mass and multiplying by 3.5 to get wet mass) Table 2 Laurila et al 1998 Oikos 83: 307-317 Lau98-11 freshwater pond, ephemeral aquarium lab until metamorphosis 4 10 11 Insecta Aeshna juncea, dragonfly Amphibia Rana temporaria, common frog Development Time to metamorphosis (days) no predator 56.1 1.2 7.59 4 10 40 predator risk 59.4 1.5 9.49 4 10 40 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Lau98-07, 09, 11 (body mass for A. juncea estimated by taking dry mass and multiplying by 3.5 to get wet mass) Table 2 Laurila et al 1998 Oikos 83: 307-317 Lau98-12 freshwater pond, ephemeral aquarium lab until metamorphosis 4 10 11 Insecta Aeshna juncea, dragonfly Amphibia Rana temporaria, common frog Development Time to metamorphosis (days) no predator 38.8 0.9 5.69 4 10 40 predator risk 41.7 0.7 4.43 4 10 40 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Lau98-08, 10, 12 (body mass for A. juncea estimated by taking dry mass and multiplying by 3.5 to get wet mass) Figure 1B Laurila et al 1998 Oikos 83: 307-317 Lau98-13 freshwater pond, ephemeral aquarium lab 25 4 unknown # of observations (but at least 20) on 10 individuals/replicate 11 Insecta Aeshna juncea, dragonfly Amphibia Rana temporaria, common frog Activity proportion active no predator 0.35 0.02 0.11 4 10 40 predator risk 0.26 0.01 0.08 4 10 40 Prey Activity 1 0 1 0 1 1 none this is not linked to the other 'insect' lines in the paper b/c fig 1a gives movements for each of four days (so which one do you pick?) Fig 1b gives average activity over the whole period, but it averages the results of the low and high food treatments. (body mass for A. juncea estimated by taking dry mass and multiplying by 3.5 to get wet mass) Figure 1B Laurila et al 1998 Oikos 83: 307-317 Lau98-14 freshwater pond, ephemeral aquarium lab 25 4 unknown # of observations (but at least 20) on 10 individuals/replicate 11 Insecta Aeshna juncea, dragonfly Amphibia Rana temporaria, common frog Activity proportion active no predator 0.35 0.02 0.11 4 10 40 predator risk 0.23 0.01 0.08 4 10 40 Prey Activity 1 0 1 0 1 1 none this is not linked to the other 'bufo' lines in the paper b/c fig 1a gives movements for each of four days (so which one do you pick?) Fig 1b gives average activity over the whole period, but it averages the results of the low and high food treatments. (body mass for A. juncea estimated by taking dry mass and multiplying by 3.5 to get wet mass) Figure 1B Laurila et al 1998 Oikos 83: 307-317 Lau98-15 freshwater pond, ephemeral aquarium lab 25 4 unknown # of observations (but at least 20) on 10 individuals/replicate 11 Insecta Aeshna juncea, dragonfly Amphibia Rana temporaria, common frog Activity proportion active no predator 0.35 0.02 0.11 4 10 40 predator risk 0.23 0.01 0.08 4 10 40 Prey Activity 1 0 1 0 1 1 none this is not linked to the other 'rana' lines in the paper b/c fig 1a gives movements for each of four days (so which one do you pick?) Fig 1b gives average activity over the whole period, but it averages the results of the low and high food treatments. (body mass for A. juncea estimated by taking dry mass and multiplying by 3.5 to get wet mass) Figure 7 Laurila & Kujasalo 1999 J Animal Ecol 68: 1123-1132 Lau99-01 freshwater pond, ephemeral aquarium lab larval period 5 15 11 Insecta Aeshna juncea, dragonfly Amphibia Rana temporaria, common frog Development days no predator 36.71 1.74 15.07 5 15 75 predator risk 37.8 1.88 16.24 5 15 75 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Lau99-03 (body mass for A. juncea estimated by taking dry mass and multiplying by 3.5 to get wet mass) Figure 7 Laurila & Kujasalo 1999 J Animal Ecol 68: 1123-1132 Lau99-02 freshwater pond, ephemeral aquarium lab larval period 5 15 11 Insecta Aeshna juncea, dragonfly Amphibia Rana temporaria, common frog Development days no predator 34.4 1.62 14.03 5 15 75 predator risk 36.36 4.03 34.89 5 15 75 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Lau99-04 (body mass for A. juncea estimated by taking dry mass and multiplying by 3.5 to get wet mass) Figure 7 Laurila & Kujasalo 1999 J Animal Ecol 68: 1123-1132 Lau99-03 freshwater pond, ephemeral aquarium lab larval period 5 15 11 Insecta Aeshna juncea, dragonfly Amphibia Rana temporaria, common frog Growth Mass at metamorphosis (g) no predator 0.34 0.02 0.21 5 15 75 predator risk 0.38 0.03 0.28 5 15 75 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Lau99-01 (body mass for A. juncea estimated by taking dry mass and multiplying by 3.5 to get wet mass) Figure 7 Laurila & Kujasalo 1999 J Animal Ecol 68: 1123-1132 Lau99-04 freshwater pond, ephemeral aquarium lab larval period 5 15 11 Insecta Aeshna juncea, dragonfly Amphibia Rana temporaria, common frog Growth Mass at metamorphosis (g) no predator 0.61 0.02 0.16 5 15 75 predator risk 0.63 0.05 0.4 5 15 75 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Lau99-02 (body mass for A. juncea estimated by taking dry mass and multiplying by 3.5 to get wet mass) Figure 2 Laurila & Kujasalo 1999 J Animal Ecol 68: 1123-1132 Lau99-05 freshwater pond, ephemeral aquarium lab 27 5 6 to 9 observations (2-3 observations/day for 3 days) of each replicate (a tank filled with 15 individuals) 11 Insecta Aeshna juncea, dragonfly Amphibia Rana temporaria, common frog Activity proportion active no predator 0.22 0.04 0.31 5 15 75 predator risk 0.26 0.06 0.52 5 15 75 Prey Activity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Lau99-01, Lau99-03 constant volume, days 25-27 (body mass for A. juncea estimated by taking dry mass and multiplying by 3.5 to get wet mass) Figure 2 Laurila & Kujasalo 1999 J Animal Ecol 68: 1123-1132 Lau99-06 freshwater pond, ephemeral aquarium lab 27 5 6 to 9 observations (2-3 observations/day for 3 days) of each replicate (a tank filled with 15 individuals) 11 Insecta Aeshna juncea, dragonfly Amphibia Rana temporaria, common frog Activity proportion active no predator 0.24 0.06 0.53 5 15 75 predator risk 0.17 0.06 0.49 5 15 75 Prey Activity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Lau99-02, Lau99-04 constant volume, days 25-27 (body mass for A. juncea estimated by taking dry mass and multiplying by 3.5 to get wet mass) Figure 2 Laurila & Kujasalo 1999 J Animal Ecol 68: 1123-1132 Lau99-07 freshwater pond, ephemeral aquarium lab 27 5 6 to 9 observations (2-3 observations/day for 3 days) of each replicate (a tank filled with 15 individuals) 11 Insecta Aeshna juncea, dragonfly Amphibia Rana temporaria, common frog Activity proportion active no predator 0.17 0.02 0.21 5 15 75 predator risk 0.18 0.03 0.25 5 15 75 Prey Activity 1 0 1 0 1 1 none decreasing volume, days 25-27 (water at 2-4 l by this point; I chose 2 to be conservative) (body mass for A. juncea estimated by taking dry mass and multiplying by 3.5 to get wet mass) Figure 2 Laurila & Kujasalo 1999 J Animal Ecol 68: 1123-1132 Lau99-08 freshwater pond, ephemeral aquarium lab 27 5 6 to 9 observations (2-3 observations/day for 3 days) of each replicate (a tank filled with 15 individuals) 11 Insecta Aeshna juncea, dragonfly Amphibia Rana temporaria, common frog Activity proportion active no predator 0.1 0.04 0.31 5 15 75 predator risk 0.17 0.07 0.64 5 15 75 Prey Activity 1 0 1 0 1 1 none decreasing volume, days 25-27 (water at 2-4 l by this point; I chose 2 to be conservative) (body mass for A. juncea estimated by taking dry mass and multiplying by 3.5 to get wet mass) Figure 3 Lefcort et al 1999 Ecol Appl 9(4): 1477-1489 Lef99-01 freshwater lake aquarium field 90 4 19 11 Actinopterygii Lepomis macrochirus, bluegill Gastropoda Lymnaea palustris, snail Density #/tub no predator cues 1570.54 40.5 353.1 4 19 76 fish chemical cues present 2187.65 358.62 3126.35 4 19 76 Prey Density 1 0 1 0 1 1 Lef99-01, Lef99-03, Lef99-04 Figure 5 Lefcort et al 1999 Ecol Appl 9(4): 1477-1489 Lef99-02 freshwater lake aquarium field 90 4 40 11 Actinopterygii Lepomis macrochirus, bluegill Amphibia Rana luteiventris, Columbia spotted frog Development # of metamorphs at end of expt no predator cues 13.3 0.87 10.96 4 40 160 fish chemical cues present 14.77 0.84 10.68 4 40 160 Prey Development 1 0 1 0 1 1 Lef99-02, Lef99-05, Lef99-06 Table 5 Lefcort et al 1999 Ecol Appl 9(4): 1477-1489 Lef99-03 freshwater lake aquarium field 0.02 varies 2 11 Actinopterygii Lepomis macrochirus, bluegill Gastropoda Lymnaea palustris, snail Activity # zones moved no predator cues 6.66 0.61 4.29 25 2 50 chemical cues from fish fed crickets present 6.33 0.6 3.76 20 2 40 Prey Activity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Lef99-01, Lef99-03, Lef99-04 Table 5 Lefcort et al 1999 Ecol Appl 9(4): 1477-1489 Lef99-04 freshwater lake aquarium field 0.02 varies 2 11 Actinopterygii Lepomis macrochirus, bluegill Gastropoda Lymnaea palustris, snail Activity # zones moved no predator cues 6.66 0.61 4.29 25 2 50 chemical cues from fish fed conspecific snails present 5.85 0.41 2.57 20 2 40 Prey Activity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Lef99-01, Lef99-03, Lef99-04 Figure 8 Lefcort et al 1999 Ecol Appl 9(4): 1477-1489 Lef99-05 freshwater lake aquarium field 0.01 varies 4 11 Actinopterygii Lepomis macrochirus, bluegill Amphibia Rana luteiventris, Columbia spotted frog Activity total # of moves no predator cues 14.63 3.29 24.6 14 4 56 chemical cues from fish fed crickets present 11.46 2.13 15.35 13 4 52 Prey Activity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Lef99-02, Lef99-05, Lef99-06 Figure 8 Lefcort et al 1999 Ecol Appl 9(4): 1477-1489 Lef99-06 freshwater lake aquarium field 0.01 varies 4 11 Actinopterygii Lepomis macrochirus, bluegill Amphibia Rana luteiventris, Columbia spotted frog Activity total # of moves no predator cues 14.63 3.29 24.6 14 4 56 chemical cues from fish fed conspecific tadpoles present 7.59 1.41 10.2 13 4 52 Prey Activity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Lef99-02, Lef99-05, Lef99-06 Table 3 Lewis 2001 Ecology 82(3): 758-765 Lew01-01 freshwater lake aquarium lab 43 40 3 11 Malacostraca Orconectes rusticus, crayfish Gastropoda Amnicola limosa, snail Growth wet mass (g) no predator 10.6 0.65 7.12 40 3 120 predator risk 7.1 0.4 4.38 40 3 120 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 none Figure 1a Li 2002 Proc R Soc Lond Ser B 269: 2155-2161 Li_02-01 terrestrial field cage lab until eggs hatch 30 21 11 Arachnida Portia labiata, spider-eating jumping spider Arachnida Scytodes pallida, egg-carrying spitting spider Development time to egg hatching (days) no predator cue present 20.54 0.55 13.88 30 21 630 predator chemical cue only 17.79 0.55 13.75 30 21 630 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Li_02-01, Li_02-03, Li_02-05 Experiment 1 Figure 1a Li 2002 Proc R Soc Lond Ser B 269: 2155-2161 Li_02-02 terrestrial field cage lab until eggs hatch 30 varies 11 Arachnida Portia labiata, spider-eating jumping spider Arachnida Scytodes pallida, egg-carrying spitting spider Development time to egg hatching (days) no predator cue present 20.54 0.55 13.88 30 21 630 predator chemical and visual cue 17.19 0.62 15.95 30 22 660 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Li_02-02, Li_02-04, Li_02-06 Experiment 1 Figure 1b Li 2002 Proc R Soc Lond Ser B 269: 2155-2161 Li_02-03 terrestrial field cage lab until eggs hatch 30 5 11 Arachnida Portia labiata, spider-eating jumping spider Arachnida Scytodes pallida, egg-carrying spitting spider Growth length at hatching (mm) no predator cue present 0.77 0.01 0.11 30 5 150 predator chemical cue only 0.63 0.01 0.11 30 5 150 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Li_02-01, Li_02-03, Li_02-05 Experiment 1 Figure 1b Li 2002 Proc R Soc Lond Ser B 269: 2155-2161 Li_02-04 terrestrial field cage lab until eggs hatch 30 5 11 Arachnida Portia labiata, spider-eating jumping spider Arachnida Scytodes pallida, egg-carrying spitting spider Growth length at hatching (mm) no predator cue present 0.77 0.01 0.11 30 5 150 predator chemical and visual cue 0.62 0.01 0.1 30 5 150 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Li_02-02, Li_02-04, Li_02-06 Experiment 1 Text p. 2158 Li 2002 Proc R Soc Lond Ser B 269: 2155-2161 Li_02-05 terrestrial field cage lab until eggs hatch 30 21 11 Arachnida Portia labiata, spider-eating jumping spider Arachnida Scytodes pallida, egg-carrying spitting spider Survival % of eggs hatching no predator cue present 89.2 1.5 37.65 30 21 630 predator chemical cue only 91.5 1.6 40.16 30 21 630 Prey Survival 1 0 1 0 1 1 Li_02-01, Li_02-03, Li_02-05 Experiment 1 Text p. 2158 Li 2002 Proc R Soc Lond Ser B 269: 2155-2161 Li_02-06 terrestrial field cage lab until eggs hatch 30 varies 11 Arachnida Portia labiata, spider-eating jumping spider Arachnida Scytodes pallida, egg-carrying spitting spider Survival % of eggs hatching no predator cue present 89.2 1.5 37.65 30 21 630 predator chemical and visual cue 86.2 1.7 43.67 30 22 660 Prey Survival 1 0 1 0 1 1 Li_02-02, Li_02-04, Li_02-06 Experiment 1 Figure 2a Li 2002 Proc R Soc Lond Ser B 269: 2155-2161 Li_02-07 terrestrial field cage lab until eggs hatch 30 21 11 Arachnida Portia labiata, spider-eating jumping spider Arachnida Scytodes pallida, egg-carrying spitting spider Development time to egg hatching (days) no predator cue present 21.04 0.7 17.54 30 21 630 predator chemical cue only 21.43 0.58 14.53 30 21 630 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Li_02-07, Li_02-09 Experiment 2 Figure 2a Li 2002 Proc R Soc Lond Ser B 269: 2155-2161 Li_02-08 terrestrial field cage lab until eggs hatch 30 varies 11 Arachnida Portia labiata, spider-eating jumping spider Arachnida Scytodes pallida, egg-carrying spitting spider Development time to egg hatching (days) no predator cue present 21.04 0.7 17.54 30 21 630 predator chemical and visual cue 19.89 0.53 12.96 30 20 600 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Li_02-08, Li_02-10 Experiment 2 Figure 2b Li 2002 Proc R Soc Lond Ser B 269: 2155-2161 Li_02-09 terrestrial field cage lab until eggs hatch 30 5 11 Arachnida Portia labiata, spider-eating jumping spider Arachnida Scytodes pallida, egg-carrying spitting spider Growth length at hatching (mm) no predator cue present 0.71 0.02 0.22 30 5 150 predator chemical cue only 0.68 0.02 0.24 30 5 150 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Li_02-07, Li_02-09 Experiment 2 Figure 2b Li 2002 Proc R Soc Lond Ser B 269: 2155-2161 Li_02-10 terrestrial field cage lab until eggs hatch 30 5 11 Arachnida Portia labiata, spider-eating jumping spider Arachnida Scytodes pallida, egg-carrying spitting spider Growth length at hatching (mm) no predator cue present 0.71 0.02 0.22 30 5 150 predator chemical and visual cue 0.7 0.02 0.18 30 5 150 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Li_02-08, Li_02-10 Experiment 2 Figure 3a Li 2002 Proc R Soc Lond Ser B 269: 2155-2161 Li_02-11 terrestrial field natural unit field 95 varies varies 11 Arachnida Portia labiata, spider-eating jumping spider Arachnida Scytodes pallida, egg-carrying spitting spider Development time to egg hatching (days) no predator cue present 18.97 0.4 9.87 30 20 600 predator chemical cue only 17.15 0.51 12.78 29 22 638 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Li_02-11, Li_02-12, Li_02-13 Experiment 3 Figure 3b Li 2002 Proc R Soc Lond Ser B 269: 2155-2161 Li_02-12 terrestrial field natural unit field 95 varies varies 11 Arachnida Portia labiata, spider-eating jumping spider Arachnida Scytodes pallida, egg-carrying spitting spider Growth length at hatching (mm) no predator cue present 0.76 0.02 0.37 30 20 600 predator chemical cue only 0.67 0.01 0.33 29 22 638 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Li_02-11, Li_02-12, Li_02-13 Experiment 3 Text p. 2158 Li 2002 Proc R Soc Lond Ser B 269: 2155-2161 Li_02-13 terrestrial field natural unit field 95 varies varies 11 Arachnida Portia labiata, spider-eating jumping spider Arachnida Scytodes pallida, egg-carrying spitting spider Survival % of eggs hatching no predator cue present 83.5 2.1 51.44 30 20 600 predator chemical and visual cue 82.2 3 75.78 29 22 638 Prey Survival 1 0 1 0 1 1 Li_02-11, Li_02-12, Li_02-13 Experiment 3 Figure 1a Li & Jackson 2005 J Chem Ecol 31(2): 333-342 Li_05-01 terrestrial field cage lab 30 20 varies 11 Arachnida Portia labiata, spider-eating jumping spider Arachnida Scytodes pallida, egg-carrying spitting spider Development Incubation time (days) no predator cues present 20.92 0.54 11.07 20 21 420 predator scent present 18.16 0.5 10.49 20 22 440 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Li_05-01, Li_05-03, Li05-05 Figure 1a Li & Jackson 2005 J Chem Ecol 31(2): 333-342 Li_05-02 terrestrial field cage lab 30 20 varies 11 Arachnida Portia labiata, spider-eating jumping spider Arachnida Scytodes pallida, egg-carrying spitting spider Development Incubation time (days) no predator cues present 20.92 0.54 11.07 20 21 420 predator scent present 16.03 0.51 10.7 20 22 440 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Li_05-02, Li_05-04, Li05-06 Figure 1b Li & Jackson 2005 J Chem Ecol 31(2): 333-342 Li_05-03 terrestrial field cage lab 30 20 varies 11 Arachnida Portia labiata, spider-eating jumping spider Arachnida Scytodes pallida, egg-carrying spitting spider Growth length at hatching (mm) no predator cues present 0.8 0.02 0.32 20 21 420 predator scent present 0.64 0.02 0.35 20 22 440 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Li_05-01, Li_05-03, Li05-05 Figure 1b Li & Jackson 2005 J Chem Ecol 31(2): 333-342 Li_05-04 terrestrial field cage lab 30 20 varies 11 Arachnida Portia labiata, spider-eating jumping spider Arachnida Scytodes pallida, egg-carrying spitting spider Growth length at hatching (mm) no predator cues present 0.8 0.02 0.32 20 21 420 predator scent present 0.61 0.02 0.32 20 22 440 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Li_05-02, Li_05-04, Li05-06 Figure 1c Li & Jackson 2005 J Chem Ecol 31(2): 333-342 Li_05-05 terrestrial field cage lab 30 20 varies 11 Arachnida Portia labiata, spider-eating jumping spider Arachnida Scytodes pallida, egg-carrying spitting spider Survival hatching success (% of eggs hatching) no predator cues present 88.05 1.79 36.75 20 21 420 predator scent present 84.91 1.81 37.86 20 22 440 Prey Survival 1 0 1 0 1 1 Li_05-01, Li_05-03, Li05-05 Figure 1c Li & Jackson 2005 J Chem Ecol 31(2): 333-342 Li_05-06 terrestrial field cage lab 30 20 varies 11 Arachnida Portia labiata, spider-eating jumping spider Arachnida Scytodes pallida, egg-carrying spitting spider Survival hatching success (% of eggs hatching) no predator cues present 88.05 1.79 36.75 20 21 420 predator scent present 81.97 1.87 39.23 20 22 440 Prey Survival 1 0 1 0 1 1 Li_05-02, Li_05-04, Li05-06 Figure 3 Lilliendahl 1997 Animal Behav 53: 75-81 Lil97-01 terrestrial field enclosure lab 2 varies 14 11 Aves Accipiter nisus, sparrowhawk (stuffed bird) Aves Carduelis chloris, greenfinch Growth body mass (g) 27.76 0.6 1 no predator to scare them (bottles flown around the room) 28.32 0.33 1.76 2 14 28 stuffed sparrowhawk to scare them 27.69 0.05 0.33 3 14 42 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Lil97-01, Lil97-03 Flock A (got mean mass data from measuring each of the five trials individually, then getting mean and se mass using the mean response from each individual trial as a replicate) Figure 3 Lilliendahl 1997 Animal Behav 53: 75-81 Lil97-02 terrestrial field enclosure lab 2 varies 16 11 Aves Accipiter nisus, sparrowhawk (stuffed bird) Aves Carduelis chloris, greenfinch Growth body mass (g) 27.41 0.5 1 no predator to scare them (bottles flown around the room) 27.89 0.09 0.62 3 16 48 stuffed sparrowhawk to scare them 27.68 0.01 0.06 2 16 32 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Lil97-02, Lil97-04 Flock B (got mean mass data from measuring each of the five trials individually, then getting mean and se mass using the mean response from each individual trial as a replicate) Text on p. 78 Lilliendahl 1997 Animal Behav 53: 75-81 Lil97-03 terrestrial field enclosure lab 2 varies 10 11 Aves Accipiter nisus, sparrowhawk (stuffed bird) Aves Carduelis chloris, greenfinch Activity Time to resume foraging (s) no predator to scare them (bottles flown around the room) 110 15 67.08 2 10 20 stuffed sparrowhawk to scare them 433 65 356.02 3 10 30 Prey Activity -1 0 1 0 1 1 Lil97-01, Lil97-03 Flock A Text on p. 78 Lilliendahl 1997 Animal Behav 53: 75-81 Lil97-04 terrestrial field enclosure lab 2 varies 10 11 Aves Accipiter nisus, sparrowhawk (stuffed bird) Aves Carduelis chloris, greenfinch Activity Time to resume foraging (s) no predator to scare them (bottles flown around the room) 136 17 93.11 3 10 30 stuffed sparrowhawk to scare them 750 104 465.1 2 10 20 Prey Activity -1 0 1 0 1 1 Lil97-02, Lil97-04 Flock B Text, p. 1337 Lilliendahl 1998 Animal Behav 55: 1335-1340 Lil98-01 terrestrial field cage lab 2 7 1 11 Aves Accipiter nisus, sparrowhawk (stuffed bird) Aves Emberiza citrinella, yellowhammer Growth mass gain over two days (g) no predator threat 2.4 0.3 0.79 7 1 7 visual cue from stuffed predator 2.6 0.2 0.53 7 1 7 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 none dominant birds Text, p. 1337 Lilliendahl 1998 Animal Behav 55: 1335-1340 Lil98-02 terrestrial field cage lab 2 7 1 11 Aves Accipiter nisus, sparrowhawk (stuffed bird) Aves Emberiza citrinella, yellowhammer Growth mass gain over two days (g) no predator threat 2.4 0.2 0.53 7 1 7 visual cue from stuffed predator 2.9 0.3 0.79 7 1 7 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 none subordinate birds Figure 1B Linden et al 2003 Marine Biol 143: 845-850 Lin03-01 marine littoral zone aquarium lab 0.13 10 100 11 Actinopterygii Perca fluviatilis, Eurasian perch Malacostraca Neomysis integer, mysid shrimp Autotroph Algae Feeding rate (11) or Survival (111) micrograms of Chlorophyll/hour no predator 11.67 2.08 65.8 10 100 1000 predator chemical and visual cues 9.15 1.6 50.69 10 100 1000 Prey (11) or Resource (111) Feeding rate (11) or Survival (111) 1/-1 0 1 0 1 1 Lin03-01, Lin03-05, Lin03-06 Figure 1B Linden et al 2003 Marine Biol 143: 845-850 Lin03-02 marine littoral zone aquarium lab 0.13 10 100 11 Actinopterygii Perca fluviatilis, Eurasian perch Malacostraca Neomysis integer, mysid shrimp Autotroph Algae Feeding rate (11) or Survival (111) micrograms of Chlorophyll/hour no predator 11.67 2.08 65.8 10 100 1000 predator visual cues 11.35 1.94 61.47 10 100 1000 Prey (11) or Resource (111) Feeding rate (11) or Survival (111) 1/-1 0 1 0 1 1 none Figure 1B Linden et al 2003 Marine Biol 143: 845-850 Lin03-03 marine littoral zone aquarium lab 0.13 10 100 11 Actinopterygii Perca fluviatilis, Eurasian perch Malacostraca Praunus flexuosus, mysid shrimp Autotroph Algae Feeding rate (11) or Survival (111) micrograms of Chlorophyll/hour no predator 12.68 2.13 67.35 10 100 1000 predator chemical and visual cues 5.71 1.75 55.33 10 100 1000 Prey (11) or Resource (111) Feeding rate (11) or Survival (111) 1/-1 0 1 0 1 1 Lin03-03, Lin03-07, Lin03-08 Figure 1B Linden et al 2003 Marine Biol 143: 845-850 Lin03-04 marine littoral zone aquarium lab 0.13 10 100 11 Actinopterygii Perca fluviatilis, Eurasian perch Malacostraca Praunus flexuosus, mysid shrimp Autotroph Algae Feeding rate (11) or Survival (111) micrograms of Chlorophyll/hour no predator 12.68 2.13 67.35 10 100 1000 predator visual cues 12.44 2.37 75.07 10 100 1000 Prey (11) or Resource (111) Feeding rate (11) or Survival (111) 1/-1 0 1 0 1 1 none Figure 2A Linden et al 2003 Marine Biol 143: 845-850 Lin03-05 marine littoral zone aquarium lab 0.01 10 1 11 Actinopterygii Perca fluviatilis, Eurasian perch Malacostraca Neomysis integer, mysid shrimp Habitat use Percent of time spent hiding in refuge no predator 33.74 8.4 26.57 10 1 10 predator chemical and visual cues 67.76 11.29 35.69 10 1 10 Prey Habitat use -1 0 1 0 1 1 Lin03-01, Lin03-05 artificial vegetation is cover Figure 2A Linden et al 2003 Marine Biol 143: 845-850 Lin03-06 marine littoral zone aquarium lab 0.01 10 1 11 Actinopterygii Perca fluviatilis, Eurasian perch Malacostraca Neomysis integer, mysid shrimp Habitat use Percent of time spent hiding in refuge no predator 22.71 9.59 30.34 10 1 10 predator chemical and visual cues 12.86 4.81 15.2 10 1 10 Prey Habitat use -1 0 1 0 1 1 Lin03-01, Lin03-06 C. tomentosa, an algae, is the cover Figure 2B Linden et al 2003 Marine Biol 143: 845-850 Lin03-07 marine littoral zone aquarium lab 0.01 10 1 11 Actinopterygii Perca fluviatilis, Eurasian perch Malacostraca Praunus flexuosus, mysid shrimp Habitat use Percent of time spent hiding in refuge no predator 16.34 11.25 35.57 10 1 10 predator chemical and visual cues 50.8 11.61 36.72 10 1 10 Prey Habitat use -1 0 1 0 1 1 Lin03-03, Lin03-07 artificial vegetation is cover Figure 2B Linden et al 2003 Marine Biol 143: 845-850 Lin03-08 marine littoral zone aquarium lab 0.01 10 1 11 Actinopterygii Perca fluviatilis, Eurasian perch Malacostraca Praunus flexuosus, mysid shrimp Habitat use Percent of time spent hiding in refuge no predator 47.01 13.02 41.16 10 1 10 predator chemical and visual cues 57.84 12.46 39.4 10 1 10 Prey Habitat use -1 0 1 0 1 1 Lin03-03, Lin03-08 C. tomentosa, an algae, is the cover Table 5 Loose & Dawidowicz 1994 Ecology 75(8): 2255-2263 Loo94-01 freshwater lake & pond aquarium lab 4.88 15 1 11 Actinopterygii Leucaspius delineatus, sunbleak Branchiopoda Daphnia magna Growth dry mass (ug) 21.5 0.8 15 without predator cues 121.9 3.31 12.8 15 1 15 with predator cues 33.64 1.5 5.8 15 1 15 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Loo94-01, Loo94-02 Table 5 Loose & Dawidowicz 1994 Ecology 75(8): 2255-2263 Loo94-02 freshwater lake & pond aquarium lab 4.88 15 1 11 Actinopterygii Leucaspius delineatus, sunbleak Branchiopoda Daphnia magna Fecundity # eggs without predator cues 8.43 0.59 2.3 15 1 15 with predator cues 0 0 0 15 1 15 Prey Fecundity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Loo94-01, Loo94-02 Table 5 Loose & Dawidowicz 1994 Ecology 75(8): 2255-2263 Loo94-03 freshwater lake & pond aquarium lab 4.88 15 1 11 Actinopterygii Leucaspius delineatus, sunbleak Branchiopoda Daphnia magna Growth dry mass (ug) 21.5 0.8 15 without predator cues 326.1 14.3 55.4 15 1 15 with predator cues 57.54 4.75 18.4 15 1 15 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Loo94-03, Loo94-04 Table 5 Loose & Dawidowicz 1994 Ecology 75(8): 2255-2263 Loo94-04 freshwater lake & pond aquarium lab 4.88 15 1 11 Actinopterygii Leucaspius delineatus, sunbleak Branchiopoda Daphnia magna Fecundity # eggs without predator cues 15.6 0.67 2.6 15 1 15 with predator cues 0 0 0 15 1 15 Prey Fecundity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Loo94-03, Loo94-04 Figure 3 Lopez et al 1995 Rev Chilena Hist Nat 68: 469-475 Lop95-01 marine intertidal aquarium lab 0.08 1 21 11 Gastropoda Nucella crassilabrum, gastropod Bivalvia Peromytilus purpuratus, mussel Survival % dead after 2 hours no predator 20.57 n/a 1 21 21 predator risk 28.28 17.15 111.14 2 21 42 Prey Survival -1 0 1 0 1 1 Lop95-01, 02, 03 low temperature Figure 3 Lopez et al 1995 Rev Chilena Hist Nat 68: 469-475 Lop95-02 marine intertidal aquarium lab 0.08 4 21 11 Gastropoda Nucella crassilabrum, gastropod Bivalvia Peromytilus purpuratus, mussel Survival % dead after 2 hours no predator 59.76 10.65 97.61 4 21 84 predator risk 93.43 6.57 60.22 4 21 84 Prey Survival -1 0 1 0 1 1 Lop95-01, 02, 03 medium temperature Figure 3 Lopez et al 1995 Rev Chilena Hist Nat 68: 469-475 Lop95-03 marine intertidal aquarium lab 0.08 4 21 11 Gastropoda Nucella crassilabrum, gastropod Bivalvia Peromytilus purpuratus, mussel Survival % dead after 2 hours no predator 91.87 2.85 26.12 4 21 84 predator risk 98.53 0.19 1.78 4 21 84 Prey Survival -1 0 1 0 1 1 Lop95-01, 02, 03 high temperature Figure 2 Losey & Denno 1998 Ecology 79: 2143-2152 Los98-01 terrestrial agricultural cage lab 1 11 30 21 Insecta Coccinella septempunctata, ladybird beetle (foliage). Harpalus pennsylvanicus, ground beetle (ground). Insecta Acyrthosiphon pisum, pea aphid Survival (aphid mortality)/cage/day no predators 1.27 0.95 17.33 11 30 330 Only foliage predator present 13.36 1.6 29.07 11 30 330 total aphids eaten by FP and GP together, minus the aphids eaten by FP and GP when they are tested separately 2.17 1.21 21.98 11 30 330 Prey Survival -1 1 1 0 2 1 none Figure 2 Losey & Denno 1998 Ecology 79: 2143-2152 Los98-02 terrestrial agricultural cage lab 1 11 30 21 Insecta Coccinella septempunctata, ladybird beetle (foliage). Harpalus pennsylvanicus, ground beetle (ground). Insecta Acyrthosiphon pisum, pea aphid Survival (aphid mortality)/cage/day no predators 1.27 0.95 17.33 11 30 330 Only foliage predator present 19.75 3.05 55.41 11 30 330 total aphids eaten by FP and GP together, minus the aphids eaten by FP and GP when they are tested separately 6.37 2.9 52.68 11 30 330 Prey Survival -1 1 1 0 2 1 none Figure 2 Losey & Denno 1998 Ecology 79: 2143-2152 Los98-03 terrestrial agricultural cage lab 1 11 30 21 Insecta Coccinella septempunctata, ladybird beetle (foliage). Harpalus pennsylvanicus, ground beetle (ground). Insecta Acyrthosiphon pisum, pea aphid Survival (aphid mortality)/cage/day no predators 1.27 0.95 17.33 11 30 330 Only foliage predator present 21.05 3.44 62.49 11 30 330 total aphids eaten by FP and GP together, minus the aphids eaten by FP and GP when they are tested separately 16.74 6.42 116.63 11 30 330 Prey Survival -1 1 1 0 2 1 none Figure 4 Losey & Denno 1998 Oecologia 115: 245-252 Los98A-01 terrestrial agricultural cage lab 1 8 30 21 Insecta Coccinella septempunctata, ladybird beetle (foliage). Harpalus faunus, ground beetle (ground). Insecta Acyrthosiphon kondoi, pea aphid Survival (aphid mortality)/cage/day no predators 0.19 0.57 8.85 8 30 240 Only foliage predator present 26.5 1.48 22.93 8 30 240 total aphids eaten by FP and GP together, minus the aphids eaten by FP and GP when they are tested separately -1.4 1.71 26.49 8 30 240 Prey Survival -1 1 1 0 2 1 none Figure 4 Losey & Denno 1998 Oecologia 115: 245-252 Los98A-02 terrestrial agricultural cage lab 1 8 30 21 Insecta Coccinella septempunctata, ladybird beetle (foliage). Harpalus faunus, ground beetle (ground). Insecta Acyrthosiphon pisum, pea aphid Survival (aphid mortality)/cage/day no predators 1.05 0.6 9.33 8 30 240 Only foliage predator present 18.8 2.22 34.39 8 30 240 total aphids eaten by FP and GP together, minus the aphids eaten by FP and GP when they are tested separately 6.32 1.5 23.24 8 30 240 Prey Survival -1 1 1 0 2 1 none Figure 4a Luning 1992 Oecologia 92: 383-390 Lun92-01 freshwater pond aquarium lab until 1st reproduction varies 1 11 Insecta Chaoborus flavicans, phantom midge Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Growth length at first reproduction (sixth instar) mm2 no predator cues 1 0.02 0.24 113 1 113 insect chemical cues present 1.03 0.01 0.18 164 1 164 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Lun92-01, Lun92-06 clone a Figure 4a Luning 1992 Oecologia 92: 383-390 Lun92-02 freshwater pond aquarium lab until 1st reproduction varies 1 11 Insecta Notonecta glauca, backswimmer Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Growth length at first reproduction (sixth instar) mm2 no predator cues 1 0.02 0.24 113 1 113 insect chemical cues present 1.01 0.01 0.17 187 1 187 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Lun92-02, Lun92-07 clone a Figure 4b Luning 1992 Oecologia 92: 383-390 Lun92-03 freshwater pond aquarium lab until 1st reproduction varies 1 11 Insecta Chaoborus flavicans, phantom midge Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Growth length at first reproduction (sixth instar) mm2 no predator cues 1.47 0.02 0.15 63 1 63 insect chemical cues present 1.51 0.02 0.21 75 1 75 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Lun92-03, Lun92-08 clone b Figure 4b Luning 1992 Oecologia 92: 383-390 Lun92-04 freshwater pond aquarium lab until 1st reproduction varies 1 11 Insecta Notonecta glauca, backswimmer Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Growth length at first reproduction (sixth instar) mm2 no predator cues 1.47 0.02 0.15 63 1 63 insect chemical cues present 1.63 0.03 0.22 66 1 66 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Lun92-04, Lun92-09 clone b Figure 4b Luning 1992 Oecologia 92: 383-390 Lun92-05 freshwater pond aquarium lab until 1st reproduction varies 1 11 Insecta Chaoborus flavicans, midge, and Notonecta glauca, backswimmer Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Growth length at first reproduction (sixth instar) mm2 no predator cues 1.47 0.02 0.15 63 1 63 insect chemical cues present 1.53 0.01 0.07 50 1 50 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Lun92-05, Lun92-10 clone b Figure 5a Luning 1992 Oecologia 92: 383-390 Lun92-06 freshwater pond aquarium lab until 1st reproduction varies 1 11 Insecta Chaoborus flavicans, phantom midge Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Fecundity # eggs in first clutch no predator cues 0.23 0.08 0.84 113 1 113 insect chemical cues present 0.18 0.04 0.56 164 1 164 Prey Fecundity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Lun92-01, Lun92-06 clone a Figure 5a Luning 1992 Oecologia 92: 383-390 Lun92-07 freshwater pond aquarium lab until 1st reproduction varies 1 11 Insecta Notonecta glauca, backswimmer Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Fecundity # eggs in first clutch no predator cues 0.23 0.08 0.84 113 1 113 insect chemical cues present 3.2 0.36 4.89 187 1 187 Prey Fecundity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Lun92-02, Lun92-07 clone a Figure 5b Luning 1992 Oecologia 92: 383-390 Lun92-08 freshwater pond aquarium lab until 1st reproduction varies 1 11 Insecta Chaoborus flavicans, phantom midge Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Fecundity # eggs in first clutch no predator cues 2.33 0.39 3.07 63 1 63 insect chemical cues present 0.22 0.21 1.8 75 1 75 Prey Fecundity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Lun92-03, Lun92-08 clone b Figure 5b Luning 1992 Oecologia 92: 383-390 Lun92-09 freshwater pond aquarium lab until 1st reproduction varies 1 11 Insecta Notonecta glauca, backswimmer Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Fecundity # eggs in first clutch no predator cues 2.33 0.39 3.07 63 1 63 insect chemical cues present 4.36 0.19 1.55 66 1 66 Prey Fecundity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Lun92-04, Lun92-09 clone b Figure 5b Luning 1992 Oecologia 92: 383-390 Lun92-10 freshwater pond aquarium lab until 1st reproduction varies 1 11 Insecta Chaoborus flavicans, midge, and Notonecta glauca, backswimmer Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Fecundity # eggs in first clutch no predator cues 2.33 0.39 3.07 63 1 63 insect chemical cues present 2.83 0.11 0.79 50 1 50 Prey Fecundity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Lun92-05, Lun92-10 clone b Figure 2 Luning 1994 Oikos 69: 427-436 Lun94-01 freshwater pond aquarium lab until instar complete 1 14 11 Insecta Chaoborus flavicans, phantom midge Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Development Time to reproduction (days) no predator cues 6.81 0.08 0.32 1 14 14 insect chemical cues present 6.61 0.14 0.51 1 14 14 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Lun94-01, Lun94-09, Lun94-17 clone 0 Figure 2 Luning 1994 Oikos 69: 427-436 Lun94-02 freshwater pond aquarium lab until instar complete 1 14 11 Insecta Chaoborus flavicans, phantom midge Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Development Time to reproduction (days) no predator cues 6.81 0.08 0.32 1 14 14 insect chemical cues present 7.9 0.1 0.38 1 14 14 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Lun94-02, Lun94-10, Lun94-18 clone 0 Figure 2 Luning 1994 Oikos 69: 427-436 Lun94-03 freshwater pond aquarium lab until instar complete 1 14 11 Insecta Chaoborus flavicans, phantom midge Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Development Time to reproduction (days) no predator cues 5.83 0.16 0.59 1 14 14 insect chemical cues present 6.79 0.31 1.15 1 14 14 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Lun94-03, Lun94-11, Lun94-19 clone 1 Figure 2 Luning 1994 Oikos 69: 427-436 Lun94-04 freshwater pond aquarium lab until instar complete 1 14 11 Insecta Chaoborus flavicans, phantom midge Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Development Time to reproduction (days) no predator cues 5.83 0.16 0.59 1 14 14 insect chemical cues present 7.69 0.19 0.73 1 14 14 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Lun94-04, Lun94-12, Lun94-20 clone 1 Figure 2 Luning 1994 Oikos 69: 427-436 Lun94-05 freshwater pond aquarium lab until instar complete 1 14 11 Insecta Chaoborus flavicans, phantom midge Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Development Time to reproduction (days) no predator cues 6.98 0.05 0.18 1 14 14 insect chemical cues present 9.64 0.25 0.94 1 14 14 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Lun94-05, Lun94-13, Lun94-21 clone 3 Figure 2 Luning 1994 Oikos 69: 427-436 Lun94-06 freshwater pond aquarium lab until instar complete 1 14 11 Insecta Chaoborus flavicans, phantom midge Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Development Time to reproduction (days) no predator cues 6.98 0.05 0.18 1 14 14 insect chemical cues present 11.31 0.29 1.07 1 14 14 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Lun94-06, Lun94-14, Lun94-22 clone 3 Figure 2 Luning 1994 Oikos 69: 427-436 Lun94-07 freshwater pond aquarium lab until instar complete 1 14 11 Insecta Chaoborus flavicans, phantom midge Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Development Time to reproduction (days) no predator cues 7.48 0.14 0.51 1 14 14 insect chemical cues present 8.45 0.2 0.76 1 14 14 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Lun94-07, Lun94-15, Lun94-23 clone 4 Figure 2 Luning 1994 Oikos 69: 427-436 Lun94-08 freshwater pond aquarium lab until instar complete 1 14 11 Insecta Chaoborus flavicans, phantom midge Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Development Time to reproduction (days) no predator cues 7.48 0.14 0.51 1 14 14 insect chemical cues present 8.62 0.13 0.49 1 14 14 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Lun94-08, Lun94-16, Lun94-24 clone 4 Figure 3 Luning 1994 Oikos 69: 427-436 Lun94-09 freshwater pond aquarium lab until instar complete 1 14 11 Insecta Chaoborus flavicans, phantom midge Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Growth length at maturity (mm) no predator cues 1.72 0.01 0.03 1 14 14 insect chemical cues present 1.77 0.01 0.04 1 14 14 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Lun94-01, Lun94-09, Lun94-17 clone 0 Figure 3 Luning 1994 Oikos 69: 427-436 Lun94-10 freshwater pond aquarium lab until instar complete 1 14 11 Insecta Chaoborus flavicans, phantom midge Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Growth length at maturity (mm) no predator cues 1.72 0.01 0.03 1 14 14 insect chemical cues present 1.7 0.01 0.04 1 14 14 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Lun94-02, Lun94-10, Lun94-18 clone 0 Figure 3 Luning 1994 Oikos 69: 427-436 Lun94-11 freshwater pond aquarium lab until instar complete 1 14 11 Insecta Chaoborus flavicans, phantom midge Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Growth length at maturity (mm) no predator cues 1.67 0.02 0.07 1 14 14 insect chemical cues present 1.6 0.02 0.09 1 14 14 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Lun94-03, Lun94-11, Lun94-19 clone 1 Figure 3 Luning 1994 Oikos 69: 427-436 Lun94-12 freshwater pond aquarium lab until instar complete 1 14 11 Insecta Chaoborus flavicans, phantom midge Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Growth length at maturity (mm) no predator cues 1.67 0.02 0.07 1 14 14 insect chemical cues present 1.7 0.02 0.07 1 14 14 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Lun94-04, Lun94-12, Lun94-20 clone 1 Figure 3 Luning 1994 Oikos 69: 427-436 Lun94-13 freshwater pond aquarium lab until instar complete 1 14 11 Insecta Chaoborus flavicans, phantom midge Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Growth length at maturity (mm) no predator cues 1.81 0.02 0.09 1 14 14 insect chemical cues present 1.81 0.02 0.07 1 14 14 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Lun94-05, Lun94-13, Lun94-21 clone 3 Figure 3 Luning 1994 Oikos 69: 427-436 Lun94-14 freshwater pond aquarium lab until instar complete 1 14 11 Insecta Chaoborus flavicans, phantom midge Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Growth length at maturity (mm) no predator cues 1.81 0.02 0.09 1 14 14 insect chemical cues present 1.88 0.02 0.07 1 14 14 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Lun94-06, Lun94-14, Lun94-22 clone 3 Figure 3 Luning 1994 Oikos 69: 427-436 Lun94-15 freshwater pond aquarium lab until instar complete 1 14 11 Insecta Chaoborus flavicans, phantom midge Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Growth length at maturity (mm) no predator cues 1.85 0.02 0.07 1 14 14 insect chemical cues present 1.75 0.02 0.07 1 14 14 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Lun94-07, Lun94-15, Lun94-23 clone 4 Figure 3 Luning 1994 Oikos 69: 427-436 Lun94-16 freshwater pond aquarium lab until instar complete 1 14 11 Insecta Chaoborus flavicans, phantom midge Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Growth length at maturity (mm) no predator cues 1.85 0.02 0.07 1 14 14 insect chemical cues present 1.86 0.02 0.07 1 14 14 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Lun94-08, Lun94-16, Lun94-24 clone 4 Figure 4 Luning 1994 Oikos 69: 427-436 Lun94-17 freshwater pond aquarium lab until instar complete 1 14 11 Insecta Chaoborus flavicans, phantom midge Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Fecundity # offspring in first brood no predator cues 4.33 0.3 1.12 1 14 14 insect chemical cues present 3.46 0.3 1.11 1 14 14 Prey Fecundity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Lun94-01, Lun94-09, Lun94-17 clone 0 Figure 4 Luning 1994 Oikos 69: 427-436 Lun94-18 freshwater pond aquarium lab until instar complete 1 14 11 Insecta Chaoborus flavicans, phantom midge Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Fecundity # offspring in first brood no predator cues 4.33 0.3 1.12 1 14 14 insect chemical cues present 4.71 0.42 1.56 1 14 14 Prey Fecundity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Lun94-02, Lun94-10, Lun94-18 clone 0 Figure 4 Luning 1994 Oikos 69: 427-436 Lun94-19 freshwater pond aquarium lab until instar complete 1 14 11 Insecta Chaoborus flavicans, phantom midge Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Fecundity # offspring in first brood no predator cues 10.84 0.32 1.21 1 14 14 insect chemical cues present 9.99 0.66 2.46 1 14 14 Prey Fecundity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Lun94-03, Lun94-11, Lun94-19 clone 1 Figure 4 Luning 1994 Oikos 69: 427-436 Lun94-20 freshwater pond aquarium lab until instar complete 1 14 11 Insecta Chaoborus flavicans, phantom midge Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Fecundity # offspring in first brood no predator cues 10.84 0.32 1.21 1 14 14 insect chemical cues present 9.07 0.28 1.06 1 14 14 Prey Fecundity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Lun94-04, Lun94-12, Lun94-20 clone 1 Figure 4 Luning 1994 Oikos 69: 427-436 Lun94-21 freshwater pond aquarium lab until instar complete 1 14 11 Insecta Chaoborus flavicans, phantom midge Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Fecundity # offspring in first brood no predator cues 7.57 0.19 0.69 1 14 14 insect chemical cues present 4.32 0.38 1.44 1 14 14 Prey Fecundity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Lun94-05, Lun94-13, Lun94-21 clone 3 Figure 4 Luning 1994 Oikos 69: 427-436 Lun94-22 freshwater pond aquarium lab until instar complete 1 14 11 Insecta Chaoborus flavicans, phantom midge Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Fecundity # offspring in first brood no predator cues 7.57 0.19 0.69 1 14 14 insect chemical cues present 4.16 0.34 1.28 1 14 14 Prey Fecundity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Lun94-06, Lun94-14, Lun94-22 clone 3 Figure 4 Luning 1994 Oikos 69: 427-436 Lun94-23 freshwater pond aquarium lab until instar complete 1 14 11 Insecta Chaoborus flavicans, phantom midge Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Fecundity # offspring in first brood no predator cues 8.71 0.5 1.86 1 14 14 insect chemical cues present 4.11 0.31 1.16 1 14 14 Prey Fecundity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Lun94-07, Lun94-15, Lun94-23 clone 4 Figure 4 Luning 1994 Oikos 69: 427-436 Lun94-24 freshwater pond aquarium lab until instar complete 1 14 11 Insecta Chaoborus flavicans, phantom midge Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Fecundity # offspring in first brood no predator cues 8.71 0.5 1.86 1 14 14 insect chemical cues present 5.54 0.44 1.64 1 14 14 Prey Fecundity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Lun94-08, Lun94-16, Lun94-24 clone 4 Table 4 Luning 1995 J Plankton Res 17(1): 71-84 Lun95-01 freshwater pond aquarium lab until instar complete 16 1 11 Insecta Chaoborus flavicans, phantom midge Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Growth length at maturity of first reproductive instar (mm) no predator cue 1.72 0.01 0.04 16 1 16 insect chemical cue 1.83 0.01 0.04 16 1 16 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Lun95-01, Lun95-05, Lun95-09 Clone 0 Table 4 Luning 1995 J Plankton Res 17(1): 71-84 Lun95-02 freshwater pond aquarium lab until instar complete 16 1 11 Insecta Chaoborus flavicans, phantom midge Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Growth length at maturity of first reproductive instar (mm) no predator cue 1.67 0.01 0.04 16 1 16 insect chemical cue 1.69 0.01 0.04 16 1 16 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Lun95-02, Lun95-06, Lun95-10 Clone 1 Table 4 Luning 1995 J Plankton Res 17(1): 71-84 Lun95-03 freshwater pond aquarium lab until instar complete 16 1 11 Insecta Chaoborus flavicans, phantom midge Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Growth length at maturity of first reproductive instar (mm) no predator cue 1.82 0.01 0.05 16 1 16 insect chemical cue 1.85 0.01 0.05 16 1 16 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Lun95-03, Lun95-07, Lun95-11 Clone 3 Table 4 Luning 1995 J Plankton Res 17(1): 71-84 Lun95-04 freshwater pond aquarium lab until instar complete 16 1 11 Insecta Chaoborus flavicans, phantom midge Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Growth length at maturity of first reproductive instar (mm) no predator cue 1.87 0.01 0.02 16 1 16 insect chemical cue 1.82 0.02 0.06 16 1 16 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Lun95-04, Lun95-08, Lun95-12 Clone 4 Table 6 Luning 1995 J Plankton Res 17(1): 71-84 Lun95-05 freshwater pond aquarium lab until instar complete 16 1 11 Insecta Chaoborus flavicans, phantom midge Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Development Time to reproduction (first reproductive instar) no predator cue 6.61 0.07 0.29 16 1 16 insect chemical cue 8.55 0.09 0.35 16 1 16 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Lun95-01, Lun95-05, Lun95-09 Clone 0 Table 6 Luning 1995 J Plankton Res 17(1): 71-84 Lun95-06 freshwater pond aquarium lab until instar complete 16 1 11 Insecta Chaoborus flavicans, phantom midge Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Development Time to reproduction (first reproductive instar) no predator cue 5.85 0.07 0.26 16 1 16 insect chemical cue 7.7 0.12 0.47 16 1 16 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Lun95-02, Lun95-06, Lun95-10 Clone 1 Table 6 Luning 1995 J Plankton Res 17(1): 71-84 Lun95-07 freshwater pond aquarium lab until instar complete 16 1 11 Insecta Chaoborus flavicans, phantom midge Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Development Time to reproduction (first reproductive instar) no predator cue 7 0.02 0.08 16 1 16 insect chemical cue 9.95 0.16 0.63 16 1 16 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Lun95-03, Lun95-07, Lun95-11 Clone 3 Table 6 Luning 1995 J Plankton Res 17(1): 71-84 Lun95-08 freshwater pond aquarium lab until instar complete 16 1 11 Insecta Chaoborus flavicans, phantom midge Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Development Time to reproduction (first reproductive instar) no predator cue 8 0.02 0.07 16 1 16 insect chemical cue 9.9 0.09 0.34 16 1 16 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Lun95-04, Lun95-08, Lun95-12 Clone 4 Table 6 Luning 1995 J Plankton Res 17(1): 71-84 Lun95-09 freshwater pond aquarium lab until instar complete 16 1 11 Insecta Chaoborus flavicans, phantom midge Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Fecundity # offspring of first reproductive instar no predator cue 4.5 0.34 1.34 16 1 16 insect chemical cue 4.35 0.24 0.95 16 1 16 Prey Fecundity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Lun95-01, Lun95-05, Lun95-09 Clone 0 Table 6 Luning 1995 J Plankton Res 17(1): 71-84 Lun95-10 freshwater pond aquarium lab until instar complete 16 1 11 Insecta Chaoborus flavicans, phantom midge Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Fecundity # offspring of first reproductive instar no predator cue 10.75 0.26 1.05 16 1 16 insect chemical cue 7.35 0.25 0.98 16 1 16 Prey Fecundity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Lun95-02, Lun95-06, Lun95-10 Clone 1 Table 6 Luning 1995 J Plankton Res 17(1): 71-84 Lun95-11 freshwater pond aquarium lab until instar complete 16 1 11 Insecta Chaoborus flavicans, phantom midge Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Fecundity # offspring of first reproductive instar no predator cue 7.55 0.24 0.96 16 1 16 insect chemical cue 4.35 0.3 1.18 16 1 16 Prey Fecundity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Lun95-03, Lun95-07, Lun95-11 Clone 3 Table 6 Luning 1995 J Plankton Res 17(1): 71-84 Lun95-12 freshwater pond aquarium lab until instar complete 16 1 11 Insecta Chaoborus flavicans, phantom midge Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Fecundity # offspring of first reproductive instar no predator cue 8.65 0.39 1.54 16 1 16 insect chemical cue 4.75 0.26 1.02 16 1 16 Prey Fecundity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Lun95-04, Lun95-08, Lun95-12 Clone 4 Figure 4 Macchiusi & Baker 1992 Freshwater Biology 28: 207-216 Mac92-01 freshwater lake aquarium lab 7 10 20 11 Actinopterygii Lepomis gibbosus, pumpkinseed sunfish Insecta Chironomus tentans, midge Activity # moving no predator cue 10.86 0.8 11.38 10 20 200 predator with mouth sewn shut 6.06 0.66 9.4 10 20 200 Prey Activity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Mac92-01, 05, 09 Figure 4 Macchiusi & Baker 1992 Freshwater Biology 28: 207-216 Mac92-02 freshwater lake aquarium lab 7 10 20 11 Actinopterygii Lepomis gibbosus, pumpkinseed sunfish Insecta Chironomus tentans, midge Activity # moving no predator cue 10.86 0.8 11.38 10 20 200 predator with mouth sewn shut 3.18 0.72 10.12 10 20 200 Prey Activity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Mac92-02, 06, 10 Figure 4 Macchiusi & Baker 1992 Freshwater Biology 28: 207-216 Mac92-03 freshwater lake aquarium lab 7 10 20 11 Actinopterygii Lepomis gibbosus, pumpkinseed sunfish Insecta Chironomus tentans, midge Activity # moving no predator cue 9.3 0.53 7.5 10 20 200 predator with mouth sewn shut 7.08 0.62 8.71 10 20 200 Prey Activity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Mac92-03, 07, 11 Figure 4 Macchiusi & Baker 1992 Freshwater Biology 28: 207-216 Mac92-04 freshwater lake aquarium lab 7 10 20 11 Actinopterygii Lepomis gibbosus, pumpkinseed sunfish Insecta Chironomus tentans, midge Activity # moving no predator cue 9.3 0.53 7.5 10 20 200 predator with mouth sewn shut 3.96 0.54 7.69 10 20 200 Prey Activity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Mac92-04, 08, 12 Figure 5 Macchiusi & Baker 1992 Freshwater Biology 28: 207-216 Mac92-05 freshwater lake aquarium lab 7 10 20 11 Actinopterygii Lepomis gibbosus, pumpkinseed sunfish Insecta Chironomus tentans, midge Development proportion of larvae moulting to fourth instar no predator cue 0.71 0.13 1.82 10 20 200 predator with mouth sewn shut 0.6 0.12 1.65 10 20 200 Prey Development 1 0 1 0 1 1 Mac92-01, 05, 09 Figure 5 Macchiusi & Baker 1992 Freshwater Biology 28: 207-216 Mac92-06 freshwater lake aquarium lab 7 10 20 11 Actinopterygii Lepomis gibbosus, pumpkinseed sunfish Insecta Chironomus tentans, midge Development proportion of larvae moulting to fourth instar no predator cue 0.71 0.13 1.82 10 20 200 predator with mouth sewn shut 0.4 0.1 1.37 10 20 200 Prey Development 1 0 1 0 1 1 Mac92-02, 06, 10 Figure 5 Macchiusi & Baker 1992 Freshwater Biology 28: 207-216 Mac92-07 freshwater lake aquarium lab 7 10 20 11 Actinopterygii Lepomis gibbosus, pumpkinseed sunfish Insecta Chironomus tentans, midge Development proportion of larvae moulting to fourth instar no predator cue 0.78 0.13 1.9 10 20 200 predator with mouth sewn shut 0.82 0.08 1.09 10 20 200 Prey Development 1 0 1 0 1 1 Mac92-03, 07, 11 Figure 5 Macchiusi & Baker 1992 Freshwater Biology 28: 207-216 Mac92-08 freshwater lake aquarium lab 7 10 20 11 Actinopterygii Lepomis gibbosus, pumpkinseed sunfish Insecta Chironomus tentans, midge Development proportion of larvae moulting to fourth instar no predator cue 0.78 0.13 1.9 10 20 200 predator with mouth sewn shut 0.68 0.15 2.05 10 20 200 Prey Development 1 0 1 0 1 1 Mac92-04, 08, 12 Figure 6 Macchiusi & Baker 1992 Freshwater Biology 28: 207-216 Mac92-09 freshwater lake aquarium lab 7 10 20 11 Actinopterygii Lepomis gibbosus, pumpkinseed sunfish Insecta Chironomus tentans, midge Growth dry mass (mg) no predator cue 0.51 0.06 0.85 10 20 200 predator with mouth sewn shut 0.46 0.05 0.71 10 20 200 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Mac92-01, 05, 09 Figure 6 Macchiusi & Baker 1992 Freshwater Biology 28: 207-216 Mac92-10 freshwater lake aquarium lab 7 10 20 11 Actinopterygii Lepomis gibbosus, pumpkinseed sunfish Insecta Chironomus tentans, midge Growth dry mass (mg) no predator cue 0.51 0.06 0.85 10 20 200 predator with mouth sewn shut 0.46 0.07 0.93 10 20 200 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Mac92-02, 06, 10 Figure 6 Macchiusi & Baker 1992 Freshwater Biology 28: 207-216 Mac92-11 freshwater lake aquarium lab 7 10 20 11 Actinopterygii Lepomis gibbosus, pumpkinseed sunfish Insecta Chironomus tentans, midge Growth dry mass (mg) no predator cue 1.2 0.31 4.38 10 20 200 predator with mouth sewn shut 0.94 0.22 3.08 10 20 200 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Mac92-03, 07, 11 Figure 6 Macchiusi & Baker 1992 Freshwater Biology 28: 207-216 Mac92-12 freshwater lake aquarium lab 7 10 20 11 Actinopterygii Lepomis gibbosus, pumpkinseed sunfish Insecta Chironomus tentans, midge Growth dry mass (mg) no predator cue 1.2 0.31 4.38 10 20 200 predator with mouth sewn shut 0.92 0.19 2.63 10 20 200 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Mac92-04, 08, 12 Table 1 Machacek 1993 Limnol Oceanography 38(7): 1544-1550 Mac93-01 freshwater lake aquarium lab until instar complete varies 1 11 Actinopterygii Rutilus rutilus, roach Branchiopoda Daphnia galeata Growth length at first reproduction (um) no predator cues 1410 30 67.08 5 1 5 fish chemical cues present 1330 10 79.37 63 1 63 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Mac93-01, Mac93-03, Mac93-05 animals maturing in 4th instar Table 1 Machacek 1993 Limnol Oceanography 38(7): 1544-1550 Mac93-02 freshwater lake aquarium lab until instar complete varies 1 11 Actinopterygii Rutilus rutilus, roach Branchiopoda Daphnia galeata Growth length at first reproduction (um) no predator cues 1720 20 194.94 95 1 95 fish chemical cues present 1470 20 121.66 37 1 37 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Mac93-02, Mac93-04, Mac93-06 animals maturing in 5th instar Table 1 Machacek 1993 Limnol Oceanography 38(7): 1544-1550 Mac93-03 freshwater lake aquarium lab until instar complete varies 1 11 Actinopterygii Rutilus rutilus, roach Branchiopoda Daphnia galeata Development Time to reproduction (days) no predator cues 3.75 0.21 0.47 5 1 5 fish chemical cues present 3.58 0.08 0.66 63 1 63 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Mac93-01, Mac93-03, Mac93-05 animals maturing in 4th instar Table 1 Machacek 1993 Limnol Oceanography 38(7): 1544-1550 Mac93-04 freshwater lake aquarium lab until instar complete varies 1 11 Actinopterygii Rutilus rutilus, roach Branchiopoda Daphnia galeata Development Time to reproduction (days) no predator cues 4.46 0.13 1.22 95 1 95 fish chemical cues present 4.25 0.08 0.51 37 1 37 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Mac93-02, Mac93-04, Mac93-06 animals maturing in 5th instar Table 1 Machacek 1993 Limnol Oceanography 38(7): 1544-1550 Mac93-05 freshwater lake aquarium lab until instar complete varies 1 11 Actinopterygii Rutilus rutilus, roach Branchiopoda Daphnia galeata Fecundity # eggs in first clutch no predator cues 5.5 0.5 1.12 5 1 5 fish chemical cues present 7.1 0.4 3.17 63 1 63 Prey Fecundity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Mac93-01, Mac93-03, Mac93-05 animals maturing in 4th instar Table 1 Machacek 1993 Limnol Oceanography 38(7): 1544-1550 Mac93-06 freshwater lake aquarium lab until instar complete varies 1 11 Actinopterygii Rutilus rutilus, roach Branchiopoda Daphnia galeata Fecundity # eggs in first clutch no predator cues 9.8 0.3 2.92 95 1 95 fish chemical cues present 9.5 0.4 2.43 37 1 37 Prey Fecundity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Mac93-02, Mac93-04, Mac93-06 animals maturing in 5th instar Table 3 Machacek 1993 Limnol Oceanography 38(7): 1544-1550 Mac93-07 freshwater lake aquarium lab until instar complete varies 1 11 Actinopterygii Rutilus rutilus, roach Branchiopoda Daphnia obtusa Growth length at first reproduction (um) no predator cues 1000 20 44.72 5 1 5 fish chemical cues present 980 40 97.98 6 1 6 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Mac93-07, Mac93-09, Mac93-11 animals maturing in 4th instar Table 3 Machacek 1993 Limnol Oceanography 38(7): 1544-1550 Mac93-08 freshwater lake aquarium lab until instar complete varies 1 11 Actinopterygii Rutilus rutilus, roach Branchiopoda Daphnia obtusa Growth length at first reproduction (um) no predator cues 1080 50 282.84 32 1 32 fish chemical cues present 1030 20 109.54 30 1 30 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Mac93-08, Mac93-10, Mac93-12 animals maturing in 5th instar Table 3 Machacek 1993 Limnol Oceanography 38(7): 1544-1550 Mac93-09 freshwater lake aquarium lab until instar complete varies 1 11 Actinopterygii Rutilus rutilus, roach Branchiopoda Daphnia obtusa Development Time to reproduction (days) no predator cues 3.71 0 0 5 1 5 fish chemical cues present 3.75 0.08 0.2 6 1 6 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Mac93-07, Mac93-09, Mac93-11 animals maturing in 4th instar Table 3 Machacek 1993 Limnol Oceanography 38(7): 1544-1550 Mac93-10 freshwater lake aquarium lab until instar complete varies 1 11 Actinopterygii Rutilus rutilus, roach Branchiopoda Daphnia obtusa Development Time to reproduction (days) no predator cues 4.13 0.13 0.71 32 1 32 fish chemical cues present 4.08 0.13 0.68 30 1 30 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Mac93-08, Mac93-10, Mac93-12 animals maturing in 5th instar Table 3 Machacek 1993 Limnol Oceanography 38(7): 1544-1550 Mac93-11 freshwater lake aquarium lab until instar complete varies 1 11 Actinopterygii Rutilus rutilus, roach Branchiopoda Daphnia obtusa Fecundity # eggs in first clutch no predator cues 4.8 0.3 0.67 5 1 5 fish chemical cues present 4.7 0.8 1.96 6 1 6 Prey Fecundity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Mac93-07, Mac93-09, Mac93-11 animals maturing in 4th instar Table 3 Machacek 1993 Limnol Oceanography 38(7): 1544-1550 Mac93-12 freshwater lake aquarium lab until instar complete varies 1 11 Actinopterygii Rutilus rutilus, roach Branchiopoda Daphnia obtusa Fecundity # eggs in first clutch no predator cues 6.3 0.8 4.53 32 1 32 fish chemical cues present 5.7 0.7 3.83 30 1 30 Prey Fecundity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Mac93-08, Mac93-10, Mac93-12 animals maturing in 5th instar Table 5 Machacek 1995 J Plankton Res 17(7): 1513-1520 Mac95-01 freshwater lake aquarium lab until instar complete varies 1 11 Actinopterygii Rutilus rutilus, roach Branchiopoda Daphnia galeata Growth length at first reproduction (um) no predator cues 1560 30 177.48 35 1 35 fish chemical cues present 1460 40 222.71 31 1 31 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Mac95-01 through Mac95-03 Table 5 Machacek 1995 J Plankton Res 17(7): 1513-1520 Mac95-02 freshwater lake aquarium lab until instar complete varies 1 11 Actinopterygii Rutilus rutilus, roach Branchiopoda Daphnia galeata Development Time to reproduction (days) no predator cues 6.92 0.21 1.23 35 1 35 fish chemical cues present 6.92 0.1 0.58 31 1 31 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Mac95-01 through Mac95-03 Table 5 Machacek 1995 J Plankton Res 17(7): 1513-1520 Mac95-03 freshwater lake aquarium lab until instar complete varies 1 11 Actinopterygii Rutilus rutilus, roach Branchiopoda Daphnia galeata Fecundity # eggs in first clutch no predator cues 5.4 0.5 2.96 35 1 35 fish chemical cues present 5.3 0.3 1.67 31 1 31 Prey Fecundity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Mac95-01 through Mac95-03 Figure 1 Magnhagen 1990 Behav Ecol Sociobol 26:331-335 Mag90-01 marine sandy-bottom bay cattle tank/ wading pool field 2 6 12 11 Actinopterygii Gadus morhua, cod Actinopterygii Pomatoschistus minutus, sand goby Fecundity # nests built by males that contain eggs no threat 1.88 0.19 1.6 6 12 72 cod visible 1.38 0.32 2.68 6 12 72 Prey Fecundity 1 0 1 0 1 1 none Figure 2 Magnhagen 1990 Behav Ecol Sociobol 26:331-335 Mag90-02 marine sandy-bottom bay cattle tank/ wading pool field 7 6 8 11 Actinopterygii Gadus morhua, cod Actinopterygii Gobus niger, black goby Fecundity # nests built by males that contain eggs no threat 1.81 0.33 2.29 6 8 48 cod visible 0.79 0.16 1.09 6 8 48 Prey Fecundity 1 0 1 0 1 1 none Table 1 Mappes et al 1998 Oikos 82: 365-369 Map98-01 terrestrial field enclosure field 37 4 5 11 Mammalia Mustela nivalis nivalis, least weasel Mammalia Clethrionomys glareolus, bank vole Fecundity clutch size no predator 5.9 0.49 2.2 4 5 20 predator scent 5.9 0.58 2.6 4 5 20 Prey Fecundity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Map98-01 to Map98-02 Table 1 Mappes et al 1998 Oikos 82: 365-369 Map98-02 terrestrial field enclosure field 37 4 5 11 Mammalia Mustela nivalis nivalis, least weasel Mammalia Clethrionomys glareolus, bank vole Fecundity breeding delay (days) no predator 20.7 0.81 3.6 4 5 20 predator scent 21.5 0.85 3.8 4 5 20 Prey Fecundity -1 0 1 0 1 1 Map98-01 to Map98-02 Figure 6 Martin et al 1991 JNABS 10(3): 271-279 Mar91-01 freshwater lake enclosure field 365 3 1 no # individuals given. Used one ind/rep as most conservative estimate 11 Actinopterygii Lepomis microlophus, redear sunfish Insecta Epitheca cynosura, dragonfly Development # metamorphosing/enclosure no predator 248.6 43.04 74.55 3 1 3 predator present (large fish had no effect at all on density of prey, so only a TMI) 146.5 22.81 39.51 3 1 3 Prey Development 1 0 1 0 1 1 none Fig 3 Martin & Lopez 1999 Oikos 84: 499-505 Mar99-01 terrestrial field & forest natural unit (artificial wall to simulate natural unit) field 15 varies 1 11 simulated Homo sapiens, an implacable enemy of wall lizards Reptilia Podarcis muralis, wall lizard Growth change in female body mass over course of experiment (g) no humans approaching and bothering them 0.28 0.14 0.47 11 1 11 humans approaching and bothering them -0.27 0.22 0.66 9 1 9 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Mar99-02 the reason that the number of rep/trt is different for growth and behavior is that growth broke down lizards by sex, so we used female data only, while behavior data lumped the males and females together Fig 1B Martin & Lopez 1999 Oikos 84: 499-505 Mar99-02 terrestrial field & forest natural unit (artificial wall to simulate natural unit) field 15 varies 1 11 simulated Homo sapiens, an implacable enemy of wall lizards Reptilia Podarcis muralis, wall lizard Habitat use Time for lizards to emerge from hiding and start foraging after a simulated predator attack (in seconds) 45.35 in control, 64.093 in risk 7.497 in control, 13.404 in risk 24 in control, 20 in pred risk emergence time following a simulated attack after 15 days with no humans approaching and bothering them 51.88 7.24 35.48 24 1 24 emergence time following a simulated predator attack after 15 days with humans approaching and bothering them (mean attacks/lizard in this group is 38 over the 15 day period) 96.35 13.23 59.18 20 1 20 Prey Habitat use -1 0 1 0 1 1 Mar99-01 the reason that the number of rep/trt is different for growth and behavior is that growth broke down lizards by sex, so we used female data only, while behavior data lumped the males and females together Fig 4A McCollum & Van Buskirk 1996 Evolution 50(2): 583-593 Mcc96-01 freshwater pond, ephemeral cattle tank/ wading pool field 28 16 varies 11 Insecta Anax junius, dragonfly Amphibia Hyla chrysoscelis, Cope's gray treefrog Growth mg/day no predator cue present 8.81 0.54 30.67 16 200 3200 caged predator present 9.41 1.18 66.79 16 200 3200 lethal predator (able to kill and scare prey) 6.39 0.94 92.08 16 600 9600 Prey Growth 1 0 1 1 2 1 linked to behavior measurements from fig 3a-c Fig 4B McCollum & Van Buskirk 1996 Evolution 50(2): 583-593 Mcc96-02 freshwater pond, ephemeral cattle tank/ wading pool field 28 16 varies 11 Insecta Anax junius, dragonfly Amphibia Hyla chrysoscelis, Cope's gray treefrog Development Gossner stage at end of expt no predator cue present 33.49 0.97 54.86 16 200 3200 caged predator present 33.57 0.97 54.86 16 200 3200 lethal predator (able to kill and scare prey) 29.87 0.56 55.09 16 600 9600 Prey Development 1 0 1 1 2 1 linked to behavior measurements from fig 3a-c Fig 4C McCollum & Van Buskirk 1996 Evolution 50(2): 583-593 Mcc96-03 freshwater pond, ephemeral cattle tank/ wading pool field 28 16 varies 11 Insecta Anax junius, dragonfly Amphibia Hyla chrysoscelis, Cope's gray treefrog Survival % surviving to end of expt. no predator cue present 0.72 0.04 2.43 16 200 3200 caged predator present 0.6 0.07 3.99 16 200 3200 lethal predator (able to kill and scare prey) 0.04 0.01 1.19 16 600 9600 Prey Survival 1 0 1 1 2 1 linked to behavior measurements from fig 3a-c Fig 3A McCollum & Van Buskirk 1996 Evolution 50(2): 583-593 Mcc96-04 freshwater pond, ephemeral cattle tank/ wading pool field 0 4 5 11 Insecta Anax junius, dragonfly Amphibia Hyla chrysoscelis, Cope's gray treefrog Feeding rate proportion of time spent feeding no predator cue present 0.45 0.04 0.19 4 5 20 caged predator present 0.17 0.06 0.26 4 5 20 lethal predator (able to kill and scare prey) 0.08 0.03 0.13 4 5 20 Prey Feeding rate 1 0 1 1 2 1 Mcc96-04, Mcc96-05, Mcc96-06 behavior measurement after 4 weeks with predators Fig 3B McCollum & Van Buskirk 1996 Evolution 50(2): 583-593 Mcc96-05 freshwater pond, ephemeral cattle tank/ wading pool field 0 4 5 11 Insecta Anax junius, dragonfly Amphibia Hyla chrysoscelis, Cope's gray treefrog Activity Proportion of time spent resting no predator cue present 0.32 0.06 0.28 4 5 20 caged predator present 0.76 0.06 0.28 4 5 20 lethal predator (able to kill and scare prey) 0.84 0.06 0.26 4 5 20 Prey Activity -1 0 1 1 2 1 Mcc96-04, Mcc96-05, Mcc96-06 behavior measurement after 4 weeks with predators Fig 3C McCollum & Van Buskirk 1996 Evolution 50(2): 583-593 Mcc96-06 freshwater pond, ephemeral cattle tank/ wading pool field 0 4 5 11 Insecta Anax junius, dragonfly Amphibia Hyla chrysoscelis, Cope's gray treefrog Activity Proportion of time spent swimming no predator cue present 0.21 0.03 0.14 4 5 20 caged predator present 0.04 0.02 0.08 4 5 20 lethal predator (able to kill and scare prey) 0.05 0.05 0.21 4 5 20 Prey Activity 1 0 1 1 2 1 Mcc96-04, Mcc96-05, Mcc96-06 behavior measurement after 4 weeks with predators Figure 2C McCollum & Leimberger 1997 Oecologia 109: 615-621 Mcc97-01 freshwater pond, ephemeral aquarium lab 15 4 10 11 Insecta Anax umbrosa, dragonfly Amphibia Hyla chrysoscelis, Cope's gray treefrog Growth g/day no caged predator 0.02 0 0 4 10 40 caged predator 0.02 0 0.01 4 10 40 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Mcc97-01, Mcc97-03 intact tail tadpoles Figure 2C McCollum & Leimberger 1997 Oecologia 109: 615-621 Mcc97-02 freshwater pond, ephemeral aquarium lab 15 4 10 11 Insecta Anax umbrosa, dragonfly Amphibia Hyla chrysoscelis, Cope's gray treefrog Growth g/day no caged predator 0.02 0 0 4 10 40 caged predator 0.02 0 0.01 4 10 40 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Mcc97-02, Mcc97-04 intact tail tadpoles Figure 3 McCollum & Leimberger 1997 Oecologia 109: 615-621 Mcc97-03 freshwater pond, ephemeral aquarium lab 15 4 4 11 Insecta Anax umbrosa, dragonfly Amphibia Hyla chrysoscelis, Cope's gray treefrog Activity adjusted swimming speed (residual of log swimming speed (cm/s) regressed on tadpole size) no caged predator -0.03 0.02 0.07 4 4 16 caged predator 0.02 0.02 0.09 4 4 16 Prey Activity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Mcc97-01, Mcc97-03 intact tail tadpoles Figure 3 McCollum & Leimberger 1997 Oecologia 109: 615-621 Mcc97-04 freshwater pond, ephemeral aquarium lab 15 4 4 11 Insecta Anax umbrosa, dragonfly Amphibia Hyla chrysoscelis, Cope's gray treefrog Activity adjusted swimming speed (residual of log swimming speed (cm/s) regressed on tadpole size) no caged predator -0.03 0.02 0.07 4 4 16 caged predator 0 0.02 0.09 4 4 16 Prey Activity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Mcc97-02, Mcc97-04 intact tail tadpoles Figure 1A McCollum et al 1998 Ecology 79:1980-1994 McC98-01 freshwater lake aquarium field 42 4 45 11 Actinopterygii Lepomis microlophus, redear sunfish Gastropoda Physella heterostropha, snail Density # juvenile small snails no predator 46.37 2.6 34.88 4 45 180 predator present 24.33 9.02 121.02 4 45 180 Prey Density 1 0 1 0 1 1 none Figure 3A McCollum et al 1998 Ecology 79:1980-1994 McC98-02 freshwater lake aquarium field 42 4 1 no # individuals given. Used one ind/rep as most conservative estimate 111 Actinopterygii Lepomis microlophus, redear sunfish Gastropoda Physella heterostropha, snail Autotroph Periphyton (green algae and diatoms: bluegreen algae showed no response to any treatment) Density ratio of density with treatment to density when algae grown alone (number of cells/cm^2 and mean cell size) ratio of algal density when snails eating, to algae alone 0.32 0.07 0.13 4 1 4 ratio of algae density when snail eating reduced by fish, to algae alone 0.52 0.09 0.18 4 1 4 Resource Density 1 0 1 0 1 2 none Figure 1A McIntosh et al 2002 Freshwater Biol 47: 1487-1513 McI02-01 freshwater stream artificial stream field 8 5 15 11 Actinopterygii Salvelinus fontinalis, brook trout Insecta Baetis bicaudatus, mayfly Emigration # drifting per minute no fish cues present 11.83 2.51 21.75 5 15 75 cue of 1 fish present 12.25 2.92 25.3 5 15 75 Prey Emigration -1 0 1 0 1 1 small prey Figure 1A McIntosh et al 2002 Freshwater Biol 47: 1487-1513 McI02-02 freshwater stream artificial stream field 8 5 15 11 Actinopterygii Salvelinus fontinalis, brook trout Insecta Baetis bicaudatus, mayfly Emigration # drifting per minute no fish cues present 11.83 2.51 21.75 5 15 75 cue of 2 fish present 7.85 1.11 9.61 5 15 75 Prey Emigration -1 0 1 0 1 1 small prey Figure 1A McIntosh et al 2002 Freshwater Biol 47: 1487-1513 McI02-03 freshwater stream artificial stream field 8 5 15 11 Actinopterygii Salvelinus fontinalis, brook trout Insecta Baetis bicaudatus, mayfly Emigration # drifting per minute no fish cues present 11.83 2.51 21.75 5 15 75 cue of 4 fish present 6.65 1.41 12.22 5 15 75 Prey Emigration -1 0 1 0 1 1 small prey Figure 1A McIntosh et al 2002 Freshwater Biol 47: 1487-1513 McI02-04 freshwater stream artificial stream field 8 5 15 11 Actinopterygii Salvelinus fontinalis, brook trout Insecta Baetis bicaudatus, mayfly Emigration # drifting per minute no fish cues present 10.43 1.73 15.01 5 15 75 cue of 1 fish present 9.88 0.77 6.7 5 15 75 Prey Emigration -1 0 1 0 1 1 large prey Figure 1A McIntosh et al 2002 Freshwater Biol 47: 1487-1513 McI02-05 freshwater stream artificial stream field 8 5 15 11 Actinopterygii Salvelinus fontinalis, brook trout Insecta Baetis bicaudatus, mayfly Emigration # drifting per minute no fish cues present 10.43 1.73 15.01 5 15 75 cue of 2 fish present 6.99 2.78 24.05 5 15 75 Prey Emigration -1 0 1 0 1 1 large prey Figure 1A McIntosh et al 2002 Freshwater Biol 47: 1487-1513 McI02-06 freshwater stream artificial stream field 8 5 15 11 Actinopterygii Salvelinus fontinalis, brook trout Insecta Baetis bicaudatus, mayfly Emigration # drifting per minute no fish cues present 10.43 1.73 15.01 5 15 75 cue of 4 fish present 8 0.91 7.84 5 15 75 Prey Emigration -1 0 1 0 1 1 large prey Figure 1B McIntosh et al 2002 Freshwater Biol 47: 1487-1513 McI02-07 freshwater stream artificial stream field 8 5 15 11 Actinopterygii Salvelinus fontinalis, brook trout Insecta Epeorus deceptivus, mayfly Emigration # drifting per minute no fish cues present 4.85 1.04 9.04 5 15 75 cue of 2 fish present 6 1.21 10.52 5 15 75 Prey Emigration -1 0 1 0 1 1 small prey Figure 1B McIntosh et al 2002 Freshwater Biol 47: 1487-1513 McI02-08 freshwater stream artificial stream field 8 5 15 11 Actinopterygii Salvelinus fontinalis, brook trout Insecta Epeorus deceptivus, mayfly Emigration # drifting per minute no fish cues present 6.8 0.8 6.95 5 15 75 cue of 2 fish present 8.42 0.81 7.03 5 15 75 Prey Emigration -1 0 1 0 1 1 large prey Text p. 133 McIntyre et al 2004 Oecologia 141:130-138 McI04-01 freshwater tropical river and pond cattle tank/ wading pool field 37 7 7 11 Insecta Belostoma malkini, waterbug Amphibia Rana palmipes, web-footed frog Growth mass after 37 days 0.3 98 tank without caged predator 0.51 0.02 0.14 7 7 49 tank with caged predator 0.76 0.02 0.14 7 7 49 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 All McI04 Text p. 134 McIntyre et al 2004 Oecologia 141:130-138 McI04-02 freshwater tropical river and pond cattle tank/ wading pool field 37 7 7 11 Insecta Belostoma malkini, waterbug Amphibia Rana palmipes, web-footed frog Survival # surviving to day 37 7 7 tank without caged predator 7 0 0 7 7 49 tank with caged predator 6.86 0.14 0.98 7 7 49 Prey Survival 1 0 1 0 1 1 All McI04 Fig1A McIntyre et al 2004 Oecologia 141:130-138 McI04-03 freshwater tropical river and pond cattle tank/ wading pool field 37 7 6 11 Insecta Belostoma malkini, waterbug Amphibia Rana palmipes, web-footed frog Habitat use proportion exposed tank without caged predator 0.33 0.03 0.16 7 6 42 tank with caged predator 0.24 0.02 0.15 7 6 42 Prey Habitat use 1 0 1 0 1 1 All McI04 Fig1B McIntyre et al 2004 Oecologia 141:130-138 McI04-04 freshwater tropical river and pond cattle tank/ wading pool field 37 7 6 11 Insecta Belostoma malkini, waterbug Amphibia Rana palmipes, web-footed frog Activity proportion active (swimming in day) tank without caged predator 0.07 0.02 0.12 7 6 42 tank with caged predator 0 0 0 7 6 42 Prey Activity 1 0 1 0 1 1 All McI04 Table 2 McIntosh et al 2004 Ecology 85(8): 2279-2290 McI04A-01 freshwater stream artificial stream field 9 5 300 11 Actinopterygii Salvelinus fontinalis, brook trout Insecta Baetis bicaudatus, mayfly Emigration # drifting per minute no fish cues present 1.67 0.34 13.17 5 300 1500 fish cues present 0 0 0 5 300 1500 Prey Emigration -1 0 1 0 1 1 McI04A-01, -02 Mesocosm expt Table 2 McIntosh et al 2004 Ecology 85(8): 2279-2290 McI04A-02 freshwater stream artificial stream field 9 5 1 no # individuals given. Used one ind/rep as most conservative estimate 111 Actinopterygii Salvelinus fontinalis, brook trout Insecta Baetis bicaudatus, mayfly Autotroph Algae Biomass mean algal Chl A (ug per 50 cm-2) no fish cues present 19 2 4.47 5 1 5 fish cues present 15.2 1 2.24 5 1 5 Resource Biomass 1 0 1 0 1 1 McI04A-01, -02 Mesocosm expt Figure 1 McIntosh et al 2004 Ecology 85(8): 2279-2290 McI04A-03 freshwater stream natural unit field 21 5 1 no # individuals given. Used one ind/rep as most conservative estimate 11 Actinopterygii Salvelinus fontinalis, brook trout Insecta Baetis bicaudatus, mayfly Activity # visible no fish cues present 9.95 2.58 5.78 5 1 5 fish cues present 1.1 0.72 1.62 5 1 5 Prey Activity 1 0 1 0 1 1 McI04A-03, -04, -05 Whole-stream expt - day, slow current rocks Figure 1 McIntosh et al 2004 Ecology 85(8): 2279-2290 McI04A-04 freshwater stream natural unit field 21 5 1 no # individuals given. Used one ind/rep as most conservative estimate 11 Actinopterygii Salvelinus fontinalis, brook trout Insecta Baetis bicaudatus, mayfly Activity # visible no fish cues present 17.02 3.57 7.98 5 1 5 fish cues present 23.43 2.49 5.56 5 1 5 Prey Activity 1 0 1 0 1 1 McI04A-03, -04, -05 Whole-stream expt - night, slow current rocks Table 2 McIntosh et al 2004 Ecology 85(8): 2279-2290 McI04A-05 freshwater stream natural unit field 21 5 1 no # individuals given. Used one ind/rep as most conservative estimate 111 Actinopterygii Salvelinus fontinalis, brook trout Insecta Baetis bicaudatus, mayfly Autotroph Algae Biomass mean algal Chl A (ug per 50 cm-2) no fish cues present 141 34 76.03 5 1 5 fish cues present 115 15 33.54 5 1 5 Resource Biomass 1 0 1 0 1 1 McI04A-03, -04, -05 Whole-stream expt Figure 4 McIntosh & Townsend 1996 Oecologia 108: 174-181 McI96-01 freshwater river artificial stream field 14 3 1 no # individuals given. Used one ind/rep as most conservative estimate 111 Actinopterygii Galaxias vulgaris, river galaxia Arthropoda stream invertebrates Autotroph Algae Biomass density of algae (ash-free dry mass (mg/cm2)) no predator 0.08 0.01 0.01 3 1 3 increase in algal biomass due to reduced invertebrate feeding 0.12 0.02 0.03 3 1 3 Resource Biomass 1 0 1 0 1 2 none Algae on side of cobbles; statistical tests showed no evidence of fish predation Figure 4 McIntosh & Townsend 1996 Oecologia 108: 174-181 McI96-02 freshwater river artificial stream field 14 3 1 no # individuals given. Used one ind/rep as most conservative estimate 111 Actinopterygii Galaxias vulgaris, river galaxia Arthropoda stream invertebrates Autotroph Algae Biomass density of algae (ash-free dry mass (mg/cm2)) no predator 0.54 0.18 0.31 3 1 3 increase in algal biomass due to reduced invertebrate feeding 1.08 0.26 0.46 3 1 3 Resource Biomass 1 0 1 0 1 2 none Algae on top of cobbles; statistical tests showed no evidence of fish predation Figure 4 McIntosh & Townsend 1996 Oecologia 108: 174-181 McI96-03 freshwater river artificial stream field 14 3 1 no # individuals given. Used one ind/rep as most conservative estimate 111 Actinopterygii Salmo trutta, brown trout Arthropoda stream invertebrates Autotroph Algae Biomass density of algae (ash-free dry mass (mg/cm2)) no predator 0.08 0.01 0.01 3 1 3 increase in algal biomass due to reduced invertebrate feeding 0.21 0.06 0.11 3 1 3 Resource Biomass 1 0 1 0 1 2 none Algae on side of cobbles; statistical tests showed no evidence of fish predation Figure 4 McIntosh & Townsend 1996 Oecologia 108: 174-181 McI96-04 freshwater river artificial stream field 14 3 1 no # individuals given. Used one ind/rep as most conservative estimate 111 Actinopterygii Salmo trutta, brown trout Arthropoda stream invertebrates Autotroph Algae Biomass density of algae (ash-free dry mass (mg/cm2)) no predator 0.54 0.18 0.31 3 1 3 increase in algal biomass due to reduced invertebrate feeding 1.07 0.11 0.19 3 1 3 Resource Biomass 1 0 1 0 1 2 none Algae on top of cobbles; statistical tests showed no evidence of fish predation Fig. 2c McIntosh & Townsend 1996 Oecologia 108: 174-181 McI96-05 freshwater river artificial stream lab 0.13 4 100 11 Actinopterygii Galaxias vulgaris, river galaxia Insecta Deleatidium sp, mayfly Habitat use max. distance from refuge (cm) no predator 3.76 0.3 6.07 4 100 400 predator 3.75 0.33 6.5 4 100 400 Prey Habitat use 1 0 1 0 1 1 McI96-05 and McI96-09 daytime Fig. 2c McIntosh & Townsend 1996 Oecologia 108: 174-181 McI96-06 freshwater river artificial stream lab 0.13 4 100 11 Actinopterygii Salmo trutta, brown trout Insecta Deleatidium sp, mayfly Habitat use max. distance from refuge (cm) no predator 3.76 0.3 6.07 4 100 400 predator 1.37 0.56 11.22 4 100 400 Prey Habitat use 1 0 1 0 1 1 McI96-06 and McI96-10 daytime Fig. 2c McIntosh & Townsend 1996 Oecologia 108: 174-181 McI96-07 freshwater river artificial stream lab 0.13 4 100 11 Actinopterygii Galaxias vulgaris, river galaxia Insecta Deleatidium sp, mayfly Habitat use max. distance from refuge (cm) no predator 4.54 0.48 9.59 4 100 400 predator 3.78 0.47 9.44 4 100 400 Prey Habitat use 1 0 1 0 1 1 McI96-07 and McI96-11 nighttime Fig. 2c McIntosh & Townsend 1996 Oecologia 108: 174-181 McI96-08 freshwater river artificial stream lab 0.13 4 100 11 Actinopterygii Salmo trutta, brown trout Insecta Deleatidium sp, mayfly Habitat use max. distance from refuge (cm) no predator 4.54 0.48 9.59 4 100 400 predator 4.29 0.43 8.68 4 100 400 Prey Habitat use 1 0 1 0 1 1 McI96-08 and McI96-12 nighttime Fig. 2b McIntosh & Townsend 1996 Oecologia 108: 174-181 McI96-09 freshwater river artificial stream lab 0.13 4 100 11 Actinopterygii Galaxias vulgaris, river galaxia Insecta Deleatidium sp, mayfly Habitat use proportion on food patches no predator 0.47 0.12 2.46 4 100 400 predator 0.62 0.07 1.45 4 100 400 Prey Habitat use 1 0 1 0 1 1 McI96-05 and McI96-09 daytime Fig. 2b McIntosh & Townsend 1996 Oecologia 108: 174-181 McI96-10 freshwater river artificial stream lab 0.13 4 100 11 Actinopterygii Salmo trutta, brown trout Insecta Deleatidium sp, mayfly Habitat use proportion on food patches no predator 0.47 0.12 2.46 4 100 400 predator 0.16 0.13 2.58 4 100 400 Prey Habitat use 1 0 1 0 1 1 McI96-06 and McI96-10 daytime Fig. 2b McIntosh & Townsend 1996 Oecologia 108: 174-181 McI96-11 freshwater river artificial stream lab 0.13 4 100 11 Actinopterygii Galaxias vulgaris, river galaxia Insecta Deleatidium sp, mayfly Habitat use proportion on food patches no predator 0.36 0.06 1.19 4 100 400 predator 0.32 0.06 1.14 4 100 400 Prey Habitat use 1 0 1 0 1 1 McI96-07 and McI96-11 nighttime Fig. 2b McIntosh & Townsend 1996 Oecologia 108: 174-181 McI96-12 freshwater river artificial stream lab 0.13 4 100 11 Actinopterygii Salmo trutta, brown trout Insecta Deleatidium sp, mayfly Habitat use proportion on food patches no predator 0.36 0.06 1.19 4 100 400 predator 0.34 0.09 1.86 4 100 400 Prey Habitat use 1 0 1 0 1 1 McI96-08 and McI96-12 nighttime Text , p. 71 McNeely et al 1990 Oecologia 85: 69-73 McN90-01 freshwater stream aquarium lab 1.5 6 5 12 Actinopterygii Micropterus dolomieu, smallmouth bass Mixed Orconectes putnami, crayfish, and Cottus bairdi, mottled sculpin Survival # sculpin eaten out of 5 control: # eaten by bass in absence of crayfish out of 5 2.33 0.67 3.67 6 5 30 # eaten by bass in presence of crayfish 1.17 0.37 2.03 6 5 30 Prey Survival -1 0 1 0 1 1 McN90-01 to McN90-02 Fig. 1 McNeely et al 1990 Oecologia 85: 69-73 McN90-02 freshwater stream aquarium lab 1.5 6 5 12 Actinopterygii Micropterus dolomieu, smallmouth bass Mixed Orconectes putnami, crayfish, and Cottus bairdi, mottled sculpin Habitat use # in refuge/total # of that species alive in a given pool refuge use with bass, absence crayfish 0.14 0.04 0.25 6 5 30 refuge use with bass and crayfish present 0.33 0.07 0.39 6 5 30 Prey Habitat use -1 0 1 0 1 1 McN90-01 to McN90-02 Figure 5A McPeek et al 2001 Ecology 82(6): 1535-1545 McP01-01 freshwater lake aquarium lab 4 6 2 11 Actinopterygii Lepomis gibbosus, pumpkinseed sunfish Insecta Enallagma divagans, damselfly Growth mass gain/day no predator 0.02 0 0.01 6 2 12 predator risk 0 0 0.01 6 2 12 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 none Figure 5A McPeek et al 2001 Ecology 82(6): 1535-1545 McP01-02 freshwater lake aquarium lab 4 6 2 11 Actinopterygii Lepomis gibbosus, pumpkinseed sunfish Insecta Enallagma laterale, damselfly Growth mass gain/day no predator 0.01 0 0 6 2 12 predator risk 0 0 0 6 2 12 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 none Figure 5A McPeek et al 2001 Ecology 82(6): 1535-1545 McP01-03 freshwater lake aquarium lab 4 6 2 11 Actinopterygii Lepomis gibbosus, pumpkinseed sunfish Insecta Ischnura verticalis, damselfly Growth mass gain/day no predator 0.03 0 0.01 6 2 12 predator risk 0.01 0 0.01 6 2 12 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 none (got wet mass for I. verticalis by multiplying dry mass by 3.5) Table 1 McPeek & Peckarsky 1998 Ecology 79(3): 867-879 McP98-01 freshwater stream compendium of data from a variety of experiments mixture 11 Insecta Anax sp., dragonfly Insecta Enallagma boreale, damselfly Density lambda, the geometric growth rate of the population population growth rate with no predator risk 11.16 population growth rate with only mortality effects 1.11 population growth rate with only growth effects 10.64 population growth rate with both mortality and growth effects 0.91 Prey Density 1 1 1 1 3 1 none note that this is a very good paper, but one that uses data gathered from a variety of different studies - thus, no SE. I hope we can still use it. Table 2 McPeek & Peckarsky 1998 Ecology 79(3): 867-879 McP98-02 freshwater stream compendium of data from a variety of experiments mixture 11 Actinopterygii Salvelinus fontinalis, brook trout Insecta Baetis bicaudatus, mayfly Density lambda, the geometric growth rate of the population population growth rate with no predator risk 5.92 population growth rate with only mortality effects 4.26 population growth rate with only growth effects 2.77 population growth rate with both mortality and growth effects 1.99 Prey Density 1 1 1 1 3 1 none note that this is a very good paper, but one that uses data gathered from a variety of different studies - thus, no SE. I hope we can still use it. Table 2 McPeek & Peckarsky 1998 Ecology 79(3): 867-879 McP98-03 freshwater stream compendium of data from a variety of experiments mixture 11 Insecta Megarcys signata, stonefly Insecta Baetis bicaudatus, mayfly Density lambda, the geometric growth rate of the population population growth rate with no predator risk 5.22 population growth rate with only mortality effects 4.78 population growth rate with only growth effects 2.2 population growth rate with both mortality and growth effects 1.99 Prey Density 1 1 1 1 3 1 none note that this is a very good paper, but one that uses data gathered from a variety of different studies - thus, no SE. I hope we can still use it (body mass for M. signata females was determined by multiplying dry mass by 6 to get wet mass) Table 2 Messina 1981 Ecology 62(6): 1433-1440 Mes81-01 terrestrial field natural unit (survey rather than experiment) field 60 26 1 111 Insecta Formica sp., ant Insecta Trirhabda virgata and T. borealis, chrysomelid beetles Autotroph Solidago altissima, goldenrod Fecundity increase in plant fecundity (# of seeds/stem) goldenrod with beetles and no ants 536 147 749.56 26 1 26 goldenrod with beetles and ants 3585 671 3421.44 26 1 26 Resource Fecundity 1 0 1 0 1 2 none Figure 1 Mikolajewski et al 2005 Oikos 110(1): 91-100 Mik05-01 freshwater pond aquarium lab 0.1 2 1 11 Insecta Aeshna cyanea, dragonfly Insecta Coenagrion puella, damselfly Activity female f1 instar movement across a grid (# of grid lines crossed) no predator cue present 9.31 0.85 1.2 2 1 2 caged anax present 6.04 0.84 1.18 2 1 2 Prey Activity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Mik05-01, Mik05-03, Mik05-05, Mik05-07 (body mass for A. cyanea estimated by taking dry mass and multiplying by 3.5 to get wet mass) Figure 1 Mikolajewski et al 2005 Oikos 110(1): 91-100 Mik05-02 freshwater pond aquarium lab 0.1 2 1 11 Insecta Aeshna cyanea, dragonfly Insecta Coenagrion puella, damselfly Activity female f1 instar movement across a grid (# of grid lines crossed) no predator cue present 12.65 0.49 0.69 2 1 2 caged anax present 8.14 0.38 0.54 2 1 2 Prey Activity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Mik05-02, Mik05-04, Mik05-06, Mik05-08 (body mass for A. cyanea estimated by taking dry mass and multiplying by 3.5 to get wet mass) Figure 3 Mikolajewski et al 2005 Oikos 110(1): 91-100 Mik05-03 freshwater pond aquarium lab until metamorphosis complete 2 1 11 Insecta Aeshna cyanea, dragonfly Insecta Coenagrion puella, damselfly Development Time to emergence of female larvae (days) no predator cue present 275 12.34 17.45 2 1 2 caged anax present 214 10.94 15.47 2 1 2 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Mik05-01, Mik05-03, Mik05-05, Mik05-07 (body mass for A. cyanea estimated by taking dry mass and multiplying by 3.5 to get wet mass) Figure 3 Mikolajewski et al 2005 Oikos 110(1): 91-100 Mik05-04 freshwater pond aquarium lab until metamorphosis complete 2 1 11 Insecta Aeshna cyanea, dragonfly Insecta Coenagrion puella, damselfly Development Time to emergence of female larvae (days) no predator cue present 210 6.89 9.74 2 1 2 caged anax present 183 4.47 6.32 2 1 2 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Mik05-02, Mik05-04, Mik05-06, Mik05-08 (body mass for A. cyanea estimated by taking dry mass and multiplying by 3.5 to get wet mass) Figure 3 Mikolajewski et al 2005 Oikos 110(1): 91-100 Mik05-05 freshwater pond aquarium lab until metamorphosis complete 2 1 11 Insecta Aeshna cyanea, dragonfly Insecta Coenagrion puella, damselfly Growth mass at emergence (mg) no predator cue present 5.99 0.18 0.26 2 1 2 caged anax present 7.52 0.38 0.54 2 1 2 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Mik05-01, Mik05-03, Mik05-05, Mik05-07 (body mass for A. cyanea estimated by taking dry mass and multiplying by 3.5 to get wet mass) Figure 3 Mikolajewski et al 2005 Oikos 110(1): 91-100 Mik05-06 freshwater pond aquarium lab until metamorphosis complete 2 1 11 Insecta Aeshna cyanea, dragonfly Insecta Coenagrion puella, damselfly Growth mass at emergence (mg) no predator cue present 10.29 0.36 0.51 2 1 2 caged anax present 10.71 0.21 0.29 2 1 2 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Mik05-02, Mik05-04, Mik05-06, Mik05-08 (body mass for A. cyanea estimated by taking dry mass and multiplying by 3.5 to get wet mass) Figure 3 Mikolajewski et al 2005 Oikos 110(1): 91-100 Mik05-07 freshwater pond aquarium lab until metamorphosis complete 2 1 11 Insecta Aeshna cyanea, dragonfly Insecta Coenagrion puella, damselfly Growth ln (mm/d) gained by female larvae over course of expt. no predator cue present 0 0 0 2 1 2 caged anax present 0.01 0 0 2 1 2 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Mik05-01, Mik05-03, Mik05-05, Mik05-07 (body mass for A. cyanea estimated by taking dry mass and multiplying by 3.5 to get wet mass) Figure 3 Mikolajewski et al 2005 Oikos 110(1): 91-100 Mik05-08 freshwater pond aquarium lab until metamorphosis complete 2 1 11 Insecta Aeshna cyanea, dragonfly Insecta Coenagrion puella, damselfly Growth ln (mm/d) gained by female larvae over course of expt. no predator cue present 0.01 0 0 2 1 2 caged anax present 0.01 0 0 2 1 2 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Mik05-02, Mik05-04, Mik05-06, Mik05-08 (body mass for A. cyanea estimated by taking dry mass and multiplying by 3.5 to get wet mass) Fig 2 and Text p 477 Minoretti & Weisser 2001 Eur J Entomol 97: 475-479 Min01-01 terrestrial agricultural cage lab varies, but short enough to exclude aphid reproduction 11 10 11 Insecta Coccinella septempunctata, 7-spot ladybird beetle Insecta Acyrthosiphon pisum, pea aphid Emigration # of aphids remaining on plant after predator has left number of aphids at start of expt. (this is the control b/c it would be the number of aphids at the end of the expt if there were no predators) 10 0 0 11 10 110 aphid population at end of expt due to aphid consumption only 6.3 0.9 9.44 11 10 110 ending density of aphids on plant after both predation and emigration 3.12 1.16 12.18 11 10 110 Prey Emigration 1 1 0 1 2 1 none Fig 2 and Text p 477 Minoretti & Weisser 2001 Eur J Entomol 97: 475-479 Min01-02 terrestrial agricultural cage lab varies, but short enough to exclude aphid reproduction 9 30 11 Insecta Coccinella septempunctata, 7-spot ladybird beetle Insecta Acyrthosiphon pisum, pea aphid Emigration # of aphids remaining on plant after predator has left number of aphids at start of expt. (this is the control b/c it would be the number of aphids at the end of the expt if there were no predators) 30 0 0 9 30 270 aphid population at end of expt due to aphid consumption only 24.5 1.5 24.65 9 30 270 ending density of aphids on plant after both predation and emigration 12.31 2.57 42.25 9 30 270 Prey Emigration 1 1 0 1 2 1 none Figure 1 Moore et al 1996 Oikos 77: 331-335 Moo96-01 freshwater stream aquarium lab until metamorphosis complete 4 20 11 Actinopterygii Lepomis cyanellus, green sunfish Amphibia Ambystoma barbouri, streamside salamander Development time to egg hatching (days) not exposed to predator chemical cues 3.87 0.19 1.68 4 20 80 chemical cues from sunfish present 7.86 0.59 5.32 4 20 80 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Moo96-01 through Moo96-03 expt 1 Figure 1 Moore et al 1996 Oikos 77: 331-335 Moo96-02 freshwater stream aquarium lab until metamorphosis complete 4 20 11 Actinopterygii Lepomis cyanellus, green sunfish Amphibia Ambystoma barbouri, streamside salamander Development Harrison stage at hatching not exposed to predator chemical cues 44.45 0.06 0.52 4 20 80 chemical cues from sunfish present 45.08 0.08 0.73 4 20 80 Prey Development 1 0 1 0 1 1 Moo96-01 through Moo96-03 expt 1 Figure 1 Moore et al 1996 Oikos 77: 331-335 Moo96-03 freshwater stream aquarium lab until metamorphosis complete 4 20 11 Actinopterygii Lepomis cyanellus, green sunfish Amphibia Ambystoma barbouri, streamside salamander Growth mass at hatching (g) not exposed to predator chemical cues 0.04 0 0.01 4 20 80 chemical cues from sunfish present 0.04 0 0.01 4 20 80 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Moo96-01 through Moo96-03 expt 1 Figure 2 Moran & Hurd 1994 Oecologia 98: 269-273 Mor94-01 terrestrial field enclosure field 13 5 1 no # individuals given. Used one ind/rep as most conservative estimate 11 Insecta Tenodera aridifolia sinensis, Chinese praying mantis Arachnida cursorial spiders Emigration # spiders emigrating/plot no predator 10.64 1.18 2.65 5 1 5 predator present 19.83 2.13 4.76 5 1 5 Prey Emigration -1 0 1 0 1 1 none size class 2,3 Figure 2 Moran & Hurd 1994 Oecologia 98: 269-273 Mor94-02 terrestrial field enclosure field 13 5 1 no # individuals given. Used one ind/rep as most conservative estimate 11 Insecta Tenodera aridifolia sinensis, Chinese praying mantis Arachnida cursorial spiders Emigration # spiders emigrating/plot no predator 17.4 0.84 1.87 5 1 5 predator present 16.66 0.62 1.39 5 1 5 Prey Emigration -1 0 1 0 1 1 none size class 4,5 Figure 2 Moran & Hurd 1994 Oecologia 98: 269-273 Mor94-03 terrestrial field enclosure field 13 5 1 no # individuals given. Used one ind/rep as most conservative estimate 11 Insecta Tenodera aridifolia sinensis, Chinese praying mantis Arachnida cursorial spiders Emigration # spiders emigrating/plot no predator 10.4 1.61 3.61 5 1 5 predator present 12.47 1.06 2.37 5 1 5 Prey Emigration -1 0 1 0 1 1 none size class 6,7 Figure 2 Moran & Hurd 1994 Oecologia 98: 269-273 Mor94-04 terrestrial field enclosure field 13 5 1 no # individuals given. Used one ind/rep as most conservative estimate 11 Insecta Tenodera aridifolia sinensis, Chinese praying mantis Arachnida cursorial spiders Emigration # spiders emigrating/plot no predator 15.46 1.24 2.78 5 1 5 predator present 21.11 1.49 3.33 5 1 5 Prey Emigration -1 0 1 0 1 1 none size class 8,9 Figure 2 Moran & Hurd 1994 Oecologia 98: 269-273 Mor94-05 terrestrial field enclosure field 13 5 1 no # individuals given. Used one ind/rep as most conservative estimate 11 Insecta Tenodera aridifolia sinensis, Chinese praying mantis Arachnida cursorial spiders Emigration # spiders emigrating/plot no predator 7.03 0.61 1.37 5 1 5 predator present 7.04 1.41 3.15 5 1 5 Prey Emigration -1 0 1 0 1 1 none size class >9 Table 3 Morrison 1999 Oecologia 121:113-122 Mor99-01 terrestrial forest natural unit field 0.06 20 1 no # individuals given. Used one ind/rep as most conservative estimate 11 Insecta Pseudacteon browni, phorid fly Insecta Solenopsis geminata, fire ant Feeding rate grams of weiners removed per hour no predator 1.75 0.01 0.06 20 1 20 phorids present 0.13 0.01 0.04 20 1 20 Prey Feeding rate 1 0 1 0 1 1 none daytime Table 3 Morrison 1999 Oecologia 121:113-122 Mor99-02 terrestrial forest natural unit field 0.06 20 1 no # individuals given. Used one ind/rep as most conservative estimate 11 Insecta Pseudacteon browni, phorid fly Insecta Solenopsis geminata, fire ant Feeding rate grams of weiners removed per hour no predator 0.26 0.02 0.09 20 1 20 phorids present (attracted by lights) 0.2 0.01 0.05 20 1 20 Prey Feeding rate 1 0 1 0 1 1 none nighttime Figure 4 Moses & Sih 1998 Ethology 104:661-669 Mos98-01 freshwater pond cattle tank/ wading pool lab 0.33 6 5 11 Insecta Notonecta undulata, backswimmer Insecta Gerris marginatus, pond water strider Fecundity mating activity: proportion of time spent copulating no predator 0.04 0.01 0.05 6 5 30 predator present 0.03 0.02 0.12 6 5 30 Prey Fecundity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Mos98-01, 03, 05 Figure 4 Moses & Sih 1998 Ethology 104:661-669 Mos98-02 freshwater pond cattle tank/ wading pool lab 0.33 6 5 11 Insecta Notonecta undulata, backswimmer Insecta Gerris marginatus, pond water strider Fecundity mating activity: proportion of time spent copulating no predator 0.07 0.02 0.11 6 5 30 predator present 0.04 0.02 0.09 6 5 30 Prey Fecundity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Mos98-02, 04, 06 Figure 1 Moses & Sih 1998 Ethology 104:661-669 Mos98-03 freshwater pond cattle tank/ wading pool lab 0.33 6 5 11 Insecta Notonecta undulata, backswimmer Insecta Gerris marginatus, pond water strider Activity proportion active no predator 0.19 0.01 0.08 6 5 30 predator present 0.06 0.02 0.1 6 5 30 Prey Activity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Mos98-01, 03, 05 females Figure 1 Moses & Sih 1998 Ethology 104:661-669 Mos98-04 freshwater pond cattle tank/ wading pool lab 0.33 6 5 11 Insecta Notonecta undulata, backswimmer Insecta Gerris marginatus, pond water strider Activity proportion active no predator 0.16 0.02 0.13 6 5 30 predator present 0.02 0.01 0.07 6 5 30 Prey Activity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Mos98-02, 04, 06 females Figure 2 Moses & Sih 1998 Ethology 104:661-669 Mos98-05 freshwater pond cattle tank/ wading pool lab 0.33 6 5 11 Insecta Notonecta undulata, backswimmer Insecta Gerris marginatus, pond water strider Habitat use proportion of time in refuge no predator 0.08 0.02 0.12 6 5 30 predator present 0.23 0.05 0.27 6 5 30 Prey Habitat use -1 0 1 0 1 1 Mos98-01, 03, 05 females Figure 2 Moses & Sih 1998 Ethology 104:661-669 Mos98-06 freshwater pond cattle tank/ wading pool lab 0.33 6 5 11 Insecta Notonecta undulata, backswimmer Insecta Gerris marginatus, pond water strider Habitat use proportion of time in refuge no predator 0.07 0.02 0.1 6 5 30 predator present 0.17 0.05 0.3 6 5 30 Prey Habitat use -1 0 1 0 1 1 Mos98-02, 04, 06 females Figure 5 Nakaoka 2000 Ecology 81(4):1031-1045 Nak00-01 marine intertidal marsh enclosure field 35 4 varies 11 Gastropoda Busycon caria, whelk Bivalvia Mercenaria mercenaria, clam Growth mm no whelk 0.72 0.08 0.76 4 25 100 whelk risk, not allowed to attack clams 0.34 0.04 0.43 4 25 100 whelks present, allowed to attack clams 0.3 0.04 0.45 4 35 140 Prey Growth 1 0 1 1 2 1 none Figure 1 Nelson et al 2004 Ecology 85(7): 1853-1858 Nel04-01 terrestrial agricultural enclosure field 6 varies 16 11 Insecta Nabis sp., damselbug Insecta Acyrthosiphon pisum, pea aphid Density Per capita population growth rate (final density/initial density) no predator 6.41 0.65 12.78 24 16 384 predator risk 4.49 0.42 8.21 24 16 384 predator present 1.5 0.25 4.77 22 16 352 Prey Density 1 0 1 1 2 1 none experiment 2 Figure 1 Nelson et al 2004 Ecology 85(7): 1853-1858 Nel04-02 terrestrial agricultural enclosure field 6 varies 10 11 Insecta Nabis sp., damselbug Insecta Acyrthosiphon pisum, pea aphid Density Per capita population growth rate (final density/initial density) no predator 6.18 0.71 15.49 48 10 480 predator risk 4.38 0.52 12.24 55 10 550 predator present 3.86 0.5 10.63 45 10 450 Prey Density 1 0 1 1 2 1 none experiment 1 Figure 2A Nicieza 2000 Oecologia 123: 497-505 Nic00-01 freshwater pond aquarium lab larval period 3 19 11 Actinopterygii Salmo salar, atlantic salmon Amphibia Rana temporaria, common frog Development Time to metamorphosis (days) no predator 87.08 2.24 16.93 3 19 57 predator risk 91.42 2.18 16.48 3 19 57 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Nic00-01, Nic00-03, Nic00-05, Nic00-07 Figure 2A Nicieza 2000 Oecologia 123: 497-505 Nic00-02 freshwater pond aquarium lab larval period 3 19 11 Actinopterygii Salmo salar, atlantic salmon Amphibia Rana temporaria, common frog Development Time to metamorphosis (days) no predator 81.26 2.1 15.87 3 19 57 predator risk 83.01 2.21 16.69 3 19 57 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Nic00-02, Nic00-04, Nic00-06, Nic00-08 Figure 2B Nicieza 2000 Oecologia 123: 497-505 Nic00-03 freshwater pond aquarium lab larval period 3 19 11 Actinopterygii Salmo salar, atlantic salmon Amphibia Rana temporaria, common frog Growth body mass (mg) no predator 181.81 7.18 54.23 3 19 57 predator risk 199.39 7.75 58.5 3 19 57 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Nic00-01, Nic00-03, Nic00-05, Nic00-07 Figure 2B Nicieza 2000 Oecologia 123: 497-505 Nic00-04 freshwater pond aquarium lab larval period 3 19 11 Actinopterygii Salmo salar, atlantic salmon Amphibia Rana temporaria, common frog Growth body mass (mg) no predator 180.22 7.71 58.24 3 19 57 predator risk 165.68 7.66 57.81 3 19 57 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Nic00-02, Nic00-04, Nic00-06, Nic00-08 Figure 2C Nicieza 2000 Oecologia 123: 497-505 Nic00-05 freshwater pond aquarium lab larval period 3 19 11 Actinopterygii Salmo salar, atlantic salmon Amphibia Rana temporaria, common frog Growth mg/day no predator 2.09 0.1 0.78 3 19 57 predator risk 2.17 0.1 0.77 3 19 57 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Nic00-01, Nic00-03, Nic00-05, Nic00-07 Figure 2C Nicieza 2000 Oecologia 123: 497-505 Nic00-06 freshwater pond aquarium lab larval period 3 19 11 Actinopterygii Salmo salar, atlantic salmon Amphibia Rana temporaria, common frog Growth mg/day no predator 2.22 0.1 0.78 3 19 57 predator risk 2.01 0.11 0.82 3 19 57 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Nic00-02, Nic00-04, Nic00-06, Nic00-08 Figure 1B Nicieza 2000 Oecologia 123: 497-505 Nic00-07 freshwater pond aquarium lab 57 3 19 11 Actinopterygii Salmo salar, atlantic salmon Amphibia Rana temporaria, common frog Habitat use proportion in refuge no predator 34.96 0.93 7.05 3 19 57 predator risk 35.99 0.6 4.55 3 19 57 Prey Habitat use -1 0 1 0 1 Nic00-01, Nic00-03, Nic00-05, Nic00-07 Figure 1B Nicieza 2000 Oecologia 123: 497-505 Nic00-08 freshwater pond aquarium lab 57 3 19 11 Actinopterygii Salmo salar, atlantic salmon Amphibia Rana temporaria, common frog Habitat use proportion in refuge no predator 35.45 2.69 20.31 3 19 57 predator risk 44.63 4.24 32.03 3 19 57 Prey Habitat use -1 0 1 0 1 Nic00-02, Nic00-04, Nic00-06, Nic00-08 Figure 1 Nonacs & Calabi 1992 Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 249:95-99 Non92-01 terrestrial forest cage lab 14 varies 100 competition Insecta Camponotus floridanus, carpenter ant Insecta Camponotus floridanus, carpenter ant Fecundity brood mass (mg) no competitor 272.88 14.13 244.74 3 100 300 competitor risk 208.26 16.15 323 4 100 400 Competitor Fecundity 1 0 1 0 1 1 none Figure 1A Nystrom & Abjornsson 2000 Oikos 88:181-190 Nys00-01 freshwater pond cattle tank/ wading pool lab 30 5 90 11 Actinopterygii Oncorhynchus mykiss, rainbow trout Amphibia Bufo bufo, common toad Survival % surviving no predators 100 0 0 5 90 450 predator cues 98.8 1.5 31.8 5 90 450 Prey Survival 1 0 1 0 1 1 Nys00-01 and Nys00-02 Figure 1B Nystrom & Abjornsson 2000 Oikos 88:181-190 Nys00-02 freshwater pond cattle tank/ wading pool lab 30 5 90 11 Actinopterygii Oncorhynchus mykiss, rainbow trout Amphibia Bufo bufo, common toad Habitat use % exposed no predators 77.1 10.17 215.74 5 90 450 predator cues 63.97 4.07 86.3 5 90 450 Prey Habitat use 1 0 1 0 1 1 Nys00-01 and Nys00-02 Figure 1A Nystrom & Abjornsson 2000 Oikos 88:181-190 Nys00-03 freshwater pond cattle tank/ wading pool lab 30 5 90 11 Actinopterygii Oncorhynchus mykiss, rainbow trout Amphibia Rana temporaria, common frog Survival % surviving no predators 98.96 2.15 45.54 5 90 450 predator cues 96.76 5.33 113.05 5 90 450 Prey Survival 1 0 1 0 1 1 Nys00-03 to Nys00-05 Figure 1B Nystrom & Abjornsson 2000 Oikos 88:181-190 Nys00-04 freshwater pond cattle tank/ wading pool lab 30 5 90 11 Actinopterygii Oncorhynchus mykiss, rainbow trout Amphibia Rana temporaria, common frog Habitat use % exposed no predators 29.56 5.9 125.16 5 90 450 predator cues 11.45 4.34 92.07 5 90 450 Prey Habitat use 1 0 1 0 1 1 Nys00-03 to Nys00-05 Figure 4 Nystrom & Abjornsson 2000 Oikos 88:181-190 Nys00-05 freshwater pond cattle tank/ wading pool lab 30 5 90 111 Actinopterygii Oncorhynchus mykiss, rainbow trout Amphibia Rana temporaria and Bufo bufo Autotroph Periphyton (combined effect with bufo cascade below) Biomass ug/cm^2 of chlorophyll a on tiles no predators 0.98 0.07 1.41 5 90 450 predator cues 0.97 0.05 0.96 5 90 450 Resource Biomass 1 0 1 0 1 2 Nys00-03 to Nys00-05 tiles: control = (A-B)/A, TMI = (C-D)/C, SE = SE(A+B) and SE(C+D) Fig 2 Oku et al 2004 J Ethology 22:109-112 Oku04-01 terrestrial agricultural cage lab 1 varies 1 11 Arthropoda Amblyseius womersleyi, predatory mite Arthropoda Tetranychus kanzawai, phytophagous mite Fecundity # eggs/female in 2 days area with no egg predator present 11.7 0.3 1.48 25 1 25 egg density reduced only by the number of eggs consumed by egg predator 4.7 0.81 3.71 21 1 21 egg density reduced only by reduction in egg laying due to presence of egg predator 8.68 0.47 2.16 21 1 21 Prey Fecundity 1 1 1 0 2 1 none got DM measurement by subtracting number of eggs eaten by predator per day from number of eggs laid in the absence of predator Fig. 2A Oriziola and Brana 2004 Ann. Zool. Fennici 41:635-645 Ori04-01 freshwater pond aquarium lab until hatching complete varies varies 11 Actinopterygii Salmo trutta, brown trout Amphibia Triturus marmoratus, newt Survival % of eggs hatched 12.56 1.4 14.39 190 0.56 106.4 8.84 1.4 12.42 180 0.44 79.2 Prey Survival 1 0 1 0 1 1 Ori04-1, Ori04-5, Ori04-9 the data necessary to do this was sent to my by G. araziola - check TMI articles done finle for the spreadsheet Fig. 2A Oriziola and Brana 2004 Ann. Zool. Fennici 41:635-645 Ori04-02 freshwater pond aquarium lab until hatching complete varies varies 11 Actinopterygii Salmo trutta, brown trout Amphibia Triturus alpestris, alpine newt Survival % of eggs hatched 83.72 3.26 41.68 55 2.98 163.9 67.44 8.37 95.85 58 2.26 131.08 Prey Survival 1 0 1 0 1 1 Ori04-2, Ori04-6, Ori04-10 the data necessary to do this was sent to my by G. araziola - check TMI articles done finle for the spreadsheet Fig. 2A Oriziola and Brana 2004 Ann. Zool. Fennici 41:635-645 Ori04-03 freshwater pond aquarium lab until hatching complete varies varies 11 Actinopterygii Salmo trutta, brown trout Amphibia Triturus helveticus, palmate newt Survival % of eggs hatched 85.58 2.33 44.48 62 5.9 365.8 86.51 2.33 48.74 60 7.32 439.2 Prey Survival 1 0 1 0 1 1 Ori04-3, Ori04-7, Ori04-11 the data necessary to do this was sent to my by G. araziola - check TMI articles done finle for the spreadsheet Fig. 2A Oriziola and Brana 2004 Ann. Zool. Fennici 41:635-645 Ori04-04 freshwater pond aquarium lab until hatching complete varies varies 11 Actinopterygii Salmo trutta, brown trout Amphibia Triturus boscai, newt Survival % of eggs hatched 71.16 5.58 68.27 80 1.87 149.6 78.14 4.65 57.19 84 1.8 151.2 Prey Survival 1 0 1 0 1 1 Ori04-4, Ori04-8, Ori04-12 the data necessary to do this was sent to my by G. araziola - check TMI articles done finle for the spreadsheet Fig. 2B Oriziola and Brana 2004 Ann. Zool. Fennici 41:635-645 Ori04-05 freshwater pond aquarium lab until hatching complete varies varies 11 Actinopterygii Salmo trutta, brown trout Amphibia Triturus marmoratus, newt Development time until hatching (days) 25.63 0.59 6.08 190 0.56 106.4 24.37 0.59 5.25 180 0.44 79.2 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Ori04-1, Ori04-5, Ori04-9 the data necessary to do this was sent to my by G. araziola - check TMI articles done finle for the spreadsheet Fig. 2B Oriziola and Brana 2004 Ann. Zool. Fennici 41:635-645 Ori04-06 freshwater pond aquarium lab until hatching complete varies varies 11 Actinopterygii Salmo trutta, brown trout Amphibia Triturus alpestris, alpine newt Development time until hatching (days) 21.79 0.29 3.78 55 2.98 163.9 21.57 0.44 5.07 58 2.26 131.08 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Ori04-2, Ori04-6, Ori04-10 the data necessary to do this was sent to my by G. araziola - check TMI articles done finle for the spreadsheet Fig. 2B Oriziola and Brana 2004 Ann. Zool. Fennici 41:635-645 Ori04-07 freshwater pond aquarium lab until hatching complete varies varies 11 Actinopterygii Salmo trutta, brown trout Amphibia Triturus helveticus, palmate newt Development time until hatching (days) 19.8 0.22 4.23 62 5.9 365.8 19.73 0.37 7.73 60 7.32 439.2 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Ori04-3, Ori04-7, Ori04-11 the data necessary to do this was sent to my by G. araziola - check TMI articles done finle for the spreadsheet Fig. 2B Oriziola and Brana 2004 Ann. Zool. Fennici 41:635-645 Ori04-08 freshwater pond aquarium lab until hatching complete varies varies 11 Actinopterygii Salmo trutta, brown trout Amphibia Triturus boscai, newt Development time until hatching (days) 30.94 0.22 2.71 80 1.87 149.6 31.01 0.59 7.25 84 1.8 151.2 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Ori04-4, Ori04-8, Ori04-12 the data necessary to do this was sent to my by G. araziola - check TMI articles done finle for the spreadsheet Fig. 2C Oriziola and Brana 2004 Ann. Zool. Fennici 41:635-645 Ori04-09 freshwater pond aquarium lab until hatching complete varies varies 11 Actinopterygii Salmo trutta, brown trout Amphibia Triturus marmoratus, newt Growth mm 8.49 0.11 1.11 190 0.56 106.4 7.9 0.11 0.96 180 0.44 79.2 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Ori04-1, Ori04-5, Ori04-9 the data necessary to do this was sent to my by G. araziola - check TMI articles done finle for the spreadsheet Fig. 2C Oriziola and Brana 2004 Ann. Zool. Fennici 41:635-645 Ori04-10 freshwater pond aquarium lab until hatching complete varies varies 11 Actinopterygii Salmo trutta, brown trout Amphibia Triturus alpestris, alpine newt Growth mm 7.79 0.05 0.69 55 2.98 163.9 7.39 0.05 0.62 58 2.26 131.08 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Ori04-2, Ori04-6, Ori04-10 the data necessary to do this was sent to my by G. araziola - check TMI articles done finle for the spreadsheet Fig. 2C Oriziola and Brana 2004 Ann. Zool. Fennici 41:635-645 Ori04-11 freshwater pond aquarium lab until hatching complete varies varies 11 Actinopterygii Salmo trutta, brown trout Amphibia Triturus helveticus, palmate newt Growth mm 8.85 0.08 1.54 62 5.9 365.8 8.65 0.05 1.13 60 7.32 439.2 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Ori04-3, Ori04-7, Ori04-11 the data necessary to do this was sent to my by G. araziola - check TMI articles done finle for the spreadsheet Fig. 2C Oriziola and Brana 2004 Ann. Zool. Fennici 41:635-645 Ori04-12 freshwater pond aquarium lab until hatching complete varies varies 11 Actinopterygii Salmo trutta, brown trout Amphibia Triturus boscai, newt Growth mm 9.06 0.05 0.66 80 1.87 149.6 8.37 0.11 1.32 84 1.8 151.2 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Ori04-4, Ori04-8, Ori04-12 the data necessary to do this was sent to my by G. araziola - check TMI articles done finle for the spreadsheet Figure 2 Orizaola & Brana 2005 Freshwater Biology 50:438-446 Ori05-01 freshwater pond aquarium lab until metamorphosis complete 10 1 11 Actinopterygii Salmo trutta, brown trout Amphibia Triturus helveticus, palmate newt Development Time to metamorphosis (days) Predator cue absent during larval period 61.8 2.57 8.13 10 1 10 predator cue present during larval period 56.67 1.28 4.05 10 1 10 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Ori05-01, Ori05-03, Ori05-05 predator cues in embryonic environment Figure 2 Orizaola & Brana 2005 Freshwater Biology 50:438-446 Ori05-02 freshwater pond aquarium lab until metamorphosis complete 10 1 11 Actinopterygii Salmo trutta, brown trout Amphibia Triturus helveticus, palmate newt Development Time to metamorphosis (days) Predator cue absent during larval period 79.75 3.85 12.17 10 1 10 predator cue present during larval period 75.9 3.85 12.17 10 1 10 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Ori05-02, Ori05-04, Ori05-06 predator cues absent in embryonic environment Figure 2 Orizaola & Brana 2005 Freshwater Biology 50:438-446 Ori05-03 freshwater pond aquarium lab until metamorphosis complete 10 1 11 Actinopterygii Salmo trutta, brown trout Amphibia Triturus helveticus, palmate newt Growth Mass at metamorphosis (g) Predator cue absent during larval period 30.15 1.38 4.36 10 1 10 predator cue present during larval period 28.54 1.38 4.36 10 1 10 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Ori05-01, Ori05-03, Ori05-05 predator cues in embryonic environment Figure 2 Orizaola & Brana 2005 Freshwater Biology 50:438-446 Ori05-04 freshwater pond aquarium lab until metamorphosis complete 10 1 11 Actinopterygii Salmo trutta, brown trout Amphibia Triturus helveticus, palmate newt Growth Mass at metamorphosis (g) Predator cue absent during larval period 34.77 1.39 4.4 10 1 10 predator cue present during larval period 31.31 1.85 5.85 10 1 10 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Ori05-02, Ori05-04, Ori05-06 predator cues absent in embryonic environment Figure 2 Orizaola & Brana 2005 Freshwater Biology 50:438-446 Ori05-05 freshwater pond aquarium lab until metamorphosis complete 10 1 11 Actinopterygii Salmo trutta, brown trout Amphibia Triturus helveticus, palmate newt Growth mm/day Predator cue absent during larval period 0.06 0 0.01 10 1 10 predator cue present during larval period 0.07 0 0.01 10 1 10 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Ori05-01, Ori05-03, Ori05-05 predator cues in embryonic environment Figure 2 Orizaola & Brana 2005 Freshwater Biology 50:438-446 Ori05-06 freshwater pond aquarium lab until metamorphosis complete 10 1 11 Actinopterygii Salmo trutta, brown trout Amphibia Triturus helveticus, palmate newt Growth mm/day Predator cue absent during larval period 0.05 0 0.01 10 1 10 predator cue present during larval period 0.05 0 0.01 10 1 10 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Ori05-02, Ori05-04, Ori05-06 predator cues absent in embryonic environment Table 3 Palmer 1990 Hydrobiologia 193: 155-182 Pal90-01 marine intertidal aquarium lab 94 1 9 11 Malacostraca Cancer pagurus, crab Gastropoda Nucella lapillus, Atlantic dogwhelk Growth Mass (g) 218 in control, 202 in risk 7.6 in control, 11.2 in risk 1 no predator cue 155 6.9 20.7 1 9 9 chemical cue from crab fed fish 146 9.5 28.5 1 9 9 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Pal90-01, Pal90-02 exposed population, trt 1 Table 3 Palmer 1990 Hydrobiologia 193: 155-182 Pal90-02 marine intertidal aquarium lab 94 1 varies 11 Malacostraca Cancer pagurus, crab Gastropoda Nucella lapillus, Atlantic dogwhelk Growth Mass (g) 218 in control, 185 in risk 7.6 in control, 7.0 in risk 1 no predator cue 155 6.9 20.7 1 9 9 chemical cue from crab fed snails 127 6.1 19.29 1 10 10 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Pal90-01, Pal90-02 exposed population, trt 1 Table 3 Palmer 1990 Hydrobiologia 193: 155-182 Pal90-03 marine intertidal aquarium lab 94 1 10 11 Malacostraca Cancer pagurus, crab Gastropoda Nucella lapillus, Atlantic dogwhelk Growth Mass (g) 181 in control, 227 in risk 9.3 in control, 11.0 in risk 1 no predator cue 139 6.9 21.82 1 10 10 chemical cue from crab fed fish 172 8.9 28.14 1 10 10 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Pal90-03, Pal90-04 protected population, trt 1 Table 3 Palmer 1990 Hydrobiologia 193: 155-182 Pal90-04 marine intertidal aquarium lab 94 1 10 11 Malacostraca Cancer pagurus, crab Gastropoda Nucella lapillus, Atlantic dogwhelk Growth Mass (g) 181 in control, 208 in risk 9.3 in control, 9.6 in risk 1 no predator cue 139 6.9 21.82 1 10 10 chemical cue from crab fed snails 159 7.7 24.35 1 10 10 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Pal90-03, Pal90-04 protected population, trt 1 Table 3 Palmer 1990 Hydrobiologia 193: 155-182 Pal90-05 marine intertidal aquarium lab 94 1 10 11 Malacostraca Cancer pagurus, crab Gastropoda Nucella lapillus, Atlantic dogwhelk Growth Mass (g) 188 in control, 185 in risk 9.1 in control, 7.0 in risk 1 no predator cue 132 7.2 22.77 1 10 10 chemical cue from crab fed fish 127 5.2 16.44 1 10 10 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Pal90-05, Pal90-06 exposed population, trt 2 Table 3 Palmer 1990 Hydrobiologia 193: 155-182 Pal90-06 marine intertidal aquarium lab 94 1 10 11 Malacostraca Cancer pagurus, crab Gastropoda Nucella lapillus, Atlantic dogwhelk Growth Mass (g) 188 in control, 195 in risk 9.1 in control, 7.8 in risk 1 no predator cue 132 7.2 22.77 1 10 10 chemical cue from crab fed snails 139 5.6 17.71 1 10 10 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Pal90-05, Pal90-06 exposed population, trt 2 Table 3 Palmer 1990 Hydrobiologia 193: 155-182 Pal90-07 marine intertidal aquarium lab 94 1 8 11 Malacostraca Cancer pagurus, crab Gastropoda Nucella lapillus, Atlantic dogwhelk Growth Mass (g) 196 in control, 191 in risk 7.3 in control, 13.4 in risk 1 no predator cue 164 9.6 27.15 1 8 8 chemical cue from crab fed fish 144 10 28.28 1 8 8 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Pal90-07, Pal90-08 protected population, trt 2 Table 3 Palmer 1990 Hydrobiologia 193: 155-182 Pal90-08 marine intertidal aquarium lab 94 1 varies 11 Malacostraca Cancer pagurus, crab Gastropoda Nucella lapillus, Atlantic dogwhelk Growth Mass (g) 196 in control, 202 in risk 7.3 in control, 8.6 in risk 1 no predator cue 164 9.6 27.15 1 8 8 chemical cue from crab fed snails 154 10.8 32.4 1 9 9 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Pal90-07, Pal90-08 protected population, trt 2 Table 3 Palmer 1990 Hydrobiologia 193: 155-182 Pal90-09 marine intertidal aquarium lab 94 1 varies 11 Malacostraca Cancer pagurus, crab Gastropoda Nucella lapillus, Atlantic dogwhelk Growth Mass (g) 182 7.4 in control, 8.7 in risk 1 no predator cue 621 38 120.17 1 10 10 chemical cue from crab fed fish 485 34.4 103.2 1 9 9 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Pal90-09, Pal90-10 exposed population, trt 1 Table 3 Palmer 1990 Hydrobiologia 193: 155-182 Pal90-10 marine intertidal aquarium lab 94 1 10 11 Malacostraca Cancer pagurus, crab Gastropoda Nucella lapillus, Atlantic dogwhelk Growth Mass (g) 182 in control, 209 in risk 7.4 in control, 14.6 in risk 1 no predator cue 621 38 120.17 1 10 10 chemical cue from crab fed snails 179 10.8 34.15 1 10 10 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Pal90-09, Pal90-10 exposed population, trt 1 Table 3 Palmer 1990 Hydrobiologia 193: 155-182 Pal90-11 marine intertidal aquarium lab 94 1 varies 11 Malacostraca Cancer pagurus, crab Gastropoda Nucella lapillus, Atlantic dogwhelk Growth Mass (g) 202 in control, 196 in risk 10.3 in control, 7.5 in risk 1 no predator cue 375 38.1 120.48 1 10 10 chemical cue from crab fed fish 265 19.4 58.2 1 9 9 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Pal90-11, Pal90-12 protected population, trt 1 Table 3 Palmer 1990 Hydrobiologia 193: 155-182 Pal90-12 marine intertidal aquarium lab 94 1 10 11 Malacostraca Cancer pagurus, crab Gastropoda Nucella lapillus, Atlantic dogwhelk Growth Mass (g) 202 in control, 206 in risk 10.3 in control, 6.3 in risk 1 no predator cue 375 38.1 120.48 1 10 10 chemical cue from crab fed snails 175 6.1 19.29 1 10 10 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Pal90-11, Pal90-12 protected population, trt 1 Table 3 Palmer 1990 Hydrobiologia 193: 155-182 Pal90-13 marine intertidal aquarium lab 94 1 10 11 Malacostraca Cancer pagurus, crab Gastropoda Nucella lapillus, Atlantic dogwhelk Growth Mass (g) 187 in control, 193 in risk 8.5 in control, 9.2 in risk 1 no predator cue 574 37.1 117.32 1 10 10 chemical cue from crab fed fish 509 28.7 90.76 1 10 10 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Pal90-13, Pal90-14 exposed population, trt 2 Table 3 Palmer 1990 Hydrobiologia 193: 155-182 Pal90-14 marine intertidal aquarium lab 94 1 varies 11 Malacostraca Cancer pagurus, crab Gastropoda Nucella lapillus, Atlantic dogwhelk Growth Mass (g) 187 in control, 174 in risk 8.5 in control, 5.9 in risk 1 no predator cue 574 37.1 117.32 1 10 10 chemical cue from crab fed snails 204 4.5 13.5 1 9 9 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Pal90-13, Pal90-14 exposed population, trt 2 Table 3 Palmer 1990 Hydrobiologia 193: 155-182 Pal90-15 marine intertidal aquarium lab 94 1 8 11 Malacostraca Cancer pagurus, crab Gastropoda Nucella lapillus, Atlantic dogwhelk Growth Mass (g) 187 in control, 190 in risk 7.3 in control, 5.5 in risk 1 no predator cue 360 44.9 127 1 8 8 chemical cue from crab fed fish 305 34.6 97.86 1 8 8 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Pal90-15, Pal90-16 protected population, trt 2 Table 3 Palmer 1990 Hydrobiologia 193: 155-182 Pal90-16 marine intertidal aquarium lab 94 1 varies 11 Malacostraca Cancer pagurus, crab Gastropoda Nucella lapillus, Atlantic dogwhelk Growth Mass (g) 187 in control, 213 in risk 7.3 in control, 11.9 in risk 1 no predator cue 360 44.9 127 1 8 8 chemical cue from crab fed snails 184 9.8 30.99 1 10 10 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Pal90-15, Pal90-16 protected population, trt 2 Figure 3a Peacor & Werner 2000 Ecology 81(7):1998-2010 Pea00-01 freshwater pond, ephemeral cattle tank/ wading pool field 21 4 40 11 Insecta Anax longipes, comet darner Amphibia Rana clamitans, green frog Growth mass gain (g) no predator 0.27 0.01 0.18 4 40 160 caged anax 0.13 0.01 0.18 4 40 160 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 none Figure 3a Peacor & Werner 2000 Ecology 81(7):1998-2010 Pea00-02 freshwater pond, ephemeral cattle tank/ wading pool field 21 4 80 11 Insecta Anax longipes, comet darner Amphibia Rana clamitans, green frog Growth mass gain (g) no predator 0.18 0.01 0.19 4 80 320 caged anax 0.13 0.01 0.16 4 80 320 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 none Figure 3a Peacor & Werner 2000 Ecology 81(7):1998-2010 Pea00-03 freshwater pond, ephemeral cattle tank/ wading pool field 21 4 160 11 Insecta Anax longipes, comet darner Amphibia Rana clamitans, green frog Growth mass gain (g) no predator 0.08 0.01 0.22 4 160 640 caged anax 0.09 0.01 0.22 4 160 640 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 none Figure 3a Peacor & Werner 2000 Ecology 81(7):1998-2010 Pea00-04 freshwater pond, ephemeral cattle tank/ wading pool field 21 4 240 11 Insecta Anax longipes, comet darner Amphibia Rana clamitans, green frog Growth mass gain (g) no predator 0.07 0.01 0.33 4 240 960 caged anax 0.06 0.01 0.33 4 240 960 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 none Figure 3a Peacor & Werner 2000 Ecology 81(7):1998-2010 Pea00-05 freshwater pond, ephemeral cattle tank/ wading pool field 21 4 320 11 Insecta Anax longipes, comet darner Amphibia Rana clamitans, green frog Growth mass gain (g) no predator 0.05 0.01 0.23 4 320 1280 caged anax 0.05 0.01 0.23 4 320 1280 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 none Figure 3b Peacor & Werner 2000 Ecology 81(7):1998-2010 Pea00-06 freshwater pond, ephemeral cattle tank/ wading pool field 21 4 15 11 Insecta Anax longipes, comet darner Amphibia Rana catesbeiana, bullfrog Growth mass gain (g) no predator 0.5 0.09 0.67 4 15 60 caged anax 0.26 0.04 0.29 4 15 60 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 none Figure 3b Peacor & Werner 2000 Ecology 81(7):1998-2010 Pea00-07 freshwater pond, ephemeral cattle tank/ wading pool field 21 4 15 11 Insecta Anax longipes, comet darner Amphibia Rana catesbeiana, bullfrog Growth mass gain (g) no predator 0.41 0.01 0.07 4 15 60 caged anax 0.31 0.01 0.07 4 15 60 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 none Figure 3b Peacor & Werner 2000 Ecology 81(7):1998-2010 Pea00-08 freshwater pond, ephemeral cattle tank/ wading pool field 21 4 15 11 Insecta Anax longipes, comet darner Amphibia Rana catesbeiana, bullfrog Growth mass gain (g) no predator 0.28 0.02 0.15 4 15 60 caged anax 0.19 0.02 0.15 4 15 60 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 none Figure 3b Peacor & Werner 2000 Ecology 81(7):1998-2010 Pea00-09 freshwater pond, ephemeral cattle tank/ wading pool field 21 4 15 11 Insecta Anax longipes, comet darner Amphibia Rana catesbeiana, bullfrog Growth mass gain (g) no predator 0.11 0.01 0.11 4 15 60 caged anax 0.13 0.11 0.89 4 15 60 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 none Figure 3b Peacor & Werner 2000 Ecology 81(7):1998-2010 Pea00-10 freshwater pond, ephemeral cattle tank/ wading pool field 21 4 15 11 Insecta Anax longipes, comet darner Amphibia Rana catesbeiana, bullfrog Growth mass gain (g) no predator 0.13 0.04 0.32 4 15 60 caged anax 0.12 0.04 0.32 4 15 60 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 none Figure 3b Peacor & Werner 2000 Ecology 81(7):1998-2010 Pea00-11 freshwater pond, ephemeral cattle tank/ wading pool field 21 4 15 11 Insecta Anax longipes, comet darner Amphibia Rana catesbeiana, bullfrog Growth mass gain (g) no predator 0.09 0.02 0.17 4 15 60 caged anax 0.09 0.02 0.17 4 15 60 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 none Figure 3A Peacor 2002 Ecology Letters 5:77-85 Pea02-01 freshwater pond cattle tank/ wading pool field 15 4 5 11 Insecta Anax sp., dragonfly Amphibia Rana catesbeiana, bullfrog Growth initial mass - final mass large bullfrogs 0.14 0.02 0.11 4 5 20 predator risk 0.28 0.04 0.18 4 5 20 Competitor Growth -1 0 1 0 1 1 none large tadpoles Figure 3A Peacor 2002 Ecology Letters 5:77-85 Pea02-02 freshwater pond cattle tank/ wading pool field 15 4 5 11 Insecta Anax sp., dragonfly Amphibia Rana catesbeiana, bullfrog Growth initial mass - final mass large bullfrogs 0.08 0.04 0.16 4 5 20 predator risk 0.58 0.06 0.28 4 5 20 Competitor Growth -1 0 1 0 1 1 none large tadpoles Figure 3A Peacor 2002 Ecology Letters 5:77-85 Pea02-03 freshwater pond cattle tank/ wading pool field 15 4 5 11 Insecta Anax sp., dragonfly Amphibia Rana catesbeiana, bullfrog Growth initial mass - final mass large bullfrogs 0.2 0.02 0.08 4 5 20 predator risk 0.7 0.07 0.31 4 5 20 Competitor Growth -1 0 1 0 1 1 none large tadpoles Figure 3B Peacor 2002 Ecology Letters 5:77-85 Pea02-04 freshwater pond cattle tank/ wading pool field 15 4 180 11 Insecta Anax sp., dragonfly Amphibia Rana catesbeiana, bullfrog Growth initial mass - final mass small bullfrogs 0.09 0.01 0.37 4 180 720 predator risk 0.08 0.01 0.38 4 180 720 Prey Growth -1 0 1 0 1 1 Pea02-04, 07 small tadpoles Figure 3B Peacor 2002 Ecology Letters 5:77-85 Pea02-05 freshwater pond cattle tank/ wading pool field 15 4 180 11 Insecta Anax sp., dragonfly Amphibia Rana catesbeiana, bullfrog Growth initial mass - final mass small bullfrogs 0.09 0.02 0.42 4 180 720 predator risk 0.13 0.02 0.41 4 180 720 Prey Growth -1 0 1 0 1 1 Pea02-05, 08 small tadpoles Figure 3B Peacor 2002 Ecology Letters 5:77-85 Pea02-06 freshwater pond cattle tank/ wading pool field 15 4 180 11 Insecta Anax sp., dragonfly Amphibia Rana catesbeiana, bullfrog Growth initial mass - final mass small bullfrogs 0.11 0.01 0.29 4 180 720 predator risk 0.15 0.01 0.34 4 180 720 Prey Growth -1 0 1 0 1 1 Pea02-06, 09 small tadpoles Figure 5B Peacor 2002 Ecology Letters 5:77-85 Pea02-07 freshwater pond cattle tank/ wading pool field 15 4 at least 6 observations per mesocosm, with 180 individuals per replicate 11 Insecta Anax sp., dragonfly Amphibia Rana catesbeiana, bullfrog Activity # active above tank floor small bullfrogs 11.91 4.21 115.82 4 189 756 predator risk 2.13 1.23 33.02 4 180 720 Prey Activity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Pea02-04, 07 small tadpoles Figure 5B Peacor 2002 Ecology Letters 5:77-85 Pea02-08 freshwater pond cattle tank/ wading pool field 15 4 at least 6 observations per mesocosm, with 180 individuals per replicate 11 Insecta Anax sp., dragonfly Amphibia Rana catesbeiana, bullfrog Activity # active above tank floor small bullfrogs 7.3 3.18 85.43 4 180 720 predator risk 0.56 0.52 13.96 4 180 720 Prey Activity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Pea02-05, 08 small tadpoles Figure 5B Peacor 2002 Ecology Letters 5:77-85 Pea02-09 freshwater pond cattle tank/ wading pool field 15 4 at least 6 observations per mesocosm, with 180 individuals per replicate 11 Insecta Anax sp., dragonfly Amphibia Rana catesbeiana, bullfrog Activity # active above tank floor small bullfrogs 10.16 1.57 42.22 4 180 720 predator risk 1.61 0.72 19.22 4 180 720 Prey Activity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Pea02-06, 09 small tadpoles Fig. 6a Peacor & Werner 2004 Is. J. Zool 50:139-167 Pea04-01 freshwater pond cattle tank/ wading pool field 26 4 80 11 Insecta Anax junius, dragonfly Amphibia Rana sylvatica, wood frog Growth Mass gain (final - initial mass) (mg) caged Anax absent 702.64 17.32 309.86 4 80 320 Caged Anax present 688.05 32.34 578.58 4 80 320 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 none b/c log graph, Peacor sent this data to me directly Fig. 6a Peacor & Werner 2004 Is. J. Zool 50:139-167 Pea04-02 freshwater pond cattle tank/ wading pool field 26 4 160 11 Insecta Anax junius, dragonfly Amphibia Rana sylvatica, wood frog Growth Mass gain (final - initial mass) (mg) caged Anax absent 382.47 9.6 242.95 4 160 640 Caged Anax present 410.61 16.25 410.99 4 160 640 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 none b/c log graph, Peacor sent this data to me directly Fig. 6b Peacor & Werner 2004 Is. J. Zool 50:139-167 Pea04-03 freshwater pond cattle tank/ wading pool field 26 4 80 11 Insecta Anax junius, dragonfly Amphibia Rana sylvatica, wood frog Growth Mass gain (final - initial mass) (mg) caged Anax absent 239 10.22 182.79 4 80 320 Caged Anax present 274.34 12.21 218.36 4 80 320 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 none b/c log graph, Peacor sent this data to me directly Fig. 6b Peacor & Werner 2004 Is. J. Zool 50:139-167 Pea04-04 freshwater pond cattle tank/ wading pool field 26 4 80 11 Insecta Anax junius, dragonfly Amphibia Rana sylvatica, wood frog Growth Mass gain (final - initial mass) (mg) caged Anax absent 313.09 20 357.73 4 80 320 Caged Anax present 288.83 26.66 476.94 4 80 320 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 none b/c log graph, Peacor sent this data to me directly Fig. 6b Peacor & Werner 2004 Is. J. Zool 50:139-167 Pea04-05 freshwater pond cattle tank/ wading pool field 26 4 80 11 Insecta Anax junius, dragonfly Amphibia Rana sylvatica, wood frog Growth Mass gain (final - initial mass) (mg) caged Anax absent 702.64 17.32 309.86 4 80 320 Caged Anax present 688.05 32.34 578.58 4 80 320 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 none Same data as in Pea04-1 (but now resource density is being varied as conspecific density is held constant at 80 tadpoles/tank) Figure 2 Peacor & Werner 1997 Ecology 78:1446-1156 Pea97-01 freshwater pond, ephemeral cattle tank/ wading pool field 11 4 70 11 Insecta Anax longipes, comet darner Amphibia Rana clamitans, green frog Growth mass gain (g) no predator 142.53 2.58 43.17 4 70 280 caged anax 75.68 7.35 122.98 4 70 280 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 no Tramea lethal predator Figure 2 Peacor & Werner 1997 Ecology 78:1446-1156 Pea97-02 freshwater pond, ephemeral cattle tank/ wading pool field 11 4 70 11 Insecta Anax longipes, comet darner Amphibia Rana catesbeiana, bullfrog Growth mass gain (g) no predator 219.62 16.5 276.05 4 70 280 caged anax 151.68 21.27 355.86 4 70 280 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 no Tramea lethal predator Figure 2 Peacor & Werner 1997 Ecology 78:1446-1156 Pea97-03 freshwater pond, ephemeral cattle tank/ wading pool field 11 4 70 11 Insecta Anax longipes, comet darner Amphibia Rana clamitans, green frog Growth mass gain (g) no predator 70.99 7.04 117.75 4 70 280 caged anax 39.95 2.27 37.94 4 70 280 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 large bullfrogs present, no Tramea lethal predator Figure 2 Peacor & Werner 1997 Ecology 78:1446-1156 Pea97-04 freshwater pond, ephemeral cattle tank/ wading pool field 11 4 70 11 Insecta Anax longipes, comet darner Amphibia Rana catesbeiana, bullfrog Growth mass gain (g) no predator 94.29 11.73 196.25 4 70 280 caged anax 69.82 5.16 86.35 4 70 280 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 large bullfrogs present, no Tramea lethal predator Figure 2 Peacor & Werner 1997 Ecology 78:1446-1156 Pea97-05 freshwater pond, ephemeral cattle tank/ wading pool field 11 4 70 11 Insecta Anax longipes, comet darner Amphibia Rana clamitans, green frog Growth mass gain (g) no predator 139.56 25.88 433.05 4 70 280 caged anax 96.56 24.16 404.27 4 70 280 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Tramea lethal predator Figure 2 Peacor & Werner 1997 Ecology 78:1446-1156 Pea97-06 freshwater pond, ephemeral cattle tank/ wading pool field 11 4 70 11 Insecta Anax longipes, comet darner Amphibia Rana catesbeiana, bullfrog Growth mass gain (g) no predator 258.09 52.07 871.33 4 70 280 caged anax 204.93 49.73 832.08 4 70 280 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Tramea lethal predator Figure 2 Peacor & Werner 1997 Ecology 78:1446-1156 Pea97-07 freshwater pond, ephemeral cattle tank/ wading pool field 11 4 70 11 Insecta Anax longipes, comet darner Amphibia Rana clamitans, green frog Growth mass gain (g) no predator 52.46 13.76 230.26 4 70 280 caged anax 47.38 4.61 77.19 4 70 280 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 large bullfrogs present, Tramea lethal predator Figure 2 Peacor & Werner 1997 Ecology 78:1446-1156 Pea97-08 freshwater pond, ephemeral cattle tank/ wading pool field 11 4 70 11 Insecta Anax longipes, comet darner Amphibia Rana catesbeiana, bullfrog Growth mass gain (g) no predator 93.28 23.38 391.18 4 70 280 caged anax 92.42 18.76 313.99 4 70 280 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 large bullfrogs present, Tramea lethal predator Figure 3 Peacor & Werner 1997 Ecology 78:1446-1156 Pea97-09 freshwater pond, ephemeral cattle tank/ wading pool field 11 4 70 11 Insecta Anax longipes, comet darner Amphibia Rana clamitans, green frog Survival change in # tads surviving lethal tramea due to presence of caged anax effect of caged anax on survival without tramea (nl anax - control) 3.29 5.04 84.3 4 70 280 effect of caged anax on survival in presence of tramea (Nlanax/tramea - no anax w tramea) 5.67 4.09 68.44 4 70 280 Prey Survival 1 0 1 0 1 1 Figure 3 Peacor & Werner 1997 Ecology 78:1446-1156 Pea97-10 freshwater pond, ephemeral cattle tank/ wading pool field 11 4 70 11 Insecta Anax longipes, comet darner Amphibia Rana catesbeiana, bullfrog Survival change in # tads surviving lethal tramea due to presence of caged anax effect of caged anax on survival (nl anax - control) 3.68 2.05 34.22 4 70 280 effect of caged anax on survival in presence of tramea (Nlanax/tramea - no anax w tramea) 1.31 7.61 127.32 4 70 280 Prey Survival 1 0 1 0 1 1 Figure 3 Peacor & Werner 1997 Ecology 78:1446-1156 Pea97-11 freshwater pond, ephemeral cattle tank/ wading pool field 11 4 70 11 Insecta Anax longipes, comet darner Amphibia Rana clamitans, green frog Survival change in # tads surviving lethal tramea due to presence of caged anax effect of caged anax on survival (nl anax - control) -0.12 2.26 37.74 4 70 280 effect of caged anax on survival in presence of tramea (Nlanax/tramea - no anax w tramea) 7.25 6.48 108.45 4 70 280 Prey Survival 1 0 1 0 1 1 large bullfrogs present Figure 3 Peacor & Werner 1997 Ecology 78:1446-1156 Pea97-12 freshwater pond, ephemeral cattle tank/ wading pool field 11 4 70 11 Insecta Anax longipes, comet darner Amphibia Rana catesbeiana, bullfrog Survival change in # tads surviving lethal tramea due to presence of caged anax effect of caged anax on survival (nl anax - control) 0.5 1.73 28.94 4 70 280 effect of caged anax on survival in presence of tramea (Nlanax/tramea - no anax w tramea) 2.95 5.79 96.88 4 70 280 Prey Survival 1 0 1 0 1 1 large bullfrogs present Figure 1 Peckarsky et al 2002 Ecology 83(3): 612-618 Pec02-01 freshwater stream natural unit field 43 5 1 no # individuals given. Used one ind/rep as most conservative estimate 11 Actinopterygii Salvelinus fontinalis, brook trout Insecta Baetis bicaudatus, mayfly Growth female mass at emergence (mg) mayflies with no predator odor 1.16 0.08 0.18 5 1 5 mayflies with predator odor 0.94 0.12 0.27 5 1 5 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Pec02-01 and Pec02-02 summer generation Table 3 Peckarsky et al 2002 Ecology 83(3): 612-618 Pec02-02 freshwater stream natural unit field 43 5 1 no # individuals given. Used one ind/rep as most conservative estimate 11 Actinopterygii Salvelinus fontinalis, brook trout Insecta Baetis bicaudatus, mayfly Fecundity fecundity/female mayflies with no predator odor 547.6 5 1 5 mayflies with predator odor 357.9 5 1 5 Prey Fecundity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Pec02-01 and Pec02-02 summer generation Table 3 Peckarsky et al 2002 Ecology 83(3): 612-618 Pec02-03 freshwater stream natural unit field 55 5 1 no # individuals given. Used one ind/rep as most conservative estimate 11 Actinopterygii Salvelinus fontinalis, brook trout Insecta Baetis bicaudatus, mayfly Fecundity fecundity/female mayflies with no predator odor 838.9 5 1 5 mayflies with predator odor 638.1 5 1 5 Prey Fecundity 1 0 1 0 1 1 none winter generation Figure 1 Peckarsky et al 1993 Ecology 74:1836-1846 Pec93-01 freshwater stream aquarium lab 1 7 5 11 Insecta Kogotus modestus, stonefly Insecta Baetis bicaudatus, mayfly Autotroph Algae Feeding rate (11) or Survival (111) ng/animal no predator 445 31 183.4 7 5 35 predator risk 332 30 177.48 7 5 35 Prey (11) or Resource (111) Feeding rate (11) or Survival (111) 1/-1 0 1 0 1 1 none 1989; body mass at maturity for K. modestus females was obtained by multiplying dry mass by 6 to get wet mass Figure 1 Peckarsky et al 1993 Ecology 74:1836-1846 Pec93-02 freshwater stream aquarium lab 1 7 5 11 Insecta Kogotus modestus, stonefly Insecta Baetis bicaudatus, mayfly Autotroph Algae Feeding rate (11) or Survival (111) ng/animal no predator 272.73 31.82 188.24 7 5 35 predator risk 121.59 12.5 73.95 7 5 35 Prey (11) or Resource (111) Feeding rate (11) or Survival (111) 1/-1 0 1 0 1 1 none 1990; body mass at maturity for K. modestus females was obtained by multiplying dry mass by 6 to get wet mass Figure 1 Peckarsky et al 1993 Ecology 74:1836-1846 Pec93-03 freshwater stream aquarium lab 1 7 5 11 Insecta Megarcys signata, stonefly Insecta Baetis bicaudatus, mayfly Autotroph Algae Feeding rate (11) or Survival (111) ng/animal no predator 445 31 183.4 7 5 35 predator risk 301 25 147.9 7 5 35 Prey (11) or Resource (111) Feeding rate (11) or Survival (111) 1/-1 0 1 0 1 1 none 1989 (body mass for M. signata females was determined by multiplying dry mass by 6 to get wet mass) Figure 1 Peckarsky et al 1993 Ecology 74:1836-1846 Pec93-04 freshwater stream aquarium lab 1 7 5 11 Insecta Megarcys signata, stonefly Insecta Baetis bicaudatus, mayfly Autotroph Algae Feeding rate (11) or Survival (111) ng/animal no predator 272.73 31.82 188.24 7 5 35 predator risk 134.66 18.75 110.93 7 5 35 Prey (11) or Resource (111) Feeding rate (11) or Survival (111) 1/-1 0 1 0 1 1 none 1990 (body mass for M. signata females was determined by multiplying dry mass by 6 to get wet mass) Figure 3B Peckarsky et al 1993 Ecology 74:1836-1846 Pec93-05 freshwater stream aquarium lab 21 varies 10 11 Insecta Megarcys signata, stonefly Insecta Baetis bicaudatus, mayfly Growth dry mass no predator 1.02 0.03 0.21 6 10 60 predator risk 0.74 0.06 0.53 7 10 70 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Pec93-05 and Pec93-06 (body mass for M. signata females was determined by multiplying dry mass by 6 to get wet mass) Figure 3B Peckarsky et al 1993 Ecology 74:1836-1846 Pec93-06 freshwater stream aquarium lab 21 varies 10 11 Insecta Megarcys signata, stonefly Insecta Baetis bicaudatus, mayfly Fecundity dry egg mass/female no predator 0.25 0.05 0.4 6 10 60 predator risk 0.16 0.03 0.23 7 10 70 Prey Fecundity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Pec93-05 and Pec93-06 (body mass for M. signata females was determined by multiplying dry mass by 6 to get wet mass) Figure 1 Peckarsky 1996 Ecology 77(6): 1888-1905 Pec96-01 freshwater stream aquarium lab 1 7 5 11 Insecta Kogotus modestus, stonefly Insecta Cinygmula sp., mayfly Autotroph Algae Feeding rate (11) or Survival (111) ng total pigment/animal no predator 185.4 19.8 117.14 7 5 35 predator risk 203.4 18.6 110.04 7 5 35 Prey (11) or Resource (111) Feeding rate (11) or Survival (111) 1/-1 0 1 0 1 1 Pec96-01, 13 Body mass at maturity for K. modestus females was obtained by multiplying dry mass by 6 to get wet mass Figure 1 Peckarsky 1996 Ecology 77(6): 1888-1905 Pec96-02 freshwater stream aquarium lab 1 7 5 11 Insecta Megarcys signata, stonefly Insecta Cinygmula sp., mayfly Autotroph Algae Feeding rate (11) or Survival (111) ng total pigment/animal no predator 185.4 19.8 117.14 7 5 35 predator risk 181.8 18 106.49 7 5 35 Prey (11) or Resource (111) Feeding rate (11) or Survival (111) 1/-1 0 1 0 1 1 Pec96-02, 12 (body mass for M. signata females was determined by multiplying dry mass by 6 to get wet mass) Figure 1 Peckarsky 1996 Ecology 77(6): 1888-1905 Pec96-03 freshwater stream aquarium lab 1 7 5 11 Insecta Kogotus modestus, stonefly Insecta Epeorus deceptivus, mayfly Autotroph Algae Feeding rate (11) or Survival (111) ng total pigment/animal no predator 276.6 7.9 46.74 7 5 35 predator risk 242.6 9.1 53.84 7 5 35 Prey (11) or Resource (111) Feeding rate (11) or Survival (111) 1/-1 0 1 0 1 1 Pec96-03, Pec96-09 Body mass at maturity for K. modestus females was obtained by multiplying dry mass by 6 to get wet mass Figure 1 Peckarsky 1996 Ecology 77(6): 1888-1905 Pec96-04 freshwater stream aquarium lab 1 7 5 11 Insecta Megarcys signata, stonefly Insecta Epeorus longimanus, mayfly Autotroph Algae Feeding rate (11) or Survival (111) ng total pigment/animal no predator 206.4 13.2 78.09 7 5 35 predator risk 96 12 70.99 7 5 35 Prey (11) or Resource (111) Feeding rate (11) or Survival (111) 1/-1 0 1 0 1 1 Pec96-04 and Pec96-08 (body mass for M. signata females was determined by multiplying dry mass by 6 to get wet mass) Figure 1 Peckarsky 1996 Ecology 77(6): 1888-1905 Pec96-05 freshwater stream aquarium lab 1 5 5 11 Insecta Megarcys signata, stonefly Insecta Ephemerella sp., mayfly Autotroph Algae Feeding rate (11) or Survival (111) ng total pigment/animal no predator 281.6 41.3 206.5 5 5 25 predator risk 301.7 64.3 321.5 5 5 25 Prey (11) or Resource (111) Feeding rate (11) or Survival (111) 1/-1 0 1 0 1 1 Pec96-05, 14 (body mass for M. signata females was determined by multiplying dry mass by 6 to get wet mass) Figure 2 Peckarsky 1996 Ecology 77(6): 1888-1905 Pec96-06 freshwater stream aquarium lab 1 7 5 11 Insecta Megarcys signata, stonefly Insecta Baetis bicaudatus, mayfly Habitat use % exposed no predator 60.04 5.49 32.47 7 5 35 predator risk 53.15 6.96 41.2 7 5 35 Prey Habitat use 1 0 1 0 1 1 Pec96-06, 10 (body mass for M. signata females was determined by multiplying dry mass by 6 to get wet mass) Figure 2 Peckarsky 1996 Ecology 77(6): 1888-1905 Pec96-07 freshwater stream aquarium lab 1 7 5 11 Insecta Kogotus modestus, stonefly Insecta Baetis bicaudatus, mayfly Habitat use % exposed no predator 77.43 5.14 30.39 7 5 35 predator risk 75.18 7.77 45.96 7 5 35 Prey Habitat use 1 0 1 0 1 1 Pec96-07, 11 Body mass at maturity for K. modestus females was obtained by multiplying dry mass by 6 to get wet mass Figure 2 Peckarsky 1996 Ecology 77(6): 1888-1905 Pec96-08 freshwater stream aquarium lab 1 7 5 11 Insecta Megarcys signata, stonefly Insecta Epeorus longimanus, mayfly Habitat use % exposed no predator 71.54 8.72 51.61 7 5 35 predator risk 60.31 5 29.6 7 5 35 Prey Habitat use 1 0 1 0 1 1 Pec96-03 and Pec96-09 (body mass for M. signata females was determined by multiplying dry mass by 6 to get wet mass) Figure 2 Peckarsky 1996 Ecology 77(6): 1888-1905 Pec96-09 freshwater stream aquarium lab 1 7 5 11 Insecta Kogotus modestus, stonefly Insecta Epeorus deceptivus, mayfly Habitat use % exposed no predator 62.93 4.24 25.1 7 5 35 predator risk 55.69 5.23 30.94 7 5 35 Prey Habitat use 1 0 1 0 1 1 Pec96-04 and Pec96-08 Body mass at maturity for K. modestus females was obtained by multiplying dry mass by 6 to get wet mass Figure 5 Peckarsky 1996 Ecology 77(6): 1888-1905 Pec96-10 freshwater stream aquarium lab 0.01 9 16 Insecta Megarcys signata, stonefly Insecta Baetis bicaudatus, mayfly Habitat use movement from food patch (# of departures per 10 min) no predator 1.33 0.39 4.64 9 16 144 predator risk (starved) 23.99 3.55 42.59 9 16 144 Prey Habitat use -1 0 1 0 1 1 Pec96-06, 10 (body mass for M. signata females was determined by multiplying dry mass by 6 to get wet mass) Figure 5 Peckarsky 1996 Ecology 77(6): 1888-1905 Pec96-11 freshwater stream aquarium lab 0.01 9 16 Insecta Kogotus modestus, stonefly Insecta Baetis bicaudatus, mayfly Habitat use movement from food patch (# of departures per 10 min) no predator 2.11 0.58 6.95 9 16 144 predator risk (starved) 20.6 3.45 41.43 9 16 144 Prey Habitat use -1 0 1 0 1 1 Pec96-07, 11 Body mass at maturity for K. modestus females was obtained by multiplying dry mass by 6 to get wet mass Figure 5 Peckarsky 1996 Ecology 77(6): 1888-1905 Pec96-12 freshwater stream aquarium lab 0.01 9 16 Insecta Megarcys signata, stonefly Insecta Cinygmula sp., mayfly Habitat use movement from food patch (# of departures per 10 min) no predator 3.37 0.64 7.7 9 16 144 predator risk (starved) 8.14 1.44 17.3 9 16 144 Prey Habitat use -1 0 1 0 1 1 Pec96-02, 12 (body mass for M. signata females was determined by multiplying dry mass by 6 to get wet mass) Figure 5 Peckarsky 1996 Ecology 77(6): 1888-1905 Pec96-13 freshwater stream aquarium lab 0.01 9 16 Insecta Kogotus modestus, stonefly Insecta Cinygmula sp., mayfly Habitat use movement from food patch (# of departures per 10 min) no predator 12.57 3.43 41.14 9 16 144 predator risk (starved) 14.77 2.92 35.03 9 16 144 Prey Habitat use -1 0 1 0 1 1 Pec96-01, 13 Body mass at maturity for K. modestus females was obtained by multiplying dry mass by 6 to get wet mass Figure 5 Peckarsky 1996 Ecology 77(6): 1888-1905 Pec96-14 freshwater stream aquarium lab 0.01 9 16 Insecta Megarcys signata, stonefly Insecta Ephemerella sp., mayfly Habitat use movement from food patch (# of departures per 10 min) no predator 28.24 5.84 70.02 9 16 144 predator risk (starved) 26.85 5.16 61.89 9 16 144 Prey Habitat use -1 0 1 0 1 1 Pec96-05, 14 (body mass for M. signata females was determined by multiplying dry mass by 6 to get wet mass) Figure 5B Peckarsky & McIntosh 1998 Oecologia 113:565-576 Pec98-01 freshwater stream cattle tank/ wading pool field 20 3 300 11 Actinopterygii Salvelinus fontinalis, brook trout Insecta Baetis bicaudatus, mayfly Development Time to emergence (days) no predator 18.1 0.47 14.1 3 300 900 fish chemical cue 17.93 0.19 5.61 3 300 900 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Pec98-01, Pec98-03, Pec98-05 Figure 5B Peckarsky & McIntosh 1998 Oecologia 113:565-576 Pec98-02 freshwater stream cattle tank/ wading pool field 20 3 300 11 Insecta Megarcys signata, stonefly Insecta Baetis bicaudatus, mayfly Development Time to emergence (days) no predator 18.1 0.47 14.1 3 300 900 predator with mouth glued shut 19.1 0.11 3.3 3 300 900 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Pec98-02, Pec98-04, Pec98-06 (body mass for M. signata females was determined by multiplying dry mass by 6 to get wet mass) Figure 6B Peckarsky & McIntosh 1998 Oecologia 113:565-576 Pec98-03 freshwater stream cattle tank/ wading pool field 7 6 1 no # individuals given. Used one ind/rep as most conservative estimate 111 Actinopterygii Salvelinus fontinalis, brook trout Insecta Baetis bicaudatus, mayfly Autotroph Periphyton Biomass biovolume (mm^3/cm^2) no predator 500 62 151.87 6 1 6 fish chemical cue 491 69 169.01 6 1 6 Resource Biomass 1 0 1 0 1 2 Pec98-01, Pec98-03, Pec98-05 Figure 6B Peckarsky & McIntosh 1998 Oecologia 113:565-576 Pec98-04 freshwater stream cattle tank/ wading pool field 7 6 1 no # individuals given. Used one ind/rep as most conservative estimate 111 Insecta Megarcys signata, stonefly Insecta Baetis bicaudatus, mayfly Autotroph Periphyton Biomass biovolume (mm^3/cm^2) no predator 500 62 151.87 6 1 6 predator with mouth glued shut 568 124 303.74 6 1 6 Resource Biomass 1 0 1 0 1 2 Pec98-02, Pec98-04, Pec98-06 (body mass for M. signata females was determined by multiplying dry mass by 6 to get wet mass) Figure 3 Peckarsky & McIntosh 1998 Oecologia 113:565-576 Pec98-05 freshwater stream cattle tank/ wading pool field 0 6 300 11 Actinopterygii Salvelinus fontinalis, brook trout Insecta Baetis bicaudatus, mayfly Emigration # drifting per 5 minutes no predator 12.75 1.68 71.18 6 300 1800 fish chemical cue 5.25 0.61 25.78 6 300 1800 Prey Emigration -1 0 1 0 1 1 Pec98-01, Pec98-03, Pec98-05 at night Figure 3 Peckarsky & McIntosh 1998 Oecologia 113:565-576 Pec98-06 freshwater stream cattle tank/ wading pool field 0 6 300 11 Insecta Megarcys signata, stonefly Insecta Baetis bicaudatus, mayfly Emigration # drifting per 5 minutes no predator 12.75 1.68 71.18 6 300 1800 predator with mouth glued shut 21.14 1.85 78.46 6 300 1800 Prey Emigration -1 0 1 0 1 1 Pec98-02, Pec98-04, Pec98-06 at night (body mass for M. signata females was determined by multiplying dry mass by 6 to get wet mass) Table 1 Persons et al 2002 Behav Ecol 13(3): 386-392 Per02-01 terrestrial field cage lab 14 25 1 11 Arachnida Hogna helluo, wolf spider Arachnida Pardosa milvina, wolf spider Fecundity # eggs no predator 21.16 1.53 7.65 25 1 25 predator risk 14.13 2.52 12.61 25 1 25 Prey Fecundity 1 0 1 0 1 1 none Table 1 Persons et al 2002 Behav Ecol 13(3): 386-392 Per02-02 terrestrial field cage lab 0.06 13 1 111 Arachnida Hogna helluo, wolf spider Arachnida Pardosa milvina, wolf spider Insecta Drosophila melanogaster, fruit fly Survival # consumed no top predator 3.62 0.37 1.33 13 1 13 top predator risk 1.39 0.42 1.5 13 1 13 Resource Survival -1 0 1 0 1 2 none Figure 2 Perez-tris et al 2004 Animal Behav 67(3):511-521 Per04-01 terrestrial field cage lab 7 5 1 11 simulated Homo sapiens (authors scared the prey by hand) Reptilia Psammodromus algirus, lacertid lizard Feeding rate % of available food consumed low risk 97.02 2.02 4.53 5 1 5 high risk 94.32 2.44 5.45 5 1 5 Prey Feeding rate 1 0 1 0 1 1 Per04-01 and Per04-02 control' is actually a low risk trt where there are lots of refuges, and 'pred' is a high risk trt where there are few refuges Figure 2 Perez-tris et al 2004 Animal Behav 67(3):511-521 Per04-02 terrestrial field cage lab 7 5 1 11 simulated Homo sapiens (authors scared the prey by hand) Reptilia Psammodromus algirus, lacertid lizard Feeding rate % of available food consumed low risk 86.27 3.79 8.48 5 1 5 high risk 72.47 4.87 10.89 5 1 5 Prey Feeding rate 1 0 1 0 1 1 Per04-01 and Per04-02 control' is actually a low risk trt where there are lots of refuges, and 'pred' is a high risk trt where there are few refuges Table 1 Petranka & Fakhoury 1991 Copeia 1: 234-239 Pet91-01 freshwater pond cattle tank/ wading pool field 14 10 1 no # individuals given. Used one ind/rep as most conservative estimate 11 Actinopterygii Lepomis macrochirus, bluegill Insecta Anopheles sp., mosquito Fecundity # of eggs laid in pools after 2 weeks no predator presence 21.8 5.4 17.08 10 1 10 chemical cues from bluegill present 4.3 1.3 4.11 10 1 10 Prey Fecundity 1 0 1 0 1 1 none expt 1 Table 1 Petranka & Fakhoury 1991 Copeia 1: 234-239 Pet91-02 freshwater pond cattle tank/ wading pool field 14 10 1 no # individuals given. Used one ind/rep as most conservative estimate 11 Actinopterygii Lepomis macrochirus, bluegill Insecta Chaoborus sp., midge Fecundity # of eggs laid in pools after 2 weeks no predator presence 19.7 5.2 16.44 10 1 10 chemical cues from bluegill present 7.8 6.9 21.82 10 1 10 Prey Fecundity 1 0 1 0 1 1 none expt 1 Table 2 Petranka & Fakhoury 1991 Copeia 1: 234-239 Pet91-03 freshwater pond cattle tank/ wading pool field 14 7 1 no # individuals given. Used one ind/rep as most conservative estimate 11 Actinopterygii Lepomis macrochirus, bluegill Insecta Anopheles sp., mosquito Fecundity # of eggs laid in pools after 2 weeks no predator presence 18.7 4.3 11.38 7 1 7 chemical cues from bluegill present 8.6 2.7 7.14 7 1 7 Prey Fecundity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Pet91-03, Pet91-05 expt 2 Table 2 Petranka & Fakhoury 1991 Copeia 1: 234-239 Pet91-04 freshwater pond cattle tank/ wading pool field 14 7 1 no # individuals given. Used one ind/rep as most conservative estimate 11 Actinopterygii Lepomis macrochirus, bluegill Insecta Chaoborus sp., midge Fecundity # of eggs laid in pools after 2 weeks no predator presence 10.3 3.5 9.26 7 1 7 chemical cues from bluegill present 2 1.6 4.23 7 1 7 Prey Fecundity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Pet91-04, Pet91-06 expt 2 Table 2 Petranka & Fakhoury 1991 Copeia 1: 234-239 Pet91-05 freshwater pond cattle tank/ wading pool field 14 7 1 no # individuals given. Used one ind/rep as most conservative estimate 11 Amphibia Rana clamitans, green frog (sham predator) Insecta Anopheles sp., mosquito Fecundity # of eggs laid in pools after 2 weeks no predator presence 18.7 4.3 11.38 7 1 7 chemical cues from tadpoles present 6.7 2.6 6.88 7 1 7 Prey Fecundity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Pet91-03, Pet91-05 expt 2 Table 2 Petranka & Fakhoury 1991 Copeia 1: 234-239 Pet91-06 freshwater pond cattle tank/ wading pool field 14 7 1 no # individuals given. Used one ind/rep as most conservative estimate 11 Amphibia Rana clamitans, green frog (sham predator) Insecta Chaoborus sp., midge Fecundity # of eggs laid in pools after 2 weeks no predator presence 10.3 3.5 9.26 7 1 7 chemical cues from tadpoles present 12.7 3.9 10.32 7 1 7 Prey Fecundity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Pet91-04, Pet91-06 expt 2 Figure 1 Pierce 1988 Oecologia 77: 81-90 Pie88-01 freshwater pond enclosure field 120 8 1 no # individuals given. Used one ind/rep as most conservative estimate 11 Actinopterygii Lepomis macrochirus, bluegill Insecta Ladona deplanata, dragonfly Density decrease in prey density compared to fishless control due to (mortality + avoidance) and (avoidance alone) (#/m2) no predators 40.94 5.13 14.51 8 1 8 Density due to avoidance 3.39 2.62 7.41 8 1 8 density due to mortality + avoidance 7.79 6.77 19.16 8 1 8 Prey Density -1 0 1 1 2 1 none Figure 1 Pierce 1988 Oecologia 77: 81-90 Pie88-02 freshwater pond enclosure field 120 8 1 no # individuals given. Used one ind/rep as most conservative estimate 11 Actinopterygii Lepomis macrochirus, bluegill Insecta Tetragoneuria cynosura, dragonfly Density decrease in prey density compared to fishless control due to (mortality + avoidance) and (avoidance alone) (#/m2) no predators 38.68 5.13 14.51 8 1 8 Density due to avoidance 5.29 2.62 7.41 8 1 8 density due to mortality + avoidance 7.79 6.77 19.16 8 1 8 Prey Density -1 0 1 1 2 1 none Figure 2 Pierce 1988 Oecologia 77: 81-90 Pie88-03 freshwater pond aquarium lab 0.5 4 10 11 Actinopterygii Lepomis macrochirus, bluegill Insecta Tetragoneuria cynosura, dragonfly Habitat use % exposed no predators 25.69 6.42 40.61 4 10 40 predators with mouths tied shut 12.14 5.95 37.66 4 10 40 Prey Habitat use 1 0 1 0 1 1 none F0 instar, day Figure 2 Pierce 1988 Oecologia 77: 81-90 Pie88-04 freshwater pond aquarium lab 0.5 4 10 11 Actinopterygii Lepomis macrochirus, bluegill Insecta Ladona deplanata, dragonfly Habitat use % exposed no predators 6.74 5.22 33.04 4 10 40 predators with mouths tied shut 10.92 6.01 38.03 4 10 40 Prey Habitat use 1 0 1 0 1 1 none F0 instar, day Figure 2 Pierce 1988 Oecologia 77: 81-90 Pie88-05 freshwater pond aquarium lab 0.5 4 10 11 Actinopterygii Lepomis macrochirus, bluegill Insecta Sympetrum semicinctum, dragonfly Habitat use % exposed no predators 75.48 5.4 34.15 4 10 40 predators with mouths tied shut 21.6 6.01 38.03 4 10 40 Prey Habitat use 1 0 1 0 1 1 none F0 instar, day Figure 5 Pravosudov & Grubb 1998 Animal Behav 56: 49-54 Pra98-01 terrestrial field cage field 3 7 1 11 Aves Accipiter striatus, sharp-shinned hawk Aves Baelophus bicolor, tufted titmouse Growth g/day stuffed dove placed in cage 0.14 0.01 0.02 7 1 7 stuffed hawk predator placed in cage 0.16 0.01 0.02 7 1 7 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 none Text, p. 484 Pusenius & Ostfeld 2002 Ecography 25: 481-87 Pus02-01 terrestrial field enclosure field 33 3 varies 11 Mammalia urine of Vulpes vulpes (red fox), Canis latrans (coyote), Felix rufus (bobcat), and feces of bobcat Mammalia Microtus pennsylvanicus, meadow vole Density #/enclosure no predator scent 16.48 5.01 34.71 3 16 48 predator scent 17.92 3.22 23.66 3 18 54 Prey Density 1 0 1 0 1 1 Pus02-01 and Pus02-02 Text, p. 484 Pusenius & Ostfeld 2002 Ecography 25: 481-87 Pus02-02 terrestrial field enclosure field 33 3 varies 11 Mammalia urine of Vulpes vulpes (red fox), Canis latrans (coyote), Felix rufus (bobcat), and feces of bobcat Mammalia Microtus pennsylvanicus, meadow vole Survival % surviving no predator scent 0.72 0.11 0.76 3 16 48 predator scent 0.92 0.08 0.59 3 18 54 Prey Survival 1 0 1 0 1 1 Pus02-01 and Pus02-02 Text, p. 484 Pusenius & Ostfeld 2002 Ecography 25: 481-87 Pus02-03 terrestrial field enclosure field 33 9 9 111 Mammalia urine of Vulpes vulpes (red fox), Canis latrans (coyote), Felix rufus (bobcat), and feces of bobcat Mammalia Microtus pennsylvanicus, meadow vole Autotroph Acer rubrum, red maple Feeding rate (11) or Survival (111) Mean % of seedlings eaten at each seedling station no predator scent 0.01 0.01 0.05 9 9 81 predator scent 0.01 0.01 0.07 9 9 81 Prey (11) or Resource (111) Feeding rate (11) or Survival (111) 1/-1 0 1 0 1 2 none Text, p. 127 Pusenius & Ostfeld 2000 Oikos 91(1): 123-130 Pus91-01 terrestrial field enclosure field 15 3 28 111 Mammalia Mustela erminea, stoat Mammalia Microtus pennsylvanicus, meadow vole Autotroph Acer rubrum, red maple Survival % eaten no predator cue 0.61 0.19 1.74 3 28 84 predator auditory cues 0.9 0.09 0.82 3 28 84 Resource Survival -1 0 1 0 1 2 none Figure 1c Rahel & Stein 1988 Oecologia 75:9498 Rah88-01 freshwater stream aquarium lab 0.02 16 8 21 Mixed Orconectes rusticus, crayfish; Micropterus dolomieu, smallmouth bass Actinopterygii Etheostoma nigrum, johnny darter Survival # of darters eaten loss of prey when alone 0.14 0.1 1.12 16 8 128 # prey eaten by crayfish alone 0.27 0.17 1.87 16 8 128 # eaten by first predator due to other predator being present 0.15 0.23 2.66 16 8 128 # prey eaten by crayfish when with bass 0.43 0.07 0.79 16 8 128 Predator Survival -1 1 1 1 3 1 none Figure 1c Rahel & Stein 1988 Oecologia 75:9498 Rah88-02 freshwater stream aquarium lab 0.02 16 8 21 Mixed Orconectes rusticus, crayfish; Micropterus dolomieu, smallmouth bass Actinopterygii Etheostoma nigrum, johnny darter Survival # of darters eaten loss of prey when alone 0.14 0.1 1.12 16 8 128 # prey eaten by bass alone 4.54 0.5 5.62 16 8 128 # eaten by first predator due to other predator being present 0.15 0.76 8.58 16 8 128 # prey eaten by bass when with crayfish 4.69 0.26 2.96 16 8 128 Predator Survival -1 1 1 1 3 1 none Figure 1b Rahel & Stein 1988 Oecologia 75:9498 Rah88-03 freshwater stream aquarium lab 0.02 16 8 11 Malacostraca Orconectes rusticus, crayfish Actinopterygii Etheostoma nigrum, johnny darter Habitat use % time spend under shelter no predator 18.82 4.61 52.13 16 8 128 predator present 15.33 3.34 37.76 16 8 128 Prey Habitat use -1 0 1 0 1 1 none Figure 1b Rahel & Stein 1988 Oecologia 75:9498 Rah88-04 freshwater stream aquarium lab 0.02 varies 8 11 Actinopterygii Micropterus dolomieu, smallmouth bass Actinopterygii Etheostoma nigrum, johnny darter Habitat use % time spend under shelter no predator 18.82 4.61 52.13 16 8 128 predator present 79.34 4.7 54.77 17 8 136 Prey Habitat use -1 0 1 0 1 1 none Table 1 Rasmy et al 1990 Expt. & Appl. Acarology 10: 151-155 Ras90-01 terrestrial agricultural cage lab 0.08 5 varies 11 Arthropoda Phytoseiulus persimilis, predatory mite Arthropoda Tetranychus urticae, two-spotted spider mite Development duration of immature stage females (days) no predators present 3 0 0 5 5 25 Larvae that survived predator presence 3.75 0.28 1.98 5 10 50 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Ras90-01 through Ras90-04 Table 1 Rasmy et al 1990 Expt. & Appl. Acarology 10: 151-155 Ras90-02 terrestrial agricultural cage lab 0.17 5 varies 11 Arthropoda Phytoseiulus persimilis, predatory mite Arthropoda Tetranychus urticae, two-spotted spider mite Development duration of immature stage females (days) no predators present 3 0 0 5 5 25 Larvae that survived predator presence 5 0.63 4.45 5 10 50 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Ras90-01 through Ras90-04 Table 1 Rasmy et al 1990 Expt. & Appl. Acarology 10: 151-155 Ras90-03 terrestrial agricultural cage lab 0.08 5 varies 11 Arthropoda Phytoseiulus persimilis, predatory mite Arthropoda Tetranychus urticae, two-spotted spider mite Fecundity # eggs/female in 10 days no predators present 84 2.17 10.85 5 5 25 Larvae that survived predator presence 58.84 3.01 21.28 5 10 50 Prey Fecundity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Ras90-01 through Ras90-04 Table 1 Rasmy et al 1990 Expt. & Appl. Acarology 10: 151-155 Ras90-04 terrestrial agricultural cage lab 0.17 5 varies 11 Arthropoda Phytoseiulus persimilis, predatory mite Arthropoda Tetranychus urticae, two-spotted spider mite Fecundity # eggs/female in 10 days no predators present 84 2.17 10.85 5 5 25 Larvae that survived predator presence 50.91 5.72 40.45 5 10 50 Prey Fecundity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Ras90-01 through Ras90-04 Table 2 Rasmy et al 1990 Expt. & Appl. Acarology 10: 151-155 Ras90-05 terrestrial agricultural cage lab 0.08 5 varies 11 Arthropoda Phytoseiulus finitimus, predatory mite Arthropoda Tetranychus urticae, two-spotted spider mite Development duration of immature stage females (days) no predators present 3 0 0 5 5 25 Larvae that survived predator presence 3.36 0.1 0.71 5 10 50 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Ras90-05 through Ras90-08 Table 2 Rasmy et al 1990 Expt. & Appl. Acarology 10: 151-155 Ras90-06 terrestrial agricultural cage lab 0.17 5 varies 11 Arthropoda Phytoseiulus finitimus, predatory mite Arthropoda Tetranychus urticae, two-spotted spider mite Development duration of immature stage females (days) no predators present 3 0 0 5 5 25 Larvae that survived predator presence 3.88 0.31 2.19 5 10 50 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Ras90-05 through Ras90-08 Table 2 Rasmy et al 1990 Expt. & Appl. Acarology 10: 151-155 Ras90-07 terrestrial agricultural cage lab 0.08 5 varies 11 Arthropoda Phytoseiulus finitimus, predatory mite Arthropoda Tetranychus urticae, two-spotted spider mite Fecundity # eggs/female in 10 days no predators present 84 2.17 10.85 5 5 25 Larvae that survived predator presence 78 9.12 64.49 5 10 50 Prey Fecundity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Ras90-05 through Ras90-08 Table 2 Rasmy et al 1990 Expt. & Appl. Acarology 10: 151-155 Ras90-08 terrestrial agricultural cage lab 0.17 5 varies 11 Arthropoda Phytoseiulus finitimus, predatory mite Arthropoda Tetranychus urticae, two-spotted spider mite Fecundity # eggs/female in 10 days no predators present 84 2.17 10.85 5 5 25 Larvae that survived predator presence 65 6.15 43.49 5 10 50 Prey Fecundity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Ras90-05 through Ras90-08 Table 3 Rasmy et al 1990 Expt. & Appl. Acarology 10: 151-155 Ras90-09 terrestrial agricultural cage lab 0.08 5 varies 11 Arthropoda Amblyseius gossipi, predatory mite Arthropoda Tetranychus urticae, two-spotted spider mite Development duration of immature stage females (days) no predators present 3 0 0 5 5 25 Larvae that survived predator presence 5 0.13 0.92 5 10 50 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Ras90-09 through Ras90-12 Table 3 Rasmy et al 1990 Expt. & Appl. Acarology 10: 151-155 Ras90-10 terrestrial agricultural cage lab 0.17 5 varies 11 Arthropoda Amblyseius gossipi, predatory mite Arthropoda Tetranychus urticae, two-spotted spider mite Development duration of immature stage females (days) no predators present 3 0 0 5 5 25 Larvae that survived predator presence 5.75 0.19 1.34 5 10 50 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Ras90-09 through Ras90-12 Table 3 Rasmy et al 1990 Expt. & Appl. Acarology 10: 151-155 Ras90-11 terrestrial agricultural cage lab 0.08 5 varies 11 Arthropoda Amblyseius gossipi, predatory mite Arthropoda Tetranychus urticae, two-spotted spider mite Fecundity # eggs/female in 10 days no predators present 84 2.17 10.85 5 5 25 Larvae that survived predator presence 56.89 10.88 76.93 5 10 50 Prey Fecundity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Ras90-09 through Ras90-12 Table 3 Rasmy et al 1990 Expt. & Appl. Acarology 10: 151-155 Ras90-12 terrestrial agricultural cage lab 0.17 5 varies 11 Arthropoda Amblyseius gossipi, predatory mite Arthropoda Tetranychus urticae, two-spotted spider mite Fecundity # eggs/female in 10 days no predators present 84 2.17 10.85 5 5 25 Larvae that survived predator presence 41.18 7.16 50.63 5 10 50 Prey Fecundity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Ras90-09 through Ras90-12 Table 1 Rawlings 1994 JEMBE 181: 67-79 Raw94-01 marine intertidal aquarium lab 90 6 3 11 Malacostraca Cancer productus, red rock crab Gastropoda Nucella emarginata, snail Growth female mass (tissue mass) (g) control: 1.874, risk: 1.820 Control: 0.1289, Risk: 0.1316 no predator cue 1.44 0.1 0.44 6 3 18 predator olfactory cue 1.33 0.1 0.41 6 3 18 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Raw94-01, Raw94-02 Figure 1 Rawlings 1994 JEMBE 181: 67-79 Raw94-02 marine intertidal aquarium lab 10 9 18 11 Malacostraca Cancer productus, red rock crab Gastropoda Nucella emarginata, snail Fecundity # capsules spawned over 9 ten-day periods no predator cue 0.05 0.02 0.24 9 18 162 predator olfactory cue 0.01 0.01 0.09 9 18 162 Prey Fecundity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Raw94-01, Raw94-02 control and TM mean obtained by averaging all values in Figure 1 after the dashed line (9 measurements, 1 every 10 days) Table 2 Reede & Ringelberg 1995 Hydrobiologia 307: 207-212 Ree95-01 freshwater lake aquarium lab 15 7 1 11 Actinopterygii Perca fluviatilis, Eurasian perch Branchiopoda Daphnia hyalina x galeata Density r no predator cues 0.23 0.01 0.02 7 1 7 fish chemical cues present 0.27 0.02 0.06 7 1 7 Prey Density 1 0 1 0 1 1 Ree95-01, Ree95-08, Ree95-14 food replenished every 48 hours, clone o2 Table 2 Reede & Ringelberg 1995 Hydrobiologia 307: 207-212 Ree95-02 freshwater lake aquarium lab 15 10 1 11 Actinopterygii Perca fluviatilis, Eurasian perch Branchiopoda Daphnia hyalina x galeata Density r no predator cues 0.12 0.02 0.07 10 1 10 fish chemical cues present 0.25 0.01 0.04 10 1 10 Prey Density 1 0 1 0 1 1 Ree95-02, Ree95-07, Ree95-13 food replenished every 24 hours, clone o2 Table 2 Reede & Ringelberg 1995 Hydrobiologia 307: 207-212 Ree95-03 freshwater lake aquarium lab 15 10 1 11 Actinopterygii Perca fluviatilis, Eurasian perch Branchiopoda Daphnia hyalina x galeata Density r no predator cues 0.12 0.02 0.08 10 1 10 fish chemical cues present 0.25 0.01 0.03 10 1 10 Prey Density 1 0 1 0 1 1 Ree95-03, Ree95-09, Ree95-15 food replenished every 24 hours, clone m3 Table 2 Reede & Ringelberg 1995 Hydrobiologia 307: 207-212 Ree95-04 freshwater lake aquarium lab 15 7 1 11 Actinopterygii Perca fluviatilis, Eurasian perch Branchiopoda Daphnia hyalina x galeata Density r no predator cues 0.26 0.03 0.08 7 1 7 fish chemical cues present 0.26 0.02 0.06 7 1 7 Prey Density 1 0 1 0 1 1 Ree95-04, Ree95-10, Ree95-16 food replenished every 48, clone M3 Table 2 Reede & Ringelberg 1995 Hydrobiologia 307: 207-212 Ree95-05 freshwater lake aquarium lab 15 10 1 11 Actinopterygii Perca fluviatilis, Eurasian perch Branchiopoda Daphnia hyalina x galeata Density r no predator cues 0.34 0.01 0.02 10 1 10 fish chemical cues present 0.34 0 0.01 10 1 10 Prey Density 1 0 1 0 1 1 Ree95-05, Ree95-12, Ree95-18 food replenished every 48 hours, clone m3 Table 2 Reede & Ringelberg 1995 Hydrobiologia 307: 207-212 Ree95-06 freshwater lake aquarium lab 15 10 1 11 Actinopterygii Perca fluviatilis, Eurasian perch Branchiopoda Daphnia hyalina x galeata Density r no predator cues 0.24 0.04 0.12 10 1 10 fish chemical cues present 0.3 0.02 0.06 10 1 10 Prey Density 1 0 1 0 1 1 Ree95-06, Ree95-11, Ree95-17 food replenished every 24 hours, clone m3 Figure 3 Reede & Ringelberg 1995 Hydrobiologia 307: 207-212 Ree95-07 freshwater lake aquarium lab 15 10 1 11 Actinopterygii Perca fluviatilis, Eurasian perch Branchiopoda Daphnia hyalina x galeata Growth length of carapace at maturity (um) no predator cues 1.59 0.03 0.09 10 1 10 fish chemical cues present 1.48 0.02 0.07 10 1 10 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Ree95-02, Ree95-07, Ree95-13 food replenished every 24 hours, clone o2 Figure 3 Reede & Ringelberg 1995 Hydrobiologia 307: 207-212 Ree95-08 freshwater lake aquarium lab 15 7 1 11 Actinopterygii Perca fluviatilis, Eurasian perch Branchiopoda Daphnia hyalina x galeata Growth length of carapace at maturity (um) no predator cues 1.59 0.01 0.04 7 1 7 fish chemical cues present 1.39 0.02 0.06 7 1 7 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Ree95-01, Ree95-08, Ree95-14 food replenished every 48 hours, clone o2 Figure 3 Reede & Ringelberg 1995 Hydrobiologia 307: 207-212 Ree95-09 freshwater lake aquarium lab 15 10 1 11 Actinopterygii Perca fluviatilis, Eurasian perch Branchiopoda Daphnia hyalina x galeata Growth length of carapace at maturity (um) no predator cues 1.65 0.03 0.08 10 1 10 fish chemical cues present 1.66 0.02 0.05 10 1 10 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Ree95-03, Ree95-09, Ree95-15 food replenished every 24 hours, clone m3 Figure 3 Reede & Ringelberg 1995 Hydrobiologia 307: 207-212 Ree95-10 freshwater lake aquarium lab 15 7 1 11 Actinopterygii Perca fluviatilis, Eurasian perch Branchiopoda Daphnia hyalina x galeata Growth length of carapace at maturity (um) no predator cues 1.67 0.03 0.09 7 1 7 fish chemical cues present 1.69 0.03 0.07 7 1 7 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Ree95-04, Ree95-10, Ree95-16 food replenished every 48 hours, clone m3 Figure 3 Reede & Ringelberg 1995 Hydrobiologia 307: 207-212 Ree95-11 freshwater lake aquarium lab 15 10 1 11 Actinopterygii Perca fluviatilis, Eurasian perch Branchiopoda Daphnia hyalina x galeata Growth length of carapace at maturity (um) no predator cues 1.75 0.04 0.14 10 1 10 fish chemical cues present 1.7 0.04 0.13 10 1 10 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Ree95-06, Ree95-11, Ree95-17 food replenished every 24 hours, clone m3 Figure 3 Reede & Ringelberg 1995 Hydrobiologia 307: 207-212 Ree95-12 freshwater lake aquarium lab 15 10 1 11 Actinopterygii Perca fluviatilis, Eurasian perch Branchiopoda Daphnia hyalina x galeata Growth length of carapace at maturity (um) no predator cues 1.84 0.03 0.09 10 1 10 fish chemical cues present 1.72 0.02 0.07 10 1 10 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Ree95-05, Ree95-12, Ree95-18 food replenished every 48 hours, clone m3 Figure 4 Reede & Ringelberg 1995 Hydrobiologia 307: 207-212 Ree95-13 freshwater lake aquarium lab 15 10 1 11 Actinopterygii Perca fluviatilis, Eurasian perch Branchiopoda Daphnia hyalina x galeata Development Time to reproduction (days) no predator cues 9.13 0.87 2.74 10 1 10 fish chemical cues present 5.96 0 0 10 1 10 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Ree95-02, Ree95-07, Ree95-13 food replenished every 24 hours, clone o2 Figure 4 Reede & Ringelberg 1995 Hydrobiologia 307: 207-212 Ree95-14 freshwater lake aquarium lab 15 7 1 11 Actinopterygii Perca fluviatilis, Eurasian perch Branchiopoda Daphnia hyalina x galeata Development Time to reproduction (days) no predator cues 7.84 0.99 2.61 7 1 7 fish chemical cues present 5.33 0.71 1.89 7 1 7 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Ree95-01, Ree95-08, Ree95-14 food replenished every 48 hours, clone o2 Figure 4 Reede & Ringelberg 1995 Hydrobiologia 307: 207-212 Ree95-15 freshwater lake aquarium lab 15 10 1 11 Actinopterygii Perca fluviatilis, Eurasian perch Branchiopoda Daphnia hyalina x galeata Development Time to reproduction (days) no predator cues 8.49 1.07 3.39 10 1 10 fish chemical cues present 5.98 0 0 10 1 10 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Ree95-03, Ree95-09, Ree95-15 food replenished every 24 hours, clone m3 Figure 4 Reede & Ringelberg 1995 Hydrobiologia 307: 207-212 Ree95-16 freshwater lake aquarium lab 15 7 1 11 Actinopterygii Perca fluviatilis, Eurasian perch Branchiopoda Daphnia hyalina x galeata Development Time to reproduction (days) no predator cues 6.7 1.1 2.92 7 1 7 fish chemical cues present 6.15 0.24 0.64 7 1 7 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Ree95-04, Ree95-10, Ree95-16 food replenished every 48 hours, clone m3 Figure 4 Reede & Ringelberg 1995 Hydrobiologia 307: 207-212 Ree95-17 freshwater lake aquarium lab 15 10 1 11 Actinopterygii Perca fluviatilis, Eurasian perch Branchiopoda Daphnia hyalina x galeata Development Time to reproduction (days) no predator cues 6.21 0.36 1.13 10 1 10 fish chemical cues present 5.81 0.52 1.63 10 1 10 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Ree95-06, Ree95-11, Ree95-17 food replenished every 24 hours, clone m3 Figure 4 Reede & Ringelberg 1995 Hydrobiologia 307: 207-212 Ree95-18 freshwater lake aquarium lab 15 10 1 11 Actinopterygii Perca fluviatilis, Eurasian perch Branchiopoda Daphnia hyalina x galeata Development Time to reproduction (days) no predator cues 6.16 0.36 1.14 10 1 10 fish chemical cues present 5.92 0 0 10 1 10 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Ree95-05, Ree95-12, Ree95-18 food replenished every 48 hours, clone m3 Figure 1 Reede 1995 J Plankton Res 17(8): 1661-1667 Ree95A-01 freshwater lake aquarium lab until 1st reproduction 16 1 11 Actinopterygii Perca fluviatilis, Eurasian perch Branchiopoda Daphnia hyalina x galeata Development Time to reproduction (days) no predator cues 12.64 0.46 1.85 16 1 16 fish chemical cues present 11.78 0.38 1.53 16 1 16 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Ree95A-01, Ree95A-04, Ree95A-07, Ree95A-10 Figure 1 Reede 1995 J Plankton Res 17(8): 1661-1667 Ree95A-02 freshwater lake aquarium lab until 1st reproduction 16 1 11 Actinopterygii Perca fluviatilis, Eurasian perch Branchiopoda Daphnia hyalina x galeata Development Time to reproduction (days) no predator cues 12.64 0.46 1.85 16 1 16 fish chemical cues present 10.43 0.26 1.04 16 1 16 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Ree95A-02, Ree95A-05, Ree95A-08, Ree95A-11 Figure 1 Reede 1995 J Plankton Res 17(8): 1661-1667 Ree95A-03 freshwater lake aquarium lab until 1st reproduction 16 1 11 Actinopterygii Perca fluviatilis, Eurasian perch Branchiopoda Daphnia hyalina x galeata Development Time to reproduction (days) no predator cues 12.64 0.46 1.85 16 1 16 fish chemical cues present 9.06 0.23 0.93 16 1 16 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Ree95A-03, Ree95A-06, Ree95A-09, Ree95A-12 Figure 2 Reede 1995 J Plankton Res 17(8): 1661-1667 Ree95A-04 freshwater lake aquarium lab until 1st reproduction 16 1 11 Actinopterygii Perca fluviatilis, Eurasian perch Branchiopoda Daphnia hyalina x galeata Growth length at maturity (mm) no predator cues 1.66 0.02 0.06 16 1 16 fish chemical cues present 1.55 0.02 0.08 16 1 16 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Ree95A-01, Ree95A-04, Ree95A-07, Ree95A-10 Figure 2 Reede 1995 J Plankton Res 17(8): 1661-1667 Ree95A-05 freshwater lake aquarium lab until 1st reproduction 16 1 11 Actinopterygii Perca fluviatilis, Eurasian perch Branchiopoda Daphnia hyalina x galeata Growth length at maturity (mm) no predator cues 1.66 0.02 0.06 16 1 16 fish chemical cues present 1.59 0.01 0.04 16 1 16 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Ree95A-02, Ree95A-05, Ree95A-08, Ree95A-11 Figure 2 Reede 1995 J Plankton Res 17(8): 1661-1667 Ree95A-06 freshwater lake aquarium lab until 1st reproduction 16 1 11 Actinopterygii Perca fluviatilis, Eurasian perch Branchiopoda Daphnia hyalina x galeata Growth length at maturity (mm) no predator cues 1.66 0.02 0.06 16 1 16 fish chemical cues present 1.55 0.01 0.05 16 1 16 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Ree95A-03, Ree95A-06, Ree95A-09, Ree95A-12 Figure 3 Reede 1995 J Plankton Res 17(8): 1661-1667 Ree95A-07 freshwater lake aquarium lab until 1st reproduction 16 1 11 Actinopterygii Perca fluviatilis, Eurasian perch Branchiopoda Daphnia hyalina x galeata Fecundity # offspring in first brood no predator cues 3.87 0.43 1.74 16 1 16 fish chemical cues present 3.57 0.32 1.26 16 1 16 Prey Fecundity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Ree95A-01, Ree95A-04, Ree95A-07, Ree95A-10 Figure 3 Reede 1995 J Plankton Res 17(8): 1661-1667 Ree95A-08 freshwater lake aquarium lab until 1st reproduction 16 1 11 Actinopterygii Perca fluviatilis, Eurasian perch Branchiopoda Daphnia hyalina x galeata Fecundity # offspring in first brood no predator cues 3.87 0.43 1.74 16 1 16 fish chemical cues present 5.92 0.54 2.15 16 1 16 Prey Fecundity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Ree95A-02, Ree95A-05, Ree95A-08, Ree95A-11 Figure 3 Reede 1995 J Plankton Res 17(8): 1661-1667 Ree95A-09 freshwater lake aquarium lab until 1st reproduction 16 1 11 Actinopterygii Perca fluviatilis, Eurasian perch Branchiopoda Daphnia hyalina x galeata Fecundity # offspring in first brood no predator cues 3.87 0.43 1.74 16 1 16 fish chemical cues present 6.23 0.33 1.31 16 1 16 Prey Fecundity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Ree95A-03, Ree95A-06, Ree95A-09, Ree95A-12 Table 1 Reede 1995 J Plankton Res 17(8): 1661-1667 Ree95A-10 freshwater lake aquarium lab none given 16 1 11 Actinopterygii Perca fluviatilis, Eurasian perch Branchiopoda Daphnia hyalina x galeata Survival time (in days) at which 50% of neonates born to mother grown at different kairomone concentrations had died no predator cues 6.5 0.2 0.8 16 1 16 fish chemical cues present 5.2 0.2 0.8 16 1 16 Prey Survival 1 0 1 0 1 1 Ree95A-01, Ree95A-04, Ree95A-07, Ree95A-10 Table 1 Reede 1995 J Plankton Res 17(8): 1661-1667 Ree95A-11 freshwater lake aquarium lab none given 16 1 11 Actinopterygii Perca fluviatilis, Eurasian perch Branchiopoda Daphnia hyalina x galeata Survival time (in days) at which 50% of neonates born to mother grown at different kairomone concentrations had died no predator cues 6.5 0.2 0.8 16 1 16 fish chemical cues present 3.8 0.2 0.8 16 1 16 Prey Survival 1 0 1 0 1 1 Ree95A-02, Ree95A-05, Ree95A-08, Ree95A-11 Table 1 Reede 1995 J Plankton Res 17(8): 1661-1667 Ree95A-12 freshwater lake aquarium lab none given 16 1 11 Actinopterygii Perca fluviatilis, Eurasian perch Branchiopoda Daphnia hyalina x galeata Survival time (in days) at which 50% of neonates born to mother grown at different kairomone concentrations had died no predator cues 6.5 0.2 0.8 16 1 16 fish chemical cues present 4.9 0.2 0.8 16 1 16 Prey Survival 1 0 1 0 1 1 Ree95A-03, Ree95A-06, Ree95A-09, Ree95A-12 Figure 1a Reede 1997 Freshwater Biol 37: 389-396 Ree97-01 freshwater lake aquarium lab until instar complete 28 1 11 Actinopterygii Perca fluviatilis, Eurasian perch Branchiopoda Daphnia hyalina x galeata Development Time to reproduction (days) no predator cues 12.86 0.52 2.73 28 1 28 fish chemical cues present 10.58 0.27 1.4 28 1 28 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Ree97-01, Ree97-03, Ree97-05, Ree97-07 Figure 1a Reede 1997 Freshwater Biol 37: 389-396 Ree97-02 freshwater lake aquarium lab until instar complete 28 1 11 Actinopterygii Perca fluviatilis, Eurasian perch Branchiopoda Daphnia hyalina x galeata Development Time to reproduction (days) no predator cues 11.36 0.39 2.08 28 1 28 fish chemical cues present 10.36 0.28 1.49 28 1 28 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Ree97-02, Ree97-04, Ree97-06, Ree97-08 Figure 1b Reede 1997 Freshwater Biol 37: 389-396 Ree97-03 freshwater lake aquarium lab until instar complete 28 1 11 Actinopterygii Perca fluviatilis, Eurasian perch Branchiopoda Daphnia hyalina x galeata Growth length at maturity (mm) no predator cues 1.58 0.01 0.04 28 1 28 fish chemical cues present 1.56 0.01 0.05 28 1 28 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Ree97-01, Ree97-03, Ree97-05, Ree97-07 Figure 1b Reede 1997 Freshwater Biol 37: 389-396 Ree97-04 freshwater lake aquarium lab until instar complete 28 1 11 Actinopterygii Perca fluviatilis, Eurasian perch Branchiopoda Daphnia hyalina x galeata Growth length at maturity (mm) no predator cues 1.58 0.01 0.06 28 1 28 fish chemical cues present 1.51 0.01 0.06 28 1 28 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Ree97-02, Ree97-04, Ree97-06, Ree97-08 Figure 1c Reede 1997 Freshwater Biol 37: 389-396 Ree97-05 freshwater lake aquarium lab until instar complete 28 1 11 Actinopterygii Perca fluviatilis, Eurasian perch Branchiopoda Daphnia hyalina x galeata Fecundity # offspring in first brood no predator cues 2.73 0.28 1.5 28 1 28 fish chemical cues present 4.35 0.29 1.53 28 1 28 Prey Fecundity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Ree97-01, Ree97-03, Ree97-05, Ree97-07 Figure 1c Reede 1997 Freshwater Biol 37: 389-396 Ree97-06 freshwater lake aquarium lab until instar complete 28 1 11 Actinopterygii Perca fluviatilis, Eurasian perch Branchiopoda Daphnia hyalina x galeata Fecundity # offspring in first brood no predator cues 3.84 0.32 1.67 28 1 28 fish chemical cues present 4.41 0.25 1.34 28 1 28 Prey Fecundity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Ree97-02, Ree97-04, Ree97-06, Ree97-08 Text, p. 393 Reede 1997 Freshwater Biol 37: 389-396 Ree97-07 freshwater lake aquarium lab until instar complete 28 1 11 Actinopterygii Perca fluviatilis, Eurasian perch Branchiopoda Daphnia hyalina x galeata Density r no predator cues 0.07 0.01 0.08 28 1 28 fish chemical cues present 0.11 0.01 0.05 28 1 28 Prey Density 1 0 1 0 1 1 Ree97-01, Ree97-03, Ree97-05, Ree97-07 Text, p. 393 Reede 1997 Freshwater Biol 37: 389-396 Ree97-08 freshwater lake aquarium lab until instar complete 28 1 11 Actinopterygii Perca fluviatilis, Eurasian perch Branchiopoda Daphnia hyalina x galeata Density r no predator cues 0.1 0.01 0.05 28 1 28 fish chemical cues present 0.11 0.01 0.05 28 1 28 Prey Density 1 0 1 0 1 1 Ree97-02, Ree97-04, Ree97-06, Ree97-08 Figure 2a Reede 1997 Freshwater Biol 37: 389-396 Ree97-09 freshwater lake aquarium lab until instar complete 28 1 11 Actinopterygii Perca fluviatilis, Eurasian perch Branchiopoda Daphnia hyalina x galeata Development Time to reproduction (days) no predator cues 12.39 0.39 2.04 28 1 28 fish chemical cues present 10.57 0.31 1.64 28 1 28 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Ree97-09, Ree97-11, Ree97-13, Ree97-15 Figure 2a Reede 1997 Freshwater Biol 37: 389-396 Ree97-10 freshwater lake aquarium lab until instar complete 28 1 11 Actinopterygii Perca fluviatilis, Eurasian perch Branchiopoda Daphnia hyalina x galeata Development Time to reproduction (days) no predator cues 13.57 0.46 2.43 28 1 28 fish chemical cues present 10.97 0.32 1.7 28 1 28 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Ree97-10, Ree97-12, Ree97-14, Ree97-16 Figure 2b Reede 1997 Freshwater Biol 37: 389-396 Ree97-11 freshwater lake aquarium lab until instar complete 28 1 11 Actinopterygii Perca fluviatilis, Eurasian perch Branchiopoda Daphnia hyalina x galeata Growth length at maturity (mm) no predator cues 1.51 0.03 0.14 28 1 28 fish chemical cues present 1.41 0.02 0.09 28 1 28 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Ree97-09, Ree97-11, Ree97-13, Ree97-15 Figure 2b Reede 1997 Freshwater Biol 37: 389-396 Ree97-12 freshwater lake aquarium lab until instar complete 28 1 11 Actinopterygii Perca fluviatilis, Eurasian perch Branchiopoda Daphnia hyalina x galeata Growth length at maturity (mm) no predator cues 1.45 0.02 0.08 28 1 28 fish chemical cues present 1.38 0.02 0.1 28 1 28 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Ree97-10, Ree97-12, Ree97-14, Ree97-16 Figure 2c Reede 1997 Freshwater Biol 37: 389-396 Ree97-13 freshwater lake aquarium lab until instar complete 28 1 11 Actinopterygii Perca fluviatilis, Eurasian perch Branchiopoda Daphnia hyalina x galeata Fecundity # offspring in first brood no predator cues 4.56 0.22 1.16 28 1 28 fish chemical cues present 5.08 0.33 1.74 28 1 28 Prey Fecundity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Ree97-09, Ree97-11, Ree97-13, Ree97-15 Figure 2c Reede 1997 Freshwater Biol 37: 389-396 Ree97-14 freshwater lake aquarium lab until instar complete 28 1 11 Actinopterygii Perca fluviatilis, Eurasian perch Branchiopoda Daphnia hyalina x galeata Fecundity # offspring in first brood no predator cues 3.19 0.22 1.14 28 1 28 fish chemical cues present 3.68 0.22 1.16 28 1 28 Prey Fecundity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Ree97-10, Ree97-12, Ree97-14, Ree97-16 Figure 2d Reede 1997 Freshwater Biol 37: 389-396 Ree97-15 freshwater lake aquarium lab until instar complete 28 1 11 Actinopterygii Perca fluviatilis, Eurasian perch Branchiopoda Daphnia hyalina x galeata Density r no predator cues 0.08 0.01 0.05 28 1 28 fish chemical cues present 0.11 0.01 0.03 28 1 28 Prey Density 1 0 1 0 1 1 Ree97-09, Ree97-11, Ree97-13, Ree97-15 Figure 2d Reede 1997 Freshwater Biol 37: 389-396 Ree97-16 freshwater lake aquarium lab until instar complete 28 1 11 Actinopterygii Perca fluviatilis, Eurasian perch Branchiopoda Daphnia hyalina x galeata Density r no predator cues 0.05 0.01 0.03 28 1 28 fish chemical cues present 0.09 0.01 0.03 28 1 28 Prey Density 1 0 1 0 1 1 Ree97-10, Ree97-12, Ree97-14, Ree97-16 Table 1 Reimer & Harms-Ringdahl 2001 Marine Biology 139: 959-965 Rei01-01 marine intertidal cage field 28 4 25 11 Asteroidea Asterias rubens, starfish Bivalvia Mytilus edulis, blue mussel Growth total mass of flesh (mg) no predator present 114.9 3.2 32 4 25 100 visual and chemical cues from predator fed conspecific mussels and held next to them 103.4 3.2 32 4 25 100 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 none Table 1 Reimer & Harms-Ringdahl 2001 Marine Biology 139: 959-965 Rei01-02 marine intertidal cage field 28 4 25 11 Malacostraca Carcinus maenas, green crab Bivalvia Mytilus edulis, blue mussel Growth total mass of flesh (mg) no predator present 114.9 3.2 32 4 25 100 visual and chemical cues from predator fed conspecific mussels and held next to them 108.4 3.2 32 4 25 100 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 none Table 1 Reimer & Harms-Ringdahl 2001 Marine Biology 139: 959-965 Rei01-03 marine intertidal cage field 28 4 25 11 Asteroidea Asterias rubens, starfish Bivalvia Mytilus edulis, blue mussel Growth total mass of flesh (mg) no predator present 73.4 2 20 4 25 100 visual and chemical cues from predator fed conspecific mussels and held next to them 70.1 2 20 4 25 100 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 none Table 1 Reimer & Harms-Ringdahl 2001 Marine Biology 139: 959-965 Rei01-04 marine intertidal cage field 28 4 25 11 Malacostraca Carcinus maenas, green crab Bivalvia Mytilus edulis, blue mussel Growth total mass of flesh (mg) no predator present 73.4 2 20 4 25 100 visual and chemical cues from predator fed conspecific mussels and held next to them 71.2 2 20 4 25 100 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 none Table 1 Reimer et al 1995 Mar Fresh Behav Physiol 25: 233-244 Rei95-01 marine intertidal aquarium lab 19 2 10 11 Asteroidea Asterias rubens, starfish Bivalvia Mytilus edulis, blue mussel Growth tissue mass gained over 19 days (g) no predator cue 37.8 4.8 21.47 2 10 20 chemical cue from predator eating mussels 42.1 8 35.78 2 10 20 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Rei95-01 through Rei95-03 Table 2 Reimer et al 1995 Mar Fresh Behav Physiol 25: 233-244 Rei95-02 marine intertidal aquarium lab 19 2 7 11 Asteroidea Asterias rubens, starfish Bivalvia Mytilus edulis, blue mussel Feeding rate % mussels with mouths open (actively filtering for food) no predator cue 86 5 18.71 2 7 14 chemical cue from predator eating mussels 86 4 14.97 2 7 14 Prey Feeding rate 1 0 1 0 1 1 Rei95-01 through Rei95-03 When mussels receiving food Table 2 Reimer et al 1995 Mar Fresh Behav Physiol 25: 233-244 Rei95-03 marine intertidal aquarium lab 19 2 9.5 11 Asteroidea Asterias rubens, starfish Bivalvia Mytilus edulis, blue mussel Feeding rate % mussels with mouths open (actively filtering for food) no predator cue 62 5 21.79 2 9.5 19 chemical cue from predator eating mussels 53 6 26.15 2 9.5 19 Prey Feeding rate 1 0 1 0 1 1 Rei95-01 through Rei95-03 When mussels not receiving food Table 1b Reimer & Tedergren 1996 Oikos 75: 383-390 Rei96-01 marine intertidal cage field 27 3 25 11 Asteroidea Asterias rubens, starfish Bivalvia Mytilus edulis, blue mussel Growth total dry mass of mussel meat at end of expt (g) 46.5 not given 3 no predator cue 156.4 3.3 28.58 3 25 75 visual and chemical cues from starfish held next to them 147.6 3.4 29.44 3 25 75 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Rei96-02 Table 1a Reimer & Tedergren 1996 Oikos 75: 383-390 Rei96-02 marine intertidal cage field 27 3 25 11 Asteroidea Asterias rubens, starfish Bivalvia Mytilus edulis, blue mussel Growth volume of mussels in cm3 0.83 0 3 no predator cue 2.18 0.01 0.12 3 25 75 visual and chemical cues from starfish held next to them 1.78 0.02 0.14 3 25 75 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Rei96-01 Figure 3 Relyea 2000 Ecology 81(8): 2278-2289 Rel00-01 freshwater pond enclosure field 30 4 50 11 Actinopterygii Umbra limi, mudminnow Amphibia Rana pipiens, leopard frog Growth mg/day no predator 20.03 1.28 18.08 4 50 200 predator risk 22.56 1.15 16.2 4 50 200 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Rel00-01, 06 leopard and bull frogs were in same tank at same time (50 of each) Figure 3 Relyea 2000 Ecology 81(8): 2278-2289 Rel00-02 freshwater pond enclosure field 30 4 50 11 Insecta Anax sp., dragonfly Amphibia Rana pipiens, leopard frog Growth mg/day no predator 20.03 1.28 18.08 4 50 200 predator risk 24.41 1.77 24.97 4 50 200 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Rel00-02, 05 leopard and bull frogs were in same tank at same time (50 of each) Figure 3 Relyea 2000 Ecology 81(8): 2278-2289 Rel00-03 freshwater pond enclosure field 30 4 50 11 Actinopterygii Umbra limi, mudminnow Amphibia Rana sylvatica, wood frog Growth mg/day no predator 24.05 0.99 13.98 4 50 200 predator risk 18.59 1.35 19.06 4 50 200 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Rel00-03, 08 leopard and bull frogs were in same tank at same time (50 of each) Figure 3 Relyea 2000 Ecology 81(8): 2278-2289 Rel00-04 freshwater pond enclosure field 30 4 50 11 Insecta Anax sp., dragonfly Amphibia Rana sylvatica, wood frog Growth mg/day no predator 24.05 0.99 13.98 4 50 200 predator risk 20.01 1.7 24.06 4 50 200 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Rel00-04, 07 leopard and bull frogs were in same tank at same time (50 of each) Figure 2A Relyea 2000 Ecology 81(8): 2278-2289 Rel00-05 freshwater pond aquarium lab 35 2 28 observations per replicate, with 10 individual tadpoles per replicate 11 Insecta Anax sp., dragonfly Amphibia Rana pipiens, leopard frog Activity % active no predator 15.85 0.8 3.57 2 10 20 predator risk 7.6 1.54 6.91 2 10 20 Prey Activity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Rel00-02, 05 Figure 2A Relyea 2000 Ecology 81(8): 2278-2289 Rel00-06 freshwater pond aquarium lab 35 2 28 observations per replicate, with 10 individual tadpoles per replicate 11 Actinopterygii Umbra limi, mudminnow Amphibia Rana pipiens, leopard frog Activity % active no predator 15.85 0.8 3.57 2 10 20 predator risk 6.01 1.47 6.58 2 10 20 Prey Activity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Rel00-01, 06 Figure 2A Relyea 2000 Ecology 81(8): 2278-2289 Rel00-07 freshwater pond aquarium lab 35 2 38 observations per replicate, with 10 individual tadpoles per replicate 11 Insecta Anax sp., dragonfly Amphibia Rana sylvatica, wood frog Activity % active no predator 22.76 2.6 11.62 2 10 20 predator risk 11.59 2.77 12.41 2 10 20 Prey Activity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Rel00-04, 07 Figure 2A Relyea 2000 Ecology 81(8): 2278-2289 Rel00-08 freshwater pond aquarium lab 35 2 38 observations per replicate, with 10 individual tadpoles per replicate 11 Actinopterygii Umbra limi, mudminnow Amphibia Rana sylvatica, wood frog Activity % active no predator 22.76 2.6 11.62 2 10 20 predator risk 3.83 0.99 4.45 2 10 20 Prey Activity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Rel00-03, 08 Figure 5 Relyea & Werner 2000 Copeia 2000(1): 178-190 Rel00A-01 freshwater pond aquarium field 24 5 50 11 Insecta Anax sp., dragonfly Amphibia Rana pipiens, leopard frog Growth log mass no predator cues 2.81 0.04 0.66 5 50 250 in presence of caged predator fed con-specific tadpoles 2.68 0.05 0.74 5 50 250 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Rel00A-01, Rel00A-02 Figure 5 Relyea & Werner 2000 Copeia 2000(1): 178-190 Rel00A-02 freshwater pond aquarium field 24 5 50 11 Insecta Anax sp., dragonfly Amphibia Rana pipiens, leopard frog Growth log mass no predator cues 2.81 0.04 0.66 5 50 250 in presence of caged predator fed non-conspecific tadpoles 2.69 0.03 0.41 5 50 250 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Rel00A-01, Rel00A-02 Figure 3 Relyea & Yurewicz 2002 Oecologia 131:569-579. Rel02-01 freshwater pond, ephemeral cattle tank/ wading pool field 21 5 200 11 Amphibia Ambystoma tigrinum, tiger salamander Amphibia Rana clamitans, green frog Survival % surviving no preds 92.6 1.05 33.2 5 200 1000 caged ambystoma 92.11 2.11 66.72 5 200 1000 lethal ambystoma 3.2 1.05 33.2 5 200 1000 Prey Survival 1 0 1 1 2 1 Rel02-02 Figure 3 Relyea & Yurewicz 2002 Oecologia 131:569-579. Rel02-02 freshwater pond, ephemeral cattle tank/ wading pool field 21 5 200 11 Amphibia Ambystoma tigrinum, tiger salamander Amphibia Rana clamitans, green frog Growth total growth over 3 weeks (mean surviving mass-mean initial mass) no preds 86.92 9.09 287.45 5 200 1000 caged ambystoma 72.16 6.25 197.64 5 200 1000 lethal ambystoma 56.82 10.81 341.84 5 200 1000 Prey Growth 1 0 1 1 2 1 Rel02-01 Figure 3 Relyea & Yurewicz 2002 Oecologia 131:569-579. Rel02-03 freshwater pond, ephemeral cattle tank/ wading pool field 21 5 200 11 Insecta Anax sp., dragonfly Amphibia Rana clamitans, green frog Survival % surviving no preds 92.6 1.05 33.2 5 200 1000 caged anax 91.05 2.2 69.57 5 200 1000 lethal anax 31.06 6.34 200.49 5 200 1000 Prey Survival 1 0 1 1 2 1 Rel02-04 Figure 3 Relyea & Yurewicz 2002 Oecologia 131:569-579. Rel02-04 freshwater pond, ephemeral cattle tank/ wading pool field 21 5 200 11 Insecta Anax sp., dragonfly Amphibia Rana clamitans, green frog Growth total growth over 3 weeks (mean surviving mass-mean initial mass) no preds 86.92 9.09 287.45 5 200 1000 caged anax 68.18 5.11 161.59 5 200 1000 lethal anax 42.05 4.55 143.88 5 200 1000 Prey Growth 1 0 1 1 2 1 Rel02-03 Figure 3 Relyea & Yurewicz 2002 Oecologia 131:569-579. Rel02-05 freshwater pond, ephemeral cattle tank/ wading pool field 21 5 200 11 Mixed Anax sp., dragonfly, and Ambystoma tigrinum, tiger salamander Amphibia Rana clamitans, green frog Survival % surviving no preds 92.6 1.05 33.2 5 200 1000 caged anax and ambystoma 88.42 3.68 116.37 5 200 1000 lethal anax and lethal ambystoma 24.74 5.29 167.28 5 200 1000 Prey Survival 1 0 1 1 2 1 Rel02-06 Figure 3 Relyea & Yurewicz 2002 Oecologia 131:569-579. Rel02-06 freshwater pond, ephemeral cattle tank/ wading pool field 21 5 200 11 Mixed Anax sp., dragonfly, and Ambystoma tigrinum, tiger salamander Amphibia Rana clamitans, green frog Growth total growth over 3 weeks (mean surviving mass-mean initial mass) no preds 86.92 9.09 287.45 5 200 1000 caged anax and ambystoma 66.48 11.36 359.23 5 200 1000 lethal anax and lethal ambystoma 39.21 3.98 125.86 5 200 1000 Prey Growth 1 0 1 1 2 1 Rel02-05 Figure 6 Relyea & Yurewicz 2002 Oecologia 131:569-579. Rel02-07 freshwater pond, ephemeral cattle tank/ wading pool field 21 5 5 11 Amphibia Ambystoma tigrinum, tiger salamander Amphibia Rana catesbeiana, bullfrog Growth total growth over 3 weeks (mean surviving mass-mean initial mass) no preds -129.03 161.29 806.45 5 5 25 caged ambystoma 39.43 215.05 1075.27 5 5 25 lethal ambystoma 759.86 240.14 1200.72 5 5 25 Prey Growth 1 0 1 1 2 1 none Figure 6 Relyea & Yurewicz 2002 Oecologia 131:569-579. Rel02-08 freshwater pond, ephemeral cattle tank/ wading pool field 21 5 5 11 Insecta Anax sp., dragonfly Amphibia Rana catesbeiana, bullfrog Growth total growth over 3 weeks (mean surviving mass-mean initial mass) no preds -129.03 161.29 806.45 5 5 25 caged anax 473.12 136.2 681 5 5 25 lethal anax 512.54 315.41 1577.06 5 5 25 Prey Growth 1 0 1 1 2 1 none Figure 6 Relyea & Yurewicz 2002 Oecologia 131:569-579. Rel02-09 freshwater pond, ephemeral cattle tank/ wading pool field 21 5 5 11 Mixed Anax sp., dragonfly, and Ambystoma tigrinum, tiger salamander Amphibia Rana catesbeiana, bullfrog Growth total growth over 3 weeks (mean surviving mass-mean initial mass) no preds -129.03 161.29 806.45 5 5 25 caged anax and ambystoma 695.34 154.12 770.61 5 5 25 lethal anax and lethal ambystoma 1179.21 243.73 1218.64 5 5 25 Prey Growth 1 0 1 1 2 1 none Figure 1 Relyea 2002 Ecol Mon 72(1): 77-93 Rel02A-01 freshwater pond, ephemeral cattle tank/ wading pool field 18 3 20 11 Insecta Anax sp., dragonfly Amphibia Rana sylvatica, wood frog Growth mass at day 18 (mg) no caged predator 444.19 20.53 159.06 3 20 60 caged predator 330.06 44.74 346.58 3 20 60 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Rel02A-01, Rel02A-09 Open canopy, pond BZM Figure 1 Relyea 2002 Ecol Mon 72(1): 77-93 Rel02A-02 freshwater pond, ephemeral cattle tank/ wading pool field 18 3 20 11 Insecta Anax sp., dragonfly Amphibia Rana sylvatica, wood frog Growth mass at day 18 (mg) no caged predator 499.95 36.31 281.28 3 20 60 caged predator 359.02 21.61 167.43 3 20 60 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Rel02A-02, Rel02A-10 Open canopy, pond CAT Figure 1 Relyea 2002 Ecol Mon 72(1): 77-93 Rel02A-03 freshwater pond, ephemeral cattle tank/ wading pool field 18 3 20 11 Insecta Anax sp., dragonfly Amphibia Rana sylvatica, wood frog Growth mass at day 18 (mg) no caged predator 493.25 31.56 244.45 3 20 60 caged predator 291.8 26.59 205.94 3 20 60 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Rel02A-03, Rel02A-11 Open canopy, pond GPP Figure 1 Relyea 2002 Ecol Mon 72(1): 77-93 Rel02A-04 freshwater pond, ephemeral cattle tank/ wading pool field 18 3 20 11 Insecta Anax sp., dragonfly Amphibia Rana sylvatica, wood frog Growth mass at day 18 (mg) no caged predator 454.99 19.89 154.03 3 20 60 caged predator 196.26 14.48 112.18 3 20 60 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Rel02A-04, Rel02A-12 Open canopy, pond PTP Figure 1 Relyea 2002 Ecol Mon 72(1): 77-93 Rel02A-05 freshwater pond, ephemeral cattle tank/ wading pool field 18 3 20 11 Insecta Anax sp., dragonfly Amphibia Rana sylvatica, wood frog Growth mass at day 18 (mg) no caged predator 450.46 9.94 77.02 3 20 60 caged predator 300.02 18.59 143.99 3 20 60 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Rel02A-05, Rel02A-13 Closed canopy, pond DHP Figure 1 Relyea 2002 Ecol Mon 72(1): 77-93 Rel02A-06 freshwater pond, ephemeral cattle tank/ wading pool field 18 3 20 11 Insecta Anax sp., dragonfly Amphibia Rana sylvatica, wood frog Growth mass at day 18 (mg) no caged predator 419.98 44.31 343.23 3 20 60 caged predator 271.7 42.58 329.83 3 20 60 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Rel02A-06, Rel02A-14 Closed canopy, pond SLT Figure 1 Relyea 2002 Ecol Mon 72(1): 77-93 Rel02A-07 freshwater pond, ephemeral cattle tank/ wading pool field 18 3 20 11 Insecta Anax sp., dragonfly Amphibia Rana sylvatica, wood frog Growth mass at day 18 (mg) no caged predator 492.82 41.5 321.46 3 20 60 caged predator 300.23 14.27 110.5 3 20 60 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Rel02A-07, Rel02A-15 Closed canopy, pond SWW Figure 1 Relyea 2002 Ecol Mon 72(1): 77-93 Rel02A-08 freshwater pond, ephemeral cattle tank/ wading pool field 18 3 20 11 Insecta Anax sp., dragonfly Amphibia Rana sylvatica, wood frog Growth mass at day 18 (mg) no caged predator 428.84 60.74 470.47 3 20 60 caged predator 261.32 20.53 159.06 3 20 60 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Rel02A-08, Rel02A-16 Closed canopy, pond WWB Figure 2 Relyea 2002 Ecol Mon 72(1): 77-93 Rel02A-09 freshwater pond, ephemeral cattle tank/ wading pool field 18 3 20 11 Insecta Anax sp., dragonfly Amphibia Rana sylvatica, wood frog Development Gossner stage at day 18 no caged predator 31.98 0.66 5.15 3 20 60 caged predator 30.04 0.64 4.93 3 20 60 Prey Development 1 0 1 0 1 1 Rel02A-01, Rel02A-09 Open canopy, pond BZM Figure 2 Relyea 2002 Ecol Mon 72(1): 77-93 Rel02A-10 freshwater pond, ephemeral cattle tank/ wading pool field 18 3 20 11 Insecta Anax sp., dragonfly Amphibia Rana sylvatica, wood frog Development Gossner stage at day 18 no caged predator 32.93 0.19 1.44 3 20 60 caged predator 30.57 0.21 1.64 3 20 60 Prey Development 1 0 1 0 1 1 Rel02A-02, Rel02A-10 Open canopy, pond CAT Figure 2 Relyea 2002 Ecol Mon 72(1): 77-93 Rel02A-11 freshwater pond, ephemeral cattle tank/ wading pool field 18 3 20 11 Insecta Anax sp., dragonfly Amphibia Rana sylvatica, wood frog Development Gossner stage at day 18 no caged predator 32.61 0.42 3.23 3 20 60 caged predator 29.42 0.49 3.82 3 20 60 Prey Development 1 0 1 0 1 1 Rel02A-03, Rel02A-11 Open canopy, pond GPP Figure 2 Relyea 2002 Ecol Mon 72(1): 77-93 Rel02A-12 freshwater pond, ephemeral cattle tank/ wading pool field 18 3 20 11 Insecta Anax sp., dragonfly Amphibia Rana sylvatica, wood frog Development Gossner stage at day 18 no caged predator 32.19 0.18 1.41 3 20 60 caged predator 28.71 0.29 2.21 3 20 60 Prey Development 1 0 1 0 1 1 Rel02A-04, Rel02A-12 Open canopy, pond PTP Figure 2 Relyea 2002 Ecol Mon 72(1): 77-93 Rel02A-13 freshwater pond, ephemeral cattle tank/ wading pool field 18 3 20 11 Insecta Anax sp., dragonfly Amphibia Rana sylvatica, wood frog Development Gossner stage at day 18 no caged predator 32.09 0.13 1.04 3 20 60 caged predator 29.74 0.47 3.67 3 20 60 Prey Development 1 0 1 0 1 1 Rel02A-05, Rel02A-13 Closed canopy, pond DHP Figure 2 Relyea 2002 Ecol Mon 72(1): 77-93 Rel02A-14 freshwater pond, ephemeral cattle tank/ wading pool field 18 3 20 11 Insecta Anax sp., dragonfly Amphibia Rana sylvatica, wood frog Development Gossner stage at day 18 no caged predator 32.43 0.56 4.31 3 20 60 caged predator 29.49 0.62 4.82 3 20 60 Prey Development 1 0 1 0 1 1 Rel02A-06, Rel02A-14 Closed canopy, pond SLT Figure 2 Relyea 2002 Ecol Mon 72(1): 77-93 Rel02A-15 freshwater pond, ephemeral cattle tank/ wading pool field 18 3 20 11 Insecta Anax sp., dragonfly Amphibia Rana sylvatica, wood frog Development Gossner stage at day 18 no caged predator 32.94 0.36 2.78 3 20 60 caged predator 29.53 0.28 2.19 3 20 60 Prey Development 1 0 1 0 1 1 Rel02A-07, Rel02A-15 Closed canopy, pond SWW Figure 2 Relyea 2002 Ecol Mon 72(1): 77-93 Rel02A-16 freshwater pond, ephemeral cattle tank/ wading pool field 18 3 20 11 Insecta Anax sp., dragonfly Amphibia Rana sylvatica, wood frog Development Gossner stage at day 18 no caged predator 31.67 0.98 7.6 3 20 60 caged predator 29.19 0.24 1.86 3 20 60 Prey Development 1 0 1 0 1 1 Rel02A-08, Rel02A-16 Closed canopy, pond WWB Figure 1 Relyea 2002 Ecol Mon 72(1): 77-93 Rel02A-17 freshwater pond, ephemeral cattle tank/ wading pool field 23 3 20 11 Insecta Anax sp., dragonfly Amphibia Rana sylvatica, wood frog Growth mass at day 23 (mg) no caged predator 723.99 74.01 573.3 3 20 60 caged predator 602.64 76.38 591.63 3 20 60 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Rel02A-17, Rel02A-25 Open canopy, pond BZM Figure 1 Relyea 2002 Ecol Mon 72(1): 77-93 Rel02A-18 freshwater pond, ephemeral cattle tank/ wading pool field 23 3 20 11 Insecta Anax sp., dragonfly Amphibia Rana sylvatica, wood frog Growth mass at day 23 (mg) no caged predator 794.99 37.87 293.32 3 20 60 caged predator 574.24 13.77 106.66 3 20 60 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Rel02A-18, Rel02A-26 Open canopy, pond CAT Figure 1 Relyea 2002 Ecol Mon 72(1): 77-93 Rel02A-19 freshwater pond, ephemeral cattle tank/ wading pool field 23 3 20 11 Insecta Anax sp., dragonfly Amphibia Rana sylvatica, wood frog Growth mass at day 23 (mg) no caged predator 821.88 69.28 536.63 3 20 60 caged predator 466.67 24.53 189.99 3 20 60 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Rel02A-19, Rel02A-27 Open canopy, pond GPP Figure 1 Relyea 2002 Ecol Mon 72(1): 77-93 Rel02A-20 freshwater pond, ephemeral cattle tank/ wading pool field 23 3 20 11 Insecta Anax sp., dragonfly Amphibia Rana sylvatica, wood frog Growth mass at day 23 (mg) no caged predator 784.45 22.59 174.99 3 20 60 caged predator 375.66 63.9 494.97 3 20 60 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Rel02A-20, Rel02A-28 Open canopy, pond PTP Figure 1 Relyea 2002 Ecol Mon 72(1): 77-93 Rel02A-21 freshwater pond, ephemeral cattle tank/ wading pool field 23 3 20 11 Insecta Anax sp., dragonfly Amphibia Rana sylvatica, wood frog Growth mass at day 23 (mg) no caged predator 763.79 22.59 174.99 3 20 60 caged predator 637.93 51.42 398.31 3 20 60 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Rel02A-21, Rel02A-29 Closed canopy, pond DHP Figure 1 Relyea 2002 Ecol Mon 72(1): 77-93 Rel02A-22 freshwater pond, ephemeral cattle tank/ wading pool field 23 3 20 11 Insecta Anax sp., dragonfly Amphibia Rana sylvatica, wood frog Growth mass at day 23 (mg) no caged predator 742.49 39.16 303.32 3 20 60 caged predator 498.51 75.3 583.3 3 20 60 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Rel02A-22, Rel02A-30 Closed canopy, pond SLT Figure 1 Relyea 2002 Ecol Mon 72(1): 77-93 Rel02A-23 freshwater pond, ephemeral cattle tank/ wading pool field 23 3 20 11 Insecta Anax sp., dragonfly Amphibia Rana sylvatica, wood frog Growth mass at day 23 (mg) no caged predator 826.62 48.19 373.31 3 20 60 caged predator 507.98 44.11 341.65 3 20 60 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Rel02A-23, Rel02A-31 Closed canopy, pond SWW Figure 1 Relyea 2002 Ecol Mon 72(1): 77-93 Rel02A-24 freshwater pond, ephemeral cattle tank/ wading pool field 23 3 20 11 Insecta Anax sp., dragonfly Amphibia Rana sylvatica, wood frog Growth mass at day 23 (mg) no caged predator 845.12 77.67 601.63 3 20 60 caged predator 442.78 18.07 139.99 3 20 60 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Rel02A-24, Rel02A-32 Closed canopy, pond WWB Figure 2 Relyea 2002 Ecol Mon 72(1): 77-93 Rel02A-25 freshwater pond, ephemeral aquarium lab 7 24 1 11 Insecta Anax sp., dragonfly Amphibia Rana sylvatica, wood frog Activity % active no caged predator 30.87 1.22 5.96 24 1 24 caged predator 24.76 5.24 25.68 24 1 24 Prey Activity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Rel02A-17, Rel02A-25 Open canopy, pond BZM Figure 2 Relyea 2002 Ecol Mon 72(1): 77-93 Rel02A-26 freshwater pond, ephemeral aquarium lab 7 24 1 11 Insecta Anax sp., dragonfly Amphibia Rana sylvatica, wood frog Activity % active no caged predator 28.44 7.28 35.69 24 1 24 caged predator 24.56 3.49 17.08 24 1 24 Prey Activity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Rel02A-18, Rel02A-26 Open canopy, pond CAT Figure 2 Relyea 2002 Ecol Mon 72(1): 77-93 Rel02A-27 freshwater pond, ephemeral aquarium lab 7 24 1 11 Insecta Anax sp., dragonfly Amphibia Rana sylvatica, wood frog Activity % active no caged predator 35.93 2.74 13.45 24 1 24 caged predator 14.67 2.58 12.64 24 1 24 Prey Activity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Rel02A-19, Rel02A-27 Open canopy, pond GPP Figure 2 Relyea 2002 Ecol Mon 72(1): 77-93 Rel02A-28 freshwater pond, ephemeral aquarium lab 7 24 1 11 Insecta Anax sp., dragonfly Amphibia Rana sylvatica, wood frog Activity % active no caged predator 33.62 1.51 7.38 24 1 24 caged predator 12.38 2.31 11.32 24 1 24 Prey Activity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Rel02A-20, Rel02A-28 Open canopy, pond PTP Figure 2 Relyea 2002 Ecol Mon 72(1): 77-93 Rel02A-29 freshwater pond, ephemeral aquarium lab 7 24 1 11 Insecta Anax sp., dragonfly Amphibia Rana sylvatica, wood frog Activity % active no caged predator 28.29 6.07 29.72 24 1 24 caged predator 22.95 3.88 19.01 24 1 24 Prey Activity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Rel02A-21, Rel02A-29 Closed canopy, pond DHP Figure 2 Relyea 2002 Ecol Mon 72(1): 77-93 Rel02A-30 freshwater pond, ephemeral aquarium lab 7 24 1 11 Insecta Anax sp., dragonfly Amphibia Rana sylvatica, wood frog Activity % active no caged predator 37.16 6.71 32.86 24 1 24 caged predator 22.37 3.28 16.07 24 1 24 Prey Activity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Rel02A-22, Rel02A-30 Closed canopy, pond SLT Figure 2 Relyea 2002 Ecol Mon 72(1): 77-93 Rel02A-31 freshwater pond, ephemeral aquarium lab 7 24 1 11 Insecta Anax sp., dragonfly Amphibia Rana sylvatica, wood frog Activity % active no caged predator 35.78 1.47 7.18 24 1 24 caged predator 19.19 3.05 14.96 24 1 24 Prey Activity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Rel02A-23, Rel02A-31 Closed canopy, pond SWW Figure 2 Relyea 2002 Ecol Mon 72(1): 77-93 Rel02A-32 freshwater pond, ephemeral aquarium lab 7 24 1 11 Insecta Anax sp., dragonfly Amphibia Rana sylvatica, wood frog Activity % active no caged predator 31.12 4.19 20.52 24 1 24 caged predator 27.18 6.29 30.83 24 1 24 Prey Activity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Rel02A-24, Rel02A-32 Closed canopy, pond WWB Figure 1 Relyea 2002 Am Nat 159(3): 272-282 Rel02B-01 freshwater wetlands cattle tank/ wading pool field 34 54 10 11 Insecta Anax longipes, comet darner Amphibia Rana sylvatica, wood frog Growth Mass (mg) 16.2 0.6 108 no caged predator present 408.03 18.58 431.71 54 10 540 caged predator present 216.06 18.12 421.05 54 10 540 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Rel02B-01, Rel02B-02, Rel02B-03 Figure 1 Relyea 2002 Am Nat 159(3): 272-282 Rel02B-02 freshwater wetlands cattle tank/ wading pool field 34 54 10 11 Insecta Anax longipes, comet darner Amphibia Rana sylvatica, wood frog Development Gossner stage at day 34 no caged predator present 29.54 0.15 3.57 54 10 540 caged predator present 27.31 0.14 3.23 54 10 540 Prey Development 1 0 1 0 1 1 Rel02B-01, Rel02B-02, Rel02B-03 Figure 1 Relyea 2002 Am Nat 159(3): 272-282 Rel02B-03 freshwater wetlands cattle tank/ wading pool field 34 54 20 11 Insecta Anax longipes, comet darner Amphibia Rana sylvatica, wood frog Activity % active no caged predator present 28.76 1.83 60.15 54 20 1080 caged predator present 18.9 1.16 38.1 54 20 1080 Prey Activity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Rel02B-01, Rel02B-02, Rel02B-03 Figure 3 Relyea 2002 Ecol Mon 72(4): 523-540 Rel02C-01 freshwater pond cattle tank/ wading pool field 23 5 75 11 Insecta Anax longipes, comet darner Amphibia Rana sylvatica, wood frog Growth g/day no predator 0.03 0 0.03 5 75 375 predator risk 0.03 0 0.03 5 75 375 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Rel02C-01 and Rel02C-03 Figure 3 Relyea 2002 Ecol Mon 72(4): 523-540 Rel02C-02 freshwater pond cattle tank/ wading pool field 23 5 75 11 Insecta Anax longipes, comet darner Amphibia Rana sylvatica, wood frog Growth g/day no predator 0.02 0 0.01 5 75 375 predator risk 0.02 0 0.01 5 75 375 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Rel02C-02 and Rel02C-04 Figure 3 Relyea 2002 Ecol Mon 72(4): 523-540 Rel02C-03 freshwater pond cattle tank/ wading pool field 32 5 18 observations per pool on 20 leopard frogs per pool 11 Insecta Anax longipes, comet darner Amphibia Rana sylvatica, wood frog Activity % active no predator 72.9 2.04 20.41 5 20 100 predator risk 18.45 5.23 52.32 5 20 100 Prey Activity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Rel02C-01 and Rel02C-03 Figure 3 Relyea 2002 Ecol Mon 72(4): 523-540 Rel02C-04 freshwater pond cattle tank/ wading pool field 32 5 18 observations per pool on 20 leopard frogs per pool 11 Insecta Anax longipes, comet darner Amphibia Rana sylvatica, wood frog Activity % active no predator 74.48 2.62 26.16 5 20 100 predator risk 70.89 3.28 32.77 5 20 100 Prey Activity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Rel02C-02 and Rel02C-04 Figure 2 Relyea 2002 Ecology 83(7): 1953-1964 Rel02D-01 freshwater pond, ephemeral cattle tank/ wading pool lab 13 6 60 11 Insecta Anax longipes, comet darner Amphibia Hyla versicolor, gray treefrog Survival % surviving no predator 78.94 7.05 133.74 6 60 360 caged predator 83.43 2.72 51.52 6 60 360 lethal predator 26.66 3.35 63.49 6 60 360 Prey Survival 1 0 1 1 2 1 Rel02-01 to Rel02-03 no-thin trt Figure 2 Relyea 2002 Ecology 83(7): 1953-1964 Rel02D-02 freshwater pond, ephemeral cattle tank/ wading pool lab 13 6 60 11 Insecta Anax longipes, comet darner Amphibia Hyla versicolor, gray treefrog Growth g no predator 0.37 0.03 0.62 6 60 360 caged predator 0.39 0.02 0.29 6 60 360 lethal predator 0.57 0.06 1.1 6 60 360 Prey Growth 1 0 1 1 2 1 Rel02-01 to Rel02-03 no-thin trt Figure 2 Relyea 2002 Ecology 83(7): 1953-1964 Rel02D-03 freshwater pond, ephemeral cattle tank/ wading pool lab 11 6 20 observations per pool on 60 individuals per pool 11 Insecta Anax longipes, comet darner Amphibia Hyla versicolor, gray treefrog Activity % active no predator 56.59 4.67 88.6 6 60 360 caged predator 35.5 3.86 73.22 6 60 360 lethal predator 23.92 1.94 36.81 6 60 360 Prey Activity 1 0 1 1 2 1 Rel02-01 to Rel02-03 no-thin trt Figure 1 Relyea 2003 Ecology 84(7): 1827-1839 Rel03-01 freshwater pond cattle tank/ wading pool field 24 4 30 11 Insecta Anax sp., dragonfly Amphibia Rana sylvatica, wood frog Growth g/day no predator 0.05 0 0.01 4 30 120 2 caged predators 0.04 0 0.01 4 30 120 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Rel03-01 and Rel03-09 Figure 1 Relyea 2003 Ecology 84(7): 1827-1839 Rel03-02 freshwater pond cattle tank/ wading pool field 24 4 30 11 Insecta Anax sp., dragonfly Amphibia Rana sylvatica, wood frog Growth g/day no predator 0.05 0 0.01 4 30 120 4 caged predators 0.04 0 0.01 4 30 120 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Rel03-02 and Rel03-10 Figure 1 Relyea 2003 Ecology 84(7): 1827-1839 Rel03-03 freshwater pond cattle tank/ wading pool field 24 4 30 11 Insecta Belostoma sp., waterbug Amphibia Rana sylvatica, wood frog Growth g/day no predator 0.05 0 0.01 4 30 120 2 caged predators 0.04 0 0.03 4 30 120 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Rel03-03 and Rel03-11 Figure 1 Relyea 2003 Ecology 84(7): 1827-1839 Rel03-04 freshwater pond cattle tank/ wading pool field 24 4 30 11 Insecta Belostoma sp., waterbug Amphibia Rana sylvatica, wood frog Growth g/day no predator 0.05 0 0.01 4 30 120 4 caged predators 0.05 0 0.01 4 30 120 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Rel03-04 and Rel03-12 Figure 1 Relyea 2003 Ecology 84(7): 1827-1839 Rel03-05 freshwater pond cattle tank/ wading pool field 24 4 30 11 Insecta Dytiscus sp., diving beetle Amphibia Rana sylvatica, wood frog Growth g/day no predator 0.05 0 0.01 4 30 120 2 caged predators 0.04 0 0.01 4 30 120 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Rel03-05 and Rel03-13 Figure 1 Relyea 2003 Ecology 84(7): 1827-1839 Rel03-06 freshwater pond cattle tank/ wading pool field 24 4 30 11 Insecta Dytiscus sp., diving beetle Amphibia Rana sylvatica, wood frog Growth g/day no predator 0.05 0 0.01 4 30 120 4 caged predators 0.04 0 0.01 4 30 120 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Rel03-06 and Rel03-14 Figure 1 Relyea 2003 Ecology 84(7): 1827-1839 Rel03-07 freshwater pond cattle tank/ wading pool field 24 4 30 11 Insecta Erythemis sp., dragonfly Amphibia Rana sylvatica, wood frog Growth g/day no predator 0.05 0 0.01 4 30 120 2 caged predators 0.05 0 0.02 4 30 120 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Rel03-07 and Rel03-15 Figure 1 Relyea 2003 Ecology 84(7): 1827-1839 Rel03-08 freshwater pond cattle tank/ wading pool field 24 4 30 11 Insecta Erythemis sp., dragonfly Amphibia Rana sylvatica, wood frog Growth g/day no predator 0.05 0 0.01 4 30 120 4 caged predators 0.05 0 0.02 4 30 120 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Rel03-08 and Rel03-16 Figure 1 Relyea 2003 Ecology 84(7): 1827-1839 Rel03-09 freshwater pond cattle tank/ wading pool field 24 4 20 observations per pool on 30 individuals per pool 11 Insecta Anax sp., dragonfly Amphibia Rana sylvatica, wood frog Activity % active no predator 42.77 1.63 17.87 4 30 120 2 caged predators 25.19 5.43 59.44 4 30 120 Prey Activity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Rel03-01 and Rel03-09 Figure 1 Relyea 2003 Ecology 84(7): 1827-1839 Rel03-10 freshwater pond cattle tank/ wading pool field 24 4 20 observations per pool on 30 individuals per pool 11 Insecta Anax sp., dragonfly Amphibia Rana sylvatica, wood frog Activity % active no predator 42.77 1.63 17.87 4 30 120 4 caged predators 7.96 3.78 41.37 4 30 120 Prey Activity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Rel03-02 and Rel03-10 Figure 1 Relyea 2003 Ecology 84(7): 1827-1839 Rel03-11 freshwater pond cattle tank/ wading pool field 24 4 20 observations per pool on 30 individuals per pool 11 Insecta Belostoma sp., waterbug Amphibia Rana sylvatica, wood frog Activity % active no predator 42.77 1.63 17.87 4 30 120 2 caged predators 34.94 3.21 35.14 4 30 120 Prey Activity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Rel03-03 and Rel03-11 Figure 1 Relyea 2003 Ecology 84(7): 1827-1839 Rel03-12 freshwater pond cattle tank/ wading pool field 24 4 20 observations per pool on 30 individuals per pool 11 Insecta Belostoma sp., waterbug Amphibia Rana sylvatica, wood frog Activity % active no predator 42.77 1.63 17.87 4 30 120 4 caged predators 35.12 2.88 31.53 4 30 120 Prey Activity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Rel03-04 and Rel03-12 Figure 1 Relyea 2003 Ecology 84(7): 1827-1839 Rel03-13 freshwater pond cattle tank/ wading pool field 24 4 20 observations per pool on 30 individuals per pool 11 Insecta Dytiscus sp., diving beetle Amphibia Rana sylvatica, wood frog Activity % active no predator 42.77 1.63 17.87 4 30 120 2 caged predators 34.76 1.7 18.68 4 30 120 Prey Activity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Rel03-05 and Rel03-13 Figure 1 Relyea 2003 Ecology 84(7): 1827-1839 Rel03-14 freshwater pond cattle tank/ wading pool field 24 4 20 observations per pool on 30 individuals per pool 11 Insecta Dytiscus sp., diving beetle Amphibia Rana sylvatica, wood frog Activity % active no predator 42.77 1.63 17.87 4 30 120 4 caged predators 30.83 0.86 9.44 4 30 120 Prey Activity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Rel03-06 and Rel03-14 Figure 1 Relyea 2003 Ecology 84(7): 1827-1839 Rel03-15 freshwater pond cattle tank/ wading pool field 24 4 20 observations per pool on 30 individuals per pool 11 Insecta Erythemis sp., dragonfly Amphibia Rana sylvatica, wood frog Activity % active no predator 42.77 1.63 17.87 4 30 120 2 caged predators 39.95 1.48 16.27 4 30 120 Prey Activity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Rel03-07 and Rel03-15 Figure 1 Relyea 2003 Ecology 84(7): 1827-1839 Rel03-16 freshwater pond cattle tank/ wading pool field 24 4 20 observations per pool on 30 individuals per pool 11 Insecta Erythemis sp., dragonfly Amphibia Rana sylvatica, wood frog Activity % active no predator 42.77 1.63 17.87 4 30 120 4 caged predators 36.11 4.12 45.18 4 30 120 Prey Activity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Rel03-08 and Rel03-16 Figure 1 Relyea & Hoverman 2003 Oecologia 134:596-604. Rel03A-01 freshwater pond, ephemeral cattle tank/ wading pool field larval duration, 70-90 days 5 40 11 Insecta Anax sp., dragonfly Amphibia Hyla versicolor, gray treefrog Growth mass at met / size at met (mg/day) larvae raised without predator cues 40 1.62 22.91 5 40 200 larvae raised in nonlethal presence of predator 40.8 1.21 17.11 5 40 200 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Rel03A-03 Figure 1 Relyea & Hoverman 2003 Oecologia 134:596-604. Rel03A-02 freshwater pond, ephemeral cattle tank/ wading pool field larval duration, 70-90 days 5 80 11 Insecta Anax sp., dragonfly Amphibia Hyla versicolor, gray treefrog Growth mass at met / size at met (mg/day) larvae raised without predator cues 24.65 1.82 36.4 5 80 400 larvae raised in nonlethal presence of predator 24.85 1.83 36.6 5 80 400 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Rel03A-04 Figure 2 Relyea & Hoverman 2003 Oecologia 134:596-604. Rel03A-03 freshwater pond, ephemeral cattle tank/ wading pool field larval duration, 70-90 days 5 40 11 Insecta Anax sp., dragonfly Amphibia Hyla versicolor, gray treefrog Development Time to metamorphosis (days) larvae raised without predator cues 42.87 0.27 3.81 5 40 200 larvae raised in nonlethal presence of predator 44.31 0.52 7.34 5 40 200 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Rel03A-01 Figure 2 Relyea & Hoverman 2003 Oecologia 134:596-604. Rel03A-04 freshwater pond, ephemeral cattle tank/ wading pool field larval duration, 70-90 days 5 80 11 Insecta Anax sp., dragonfly Amphibia Hyla versicolor, gray treefrog Development Time to metamorphosis (days) larvae raised without predator cues 48.37 0.42 8.46 5 80 400 larvae raised in nonlethal presence of predator 47.87 0.9 18.08 5 80 400 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Rel03A-02 Figure 1 Relyea 2004 Ecology 85(1): 172-179 Rel04-01 freshwater pond cattle tank/ wading pool field 26 4 20 11 Insecta Anax junius, dragonfly Amphibia Rana sylvatica, wood frog Growth mg/day no predator 52.25 0.96 8.58 4 20 80 one caged predator 46.78 1 8.95 4 20 80 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 none Figure 1 Relyea 2004 Ecology 85(1): 172-179 Rel04-02 freshwater pond cattle tank/ wading pool field 26 4 40 11 Insecta Anax junius, dragonfly Amphibia Rana sylvatica, wood frog Growth mg/day no predator 47.37 1.03 13.05 4 40 160 one caged predator 42.83 1.2 15.16 4 40 160 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 none Figure 1 Relyea 2004 Ecology 85(1): 172-179 Rel04-03 freshwater pond cattle tank/ wading pool field 26 4 80 11 Insecta Anax junius, dragonfly Amphibia Rana sylvatica, wood frog Growth mg/day no predator 36.69 1.1 19.77 4 80 320 one caged predator 38.73 0.69 12.31 4 80 320 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 none Figure 1 Relyea 2004 Ecology 85(1): 172-179 Rel04-04 freshwater pond cattle tank/ wading pool field 26 4 160 11 Insecta Anax junius, dragonfly Amphibia Rana sylvatica, wood frog Growth mg/day no predator 25.35 0.99 25.05 4 160 640 one caged predator 25.27 0.85 21.62 4 160 640 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 none Figure 1 Relyea 2004 Ecology 85(1): 172-179 Rel04-05 freshwater pond cattle tank/ wading pool field 26 4 20 11 Insecta Anax junius, dragonfly Amphibia Rana sylvatica, wood frog Growth mg/day no predator 52.25 0.96 8.58 4 20 80 two caged predators 41.28 0.89 7.92 4 20 80 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 none Figure 1 Relyea 2004 Ecology 85(1): 172-179 Rel04-06 freshwater pond cattle tank/ wading pool field 26 4 40 11 Insecta Anax junius, dragonfly Amphibia Rana sylvatica, wood frog Growth mg/day no predator 47.37 1.03 13.05 4 40 160 two caged predators 40.38 0.21 2.64 4 40 160 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 none Figure 1 Relyea 2004 Ecology 85(1): 172-179 Rel04-07 freshwater pond cattle tank/ wading pool field 26 4 80 11 Insecta Anax junius, dragonfly Amphibia Rana sylvatica, wood frog Growth mg/day no predator 36.69 1.1 19.77 4 80 320 two caged predators 37.86 0.77 13.8 4 80 320 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 none Figure 1 Relyea 2004 Ecology 85(1): 172-179 Rel04-08 freshwater pond cattle tank/ wading pool field 26 4 160 11 Insecta Anax junius, dragonfly Amphibia Rana sylvatica, wood frog Growth mg/day no predator 25.35 0.99 25.05 4 160 640 two caged predators 26.28 0.77 19.51 4 160 640 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 none Figure 1 Relyea 2004 Ecology 85(1): 172-179 Rel04-09 freshwater pond cattle tank/ wading pool field 26 4 20 11 Insecta Anax junius, dragonfly Amphibia Rana sylvatica, wood frog Growth mg/day no predator 52.25 0.96 8.58 4 20 80 four caged predators 42.39 0.9 8.02 4 20 80 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 none Figure 1 Relyea 2004 Ecology 85(1): 172-179 Rel04-10 freshwater pond cattle tank/ wading pool field 26 4 40 11 Insecta Anax junius, dragonfly Amphibia Rana sylvatica, wood frog Growth mg/day no predator 47.37 1.03 13.05 4 40 160 four caged predators 40.07 0.96 12.13 4 40 160 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 none Figure 1 Relyea 2004 Ecology 85(1): 172-179 Rel04-11 freshwater pond cattle tank/ wading pool field 26 4 80 11 Insecta Anax junius, dragonfly Amphibia Rana sylvatica, wood frog Growth mg/day no predator 36.69 1.1 19.77 4 80 320 four caged predators 36.81 0.85 15.29 4 80 320 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 none Figure 1 Relyea 2004 Ecology 85(1): 172-179 Rel04-12 freshwater pond cattle tank/ wading pool field 26 4 160 11 Insecta Anax junius, dragonfly Amphibia Rana sylvatica, wood frog Growth mg/day no predator 25.35 0.99 25.05 4 160 640 four caged predators 27.11 0.92 23.21 4 160 640 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 none Figure 3 Relyea & Werner 1999 Ecology 80(6): 2117-2124 Rel99-01 freshwater pond enclosure field 28 3 50 11 Actinopterygii Lepomis macrochirus, bluegill Amphibia Rana catesbeiana, bullfrog Growth mg/day no predator 8.27 0.64 7.78 3 50 150 predator risk 8.24 0.55 6.7 3 50 150 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Rel99-01, 11 bullfrog and greenfrog were in same tanks Figure 3 Relyea & Werner 1999 Ecology 80(6): 2117-2124 Rel99-02 freshwater pond enclosure field 28 3 50 11 Actinopterygii Umbra limi, mudminnow Amphibia Rana catesbeiana, bullfrog Growth mg/day no predator 8.27 0.64 7.78 3 50 150 predator risk 7.13 1.3 15.87 3 50 150 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Rel99-02, 07 bullfrog and greenfrog were in same tanks Figure 3 Relyea & Werner 1999 Ecology 80(6): 2117-2124 Rel99-03 freshwater pond enclosure field 28 3 50 11 Insecta Anax sp., dragonfly Amphibia Rana catesbeiana, bullfrog Growth mg/day no predator 8.27 0.64 7.78 3 50 150 predator risk 5.94 0.6 7.39 3 50 150 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Rel99-03, 08 bullfrog and greenfrog were in same tanks Figure 3 Relyea & Werner 1999 Ecology 80(6): 2117-2124 Rel99-04 freshwater pond enclosure field 28 3 50 11 Actinopterygii Lepomis macrochirus, bluegill Amphibia Rana clamitans, green frog Growth mg/day no predator 6.44 0.85 10.38 3 50 150 predator risk 6.97 0.5 6.08 3 50 150 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Rel99-04, 12 bullfrog and greenfrog were in same tanks Figure 3 Relyea & Werner 1999 Ecology 80(6): 2117-2124 Rel99-05 freshwater pond enclosure field 28 3 50 11 Actinopterygii Umbra limi, mudminnow Amphibia Rana clamitans, green frog Growth mg/day no predator 6.44 0.85 10.38 3 50 150 predator risk 5.69 0.91 11.11 3 50 150 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Rel99-05, 09 bullfrog and greenfrog were in same tanks Figure 3 Relyea & Werner 1999 Ecology 80(6): 2117-2124 Rel99-06 freshwater pond enclosure field 28 3 50 11 Insecta Anax sp., dragonfly Amphibia Rana clamitans, green frog Growth mg/day no predator 6.44 0.85 10.38 3 50 150 predator risk 3.61 0.54 6.62 3 50 150 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Rel99-06, 10 bullfrog and greenfrog were in same tanks Figure 1A Relyea & Werner 1999 Ecology 80(6): 2117-2124 Rel99-07 freshwater pond aquarium lab 35 35 10 11 Actinopterygii Umbra limi, mudminnow Amphibia Rana catesbeiana, bullfrog Activity % active no predator 16.37 2.37 44.35 35 10 350 predator risk 10.2 2.49 46.55 35 10 350 Prey Activity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Rel99-02, 07 Figure 1A Relyea & Werner 1999 Ecology 80(6): 2117-2124 Rel99-08 freshwater pond aquarium lab 35 35 10 11 Insecta Anax sp., dragonfly Amphibia Rana catesbeiana, bullfrog Activity % active no predator 16.37 2.37 44.35 35 10 350 predator risk 3.18 0.88 16.48 35 10 350 Prey Activity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Rel99-03, 08 Figure 1A Relyea & Werner 1999 Ecology 80(6): 2117-2124 Rel99-09 freshwater pond aquarium lab 35 35 10 11 Actinopterygii Umbra limi, mudminnow Amphibia Rana clamitans, green frog Activity % active no predator 9.13 2.78 51.96 35 10 350 predator risk 5.32 1.29 24.1 35 10 350 Prey Activity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Rel99-05, 09 Figure 1A Relyea & Werner 1999 Ecology 80(6): 2117-2124 Rel99-10 freshwater pond aquarium lab 35 35 10 11 Insecta Anax sp., dragonfly Amphibia Rana clamitans, green frog Activity % active no predator 9.13 2.78 51.96 35 10 350 predator risk 0.94 0.45 8.4 35 10 350 Prey Activity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Rel99-06, 10 Figure 1B Relyea & Werner 1999 Ecology 80(6): 2117-2124 Rel99-11 freshwater pond aquarium lab 9 25 10 11 Actinopterygii Lepomis macrochirus, bluegill Amphibia Rana catesbeiana, bullfrog Activity % active no predator 7.05 1.57 24.81 25 10 250 predator risk 10.24 1.88 29.73 25 10 250 Prey Activity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Rel99-01, 11 Figure 1B Relyea & Werner 1999 Ecology 80(6): 2117-2124 Rel99-12 freshwater pond aquarium lab 9 25 10 11 Actinopterygii Lepomis macrochirus, bluegill Amphibia Rana clamitans, green frog Activity % active no predator 5.56 1.69 26.67 25 10 250 predator risk 5.52 1.51 23.95 25 10 250 Prey Activity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Rel99-04, 12 Figure 1 Repka et al 1994 Hydrobiologia 294: 129-140 Rep94-01 freshwater pond aquarium lab until instar complete 8 1 11 Insecta Chaoborus obscuripes, midge Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Development Time to reproduction (days) no predator cues 6.99 0.03 0.1 8 1 8 predator chemical cues 8.01 0.51 1.44 8 1 8 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Rep94-01, Rep94-15, Rep94-29 predator is first instar chaoborus Figure 1 Repka et al 1994 Hydrobiologia 294: 129-140 Rep94-02 freshwater pond aquarium lab until instar complete 8 1 11 Insecta Chaoborus obscuripes, midge Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Development Time to reproduction (days) no predator cues 6.99 0.03 0.1 8 1 8 predator chemical cues 8.18 0.45 1.28 8 1 8 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Rep94-02, Rep94-16, Rep94-30 predator is third instar chaoborus Figure 1 Repka et al 1994 Hydrobiologia 294: 129-140 Rep94-03 freshwater pond aquarium lab until instar complete 8 1 11 Insecta Mochlonyx sp., midge Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Development Time to reproduction (days) no predator cues 6.99 0.03 0.1 8 1 8 predator chemical cues 7.14 0.14 0.38 8 1 8 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Rep94-03, Rep94-17, Rep94-31 predator is fourth instar Mochlonyx Figure 1 Repka et al 1994 Hydrobiologia 294: 129-140 Rep94-04 freshwater pond aquarium lab until instar complete 8 1 11 Insecta Notonecta sp., backswimmer Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Development Time to reproduction (days) no predator cues 6.99 0.03 0.1 8 1 8 predator chemical cues 7.99 0.29 0.81 8 1 8 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Rep94-04, Rep94-18, Rep94-32 predator is second instar notonecta Figure 1 Repka et al 1994 Hydrobiologia 294: 129-140 Rep94-05 freshwater pond aquarium lab until instar complete 8 1 11 Insecta Notonecta sp., backswimmer Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Development Time to reproduction (days) no predator cues 6.99 0.03 0.1 8 1 8 predator chemical cues 7 0.2 0.56 8 1 8 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Rep94-05, Rep94-19, Rep94-33 predator is third instar notonecta Figure 1 Repka et al 1994 Hydrobiologia 294: 129-140 Rep94-06 freshwater pond aquarium lab until instar complete 8 1 11 Insecta Dytiscus sp., diving beetle Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Development Time to reproduction (days) no predator cues 6.99 0.03 0.1 8 1 8 predator chemical cues 6.6 0.17 0.49 8 1 8 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Rep94-06, Rep94-20, Rep94-34 predator is small diving beetle Figure 1 Repka et al 1994 Hydrobiologia 294: 129-140 Rep94-07 freshwater pond aquarium lab until instar complete 8 1 11 Insecta Dytiscus sp., diving beetle Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Development Time to reproduction (days) no predator cues 6.99 0.03 0.1 8 1 8 predator chemical cues 6.43 0.18 0.52 8 1 8 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Rep94-07, Rep94-21, Rep94-35 predator is large diving beetle Figure 1 Repka et al 1994 Hydrobiologia 294: 129-140 Rep94-08 freshwater pond aquarium lab until instar complete 8 1 11 Insecta Chaoborus obscuripes, midge Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Development Time to reproduction (days) no predator cues 6.66 0.18 0.5 8 1 8 predator chemical cues 6.48 0.19 0.52 8 1 8 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Rep94-08, Rep94-22, Rep94-36 predator is first instar chaoborus Figure 1 Repka et al 1994 Hydrobiologia 294: 129-140 Rep94-09 freshwater pond aquarium lab until instar complete 8 1 11 Insecta Chaoborus obscuripes, midge Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Development Time to reproduction (days) no predator cues 6.66 0.18 0.5 8 1 8 predator chemical cues 6.76 0.15 0.42 8 1 8 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Rep94-09, Rep94-23, Rep94-37 predator is third instar chaoborus Figure 1 Repka et al 1994 Hydrobiologia 294: 129-140 Rep94-10 freshwater pond aquarium lab until instar complete 8 1 11 Insecta Mochlonyx sp., midge Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Development Time to reproduction (days) no predator cues 6.66 0.18 0.5 8 1 8 predator chemical cues 6.76 0.24 0.67 8 1 8 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Rep94-10, Rep94-24, Rep94-38 predator is fourth instar Mochlonyx Figure 1 Repka et al 1994 Hydrobiologia 294: 129-140 Rep94-11 freshwater pond aquarium lab until instar complete 8 1 11 Insecta Notonecta sp., backswimmer Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Development Time to reproduction (days) no predator cues 6.66 0.18 0.5 8 1 8 predator chemical cues 7.59 1 2.82 8 1 8 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Rep94-11, Rep94-25, Rep94-39 predator is second instar notonecta Figure 1 Repka et al 1994 Hydrobiologia 294: 129-140 Rep94-12 freshwater pond aquarium lab until instar complete 8 1 11 Insecta Notonecta sp., backswimmer Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Development Time to reproduction (days) no predator cues 6.66 0.18 0.5 8 1 8 predator chemical cues 6.63 0.17 0.48 8 1 8 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Rep94-12, Rep94-26, Rep94-40 predator is third instar notonecta Figure 1 Repka et al 1994 Hydrobiologia 294: 129-140 Rep94-13 freshwater pond aquarium lab until instar complete 8 1 11 Insecta Dytiscus sp., diving beetle Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Development Time to reproduction (days) no predator cues 6.66 0.18 0.5 8 1 8 predator chemical cues 6.38 0.17 0.48 8 1 8 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Rep94-13, Rep94-27, Rep94-41 predator is small diving beetle Figure 1 Repka et al 1994 Hydrobiologia 294: 129-140 Rep94-14 freshwater pond aquarium lab until instar complete 8 1 11 Insecta Dytiscus sp., diving beetle Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Development Time to reproduction (days) no predator cues 6.66 0.18 0.5 8 1 8 predator chemical cues 6.08 0.1 0.28 8 1 8 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Rep94-14, Rep94-28, Rep94-42 predator is large diving beetle Figure 1 Repka et al 1994 Hydrobiologia 294: 129-140 Rep94-15 freshwater pond aquarium lab until instar complete 8 1 11 Insecta Chaoborus obscuripes, midge Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Growth length of carapace at maturity (um) no predator cues 1455.75 20.29 57.39 8 1 8 predator chemical cues 1463.32 18.95 53.61 8 1 8 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Rep94-01, Rep94-15, Rep94-29 predator is first instar chaoborus Figure 1 Repka et al 1994 Hydrobiologia 294: 129-140 Rep94-16 freshwater pond aquarium lab until instar complete 8 1 11 Insecta Chaoborus obscuripes, midge Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Growth length of carapace at maturity (um) no predator cues 1455.75 20.29 57.39 8 1 8 predator chemical cues 1453.23 30.21 85.45 8 1 8 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Rep94-02, Rep94-16, Rep94-30 predator is third instar chaoborus Figure 1 Repka et al 1994 Hydrobiologia 294: 129-140 Rep94-17 freshwater pond aquarium lab until instar complete 8 1 11 Insecta Mochlonyx sp., midge Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Growth length of carapace at maturity (um) no predator cues 1455.75 20.29 57.39 8 1 8 predator chemical cues 1526.42 13.16 37.21 8 1 8 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Rep94-03, Rep94-17, Rep94-31 predator is fourth instar Mochlonyx Figure 1 Repka et al 1994 Hydrobiologia 294: 129-140 Rep94-18 freshwater pond aquarium lab until instar complete 8 1 11 Insecta Notonecta sp., backswimmer Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Growth length of carapace at maturity (um) no predator cues 1455.75 20.29 57.39 8 1 8 predator chemical cues 1389.81 13.27 37.52 8 1 8 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Rep94-04, Rep94-18, Rep94-32 predator is second instar notonecta Figure 1 Repka et al 1994 Hydrobiologia 294: 129-140 Rep94-19 freshwater pond aquarium lab until instar complete 8 1 11 Insecta Notonecta sp., backswimmer Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Growth length of carapace at maturity (um) no predator cues 1455.75 20.29 57.39 8 1 8 predator chemical cues 1491.09 22.19 62.75 8 1 8 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Rep94-05, Rep94-19, Rep94-33 predator is third instar notonecta Figure 1 Repka et al 1994 Hydrobiologia 294: 129-140 Rep94-20 freshwater pond aquarium lab until instar complete 8 1 11 Insecta Dytiscus sp., diving beetle Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Growth length of carapace at maturity (um) no predator cues 1455.75 20.29 57.39 8 1 8 predator chemical cues 1447.55 9.48 26.8 8 1 8 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Rep94-06, Rep94-20, Rep94-34 predator is small diving beetle Figure 1 Repka et al 1994 Hydrobiologia 294: 129-140 Rep94-21 freshwater pond aquarium lab until instar complete 8 1 11 Insecta Dytiscus sp., diving beetle Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Growth length of carapace at maturity (um) no predator cues 1455.75 20.29 57.39 8 1 8 predator chemical cues 1426.41 16.83 47.62 8 1 8 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Rep94-07, Rep94-21, Rep94-35 predator is large diving beetle Figure 1 Repka et al 1994 Hydrobiologia 294: 129-140 Rep94-22 freshwater pond aquarium lab until instar complete 8 1 11 Insecta Chaoborus obscuripes, midge Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Growth length of carapace at maturity (um) no predator cues 1760.21 24.19 68.43 8 1 8 predator chemical cues 1600.25 63.44 179.42 8 1 8 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Rep94-08, Rep94-22, Rep94-36 predator is first instar chaoborus Figure 1 Repka et al 1994 Hydrobiologia 294: 129-140 Rep94-23 freshwater pond aquarium lab until instar complete 8 1 11 Insecta Chaoborus obscuripes, midge Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Growth length of carapace at maturity (um) no predator cues 1760.21 24.19 68.43 8 1 8 predator chemical cues 1630.54 27.76 78.52 8 1 8 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Rep94-09, Rep94-23, Rep94-37 predator is third instar chaoborus Figure 1 Repka et al 1994 Hydrobiologia 294: 129-140 Rep94-24 freshwater pond aquarium lab until instar complete 8 1 11 Insecta Mochlonyx sp., midge Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Growth length of carapace at maturity (um) no predator cues 1760.21 24.19 68.43 8 1 8 predator chemical cues 1706.58 42.59 120.46 8 1 8 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Rep94-10, Rep94-24, Rep94-38 predator is fourth instar Mochlonyx Figure 1 Repka et al 1994 Hydrobiologia 294: 129-140 Rep94-25 freshwater pond aquarium lab until instar complete 8 1 11 Insecta Notonecta sp., backswimmer Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Growth length of carapace at maturity (um) no predator cues 1760.21 24.19 68.43 8 1 8 predator chemical cues 1531.47 25.31 71.58 8 1 8 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Rep94-11, Rep94-25, Rep94-39 predator is second instar notonecta Figure 1 Repka et al 1994 Hydrobiologia 294: 129-140 Rep94-26 freshwater pond aquarium lab until instar complete 8 1 11 Insecta Notonecta sp., backswimmer Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Growth length of carapace at maturity (um) no predator cues 1760.21 24.19 68.43 8 1 8 predator chemical cues 1556.4 33.11 93.65 8 1 8 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Rep94-12, Rep94-26, Rep94-40 predator is third instar notonecta Figure 1 Repka et al 1994 Hydrobiologia 294: 129-140 Rep94-27 freshwater pond aquarium lab until instar complete 8 1 11 Insecta Dytiscus sp., diving beetle Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Growth length of carapace at maturity (um) no predator cues 1760.21 24.19 68.43 8 1 8 predator chemical cues 1622.97 16.95 47.93 8 1 8 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Rep94-13, Rep94-27, Rep94-41 predator is small diving beetle Figure 1 Repka et al 1994 Hydrobiologia 294: 129-140 Rep94-28 freshwater pond aquarium lab until instar complete 8 1 11 Insecta Dytiscus sp., diving beetle Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Growth length of carapace at maturity (um) no predator cues 1760.21 24.19 68.43 8 1 8 predator chemical cues 1663.67 15.94 45.09 8 1 8 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Rep94-14, Rep94-28, Rep94-42 predator is large diving beetle Figure 2 Repka et al 1994 Hydrobiologia 294: 129-140 Rep94-29 freshwater pond aquarium lab until instar complete 8 1 11 Insecta Chaoborus obscuripes, midge Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Fecundity # offspring in first brood no predator cues 5.16 0.8 2.28 8 1 8 predator chemical cues 2.25 0.87 2.45 8 1 8 Prey Fecundity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Rep94-01, Rep94-15, Rep94-29 predator is first instar chaoborus Figure 2 Repka et al 1994 Hydrobiologia 294: 129-140 Rep94-30 freshwater pond aquarium lab until instar complete 8 1 11 Insecta Chaoborus obscuripes, midge Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Fecundity # offspring in first brood no predator cues 5.16 0.8 2.28 8 1 8 predator chemical cues 3.97 1.27 3.59 8 1 8 Prey Fecundity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Rep94-02, Rep94-16, Rep94-30 predator is third instar chaoborus Figure 2 Repka et al 1994 Hydrobiologia 294: 129-140 Rep94-31 freshwater pond aquarium lab until instar complete 8 1 11 Insecta Mochlonyx sp., midge Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Fecundity # offspring in first brood no predator cues 5.16 0.8 2.28 8 1 8 predator chemical cues 5.21 0.96 2.73 8 1 8 Prey Fecundity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Rep94-03, Rep94-17, Rep94-31 predator is fourth instar Mochlonyx Figure 2 Repka et al 1994 Hydrobiologia 294: 129-140 Rep94-32 freshwater pond aquarium lab until instar complete 8 1 11 Insecta Notonecta sp., backswimmer Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Fecundity # offspring in first brood no predator cues 5.16 0.8 2.28 8 1 8 predator chemical cues 1.22 0.92 2.59 8 1 8 Prey Fecundity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Rep94-04, Rep94-18, Rep94-32 predator is second instar notonecta Figure 2 Repka et al 1994 Hydrobiologia 294: 129-140 Rep94-33 freshwater pond aquarium lab until instar complete 8 1 11 Insecta Notonecta sp., backswimmer Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Fecundity # offspring in first brood no predator cues 5.16 0.8 2.28 8 1 8 predator chemical cues 4.51 0.88 2.48 8 1 8 Prey Fecundity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Rep94-05, Rep94-19, Rep94-33 predator is third instar notonecta Figure 2 Repka et al 1994 Hydrobiologia 294: 129-140 Rep94-34 freshwater pond aquarium lab until instar complete 8 1 11 Insecta Dytiscus sp., diving beetle Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Fecundity # offspring in first brood no predator cues 5.16 0.8 2.28 8 1 8 predator chemical cues 9.25 0.62 1.75 8 1 8 Prey Fecundity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Rep94-06, Rep94-20, Rep94-34 predator is small diving beetle Figure 2 Repka et al 1994 Hydrobiologia 294: 129-140 Rep94-35 freshwater pond aquarium lab until instar complete 8 1 11 Insecta Dytiscus sp., diving beetle Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Fecundity # offspring in first brood no predator cues 5.16 0.8 2.28 8 1 8 predator chemical cues 5.89 0.35 0.99 8 1 8 Prey Fecundity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Rep94-07, Rep94-21, Rep94-35 predator is large diving beetle Figure 2 Repka et al 1994 Hydrobiologia 294: 129-140 Rep94-36 freshwater pond aquarium lab until instar complete 8 1 11 Insecta Chaoborus obscuripes, midge Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Fecundity # offspring in first brood no predator cues 21.34 1.18 3.33 8 1 8 predator chemical cues 5.97 2.15 6.08 8 1 8 Prey Fecundity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Rep94-08, Rep94-22, Rep94-36 predator is first instar chaoborus Figure 2 Repka et al 1994 Hydrobiologia 294: 129-140 Rep94-37 freshwater pond aquarium lab until instar complete 8 1 11 Insecta Chaoborus obscuripes, midge Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Fecundity # offspring in first brood no predator cues 21.34 1.18 3.33 8 1 8 predator chemical cues 3.03 0.09 0.26 8 1 8 Prey Fecundity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Rep94-09, Rep94-23, Rep94-37 predator is third instar chaoborus Figure 2 Repka et al 1994 Hydrobiologia 294: 129-140 Rep94-38 freshwater pond aquarium lab until instar complete 8 1 11 Insecta Mochlonyx sp., midge Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Fecundity # offspring in first brood no predator cues 21.34 1.18 3.33 8 1 8 predator chemical cues 17.07 2 5.67 8 1 8 Prey Fecundity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Rep94-10, Rep94-24, Rep94-38 predator is fourth instar Mochlonyx Figure 2 Repka et al 1994 Hydrobiologia 294: 129-140 Rep94-39 freshwater pond aquarium lab until instar complete 8 1 11 Insecta Notonecta sp., backswimmer Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Fecundity # offspring in first brood no predator cues 21.34 1.18 3.33 8 1 8 predator chemical cues 0 0 0 8 1 8 Prey Fecundity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Rep94-11, Rep94-25, Rep94-39 predator is second instar notonecta Figure 2 Repka et al 1994 Hydrobiologia 294: 129-140 Rep94-40 freshwater pond aquarium lab until instar complete 8 1 11 Insecta Notonecta sp., backswimmer Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Fecundity # offspring in first brood no predator cues 21.34 1.18 3.33 8 1 8 predator chemical cues 7.4 1.23 3.48 8 1 8 Prey Fecundity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Rep94-12, Rep94-26, Rep94-40 predator is third instar notonecta Figure 2 Repka et al 1994 Hydrobiologia 294: 129-140 Rep94-41 freshwater pond aquarium lab until instar complete 8 1 11 Insecta Dytiscus sp., diving beetle Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Fecundity # offspring in first brood no predator cues 21.34 1.18 3.33 8 1 8 predator chemical cues 14.76 0.97 2.76 8 1 8 Prey Fecundity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Rep94-13, Rep94-27, Rep94-41 predator is small diving beetle Figure 2 Repka et al 1994 Hydrobiologia 294: 129-140 Rep94-42 freshwater pond aquarium lab until instar complete 8 1 11 Insecta Dytiscus sp., diving beetle Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Fecundity # offspring in first brood no predator cues 21.34 1.18 3.33 8 1 8 predator chemical cues 14.36 1.84 5.22 8 1 8 Prey Fecundity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Rep94-14, Rep94-28, Rep94-42 predator is large diving beetle Table 1 Repka & Pihlajamaa 1996 Hydrobiologia 339: 67-71 Rep96-01 freshwater pond aquarium lab until instar complete 10 1 11 Insecta Chaoborus obscuripes, midge Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Development Time to reproduction (days) no predator cues 8.5 0.43 1.36 10 1 10 chemical cues from Chaoborus 10.17 0.79 2.5 10 1 10 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Rep96-01, Rep96-03, Rep96-05 Table 1 Repka & Pihlajamaa 1996 Hydrobiologia 339: 67-71 Rep96-02 freshwater pond aquarium lab until instar complete 10 1 11 Insecta Chaoborus obscuripes, midge Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Development Time to reproduction (days) no predator cues 8.5 0.43 1.36 10 1 10 chemical cues from Chaoborus 9.71 0.52 1.64 10 1 10 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Rep96-02, Rep96-04, Rep96-06 Table 1 Repka & Pihlajamaa 1996 Hydrobiologia 339: 67-71 Rep96-03 freshwater pond aquarium lab until instar complete 10 1 11 Insecta Chaoborus obscuripes, midge Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Growth length at first reproduction (mm) no predator cues 1.34 0.05 0.16 10 1 10 chemical cues from Chaoborus 1.47 0.04 0.13 10 1 10 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Rep96-01, Rep96-03, Rep96-05 Table 1 Repka & Pihlajamaa 1996 Hydrobiologia 339: 67-71 Rep96-04 freshwater pond aquarium lab until instar complete 10 1 11 Insecta Chaoborus obscuripes, midge Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Growth length at first reproduction (mm) no predator cues 1.34 0.05 0.16 10 1 10 chemical cues from Chaoborus 1.43 0.03 0.09 10 1 10 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Rep96-02, Rep96-04, Rep96-06 Table 1 Repka & Pihlajamaa 1996 Hydrobiologia 339: 67-71 Rep96-05 freshwater pond aquarium lab until instar complete 10 1 11 Insecta Chaoborus obscuripes, midge Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Fecundity # eggs in first clutch no predator cues 13.22 4.47 14.14 10 1 10 chemical cues from Chaoborus 19.86 3.6 11.38 10 1 10 Prey Fecundity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Rep96-01, Rep96-03, Rep96-05 Table 1 Repka & Pihlajamaa 1996 Hydrobiologia 339: 67-71 Rep96-06 freshwater pond aquarium lab until instar complete 10 1 11 Insecta Chaoborus obscuripes, midge Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Fecundity # eggs in first clutch no predator cues 13.22 4.47 14.14 10 1 10 chemical cues from Chaoborus 13.43 3.41 10.78 10 1 10 Prey Fecundity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Rep96-02, Rep96-04, Rep96-06 Figure 1 Resetarits 2001 Oecologia 129:155-160 Res01-01 freshwater pond cattle tank/ wading pool field 5 6 1 no # individuals given. Used one ind/rep as most conservative estimate 11 Actinopterygii Lepomis gibbosus, pumpkinseed sunfish Insecta Tropisternus lateralis, hydrophilid beetle Density # beetles colonizing no predator 14.75 3.35 8.2 6 1 6 non-lethal predator 2.35 0.82 2 6 1 6 Prey Density 1 0 1 0 1 1 Res01-01 to Res01-03 Figure 1 Resetarits 2001 Oecologia 129:155-160 Res01-02 freshwater pond cattle tank/ wading pool field 5 6 1 no # individuals given. Used one ind/rep as most conservative estimate 11 Actinopterygii Lepomis gibbosus, pumpkinseed sunfish Insecta Tropisternus lateralis, hydrophilid beetle Fecundity # egg cases no predator 11.55 3.46 8.47 6 1 6 non-lethal predator 1.54 0.89 2.18 6 1 6 Prey Fecundity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Res01-01 to Res01-03 Figure 1a Resetarits et al 2004 Oecologia 138:532-538 Res04-01 freshwater pond cattle tank/ wading pool lab 90 4 100 11 Actinopterygii Enneacanthus obesus, banded sunfish Amphibia Hyla chrysoscelis, Cope's gray treefrog Survival % surviving no predator 0.44 0.12 2.4 4 100 400 predator risk 0.14 0.08 1.51 4 100 400 Prey Survival 1 0 1 0 1 1 Res04-01, 03, 05 Figure 1a Resetarits et al 2004 Oecologia 138:532-538 Res04-02 freshwater pond cattle tank/ wading pool lab 90 4 200 11 Actinopterygii Enneacanthus obesus, banded sunfish Amphibia Hyla chrysoscelis, Cope's gray treefrog Survival % surviving no predator 0.03 0.01 0.22 4 200 800 predator risk 0.07 0.01 0.42 4 200 800 Prey Survival 1 0 1 0 1 1 Res04-02, 04, 06 Figure 1b Resetarits et al 2004 Oecologia 138:532-538 Res04-03 freshwater pond cattle tank/ wading pool lab 90 4 100 11 Actinopterygii Enneacanthus obesus, banded sunfish Amphibia Hyla chrysoscelis, Cope's gray treefrog Growth Mass at metamorphosis (g) no predator 164.9 5.3 105.97 4 100 400 predator risk 159.76 10.27 205.34 4 100 400 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Res04-01, 03, 05 Figure 1b Resetarits et al 2004 Oecologia 138:532-538 Res04-04 freshwater pond cattle tank/ wading pool lab 90 4 200 11 Actinopterygii Enneacanthus obesus, banded sunfish Amphibia Hyla chrysoscelis, Cope's gray treefrog Growth Mass at metamorphosis (g) no predator 135.1 1.83 51.75 4 200 800 predator risk 159.76 14.6 412.94 4 200 800 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Res04-02, 04, 06 Figure 1c Resetarits et al 2004 Oecologia 138:532-538 Res04-05 freshwater pond cattle tank/ wading pool lab 90 4 100 11 Actinopterygii Enneacanthus obesus, banded sunfish Amphibia Hyla chrysoscelis, Cope's gray treefrog Development Time to metamorphosis (days) no predator 41.66 2.25 44.9 4 100 400 predator risk 46.95 1.65 33.01 4 100 400 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Res04-01, 03, 05 Figure 1c Resetarits et al 2004 Oecologia 138:532-538 Res04-06 freshwater pond cattle tank/ wading pool lab 90 4 200 11 Actinopterygii Enneacanthus obesus, banded sunfish Amphibia Hyla chrysoscelis, Cope's gray treefrog Development Time to metamorphosis (days) no predator 48.71 0.43 12.08 4 200 800 predator risk 42.95 4.93 139.52 4 200 800 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Res04-02, 04, 06 Text p. 482 Resetarits 2005 Ecology Letters 8: 480-486 Res05-01 freshwater pond cattle tank/ wading pool field 60 varies 1 no # individuals given. Used one ind/rep as most conservative estimate 11 Actinopterygii Enneacanthus obesus, banded sunfish Amphibia Hyla chrysoscelis, Cope's gray treefrog Fecundity # of eggs oviposited in experimental pools no predator present 1089.2 349.9 782.4 5 1 5 caged predator(s) present 73.5 29.5 41.72 2 1 2 Prey Fecundity 1 0 1 0 1 1 none Fig 2 Richardson & Brown 1992 JEMBE 163: 169-182 Ric92-01 marine intertidal aquarium lab 3 8 12 111 Malacostraca Menippe adina, stone crab Gastropoda Thais haemastoma, rock snail Bivalvia Crassostrea virginica, oyster Survival # oysters remaining (out of 12) after 3 days no predator cue present 5.67 0.97 9.5 8 12 96 predator present behind clear partition with holes in it to let cues through 8.76 1.02 10.02 8 12 96 Resource Survival 1 0 1 0 1 2 none Large snails. To get number of oysters surviving, subtract number eaten in figure 2 from 12 (number of oysters in tank). PS this paper should have goten much more attention than it did! Fig 2 Richardson & Brown 1992 JEMBE 163: 169-182 Ric92-02 marine intertidal aquarium lab 3 8 12 111 Malacostraca Menippe adina, stone crab Gastropoda Thais haemastoma, rock snail Bivalvia Crassostrea virginica, oyster Survival # oysters remaining (out of 12) after 3 days no predator cue present 10.64 0.33 3.18 8 12 96 predator present behind clear partition with holes in it to let cues through 11.65 0.19 1.87 8 12 96 Resource Survival 1 0 1 0 1 2 none small snails. To get number of oysters surviving, subtract number eaten in figure 2 from 12 (number of oysters in tank). PS this paper should have goten much more attention than it did! Fig 1 Rieger et al 2004 Ecology 85(8): 2094-2099 Rie04-01 freshwater pond cattle tank/ wading pool field 86 7 1 no # individuals given. Used one ind/rep as most conservative estimate 11 Actinopterygii Umbra pygmaea, Eastern mudminnow Amphibia Hyla femoralis, pinewoods treefrog Fecundity # of eggs oviposited in experimental pools no predator present 1920.73 518.29 1371.27 7 1 7 caged predator(s) present 335.37 121.95 322.65 7 1 7 Prey Fecundity 1 0 1 0 1 1 none Fig 1 Rieger et al 2004 Ecology 85(8): 2094-2099 Rie04-02 freshwater pond cattle tank/ wading pool field 86 7 1 no # individuals given. Used one ind/rep as most conservative estimate 11 Actinopterygii Umbra pygmaea, Eastern mudminnow Amphibia Hyla femoralis, pinewoods treefrog Fecundity # of eggs oviposited in experimental pools no predator present 1920.73 518.29 1371.27 7 1 7 caged predator(s) present 12.2 6.1 16.13 7 1 7 Prey Fecundity 1 0 1 0 1 1 none Fig 1 Rieger et al 2004 Ecology 85(8): 2094-2099 Rie04-03 freshwater pond cattle tank/ wading pool field 86 7 1 no # individuals given. Used one ind/rep as most conservative estimate 11 Actinopterygii Umbra pygmaea, Eastern mudminnow Amphibia Hyla femoralis, pinewoods treefrog Fecundity # of eggs oviposited in experimental pools no predator present 1920.73 518.29 1371.27 7 1 7 caged predator(s) present 18.29 6.1 16.13 7 1 7 Prey Fecundity 1 0 1 0 1 1 none Table 4 Riessen & Sprules 1990 Ecology 71(4): 1536-1546 Rie90-01 freshwater lake aquarium lab 30 30 1 11 Insecta Chaoborus sp., midge Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Density r no predator 0.52 0.01 0.06 30 1 30 predator risk 0.47 0.02 0.09 30 1 30 Prey Density 1 0 1 0 1 1 none experiment 2 Table 4 Riessen & Sprules 1990 Ecology 71(4): 1536-1546 Rie90-02 freshwater lake aquarium lab 38 30 1 11 Insecta Chaoborus sp., midge Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Density r no predator 0.29 0.01 0.05 30 1 30 predator risk 0.28 0.01 0.05 30 1 30 Prey Density 1 0 1 0 1 1 none experiment 1 Text, p. 54 Rudgers & Hodgen & White 2003 Oecologia 135: 51-59 Rod03-01 terrestrial desert natural unit field 365 varies 1 no # individuals given. Used one ind/rep as most conservative estimate 111 Insecta Forelius pruinosus, ant Insecta Bucculatrix thurberiella, cotton leaf perforator moth Autotroph Gossypium thurberi, wild cotton Density increase in prey density compared to plants with ants; increase in plant damage compared to plants with ants (# caterpillars/leaf; caterpillar damage/leaf) w/o ants: caterpillars/leaf: and damage per leaf 0.84 ; 0.3 .065 ; 0.022 25 1 25 with ants caterpillar # per leaf 0.69 0.06 0.32 28 1 28 Caterpillar damage/leaf w ants 0.18 0.02 0.11 28 1 28 Resource Density 1 1 0 1 2 2 none Agua Caliente Text, p. 54 Rudgers & Hodgen & White 2003 Oecologia 135: 51-59 Rod03-02 terrestrial desert natural unit field 730 varies 1 no # individuals given. Used one ind/rep as most conservative estimate 111 Insecta Forelius pruinosus, ant Insecta Bucculatrix thurberiella, cotton leaf perforator moth Autotroph Gossypium thurberi, wild cotton Density increase in prey density compared to plants with ants; increase in plant damage compared to plants with ants (# caterpillars/leaf; caterpillar damage/leaf) w/o ants: caterpillars/leaf: and damage per leaf 0.45 ; 0.19 .043 ; .02 15 1 15 with ants caterpillar # per leaf 0.38 0.03 0.16 31 1 31 Caterpillar damage/leaf w ants 0.14 0.01 0.07 31 1 31 Resource Density 1 1 0 1 2 2 none Florida Table 4 Roitberg et al 1979 J Animal Ecol 48:111-122 Roi79-01 terrestrial agricultural cage field 5 varies 15 11 Insecta Coccinella californica, ladybird beetle Insecta Acyrthosiphon pisum, pea aphid Survival # surviving number of aphids originally on plant 100 0 0 4 15 60 density of aphids due to cocinnellid-induced mortality 91 3 40.25 12 15 180 density of aphids due to them dying on the ground after jumping off to avoid predators 94 2 21.91 8 15 120 Prey Survival 1 1 1 0 2 1 none adults Table 4 Roitberg et al 1979 J Animal Ecol 48:111-122 Roi79-02 terrestrial agricultural cage field 5 varies 15 11 Insecta Coccinella californica, ladybird beetle Insecta Acyrthosiphon pisum, pea aphid Survival # surviving number of aphids originally on plant 49 0 0 4 15 60 density of aphids due to cocinnellid-induced mortality 41 2 26.83 12 15 180 density of aphids due to them dying on the ground after jumping off to avoid predators 42 2 21.91 8 15 120 Prey Survival 1 1 1 0 2 1 none old nymphs Table 4 Roitberg et al 1979 J Animal Ecol 48:111-122 Roi79-03 terrestrial agricultural cage field 5 varies 15 11 Insecta Coccinella californica, ladybird beetle Insecta Acyrthosiphon pisum, pea aphid Survival # surviving number of aphids originally on plant 315 0 0 4 15 60 density of aphids due to cocinnellid-induced mortality 258 6 80.5 12 15 180 density of aphids due to them dying on the ground after jumping off to avoid predators 217 9 98.59 8 15 120 Prey Survival 1 1 1 0 2 1 none young nymphs Figure 5 Romare & Hansson 2003 Limnol Oceanography 48 (5): 1956-1964 Rom03-01 freshwater lake enclosure field 49 4 60 111 Actinopterygii perch (species not given) Actinopterygii Rutilus rutilus, roach Branchiopoda Cladocera Biomass mass of cladocerans (mg/L) piscivorous fish absent 658 189.2 2931.07 4 60 240 caged piscivorous fish present 110.5 71.4 1106.12 4 60 240 Resource Biomass 1 0 1 0 1 2 none Figure 5 Romare & Hansson 2003 Limnol Oceanography 48 (5): 1956-1964 Rom03-02 freshwater lake enclosure field 49 4 60 111 Actinopterygii perch (species not given) Actinopterygii Rutilus rutilus, roach Branchiopoda Daphnia sp. Biomass mass of cladocerans (mg/L) piscivorous fish absent 57.1 19.6 303.64 4 60 240 caged piscivorous fish present 17.5 5.9 91.4 4 60 240 Resource Biomass 1 0 1 0 1 2 none Text, p. 379 Ronkainen & Ylonen 1994 Oecologia 97: 377-381 Ron94-01 terrestrial field enclosure field 0.01 34 1 11 Mammalia Mustela erminea, stoat Mammalia Clethrionomys glareolus, bank vole Fecundity bank vole pairs copulating during 20 minute behavioral period no predator cue present 5 0 0 34 1 34 stoat odor present 0 0 0 34 1 34 Prey Fecundity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Ron94-01, Ron94-02 Text, p. 378 Ronkainen & Ylonen 1994 Oecologia 97: 377-381 Ron94-02 terrestrial field enclosure field 3 varies 1 11 Mammalia Mustela erminea, stoat Mammalia Clethrionomys glareolus, bank vole Activity # movements through nest hole over three days no predator cue present 296 25.3 123.94 24 1 24 stoat odor present 195 25.7 96.16 14 1 14 Prey Activity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Ron94-01, Ron94-02 Text p. 647 Saenz et al 2003 Copeia 3: 646-649 Sae03-01 freshwater pond aquarium lab until hatching complete 15 25 11 Malacostraca Procambarus nigrocinctus, crayfish Amphibia Rana spenocephala, Southern leopard frog Survival % of 25 eggs hatching filtered tap water with no predator 97 2 38.73 15 25 375 tap water with caged crayfish 98 1 19.36 15 25 375 tap water with freely roaming crayfish (able to eat eggs) 42 10 193.65 15 25 375 Prey Survival 1 0 1 1 2 1 Sae03-02 Text p. 648 Saenz et al 2003 Copeia 3: 646-649 Sae03-02 freshwater pond aquarium lab until hatching complete 15 25 11 Malacostraca Procambarus nigrocinctus, crayfish Amphibia Rana spenocephala, Southern leopard frog Development proportion of eggs hatched in the 24 hours following the first hatched egg filtered tap water with no predator 41 10 193.65 15 25 375 tap water with caged crayfish 58 7 135.55 15 25 375 tap water with freely roaming crayfish (able to eat eggs) 70 8 154.92 15 25 375 Prey Development 1 0 1 1 2 1 Sae03-01 Figure 3B Scheuerlein et al 2001 Proc Roy Soc Lond Ser B 268: 1575-1582 Sch01-01 terrestrial field natural unit (survey rather than experiment) field 9 1 11 Aves Lanius collaris, fiscal shrike Aves Saxicolla toquata axillaris, Stonechat Growth Female body condition (residuals of a regression of body mass on tarsus length) (g) Growth in areas where shrike absent 0.67 0.38 1.14 9 1 9 Growth in areas where shrike present 0.19 0.66 1.98 9 1 9 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 none survey of pairs with fledged juevniles Figure 3B Scheuerlein et al 2001 Proc Roy Soc Lond Ser B 268: 1575-1582 Sch01-02 terrestrial field natural unit (survey rather than experiment) field varies 1 11 Aves Lanius collaris, fiscal shrike Aves Saxicolla toquata axillaris, Stonechat Growth Female body condition (residuals of a regression of body mass on tarsus length) (g) Growth in areas where shrike absent 0.95 0.33 1 9 1 9 Growth in areas where shrike present 0.24 0.29 0.9 10 1 10 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 none survey of pairs without fledged juevniles Table 2 Schalk et al 2002 Copeia 2002(2): 445-449 Sch02-01 freshwater lake aquarium lab until hatching 2 10 11 Hirudinea Macrobdella decora, leech Amphibia Rana clamitans, green frog Growth length at hatching (mm) no leech cues present 4.77 0.57 2.53 2 10 20 caged leech present 5.23 0.58 2.57 2 10 20 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Sch02-01, -02 from pond where leeches were present Table 2 Schalk et al 2002 Copeia 2002(2): 445-449 Sch02-02 freshwater lake aquarium lab until hatching 2 10 11 Hirudinea Macrobdella decora, leech Amphibia Rana clamitans, green frog Development time to egg hatching (days) no leech cues present 3.33 0.33 1.49 2 10 20 caged leech present 4 0.4 1.79 2 10 20 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Sch02-01, -02 from pond where leeches were present Table 2 Schalk et al 2002 Copeia 2002(2): 445-449 Sch02-03 freshwater lake aquarium lab until hatching 4 10 11 Hirudinea Macrobdella decora, leech Amphibia Rana clamitans, green frog Growth length at hatching (mm) no leech cues present 4.93 0.2 1.28 4 10 40 caged leech present 5.27 0.3 1.91 4 10 40 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Sch02-03, -04 from pond where leeches were absent Table 2 Schalk et al 2002 Copeia 2002(2): 445-449 Sch02-04 freshwater lake aquarium lab until hatching 4 10 11 Hirudinea Macrobdella decora, leech Amphibia Rana clamitans, green frog Development time to egg hatching (days) no leech cues present 4.39 0.16 1 4 10 40 caged leech present 4.78 0.43 2.72 4 10 40 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Sch02-03, -04 from pond where leeches were absent Figure 3A Schmidt & Van Buskirk 2005 J Evol Biol 18: 415-425 Sch05-01 freshwater pond cattle tank/ wading pool field 42 4 15 11 Insecta Aeshna cyanea, dragonfly Amphibia Triturus vulgaris, smooth newt Growth mass (g) no predator present 0.35 0.02 0.18 4 15 60 3 caged predators present 0.33 0.01 0.1 4 15 60 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Sch05-01, Sch05-05 (body mass for A. cyanea estimated by taking dry mass and multiplying by 3.5 to get wet mass) Figure 3A Schmidt & Van Buskirk 2005 J Evol Biol 18: 415-425 Sch05-02 freshwater pond cattle tank/ wading pool field 42 2 9 11 Insecta Aeshna cyanea, dragonfly Amphibia Triturus marmoratus, newt Growth mass (g) no predator present 0.51 0.01 0.04 2 9 18 3 caged predators present 0.54 0.01 0.05 2 9 18 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Sch05-02, Sch05-06 (body mass for A. cyanea estimated by taking dry mass and multiplying by 3.5 to get wet mass) Figure 3A Schmidt & Van Buskirk 2005 J Evol Biol 18: 415-425 Sch05-03 freshwater pond cattle tank/ wading pool field 42 4 10 11 Insecta Aeshna cyanea, dragonfly Amphibia Triturus carnifex, newt Growth mass (g) no predator present 0.87 0.04 0.26 4 10 40 3 caged predators present 0.94 0.05 0.31 4 10 40 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Sch05-03, Sch05-07 (body mass for A. cyanea estimated by taking dry mass and multiplying by 3.5 to get wet mass) Figure 3A Schmidt & Van Buskirk 2005 J Evol Biol 18: 415-425 Sch05-04 freshwater pond cattle tank/ wading pool field 42 6 10 11 Insecta Aeshna cyanea, dragonfly Amphibia Triturus cristatus, newt Growth mass (g) no predator present 0.67 0.07 0.52 6 10 60 3 caged predators present 0.67 0.04 0.34 6 10 60 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Sch05-04, Sch05-08 (body mass for A. cyanea estimated by taking dry mass and multiplying by 3.5 to get wet mass) Figure 3B Schmidt & Van Buskirk 2005 J Evol Biol 18: 415-425 Sch05-05 freshwater pond cattle tank/ wading pool field 42 4 15 11 Insecta Aeshna cyanea, dragonfly Amphibia Triturus vulgaris, smooth newt Activity proportion visible no predator present 0.13 0.03 0.25 4 15 60 3 caged predators present 0.01 0.01 0.08 4 15 60 Prey Activity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Sch05-01, Sch05-05 (body mass for A. cyanea estimated by taking dry mass and multiplying by 3.5 to get wet mass) Figure 3B Schmidt & Van Buskirk 2005 J Evol Biol 18: 415-425 Sch05-06 freshwater pond cattle tank/ wading pool field 42 2 9 11 Insecta Aeshna cyanea, dragonfly Amphibia Triturus marmoratus, newt Activity proportion visible no predator present 0.43 0.07 0.32 2 9 18 3 caged predators present 0.8 0.01 0.05 2 9 18 Prey Activity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Sch05-02, Sch05-06 (body mass for A. cyanea estimated by taking dry mass and multiplying by 3.5 to get wet mass) Figure 3B Schmidt & Van Buskirk 2005 J Evol Biol 18: 415-425 Sch05-07 freshwater pond cattle tank/ wading pool field 42 4 10 11 Insecta Aeshna cyanea, dragonfly Amphibia Triturus carnifex, newt Activity proportion visible no predator present 0.47 0.05 0.33 4 10 40 3 caged predators present 0.55 0.07 0.46 4 10 40 Prey Activity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Sch05-03, Sch05-07 (body mass for A. cyanea estimated by taking dry mass and multiplying by 3.5 to get wet mass) Figure 3B Schmidt & Van Buskirk 2005 J Evol Biol 18: 415-425 Sch05-08 freshwater pond cattle tank/ wading pool field 42 6 10 11 Insecta Aeshna cyanea, dragonfly Amphibia Triturus cristatus, newt Activity proportion visible no predator present 0.3 0.03 0.23 6 10 60 3 caged predators present 0.57 0.05 0.36 6 10 60 Prey Activity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Sch05-04, Sch05-08 (body mass for A. cyanea estimated by taking dry mass and multiplying by 3.5 to get wet mass) Fig 1 Schoeppner & Relyea 2005 Ecology Letters 8: 505-512 Sch05A-01 freshwater pond cattle tank/ wading pool field 17 5 10 observations of 20 individuals/tank 11 Insecta Anax junius, dragonfly Amphibia Hyla versicolor, gray treefrog Activity % active no predator cue present 46.06 3.16 31.56 5 20 100 caged, starved predator present 41.14 3.6 35.96 5 20 100 Prey Activity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Sch05-01, Sch05-04 Fig 1 Schoeppner & Relyea 2005 Ecology Letters 8: 505-512 Sch05A-02 freshwater pond cattle tank/ wading pool field 17 5 10 observations of 20 individuals/tank 11 Insecta Anax junius, dragonfly Amphibia Hyla versicolor, gray treefrog Activity % active no predator cue present 46.06 3.16 31.56 5 20 100 caged predator present that is fed snail 34.39 3.28 32.84 5 20 100 Prey Activity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Sch05-02, Sch05-05 Fig 1 Schoeppner & Relyea 2005 Ecology Letters 8: 505-512 Sch05A-03 freshwater pond cattle tank/ wading pool field 17 5 10 observations of 20 individuals/tank 11 Insecta Anax junius, dragonfly Amphibia Hyla versicolor, gray treefrog Activity % active no predator cue present 46.06 3.16 31.56 5 20 100 caged predator present that is fed conspecific tadpoles 24.06 2.2 23.09 5 22 110 Prey Activity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Sch05-03, Sch05-06 Fig 1 Schoeppner & Relyea 2005 Ecology Letters 8: 505-512 Sch05A-04 freshwater pond cattle tank/ wading pool field 20 5 20 11 Insecta Anax junius, dragonfly Amphibia Hyla versicolor, gray treefrog Growth Mass at end of expt (g) no predator cue present 1.02 0.03 0.28 5 20 100 caged, starved predator present 1.05 0.03 0.27 5 20 100 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Sch05-01, Sch05-04 Fig 1 Schoeppner & Relyea 2005 Ecology Letters 8: 505-512 Sch05A-05 freshwater pond cattle tank/ wading pool field 20 5 20 11 Insecta Anax junius, dragonfly Amphibia Hyla versicolor, gray treefrog Growth Mass at end of expt (g) no predator cue present 1.02 0.03 0.28 5 20 100 caged predator present that is fed snail 1.04 0.02 0.21 5 20 100 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Sch05-02, Sch05-05 Fig 1 Schoeppner & Relyea 2005 Ecology Letters 8: 505-512 Sch05A-06 freshwater pond cattle tank/ wading pool field 20 5 20 11 Insecta Anax junius, dragonfly Amphibia Hyla versicolor, gray treefrog Growth Mass at end of expt (g) no predator cue present 1.02 0.03 0.28 5 20 100 caged predator present that is fed conspecific tadpoles 0.84 0.02 0.24 5 20 100 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Sch05-03, Sch05-06 Table 6 Schmitt 1987 Ecology 68(6): 1887-1897 Sch87-01 marine intertidal natural unit field 65 3 1 no # individuals given. Used one ind/rep as most conservative estimate 12 Mixed Panulirus interruptus, lobster; Octopus bimaculatus, octopus; Kelletia kelletii, whelk Gastropoda Tegula aureotincta Density #/m2 predators, no bivalve 11.7 1.6 2.77 3 1 3 with predators, with bivalves 4.6 1 1.73 3 1 3 Prey Density 1 0 1 0 1 1 none Table 6 Schmitt 1987 Ecology 68(6): 1887-1897 Sch87-02 marine intertidal natural unit field 65 3 1 no # individuals given. Used one ind/rep as most conservative estimate 12 Mixed Panulirus interruptus, lobster; Octopus bimaculatus, octopus; Kelletia kelletii, whelk Gastropoda Tegula eiseni Density #/m2 predators, no bivalve 27.3 0.7 1.21 3 1 3 with predators, with bivalves 15.6 1.2 2.08 3 1 3 Prey Density 1 0 1 0 1 1 none Table 6 Schmitt 1987 Ecology 68(6): 1887-1897 Sch87-03 marine intertidal natural unit field 65 3 1 no # individuals given. Used one ind/rep as most conservative estimate 12 Mixed Panulirus interruptus, lobster; Octopus bimaculatus, octopus; Kelletia kelletii, whelk Gastropoda Astraea undosa, gastropod Density #/m2 predators, no bivalve 4 0.6 1.04 3 1 3 with predators, with bivalves 1.7 0.2 0.35 3 1 3 Prey Density 1 0 1 0 1 1 none Table 8 Schmitt 1987 Ecology 68(6): 1887-1897 Sch87-04 marine intertidal natural unit field 4 3 1 no # individuals given. Used one ind/rep as most conservative estimate 12 Mixed Panulirus interruptus, lobster; Octopus bimaculatus, octopus; Kelletia kelletii, whelk Bivalvia Chama arcana, bivalve Survival proportion of clams killed predators, no gastropods added 0.13 0.02 0.03 3 1 3 with predators, with gastropods added 0.45 0.04 0.07 3 1 3 Prey Survival -1 0 1 0 1 1 none Figure 5 Schmitz et al. Ecology 1997 78(5): 1388-1399 Sch97-01 terrestrial field enclosure field 30 8 10 11 Arachnida Pisurina mira, nursery-web hunting spider Insecta Melanoplus femurrubrum, red-legged grasshopper Survival # grasshoppers/cage surviving to end of experiment no predator 4.5 0.47 4.21 8 10 80 change in control due to DM only 4.07 0.53 4.71 8 10 80 predators with chelicerae glued 3.61 0.35 3.16 8 10 80 unglued predators 3.18 0.39 3.49 8 10 80 Prey Survival 1 1 1 1 3 1 Sch97-01, Sch97-02, Sch97-03, and Sch97-04 Figure 6 Schmitz et al. Ecology 1997 78(5): 1388-1399 Sch97-02 terrestrial field enclosure field 30 8 10 111 Arachnida Pisurina mira, nursery-web hunting spider Insecta Melanoplus femurrubrum, red-legged grasshopper Autotroph Grass Biomass g/cage no predator 3.04 0.4 3.57 8 10 80 change in control due to DM only 5.36 1.64 14.68 8 10 80 predators with chelicerae glued 3.65 0.67 6.02 8 10 80 unglued predators 5.97 1.5 13.38 8 10 80 Resource Biomass 1 1 1 1 3 2 Sch97-01 and Sch97-04 Figure 6 Schmitz et al. Ecology 1997 78(5): 1388-1399 Sch97-03 terrestrial field enclosure field 30 8 10 111 Arachnida Pisurina mira, nursery-web hunting spider Insecta Melanoplus femurrubrum, red-legged grasshopper Autotroph Herbs Biomass g/cage no predator 2.56 1.17 10.47 8 10 80 change in control due to DM only 2.37 1.56 13.95 8 10 80 predators with chelicerae glued 3.85 0.99 8.84 8 10 80 unglued predators 3.66 1.21 10.8 8 10 80 Resource Biomass 1 1 1 1 3 2 Sch97-01 and Sch97-04 Figure 3 Schmitz et al. Ecology 1997 78(5): 1388-1399 Sch97-04 terrestrial field enclosure field 3 (experiment run for 1 day on three separate days) 8 1 11 Arachnida Pisurina mira, nursery-web hunting spider Insecta Melanoplus femurrubrum, red-legged grasshopper Activity distance travelled no predator 6.78 1.23 3.48 8 1 8 predators with chelicerae glued 11.72 2.32 6.56 8 1 8 unglued predators 13.5 2.1 5.94 8 1 8 Prey Activity 1 0 1 1 2 1 Sch97-01, Sch97-02, Sch97-03, and Sch97-04 Figure 4 Schmitz Am Nat 1998 151(4): 327-342 Sch98-01 terrestrial field enclosure field 60 10 6 11 Arachnida Pisurina mira, nursery-web hunting spider Insecta Chorthippus curtipennis, grasshopper Autotroph Grass Biomass biomass/cage no predator 10.55 2.26 17.53 10 6 60 change in control due to DM only 7.75 2.28 17.63 10 6 60 predators with chelicerae glued 12.16 1.59 12.33 10 6 60 unglued predators 9.37 1.63 12.6 10 6 60 Resource Biomass 1 1 1 1 3 2 Sch98-05 Figure 5 Schmitz Am Nat 1998 151(4): 327-342 Sch98-02 terrestrial field enclosure field 60 10 6 11 Arachnida Pisurina mira, nursery-web hunting spider Insecta Chorthippus curtipennis, grasshopper Autotroph Herbs Biomass biomass/cage no predator 16.1 3.51 27.17 10 6 60 change in control due to DM only 19.01 3.68 28.54 10 6 60 predators with chelicerae glued 14.37 2.96 22.91 10 6 60 unglued predators 17.28 2.2 17.02 10 6 60 Resource Biomass 1 1 1 1 3 2 Sch98-05 Figure 4 Schmitz Am Nat 1998 151(4): 327-342 Sch98-03 terrestrial field enclosure field 60 10 6 11 Arachnida Pisurina mira, nursery-web hunting spider Insecta Melanoplus femurrubrum, red-legged grasshopper Autotroph Grass Biomass biomass/cage no predator 8.35 1.7 13.15 10 6 60 change in control due to DM only 7.18 2.96 22.96 10 6 60 predators with chelicerae glued 13.51 2.4 18.63 10 6 60 unglued predators 12.34 1.73 13.42 10 6 60 Resource Biomass 1 1 1 1 3 2 Sch98-06 Figure 5 Schmitz Am Nat 1998 151(4): 327-342 Sch98-04 terrestrial field enclosure field 60 10 6 11 Arachnida Pisurina mira, nursery-web hunting spider Insecta Melanoplus femurrubrum, red-legged grasshopper Autotroph Herbs Biomass biomass/cage no predator 14.54 1.65 12.76 10 6 60 change in control due to DM only 10.06 2.2 17.02 10 6 60 predators with chelicerae glued 12.42 1.73 13.42 10 6 60 unglued predators 7.94 1.35 10.47 10 6 60 Resource Biomass 1 1 1 1 3 2 Sch98-06 Table 3 Schmitz Am Nat 1998 151(4): 327-342 Sch98-05 terrestrial field enclosure field 60 10 6 11 Arachnida Pisurina mira, nursery-web hunting spider Insecta Chorthippus curtipennis, grasshopper Survival # grasshoppers/cage surviving to end of experiment no predator 1.9 0.41 3.18 10 6 60 change in control due to DM only 1.7 0.63 4.88 10 6 60 predators with chelicerae glued 2.5 0.43 3.33 10 6 60 unglued predators 2.3 0.46 3.56 10 6 60 Prey Survival 1 1 1 1 3 1 Sch98-01 and Sch98-02 Table 3 Schmitz Am Nat 1998 151(4): 327-342 Sch98-06 terrestrial field enclosure field 60 10 6 11 Arachnida Pisurina mira, nursery-web hunting spider Insecta Melanoplus femurrubrum, red-legged grasshopper Survival # grasshoppers/cage surviving to end of experiment no predator 2.9 0.4 3.1 10 6 60 change in control due to DM only 2.8 0.66 5.14 10 6 60 predators with chelicerae glued 3.2 0.53 4.11 10 6 60 unglued predators 3.1 0.4 3.1 10 6 60 Prey Survival 1 1 1 1 3 1 Sch98-03 and Sch98-04 Table 1 Scheiner & Berrigan 1998 Evolution 52(2): 368-378 Sch98A-01 freshwater lake & pond aquarium lab until instar complete 50 1 11 Insecta Chaoborus americanus, phantom midge Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Growth length at first reproduction (5th instar) (mm) no predator cues 1.63 0.02 0.14 50 1 50 insect chemical cues present 1.55 0.02 0.14 50 1 50 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Sch98A-01 through Sch98A-04 Table 1 Scheiner & Berrigan 1998 Evolution 52(2): 368-378 Sch98A-02 freshwater lake & pond aquarium lab until instar complete 50 1 11 Insecta Chaoborus americanus, phantom midge Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Development Time to reproduction (fifth instar)(days) no predator cues 5.49 0.1 0.74 50 1 50 insect chemical cues present 5.83 0.13 0.88 50 1 50 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Sch98A-01 through Sch98A-04 Table 1 Scheiner & Berrigan 1998 Evolution 52(2): 368-378 Sch98A-03 freshwater lake & pond aquarium lab until instar complete 50 1 11 Insecta Chaoborus americanus, phantom midge Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Fecundity # eggs in first clutch (5th instar) no predator cues 3.34 0.2 1.41 50 1 50 insect chemical cues present 7.16 0.32 2.26 50 1 50 Prey Fecundity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Sch98A-01 through Sch98A-04 Table 1 Scheiner & Berrigan 1998 Evolution 52(2): 368-378 Sch98A-04 freshwater lake & pond aquarium lab until instar complete 50 1 11 Insecta Chaoborus americanus, phantom midge Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Density r no predator cues 0.22 0.01 0.06 50 1 50 insect chemical cues present 0.31 0.01 0.06 50 1 50 Prey Density 1 0 1 0 1 1 Sch98A-01 through Sch98A-04 Figure 2 Schaffner & Anholt 1998 J Insect Behav 11(6): 793-809 Sch98B-01 freshwater pond aquarium lab 0.02 12 1 11 Insecta Anax imperator, dragonfly Insecta Ischnura elegans, damselfly Activity value of PC1, made up of locomotion and foraging behaviors no predator present 0.38 0.18 0.62 12 1 12 caged predator present 0.16 0.17 0.58 12 1 12 Prey Activity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Sch98B-01, Sch98B-03 Figure 2 Schaffner & Anholt 1998 J Insect Behav 11(6): 793-809 Sch98B-02 freshwater pond aquarium lab 0.02 12 1 11 Insecta Anax imperator, dragonfly Insecta Ischnura elegans, damselfly Activity value of PC1, made up of locomotion and foraging behaviors no predator present 0.38 0.18 0.62 12 1 12 Freely-roaming but non-lethal predator present -0.54 0.04 0.14 12 1 12 Prey Activity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Sch98B-02, Sch98B-04 Figure 5 Schaffner & Anholt 1998 J Insect Behav 11(6): 793-809 Sch98B-03 freshwater pond aquarium lab 13 12 varies 11 Insecta Anax imperator, dragonfly Insecta Ischnura elegans, damselfly Growth mass gain (mg) no predator present 6.88 0.67 4.67 12 4 48 caged predator present 7.64 0.51 3.08 12 3 36 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Sch98B-01, Sch98B-03 Figure 5 Schaffner & Anholt 1998 J Insect Behav 11(6): 793-809 Sch98B-04 freshwater pond aquarium lab 13 12 varies 11 Insecta Anax imperator, dragonfly Insecta Ischnura elegans, damselfly Growth mass gain (mg) no predator present 6.88 0.67 4.67 12 4 48 Freely-roaming but non-lethal predator present 3.7 0.42 2.53 12 3 36 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Sch98B-02, Sch98B-04 Figures 2, 3, and 4 Scrimgeour et al 1991 Oecologia 85:343-348 Scr91-01 freshwater stream artificial stream lab 0.04 5 1 11 Insecta Baetis tricaudatus, mayfly Autotroph benthic algae Survival loss of algal biomass (mg/hr) no predation 0 0 0 5 1 5 Consumption (mg per hour gut contents) 0.01 0 0 5 1 5 non-consumptive loss (mg/h) due to foraging 0.03 0.02 0.05 5 1 5 Prey Survival -1 1 1 0 2 1 none algal density mg/cm^2 : 0.1 Figures 2, 3, and 4 Scrimgeour et al 1991 Oecologia 85:343-348 Scr91-02 freshwater stream artificial stream lab 0.04 5 1 11 Insecta Baetis tricaudatus, mayfly Autotroph benthic algae Survival loss of algal biomass (mg/hr) no predation 0 0 0 5 1 5 Consumption (mg per hour gut contents) 0.03 0 0.01 5 1 5 non-consumptive loss (mg/h) due to foraging 0.14 0.02 0.05 5 1 5 Prey Survival -1 1 1 0 2 1 none algal density mg/cm^2 : 0.2 Figures 2, 3, and 4 Scrimgeour et al 1991 Oecologia 85:343-348 Scr91-03 freshwater stream artificial stream lab 0.04 5 1 11 Insecta Baetis tricaudatus, mayfly Autotroph benthic algae Survival loss of algal biomass (mg/hr) no predation 0 8 17.89 5 1 5 Consumption (mg per hour gut contents) 0.04 0.01 0.02 5 1 5 non-consumptive loss (mg/h) due to foraging 0.24 0.02 0.05 5 1 5 Prey Survival -1 1 1 0 2 1 none algal density mg/cm^2 : 0.4 Figures 2, 3, and 4 Scrimgeour et al 1991 Oecologia 85:343-348 Scr91-04 freshwater stream artificial stream lab 0.04 5 1 11 Insecta Baetis tricaudatus, mayfly Autotroph benthic algae Survival loss of algal biomass (mg/hr) no predation 0 0 0 5 1 5 Consumption (mg per hour gut contents) 0.05 0.01 0.03 5 1 5 non-consumptive loss (mg/h) due to foraging 0.85 0.15 0.33 5 1 5 Prey Survival -1 1 1 0 2 1 none algal density mg/cm^2 : 0.6 Figures 2, 3, and 4 Scrimgeour et al 1991 Oecologia 85:343-348 Scr91-05 freshwater stream artificial stream lab 0.04 5 1 11 Insecta Baetis tricaudatus, mayfly Autotroph benthic algae Survival loss of algal biomass (mg/hr) no predation 0 0 0 5 1 5 Consumption (mg per hour gut contents) 0.06 0.01 0.02 5 1 5 non-consumptive loss (mg/h) due to foraging 1.17 0.11 0.24 5 1 5 Prey Survival -1 1 1 0 2 1 none algal density mg/cm^2 : 0.9 Figures 2, 3, and 4 Scrimgeour et al 1991 Oecologia 85:343-348 Scr91-06 freshwater stream artificial stream lab 0.04 5 1 11 Insecta Ephemerella aurivilli, mayfly Autotroph benthic algae Survival loss of algal biomass (mg/hr) no predation 0 8 17.89 5 1 5 Consumption (mg per hour gut contents) 0.04 0.01 0.02 5 1 5 non-consumptive loss (mg/h) due to foraging 0.05 0.02 0.06 5 1 5 Prey Survival -1 1 1 0 2 1 none algal density mg/cm^2 : 0.2 Figures 2, 3, and 4 Scrimgeour et al 1991 Oecologia 85:343-348 Scr91-07 freshwater stream artificial stream lab 0.04 5 1 11 Insecta Ephemerella aurivilli, mayfly Autotroph benthic algae Survival loss of algal biomass (mg/hr) no predation 0 0 0 5 1 5 Consumption (mg per hour gut contents) 0.04 0 0.01 5 1 5 non-consumptive loss (mg/h) due to foraging 0.09 0.02 0.05 5 1 5 Prey Survival -1 1 1 0 2 1 none algal density mg/cm^2 : 0.4 Figures 2, 3, and 4 Scrimgeour et al 1991 Oecologia 85:343-348 Scr91-08 freshwater stream artificial stream lab 0.04 5 1 11 Insecta Ephemerella aurivilli, mayfly Autotroph benthic algae Survival loss of algal biomass (mg/hr) no predation 0 0 0 5 1 5 Consumption (mg per hour gut contents) 0.04 0 0.01 5 1 5 non-consumptive loss (mg/h) due to foraging 0.26 0.02 0.05 5 1 5 Prey Survival -1 1 1 0 2 1 none algal density mg/cm^2 : 0.6 Figures 2, 3, and 4 Scrimgeour et al 1991 Oecologia 85:343-348 Scr91-09 freshwater stream artificial stream lab 0.04 5 1 11 Insecta Ephemerella aurivilli, mayfly Autotroph benthic algae Survival loss of algal biomass (mg/hr) no predation 0 0 0 5 1 5 Consumption (mg per hour gut contents) 0.05 0 0.01 5 1 5 non-consumptive loss (mg/h) due to foraging 0.7 0.07 0.15 5 1 5 Prey Survival -1 1 1 0 2 1 none algal density mg/cm^2 : 0.9 Figures 2, 3, and 4 Scrimgeour et al 1991 Oecologia 85:343-348 Scr91-10 freshwater stream artificial stream lab 0.04 5 1 11 Insecta Paraleptophlebia heteronea, mayfly Autotroph benthic algae Survival loss of algal biomass (mg/hr) no predation 0 0 0 5 1 5 Consumption (mg per hour gut contents) 0.01 0 0 5 1 5 non-consumptive loss (mg/h) due to foraging 0.03 0.03 0.06 5 1 5 Prey Survival -1 1 1 0 2 1 none algal density mg/cm^2 : 0.1 Figures 2, 3, and 4 Scrimgeour et al 1991 Oecologia 85:343-348 Scr91-11 freshwater stream artificial stream lab 0.04 5 1 11 Insecta Paraleptophlebia heteronea, mayfly Autotroph benthic algae Survival loss of algal biomass (mg/hr) no predation 0 0 0 5 1 5 Consumption (mg per hour gut contents) 0.02 0 0.01 5 1 5 non-consumptive loss (mg/h) due to foraging 0.2 0.05 0.11 5 1 5 Prey Survival -1 1 1 0 2 1 none algal density mg/cm^2 : 0.2 Figures 2, 3, and 4 Scrimgeour et al 1991 Oecologia 85:343-348 Scr91-12 freshwater stream artificial stream lab 0.04 5 1 11 Insecta Paraleptophlebia heteronea, mayfly Autotroph benthic algae Survival loss of algal biomass (mg/hr) no predation 0 0 0 5 1 5 Consumption (mg per hour gut contents) 0.03 0.01 0.01 5 1 5 non-consumptive loss (mg/h) due to foraging 0.54 0.04 0.09 5 1 5 Prey Survival -1 1 1 0 2 1 none algal density mg/cm^2 : 0.4 Figures 2, 3, and 4 Scrimgeour et al 1991 Oecologia 85:343-348 Scr91-13 freshwater stream artificial stream lab 0.04 5 1 11 Insecta Paraleptophlebia heteronea, mayfly Autotroph benthic algae Survival loss of algal biomass (mg/hr) no predation 0 0 0 5 1 5 Consumption (mg per hour gut contents) 0.04 0 0.01 5 1 5 non-consumptive loss (mg/h) due to foraging 0.64 0.04 0.09 5 1 5 Prey Survival -1 1 1 0 2 1 none algal density mg/cm^2 : 0.6 Figures 2, 3, and 4 Scrimgeour et al 1991 Oecologia 85:343-348 Scr91-14 freshwater stream artificial stream lab 0.04 5 1 11 Insecta Paraleptophlebia heteronea, mayfly Autotroph benthic algae Survival loss of algal biomass (mg/hr) no predation 0 0 0 5 1 5 Consumption (mg per hour gut contents) 0.04 0.01 0.02 5 1 5 non-consumptive loss (mg/h) due to foraging 1.39 0.2 0.45 5 1 5 Prey Survival -1 1 1 0 2 1 none algal density mg/cm^2 : 0.9 Figures 2, 3, and 4 Scrimgeour et al 1991 Oecologia 85:343-348 Scr91-15 freshwater stream artificial stream lab 0.04 5 1 11 Insecta Ephemerella aurivilli, mayfly Autotroph benthic algae Survival loss of algal biomass (mg/hr) no predation 0 0 0 5 1 5 Consumption (mg per hour gut contents) 0.03 0.01 0.02 5 1 5 non-consumptive loss (mg/h) due to foraging 0 0 0 5 1 5 Prey Survival -1 1 0 0 1 1 none algal density mg/cm^2 : 0.1 Table 1 Scrimgeour & Culp 1994 Oecologia 100:128-134 Scr94-01 freshwater stream aquarium lab 35 8 10 11 Actinopterygii Rhinichthys cataractae, longnose dace Insecta Baetis tricaudatus, mayfly Development Time to maturity (days) no predator 32.96 1.51 13.51 8 10 80 model of a darter 52.01 1.86 16.64 8 10 80 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Scr94-01, 05, 09 males Table 1 Scrimgeour & Culp 1994 Oecologia 100:128-134 Scr94-02 freshwater stream aquarium lab 35 8 10 11 Actinopterygii Rhinichthys cataractae, longnose dace Insecta Baetis tricaudatus, mayfly Development Time to maturity (days) no predator 27.35 1.39 12.43 8 10 80 model of a darter 47.51 2.23 19.95 8 10 80 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Scr94-02, 06, 10 males Table 1 Scrimgeour & Culp 1994 Oecologia 100:128-134 Scr94-03 freshwater stream aquarium lab 35 8 10 11 Actinopterygii Rhinichthys cataractae, longnose dace Insecta Baetis tricaudatus, mayfly Development Time to maturity (days) no predator 34.29 1.3 11.63 8 10 80 model of a darter 50.6 2 17.89 8 10 80 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Scr94-03, 07, 11 females Table 1 Scrimgeour & Culp 1994 Oecologia 100:128-134 Scr94-04 freshwater stream aquarium lab 35 8 10 11 Actinopterygii Rhinichthys cataractae, longnose dace Insecta Baetis tricaudatus, mayfly Development Time to maturity (days) no predator 26.69 1.1 9.84 8 10 80 model of a darter 48.4 2.49 22.27 8 10 80 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Scr94-04, 08, 12 females Table 2 Scrimgeour & Culp 1994 Oecologia 100:128-134 Scr94-05 freshwater stream aquarium lab 35 8 10 11 Actinopterygii Rhinichthys cataractae, longnose dace Insecta Baetis tricaudatus, mayfly Growth mg dry mass at adulthood no predator 1.1 0.08 0.7 8 10 80 model of a darter 0.77 0.04 0.38 8 10 80 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Scr94-01, 05, 09 males Table 2 Scrimgeour & Culp 1994 Oecologia 100:128-134 Scr94-06 freshwater stream aquarium lab 35 8 10 11 Actinopterygii Rhinichthys cataractae, longnose dace Insecta Baetis tricaudatus, mayfly Growth mg dry mass at adulthood no predator 1.3 0.11 1.01 8 10 80 model of a darter 0.95 0.11 0.97 8 10 80 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Scr94-02, 06, 10 males Table 2 Scrimgeour & Culp 1994 Oecologia 100:128-134 Scr94-07 freshwater stream aquarium lab 35 8 10 11 Actinopterygii Rhinichthys cataractae, longnose dace Insecta Baetis tricaudatus, mayfly Growth mg dry mass at adulthood no predator 1.49 0.09 0.83 8 10 80 model of a darter 0.93 0.09 0.84 8 10 80 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Scr94-03, 07, 11 females Table 2 Scrimgeour & Culp 1994 Oecologia 100:128-134 Scr94-08 freshwater stream aquarium lab 35 8 10 11 Actinopterygii Rhinichthys cataractae, longnose dace Insecta Baetis tricaudatus, mayfly Growth mg dry mass at adulthood no predator 1.83 0.09 0.77 8 10 80 model of a darter 1.24 0.08 0.68 8 10 80 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Scr94-04, 08, 12 females Table 3 Scrimgeour & Culp 1994 Oecologia 100:128-134 Scr94-09 freshwater stream aquarium lab 35 8 10 11 Actinopterygii Rhinichthys cataractae, longnose dace Insecta Baetis tricaudatus, mayfly Fecundity # eggs no predator 700.18 57.52 514.47 8 10 80 model of a darter 442.59 42.24 377.81 8 10 80 Prey Fecundity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Scr94-01, 05, 09 females Table 3 Scrimgeour & Culp 1994 Oecologia 100:128-134 Scr94-10 freshwater stream aquarium lab 35 8 10 11 Actinopterygii Rhinichthys cataractae, longnose dace Insecta Baetis tricaudatus, mayfly Fecundity # eggs no predator 993.77 61.07 546.23 8 10 80 model of a darter 332.42 62.54 559.37 8 10 80 Prey Fecundity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Scr94-02, 06, 10 females Table 3 Scrimgeour & Culp 1994 Oecologia 100:128-134 Scr94-11 freshwater stream aquarium lab 35 8 10 11 Actinopterygii Rhinichthys cataractae, longnose dace Insecta Baetis tricaudatus, mayfly Fecundity egg size no predator 67.74 3.23 28.89 8 10 80 model of a darter 55.78 1.24 11.09 8 10 80 Prey Fecundity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Scr94-03, 07, 11 females Table 3 Scrimgeour & Culp 1994 Oecologia 100:128-134 Scr94-12 freshwater stream aquarium lab 35 8 10 11 Actinopterygii Rhinichthys cataractae, longnose dace Insecta Baetis tricaudatus, mayfly Fecundity egg size no predator 81.17 2.69 24.06 8 10 80 model of a darter 50.94 3.15 28.17 8 10 80 Prey Fecundity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Scr94-04, 08, 12 females Table 1 Sih et al 1990 Am. Nat. 135:284-290 Sih90-01 freshwater stream cattle tank/ wading pool lab 0.25 12 4 11 Actinopterygii Lepomis cyanellus, green sunfish Insecta Gerris remigis, water strider Fecundity mating activity: % time mating no predator 0.19 0.07 0.48 12 4 48 predator 0.04 0.02 0.14 12 4 48 Prey Fecundity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Sih90-01, Sih90-03, Sih90-05 Table 1 Sih et al 1990 Am. Nat. 135:284-290 Sih90-02 freshwater stream cattle tank/ wading pool lab 0.25 12 4 11 Actinopterygii Lepomis cyanellus, green sunfish Insecta Gerris remigis, water strider Fecundity mating activity: % time mating no predator 0.07 0.02 0.14 12 4 48 predator 0.02 0.01 0.07 12 4 48 Prey Fecundity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Sih90-02, Sih90-04, Sih90-06 Table 1 Sih et al 1990 Am. Nat. 135:284-290 Sih90-03 freshwater stream cattle tank/ wading pool lab 0.25 12 4 11 Actinopterygii Lepomis cyanellus, green sunfish Insecta Gerris remigis, water strider Fecundity mating activity: # of matings no predator 1.17 0.4 2.77 12 4 48 predator 0.33 0.21 1.45 12 4 48 Prey Fecundity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Sih90-01, Sih90-03, Sih90-05 Table 1 Sih et al 1990 Am. Nat. 135:284-290 Sih90-04 freshwater stream cattle tank/ wading pool lab 0.25 12 4 11 Actinopterygii Lepomis cyanellus, green sunfish Insecta Gerris remigis, water strider Fecundity mating activity: # of matings no predator 1 0.26 1.8 12 4 48 predator 0.67 0.33 2.29 12 4 48 Prey Fecundity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Sih90-02, Sih90-04, Sih90-06 Table 1 Sih et al 1990 Am. Nat. 135:284-290 Sih90-05 freshwater stream cattle tank/ wading pool lab 0.25 12 4 11 Actinopterygii Lepomis cyanellus, green sunfish Insecta Gerris remigis, water strider Activity proportion of time spent moving in the center no predator 0.07 0.03 0.2 12 4 48 predator 0.01 0.01 0.03 12 4 48 Prey Activity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Sih90-01, Sih90-03, Sih90-05 females Table 1 Sih et al 1990 Am. Nat. 135:284-290 Sih90-06 freshwater stream cattle tank/ wading pool lab 0.25 12 4 11 Actinopterygii Lepomis cyanellus, green sunfish Insecta Gerris remigis, water strider Activity proportion of time spent moving in the center no predator 0.14 0.02 0.15 12 4 48 predator 0.03 0.01 0.09 12 4 48 Prey Activity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Sih90-02, Sih90-04, Sih90-06 females Figure 4B Sih & Krupa 1996 Oecologia 105:179-188 Sih96-01 freshwater stream cattle tank/ wading pool field 1 4 10 11 Actinopterygii Lepomis cyanellus, green sunfish Insecta Aquarius remigis, stream waterstrider Fecundity # matings per pool per day no sunfish 4.75 0.63 3.96 4 10 40 sunfish 2.52 0.45 2.88 4 10 40 Prey Fecundity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Sih96-02 Figure 4C Sih & Krupa 1996 Oecologia 105:179-188 Sih96-02 freshwater stream cattle tank/ wading pool field 1 4 10 11 Actinopterygii Lepomis cyanellus, green sunfish Insecta Aquarius remigis, stream waterstrider Fecundity mating duration (hrs) no sunfish 2.98 1.25 7.93 4 10 40 sunfish 1.28 1.17 7.41 4 10 40 Prey Fecundity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Sih96-01 Table 1 Skelly and Werner 1990 Ecology 71(6): 2313-2322 Ske90-01 freshwater pond aquarium lab until metamorphosis 3 10 11 Insecta Anax junius, dragonfly Amphibia Bufo americanus, american toad Growth Mass at forelimb emergence (mg) no predator 111.63 2.34 12.82 3 10 30 predator risk 94.87 1.42 7.77 3 10 30 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Ske90-01, 05, 09 Table 1 Skelly and Werner 1990 Ecology 71(6): 2313-2322 Ske90-02 freshwater pond aquarium lab until metamorphosis 3 10 11 Insecta Anax junius, dragonfly Amphibia Bufo americanus, american toad Growth Mass at forelimb emergence (mg) no predator 170.5 2.04 11.18 3 10 30 predator risk 151.33 2.16 11.83 3 10 30 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Ske90-02, 06, 10 Table 1 Skelly and Werner 1990 Ecology 71(6): 2313-2322 Ske90-03 freshwater pond aquarium lab until metamorphosis 3 10 11 Insecta Anax junius, dragonfly Amphibia Bufo americanus, american toad Growth Mass at forelimb emergence (mg) no predator 209.37 1.99 10.91 3 10 30 predator risk 197.9 1.57 8.6 3 10 30 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Ske90-03, 07, 11 Table 1 Skelly and Werner 1990 Ecology 71(6): 2313-2322 Ske90-04 freshwater pond aquarium lab until metamorphosis 3 10 11 Insecta Anax junius, dragonfly Amphibia Bufo americanus, american toad Growth Mass at forelimb emergence (mg) no predator 236.17 6.07 33.22 3 10 30 predator risk 215.2 4.36 23.86 3 10 30 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Ske90-04, 08, 12 Table 1 Skelly and Werner 1990 Ecology 71(6): 2313-2322 Ske90-05 freshwater pond aquarium lab until metamorphosis 3 10 11 Insecta Anax junius, dragonfly Amphibia Bufo americanus, american toad Development days no predator 42.07 0.47 2.55 3 10 30 predator risk 40.8 0.4 2.18 3 10 30 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Ske90-01, 05, 09 Table 1 Skelly and Werner 1990 Ecology 71(6): 2313-2322 Ske90-06 freshwater pond aquarium lab until metamorphosis 3 10 11 Insecta Anax junius, dragonfly Amphibia Bufo americanus, american toad Development days no predator 34.6 0.11 0.61 3 10 30 predator risk 34.43 0.17 0.9 3 10 30 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Ske90-02, 06, 10 Table 1 Skelly and Werner 1990 Ecology 71(6): 2313-2322 Ske90-07 freshwater pond aquarium lab until metamorphosis 3 10 11 Insecta Anax junius, dragonfly Amphibia Bufo americanus, american toad Development days no predator 33.27 0.05 0.3 3 10 30 predator risk 32.8 0.05 0.29 3 10 30 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Ske90-03, 07, 11 Table 1 Skelly and Werner 1990 Ecology 71(6): 2313-2322 Ske90-08 freshwater pond aquarium lab until metamorphosis 3 10 11 Insecta Anax junius, dragonfly Amphibia Bufo americanus, american toad Development days no predator 32.97 0.12 0.67 3 10 30 predator risk 33.8 0.39 2.14 3 10 30 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Ske90-04, 08, 12 Figure 3 Skelly and Werner 1990 Ecology 71(6): 2313-2322 Ske90-09 freshwater pond aquarium lab 20 3 10 11 Insecta Anax junius, dragonfly Amphibia Bufo americanus, american toad Activity % active no predator 26.14 1.44 7.9 3 10 30 predator risk 16.69 4.42 24.2 3 10 30 Prey Activity 1 0 1 0 1 Ske90-01, 05, 09 Figure 3 Skelly and Werner 1990 Ecology 71(6): 2313-2322 Ske90-10 freshwater pond aquarium lab 20 3 10 11 Insecta Anax junius, dragonfly Amphibia Bufo americanus, american toad Activity % active no predator 36.71 2.77 15.18 3 10 30 predator risk 27.9 4.37 23.96 3 10 30 Prey Activity 1 0 1 0 1 Ske90-02, 06, 10 Figure 3 Skelly and Werner 1990 Ecology 71(6): 2313-2322 Ske90-11 freshwater pond aquarium lab 20 3 10 11 Insecta Anax junius, dragonfly Amphibia Bufo americanus, american toad Activity % active no predator 35.3 3.78 20.71 3 10 30 predator risk 20.84 3.72 20.37 3 10 30 Prey Activity 1 0 1 0 1 Ske90-03, 07, 11 Figure 3 Skelly and Werner 1990 Ecology 71(6): 2313-2322 Ske90-12 freshwater pond aquarium lab 20 3 10 11 Insecta Anax junius, dragonfly Amphibia Bufo americanus, american toad Activity % active no predator 36.18 4.13 22.65 3 10 30 predator risk 28.07 1.78 9.75 3 10 30 Prey Activity 1 0 1 0 1 Ske90-04, 08, 12 Figure 1 Skelly 1992 Ecology 73(2): 704-708 Ske92-01 freshwater pond, ephemeral enclosure field 14 6 10 11 Amphibia Ambystoma tigrinum tigrinum, tiger salamander Amphibia Hyla versicolor, gray treefrog Growth final mass (mg) no predator 285.76 16.73 129.59 6 10 60 predator risk 187.18 18.98 147.02 6 10 60 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Ske92-01, 02, 03 Figure 3 Skelly 1992 Ecology 73(2): 704-708 Ske92-02 freshwater pond, ephemeral aquarium lab 4 6 20 observations per replicate on three individuals per replicate 11 Amphibia Ambystoma tigrinum tigrinum, tiger salamander Amphibia Hyla versicolor, gray treefrog Activity # active per observation (out of 3) no predator 1.09 0.28 1.17 6 3 18 predator risk 0.41 0.16 0.67 6 3 18 Prey Activity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Ske92-01, Ske92-02 size class small Figure 3 Skelly 1992 Ecology 73(2): 704-708 Ske92-03 freshwater pond, ephemeral aquarium lab 4 6 20 observations per replicate on three individuals per replicate 11 Amphibia Ambystoma tigrinum tigrinum, tiger salamander Amphibia Hyla versicolor, gray treefrog Activity # active per observation (out of 3) no predator 0.92 0.2 0.86 6 3 18 predator risk 0.63 0.27 1.15 6 3 18 Prey Activity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Ske92-01, Ske92-03 size class large Figure 4A Skelly 1995 Ecology 76(1):150-164 Ske95-01 freshwater pond, ephemeral aquarium lab 13 5 5 11 Insecta Anax junius, dragonfly Amphibia Pseudacris triseriata, chorus frog Growth mg/day Growth rate without caged predator 14.39 1.67 8.35 5 5 25 Growth rate with caged predator 13.74 2.04 10.21 5 5 25 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Ske95-01, Ske95-02 I generated these numbers by measuring each individual point and calculating means and Ses myself…boring… Figure 4A Skelly 1995 Ecology 76(1):150-164 Ske95-02 freshwater pond, ephemeral aquarium lab 13 5 5 11 Insecta Anax junius, dragonfly Amphibia Pseudacris triseriata, chorus frog Activity # active activity rate without caged predator 1.11 0.49 2.43 5 5 25 Activity rate with caged predator 0.45 0.19 0.93 5 5 25 Prey Activity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Ske95-01, Ske95-02 I generated these numbers by measuring each individual point and calculating means and Ses myself…boring… Figure 4B Skelly 1995 Ecology 76(1):150-164 Ske95-03 freshwater lake & pond aquarium lab 13 5 5 11 Insecta Anax junius, dragonfly Amphibia Pseudacris crucifer, spring peeper Growth mg/day Growth rate without caged predator 7.05 1.35 6.75 5 5 25 Growth rate with caged predator 5.67 2.14 10.7 5 5 25 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Ske95-03, Ske95-04 I generated these numbers by measuring each individual point and calculating means and Ses myself…boring… Figure 4B Skelly 1995 Ecology 76(1):150-164 Ske95-04 freshwater lake & pond aquarium lab 13 5 5 11 Insecta Anax junius, dragonfly Amphibia Pseudacris crucifer, spring peeper Activity # active activity rate without caged predator 0.39 0.24 1.21 5 5 25 Activity rate with caged predator 0.19 0.14 0.72 5 5 25 Prey Activity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Ske95-03, Ske95-04 I generated these numbers by measuring each individual point and calculating means and Ses myself…boring… Figure 2C Smith & Jennings 2000 Mar Biol 136: 461-469 Smi00-01 marine intertidal aquarium lab 59 8 4 11 Malacostraca Carcinus maenas, green crab Bivalvia Mytilus edulis, blue mussel Growth mass (tissue dry mass) (g) no predator chemical cue 0.01 0 0 8 4 32 chemical cue from predator eating mussels 0.01 0 0 8 4 32 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 none Figure 2C Smith & Jennings 2000 Mar Biol 136: 461-469 Smi00-02 marine intertidal aquarium lab 59 8 4 11 Gastropoda Nucella lapillus, Atlantic dogwhelk Bivalvia Mytilus edulis, blue mussel Growth mass (tissue dry mass) (g) no predator chemical cue 0.01 0 0 8 4 32 chemical cue from predator eating mussels 0.01 0 0 8 4 32 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 none Figure 2B Snyder & Wise 2000 Env. Ent. 29(1): 35-42 Sny00-01 terrestrial agricultural cage lab 2.5 5 1 111 Arachnida Hogna helluo, wolf spider Insecta Diabrotica unidecimpunctata howardi, spotted cucumber beetle Autotroph Cucumis pepo, squash Plant damage # of plant structures showing damage no predator 2.77 0.48 1.06 5 1 5 predator risk 1.16 0.09 0.21 5 1 5 Resource Plant damage -1 0 1 0 1 2 Sny00-01 and Sny00-03 Figure 2B Snyder & Wise 2000 Env. Ent. 29(1): 35-42 Sny00-02 terrestrial agricultural cage lab 2.5 5 1 111 Insecta Cyclotrachelus sodalis, carabid beetle Insecta Diabrotica unidecimpunctata howardi, spotted cucumber beetle Autotroph Cucumis pepo, squash Plant damage # of plant structures showing damage no predator 2.77 0.48 1.06 5 1 5 predator risk 2.34 0.35 0.78 5 1 5 Resource Plant damage -1 0 1 0 1 2 none Figure 2D Snyder & Wise 2000 Env. Ent. 29(1): 35-42 Sny00-03 terrestrial agricultural cage lab 6 5 1 111 Arachnida Hogna helluo, wolf spider Insecta Diabrotica unidecimpunctata howardi, spotted cucumber beetle Autotroph Cucumis pepo, squash Biomass g foliage/plant no predator 9.71 0.41 0.91 5 1 5 predator risk 11 0.59 1.31 5 1 5 Resource Biomass 1 0 1 0 1 2 Sny00-01 and Sny00-03 Figure 3 Soluk & Collins 1988 Oikos 52:94-100 Sol88-01 freshwater stream aquarium lab 1 5 150 21 Mixed Cottus bairdi, sculpin; Secondary: Agnetina capitata, stonefly Insecta Baetis tricaudatus, mayfly Survival # of mayflies eaten (DMI:# eaten by sculpins; TMI # eaten by stoneflies) Stonefly feeding rate: control for Total only, DMI control is 0 27.4 4.02 110.23 5 150 750 Sculpin feeding rate 49.21 15.88 434.89 5 150 750 Total feeding rate of both predators, use secondary predator as control 44.57 5 100 500 Prey Survival -1 1 0 1 2 1 none Figure 5 Soluk & Collins 1988 Oikos 52:94-100 Sol88-02 freshwater stream aquarium lab 1 3 150 21 Actinopterygii Cottus bairdi, mottled sculpin Insecta Agnetina capitata, stonefly Insecta Baetis tricaudatus, mayfly Survival gut contents # eaten when stoneflies alone 29.2 2.7 57.28 3 150 450 # eaten by stoneflies when with sculpin with sewn mouth 8.1 1.6 33.94 3 150 450 Resource Survival -1 0 1 0 1 2 none Figure 6 Soluk & Collins 1988 Oikos 52:94-100 Sol88-03 freshwater stream aquarium lab 1 6 75 21 Mixed Agnetina capitata, stonefly; Secondary: Cottus bairdi, sculpin Insecta Ephemerella subvaria, mayfly Survival # of mayflies eaten (DMI:# eaten by stoneflies TMI # eaten by sculpins Sculpin feeding rate: control for Total only, control for DMI is zero 7.7 4.16 88.33 6 75 450 Stonefly feeding rate 3.5 1.96 41.58 6 75 450 Total feeding rate of both predators, use secondary predator as control 18.74 6.52 138.22 6 75 450 Prey Survival -1 1 0 1 2 1 none Fig 5 Spaak et al 2000 Oikos 89: 164-174 Spa00-01 freshwater lake aquarium lab until three successive adult instars were finished 4 20 11 Actinopterygii Leuciscus idus, golden orfe Branchiopoda Daphnia cucullata Density r no predator cue present 0.16 0.01 0.07 4 20 80 fish chemical cues present 0.19 0.01 0.06 4 20 80 Prey Density 1 0 1 0 1 1 none Fig 5 Spaak et al 2000 Oikos 89: 164-174 Spa00-02 freshwater lake aquarium lab until three successive adult instars were finished 4 20 11 Actinopterygii Leuciscus idus, golden orfe Branchiopoda Daphnia galeata Density r no predator cue present 0.07 0.01 0.05 4 20 80 fish chemical cues present 0.08 0.01 0.07 4 20 80 Prey Density 1 0 1 0 1 1 none Figure 5 Sparrevik and Leonardsson 1999 Oecologia 120: 77-86 Spa99-01 marine substrate in sub-littoral zone aquarium lab 180 2 2000 11 Isopoda Saduria entomon, isopod Malacostraca Monoporeia affinis, amphipod Growth body size at end of experiment no predator 9.15 0.12 7.38 2 2000 4000 predator present 7.33 0.23 14.79 2 2000 4000 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Spa99-01, Spa99-09 Prey 1994 cohort at low density Figure 5 Sparrevik and Leonardsson 1999 Oecologia 120: 77-86 Spa99-02 marine substrate in sub-littoral zone aquarium lab 180 2 2000 11 Isopoda Saduria entomon, isopod Malacostraca Monoporeia affinis, amphipod Growth body size at end of experiment no predator 6.06 0.23 14.79 2 2000 4000 predator present 3.64 0.23 14.79 2 2000 4000 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Spa99-02, Spa99-07 Prey 1995 cohort at low density Figure 5 Sparrevik and Leonardsson 1999 Oecologia 120: 77-86 Spa99-03 marine substrate in sub-littoral zone aquarium lab 180 2 6000 11 Isopoda Saduria entomon, isopod Malacostraca Monoporeia affinis, amphipod Growth body size at end of experiment no predator 6.82 0.23 25.61 2 6000 12000 predator present 7.27 0.23 25.61 2 6000 12000 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Spa99-03, Spa99-10 Prey 1994 cohort at high density Figure 5 Sparrevik and Leonardsson 1999 Oecologia 120: 77-86 Spa99-04 marine substrate in sub-littoral zone aquarium lab 180 2 6000 11 Isopoda Saduria entomon, isopod Malacostraca Monoporeia affinis, amphipod Growth body size at end of experiment no predator 3.86 0.23 25.61 2 6000 12000 predator present 3.66 0.23 25.61 2 6000 12000 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Spa99-04, Spa99-08 Prey 1995 cohort at high density Figure 6 Sparrevik and Leonardsson 1999 Oecologia 120: 77-86 Spa99-05 marine substrate in sub-littoral zone aquarium lab 180 2 2000 11 Isopoda Saduria entomon, isopod Malacostraca Monoporeia affinis, amphipod Fecundity # offspring/female no predator 0.41 0.01 0.88 2 2000 4000 predator present 0.06 0.05 3.27 2 2000 4000 Prey Fecundity 1 0 1 0 1 1 none low density of prey - 1996 cohort Figure 6 Sparrevik and Leonardsson 1999 Oecologia 120: 77-86 Spa99-06 marine substrate in sub-littoral zone aquarium lab 180 2 6000 11 Isopoda Saduria entomon, isopod Malacostraca Monoporeia affinis, amphipod Fecundity # offspring/female no predator 0.21 0.09 9.97 2 6000 12000 predator present 0.05 0.02 2.19 2 6000 12000 Prey Fecundity 1 0 1 0 1 1 none high density of prey - 1996 cohort Figure 2 Sparrevik and Leonardsson 1999 Oecologia 120: 77-86 Spa99-07 marine substrate in sub-littoral zone aquarium lab 1 2 2000 11 Isopoda Saduria entomon, isopod Malacostraca Monoporeia affinis, amphipod Activity swimming activity index (number of animals in trap in 24h period divided by number of individuals per tank times 100) no predator 0.36 0.2 12.72 2 2000 4000 predator present 0.39 0.04 2.34 2 2000 4000 Prey Activity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Spa99-02, Spa99-07 Prey 1995 cohort at low density Figure 2 Sparrevik and Leonardsson 1999 Oecologia 120: 77-86 Spa99-08 marine substrate in sub-littoral zone aquarium lab 1 2 6000 11 Isopoda Saduria entomon, isopod Malacostraca Monoporeia affinis, amphipod Activity swimming activity index (number of animals in trap in 24h period divided by number of individuals per tank times 100) no predator 1.32 0.54 59.46 2 6000 12000 predator present 0.71 0.56 61.15 2 6000 12000 Prey Activity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Spa99-04, Spa99-08 Prey 1995 cohort at high density Figure 2 Sparrevik and Leonardsson 1999 Oecologia 120: 77-86 Spa99-09 marine substrate in sub-littoral zone aquarium lab 1 2 2000 11 Isopoda Saduria entomon, isopod Malacostraca Monoporeia affinis, amphipod Activity swimming activity index (number of animals in trap in 24h period divided by number of individuals per tank times 100) no predator 2.47 1.12 70.73 2 2000 4000 predator present 0.41 0.29 18.04 2 2000 4000 Prey Activity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Spa99-01, Spa99-09 Prey 1994 cohort at low density Figure 2 Sparrevik and Leonardsson 1999 Oecologia 120: 77-86 Spa99-10 marine substrate in sub-littoral zone aquarium lab 1 2 6000 11 Isopoda Saduria entomon, isopod Malacostraca Monoporeia affinis, amphipod Activity swimming activity index (number of animals in trap in 24h period divided by number of individuals per tank times 100) no predator 1.46 0.45 49.23 2 6000 12000 predator present 0.24 0.03 3.6 2 6000 12000 Prey Activity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Spa99-03, Spa99-10 Prey 1994 cohort at high density Figure 2 Sparrevik and Leonardsson 1999 Oecologia 120: 77-86 Spa99-11 marine substrate in sub-littoral zone aquarium lab 1 2 2000 11 Isopoda Saduria entomon, isopod Malacostraca Monoporeia affinis, amphipod Activity swimming activity index (number of animals in trap in 24h period divided by number of individuals per tank times 100) no predator 1.54 1.07 67.42 2 2000 4000 predator present 0.67 0.22 14.15 2 2000 4000 Prey Activity 1 0 1 0 1 1 none 1993 cohort Figure 2 Sparrevik and Leonardsson 1999 Oecologia 120: 77-86 Spa99-12 marine substrate in sub-littoral zone aquarium lab 1 2 6000 11 Isopoda Saduria entomon, isopod Malacostraca Monoporeia affinis, amphipod Activity swimming activity index (number of animals in trap in 24h period divided by number of individuals per tank times 100) no predator 2.55 1.47 160.96 2 6000 12000 predator present 0.8 0.23 25.4 2 6000 12000 Prey Activity 1 0 1 0 1 1 none 1993 cohort Figure 2D Stav et al 2000 J Vector Ecol 25(2): 190-202 Sta00-01 freshwater pond, ephemeral cattle tank/ wading pool field 100 6 1 no # individuals given. Used one ind/rep as most conservative estimate 11 Insecta Anax imperator, dragonfly Insecta Culiseta longiareolata, mosquito Density # exuviae/pool no predator 13.54 4.94 12.09 6 1 6 predator risk 22.15 12.41 30.39 6 1 6 predator present 0 0 0 6 1 6 Prey Density 1 0 1 1 2 1 none mean over entire period Figure 3A Stav et al 2000 J Vector Ecol 25(2): 190-202 Sta00-02 freshwater pond, ephemeral cattle tank/ wading pool field 100 6 1 no # individuals given. Used one ind/rep as most conservative estimate 11 Insecta Anax imperator, dragonfly Insecta Chironomidae, midge Density # exuviae/pool no predator 13.63 3.84 9.4 6 1 6 predator risk 8.16 2.78 6.82 6 1 6 predator present 5.66 3.07 7.52 6 1 6 Prey Density 1 0 1 1 2 1 none 21-Jun Figure 3B Stav et al 2000 J Vector Ecol 25(2): 190-202 Sta00-03 freshwater pond, ephemeral cattle tank/ wading pool field 100 6 1 no # individuals given. Used one ind/rep as most conservative estimate 11 Insecta Anax imperator, dragonfly Insecta Ceratopogonidae, fly Density # pupae/pool no predator 19.89 4.97 12.18 6 1 6 predator risk 8.29 3.04 7.44 6 1 6 predator present 51.93 25.83 63.27 6 1 6 Prey Density 1 0 1 1 2 1 none 21-Jun Figure 4A Stav et al 2000 J Vector Ecol 25(2): 190-202 Sta00-04 freshwater pond, ephemeral cattle tank/ wading pool field 100 6 1 no # individuals given. Used one ind/rep as most conservative estimate 11 Insecta Anax imperator, dragonfly Branchiopoda Daphnia sp. Density # no predator 313.64 68.18 167.01 6 1 6 predator risk 181.82 79.55 194.85 6 1 6 predator present 1584.09 906.82 2221.24 6 1 6 Prey Density 1 0 1 1 2 1 none Figure 4B Stav et al 2000 J Vector Ecol 25(2): 190-202 Sta00-05 freshwater pond, ephemeral cattle tank/ wading pool field 100 6 1 no # individuals given. Used one ind/rep as most conservative estimate 11 Insecta Anax imperator, dragonfly Ostracoda Heterocypris sp., Ostracod Density # no predator 146.25 41.3 101.17 6 1 6 predator risk 74.51 29.84 73.1 6 1 6 predator present 161.66 40.12 98.27 6 1 6 Prey Density 1 0 1 1 2 1 none Figure 5A Stav et al 2000 J Vector Ecol 25(2): 190-202 Sta00-06 freshwater pond, ephemeral cattle tank/ wading pool field 90 6 4 111 Insecta Anax imperator, dragonfly Insecta Culiseta longiareolata, mosquito Autotroph Periphyton Biomass Change in g of periphyton (g/slide) no predator 0.02 0 0.02 6 4 24 predator risk 0 0 0.02 6 4 24 predator present 0 0.01 0.03 6 4 24 Resource Biomass 1 0 1 1 2 2 none Figure 5B Stav et al 2000 J Vector Ecol 25(2): 190-202 Sta00-07 freshwater pond, ephemeral cattle tank/ wading pool field 90 6 1 111 Insecta Anax imperator, dragonfly Insecta Culiseta longiareolata, mosquito Autotroph Phytoplankton Growth dry mass (g) no predator 0.01 0 0.01 6 1 6 predator risk 0 0 0 6 1 6 predator present 0 0 0 6 1 6 Resource Growth 1 0 1 1 2 2 none Text, p. 621 Stamp & Bowers 1988 Oecologia 75:619-624 Sta88-01 terrestrial field enclosure field 11 5 25 11 Insecta Polistes dominulus and P. fuscatus, vespid wasps Insecta Hemileuca lucina, New England buckmoth (caterpillars) Survival # surviving out of 25 no predator 15.8 0.6 6.71 5 25 125 artificial harassment with tweezers 15.8 2 22.36 5 25 125 lethal predator 6.4 1.5 16.77 5 25 125 Prey Survival 1 0 1 1 2 1 Sta88-02 Invasive spp predator; artificial TMI (tweezer harassment) so not used Text, p. 622 Stamp & Bowers 1988 Oecologia 75:619-624 Sta88-02 terrestrial field enclosure field 11 5 25 11 Insecta Polistes dominulus and P. fuscatus, vespid wasps Insecta Hemileuca lucina, New England buckmoth (caterpillars) Growth g no predator 0.44 0.01 0.11 5 25 125 artificial harassment with tweezers 0.35 0.01 0.1 5 25 125 lethal predator 0.31 0.02 0.17 5 25 125 Prey Growth 1 0 1 1 2 1 Sta88-01 Table 1 & 2 Stamp & Bowers 1991 Oecologia 88: 325-330 Sta91-01 terrestrial field cage field 11 5 25 11 Insecta Polistes dominulus and P. fuscatus, vespid wasps Insecta Hemileuca lucina, New England buckmoth (caterpillars) Survival Caterpillar mortality survival without predators 63.2 0.3 3.35 5 25 125 survivorship due to predator consumption alone 39.9 4.74 52.99 5 25 125 survivorship due to decreased growth rates 50.4 3.6 40.25 5 25 125 Prey Survival 1 1 1 0 2 1 none Table 1 & 3 Stamp & Bowers 1991 Oecologia 88: 325-330 Sta91-02 terrestrial field cage field 4 16 1 11 Insecta Podisus maculiventris, stinkbug Insecta Junonia coenia, common buckeye butterfly Survival Caterpillar mortality survival without predators 84.4 0 0 16 1 16 survivorship due to predator consumption alone 56.3 0 0 16 1 16 survivorship due to decreased growth rates 82.37 0 0 16 1 16 Prey Survival 1 1 1 0 2 1 Sta91-03 Table 1 & 3 Stamp & Bowers 1991 Oecologia 88: 325-330 Sta91-03 terrestrial field cage field 11 16 2 11 Insecta Podisus maculiventris, stinkbug Insecta Junonia coenia, common buckeye butterfly Survival Caterpillar mortality survival without predators 84.4 0 0 16 2 32 survivorship due to predator consumption alone 54.9 0 0 16 2 32 survivorship due to decreased growth rates 82.7 0 0 16 2 32 Prey Survival 1 1 1 0 2 1 Sta91-02 Table 2 Stamp & Bowers 1993 Oecologia 95: 376-384 Sta93-01 terrestrial field cage field 12 15 4 11 Insecta Podisus maculiventris, stinkbug Insecta Junonia coenia, common buckeye butterfly Survival Caterpillar mortality survival without predators 60 0 0 15 4 60 survivorship due to stinkbug consumption only 9.6 0.1 0.77 15 4 60 survivorship due to decreased growth rate caused by stinkbugs 58.62 1 7.75 15 4 60 Prey Survival 1 1 1 0 2 1 none Table 2 Stamp & Bowers 1993 Oecologia 95: 376-384 Sta93-02 terrestrial field cage field 12 15 4 11 Insecta Polistes fuscatus, wasp Insecta Junonia coenia, common buckeye butterfly Survival Caterpillar mortality survival without predators 60 0 0 15 4 60 survivorship due to wasp consumption only 37.74 0.2 1.55 15 4 60 survivorship due to decreased growth rate caused by wasps 59.04 0.2 1.55 15 4 60 Prey Survival 1 1 1 0 2 1 none Figure 1 Stamp 1997 Oikos 79:147-154 Sta97-01 terrestrial field enclosure field 10 8 2 11 Insecta Polistes fuscatus, wasp (simulated) Insecta Junonia coenia, common buckeye butterfly Growth pupal dry mass (mg) no harrassment 73.75 4.65 18.6 8 2 16 predatory harrassment simulates wasp attacks on catepillars, but does not kill catepillars 79.07 4.65 18.6 8 2 16 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 none caterpillar Figure 1 Stamp 1997 Oikos 79:147-154 Sta97-02 terrestrial field enclosure field 10 8 2 11 Insecta Polistes fuscatus, wasp (simulated) Insecta Pyrrharctia isabella, Isabella tiger moth (5th instar caterpillar) Growth pupal dry mass (mg) no harrassment 61.79 4.43 17.72 8 2 16 predatory harrassment simulates wasp attacks on catepillars, but does not kill catepillars 52.71 4.43 17.72 8 2 16 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 none Figure 4 Stamp 1997 Oikos 79:147-154 Sta97-03 terrestrial field enclosure field 11 8 4 111 Insecta Polistes fuscatus, wasp (simulated) Insecta Junonia coenia, common buckeye butterfly Autotroph Plantago lanceolata, plantain; Taraxacum officinale, dandelion (2 individuals each species) Plant damage Index of herbivory (proportion of plant leaf area eaten) no harrassment 3.79 0.8 4.53 8 4 32 predatory harrassment simulates wasp attacks on catepillars, but does not kill catepillars 2.31 0.63 3.55 8 4 32 Resource Plant damage -1 0 1 0 1 2 none caterpillar; enclosure with 2 plant species Figure 4 Stamp 1997 Oikos 79:147-154 Sta97-04 terrestrial field enclosure field 11 8 4 111 Insecta Polistes fuscatus, wasp (simulated) Insecta Junonia coenia, common buckeye butterfly Autotroph Plantago lanceolata, plantain (4 individuals) Plant damage Index of herbivory (proportion of plant leaf area eaten) no harrassment 4.26 0.93 5.26 8 4 32 predatory harrassment simulates wasp attacks on catepillars, but does not kill catepillars 5.9 0.65 3.67 8 4 32 Resource Plant damage -1 0 1 0 1 2 none caterpillar; enclosure with monoculture Figure 4 Stamp 1997 Oikos 79:147-154 Sta97-05 terrestrial field enclosure field 11 8 4 111 Insecta Polistes fuscatus, wasp (simulated) Insecta Pyrrharctia isabella, Isabella tiger moth (5th instar caterpillar) Autotroph Plantago lanceolata, plantain (4 individuals) Plant damage Index of herbivory (proportion of plant leaf area eaten) no harrassment 4.98 0.71 4.04 8 4 32 predatory harrassment simulates wasp attacks on catepillars, but does not kill catepillars 3.26 0.26 1.47 8 4 32 Resource Plant damage -1 0 1 0 1 2 none enclosure with monoculture Figure 4 Stamp 1997 Oikos 79:147-154 Sta97-06 terrestrial field enclosure field 11 8 4 111 Insecta Polistes fuscatus, wasp (simulated) Insecta Pyrrharctia isabella, Isabella tiger moth (5th instar caterpillar) Autotroph Plantago lanceolata, plantain; Taraxacum officinale, dandelion (2 individuals each species) Plant damage Index of herbivory (proportion of plant leaf area eaten) no harrassment 2.81 0.67 3.79 8 4 32 predatory harrassment simulates wasp attacks on catepillars, but does not kill catepillars 1.73 0.69 3.91 8 4 32 Resource Plant damage -1 0 1 0 1 2 none enclosure with 2 plant species Figure 7b Stachowicz & Hay 1999 Ecology 80(2): 495-509 Sta99-01 marine seagrass bed aquarium lab 1 15 1 111 Actinopterygii Lagodon rhomboides, pinfish Malacostraca Libinia dubia, decorator crab Autotroph Hypnea musciformis and Dictyota menstrualis, algae Feeding rate (11) or Survival (111) amount consumed by crab (mg) no predator 40 4.91 19.02 15 1 15 predator risk 22.12 5.32 20.6 15 1 15 Prey (11) or Resource (111) Feeding rate (11) or Survival (111) 1/-1 0 1 0 1 2 none Figure 2 Stemberger 1988 Limnol Oceanopgraphy 33(4, part 1): 593-606 Ste88-01 freshwater pond aquarium lab none given 15 1 11 Monongononta Asplanchna brightwelli, rotifer Monongononta Keratella testudo, rotifer Density r no predator cue 0.04 0.07 0.26 15 1 15 predatory rotifer chemical cues 0.01 0.04 0.17 15 1 15 Prey Density 1 0 1 0 1 1 none Figure 2 Stemberger 1988 Limnol Oceanopgraphy 33(4, part 1): 593-606 Ste88-02 freshwater pond aquarium lab none given 15 1 11 Monongononta Asplanchna brightwelli, rotifer Monongononta Keratella testudo, rotifer Density r no predator cue 0.31 0.04 0.15 15 1 15 predatory rotifer chemical cues 0.16 0.06 0.22 15 1 15 Prey Density 1 0 1 0 1 1 none Figure 2 Stemberger 1988 Limnol Oceanopgraphy 33(4, part 1): 593-606 Ste88-03 freshwater pond aquarium lab none given 15 1 11 Monongononta Asplanchna brightwelli, rotifer Monongononta Keratella testudo, rotifer Density r no predator cue 0.38 0.03 0.11 15 1 15 predatory rotifer chemical cues 0.16 0.1 0.39 15 1 15 Prey Density 1 0 1 0 1 1 none Text, p. 597 Stemberger 1988 Limnol Oceanopgraphy 33(4, part 1): 593-606 Ste88-04 freshwater pond aquarium lab none given 15 1 11 Monongononta Asplanchna brightwelli, rotifer Monongononta Keratella testudo, rotifer Growth body mass (ug) no predator cue 0.06 0 0 15 1 15 predatory rotifer chemical cues 0.07 0 0 15 1 15 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 none Table 1 Stibor 1992 Oecologia 92: 162-165 Sti92-01 freshwater lake aquarium lab one generation 80 1 11 Actinopterygii Leuciscus idus, golden orfe Branchiopoda Daphnia hyalina Fecundity # offspring no fish scent 5.1 0.1 0.89 80 1 80 fish scent cue 7.2 0.2 1.79 80 1 80 Prey Fecundity 1 0 1 0 1 1 none Figure 1 Stibor & Luning 1994 Functional Ecology 8: 97-101 Sti94-01 freshwater lake aquarium lab until instar complete varies 1 11 Actinopterygii Leuciscus idus, golden orfe Branchiopoda Daphnia hyalina Growth length at maturity of first reproductive instar (mm) no predator cue 1.26 0.01 0.04 27 1 27 fish chemical cues 1.19 0.01 0.06 28 1 28 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 none Figure 1 Stibor & Luning 1994 Functional Ecology 8: 97-101 Sti94-02 freshwater lake aquarium lab until instar complete varies 1 11 Insecta Notonecta glauca, backswimmer Branchiopoda Daphnia hyalina Growth length at maturity of first reproductive instar (mm) no predator cue 1.26 0.01 0.04 27 1 27 insect chemical cue 1.19 0.01 0.04 28 1 28 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 none Figure 1 Stibor & Luning 1994 Functional Ecology 8: 97-101 Sti94-03 freshwater lake aquarium lab until instar complete varies 1 11 Insecta Chaoborus flavicans, phantom midge Branchiopoda Daphnia hyalina Growth length at maturity of first reproductive instar (mm) no predator cue 1.26 0.01 0.04 27 1 27 insect chemical cue 1.36 0.01 0.04 26 1 26 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 none Figure 1A Stoks 2001 Oecologia 127:222-229 Sto01-01 freshwater pond aquarium lab 40 12 1 11 Insecta Aeshna cyanea, dragonfly Insecta Lestes sponsa, damselfly Growth mg no autotomy 50.09 2.55 8.85 12 1 12 autotomy 48.73 2.5 8.67 12 1 12 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 St001-01, Sto01-05 (body mass for A. cyanea estimated by taking dry mass and multiplying by 3.5 to get wet mass) Figure 1A Stoks 2001 Oecologia 127:222-229 Sto01-02 freshwater pond aquarium lab 40 12 1 11 Insecta Aeshna cyanea, dragonfly Insecta Lestes sponsa, damselfly Growth mg no predator 50.09 2.55 8.85 12 1 12 predator present 51.51 0.93 3.23 12 1 12 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 St001-02, Sto01-06 not autotomized (body mass for A. cyanea estimated by taking dry mass and multiplying by 3.5 to get wet mass) Figure 1A Stoks 2001 Oecologia 127:222-229 Sto01-03 freshwater pond aquarium lab 40 12 1 11 Insecta Aeshna cyanea, dragonfly Insecta Lestes sponsa, damselfly Growth mg no autotomy 38.63 1.33 4.62 12 1 12 autotomy 34 1.8 6.25 12 1 12 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 St001-03, Sto01-07 (body mass for A. cyanea estimated by taking dry mass and multiplying by 3.5 to get wet mass) Figure 1A Stoks 2001 Oecologia 127:222-229 Sto01-04 freshwater pond aquarium lab 40 12 1 11 Insecta Aeshna cyanea, dragonfly Insecta Lestes sponsa, damselfly Growth mg no predator 38.63 1.33 4.62 12 1 12 predator present 34.56 1.47 5.09 12 1 12 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 St001-04, Sto01-08 not autotomized (body mass for A. cyanea estimated by taking dry mass and multiplying by 3.5 to get wet mass) Figure 3A Stoks 2001 Oecologia 127:222-229 Sto01-05 freshwater pond aquarium lab 40 12 1 11 Insecta Aeshna cyanea, dragonfly Insecta Lestes sponsa, damselfly Development per day no autotomy 0.09 0.01 0.02 12 1 12 autotomy 0.09 0.01 0.02 12 1 12 Prey Development 1 0 1 0 1 1 St001-01, Sto01-05 F1 (body mass for A. cyanea estimated by taking dry mass and multiplying by 3.5 to get wet mass) Figure 3A Stoks 2001 Oecologia 127:222-229 Sto01-06 freshwater pond aquarium lab 40 12 1 11 Insecta Aeshna cyanea, dragonfly Insecta Lestes sponsa, damselfly Development per day no predator 0.09 0.01 0.02 12 1 12 predator present 0.09 0 0.02 12 1 12 Prey Development 1 0 1 0 1 1 St001-02, Sto01-06 F1, not autotomized (body mass for A. cyanea estimated by taking dry mass and multiplying by 3.5 to get wet mass) Figure 3A Stoks 2001 Oecologia 127:222-229 Sto01-07 freshwater pond aquarium lab 40 12 1 11 Insecta Aeshna cyanea, dragonfly Insecta Lestes sponsa, damselfly Development per day no autotomy 0.05 0 0.01 12 1 12 autotomy 0.06 0.01 0.02 12 1 12 Prey Development 1 0 1 0 1 1 St001-03, Sto01-07 F1 (body mass for A. cyanea estimated by taking dry mass and multiplying by 3.5 to get wet mass) Figure 3A Stoks 2001 Oecologia 127:222-229 Sto01-08 freshwater pond aquarium lab 40 12 1 11 Insecta Aeshna cyanea, dragonfly Insecta Lestes sponsa, damselfly Development per day no predator 0.05 0 0.01 12 1 12 predator present 0.05 0.01 0.02 12 1 12 Prey Development 1 0 1 0 1 1 St001-04, Sto01-08 F1, not autotomized (body mass for A. cyanea estimated by taking dry mass and multiplying by 3.5 to get wet mass) Figure 3A Stoks & McPeek 2003 Ecology 84(12): 3327-3338 Sto03-01 freshwater pond, ephemeral aquarium lab 4 10 1 11 Actinopterygii Lepomis gibbosus, pumpkinseed sunfish Insecta Lestes dryas, damselfly Growth g/day no predator 0.04 0 0.01 10 1 10 predator risk 0.04 0 0.01 10 1 10 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Sto03-01, 09, 23 the 'fish' treatment here is a predator that they never encounter since they don't live with fish Figure 3A Stoks & McPeek 2003 Ecology 84(12): 3327-3338 Sto03-02 freshwater pond, ephemeral aquarium lab 4 10 1 11 Insecta Anax junius, dragonfly Insecta Lestes dryas, damselfly Growth g/day no predator 0.04 0 0.01 10 1 10 predator risk 0.03 0 0.01 10 1 10 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Sto03-02, 10, 24 Figure 3A Stoks & McPeek 2003 Ecology 84(12): 3327-3338 Sto03-03 freshwater pond, fishless aquarium lab 4 10 1 11 Actinopterygii Lepomis gibbosus, pumpkinseed sunfish Insecta Lestes eurinus, damselfly Growth g/day no predator 0.03 0 0 10 1 10 predator risk 0.03 0 0.01 10 1 10 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Sto03-03, 19, 33 the 'fish' treatment here is a predator that they never encounter since they don't live with fish Figure 3A Stoks & McPeek 2003 Ecology 84(12): 3327-3338 Sto03-04 freshwater pond, fishless aquarium lab 4 10 1 11 Insecta Anax junius, dragonfly Insecta Lestes eurinus, damselfly Growth g/day no predator 0.03 0 0 10 1 10 predator risk 0.01 0 0.01 10 1 10 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Sto03-04, 20, 34 Figure 3A Stoks & McPeek 2003 Ecology 84(12): 3327-3338 Sto03-05 freshwater pond, ephemeral aquarium lab 4 10 1 11 Actinopterygii Lepomis gibbosus, pumpkinseed sunfish Insecta Lestes rectangularis, damselfly Growth g/day no predator 0.03 0 0.01 10 1 10 predator risk 0.03 0 0.01 10 1 10 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Sto03-05, 17, 31 the 'fish' treatment here is a predator that they never encounter since they don't live with fish Figure 3A Stoks & McPeek 2003 Ecology 84(12): 3327-3338 Sto03-06 freshwater pond, ephemeral aquarium lab 4 10 1 11 Insecta Anax junius, dragonfly Insecta Lestes rectangularis, damselfly Growth g/day no predator 0.03 0 0.01 10 1 10 predator risk 0.02 0 0.01 10 1 10 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Sto03-06, 18, 32 Figure 3A Stoks & McPeek 2003 Ecology 84(12): 3327-3338 Sto03-07 freshwater pond, w/ fish aquarium lab 4 10 1 11 Actinopterygii Lepomis gibbosus, pumpkinseed sunfish Insecta Lestes vigilax, damselfly Growth g/day no predator 0.03 0 0.01 10 1 10 predator risk 0.02 0 0.01 10 1 10 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Sto03-07, 21, 35 Figure 3A Stoks & McPeek 2003 Ecology 84(12): 3327-3338 Sto03-08 freshwater pond, w/ fish aquarium lab 4 10 1 11 Insecta Anax junius, dragonfly Insecta Lestes vigilax, damselfly Growth g/day no predator 0.03 0 0.01 10 1 10 predator risk 0.02 0 0.01 10 1 10 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Sto03-08, 22, 36 Figure 1A Stoks & McPeek 2003 Ecology 84(12): 3327-3338 Sto03-09 freshwater pond, w/ fish aquarium lab 0.01 8 1 11 Insecta Anax junius, dragonfly Insecta Lestes dryas, damselfly Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Habitat use # orientations toward resource no predator 42.77 2.4 6.79 8 1 8 predator risk 44.64 3.23 9.14 8 1 8 Prey Habitat use 1 0 1 0 1 1 Sto03-01, 09, 23 Figure 1A Stoks & McPeek 2003 Ecology 84(12): 3327-3338 Sto03-10 freshwater pond, w/ fish aquarium lab 0.01 8 1 11 Actinopterygii Lepomis gibbosus, pumpkinseed sunfish Insecta Lestes dryas, damselfly Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Habitat use # orientations toward resource no predator 42.77 2.4 6.79 8 1 8 predator risk 44.32 3.07 8.69 8 1 8 Prey Habitat use 1 0 1 0 1 1 Sto03-02, 10, 24 Figure 1A Stoks & McPeek 2003 Ecology 84(12): 3327-3338 Sto03-11 freshwater pond, w/ fish aquarium lab 0.01 8 1 11 Insecta Anax junius, dragonfly Insecta Lestes congener, damselfly Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Habitat use # orientations toward resource no predator 26.4 5.34 15.09 8 1 8 predator risk 10.17 1.41 3.98 8 1 8 Prey Habitat use 1 0 1 0 1 1 Sto03-11, 25 Figure 1A Stoks & McPeek 2003 Ecology 84(12): 3327-3338 Sto03-12 freshwater pond, w/ fish aquarium lab 0.01 8 1 11 Actinopterygii Lepomis gibbosus, pumpkinseed sunfish Insecta Lestes congener, damselfly Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Habitat use # orientations toward resource no predator 26.4 5.34 15.09 8 1 8 predator risk 28.34 4.57 12.91 8 1 8 Prey Habitat use 1 0 1 0 1 1 Sto03-12, 26 Figure 1A Stoks & McPeek 2003 Ecology 84(12): 3327-3338 Sto03-13 freshwater pond, w/ fish aquarium lab 0.01 3 1 11 Insecta Anax junius, dragonfly Insecta Lestes disjunctus, damselfly Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Habitat use # orientations toward resource no predator 28.27 1.15 1.99 3 1 3 predator risk 2.3 1.15 1.99 3 1 3 Prey Habitat use 1 0 1 0 1 1 Sto03-13, 27 Figure 1A Stoks & McPeek 2003 Ecology 84(12): 3327-3338 Sto03-14 freshwater pond, w/ fish aquarium lab 0.01 3 1 11 Actinopterygii Lepomis gibbosus, pumpkinseed sunfish Insecta Lestes disjunctus, damselfly Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Habitat use # orientations toward resource no predator 28.27 1.15 1.99 3 1 3 predator risk 29.01 0.39 0.68 3 1 3 Prey Habitat use 1 0 1 0 1 1 Sto03-14, 28 Figure 1A Stoks & McPeek 2003 Ecology 84(12): 3327-3338 Sto03-15 freshwater pond, w/ fish aquarium lab 0.01 6 1 11 Insecta Anax junius, dragonfly Insecta Lestes forcipatus, damselfly Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Habitat use # orientations toward resource no predator 29.91 2.55 6.24 6 1 6 predator risk 7.11 1.92 4.71 6 1 6 Prey Habitat use 1 0 1 0 1 1 Sto03-15, 29 Figure 1A Stoks & McPeek 2003 Ecology 84(12): 3327-3338 Sto03-16 freshwater pond, w/ fish aquarium lab 0.01 6 1 11 Actinopterygii Lepomis gibbosus, pumpkinseed sunfish Insecta Lestes forcipatus, damselfly Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Habitat use # orientations toward resource no predator 29.91 2.55 6.24 6 1 6 predator risk 31.52 3.18 7.8 6 1 6 Prey Habitat use 1 0 1 0 1 1 Sto03-16, 30 Figure 1A Stoks & McPeek 2003 Ecology 84(12): 3327-3338 Sto03-17 freshwater pond, w/ fish aquarium lab 0.01 8 1 11 Insecta Anax junius, dragonfly Insecta Lestes rectangularis, damselfly Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Habitat use # orientations toward resource no predator 30.31 3.3 9.35 8 1 8 predator risk 6.43 1.2 3.39 8 1 8 Prey Habitat use 1 0 1 0 1 1 Sto03-05, 17, 31 Figure 1A Stoks & McPeek 2003 Ecology 84(12): 3327-3338 Sto03-18 freshwater pond, w/ fish aquarium lab 0.01 8 1 11 Actinopterygii Lepomis gibbosus, pumpkinseed sunfish Insecta Lestes rectangularis, damselfly Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Habitat use # orientations toward resource no predator 30.31 3.3 9.35 8 1 8 predator risk 32.82 3.81 10.77 8 1 8 Prey Habitat use 1 0 1 0 1 1 Sto03-06, 18, 32 Figure 1A Stoks & McPeek 2003 Ecology 84(12): 3327-3338 Sto03-19 freshwater pond, w/ fish aquarium lab 0.01 8 1 11 Insecta Anax junius, dragonfly Insecta Lestes eurinus, damselfly Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Habitat use # orientations toward resource no predator 25.37 3.37 9.52 8 1 8 predator risk 7.99 2 5.64 8 1 8 Prey Habitat use 1 0 1 0 1 1 Sto03-03, 19, 33 Figure 1A Stoks & McPeek 2003 Ecology 84(12): 3327-3338 Sto03-20 freshwater pond, w/ fish aquarium lab 0.01 8 1 11 Actinopterygii Lepomis gibbosus, pumpkinseed sunfish Insecta Lestes eurinus, damselfly Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Habitat use # orientations toward resource no predator 25.37 3.37 9.52 8 1 8 predator risk 29.73 2.47 6.99 8 1 8 Prey Habitat use 1 0 1 0 1 1 Sto03-04, 20, 34 Figure 1A Stoks & McPeek 2003 Ecology 84(12): 3327-3338 Sto03-21 freshwater pond, w/ fish aquarium lab 0.01 8 1 11 Insecta Anax junius, dragonfly Insecta Lestes vigilax, damselfly Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Habitat use # orientations toward resource no predator 33.84 1.86 5.26 8 1 8 predator risk 10.92 1.3 3.67 8 1 8 Prey Habitat use 1 0 1 0 1 1 Sto03-07, 21, 35 Figure 1A Stoks & McPeek 2003 Ecology 84(12): 3327-3338 Sto03-22 freshwater pond, w/ fish aquarium lab 0.01 8 1 11 Actinopterygii Lepomis gibbosus, pumpkinseed sunfish Insecta Lestes vigilax, damselfly Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Habitat use # orientations toward resource no predator 33.84 1.86 5.26 8 1 8 predator risk 3.33 0.82 2.32 8 1 8 Prey Habitat use 1 0 1 0 1 1 Sto03-08, 22, 36 Figure 1B Stoks & McPeek 2003 Ecology 84(12): 3327-3338 Sto03-23 freshwater pond, w/ fish aquarium lab 0.01 8 1 11 Insecta Anax junius, dragonfly Insecta Lestes dryas, damselfly Activity longest inactive period (minutes) no predator 1.94 0.07 0.21 8 1 8 predator risk 2.4 0.31 0.89 8 1 8 Prey Activity -1 0 1 0 1 1 Sto03-01, 09, 23 Figure 1B Stoks & McPeek 2003 Ecology 84(12): 3327-3338 Sto03-24 freshwater pond, w/ fish aquarium lab 0.01 8 1 11 Actinopterygii Lepomis gibbosus, pumpkinseed sunfish Insecta Lestes dryas, damselfly Activity longest inactive period (minutes) no predator 1.94 0.07 0.21 8 1 8 predator risk 2.78 0.31 0.88 8 1 8 Prey Activity -1 0 1 0 1 1 Sto03-02, 10, 24 Figure 1B Stoks & McPeek 2003 Ecology 84(12): 3327-3338 Sto03-25 freshwater pond, w/ fish aquarium lab 0.01 8 1 11 Insecta Anax junius, dragonfly Insecta Lestes congener, damselfly Activity longest inactive period (minutes) no predator 2.61 0.33 0.94 8 1 8 predator risk 5.54 0.49 1.39 8 1 8 Prey Activity -1 0 1 0 1 1 Sto03-11, 25 Figure 1B Stoks & McPeek 2003 Ecology 84(12): 3327-3338 Sto03-26 freshwater pond, w/ fish aquarium lab 0.01 8 1 11 Actinopterygii Lepomis gibbosus, pumpkinseed sunfish Insecta Lestes congener, damselfly Activity longest inactive period (minutes) no predator 2.61 0.33 0.94 8 1 8 predator risk 2.86 0.36 1.02 8 1 8 Prey Activity -1 0 1 0 1 1 Sto03-12, 26 Figure 1B Stoks & McPeek 2003 Ecology 84(12): 3327-3338 Sto03-27 freshwater pond, w/ fish aquarium lab 0.01 3 1 11 Insecta Anax junius, dragonfly Insecta Lestes disjunctus, damselfly Activity longest inactive period (minutes) no predator 1.69 0.08 0.14 3 1 3 predator risk 13.59 1.48 2.56 3 1 3 Prey Activity -1 0 1 0 1 1 Sto03-13, 27 Figure 1B Stoks & McPeek 2003 Ecology 84(12): 3327-3338 Sto03-28 freshwater pond, w/ fish aquarium lab 0.01 3 1 11 Actinopterygii Lepomis gibbosus, pumpkinseed sunfish Insecta Lestes disjunctus, damselfly Activity longest inactive period (minutes) no predator 1.69 0.08 0.14 3 1 3 predator risk 2.02 0.31 0.54 3 1 3 Prey Activity -1 0 1 0 1 1 Sto03-14, 28 Figure 1B Stoks & McPeek 2003 Ecology 84(12): 3327-3338 Sto03-29 freshwater pond, w/ fish aquarium lab 0.01 6 1 11 Insecta Anax junius, dragonfly Insecta Lestes forcipatus, damselfly Activity longest inactive period (minutes) no predator 1.99 0.22 0.54 6 1 6 predator risk 9.03 2.52 6.18 6 1 6 Prey Activity -1 0 1 0 1 1 Sto03-15, 29 Figure 1B Stoks & McPeek 2003 Ecology 84(12): 3327-3338 Sto03-30 freshwater pond, w/ fish aquarium lab 0.01 6 1 11 Actinopterygii Lepomis gibbosus, pumpkinseed sunfish Insecta Lestes forcipatus, damselfly Activity longest inactive period (minutes) no predator 1.99 0.22 0.54 6 1 6 predator risk 2.13 0.09 0.21 6 1 6 Prey Activity -1 0 1 0 1 1 Sto03-16, 30 Figure 1B Stoks & McPeek 2003 Ecology 84(12): 3327-3338 Sto03-31 freshwater pond, w/ fish aquarium lab 0.01 8 1 11 Insecta Anax junius, dragonfly Insecta Lestes rectangularis, damselfly Activity longest inactive period (minutes) no predator 2.71 0.33 0.92 8 1 8 predator risk 6.95 0.71 2.01 8 1 8 Prey Activity -1 0 1 0 1 1 Sto03-05, 17, 31 Figure 1B Stoks & McPeek 2003 Ecology 84(12): 3327-3338 Sto03-32 freshwater pond, w/ fish aquarium lab 0.01 8 1 11 Actinopterygii Lepomis gibbosus, pumpkinseed sunfish Insecta Lestes rectangularis, damselfly Activity longest inactive period (minutes) no predator 2.71 0.33 0.92 8 1 8 predator risk 2.16 0.21 0.6 8 1 8 Prey Activity -1 0 1 0 1 1 Sto03-06, 18, 32 Figure 1B Stoks & McPeek 2003 Ecology 84(12): 3327-3338 Sto03-33 freshwater pond, w/ fish aquarium lab 0.01 8 1 11 Insecta Anax junius, dragonfly Insecta Lestes eurinus, damselfly Activity longest inactive period (minutes) no predator 2.26 0.3 0.85 8 1 8 predator risk 7.13 1.31 3.7 8 1 8 Prey Activity -1 0 1 0 1 1 Sto03-03, 19, 33 Figure 1B Stoks & McPeek 2003 Ecology 84(12): 3327-3338 Sto03-34 freshwater pond, w/ fish aquarium lab 0.01 8 1 11 Actinopterygii Lepomis gibbosus, pumpkinseed sunfish Insecta Lestes eurinus, damselfly Activity longest inactive period (minutes) no predator 2.26 0.3 0.85 8 1 8 predator risk 2.66 0.16 0.45 8 1 8 Prey Activity -1 0 1 0 1 1 Sto03-04, 20, 34 Figure 1B Stoks & McPeek 2003 Ecology 84(12): 3327-3338 Sto03-35 freshwater pond, w/ fish aquarium lab 0.01 8 1 11 Insecta Anax junius, dragonfly Insecta Lestes vigilax, damselfly Activity longest inactive period (minutes) no predator 3.31 0.33 0.93 8 1 8 predator risk 6 0.62 1.75 8 1 8 Prey Activity -1 0 1 0 1 1 Sto03-07, 21, 35 Figure 1B Stoks & McPeek 2003 Ecology 84(12): 3327-3338 Sto03-36 freshwater pond, w/ fish aquarium lab 0.01 8 1 11 Actinopterygii Lepomis gibbosus, pumpkinseed sunfish Insecta Lestes vigilax, damselfly Activity longest inactive period (minutes) no predator 3.31 0.33 0.93 8 1 8 predator risk 13.92 1.82 5.16 8 1 8 Prey Activity -1 0 1 0 1 1 Sto03-08, 22, 36 Fig 1d Storfer & White 2005 J Herp 38(4): 612-615 Sto04-01 freshwater pond aquarium lab 35 40 1 11 Insecta Dytiscus sp., diving beetle Amphibia Ambystoma tigrinum nebulosum, Arizona tiger salamander Growth Mass at end of expt (g) no predator cue present 0.89 0.03 0.17 40 1 40 caged predator present 0.82 0.02 0.15 40 1 40 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 none Fig 1d Storfer & White 2005 J Herp 38(4): 612-615 Sto04-02 freshwater pond aquarium lab 35 40 1 11 Insecta Anax junius, dragonfly Amphibia Ambystoma tigrinum nebulosum, Arizona tiger salamander Growth Mass at end of expt (g) no predator cue present 0.89 0.03 0.17 40 1 40 caged predator present 0.71 0.02 0.15 40 1 40 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 none Fig 1A Stoks et al 2005 J Animal Ecol 74: 708-715 Sto05-01 freshwater pond aquarium lab 4 5 4 11 Actinopterygii Perca fluviatilis, Eurasian perch Insecta Lestes sponsa, damselfly Growth ((ln(final dry mass)-(ln(initial dry mass))/4 days no predator cue present 0.02 0 0.01 5 4 20 caged predator present 0.02 0 0.01 5 4 20 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 none late photoregimen Fig 1A Stoks et al 2005 J Animal Ecol 74: 708-715 Sto05-02 freshwater pond aquarium lab 4 5 4 11 Actinopterygii Perca fluviatilis, Eurasian perch Insecta Lestes sponsa, damselfly Growth ((ln(final dry mass)-(ln(initial dry mass))/4 days no predator cue present 0.02 0 0.01 5 4 20 caged predator present 0.01 0 0.01 5 4 20 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 none early photoregimen Figure 1 Stoks 1998 Oecologia 117:443-448 Sto98-01 freshwater pond aquarium lab 2 35 2 11 Insecta Notonecta glauca, backswimmer Insecta Lestes sponsa, damselfly Survival proportion cannibalized no autotomy 0.02 0.02 0.2 35 2 70 autotomized damselfly larvae 0.1 0.05 0.38 35 2 70 Prey Survival -1 0 1 0 1 1 none 2 larvae Figure 1 Stoks 1998 Oecologia 117:443-448 Sto98-02 freshwater pond aquarium lab 2 35 4 11 Insecta Notonecta glauca, backswimmer Insecta Lestes sponsa, damselfly Survival proportion cannibalized no autotomy 0.05 0.03 0.38 35 4 140 autotomized damselfly larvae 0.22 0.06 0.76 35 4 140 Prey Survival -1 0 1 0 1 1 none 4 larvae Figure 1 Stoks 1998 Oecologia 117:443-448 Sto98-03 freshwater pond aquarium lab 2 35 8 11 Insecta Notonecta glauca, backswimmer Insecta Lestes sponsa, damselfly Survival proportion cannibalized no autotomy 0.25 0.08 1.3 35 8 280 autotomized damselfly larvae 0.52 0.08 1.35 35 8 280 Prey Survival -1 0 1 0 1 1 none 8 larvae Figure 3 Stoks 1998 Oecologia 117:443-448 Sto98-04 freshwater pond aquarium lab 0.42 15 1 11 Insecta Notonecta glauca, backswimmer Insecta Lestes sponsa, damselfly Branchiopoda Daphnia sp. Feeding rate (11) or Survival (111) # daphnia eaten predator absent 9.48 0.98 3.81 15 1 15 predator present 5.17 0.98 3.81 15 1 15 Prey (11) or Resource (111) Feeding rate (11) or Survival (111) 1/-1 0 1 0 1 1 Sto98-04, 08 effect of predator on autotomized larvae feeding Figure 3 Stoks 1998 Oecologia 117:443-448 Sto98-05 freshwater pond aquarium lab 0.42 15 1 11 Insecta Notonecta glauca, backswimmer Insecta Lestes sponsa, damselfly Branchiopoda Daphnia sp. Feeding rate (11) or Survival (111) # daphnia eaten predator absent 14.97 0.93 3.61 15 1 15 predator present 7.09 0.94 3.63 15 1 15 Prey (11) or Resource (111) Feeding rate (11) or Survival (111) 1/-1 0 1 0 1 1 Sto98-05, 09 effect of predator on non-autotomized larvae feeding Figure 3 Stoks 1998 Oecologia 117:443-448 Sto98-06 freshwater pond aquarium lab 0.42 15 1 11 Insecta Notonecta glauca, backswimmer Insecta Lestes sponsa, damselfly Branchiopoda Daphnia sp. Feeding rate (11) or Survival (111) # daphnia eaten no autotomy 7.09 0.94 3.63 15 1 15 autotomized 5.17 0.98 3.81 15 1 15 Prey (11) or Resource (111) Feeding rate (11) or Survival (111) 1/-1 0 1 0 1 1 Sto98-06, 10 effect of autotomy on feeding in presence of predator Figure 3 Stoks 1998 Oecologia 117:443-448 Sto98-07 freshwater pond aquarium lab 0.42 15 1 11 Insecta Notonecta glauca, backswimmer Insecta Lestes sponsa, damselfly Branchiopoda Daphnia sp. Feeding rate (11) or Survival (111) # daphnia eaten no autotomy 14.97 0.93 3.61 15 1 15 autotomized 9.48 0.98 3.81 15 1 15 Prey (11) or Resource (111) Feeding rate (11) or Survival (111) 1/-1 0 1 0 1 1 Sto98-07, 11 effect of autotomy on feeding in absence of predator Figure 2 Stoks 1998 Oecologia 117:443-448 Sto98-08 freshwater pond aquarium lab 0.42 15 1 11 Insecta Notonecta glauca, backswimmer Insecta Lestes sponsa, damselfly Activity proportion of observations in which larvae has moved predator absent 0.56 0.06 0.24 15 1 15 predator present 0.48 0.05 0.19 15 1 15 Prey Activity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Sto98-04, 08 Figure 2 Stoks 1998 Oecologia 117:443-448 Sto98-09 freshwater pond aquarium lab 0.42 15 1 11 Insecta Notonecta glauca, backswimmer Insecta Lestes sponsa, damselfly Activity proportion of observations in which larvae has moved predator absent 0.73 0.04 0.14 15 1 15 predator present 0.57 0.05 0.2 15 1 15 Prey Activity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Sto98-05, 09 Figure 2 Stoks 1998 Oecologia 117:443-448 Sto98-10 freshwater pond aquarium lab 0.42 15 1 11 Insecta Notonecta glauca, backswimmer Insecta Lestes sponsa, damselfly Activity proportion of observations in which larvae has moved no autotomy 0.48 0.05 0.19 15 1 15 autotomized 0.57 0.05 0.2 15 1 15 Prey Activity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Sto98-06, 10 Figure 2 Stoks 1998 Oecologia 117:443-448 Sto98-11 freshwater pond aquarium lab 0.42 15 1 11 Insecta Notonecta glauca, backswimmer Insecta Lestes sponsa, damselfly Activity proportion of observations in which larvae has moved no autotomy 0.56 0.06 0.24 15 1 15 autotomized 0.73 0.04 0.14 15 1 15 Prey Activity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Sto98-07, 11 Text, p. 562 Storfer & Sih 1998 Evolution 52(2): 558-565 Sto98A-01 freshwater stream aquarium lab 1 150 1 11 or 111 Actinopterygii Lepomis cyanellus, green sunfish Amphibia Ambystoma barbouri, streamside salamander Branchiopoda Daphnia magna Feeding rate (11) or Survival (111) # daphnia killed (out of 100) per day no fish cues present 67.4 1.05 12.86 150 1 150 fish cues present 66.83 1.27 15.55 150 1 150 Prey (11) or Resource (111) Feeding rate (11) or Survival (111) 1/-1 0 1 1 1 1 or 2 Text, p. 562 Storfer & Sih 1998 Evolution 52(2): 558-565 Sto98A-02 freshwater stream aquarium lab 1 75 1 11 or 111 Actinopterygii Lepomis cyanellus, green sunfish Amphibia Ambystoma barbouri, streamside salamander Branchiopoda Daphnia magna Feeding rate (11) or Survival (111) # daphnia killed (out of 100) per day no fish cues present 64.75 1.5 12.99 75 1 75 fish cues present 45.37 1.55 13.42 75 1 75 Prey (11) or Resource (111) Feeding rate (11) or Survival (111) 1/-1 0 1 1 1 1 or 2 Figure 1 Stoks et al 1999 Oecologia 120:87-91 Sto99-01 freshwater wetlands enclosure field 11 4 20 11 Insecta Aeshna cyanea, dragonfly Insecta Lestes sponsa, damselfly Survival # surviving of 20 no predator 15.5 1.25 11.18 4 20 80 predator risk 14.42 0.2 1.79 4 20 80 predator present 5.59 0.92 8.23 4 20 80 Prey Survival 1 0 1 1 2 1 Sto99-01, Sto99-04 normal damselfly larvae, not autotomized (body mass for A. cyanea estimated by taking dry mass and multiplying by 3.5 to get wet mass) Figure 1 Stoks et al 1999 Oecologia 120:87-91 Sto99-02 freshwater wetlands enclosure field 11 4 20 11 Insecta Aeshna cyanea, dragonfly Insecta Lestes sponsa, damselfly Survival # surviving of 20 no predator 14.07 1.05 9.39 4 20 80 predator risk 11.34 1.44 12.88 4 20 80 predator present 3.32 0.66 5.9 4 20 80 Prey Survival 1 0 1 1 2 1 Sto99-02, Sto99-05 larvae with autotomized lamella (defensive response against predator, dropping limbs) (body mass for A. cyanea estimated by taking dry mass and multiplying by 3.5 to get wet mass) Figure 2 Stoks et al 1999 Oecologia 120:87-91 Sto99-03 freshwater wetlands enclosure field 11 4 20 11 Insecta Aeshna cyanea, dragonfly Insecta Lestes sponsa, damselfly Growth head width (mm) no predator 3.96 0.02 0.21 4 20 80 predator risk 3.96 0.01 0.13 4 20 80 predator present 3.89 0.02 0.21 4 20 80 Prey Growth 1 0 1 1 2 1 Sto99-03, Sto99-06 normal damselfly larvae, not autotomized (body mass for A. cyanea estimated by taking dry mass and multiplying by 3.5 to get wet mass) Figure 2 Stoks et al 1999 Oecologia 120:87-91 Sto99-04 freshwater wetlands enclosure field 11 4 20 11 Insecta Aeshna cyanea, dragonfly Insecta Lestes sponsa, damselfly Growth head width (mm) no predator 3.95 0.04 0.36 4 20 80 predator risk 3.93 0.02 0.21 4 20 80 predator present 3.84 0.05 0.45 4 20 80 Prey Growth 1 0 1 1 2 1 Sto99-01, Sto99-04 larvae with autotomized lamella (defensive response against predator, dropping limbs) (body mass for A. cyanea estimated by taking dry mass and multiplying by 3.5 to get wet mass) Figure 3 Stoks et al 1999 Oecologia 120:87-91 Sto99-05 freshwater wetlands enclosure field 11 4 20 11 Insecta Aeshna cyanea, dragonfly Insecta Lestes sponsa, damselfly Growth Mass (mg) no predator 9.5 0.26 2.33 4 20 80 predator risk 9.24 0.13 1.2 4 20 80 predator present 7.89 0.54 4.79 4 20 80 Prey Growth 1 0 1 1 2 1 Sto99-02, Sto99-05 normal damselfly larvae, not autotomized (body mass for A. cyanea estimated by taking dry mass and multiplying by 3.5 to get wet mass) Figure 3 Stoks et al 1999 Oecologia 120:87-91 Sto99-06 freshwater wetlands enclosure field 11 4 20 11 Insecta Aeshna cyanea, dragonfly Insecta Lestes sponsa, damselfly Growth Mass (mg) no predator 9.24 0.32 2.86 4 20 80 predator risk 8.45 0.04 0.31 4 20 80 predator present 6.23 0.33 2.99 4 20 80 Prey Growth 1 0 1 1 2 1 Sto99-03, Sto99-06 larvae with autotomized lamella (defensive response against predator, dropping limbs) (body mass for A. cyanea estimated by taking dry mass and multiplying by 3.5 to get wet mass) Fig 1 Stoks et al 1999 Evol Ecol 13: 115-129 Sto99A-01 freshwater pond, fishless enclosure field 11 4 20 11 Insecta Aeshna cyanea, dragonfly Insecta Lestes sponsa, damselfly Survival daily survival rate no predator cue present 0.98 0.01 0.08 4 20 80 caged predator present 0.97 0 0.03 4 20 80 lethal predator (able to kill and scare prey) 0.88 0.02 0.18 4 20 80 Prey Survival 1 0 1 1 2 1 Sto99A-02 experiment 1 (body mass for A. cyanea estimated by taking dry mass and multiplying by 3.5 to get wet mass) Text p. 121 Stoks et al 1999 Evol Ecol 13: 115-129 Sto99A-02 freshwater pond, fishless enclosure field 11 4 20 11 Insecta Aeshna cyanea, dragonfly Insecta Lestes sponsa, damselfly Growth length (mm) no predator cue present 3.95 0.03 0.22 4 20 80 caged predator present 3.94 0.01 0.11 4 20 80 lethal predator (able to kill and scare prey) 3.87 0.02 0.2 4 20 80 Prey Growth 1 0 1 1 2 1 Sto99A-01 experiment 1 (body mass for A. cyanea estimated by taking dry mass and multiplying by 3.5 to get wet mass) Figure 1a Takahara et al 2003 Ecological Res 18: 793-806 Tak03-01 freshwater pond aquarium field 11 6 28 21 Insecta Anax parthenope, dragonfly Amphibia Hyla japonica, treefrog Survival # dying/day Caged dragonfly present IN THE ABSENCE OF chemical cues from goldfish (Carassius auratus) 2.83 0.13 1.65 6 28 168 Caged dragonfly present IN THE PRESENCE OF chemical cues from goldfish (Carassius auratus) 3.11 0 0 6 28 168 Prey Survival -1 0 1 0 1 1 Tak03-01, Tak03-03 This is a case where tadpole mortality due to causes other than consumption is measured in the presence and absence of chemical cues from a second predator, a goldfish. Note that the data in line Tak03-03 shows that the goldfish cue by itself has no effect whatsoever on the tadpoles - it's only in combination with the other predators that the effect becomes important. Figure 1b Takahara et al 2003 Ecological Res 18: 793-806 Tak03-02 freshwater pond aquarium field 19 6 28 21 Malacostraca Procambarus clarkii, crayfish Amphibia Hyla japonica, treefrog Survival # dying/day Caged dragonfly present IN THE ABSENCE OF chemical cues from goldfish (Carassius auratus) 1.59 0.03 0.39 6 28 168 Caged dragonfly present IN THE PRESENCE OF chemical cues from goldfish (Carassius auratus) 1.53 0.03 0.41 6 28 168 Prey Survival -1 0 1 0 1 1 Tak03-02, Tak03-03 This is a case where tadpole mortality due to causes other than consumption is measured in the presence and absence of chemical cues from a second predator, a goldfish. Note that the data in line Tak03-03 shows that the goldfish cue by itself has no effect whatsoever on the tadpoles - it's only in combination with the other predators that the effect becomes important. Figure 1c Takahara et al 2003 Ecological Res 18: 793-806 Tak03-03 freshwater pond aquarium field 19 6 28 11 Actinopterygii Carassius auratus, goldfish Amphibia Hyla japonica, treefrog Survival # dying/day no chemical cues from goldfish (Carassius auratus) 1.16 0.07 0.93 6 28 168 with chemical cues from goldfish (Carassius auratus) 1.16 0.06 0.79 6 28 168 Prey Survival -1 0 1 0 1 1 Tak03-01, Tak03-02 Read notes for Tak03-01 and -02 Fig. 2 Teplitsky et al 2004 Ecology 85(10):2888-2894 Tep04-01 freshwater pond cattle tank/ wading pool lab 28 5 10 11 Actinopterygii Gasterosteus aculeatus, three-spined stickleback Amphibia Rana ridibunda Growth # of times a tadpole is larger than the day before no predator 1.05 0 0.02 5 10 50 caged predator 1.05 0 0.03 5 10 50 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 none Fig. 2 Teplitsky et al 2004 Ecology 85(10):2888-2894 Tep04-02 freshwater pond cattle tank/ wading pool lab 28 5 10 11 Actinopterygii Gasterosteus aculeatus, three-spined stickleback Amphibia Rana dalmatina, agile frog Growth # of times a tadpole is larger than the day before no predator 1.06 0 0.02 5 10 50 caged predator 1.06 0 0.01 5 10 50 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 none Fig. 2 Teplitsky et al 2004 Ecology 85(10):2888-2894 Tep04-03 freshwater pond cattle tank/ wading pool lab 28 5 10 11 Insecta Aeshna cyanea, dragonfly Amphibia Rana ridibunda Growth # of times a tadpole is larger than the day before no predator 1.05 0 0.02 5 10 50 caged predator 1.05 0 0.02 5 10 50 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 none (body mass for A. cyanea estimated by taking dry mass and multiplying by 3.5 to get wet mass) Fig. 2 Teplitsky et al 2004 Ecology 85(10):2888-2894 Tep04-04 freshwater pond cattle tank/ wading pool lab 28 5 10 11 Insecta Aeshna cyanea, dragonfly Amphibia Rana dalmatina, agile frog Growth # of times a tadpole is larger than the day before no predator 1.06 0 0.02 5 10 50 caged predator 1.05 0 0.01 5 10 50 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 none (body mass for A. cyanea estimated by taking dry mass and multiplying by 3.5 to get wet mass) Fig. 2 Teplitsky et al 2004 Ecology 85(10):2888-2894 Tep04-05 freshwater pond cattle tank/ wading pool lab 28 5 10 21 Mixed Aeshna cyanea, dragonfly, and Gasterosteus aculeatus, three-spined stickleback Amphibia Rana ridibunda Growth # of times a tadpole is larger than the day before no predator 1.05 0 0.02 5 10 50 caged predator 1.04 0 0.03 5 10 50 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 none Fig. 2 Teplitsky et al 2004 Ecology 85(10):2888-2894 Tep04-06 freshwater pond cattle tank/ wading pool lab 28 5 10 21 Mixed Aeshna cyanea, dragonfly, and Gasterosteus aculeatus, three-spined stickleback Amphibia Rana dalmatina, agile frog Growth # of times a tadpole is larger than the day before no predator 1.06 0 0.02 5 10 50 caged predator 1.05 0 0.02 5 10 50 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 none Fig 2 Teplitsky et al 2005 Oecologia 145: 364-370 Tep05-01 freshwater pond aquarium field 28 5 10 11 Actinopterygii Gasterosteus aculeatus, three-spined stickleback Amphibia Rana dalmatina, agile frog Growth Mass (g) no predators present 0.31 0.01 0.09 5 10 50 caged predator(s) present 0.32 0.01 0.09 5 10 50 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Tep05-01, Tep05-04 Fig 2 Teplitsky et al 2005 Oecologia 145: 364-370 Tep05-02 freshwater pond aquarium field 28 5 10 11 Actinopterygii Gasterosteus aculeatus, three-spined stickleback Amphibia Rana dalmatina, agile frog Growth Mass (g) no predators present 0.31 0.01 0.09 5 10 50 caged predator(s) present 0.3 0.01 0.09 5 10 50 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Tep05-02, Tep05-05 Fig 2 Teplitsky et al 2005 Oecologia 145: 364-370 Tep05-03 freshwater pond aquarium field 28 5 10 11 Actinopterygii Gasterosteus aculeatus, three-spined stickleback Amphibia Rana dalmatina, agile frog Growth Mass (g) no predators present 0.31 0.01 0.09 5 10 50 caged predator(s) present 0.19 0.01 0.09 5 10 50 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Tep05-03, Tep05-06 Fig 2 Teplitsky et al 2005 Oecologia 145: 364-370 Tep05-04 freshwater pond aquarium field 28 5 10 11 Actinopterygii Gasterosteus aculeatus, three-spined stickleback Amphibia Rana dalmatina, agile frog Development Gossner stage at day 28 no predators present 29.88 0.25 1.77 5 10 50 caged predator(s) present 30.19 0.22 1.55 5 10 50 Prey Development 1 0 1 0 1 1 Tep05-01, Tep05-04 Fig 2 Teplitsky et al 2005 Oecologia 145: 364-370 Tep05-05 freshwater pond aquarium field 28 5 10 11 Actinopterygii Gasterosteus aculeatus, three-spined stickleback Amphibia Rana dalmatina, agile frog Development Gossner stage at day 28 no predators present 29.88 0.25 1.77 5 10 50 caged predator(s) present 29.69 0.25 1.77 5 10 50 Prey Development 1 0 1 0 1 1 Tep05-02, Tep05-05 Fig 2 Teplitsky et al 2005 Oecologia 145: 364-370 Tep05-06 freshwater pond aquarium field 28 5 10 11 Actinopterygii Gasterosteus aculeatus, three-spined stickleback Amphibia Rana dalmatina, agile frog Development Gossner stage at day 28 no predators present 29.88 0.25 1.77 5 10 50 caged predator(s) present 27.37 0.47 3.32 5 10 50 Prey Development 1 0 1 0 1 1 Tep05-03, Tep05-06 Figure 4 Thiemann & Wassersug 2000 Biol J Linn Soc 71: 513-528 Thi00-01 freshwater pond aquarium lab 0.02 10 10 11 Actinopterygii Fundulus diaphanus, banded killifish Amphibia Rana clamitans, green frog Activity proportion active no caged predator 0.18 0.02 0.2 10 10 100 Caged predator present 0.09 0.01 0.07 10 10 100 Prey Activity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Thi00-01, 02, 03 Figure 2 Thiemann & Wassersug 2000 Biol J Linn Soc 71: 513-528 Thi00-02 freshwater pond aquarium lab 28 10 10 11 Actinopterygii Fundulus diaphanus, banded killifish Amphibia Rana clamitans, green frog Development Gossner stage at end of expt 26 0 20 no caged predator 28.12 0.12 1.2 10 10 100 Caged predator present 27.53 0.31 3.07 10 10 100 Prey Development 1 0 1 0 1 1 Thi00-01, 02, 03 Figure 2 Thiemann & Wassersug 2000 Biol J Linn Soc 71: 513-528 Thi00-03 freshwater pond aquarium lab 28 10 10 11 Actinopterygii Fundulus diaphanus, banded killifish Amphibia Rana clamitans, green frog Growth length (mm) no caged predator 33.12 0.54 5.37 10 10 100 Caged predator present 33.5 0.53 5.26 10 10 100 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Thi00-01, 02, 03 Table 1 Tollrian 1995 Ecology 76(6): 1691-1705 Tol95-01 freshwater pond aquarium lab until instar complete varies 1 11 Insecta Chaoborus flavicans, phantom midge Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Growth length at first reproduction (5th instar) (mm) no predator cues 1.81 0.01 0.09 123 1 123 insect chemical cues present 1.86 0.01 0.06 120 1 120 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Tol95-01 through Tol95-03 Expt LH 1 Table 1 Tollrian 1995 Ecology 76(6): 1691-1705 Tol95-02 freshwater pond aquarium lab until instar complete varies 1 11 Insecta Chaoborus flavicans, phantom midge Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Development Time to reproduction (fifth instar)(days) no predator cues 5 0 0.05 123 1 123 insect chemical cues present 5.17 0.01 0.08 120 1 120 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Tol95-01 through Tol95-03 Expt LH 1 Table 1 Tollrian 1995 Ecology 76(6): 1691-1705 Tol95-03 freshwater pond aquarium lab until instar complete varies 1 11 Insecta Chaoborus flavicans, phantom midge Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Fecundity # eggs in first clutch (5th instar) no predator cues 8.52 0.22 2.43 123 1 123 insect chemical cues present 9.95 0.19 2.06 120 1 120 Prey Fecundity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Tol95-01 through Tol95-03 Expt LH 1 Table 1 Tollrian 1995 Ecology 76(6): 1691-1705 Tol95-04 freshwater pond aquarium lab until instar complete varies 1 11 Insecta Chaoborus flavicans, phantom midge Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Growth length at first reproduction (5th instar) (mm) no predator cues 1.48 0.01 0.06 100 1 100 insect chemical cues present 1.58 0 0.04 115 1 115 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Tol95-04 through Tol95-06 Expt LH 1 Table 1 Tollrian 1995 Ecology 76(6): 1691-1705 Tol95-05 freshwater pond aquarium lab until instar complete varies 1 11 Insecta Chaoborus flavicans, phantom midge Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Development Time to reproduction (fifth instar)(days) no predator cues 5.88 0.01 0.09 100 1 100 insect chemical cues present 6.17 0.01 0.09 115 1 115 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Tol95-04 through Tol95-06 Expt LH 1 Table 1 Tollrian 1995 Ecology 76(6): 1691-1705 Tol95-06 freshwater pond aquarium lab until instar complete varies 1 11 Insecta Chaoborus flavicans, phantom midge Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Fecundity # eggs in first clutch (5th instar) no predator cues 2.78 0.07 0.71 100 1 100 insect chemical cues present 3.15 0.09 0.93 115 1 115 Prey Fecundity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Tol95-04 through Tol95-06 Expt LH 1 Table 2 Tollrian 1995 Ecology 76(6): 1691-1705 Tol95-07 freshwater pond aquarium lab until instar complete varies 1 11 Insecta Chaoborus flavicans, phantom midge Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Growth length at first reproduction (5th instar) (mm) no predator cues 1.98 0.01 0.05 37 1 37 insect chemical cues present 2.11 0.01 0.07 76 1 76 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Tol95-07 through Tol95-09 Expt LH 2 Table 2 Tollrian 1995 Ecology 76(6): 1691-1705 Tol95-08 freshwater pond aquarium lab until instar complete varies 1 11 Insecta Chaoborus flavicans, phantom midge Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Development Time to reproduction (fifth instar)(days) no predator cues 5.02 0.01 0.08 37 1 37 insect chemical cues present 5.39 0.01 0.09 76 1 76 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Tol95-07 through Tol95-09 Expt LH 2 Table 2 Tollrian 1995 Ecology 76(6): 1691-1705 Tol95-09 freshwater pond aquarium lab until instar complete varies 1 11 Insecta Chaoborus flavicans, phantom midge Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Fecundity # eggs in first clutch (5th instar) no predator cues 11.23 0.12 0.73 37 1 37 insect chemical cues present 14.71 0.24 2.11 76 1 76 Prey Fecundity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Tol95-07 through Tol95-09 Expt LH 2 Table 6 Tollrian 1995 Ecology 76(6): 1691-1705 Tol95-10 freshwater pond aquarium lab until instar complete 20 1 11 Insecta Chaoborus flavicans, phantom midge Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Growth length at first reproduction (5th instar) (mm) no predator cues 1.8 0.02 0.07 20 1 20 insect chemical cues present 1.86 0.01 0.04 20 1 20 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Tol95-10 through Tol95-12 separation' expt Table 6 Tollrian 1995 Ecology 76(6): 1691-1705 Tol95-11 freshwater pond aquarium lab until instar complete 20 1 11 Insecta Chaoborus flavicans, phantom midge Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Development Time to reproduction (fifth instar)(days) no predator cues 5 0.02 0.08 20 1 20 insect chemical cues present 5.13 0.02 0.08 20 1 20 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Tol95-10 through Tol95-12 separation' expt Table 6 Tollrian 1995 Ecology 76(6): 1691-1705 Tol95-12 freshwater pond aquarium lab until instar complete 20 1 11 Insecta Chaoborus flavicans, phantom midge Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Fecundity # eggs in first clutch (5th instar) no predator cues 9.35 0.35 1.56 20 1 20 insect chemical cues present 10.2 0.28 1.24 20 1 20 Prey Fecundity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Tol95-10 through Tol95-12 separation' expt Table 6 Tollrian 1995 Ecology 76(6): 1691-1705 Tol95-13 freshwater pond aquarium lab until instar complete 20 1 11 Insecta Chaoborus flavicans, phantom midge Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Growth length at first reproduction (5th instar) (mm) no predator cues 1.8 0.02 0.07 20 1 20 insect chemical cues present 1.87 0.01 0.05 20 1 20 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Tol95-13 through Tol95-15 separation' expt Table 6 Tollrian 1995 Ecology 76(6): 1691-1705 Tol95-14 freshwater pond aquarium lab until instar complete 20 1 11 Insecta Chaoborus flavicans, phantom midge Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Development Time to reproduction (fifth instar)(days) no predator cues 5 0.02 0.08 20 1 20 insect chemical cues present 5.17 0.46 2.05 20 1 20 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Tol95-13 through Tol95-15 separation' expt Table 6 Tollrian 1995 Ecology 76(6): 1691-1705 Tol95-15 freshwater pond aquarium lab until instar complete 20 1 11 Insecta Chaoborus flavicans, phantom midge Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Fecundity # eggs in first clutch (5th instar) no predator cues 9.35 0.35 1.56 20 1 20 insect chemical cues present 10.42 0.37 1.65 20 1 20 Prey Fecundity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Tol95-13 through Tol95-15 separation' expt Figure 2b Trussell & Smith 2000 PNAS 97(5): 2123-2127 Tru00-01 marine intertidal enclosure field 90 6 6 11 Malacostraca Carcinus maenas, green crab Gastropoda Littorina obtusata, snail Growth adjusted body mass (mg) 30.22 0.95 6 no chemical cue from crab 85.05 0.87 5.22 6 6 36 chemical cue from crab 59.9 0.8 4.79 6 6 36 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 none northern population in north Figure 2b Trussell & Smith 2000 PNAS 97(5): 2123-2127 Tru00-02 marine intertidal enclosure field 90 6 6 11 Malacostraca Carcinus maenas, green crab Gastropoda Littorina obtusata, snail Growth adjusted body mass (mg) 13.14 0.94 6 no chemical cue from crab 38.93 0.99 5.96 6 6 36 chemical cue from crab 30.97 0.89 5.32 6 6 36 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 none southern population in south Figure 3B Trussell & Nicklin 2002 Ecology 83(6): 1635-1647 Tru02-01 marine intertidal aquarium lab 120 8 6 11 Malacostraca Carcinus maenas, green crab Gastropoda Littorina obtusata, snail Growth adjusted mean body growth at a covariate mean initial body mass of 21.1 +/- 0.40 mg (mg) no predator cues 29.85 3.75 25.98 8 6 48 cues from crab eating fish 26.99 3.97 27.5 8 6 48 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Tru02-01, Tru02-02 Southern population Figure 3B Trussell & Nicklin 2002 Ecology 83(6): 1635-1647 Tru02-02 marine intertidal aquarium lab 120 8 6 11 Malacostraca Carcinus maenas, green crab Gastropoda Littorina obtusata, snail Growth adjusted mean body growth at a covariate mean initial body mass of 21.1 +/- 0.40 mg (mg) no predator cues 29.85 3.75 25.98 8 6 48 cues from crab eating conspecific snails 17.28 2.21 15.31 8 6 48 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Tru02-01, Tru02-02 Southern population Figure 3B Trussell & Nicklin 2002 Ecology 83(6): 1635-1647 Tru02-03 marine intertidal aquarium lab 120 8 6 11 Malacostraca Carcinus maenas, green crab Gastropoda Littorina obtusata, snail Growth adjusted mean body growth at a covariate mean initial body mass of 21.1 +/- 0.40 mg (mg) no predator cues 33.38 4.63 32.08 8 6 48 cues from crab eating fish 25 3.53 24.46 8 6 48 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Tru02-03, Tru02-04 Northern population Figure 3B Trussell & Nicklin 2002 Ecology 83(6): 1635-1647 Tru02-04 marine intertidal aquarium lab 120 8 6 11 Malacostraca Carcinus maenas, green crab Gastropoda Littorina obtusata, snail Growth adjusted mean body growth at a covariate mean initial body mass of 21.1 +/- 0.40 mg (mg) no predator cues 33.38 4.63 32.08 8 6 48 cues from crab eating conspecific snails 17.06 2.21 15.28 8 6 48 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Tru02-03, Tru02-04 Northern population Figure 1 Trussell et al 2002 Ecology Letters 5: 241-245 Tru02B-01 marine intertidal enclosure field 180 12 1 no # individuals given. Used one ind/rep as most conservative estimate 111 Malacostraca Carcinus maenas, green crab Gastropoda Littorina littorea, snail Autotroph Ascophyllum nodosum and Fucus visiculosus, fucoid algae Biomass #/ cm2 no predator 31.54 25.43 88.09 12 1 12 predator risk 190.37 26.02 90.14 12 1 12 Resource Biomass 1 0 1 0 1 2 none Figure 1 Trussell et al 2003 Ecology 84(3): 629-640 Tru03-01 marine intertidal aquarium lab 60 12 14 111 Malacostraca Carcinus maenas, green crab Gastropoda Nucella lapillus, Atlantic dogwhelk Cirripedia Semibalanus balanoides, barnacle Density #/m2 no predator 2110.61 120.51 1561.99 12 14 168 predator risk 2716.54 140.88 1826.01 12 14 168 Resource Density 1 0 1 0 1 2 Tru03-01 and Tru03-03 Figure 1 Trussell et al 2003 Ecology 84(3): 629-640 Tru03-02 marine intertidal aquarium lab 60 12 14 111 Malacostraca Carcinus maenas, green crab Gastropoda Nucella lapillus, Atlantic dogwhelk Cirripedia Semibalanus balanoides, barnacle Density #/m2 no predator 2343.14 118.81 1539.95 12 14 168 predator risk 2653.74 128.99 1671.9 12 14 168 Resource Density 1 0 1 0 1 2 Tru03-02 and Tru03-04 Figure 3 Trussell et al 2003 Ecology 84(3): 629-640 Tru03-03 marine intertidal aquarium lab 60 12 3 111 Malacostraca Carcinus maenas, green crab Gastropoda Nucella lapillus, Atlantic dogwhelk Growth mass of tissue (mg) no predator 65.97 6.93 41.58 12 3 36 predator risk 9.93 7.01 42.04 12 3 36 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Tru03-01 and Tru03-03 Figure 3 Trussell et al 2003 Ecology 84(3): 629-640 Tru03-04 marine intertidal aquarium lab 60 12 6 111 Malacostraca Carcinus maenas, green crab Gastropoda Nucella lapillus, Atlantic dogwhelk Growth mass of tissue (mg) no predator 50.28 7.62 64.68 12 6 72 predator risk 5.6 3.23 27.44 12 6 72 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Tru03-02 and Tru03-04 Figure 5 Trussell et al 2003 Ecology 84(3): 629-640 Tru03-05 marine intertidal aquarium lab 150 12 25 111 Malacostraca Carcinus maenas, green crab Gastropoda Littorina littorea, snail Autotroph Ascophyllum nodosum, fucoid algae Density # fucoids/cm2 no predator 4.05 1.11 19.14 12 25 300 predator risk 20.67 4.09 70.89 12 25 300 Resource Density 1 0 1 0 1 2 Tru03-05 and Tru03-06 Figure 6 Trussell et al 2003 Ecology 84(3): 629-640 Tru03-06 marine intertidal aquarium lab 150 24 4 11 Malacostraca Carcinus maenas, green crab Gastropoda Littorina littorea, snail Growth mass of tissue (mg) no predator 502.86 22.72 222.65 24 4 96 predator risk 343.72 22.23 217.81 24 4 96 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Tru03-05 and Tru03-06 Figure 1 Trussell et al 2004 Oecologia 139: 427-432 Tru04-01 marine intertidal enclosure field 180 3 100 11 Malacostraca Carcinus maenas, green crab Gastropoda Littorina littorea, snail Density #/m2 no predator cue 157.81 11.84 205.1 3 100 300 predator cue 67.46 8.9 154.13 3 100 300 lethal predator 71.26 6.39 110.63 3 100 300 Prey Density 1 0 1 1 2 1 Tru04-02 and Tru04-03 Figure 2b Trussell et al 2004 Oecologia 139: 427-432 Tru04-02 marine intertidal enclosure field 180 3 1 no # individuals given. Used one ind/rep as most conservative estimate 111 Malacostraca Carcinus maenas, green crab Gastropoda Littorina littorea, snail Autotroph Enteromorpha sp., algae Biomass mg/cm2 no predator cue 0.84 0.29 0.5 3 1 3 predator cue 7.44 1.34 2.32 3 1 3 lethal predator 4.59 1.05 1.82 3 1 3 Resource Biomass 1 0 1 1 2 2 Tru04-01 Figure 2b Trussell et al 2004 Oecologia 139: 427-432 Tru04-03 marine intertidal enclosure field 180 3 1 no # individuals given. Used one ind/rep as most conservative estimate 111 Malacostraca Carcinus maenas, green crab Gastropoda Littorina littorea, snail Autotroph Ulva sp., algae Biomass mg/cm2 no predator cue 0 0 0 3 1 3 predator cue 0.76 0.2 0.35 3 1 3 lethal predator 1.87 0.53 0.91 3 1 3 Resource Biomass 1 0 1 1 2 2 Tru04-01 Figure 1A Tseng 2003 Ecol Ent 28: 119-123 Tse03-01 freshwater stream aquarium field larval period 24 1 11 Actinopterygii Luxilus cornutus, common shiner Insecta Ephemerella subvaria, mayfly Development Time to maturity (residuals) no predator 0.06 0.21 1.05 24 1 24 predator risk 0.16 0.23 1.13 24 1 24 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Tse03-01 and Tse03-03 early photoperiod Figure 1A Tseng 2003 Ecol Ent 28: 119-123 Tse03-02 freshwater stream aquarium field larval period varies 1 11 Actinopterygii Luxilus cornutus, common shiner Insecta Ephemerella subvaria, mayfly Development Time to maturity (residuals) no predator -0.38 0.21 0.99 23 1 23 predator risk -0.15 0.18 0.87 24 1 24 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Tse03-02 and Tse03-04 late photeriod Figure 1B Tseng 2003 Ecol Ent 28: 119-123 Tse03-03 freshwater stream aquarium field larval period 24 1 11 Actinopterygii Luxilus cornutus, common shiner Insecta Ephemerella subvaria, mayfly Growth size at maturity (residuals) no predator -0.08 0.17 0.83 24 1 24 predator risk 0.18 0.26 1.27 24 1 24 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Tse03-01 and Tse03-03 early photoperiod Figure 1B Tseng 2003 Ecol Ent 28: 119-123 Tse03-04 freshwater stream aquarium field larval period varies 1 11 Actinopterygii Luxilus cornutus, common shiner Insecta Ephemerella subvaria, mayfly Growth size at maturity (residuals) no predator -0.23 0.18 0.85 23 1 23 predator risk 0.12 0.19 0.92 24 1 24 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Tse03-02 and Tse03-04 late photeriod Figure 2 Turner et al 2000 Oikos 88:148-158 Tur00-01 freshwater pond cattle tank/ wading pool field 7 8 10 11 Malacostraca Orconectes rusticus, crayfish Gastropoda Physella gyrina, freshwater snail Habitat use proportion snails under cover minus proportion at surface no predator 0.08 0.03 0.26 8 10 80 predator risk -0.04 0.05 0.4 8 10 80 Prey Habitat use -1 0 1 0 1 1 Tur00-01, 03, 04 Figure 2 Turner et al 2000 Oikos 88:148-158 Tur00-02 freshwater pond cattle tank/ wading pool field 7 8 10 11 Actinopterygii Lepomis gibbosus, pumpkinseed sunfish Gastropoda Physella gyrina, freshwater snail Habitat use proportion snails under cover minus proportion at surface no predator 0.08 0.03 0.26 8 10 80 predator risk 0.58 0.04 0.33 8 10 80 Prey Habitat use -1 0 1 0 1 1 Tur00-02, 05, 06 Figure 4 Turner et al 2000 Oikos 88:148-158 Tur00-03 freshwater pond cattle tank/ wading pool field 7 8 10 11 Malacostraca Orconectes rusticus, crayfish Gastropoda Physella gyrina, freshwater snail Autotroph Periphyton Biomass ash free dry mass/cm2 no predator 12.52 3.8 33.99 8 10 80 crayfish risk 8.2 3.7 33.09 8 10 80 Resource Biomass 1 0 1 0 1 2 Tur00-01, 03, 04 under cover Figure 4 Turner et al 2000 Oikos 88:148-158 Tur00-04 freshwater pond cattle tank/ wading pool field 7 8 10 11 Malacostraca Orconectes rusticus, crayfish Gastropoda Physella gyrina, freshwater snail Autotroph Periphyton Biomass ash free dry mass/cm2 no predator 37.69 7.06 63.15 8 10 80 crayfish risk 9.46 3.67 32.83 8 10 80 Resource Biomass 1 0 1 0 1 2 Tur00-01, 03, 04 near surface Figure 4 Turner et al 2000 Oikos 88:148-158 Tur00-05 freshwater pond cattle tank/ wading pool field 7 8 10 11 Actinopterygii Lepomis gibbosus, pumpkinseed sunfish Gastropoda Physella gyrina, freshwater snail Autotroph Periphyton Biomass ash free dry mass/cm2 no predator 12.52 3.8 33.99 8 10 80 sunfish risk 0.59 0 0 8 10 80 Resource Biomass 1 0 1 0 1 2 Tur00-02, 05, 06 under cover Figure 4 Turner et al 2000 Oikos 88:148-158 Tur00-06 freshwater pond cattle tank/ wading pool field 7 8 10 11 Actinopterygii Lepomis gibbosus, pumpkinseed sunfish Gastropoda Physella gyrina, freshwater snail Autotroph Periphyton Biomass ash free dry mass/cm2 no predator 37.69 7.06 63.15 8 10 80 sunfish risk 50.82 6.49 58.05 8 10 80 Resource Biomass 1 0 1 0 1 2 Tur00-02, 05, 06 near surface Figure 1b Turner & Montgomery 2003 Ecology 84(3): 616-622 Tur03-01 freshwater lake aquarium lab 9 4 10 11 Actinopterygii Lepomis gibbosus, pumpkinseed sunfish Gastropoda Physa acuta, snail Growth mg no predator 1.25 0.17 1.06 4 10 40 predator risk 0.18 0.18 1.16 4 10 40 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Tur03-01, Tur03-05 Figure 1b Turner & Montgomery 2003 Ecology 84(3): 616-622 Tur03-02 freshwater lake aquarium lab 9 4 10 11 Actinopterygii Lepomis gibbosus, pumpkinseed sunfish Gastropoda Physa acuta, snail Growth mg no predator 1.25 0.17 1.06 4 10 40 predator risk 0 0.03 0.2 4 10 40 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Tur03-02, Tur03-06 Figure 1b Turner & Montgomery 2003 Ecology 84(3): 616-622 Tur03-03 freshwater lake aquarium lab 9 4 10 11 Actinopterygii Lepomis gibbosus, pumpkinseed sunfish Gastropoda Physa acuta, snail Growth mg no predator 1.25 0.17 1.06 4 10 40 predator risk 0.45 0.19 1.22 4 10 40 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Tur03-03, Tur03-07 Figure 1b Turner & Montgomery 2003 Ecology 84(3): 616-622 Tur03-04 freshwater lake aquarium lab 9 4 10 11 Actinopterygii Lepomis gibbosus, pumpkinseed sunfish Gastropoda Physa acuta, snail Growth mg no predator 1.25 0.17 1.06 4 10 40 predator risk 1.11 0.36 2.28 4 10 40 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Tur03-04, Tur03-08 Figure 1a Turner & Montgomery 2003 Ecology 84(3): 616-622 Tur03-05 freshwater lake aquarium lab 12.5 8 22 behavioral observations per replicate, 10 individuals per replicate 11 Actinopterygii Lepomis gibbosus, pumpkinseed sunfish Gastropoda Physa acuta, snail Habitat use proportion in refuge no predator (predator 6.4 m away from snails) 0.4 0.06 0.52 8 10 80 predator risk 0.87 0.04 0.4 8 10 80 Prey Habitat use -1 0 1 0 1 1 Tur03-01, Tur03-05 Figure 1a Turner & Montgomery 2003 Ecology 84(3): 616-622 Tur03-06 freshwater lake aquarium lab 12.5 8 22 behavioral observations per replicate, 10 individuals per replicate 11 Actinopterygii Lepomis gibbosus, pumpkinseed sunfish Gastropoda Physa acuta, snail Habitat use proportion in refuge no predator (predator 6.4 m away from snails) 0.4 0.06 0.52 8 10 80 predator risk 0.62 0.04 0.36 8 10 80 Prey Habitat use -1 0 1 0 1 1 Tur03-02, Tur03-06 Figure 1a Turner & Montgomery 2003 Ecology 84(3): 616-622 Tur03-07 freshwater lake aquarium lab 12.5 8 22 behavioral observations per replicate, 10 individuals per replicate 11 Actinopterygii Lepomis gibbosus, pumpkinseed sunfish Gastropoda Physa acuta, snail Habitat use proportion in refuge no predator (predator 6.4 m away from snails) 0.4 0.06 0.52 8 10 80 predator risk 0.6 0.06 0.58 8 10 80 Prey Habitat use -1 0 1 0 1 1 Tur03-03, Tur03-07 Figure 1a Turner & Montgomery 2003 Ecology 84(3): 616-622 Tur03-08 freshwater lake aquarium lab 12.5 8 22 behavioral observations per replicate, 10 individuals per replicate 11 Actinopterygii Lepomis gibbosus, pumpkinseed sunfish Gastropoda Physa acuta, snail Habitat use proportion in refuge no predator (predator 6.4 m away from snails) 0.4 0.06 0.52 8 10 80 predator risk 0.4 0.05 0.48 8 10 80 Prey Habitat use -1 0 1 0 1 1 Tur03-04, Tur03-08 Figure 2 Turner 2004 Oikos 104(3): 561-569 Tur04-01 freshwater pond cattle tank/ wading pool field 17 8 4 11 Malacostraca Cambarus bartonii, crayfish Gastropoda Helisoma trivolvis, pulmonate snail Growth mass gained over 17 days no predator 14.44 1.05 5.93 8 4 32 2 caged predators 13.53 1.45 8.21 8 4 32 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Tur04-01, 05 Figure 2 Turner 2004 Oikos 104(3): 561-569 Tur04-02 freshwater pond cattle tank/ wading pool field 17 8 20 11 Malacostraca Cambarus bartonii, crayfish Gastropoda Helisoma trivolvis, pulmonate snail Growth mass gained over 17 days no predator 3.7 0.9 11.4 8 20 160 2 caged predators 3.59 0.61 7.67 8 20 160 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Tur04-02, 06 Figure 2 Turner 2004 Oikos 104(3): 561-569 Tur04-03 freshwater pond cattle tank/ wading pool field 17 8 4 11 Malacostraca Cambarus bartonii, crayfish Gastropoda Helisoma trivolvis, pulmonate snail Growth mass gained over 17 days no predator 17.84 0.57 3.21 8 4 32 2 caged predators 10.93 1.52 8.59 8 4 32 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Tur04-03, 07 Figure 2 Turner 2004 Oikos 104(3): 561-569 Tur04-04 freshwater pond cattle tank/ wading pool field 17 8 20 11 Malacostraca Cambarus bartonii, crayfish Gastropoda Helisoma trivolvis, pulmonate snail Growth mass gained over 17 days no predator 6.79 1.12 14.21 8 20 160 2 caged predators 5.99 1.2 15.21 8 20 160 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Tur04-04, 08 Figure 4 Turner 2004 Oikos 104(3): 561-569 Tur04-05 freshwater pond cattle tank/ wading pool field 17 8 4 individuals per replicate, 25 observations of each replicate 11 Malacostraca Cambarus bartonii, crayfish Gastropoda Helisoma trivolvis, pulmonate snail Habitat use proportion of snails within 2.5 cm of water's surface no predator 0.11 0.01 0.08 8 4 32 2 caged predators 0.18 0.02 0.12 8 4 32 Prey Habitat use -1 0 1 0 1 1 Tur04-01, 05 Figure 4 Turner 2004 Oikos 104(3): 561-569 Tur04-06 freshwater pond cattle tank/ wading pool field 17 8 20 individuals per replicate, 25 observations of each replicate 11 Malacostraca Cambarus bartonii, crayfish Gastropoda Helisoma trivolvis, pulmonate snail Habitat use proportion of snails within 2.5 cm of water's surface no predator 0.08 0.01 0.1 8 20 160 2 caged predators 0.09 0.01 0.12 8 20 160 Prey Habitat use -1 0 1 0 1 1 Tur04-02, 06 Figure 4 Turner 2004 Oikos 104(3): 561-569 Tur04-07 freshwater pond cattle tank/ wading pool field 17 8 4 individuals per replicate, 25 observations of each replicate 11 Malacostraca Cambarus bartonii, crayfish Gastropoda Helisoma trivolvis, pulmonate snail Habitat use proportion of snails within 2.5 cm of water's surface no predator 0.09 0.01 0.04 8 4 32 2 caged predators 0.13 0.02 0.1 8 4 32 Prey Habitat use -1 0 1 0 1 1 Tur04-03, 07 Figure 4 Turner 2004 Oikos 104(3): 561-569 Tur04-08 freshwater pond cattle tank/ wading pool field 17 8 20 individuals per replicate, 25 observations of each replicate 11 Malacostraca Cambarus bartonii, crayfish Gastropoda Helisoma trivolvis, pulmonate snail Habitat use proportion of snails within 2.5 cm of water's surface no predator 0.07 0.01 0.07 8 20 160 2 caged predators 0.09 0.01 0.09 8 20 160 Prey Habitat use -1 0 1 0 1 1 Tur04-04, 08 Table 4 Turner & Mittelbach 1990 Ecology 71(6): 2241-2254 Tur90-01 freshwater lake enclosure field 70 3 400 111 Actinopterygii Micropterus salmoides, largemouth bass Actinopterygii Lepomis macrochirus, bluegill Autotroph Ankistrodesmus sp., algae Density #/ml no bass present 1776 334 11570.1 3 400 1200 bass present (bass had NO EFFECT on bluegill density, so only effect on bluegill was trait mediated) 1221 562 19468.25 3 400 1200 Resource Density 1 0 1 0 1 2 none Table 4 Turner & Mittelbach 1990 Ecology 71(6): 2241-2254 Tur90-02 freshwater lake enclosure field 70 3 400 111 Actinopterygii Micropterus salmoides, largemouth bass Actinopterygii Lepomis macrochirus, bluegill Autotroph Algae and small flagellates Density #/ml no bass present 3388 146 5057.59 3 400 1200 bass present (bass had NO EFFECT on bluegill density, so only effect on bluegill was trait mediated) 3043 890 30830.5 3 400 1200 Resource Density 1 0 1 0 1 2 none Table 4 Turner & Mittelbach 1990 Ecology 71(6): 2241-2254 Tur90-03 freshwater lake enclosure field 70 3 400 111 Actinopterygii Micropterus salmoides, largemouth bass Actinopterygii Lepomis macrochirus, bluegill Autotroph Dinobron sp., algae Density #/ml no bass present 21.1 6 207.85 3 400 1200 bass present (bass had NO EFFECT on bluegill density, so only effect on bluegill was trait mediated) 39.8 3.3 114.32 3 400 1200 Resource Density 1 0 1 0 1 2 none Table 4 Turner & Mittelbach 1990 Ecology 71(6): 2241-2254 Tur90-04 freshwater lake enclosure field 70 3 400 111 Actinopterygii Micropterus salmoides, largemouth bass Actinopterygii Lepomis macrochirus, bluegill Autotroph Ceratium sp., algae Density #/ml no bass present 0.3 0.3 10.39 3 400 1200 bass present (bass had NO EFFECT on bluegill density, so only effect on bluegill was trait mediated) 0.7 0.7 24.25 3 400 1200 Resource Density 1 0 1 0 1 2 none Figure 2 Turner & Mittelbach 1990 Ecology 71(6): 2241-2254 Tur90-05 freshwater lake enclosure field 70 3 400 111 Actinopterygii Micropterus salmoides, largemouth bass Actinopterygii Lepomis macrochirus, bluegill Branchiopoda Diaphanosoma sp. Density #/litre no bass present 11.51 0 0 3 400 1200 bass present (bass had NO EFFECT on bluegill density, so only effect on bluegill was trait mediated) 59.17 25.59 886.46 3 400 1200 Resource Density 1 0 1 0 1 2 none Figure 2 Turner & Mittelbach 1990 Ecology 71(6): 2241-2254 Tur90-06 freshwater lake enclosure field 70 3 400 111 Actinopterygii Micropterus salmoides, largemouth bass Actinopterygii Lepomis macrochirus, bluegill Branchiopoda Ceriodaphnia sp. Density #/litre no bass present 0.86 0 0 3 400 1200 bass present (bass had NO EFFECT on bluegill density, so only effect on bluegill was trait mediated) 12.72 10.47 362.69 3 400 1200 Resource Density 1 0 1 0 1 2 none Figure 4 Turner & Mittelbach 1990 Ecology 71(6): 2241-2254 Tur90-07 freshwater lake enclosure field 70 3 400 111 Actinopterygii Micropterus salmoides, largemouth bass Actinopterygii Lepomis macrochirus, bluegill Insecta Chaoborus sp., fly Density #/litre no bass present 0.32 0 0 3 400 1200 bass present (bass had NO EFFECT on bluegill density, so only effect on bluegill was trait mediated) 0.51 0.11 3.81 3 400 1200 Resource Density 1 0 1 0 1 2 none Figure 4 Turner & Mittelbach 1990 Ecology 71(6): 2241-2254 Tur90-08 freshwater lake enclosure field 70 3 400 111 Actinopterygii Micropterus salmoides, largemouth bass Actinopterygii Lepomis macrochirus, bluegill Maxillopoda Calanoid copepods Density #/litre no bass present 75.79 5.96 206.46 3 400 1200 bass present (bass had NO EFFECT on bluegill density, so only effect on bluegill was trait mediated) 60.57 15.56 539.01 3 400 1200 Resource Density 1 0 1 0 1 2 none Figure 1 Turner 1997 Behav Ecol 8(2): 120-125 Tur97-01 freshwater pond cattle tank/ wading pool field 14 4 12 11 simulated crushed conspecifics Gastropoda Physella gyrina, freshwater snail Growth mg no predator risk 2.07 0.15 1.01 4 12 48 low dose of crushed conspecifics 1.68 0.13 0.88 4 12 48 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Tur97-01, Tur97-04, Tur97-07 Figure 1 Turner 1997 Behav Ecol 8(2): 120-125 Tur97-02 freshwater pond cattle tank/ wading pool field 14 4 12 11 simulated crushed conspecifics Gastropoda Physella gyrina, freshwater snail Growth mg no predator risk 2.07 0.15 1.01 4 12 48 medium dose of crushed conspecifics 1.6 0.23 1.62 4 12 48 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Tur97-02, Tur97-05, Tur97-08 Figure 1 Turner 1997 Behav Ecol 8(2): 120-125 Tur97-03 freshwater pond cattle tank/ wading pool field 14 4 12 11 simulated crushed conspecifics Gastropoda Physella gyrina, freshwater snail Growth mg no predator risk 2.07 0.15 1.01 4 12 48 high dose of crushed conspecifics 1.32 0.25 1.71 4 12 48 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Tur97-03, Tur97-06, Tur97-09 Figure 3 Turner 1997 Behav Ecol 8(2): 120-125 Tur97-04 freshwater pond cattle tank/ wading pool field 14 4 1 no # individuals given. Used one ind/rep as most conservative estimate 111 simulated crushed conspecifics Gastropoda Physella gyrina, freshwater snail Autotroph Periphyton Biomass Ash-free dry mass of periphyton (mg/cm2) no predator risk 1.49 0.11 0.23 4 1 4 low dose of crushed conspecifics 1.8 0.12 0.24 4 1 4 Resource Biomass 1 0 1 0 1 2 Tur97-01 and Tur97-04 Open habitat Figure 3 Turner 1997 Behav Ecol 8(2): 120-125 Tur97-05 freshwater pond cattle tank/ wading pool field 14 4 1 no # individuals given. Used one ind/rep as most conservative estimate 111 simulated crushed conspecifics Gastropoda Physella gyrina, freshwater snail Autotroph Periphyton Biomass Ash-free dry mass of periphyton (mg/cm2) no predator risk 1.49 0.11 0.23 4 1 4 medium dose of crushed conspecifics 1.87 0.12 0.23 4 1 4 Resource Biomass 1 0 1 0 1 2 Tur97-02 and Tur97-05 Open habitat Figure 3 Turner 1997 Behav Ecol 8(2): 120-125 Tur97-06 freshwater pond cattle tank/ wading pool field 14 4 1 no # individuals given. Used one ind/rep as most conservative estimate 111 simulated crushed conspecifics Gastropoda Physella gyrina, freshwater snail Autotroph Periphyton Biomass Ash-free dry mass of periphyton (mg/cm2) no predator risk 1.49 0.11 0.23 4 1 4 high dose of crushed conspecifics 2.18 0.21 0.42 4 1 4 Resource Biomass 1 0 1 0 1 2 Tur97-03 and Tur97-06 Open habitat Figure 3 Turner 1997 Behav Ecol 8(2): 120-125 Tur97-07 freshwater pond cattle tank/ wading pool field 14 4 1 no # individuals given. Used one ind/rep as most conservative estimate 111 simulated crushed conspecifics Gastropoda Physella gyrina, freshwater snail Autotroph Periphyton Biomass Ash-free dry mass of periphyton (mg/cm2) no predator risk 0.45 0.06 0.11 4 1 4 low dose of crushed conspecifics 0.35 0.09 0.17 4 1 4 Resource Biomass 1 0 1 0 1 2 Tur97-01 and Tur97-07 Covered habitat Figure 3 Turner 1997 Behav Ecol 8(2): 120-125 Tur97-08 freshwater pond cattle tank/ wading pool field 14 4 1 no # individuals given. Used one ind/rep as most conservative estimate 111 simulated crushed conspecifics Gastropoda Physella gyrina, freshwater snail Autotroph Periphyton Biomass Ash-free dry mass of periphyton (mg/cm2) no predator risk 0.45 0.06 0.11 4 1 4 medium dose of crushed conspecifics 0.5 0.08 0.16 4 1 4 Resource Biomass 1 0 1 0 1 2 Tur97-02 and Tur97-08 Covered habitat Figure 3 Turner 1997 Behav Ecol 8(2): 120-125 Tur97-09 freshwater pond cattle tank/ wading pool field 14 4 1 no # individuals given. Used one ind/rep as most conservative estimate 111 simulated crushed conspecifics Gastropoda Physella gyrina, freshwater snail Autotroph Periphyton Biomass Ash-free dry mass of periphyton (mg/cm2) no predator risk 0.45 0.06 0.11 4 1 4 high dose of crushed conspecifics 0.4 0.06 0.11 4 1 4 Resource Biomass 1 0 1 0 1 2 Tur97-03 and Tur97-09 Covered habitat Table 1 Van Buskirk & Schmidt 2000 Ecology 81(11): 3009-3028 Van00-01 freshwater pond cattle tank/ wading pool field until metamorphosis complete 4 15 11 Insecta Aeshna cyanea, dragonfly Amphibia Triturus alpestris, alpine newt Survival % surviving to first metamorphosis no caged predator 0.83 0.08 0.62 4 15 60 caged predator 0.77 0.1 0.77 4 15 60 Prey Survival 1 0 1 0 1 1 Van00-01, Van0-03, Van00-05, Van0-07 (body mass for A. cyanea estimated by taking dry mass and multiplying by 3.5 to get wet mass) Table 1 Van Buskirk & Schmidt 2000 Ecology 81(11): 3009-3028 Van00-02 freshwater pond cattle tank/ wading pool field 43 4 15 11 Insecta Aeshna cyanea, dragonfly Amphibia Triturus helveticus, palmate newt Survival % surviving to week 6 no caged predator 0.83 0.06 0.46 4 15 60 caged predator 0.8 0.11 0.85 4 15 60 Prey Survival 1 0 1 0 1 1 Van00-02, Van00-04, Van00-06, Van00-08 (body mass for A. cyanea estimated by taking dry mass and multiplying by 3.5 to get wet mass) Table 1 Van Buskirk & Schmidt 2000 Ecology 81(11): 3009-3028 Van00-03 freshwater pond cattle tank/ wading pool field until metamorphosis complete 4 15 11 Insecta Aeshna cyanea, dragonfly Amphibia Triturus alpestris, alpine newt Growth Mass at metamorphosis (g) 12.8 0.63 4 no caged predator 389.3 6.79 52.6 4 15 60 caged predator 439 9.57 74.13 4 15 60 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Van00-01, Van0-03, Van00-05, Van0-07 (body mass for A. cyanea estimated by taking dry mass and multiplying by 3.5 to get wet mass) Table 1 Van Buskirk & Schmidt 2000 Ecology 81(11): 3009-3028 Van00-04 freshwater pond cattle tank/ wading pool field 43 4 15 11 Insecta Aeshna cyanea, dragonfly Amphibia Triturus helveticus, palmate newt Growth mass at week 6 (mg) 6.9 0.75 4 no caged predator 258.4 11.9 92.18 4 15 60 caged predator 201 5.6 43.38 4 15 60 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Van00-02, Van00-04, Van00-06, Van00-08 (body mass for A. cyanea estimated by taking dry mass and multiplying by 3.5 to get wet mass) Table 1 Van Buskirk & Schmidt 2000 Ecology 81(11): 3009-3028 Van00-05 freshwater pond cattle tank/ wading pool field until metamorphosis complete 4 15 11 Insecta Aeshna cyanea, dragonfly Amphibia Triturus alpestris, alpine newt Development Time to metamorphosis (days) no caged predator 68.7 0.8 6.2 4 15 60 caged predator 84.4 2.4 18.59 4 15 60 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Van00-01, Van0-03, Van00-05, Van0-07 (body mass for A. cyanea estimated by taking dry mass and multiplying by 3.5 to get wet mass) Table 1 Van Buskirk & Schmidt 2000 Ecology 81(11): 3009-3028 Van00-06 freshwater pond cattle tank/ wading pool field 43 4 15 11 Insecta Aeshna cyanea, dragonfly Amphibia Triturus helveticus, palmate newt Growth % mass gain/day no caged predator 8.78 0.12 0.93 4 15 60 caged predator 8.15 0.07 0.54 4 15 60 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Van00-02, Van00-04, Van00-06, Van00-08 (body mass for A. cyanea estimated by taking dry mass and multiplying by 3.5 to get wet mass) Figure 3 Van Buskirk & Schmidt 2000 Ecology 81(11): 3009-3028 Van00-07 freshwater pond cattle tank/ wading pool field 38 4 15 11 Insecta Aeshna cyanea, dragonfly Amphibia Triturus alpestris, alpine newt Habitat use # exposed no caged predator 4.62 0.92 7.13 4 15 60 caged predator 2.81 0.67 5.19 4 15 60 Prey Habitat use 1 0 1 0 1 1 Van00-01, Van0-03, Van00-05, Van0-07 (body mass for A. cyanea estimated by taking dry mass and multiplying by 3.5 to get wet mass) Figure 3 Van Buskirk & Schmidt 2000 Ecology 81(11): 3009-3028 Van00-08 freshwater pond cattle tank/ wading pool field 38 4 15 11 Insecta Aeshna cyanea, dragonfly Amphibia Triturus helveticus, palmate newt Habitat use # exposed no caged predator 2.98 0.42 3.25 4 15 60 caged predator 0 0 0 4 15 60 Prey Habitat use 1 0 1 0 1 1 Van00-02, Van00-04, Van00-06, Van00-08 (body mass for A. cyanea estimated by taking dry mass and multiplying by 3.5 to get wet mass) Figure2C Van Buskirk and Yurewicz 1998 Oikos 82: 20-28 Van98-01 freshwater pond, ephemeral cattle tank/ wading pool field 22 4 200 11 Insecta Anax junius, dragonfly Amphibia Rana sylvatica, wood frog Growth average daily proportional increase in mass no predator 0.17 0 0.11 4 200 800 predator risk 0.14 0.01 0.2 4 200 800 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Van98-01, 04 high removal treatment Figure2C Van Buskirk and Yurewicz 1998 Oikos 82: 20-28 Van98-02 freshwater pond, ephemeral cattle tank/ wading pool field 22 4 200 11 Insecta Anax junius, dragonfly Amphibia Rana sylvatica, wood frog Growth average daily proportional increase in mass no predator 0.14 0 0.08 4 200 800 predator risk 0.13 0 0.12 4 200 800 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Van98-02, 05 low removal treatment Figure2C Van Buskirk and Yurewicz 1998 Oikos 82: 20-28 Van98-03 freshwater pond, ephemeral cattle tank/ wading pool field 22 4 200 11 Insecta Anax junius, dragonfly Amphibia Rana sylvatica, wood frog Growth average daily proportional increase in mass no predator 0.13 0 0.11 4 200 800 predator risk 0.13 0.01 0.15 4 200 800 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Van98-03, 06 no removal treatment Figure 1A Van Buskirk and Yurewicz 1998 Oikos 82: 20-28 Van98-04 freshwater pond, ephemeral cattle tank/ wading pool field 10 4 observations made on 5 individuals/tank (200 total individuals per tank) 11 Insecta Anax junius, dragonfly Amphibia Rana sylvatica, wood frog Activity proportion of time active no predator 0.47 0.04 0.19 4 5 20 predator risk 0.12 0.05 1.49 4 200 800 Prey Activity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Van98-01, 04 high removal treatment Figure 1A Van Buskirk and Yurewicz 1998 Oikos 82: 20-28 Van98-05 freshwater pond, ephemeral cattle tank/ wading pool field 10 4 observations made on 5 individuals/tank (200 total individuals per tank) 11 Insecta Anax junius, dragonfly Amphibia Rana sylvatica, wood frog Activity proportion of time active no predator 0.6 0.06 0.25 4 5 20 predator risk 0.15 0.06 1.66 4 200 800 Prey Activity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Van98-02, 05 low removal treatment Figure 1A Van Buskirk and Yurewicz 1998 Oikos 82: 20-28 Van98-06 freshwater pond, ephemeral cattle tank/ wading pool field 10 4 observations made on 5 individuals/tank (200 total individuals per tank) 11 Insecta Anax junius, dragonfly Amphibia Rana sylvatica, wood frog Activity proportion of time active no predator 0.65 0.08 0.36 4 5 20 predator risk 0.27 0.09 2.5 4 200 800 Prey Activity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Van98-03, 06 no removal treatment Figure 2A Vorndran et al 2002 Ecology 83(6): 1648-1659 Vor02-01 freshwater lake & pond aquarium lab 47 4 32 11 Insecta Aeshna cyanea, dragonfly Amphibia Bombina bombina, fire-bellied toad Growth length (mm) no predator 42.05 2.03 22.97 4 32 128 non-lethal predator in cage 27.58 2.32 26.25 4 32 128 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Vor02-01, Vor02-03 (body mass for A. cyanea estimated by taking dry mass and multiplying by 3.5 to get wet mass) Figure 2B Vorndran et al 2002 Ecology 83(6): 1648-1659 Vor02-02 freshwater pond, ephemeral aquarium lab 35 4 32 11 Insecta Aeshna cyanea, dragonfly Amphibia Bombina variegata, fire-bellied toad Growth length (mm) no predator 37.83 1.16 13.12 4 32 128 non-lethal predator in cage 32.03 1.45 16.4 4 32 128 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Vor02-02, Vor02-04 (body mass for A. cyanea estimated by taking dry mass and multiplying by 3.5 to get wet mass) Table 3 Vorndran et al 2002 Ecology 83(6): 1648-1659 Vor02-03 freshwater lake & pond aquarium lab until metamorphosis complete 4 32 11 Insecta Aeshna cyanea, dragonfly Amphibia Bombina bombina, fire-bellied toad Development Time to metamorphosis (days) no predator 54 1.54 17.42 4 32 128 non-lethal predator in cage 65.7 1.78 20.14 4 32 128 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Vor02-01, Vor02-03 (body mass for A. cyanea estimated by taking dry mass and multiplying by 3.5 to get wet mass) Table 3 Vorndran et al 2002 Ecology 83(6): 1648-1659 Vor02-04 freshwater pond, ephemeral aquarium lab until metamorphosis complete 4 32 11 Insecta Aeshna cyanea, dragonfly Amphibia Bombina variegata, fire-bellied toad Development Time to metamorphosis (days) no predator 39.5 0.73 8.26 4 32 128 non-lethal predator in cage 50.7 1.65 18.67 4 32 128 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Vor02-02, Vor02-04 (body mass for A. cyanea estimated by taking dry mass and multiplying by 3.5 to get wet mass) Figure 3a Walls et al 2002 Herpetologica 58(1):104-118 Wal02-01 freshwater pond aquarium lab 60 4 20 11 Actinopterygii Gambusia affinis, western mosquitofish Amphibia Gastrophryne carolinensis, narrow-mouthed toad Survival proportion surviving no predator 0.93 0.07 0.64 4 20 80 predator risk 0.77 0.15 1.36 4 20 80 Prey Survival 1 0 1 0 1 1 Wal02-01, 05 Figure 3a Walls et al 2002 Herpetologica 58(1):104-118 Wal02-02 freshwater pond aquarium lab 60 4 40 11 Actinopterygii Gambusia affinis, western mosquitofish Amphibia Gastrophryne carolinensis, narrow-mouthed toad Survival proportion surviving no predator 0.83 0.08 1.04 4 40 160 predator risk 0.71 0.13 1.67 4 40 160 Prey Survival 1 0 1 0 1 1 Wal02-02, 06 Figure 3a Walls et al 2002 Herpetologica 58(1):104-118 Wal02-03 freshwater pond aquarium lab 60 4 20 11 Malacostraca Procambarus sp., crayfish Amphibia Gastrophryne carolinensis, narrow-mouthed toad Survival proportion surviving no predator 0.93 0.07 0.64 4 20 80 predator risk 0.69 0.13 1.12 4 20 80 Prey Survival 1 0 1 0 1 1 Wal02-03, 07 Figure 3a Walls et al 2002 Herpetologica 58(1):104-118 Wal02-04 freshwater pond aquarium lab 60 4 40 11 Malacostraca Procambarus sp., crayfish Amphibia Gastrophryne carolinensis, narrow-mouthed toad Survival proportion surviving no predator 0.83 0.08 1.04 4 40 160 predator risk 0.86 0.01 0.12 4 40 160 Prey Survival 1 0 1 0 1 1 Wal02-04, 08 Figure 3b Walls et al 2002 Herpetologica 58(1):104-118 Wal02-05 freshwater pond aquarium lab 60 4 20 11 Actinopterygii Gambusia affinis, western mosquitofish Amphibia Gastrophryne carolinensis, narrow-mouthed toad Growth final mass (g) no predator 0.27 0.01 0.09 4 20 80 predator risk 0.28 0.01 0.07 4 20 80 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Wal02-01, 05 Figure 3b Walls et al 2002 Herpetologica 58(1):104-118 Wal02-06 freshwater pond aquarium lab 60 4 40 11 Actinopterygii Gambusia affinis, western mosquitofish Amphibia Gastrophryne carolinensis, narrow-mouthed toad Growth final mass (g) no predator 0.22 0 0.05 4 40 160 predator risk 0.24 0.02 0.22 4 40 160 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Wal02-02, 06 Figure 3b Walls et al 2002 Herpetologica 58(1):104-118 Wal02-07 freshwater pond aquarium lab 60 4 20 11 Malacostraca Procambarus sp., crayfish Amphibia Gastrophryne carolinensis, narrow-mouthed toad Growth final mass (g) no predator 0.27 0.01 0.09 4 20 80 predator risk 0.27 0.01 0.05 4 20 80 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Wal02-03, 07 Figure 3b Walls et al 2002 Herpetologica 58(1):104-118 Wal02-08 freshwater pond aquarium lab 60 4 40 11 Malacostraca Procambarus sp., crayfish Amphibia Gastrophryne carolinensis, narrow-mouthed toad Growth final mass (g) no predator 0.22 0 0.05 4 40 160 predator risk 0.22 0.01 0.1 4 40 160 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Wal02-04, 08 Figure 1a Walls et al 2002 Herpetologica 58(1):104-118 Wal02-09 freshwater pond aquarium lab 60 4 10 11 Actinopterygii Gambusia affinis, western mosquitofish Amphibia Gastrophryne carolinensis, narrow-mouthed toad Survival proportion surviving no predator 0.83 0.09 0.57 4 10 40 predator risk 0.9 0.08 0.54 4 10 40 Prey Survival 1 0 1 0 1 1 Wal02-09, 11 Figure 1a Walls et al 2002 Herpetologica 58(1):104-118 Wal02-10 freshwater pond aquarium lab 60 4 20 11 Actinopterygii Gambusia affinis, western mosquitofish Amphibia Gastrophryne carolinensis, narrow-mouthed toad Survival proportion surviving no predator 0.84 0.05 0.46 4 20 80 predator risk 0.9 0.03 0.27 4 20 80 Prey Survival 1 0 1 0 1 1 Wal02-10, 12 Figure 1b Walls et al 2002 Herpetologica 58(1):104-118 Wal02-11 freshwater pond aquarium lab 60 4 10 11 Actinopterygii Gambusia affinis, western mosquitofish Amphibia Gastrophryne carolinensis, narrow-mouthed toad Growth final mass (g) no predator 0.33 0.03 0.2 4 10 40 predator risk 0.34 0.02 0.15 4 10 40 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Wal02-09, 11 Figure 1b Walls et al 2002 Herpetologica 58(1):104-118 Wal02-12 freshwater pond aquarium lab 60 4 20 11 Actinopterygii Gambusia affinis, western mosquitofish Amphibia Gastrophryne carolinensis, narrow-mouthed toad Growth final mass (g) no predator 0.26 0.01 0.05 4 20 80 predator risk 0.26 0.01 0.1 4 20 80 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Wal02-10, 12 Figure 2a Walls et al 2002 Herpetologica 58(1):104-118 Wal02-13 freshwater pond aquarium lab 60 4 10 11 Actinopterygii Gambusia affinis, western mosquitofish Amphibia Hyla squirella, squirrel treefrog Survival proportion surviving no predator 0.6 0.18 1.13 4 10 40 predator risk 0.61 0.23 1.43 4 10 40 Prey Survival 1 0 1 0 1 1 Wal02-13, 15 Figure 2a Walls et al 2002 Herpetologica 58(1):104-118 Wal02-14 freshwater pond aquarium lab 60 4 20 11 Actinopterygii Gambusia affinis, western mosquitofish Amphibia Hyla squirella, squirrel treefrog Survival proportion surviving no predator 0.23 0.1 0.92 4 20 80 predator risk 0.34 0.21 1.91 4 20 80 Prey Survival 1 0 1 0 1 1 Wal02-14, 16 Figure 2b Walls et al 2002 Herpetologica 58(1):104-118 Wal02-15 freshwater pond aquarium lab 60 4 10 11 Actinopterygii Gambusia affinis, western mosquitofish Amphibia Hyla squirella, squirrel treefrog Growth final mass (g) no predator 0.63 0.05 0.3 4 10 40 predator risk 0.65 0.04 0.27 4 10 40 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Wal02-13, 15 Figure 2b Walls et al 2002 Herpetologica 58(1):104-118 Wal02-16 freshwater pond aquarium lab 60 4 20 11 Actinopterygii Gambusia affinis, western mosquitofish Amphibia Hyla squirella, squirrel treefrog Growth final mass (g) no predator 0.48 0.04 0.32 4 20 80 predator risk 0.46 0.15 1.32 4 20 80 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Wal02-14, 16 Figure 5a Walls et al 2002 Herpetologica 58(1):104-118 Wal02-17 freshwater pond aquarium lab 1 3 10 11 Actinopterygii Gambusia affinis, western mosquitofish Amphibia Gastrophryne carolinensis, narrow-mouthed toad Habitat use proportion near cage no predator 0.6 0.04 0.2 3 10 30 predator risk 0.55 0.04 0.23 3 10 30 Prey Habitat use 1 0 1 0 1 1 none it says in the text that the number of replicates//trt varies from 3-9, so I just went ahead and put in 3 for all reps/trt (to be conservative) - done by ep 2/8/06 Figure 5b Walls et al 2002 Herpetologica 58(1):104-118 Wal02-18 freshwater pond aquarium lab 1 3 10 11 Actinopterygii Gambusia affinis, western mosquitofish Amphibia Hyla squirella, squirrel treefrog Habitat use proportion near cage no predator 0.54 0.17 0.91 3 10 30 predator risk 0.69 0.07 0.36 3 10 30 Prey Habitat use 1 0 1 0 1 1 none it says in the text that the number of replicates//trt varies from 3-9, so I just went ahead and put in 3 for all reps/trt (to be conservative) - done by ep 2/8/06 Table 1 Walker & Rypstra 2003 J Arachnology 31: 425-427 Wal03-01 terrestrial field cage lab 0.06 varies 5 111 Arachnida Hogna helluo, wolf spider Arachnida Pardosa milvina, wolf spider Insecta Drosophila melanogaster, fruit fly Survival # consumed no top predator 4.7 0.22 1.39 8 5 40 top predator scent 2 0.17 1.2 10 5 50 Resource Survival -1 0 1 0 1 2 none Table 1 Walker & Rypstra 2003 J Arachnology 31: 425-427 Wal03-02 terrestrial field cage lab 0.06 varies 5 111 Arachnida Hogna helluo, wolf spider Arachnida Pardosa milvina, wolf spider Insecta Drosophila melanogaster, fruit fly Survival # consumed no top predator 4.3 0.37 2.48 9 5 45 top predator scent 3.4 0.34 2.4 10 5 50 Resource Survival -1 0 1 0 1 2 none Table 1 Walls et al 1991 Oecologia 87:43-50 Wal91-01 freshwater pond aquarium lab 90 12 1 11 Insecta Chaoborus crystallinus, midge Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Survival longevity (days) no predator threat 36.55 1.14 3.95 12 1 12 chemical cue in water from predator 35.67 1.01 3.5 12 1 12 Prey Survival 1 0 1 0 1 1 none high food; could only get dry mass, so multiplied dry mass by 6 to get wet mass Table 1 Walls et al 1991 Oecologia 87:43-50 Wal91-02 freshwater pond aquarium lab 90 12 1 11 Insecta Chaoborus crystallinus, midge Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Survival longevity (days) no predator threat 58.83 4.02 13.93 12 1 12 chemical cue in water from predator 51.27 0.56 1.86 11 1 11 Prey Survival 1 0 1 0 1 1 none low food; could only get dry mass, so multiplied dry mass by 6 to get wet mass Table 1 Walls et al 1991 Oecologia 87:43-50 Wal91-03 freshwater pond aquarium lab 90 12 1 11 Insecta Chaoborus crystallinus, midge Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Density r no predator threat 0.49 0.01 0.02 12 1 12 chemical cue in water from predator 0.49 0.01 0.04 12 1 12 Prey Density 1 0 1 0 1 1 none high food; could only get dry mass, so multiplied dry mass by 6 to get wet mass Table 1 Walls et al 1991 Oecologia 87:43-50 Wal91-04 freshwater pond aquarium lab 90 12 1 11 Insecta Chaoborus crystallinus, midge Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Density r no predator threat 0.31 0.02 0.06 12 1 12 chemical cue in water from predator 0.27 0.02 0.06 12 1 12 Prey Density 1 0 1 0 1 1 none low food; could only get dry mass, so multiplied dry mass by 6 to get wet mass Table 2 Walls et al 1991 Oecologia 87:43-50 Wal91-05 freshwater pond aquarium lab 90 12 1 11 Insecta Chaoborus crystallinus, midge Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Fecundity clutch size (#) no predator threat 11.25 0.31 1.07 12 1 12 chemical cue in water from predator 11 0.35 1.21 12 1 12 Prey Fecundity 1 0 1 0 1 1 none high food instar 1; could only get dry mass, so multiplied dry mass by 6 to get wet mass Table 2 Walls et al 1991 Oecologia 87:43-50 Wal91-06 freshwater pond aquarium lab 90 12 1 11 Insecta Chaoborus crystallinus, midge Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Fecundity clutch size no predator threat 16.5 0.34 1.18 12 1 12 chemical cue in water from predator 19 0.71 2.46 12 1 12 Prey Fecundity 1 0 1 0 1 1 none high food instar 2; could only get dry mass, so multiplied dry mass by 6 to get wet mass Table 2 Walls et al 1991 Oecologia 87:43-50 Wal91-07 freshwater pond aquarium lab 90 12 1 11 Insecta Chaoborus crystallinus, midge Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Fecundity clutch size no predator threat 19.08 0.93 3.22 12 1 12 chemical cue in water from predator 20.08 1.01 3.5 12 1 12 Prey Fecundity 1 0 1 0 1 1 none high food instar 3; could only get dry mass, so multiplied dry mass by 6 to get wet mass Table 2 Walls et al 1991 Oecologia 87:43-50 Wal91-08 freshwater pond aquarium lab 90 12 1 11 Insecta Chaoborus crystallinus, midge Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Fecundity clutch size no predator threat 16.08 1.37 4.75 12 1 12 chemical cue in water from predator 17.75 1.19 4.12 12 1 12 Prey Fecundity 1 0 1 0 1 1 none high food instar 4; could only get dry mass, so multiplied dry mass by 6 to get wet mass Table 2 Walls et al 1991 Oecologia 87:43-50 Wal91-09 freshwater pond aquarium lab 90 12 1 11 Insecta Chaoborus crystallinus, midge Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Fecundity clutch size no predator threat 20.64 1.29 4.47 12 1 12 chemical cue in water from predator 19.17 0.68 2.36 12 1 12 Prey Fecundity 1 0 1 0 1 1 none high food instar 5; could only get dry mass, so multiplied dry mass by 6 to get wet mass Table 2 Walls et al 1991 Oecologia 87:43-50 Wal91-10 freshwater pond aquarium lab 90 12 1 11 Insecta Chaoborus crystallinus, midge Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Fecundity clutch size no predator threat 4.67 0.19 0.66 12 1 12 chemical cue in water from predator 4.17 0.35 1.21 12 1 12 Prey Fecundity 1 0 1 0 1 1 none low food instar 1; could only get dry mass, so multiplied dry mass by 6 to get wet mass Table 2 Walls et al 1991 Oecologia 87:43-50 Wal91-11 freshwater pond aquarium lab 90 12 1 11 Insecta Chaoborus crystallinus, midge Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Fecundity clutch size no predator threat 4.17 0.21 0.73 12 1 12 chemical cue in water from predator 3.42 0.26 0.9 12 1 12 Prey Fecundity 1 0 1 0 1 1 none low food instar 2; could only get dry mass, so multiplied dry mass by 6 to get wet mass Table 2 Walls et al 1991 Oecologia 87:43-50 Wal91-12 freshwater pond aquarium lab 90 12 1 11 Insecta Chaoborus crystallinus, midge Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Fecundity clutch size no predator threat 5.33 0.26 0.9 12 1 12 chemical cue in water from predator 3.58 0.4 1.39 12 1 12 Prey Fecundity 1 0 1 0 1 1 none low food instar 3; could only get dry mass, so multiplied dry mass by 6 to get wet mass Table 2 Walls et al 1991 Oecologia 87:43-50 Wal91-13 freshwater pond aquarium lab 90 12 1 11 Insecta Chaoborus crystallinus, midge Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Fecundity clutch size no predator threat 3.92 0.34 1.18 12 1 12 chemical cue in water from predator 3.58 0.23 0.8 12 1 12 Prey Fecundity 1 0 1 0 1 1 none low food instar 4; could only get dry mass, so multiplied dry mass by 6 to get wet mass Table 2 Walls et al 1991 Oecologia 87:43-50 Wal91-14 freshwater pond aquarium lab 90 12 1 11 Insecta Chaoborus crystallinus, midge Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Fecundity clutch size no predator threat 3.83 0.24 0.83 12 1 12 chemical cue in water from predator 2.83 0.24 0.83 12 1 12 Prey Fecundity 1 0 1 0 1 1 none low food instar 5; could only get dry mass, so multiplied dry mass by 6 to get wet mass Figure 1 Walls et al 1997 Freshwater Biology 38:353-364 Wal97-01 freshwater pond aquarium lab 21 24 1 11 Insecta Chaoborus sp., midge Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Fecundity total # offspring no predator 35.83 6.4 31.37 24 1 24 predator risk 42.71 8.68 42.54 24 1 24 Prey Fecundity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Wal97-01, 04 Figure 1 Walls et al 1997 Freshwater Biology 38:353-364 Wal97-02 freshwater pond aquarium lab 21 24 1 11 Insecta Chaoborus sp., midge Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Fecundity total # offspring no predator 140.96 7.66 37.53 24 1 24 predator risk 104.7 25.62 125.49 24 1 24 Prey Fecundity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Wal97-02, 05 Figure 1 Walls et al 1997 Freshwater Biology 38:353-364 Wal97-03 freshwater pond aquarium lab 21 24 1 11 Insecta Chaoborus sp., midge Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Growth Length at first reproduction (um) no predator 1511.24 43.37 212.49 24 1 24 predator risk 1605.92 40.73 199.54 24 1 24 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Wal97-03, 06 Figure 1 Walls et al 1997 Freshwater Biology 38:353-364 Wal97-04 freshwater pond aquarium lab 21 24 1 11 Insecta Chaoborus sp., midge Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Growth Length at first reproduction (um) no predator 1613.86 47.08 230.63 24 1 24 predator risk 1717.54 60.83 298.01 24 1 24 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Wal97-01, 04 Figure 1 Walls et al 1997 Freshwater Biology 38:353-364 Wal97-05 freshwater pond aquarium lab 21 24 1 11 Insecta Chaoborus sp., midge Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Development time to first reproduction no predator 8.75 1.18 5.79 24 1 24 predator risk 8.13 0.61 2.97 24 1 24 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Wal97-02, 05 Figure 1 Walls et al 1997 Freshwater Biology 38:353-364 Wal97-06 freshwater pond aquarium lab 21 24 1 11 Insecta Chaoborus sp., midge Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Development time to first reproduction no predator 6.98 0.53 2.59 24 1 24 predator risk 7.57 0.53 2.59 24 1 24 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Wal97-03, 06 Figure 1a Weber 2001 J Plankton Research 23(1):41-46 Web02-01 freshwater lake aquarium lab until 1st reproduction 5 1 no # individuals given. Used one ind/rep as most conservative estimate 11 Insecta Chaoborus sp., midge Branchiopoda Daphnia galeata Development time to first reproduction no predator 12.92 0.8 1.78 5 1 5 predator risk 14.02 0.34 0.75 5 1 5 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Web02-01, 05, 09 Figure 1a Weber 2001 J Plankton Research 23(1):41-46 Web02-02 freshwater lake aquarium lab until 1st reproduction 5 1 no # individuals given. Used one ind/rep as most conservative estimate 11 Insecta Chaoborus sp., midge Branchiopoda Daphnia galeata Development time to first reproduction no predator 8.59 0.23 0.52 5 1 5 predator risk 9.47 0.34 0.75 5 1 5 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Web02-02, 06, 10 Figure 1a Weber 2001 J Plankton Research 23(1):41-46 Web02-03 freshwater lake aquarium lab until 1st reproduction 5 1 no # individuals given. Used one ind/rep as most conservative estimate 11 Actinopterygii Perca fluviatilis, Eurasian perch Branchiopoda Daphnia galeata Development time to first reproduction no predator 12.92 0.8 1.78 5 1 5 predator risk 9.15 0.66 1.48 5 1 5 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Web02-03, 07, 11 Figure 1a Weber 2001 J Plankton Research 23(1):41-46 Web02-04 freshwater lake aquarium lab until 1st reproduction 5 1 no # individuals given. Used one ind/rep as most conservative estimate 11 Actinopterygii Perca fluviatilis, Eurasian perch Branchiopoda Daphnia galeata Development time to first reproduction no predator 8.59 0.23 0.52 5 1 5 predator risk 8.23 0.4 0.89 5 1 5 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Web02-04, 08, 12 Figure 1b Weber 2001 J Plankton Research 23(1):41-46 Web02-05 freshwater lake aquarium lab until 1st reproduction 5 1 no # individuals given. Used one ind/rep as most conservative estimate 11 Insecta Chaoborus sp., midge Branchiopoda Daphnia galeata Growth Length at first reproduction (mm) no predator 0.93 0.01 0.02 5 1 5 predator risk 1.01 0.01 0.02 5 1 5 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Web02-01, 05, 09 Figure 1b Weber 2001 J Plankton Research 23(1):41-46 Web02-06 freshwater lake aquarium lab until 1st reproduction 5 1 no # individuals given. Used one ind/rep as most conservative estimate 11 Insecta Chaoborus sp., midge Branchiopoda Daphnia galeata Growth Length at first reproduction (mm) no predator 0.88 0.02 0.04 5 1 5 predator risk 0.93 0.02 0.05 5 1 5 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Web02-02, 06, 10 Figure 1b Weber 2001 J Plankton Research 23(1):41-46 Web02-07 freshwater lake aquarium lab until 1st reproduction 5 1 no # individuals given. Used one ind/rep as most conservative estimate 11 Actinopterygii Perca fluviatilis, Eurasian perch Branchiopoda Daphnia galeata Growth Length at first reproduction (mm) no predator 0.93 0.01 0.02 5 1 5 predator risk 0.89 0.02 0.04 5 1 5 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Web02-03, 07, 11 Figure 1b Weber 2001 J Plankton Research 23(1):41-46 Web02-08 freshwater lake aquarium lab until 1st reproduction 5 1 no # individuals given. Used one ind/rep as most conservative estimate 11 Actinopterygii Perca fluviatilis, Eurasian perch Branchiopoda Daphnia galeata Growth Length at first reproduction (mm) no predator 0.88 0.02 0.04 5 1 5 predator risk 0.9 0.03 0.07 5 1 5 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Web02-04, 08, 12 Figure 1c Weber 2001 J Plankton Research 23(1):41-46 Web02-09 freshwater lake aquarium lab until 1st reproduction 5 1 no # individuals given. Used one ind/rep as most conservative estimate 11 Insecta Chaoborus sp., midge Branchiopoda Daphnia galeata Density intrinsic rate of population increase. R no predator 0 0.09 0.21 5 1 5 predator risk -0.22 0.02 0.04 5 1 5 Prey Density 1 0 1 0 1 1 Web02-01, 05, 09 Figure 1c Weber 2001 J Plankton Research 23(1):41-46 Web02-10 freshwater lake aquarium lab until 1st reproduction 5 1 no # individuals given. Used one ind/rep as most conservative estimate 11 Insecta Chaoborus sp., midge Branchiopoda Daphnia galeata Density intrinsic rate of population increase. R no predator 0.21 0.02 0.04 5 1 5 predator risk 0.18 0.02 0.04 5 1 5 Prey Density 1 0 1 0 1 1 Web02-02, 06, 10 Figure 1c Weber 2001 J Plankton Research 23(1):41-46 Web02-11 freshwater lake aquarium lab until 1st reproduction 5 1 no # individuals given. Used one ind/rep as most conservative estimate 11 Actinopterygii Perca fluviatilis, Eurasian perch Branchiopoda Daphnia galeata Density intrinsic rate of population increase. R no predator 0 0.09 0.21 5 1 5 predator risk 0.07 0.04 0.1 5 1 5 Prey Density 1 0 1 0 1 1 Web02-03, 07, 11 Figure 1c Weber 2001 J Plankton Research 23(1):41-46 Web02-12 freshwater lake aquarium lab until 1st reproduction 5 1 no # individuals given. Used one ind/rep as most conservative estimate 11 Actinopterygii Perca fluviatilis, Eurasian perch Branchiopoda Daphnia galeata Density intrinsic rate of population increase. R no predator 0.21 0.02 0.04 5 1 5 predator risk 0.18 0.01 0.03 5 1 5 Prey Density 1 0 1 0 1 1 Web02-04, 08, 12 Table 3 Weber et al 2003 Hydrobiologia 491: 273-287 Web03-01 freshwater lake aquarium lab until sixth clutch produced 4 4 11 Insecta Chaoborus americanus, phantom midge Branchiopoda Daphnia galeata Density r (after 6th clutch) no predator cue present 0.28 0.02 0.09 4 4 16 Chaoborus cues present 0.28 0.02 0.06 4 4 16 Prey Density 1 0 1 0 1 1 Wb03-01, Web03-02, Web03-03 number of reps/trt is 4 because I calculated mean and se by using data in table 3 to generate an across-clone mean and se for each metric (and there are 4 clones/trt) Table 3 Weber et al 2003 Hydrobiologia 491: 273-287 Web03-02 freshwater lake aquarium lab until sixth clutch produced 4 4 11 Insecta Chaoborus americanus, phantom midge Branchiopoda Daphnia galeata Growth somatic growth rate (mm/day) no predator cue present 0.15 0.01 0.03 4 4 16 Chaoborus cues present 0.18 0.01 0.04 4 4 16 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Wb03-01, Web03-02, Web03-03 number of reps/trt is 4 because I calculated mean and se by using data in table 3 to generate an across-clone mean and se for each metric (and there are 4 clones/trt) Table 3 Weber et al 2003 Hydrobiologia 491: 273-287 Web03-03 freshwater lake aquarium lab until sixth clutch produced 4 4 11 Insecta Chaoborus americanus, phantom midge Branchiopoda Daphnia galeata Development mean instar at death no predator cue present 5.67 0.24 0.94 4 4 16 Chaoborus cues present 4.14 0.52 2.08 4 4 16 Prey Development 1 0 1 0 1 1 Wb03-01, Web03-02, Web03-03 number of reps/trt is 4 because I calculated mean and se by using data in table 3 to generate an across-clone mean and se for each metric (and there are 4 clones/trt) Figure 1a Weber & Declerk 1997 Hydrobiologia 360: 89-99 Web97-01 freshwater lake aquarium lab until development complete 28 1 11 Actinopterygii Perca fluviatilis, Eurasian perch Branchiopoda Daphnia galeata Development Time to maturity (days) no predator cue 6.38 0.11 0.6 28 1 28 fish chemical cues 6.03 0.1 0.53 28 1 28 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Web97-01, Web97-03, Web97-05, Web97-07, Web97-09, Web97-11, Web97-13 Figure 1a Weber & Declerk 1997 Hydrobiologia 360: 89-99 Web97-02 freshwater lake aquarium lab until development complete 28 1 11 Insecta Chaoborus americanus, phantom midge Branchiopoda Daphnia galeata Development Time to maturity (days) no predator cue 6.38 0.11 0.6 28 1 28 fly chemical cues 5.81 0.16 0.85 28 1 28 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Web97-02, Web97-04, Web97-06, Web97-08, Web97-10, Web97-12, Web97-14 Figure 1b Weber & Declerk 1997 Hydrobiologia 360: 89-99 Web97-03 freshwater lake aquarium lab until development complete 28 1 11 Actinopterygii Perca fluviatilis, Eurasian perch Branchiopoda Daphnia galeata Fecundity # neonates no predator cue 36.5 1.31 6.93 28 1 28 fish chemical cues 31.87 1.45 7.66 28 1 28 Prey Fecundity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Web97-01, Web97-03, Web97-05, Web97-07, Web97-09, Web97-11, Web97-13 Figure 1b Weber & Declerk 1997 Hydrobiologia 360: 89-99 Web97-04 freshwater lake aquarium lab until development complete 28 1 11 Insecta Chaoborus americanus, phantom midge Branchiopoda Daphnia galeata Fecundity # neonates no predator cue 36.5 1.31 6.93 28 1 28 fly chemical cues 41.17 2.5 13.23 28 1 28 Prey Fecundity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Web97-02, Web97-04, Web97-06, Web97-08, Web97-10, Web97-12, Web97-14 Figure 1c Weber & Declerk 1997 Hydrobiologia 360: 89-99 Web97-05 freshwater lake aquarium lab until development complete 28 1 11 Actinopterygii Perca fluviatilis, Eurasian perch Branchiopoda Daphnia galeata Density r no predator cue 0.27 0 0.02 28 1 28 fish chemical cues 0.29 0.01 0.04 28 1 28 Prey Density 1 0 1 0 1 1 Web97-01, Web97-03, Web97-05, Web97-07, Web97-09, Web97-11, Web97-13 Figure 1c Weber & Declerk 1997 Hydrobiologia 360: 89-99 Web97-06 freshwater lake aquarium lab until development complete 28 1 11 Insecta Chaoborus americanus, phantom midge Branchiopoda Daphnia galeata Density r no predator cue 0.27 0 0.02 28 1 28 fly chemical cues 0.3 0.01 0.03 28 1 28 Prey Density 1 0 1 0 1 1 Web97-02, Web97-04, Web97-06, Web97-08, Web97-10, Web97-12, Web97-14 Figure 1d Weber & Declerk 1997 Hydrobiologia 360: 89-99 Web97-07 freshwater lake aquarium lab until development complete 28 1 11 Actinopterygii Perca fluviatilis, Eurasian perch Branchiopoda Daphnia galeata Growth length at hatching (mm) no predator cue 1.56 0.02 0.09 28 1 28 fish chemical cues 1.35 0.01 0.06 28 1 28 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Web97-01, Web97-03, Web97-05, Web97-07, Web97-09, Web97-11, Web97-13 Figure 1d Weber & Declerk 1997 Hydrobiologia 360: 89-99 Web97-08 freshwater lake aquarium lab until development complete 28 1 11 Insecta Chaoborus americanus, phantom midge Branchiopoda Daphnia galeata Growth length at hatching (mm) no predator cue 1.56 0.02 0.09 28 1 28 fly chemical cues 1.59 0.02 0.11 28 1 28 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Web97-02, Web97-04, Web97-06, Web97-08, Web97-10, Web97-12, Web97-14 Figure 1e Weber & Declerk 1997 Hydrobiologia 360: 89-99 Web97-09 freshwater lake aquarium lab until development complete 28 1 11 Actinopterygii Perca fluviatilis, Eurasian perch Branchiopoda Daphnia galeata Growth somatic growth rate (mm/day) no predator cue 0.15 0 0.02 28 1 28 fish chemical cues 0.13 0 0.01 28 1 28 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Web97-01, Web97-03, Web97-05, Web97-07, Web97-09, Web97-11, Web97-13 Figure 1e Weber & Declerk 1997 Hydrobiologia 360: 89-99 Web97-10 freshwater lake aquarium lab until development complete 28 1 11 Insecta Chaoborus americanus, phantom midge Branchiopoda Daphnia galeata Growth somatic growth rate (mm/day) no predator cue 0.15 0 0.02 28 1 28 fly chemical cues 0.17 0.01 0.03 28 1 28 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Web97-02, Web97-04, Web97-06, Web97-08, Web97-10, Web97-12, Web97-14 Figure 1g Weber & Declerk 1997 Hydrobiologia 360: 89-99 Web97-11 freshwater lake aquarium lab until development complete 28 1 11 Actinopterygii Perca fluviatilis, Eurasian perch Branchiopoda Daphnia galeata Survival % dying no predator cue 5.34 1.81 9.59 28 1 28 fish chemical cues 9.34 2.49 13.17 28 1 28 Prey Survival -1 0 1 0 1 1 Web97-01, Web97-03, Web97-05, Web97-07, Web97-09, Web97-11, Web97-13 Figure 1g Weber & Declerk 1997 Hydrobiologia 360: 89-99 Web97-12 freshwater lake aquarium lab until development complete 28 1 11 Insecta Chaoborus americanus, phantom midge Branchiopoda Daphnia galeata Survival % dying no predator cue 5.34 1.81 9.59 28 1 28 fly chemical cues 14.4 1.4 7.41 28 1 28 Prey Survival -1 0 1 0 1 1 Web97-02, Web97-04, Web97-06, Web97-08, Web97-10, Web97-12, Web97-14 Figure 1a Weetman & Atkinson 2002 Oikos 98: 299-307 Wee02-01 freshwater lake aquarium lab until instar complete 8 1 11 Actinopterygii Gasterosteus aculeatus, three-spined stickleback Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Development Time to reproduction (days) no predator cue 14.78 0.33 0.92 8 1 8 fish chemical cues 12.01 0.22 0.63 8 1 8 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Wee02-01, Wee02-19 water at 13C Figure 1a Weetman & Atkinson 2002 Oikos 98: 299-307 Wee02-02 freshwater lake aquarium lab until instar complete 8 1 11 Actinopterygii Gasterosteus aculeatus, three-spined stickleback Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Development Time to reproduction (days) no predator cue 14.78 0.33 0.92 8 1 8 fish chemical cues 12.06 0.41 1.17 8 1 8 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Wee02-02, Wee02-20 water at 13C Figure 1a Weetman & Atkinson 2002 Oikos 98: 299-307 Wee02-03 freshwater lake aquarium lab until instar complete 8 1 11 Actinopterygii Gasterosteus aculeatus, three-spined stickleback Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Development Time to reproduction (days) no predator cue 14.78 0.33 0.92 8 1 8 fish chemical cues 11.41 0.23 0.66 8 1 8 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Wee02-03, Wee02-21 water at 13C Figure 1a Weetman & Atkinson 2002 Oikos 98: 299-307 Wee02-04 freshwater lake aquarium lab until instar complete 8 1 11 Actinopterygii Gasterosteus aculeatus, three-spined stickleback Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Development Time to reproduction (days) no predator cue 7.46 0.28 0.79 8 1 8 fish chemical cues 6.95 0.13 0.36 8 1 8 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Wee02-04, Wee02-22 water at 18C Figure 1a Weetman & Atkinson 2002 Oikos 98: 299-307 Wee02-05 freshwater lake aquarium lab until instar complete 8 1 11 Actinopterygii Gasterosteus aculeatus, three-spined stickleback Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Development Time to reproduction (days) no predator cue 7.46 0.28 0.79 8 1 8 fish chemical cues 6.94 0.09 0.25 8 1 8 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Wee02-05, Wee02-23 water at 18C Figure 1a Weetman & Atkinson 2002 Oikos 98: 299-307 Wee02-06 freshwater lake aquarium lab until instar complete 8 1 11 Actinopterygii Gasterosteus aculeatus, three-spined stickleback Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Development Time to reproduction (days) no predator cue 7.46 0.28 0.79 8 1 8 fish chemical cues 6.79 0.13 0.37 8 1 8 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Wee02-06, Wee02-24 water at 18C Figure 1a Weetman & Atkinson 2002 Oikos 98: 299-307 Wee02-07 freshwater lake aquarium lab until instar complete 8 1 11 Actinopterygii Gasterosteus aculeatus, three-spined stickleback Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Development Time to reproduction (days) no predator cue 7.33 0.24 0.68 8 1 8 fish chemical cues 6.92 0.14 0.4 8 1 8 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Wee02-07, Wee02-25 water at 21C Figure 1a Weetman & Atkinson 2002 Oikos 98: 299-307 Wee02-08 freshwater lake aquarium lab until instar complete 8 1 11 Actinopterygii Gasterosteus aculeatus, three-spined stickleback Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Development Time to reproduction (days) no predator cue 7.33 0.24 0.68 8 1 8 fish chemical cues 6.91 0.09 0.25 8 1 8 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Wee02-08, Wee02-26 water at 21C Figure 1a Weetman & Atkinson 2002 Oikos 98: 299-307 Wee02-09 freshwater lake aquarium lab until instar complete 8 1 11 Actinopterygii Gasterosteus aculeatus, three-spined stickleback Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Development Time to reproduction (days) no predator cue 7.33 0.24 0.68 8 1 8 fish chemical cues 6.89 0.13 0.37 8 1 8 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Wee02-09, Wee02-27 water at 21C Figure 1c Weetman & Atkinson 2002 Oikos 98: 299-307 Wee02-10 freshwater lake aquarium lab until instar complete 8 1 11 Actinopterygii Gasterosteus aculeatus, three-spined stickleback Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Development Time to reproduction (days) no predator cue 11.95 0.12 0.35 8 1 8 fish chemical cues 11.98 0.09 0.27 8 1 8 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Wee02-10, Wee02-28 water at 13C Figure 1c Weetman & Atkinson 2002 Oikos 98: 299-307 Wee02-11 freshwater lake aquarium lab until instar complete 8 1 11 Actinopterygii Gasterosteus aculeatus, three-spined stickleback Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Development Time to reproduction (days) no predator cue 11.95 0.12 0.35 8 1 8 fish chemical cues 11.44 0.2 0.57 8 1 8 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Wee02-11, Wee02-29 water at 13C Figure 1c Weetman & Atkinson 2002 Oikos 98: 299-307 Wee02-12 freshwater lake aquarium lab until instar complete 8 1 11 Actinopterygii Gasterosteus aculeatus, three-spined stickleback Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Development Time to reproduction (days) no predator cue 11.95 0.12 0.35 8 1 8 fish chemical cues 10.89 0.1 0.28 8 1 8 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Wee02-12, Wee02-30 water at 13C Figure 1c Weetman & Atkinson 2002 Oikos 98: 299-307 Wee02-13 freshwater lake aquarium lab until instar complete 8 1 11 Actinopterygii Gasterosteus aculeatus, three-spined stickleback Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Development Time to reproduction (days) no predator cue 5.99 0.14 0.4 8 1 8 fish chemical cues 5.73 0.18 0.51 8 1 8 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Wee02-13, Wee02-31 water at 18C Figure 1c Weetman & Atkinson 2002 Oikos 98: 299-307 Wee02-14 freshwater lake aquarium lab until instar complete 8 1 11 Actinopterygii Gasterosteus aculeatus, three-spined stickleback Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Development Time to reproduction (days) no predator cue 5.99 0.14 0.4 8 1 8 fish chemical cues 5.96 0.12 0.35 8 1 8 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Wee02-14, Wee02-32 water at 18C Figure 1c Weetman & Atkinson 2002 Oikos 98: 299-307 Wee02-15 freshwater lake aquarium lab until instar complete 8 1 11 Actinopterygii Gasterosteus aculeatus, three-spined stickleback Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Development Time to reproduction (days) no predator cue 5.99 0.14 0.4 8 1 8 fish chemical cues 5.87 0.16 0.45 8 1 8 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Wee02-15, Wee02-33 water at 18C Figure 1c Weetman & Atkinson 2002 Oikos 98: 299-307 Wee02-16 freshwater lake aquarium lab until instar complete 8 1 11 Actinopterygii Gasterosteus aculeatus, three-spined stickleback Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Development Time to reproduction (days) no predator cue 4.93 0.12 0.33 8 1 8 fish chemical cues 4.68 0.08 0.22 8 1 8 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Wee02-16, Wee02-34 water at 21C Figure 1c Weetman & Atkinson 2002 Oikos 98: 299-307 Wee02-17 freshwater lake aquarium lab until instar complete 8 1 11 Actinopterygii Gasterosteus aculeatus, three-spined stickleback Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Development Time to reproduction (days) no predator cue 4.93 0.12 0.33 8 1 8 fish chemical cues 4.83 0.12 0.35 8 1 8 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Wee02-17, Wee02-35 water at 21C Figure 1c Weetman & Atkinson 2002 Oikos 98: 299-307 Wee02-18 freshwater lake aquarium lab until instar complete 8 1 11 Actinopterygii Gasterosteus aculeatus, three-spined stickleback Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Development Time to reproduction (days) no predator cue 4.93 0.12 0.33 8 1 8 fish chemical cues 4.39 0.15 0.41 8 1 8 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 Wee02-18, Wee02-36 water at 21C Figure 2a Weetman & Atkinson 2002 Oikos 98: 299-307 Wee02-19 freshwater lake aquarium lab until instar complete 8 1 11 Actinopterygii Gasterosteus aculeatus, three-spined stickleback Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Fecundity relative clutch size (# of offspring in first brood/maternal mass) no predator cue 0.14 0.02 0.05 8 1 8 fish chemical cues 0.11 0.01 0.04 8 1 8 Prey Fecundity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Wee02-01, Wee02-19 water at 13C Figure 2a Weetman & Atkinson 2002 Oikos 98: 299-307 Wee02-20 freshwater lake aquarium lab until instar complete 8 1 11 Actinopterygii Gasterosteus aculeatus, three-spined stickleback Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Fecundity relative clutch size (# of offspring in first brood/maternal mass) no predator cue 0.14 0.02 0.05 8 1 8 fish chemical cues 0.13 0.01 0.04 8 1 8 Prey Fecundity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Wee02-02, Wee02-20 water at 13C Figure 2a Weetman & Atkinson 2002 Oikos 98: 299-307 Wee02-21 freshwater lake aquarium lab until instar complete 8 1 11 Actinopterygii Gasterosteus aculeatus, three-spined stickleback Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Fecundity relative clutch size (# of offspring in first brood/maternal mass) no predator cue 0.14 0.02 0.05 8 1 8 fish chemical cues 0.11 0.01 0.04 8 1 8 Prey Fecundity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Wee02-03, Wee02-21 water at 13C Figure 2a Weetman & Atkinson 2002 Oikos 98: 299-307 Wee02-22 freshwater lake aquarium lab until instar complete 8 1 11 Actinopterygii Gasterosteus aculeatus, three-spined stickleback Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Fecundity relative clutch size (# of offspring in first brood/maternal mass) no predator cue 0.14 0.01 0.03 8 1 8 fish chemical cues 0.17 0.01 0.04 8 1 8 Prey Fecundity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Wee02-04, Wee02-22 water at 18C Figure 2a Weetman & Atkinson 2002 Oikos 98: 299-307 Wee02-23 freshwater lake aquarium lab until instar complete 8 1 11 Actinopterygii Gasterosteus aculeatus, three-spined stickleback Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Fecundity relative clutch size (# of offspring in first brood/maternal mass) no predator cue 0.14 0.01 0.03 8 1 8 fish chemical cues 0.18 0.01 0.04 8 1 8 Prey Fecundity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Wee02-05, Wee02-23 water at 18C Figure 2a Weetman & Atkinson 2002 Oikos 98: 299-307 Wee02-24 freshwater lake aquarium lab until instar complete 8 1 11 Actinopterygii Gasterosteus aculeatus, three-spined stickleback Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Fecundity relative clutch size (# of offspring in first brood/maternal mass) no predator cue 0.14 0.01 0.03 8 1 8 fish chemical cues 0.19 0.01 0.04 8 1 8 Prey Fecundity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Wee02-06, Wee02-24 water at 18C Figure 2a Weetman & Atkinson 2002 Oikos 98: 299-307 Wee02-25 freshwater lake aquarium lab until instar complete 8 1 11 Actinopterygii Gasterosteus aculeatus, three-spined stickleback Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Fecundity relative clutch size (# of offspring in first brood/maternal mass) no predator cue 0.17 0.02 0.05 8 1 8 fish chemical cues 0.19 0.02 0.04 8 1 8 Prey Fecundity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Wee02-07, Wee02-25 water at 21C Figure 2a Weetman & Atkinson 2002 Oikos 98: 299-307 Wee02-26 freshwater lake aquarium lab until instar complete 8 1 11 Actinopterygii Gasterosteus aculeatus, three-spined stickleback Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Fecundity relative clutch size (# of offspring in first brood/maternal mass) no predator cue 0.17 0.02 0.05 8 1 8 fish chemical cues 0.19 0.01 0.04 8 1 8 Prey Fecundity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Wee02-08, Wee02-26 water at 21C Figure 2a Weetman & Atkinson 2002 Oikos 98: 299-307 Wee02-27 freshwater lake aquarium lab until instar complete 8 1 11 Actinopterygii Gasterosteus aculeatus, three-spined stickleback Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Fecundity relative clutch size (# of offspring in first brood/maternal mass) no predator cue 0.17 0.02 0.05 8 1 8 fish chemical cues 0.23 0.02 0.05 8 1 8 Prey Fecundity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Wee02-09, Wee02-27 water at 21C Figure 2b Weetman & Atkinson 2002 Oikos 98: 299-307 Wee02-28 freshwater lake aquarium lab until instar complete 8 1 11 Actinopterygii Gasterosteus aculeatus, three-spined stickleback Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Fecundity relative clutch size (# of offspring in first brood/maternal mass) no predator cue 0.16 0.02 0.05 8 1 8 fish chemical cues 0.2 0.02 0.04 8 1 8 Prey Fecundity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Wee02-10, Wee02-28 water at 13C Figure 2b Weetman & Atkinson 2002 Oikos 98: 299-307 Wee02-29 freshwater lake aquarium lab until instar complete 8 1 11 Actinopterygii Gasterosteus aculeatus, three-spined stickleback Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Fecundity relative clutch size (# of offspring in first brood/maternal mass) no predator cue 0.16 0.02 0.05 8 1 8 fish chemical cues 0.22 0.02 0.04 8 1 8 Prey Fecundity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Wee02-11, Wee02-29 water at 13C Figure 2b Weetman & Atkinson 2002 Oikos 98: 299-307 Wee02-30 freshwater lake aquarium lab until instar complete 8 1 11 Actinopterygii Gasterosteus aculeatus, three-spined stickleback Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Fecundity relative clutch size (# of offspring in first brood/maternal mass) no predator cue 0.16 0.02 0.05 8 1 8 fish chemical cues 0.24 0.02 0.04 8 1 8 Prey Fecundity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Wee02-12, Wee02-30 water at 13C Figure 2b Weetman & Atkinson 2002 Oikos 98: 299-307 Wee02-31 freshwater lake aquarium lab until instar complete 8 1 11 Actinopterygii Gasterosteus aculeatus, three-spined stickleback Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Fecundity relative clutch size (# of offspring in first brood/maternal mass) no predator cue 0.2 0.02 0.05 8 1 8 fish chemical cues 0.21 0.02 0.05 8 1 8 Prey Fecundity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Wee02-13, Wee02-31 water at 18C Figure 2b Weetman & Atkinson 2002 Oikos 98: 299-307 Wee02-32 freshwater lake aquarium lab until instar complete 8 1 11 Actinopterygii Gasterosteus aculeatus, three-spined stickleback Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Fecundity relative clutch size (# of offspring in first brood/maternal mass) no predator cue 0.2 0.02 0.05 8 1 8 fish chemical cues 0.24 0.02 0.05 8 1 8 Prey Fecundity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Wee02-14, Wee02-32 water at 18C Figure 2b Weetman & Atkinson 2002 Oikos 98: 299-307 Wee02-33 freshwater lake aquarium lab until instar complete 8 1 11 Actinopterygii Gasterosteus aculeatus, three-spined stickleback Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Fecundity relative clutch size (# of offspring in first brood/maternal mass) no predator cue 0.2 0.02 0.05 8 1 8 fish chemical cues 0.24 0.02 0.05 8 1 8 Prey Fecundity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Wee02-15, Wee02-33 water at 18C Figure 2b Weetman & Atkinson 2002 Oikos 98: 299-307 Wee02-34 freshwater lake aquarium lab until instar complete 8 1 11 Actinopterygii Gasterosteus aculeatus, three-spined stickleback Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Fecundity relative clutch size (# of offspring in first brood/maternal mass) no predator cue 0.22 0.01 0.04 8 1 8 fish chemical cues 0.25 0.01 0.04 8 1 8 Prey Fecundity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Wee02-16, Wee02-34 water at 21C Figure 2b Weetman & Atkinson 2002 Oikos 98: 299-307 Wee02-35 freshwater lake aquarium lab until instar complete 8 1 11 Actinopterygii Gasterosteus aculeatus, three-spined stickleback Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Fecundity relative clutch size (# of offspring in first brood/maternal mass) no predator cue 0.22 0.01 0.04 8 1 8 fish chemical cues 0.24 0.01 0.04 8 1 8 Prey Fecundity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Wee02-17, Wee02-35 water at 21C Figure 2b Weetman & Atkinson 2002 Oikos 98: 299-307 Wee02-36 freshwater lake aquarium lab until instar complete 8 1 11 Actinopterygii Gasterosteus aculeatus, three-spined stickleback Branchiopoda Daphnia pulex Fecundity relative clutch size (# of offspring in first brood/maternal mass) no predator cue 0.22 0.01 0.04 8 1 8 fish chemical cues 0.26 0.01 0.04 8 1 8 Prey Fecundity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Wee02-18, Wee02-36 water at 21C Fig 5 Weider & Pijanowska 1993 Oikos 67: 385-392 Wei93-01 freshwater lake aquarium lab 40 10 1 11 Actinopterygii Leucaspius delineatus, sunbleak Branchiopoda Daphnia magna Density r water with no predator cues present 0.33 0 0.01 10 1 10 water with fish predator cue present 0.31 0 0.01 10 1 10 Prey Density 1 0 1 0 1 1 none Clone B, gathered from lake in which both fish and invertebrate predators are known to exist Fig 5 Weider & Pijanowska 1993 Oikos 67: 385-392 Wei93-02 freshwater pond, fishless aquarium lab 40 10 1 11 Actinopterygii Leucaspius delineatus, sunbleak Branchiopoda Daphnia magna Density r water with no predator cues present 0.21 0.01 0.03 10 1 10 water with fish predator cue present 0.23 0.01 0.03 10 1 10 Prey Density 1 0 1 0 1 1 none Clone W, gathered from fishless pond in which only invertebrate predators exist Fig 5 Weider & Pijanowska 1993 Oikos 67: 385-392 Wei93-03 freshwater lake aquarium lab 40 10 1 11 Insecta Notonecta glauca, backswimmer Branchiopoda Daphnia magna Density r water with no predator cues present 0.33 0 0.01 10 1 10 water with invertebrate predator cue present 0.34 0 0.01 10 1 10 Prey Density 1 0 1 0 1 1 none Clone B, gathered from lake in which both fish and invertebrate predators are known to exist Fig 5 Weider & Pijanowska 1993 Oikos 67: 385-392 Wei93-04 freshwater pond, fishless aquarium lab 40 10 1 11 Insecta Notonecta glauca, backswimmer Branchiopoda Daphnia magna Density r water with no predator cues present 0.21 0.01 0.03 10 1 10 water with invertebrate predator cue present 0.23 0.01 0.03 10 1 10 Prey Density 1 0 1 0 1 1 none Clone W, gathered from fishless pond in which only invertebrate predators exist Fig 1 Werner & Peacor 2006 Ecology 87(2): 347-361 Wer06-01 freshwater pond cattle tank/ wading pool field 41 4 150 11 Insecta Anax junius, dragonfly Amphibia Rana clamitans, green frog Growth mg no predator present 232.5 54.21 1327.98 4 150 600 tadpoles removed at a rate equal to the amount removed is actual predator was present 391.2 55.28 1353.97 4 150 600 caged predator present 232.5 54.21 1327.98 4 150 600 both caged predator present and tadpoles removed at a rate equal to what predator would have removed if lethal predator was present 460.45 35.67 873.75 4 150 600 Prey Growth 1 1 1 1 3 1 Wer06-01, Wer06-03 Fig 1 Werner & Peacor 2006 Ecology 87(2): 347-361 Wer06-02 freshwater pond cattle tank/ wading pool field 41 4 150 11 Insecta Anax junius, dragonfly Amphibia Rana clamitans, green frog Growth mg no predator present 462.04 32.91 806.04 4 150 600 tadpoles removed at a rate equal to the amount removed is actual predator was present 807.71 31.86 780.37 4 150 600 caged predator present 458.53 19.42 475.69 4 150 600 both caged predator present and tadpoles removed at a rate equal to what predator would have removed if lethal predator was present 1022.74 66.44 1627.43 4 150 600 Prey Growth 1 1 1 1 3 1 Wer06-02, Wer06-03, Wer06-04, Wer06-05, Wer06-06 Fig 3 Werner & Peacor 2006 Ecology 87(2): 347-361 Wer06-03 freshwater pond cattle tank/ wading pool field 27 4 4 observations per tank, 150 individuals per tank 11 Insecta Anax junius, dragonfly Amphibia Rana clamitans, green frog Activity % active no predator present 0.09 0.02 0.45 4 150 600 tadpoles removed at a rate equal to the amount removed is actual predator was present 0.02 0 0.11 4 150 600 caged predator present 0.02 0 0.11 4 150 600 both caged predator present and tadpoles removed at a rate equal to what predator would have removed if lethal predator was present 0.02 0 0.11 4 150 600 Prey Activity 1 1 1 1 3 1 Wer06-01, Wer06-02, Wer06-03, Wer06-04, Wer06-05, Wer06-06 Fig 6 Werner & Peacor 2006 Ecology 87(2): 347-361 Wer06-04 freshwater pond cattle tank/ wading pool field 22 4 1 no # individuals given. Used one ind/rep as most conservative estimate 111 Insecta Anax junius, dragonfly Amphibia Rana clamitans, green frog Autotroph Algae, green Density # green algae/cm2 no predator present 782332.16 106360.42 212720.85 4 1 4 caged predator present 1072084.81 281272.08 562544.17 4 1 4 Resource Density 1 0 1 0 1 2 Wer06-02, Wer06-03, Wer06-04, Wer06-05, Wer06-06 Fig 6 Werner & Peacor 2006 Ecology 87(2): 347-361 Wer06-05 freshwater pond cattle tank/ wading pool field 22 4 1 no # individuals given. Used one ind/rep as most conservative estimate 111 Insecta Anax junius, dragonfly Amphibia Rana clamitans, green frog Autotroph Diatoms, large Density #/cm2 no predator present 6095.41 1833.04 3666.08 4 1 4 caged predator present 18440.81 5432.86 10865.72 4 1 4 Resource Density 1 0 1 0 1 2 Wer06-02, Wer06-03, Wer06-04, Wer06-05, Wer06-06 Fig 6 Werner & Peacor 2006 Ecology 87(2): 347-361 Wer06-06 freshwater pond cattle tank/ wading pool field 22 4 1 no # individuals given. Used one ind/rep as most conservative estimate 111 Insecta Anax junius, dragonfly Amphibia Rana clamitans, green frog Autotroph Diatoms, small Density #/cm2 no predator present 190538.74 38668.74 77337.49 4 1 4 caged predator present 198419.41 75667.85 151335.71 4 1 4 Resource Density 1 0 1 0 1 2 Wer06-02, Wer06-03, Wer06-04, Wer06-05, Wer06-06 Text, p. 1711-1712 Werner 1991 Ecology 72(5): 1709-1720 Wer91-01 freshwater lake & pond aquarium lab 37 4 5 11 Insecta Anax junius, dragonfly Amphibia Rana catesbeiana, bullfrog Growth mg 9.3 0.3 5 Growth without predator cues 98.4 3.7 16.55 4 5 20 Growth with predator cues 107.8 6.9 30.86 4 5 20 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Wer91-01, Wer91-03 Text, p. 1711-1712 Werner 1991 Ecology 72(5): 1709-1720 Wer91-02 freshwater lake & pond aquarium lab 37 4 5 11 Insecta Anax junius, dragonfly Amphibia Rana clamitans, green frog Growth mg 8.9 0.3 5 Growth without predator cues 99.3 5.9 26.39 4 5 20 Growth with predator cues 61.8 5.6 25.04 4 5 20 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Wer91-02, Wer91-04 Figure 2 Werner 1991 Ecology 72(5): 1709-1720 Wer91-03 freshwater lake & pond aquarium lab 37 4 5 11 Insecta Anax junius, dragonfly Amphibia Rana catesbeiana, bullfrog Activity % active (actively swimming) Activity without predator cues 22.37 2.58 11.54 4 5 20 Activity with predator cues 6.02 3.44 15.38 4 5 20 Prey Activity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Wer91-01, Wer91-03 Figure 2 Werner 1991 Ecology 72(5): 1709-1720 Wer91-04 freshwater lake & pond aquarium lab 37 4 5 11 Insecta Anax junius, dragonfly Amphibia Rana clamitans, green frog Activity % active (actively swimming) Activity without predator cues 17.2 2.58 11.54 4 5 20 Activity with predator cues 2.15 0.86 3.85 4 5 20 Prey Activity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Wer91-02, Wer91-04 Figure 2A Werner & Anholt 1996 Ecology 77:157-169 Wer96-01 freshwater pond, ephemeral cattle tank/ wading pool field 57 5 25 11 Insecta Anax junius, dragonfly Amphibia Rana catesbeiana, bullfrog Survival % surviving no predator 97.11 2.5 27.95 5 25 125 caged predator 88.99 2.5 27.95 5 25 125 Prey Survival 1 0 1 0 1 1 Wer96-01, 13 Figure 2A Werner & Anholt 1996 Ecology 77:157-169 Wer96-02 freshwater pond, ephemeral cattle tank/ wading pool field 57 5 50 11 Insecta Anax junius, dragonfly Amphibia Rana catesbeiana, bullfrog Survival % surviving no predator 92.65 2.5 39.53 5 50 250 caged predator 91.47 2.5 39.53 5 50 250 Prey Survival 1 0 1 0 1 1 Wer96-02, 14 Figure 2A Werner & Anholt 1996 Ecology 77:157-169 Wer96-03 freshwater pond, ephemeral cattle tank/ wading pool field 57 5 100 11 Insecta Anax junius, dragonfly Amphibia Rana catesbeiana, bullfrog Survival % surviving no predator 89.91 2.5 55.9 5 100 500 caged predator 81.94 2.5 55.9 5 100 500 Prey Survival 1 0 1 0 1 1 Wer96-03, 15 Figure 2A Werner & Anholt 1996 Ecology 77:157-169 Wer96-04 freshwater pond, ephemeral cattle tank/ wading pool field 57 5 25 11 Insecta Anax junius, dragonfly Amphibia Rana catesbeiana, bullfrog Survival % surviving no predator 97.11 2.5 27.95 5 25 125 caged predator 88.99 2.5 27.95 5 25 125 Prey Survival 1 0 1 0 1 1 Wer96-04, 16 Figure 2A Werner & Anholt 1996 Ecology 77:157-169 Wer96-05 freshwater pond, ephemeral cattle tank/ wading pool field 57 5 25 11 Insecta Anax junius, dragonfly Amphibia Rana catesbeiana, bullfrog Survival % surviving no predator 86.39 2.5 27.95 5 25 125 caged predator 85.54 2.5 27.95 5 25 125 Prey Survival 1 0 1 0 1 1 Wer96-05, 17 Figure 2A Werner & Anholt 1996 Ecology 77:157-169 Wer96-06 freshwater pond, ephemeral cattle tank/ wading pool field 57 5 25 11 Insecta Anax junius, dragonfly Amphibia Rana catesbeiana, bullfrog Survival % surviving no predator 71.99 2.5 27.95 5 25 125 caged predator 75.12 2.5 27.95 5 25 125 Prey Survival 1 0 1 0 1 1 Wer96-06, 18 Figure 2B Werner & Anholt 1996 Ecology 77:157-169 Wer96-07 freshwater pond, ephemeral cattle tank/ wading pool field 57 5 30 11 Insecta Anax junius, dragonfly Amphibia Rana clamitans, green frog Survival % surviving no predator 93.33 2.1 25.72 5 30 150 caged predator 88.14 2.1 25.72 5 30 150 Prey Survival 1 0 1 0 1 1 Wer96-07, 19 Figure 2B Werner & Anholt 1996 Ecology 77:157-169 Wer96-08 freshwater pond, ephemeral cattle tank/ wading pool field 57 5 30 11 Insecta Anax junius, dragonfly Amphibia Rana clamitans, green frog Survival % surviving no predator 90.64 2.1 25.72 5 30 150 caged predator 88.19 2.1 25.72 5 30 150 Prey Survival 1 0 1 0 1 1 Wer96-08, 20 Figure 2B Werner & Anholt 1996 Ecology 77:157-169 Wer96-09 freshwater pond, ephemeral cattle tank/ wading pool field 57 5 30 11 Insecta Anax junius, dragonfly Amphibia Rana clamitans, green frog Survival % surviving no predator 88.03 2.1 25.72 5 30 150 caged predator 76.12 2.1 25.72 5 30 150 Prey Survival 1 0 1 0 1 1 Wer96-09, 21 Figure 2B Werner & Anholt 1996 Ecology 77:157-169 Wer96-10 freshwater pond, ephemeral cattle tank/ wading pool field 57 5 30 11 Insecta Anax junius, dragonfly Amphibia Rana clamitans, green frog Survival % surviving no predator 93.33 2.1 25.72 5 30 150 caged predator 88.14 2.1 25.72 5 30 150 Prey Survival 1 0 1 0 1 1 Wer96-10, 22 Figure 2B Werner & Anholt 1996 Ecology 77:157-169 Wer96-11 freshwater pond, ephemeral cattle tank/ wading pool field 57 5 30 11 Insecta Anax junius, dragonfly Amphibia Rana clamitans, green frog Survival % surviving no predator 88.03 2.1 25.72 5 30 150 caged predator 82.04 2.1 25.72 5 30 150 Prey Survival 1 0 1 0 1 1 Wer96-11, 23 Figure 2B Werner & Anholt 1996 Ecology 77:157-169 Wer96-12 freshwater pond, ephemeral cattle tank/ wading pool field 57 5 30 11 Insecta Anax junius, dragonfly Amphibia Rana clamitans, green frog Survival % surviving no predator 76.53 2.1 25.72 5 30 150 caged predator 75.22 2.1 25.72 5 30 150 Prey Survival 1 0 1 0 1 1 Wer96-12, 24 Figure 5B Werner & Anholt 1996 Ecology 77:157-169 Wer96-13 freshwater pond, ephemeral cattle tank/ wading pool field 57 5 25 11 Insecta Anax junius, dragonfly Amphibia Rana catesbeiana, bullfrog Growth mg/day no predator 13.25 1 11.18 5 25 125 caged predator 8.82 1 11.18 5 25 125 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Wer96-01, 13 Figure 5B Werner & Anholt 1996 Ecology 77:157-169 Wer96-14 freshwater pond, ephemeral cattle tank/ wading pool field 57 5 50 11 Insecta Anax junius, dragonfly Amphibia Rana catesbeiana, bullfrog Growth mg/day no predator 9.51 1 15.81 5 50 250 caged predator 7.18 1 15.81 5 50 250 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Wer96-02, 14 Figure 5B Werner & Anholt 1996 Ecology 77:157-169 Wer96-15 freshwater pond, ephemeral cattle tank/ wading pool field 57 5 100 11 Insecta Anax junius, dragonfly Amphibia Rana catesbeiana, bullfrog Growth mg/day no predator 5.54 1 22.36 5 100 500 caged predator 5.03 1 22.36 5 100 500 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Wer96-03, 15 Figure 5B Werner & Anholt 1996 Ecology 77:157-169 Wer96-16 freshwater pond, ephemeral cattle tank/ wading pool field 57 5 25 11 Insecta Anax junius, dragonfly Amphibia Rana catesbeiana, bullfrog Growth mg/day no predator 13.25 1 11.18 5 25 125 caged predator 8.82 1 11.18 5 25 125 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Wer96-04, 16 Figure 5B Werner & Anholt 1996 Ecology 77:157-169 Wer96-17 freshwater pond, ephemeral cattle tank/ wading pool field 57 5 25 11 Insecta Anax junius, dragonfly Amphibia Rana catesbeiana, bullfrog Growth mg/day no predator 10.51 1 11.18 5 25 125 caged predator 5.79 1 11.18 5 25 125 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Wer96-05, 17 Figure 5B Werner & Anholt 1996 Ecology 77:157-169 Wer96-18 freshwater pond, ephemeral cattle tank/ wading pool field 57 5 25 11 Insecta Anax junius, dragonfly Amphibia Rana catesbeiana, bullfrog Growth mg/day no predator 6.19 1 11.18 5 25 125 caged predator 4.26 1 11.18 5 25 125 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Wer96-06, 18 Figure 5C Werner & Anholt 1996 Ecology 77:157-169 Wer96-19 freshwater pond, ephemeral cattle tank/ wading pool field 57 5 30 11 Insecta Anax junius, dragonfly Amphibia Rana clamitans, green frog Growth mg/day no predator 8.74 1 12.25 5 30 150 caged predator 6.99 1 12.25 5 30 150 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Wer96-07, 19 Figure 5C Werner & Anholt 1996 Ecology 77:157-169 Wer96-20 freshwater pond, ephemeral cattle tank/ wading pool field 57 5 30 11 Insecta Anax junius, dragonfly Amphibia Rana clamitans, green frog Growth mg/day no predator 6.82 1 12.25 5 30 150 caged predator 5 1 12.25 5 30 150 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Wer96-08, 20 Figure 5C Werner & Anholt 1996 Ecology 77:157-169 Wer96-21 freshwater pond, ephemeral cattle tank/ wading pool field 57 5 30 11 Insecta Anax junius, dragonfly Amphibia Rana clamitans, green frog Growth mg/day no predator 4.65 1 12.25 5 30 150 caged predator 3.59 1 12.25 5 30 150 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Wer96-09, 21 Figure 5C Werner & Anholt 1996 Ecology 77:157-169 Wer96-22 freshwater pond, ephemeral cattle tank/ wading pool field 57 5 30 11 Insecta Anax junius, dragonfly Amphibia Rana clamitans, green frog Growth mg/day no predator 8.74 1 12.25 5 30 150 caged predator 6.99 1 12.25 5 30 150 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Wer96-10, 22 Figure 5C Werner & Anholt 1996 Ecology 77:157-169 Wer96-23 freshwater pond, ephemeral cattle tank/ wading pool field 57 5 30 11 Insecta Anax junius, dragonfly Amphibia Rana clamitans, green frog Growth mg/day no predator 6.87 1 12.25 5 30 150 caged predator 4.9 1 12.25 5 30 150 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Wer96-11, 23 Figure 5C Werner & Anholt 1996 Ecology 77:157-169 Wer96-24 freshwater pond, ephemeral cattle tank/ wading pool field 57 5 30 11 Insecta Anax junius, dragonfly Amphibia Rana clamitans, green frog Growth mg/day no predator 4.73 1 12.25 5 30 150 caged predator 3.24 1 12.25 5 30 150 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Wer96-12, 24 Figure 1 Wilder & Rypstra 2004 Env Ent 33(4): 1032-1036 Wil04-01 terrestrial agricultural cage lab 0.04 12 1 11 Insecta Tenodera aridifolia sinensis, Chinese praying mantis Arachnida Pardosa milvina, wolf spider Activity time spent immobile (seconds) no predator cue present 624.2 72.1 249.76 12 1 12 predator chemical cue present 1083.1 134.9 467.31 12 1 12 Prey Activity -1 0 1 0 1 1 Wil04-01, Wil04-02 Text p. 1034 Wilder & Rypstra 2004 Env Ent 33(4): 1032-1036 Wil04-02 terrestrial agricultural cage lab 0.04 12 1 11 Insecta Tenodera aridifolia sinensis, Chinese praying mantis Arachnida Pardosa milvina, wolf spider Activity movement speed (cm/s) no predator cue present 2.88 0.42 1.45 12 1 12 predator chemical cue present 2.44 0.26 0.9 12 1 12 Prey Activity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Wil04-01, Wil04-02 Figure 2 Wilder & Rypstra 2004 Env Ent 33(4): 1032-1036 Wil04-03 terrestrial agricultural cage lab 0.06 varies 1 11 Insecta Tenodera aridifolia sinensis, Chinese praying mantis Arachnida Pardosa milvina, wolf spider Growth mass gain over 1.5 hours (mg) no predator cue present 1.69 0.4 1.2 9 1 9 predator chemical cue present 0.09 0.06 0.19 10 1 10 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Wil04-03, Wil04-04 Figure 2 Wilder & Rypstra 2004 Env Ent 33(4): 1032-1036 Wil04-04 terrestrial agricultural cage lab 0.06 varies 5 IGP Insecta Tenodera aridifolia sinensis, Chinese praying mantis Arachnida Pardosa milvina, wolf spider Insecta Acheta domesticus, cricket Survival # crickets killed over 1.5 hours no predator cue present 4.39 0.32 2.15 9 5 45 predator chemical cue present 3.69 0.67 4.74 10 5 50 Resource Survival -1 0 1 0 1 2 Wil04-03, Wil04-04 Figure 1C Wildy et al 1999 J Chemical Ecology 25(50): 2337-2346 Wil99-01 freshwater pond, ephemeral aquarium lab larval duration, 70-90 days 7 4 11 (cannibalism) Amphibia Ambystoma macrodactylum, long-toed salamander Amphibia Ambystoma macrodactylum, long-toed salamander Development Time to metamorphosis (days) nonlethal presence of normal type salamander fed tubifex worms 76.6 2.55 13.49 7 4 28 typical conspecific fed conspecifics 89.5 1.5 7.94 7 4 28 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 none Figure 1C Wildy et al 1999 J Chemical Ecology 25(50): 2337-2346 Wil99-02 freshwater pond, ephemeral aquarium lab larval duration, 70-90 days 7 4 11 (cannibalism) Amphibia Ambystoma macrodactylum, long-toed salamander Amphibia Ambystoma macrodactylum, long-toed salamander Development Time to metamorphosis (days) nonlethal presence of cannibal type salamander fed tubifex worms 83.5 2.55 13.49 7 4 28 cannibalistic conspecific fed conspecifics 89.21 1.5 7.94 7 4 28 Prey Development -1 0 1 0 1 1 none Figures 4,5 Wissinger & McGrady 1993 Ecology 74(1): 207-218 Wis93-01 freshwater pond aquarium lab 14 4 80 intra-guild predation; predator interference Insecta Erythemis simplicollis, dragonfly Insecta Enallagma aspersum, damselfly Insecta Ischnura verticalis, damselfly Feeding rate (11) or Survival (111) damselfly consumption by predator (# damselflies eaten/pred/day) no predator 0 0 0 4 80 320 # eaten by Erythemis 0.01 0 0.01 4 80 320 (# eaten w/ Tramea & 'risk-only' Erythemis) - (#eaten by Tramea alone) 0 0 0.02 4 80 320 Prey Feeding rate (11) or Survival (111) 1/-1 1 1 0 2 2 none Figures 4,5 Wissinger & McGrady 1993 Ecology 74(1): 207-218 Wis93-02 freshwater pond aquarium lab 14 4 80 intra-guild predation; predator interference Insecta Tramea lacerata, dragonfly Insecta Enallagma aspersum, damselfly Insecta Ischnura verticalis, damselfly Feeding rate (11) or Survival (111) damselfly consumption by predator (# damselflies eaten/pred/day) no predator 0 0 0 4 80 320 # eaten by Tramea 0.01 0 0.01 4 80 320 (# eaten w/ Erythemis & 'risk-only' Tramea) - (# eaten by Erythemis alone) 0 0 0.01 4 80 320 Prey Feeding rate (11) or Survival (111) 1/-1 1 1 0 2 2 none (mass of T. lacerata determined by multiplying dry mass by 3.5 to get wet mass) Figure 7 Wissinger et al. 1999 Ecology 80(6):2102-2116. Wis99-01 freshwater pond, ephemeral cattle tank/ wading pool lab 10 4 20 predator-mediated competition Amphibia Ambystoma tigrinum nebulosom, Arizona tiger salamander Insecta Limnephilus externus, caddisfly Survival # surviving Limnephilus out of 20 survival (out of 20 caddisflies) without any predators 17.9 0.3 2.68 4 20 80 Asynarchus alone as predator 10.7 0.7 6.26 4 20 80 Sutured Ambystoma and Asynarchus 11.63 0.5 4.47 4 20 80 Ambystoma and Asynarchus 16.5 0.7 6.26 4 20 80 Prey Survival 1 1 1 1 3 1 none Figure 2 Wolff & Davis-Born 1997 Oikos 79: 543-548 Wol97-01 terrestrial field enclosure field 28 2 11 11 Mammalia Mustela vison, mink Mammalia Microtus canicaudus, grey-tailed vole Fecundity % of females in reproductive state rabbit urine treatment 84.64 6.37 29.9 2 11 22 mink urine 69.5 6.31 29.59 2 11 22 Prey Fecundity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Wol97-02 Figure 2 Wolff & Davis-Born 1997 Oikos 79: 543-548 Wol97-02 terrestrial field enclosure field 28 2 11 11 Mammalia Mustela vison, mink Mammalia Microtus canicaudus, grey-tailed vole Activity mean distance between successive captures, m (measurement of how far prey ranges) rabbit urine treatment 5.5 0.58 2.7 2 11 22 mink urine 4.5 0.29 1.36 2 11 22 Prey Activity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Wol97-01 Table 2 Woodward & Hildrew 2002 Oikos 99:409-418 Woo02-01 freshwater stream aquarium lab 1 1 varies 11 Insecta Cordulegaster boltonii, dragonfly nymph Insecta Plectrocnemia conspersa, caddisfly Emigration change in per capita emigration, per capita mortality background rate of emigration 0.52 0.5 3.81 1 58 58 mortality rate in presence of predator 0.54 0.5 3.8 1 58 58 emigration rate in presence of predator 0.51 0.5 2.6 1 27 27 Prey Emigration -1 1 1 0 2 1 none I calculated s.e. using binomial and lumping different trials together Table 2 Woodward & Hildrew 2002 Oikos 99:409-418 Woo02-02 freshwater stream aquarium lab 1 1 varies 11 Insecta Cordulegaster boltonii, dragonfly nymph Insecta Nemurella pictetii, nemourid stonefly Emigration change in per capita emigration, per capita mortality background rate of emigration 0.26 0.44 8.67 1 393 393 mortality rate in presence of predator 0.54 0.5 9.88 1 393 393 emigration rate in presence of predator 0.26 0.44 6.28 1 204 204 Prey Emigration -1 1 1 0 2 1 none I calculated s.e. using binomial and lumping different trials together Fig 1C Woodley & Peterson 2003 Oecologia 136: 155-160 Woo03-01 marine intertidal aquarium lab 21 8 3 11 Actinopterygii Cynoscion arenarius, sand seatrout Actinopterygii Fundulus majalis, longnose killifish Density r no predator 0.13 0.01 0.04 8 3 24 non-lethal predator present 0.11 0.02 0.09 8 3 24 Prey Density 1 0 1 0 1 1 Woo03-02 Fig 1C Woodley & Peterson 2003 Oecologia 136: 155-160 Woo03-02 marine intertidal aquarium lab 21 8 3 11 Actinopterygii Cynoscion arenarius, sand seatrout Actinopterygii Fundulus majalis, longnose killifish Density r no predator 0.13 0.01 0.04 8 3 24 non-lethal predator present 0.05 0.01 0.05 8 3 24 Prey Density 1 0 1 0 1 1 Woo03-01 Figure 4 Wootton 1992 Ecology 73(3):981-991 Woo92-01 marine intertidal cage field 780 15 1 no # individuals given. Used one ind/rep as most conservative estimate competitor-mediated predation Aves birds Gastropoda Lottia digitalis, limpet Density #/100 cm2 difference between predator and no predator treatment with no other prey items around 7.6 2.31 8.93 15 1 15 difference between predator and no predator treatment with the prey item Pollicipes polymerus 17.84 5.94 23.01 15 1 15 Prey Density 1 0 1 0 1 1 none Figure 4 Wootton 1992 Ecology 73(3):981-991 Woo92-02 marine intertidal cage field 780 15 1 no # individuals given. Used one ind/rep as most conservative estimate competitor-mediated predation Aves birds Gastropoda Lottia pelta, limpet Density #/100 cm2 difference between predator and no predator treatment with no other prey items around 2.56 0.34 1.32 15 1 15 difference between predator and no predator treatment with the prey item Mytilus californianus 20.66 5.29 20.5 15 1 15 Prey Density 1 0 1 0 1 1 none Figure 4 Wootton 1993 Am Nat 141: 71-89. Woo93-01 marine intertidal cage field 9-87 days, median=15 15 10 competitor-mediated predation Aves Birds, mainly Haematopus bachmani (black oystercatchers) and Larus glaucescens (glaucous-winged gulls) Gastropoda Lottia digitalis, limpet Survival % surviving limpets in cages exposed to bird predation relative to cages not exposed to bird predation barnacles removed 6.99 3 36.75 15 10 150 with barnacles 21.92 3.93 48.14 15 10 150 Mutualist Survival 1 0 1 0 1 1 none limpets benefit from/compete with Balanus glandula, acorn barnacle Figure 2 Yamada et al 1998 JEMBE 220: 213-226 Yam98-01 marine intertidal aquarium lab 34 3 60 11 Malacostraca Cancer productus, red rock crab Gastropoda Littorina sitkana, snail Growth shell growth rate (mm/month) no predator 0.9 0.15 1.96 3 60 180 predator risk 0.14 0.02 0.23 3 60 180 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 none Figure 2 Yamada et al 1998 JEMBE 220: 213-226 Yam98-02 marine intertidal aquarium lab 34 3 60 11 Malacostraca Cancer productus, red rock crab Gastropoda Littorina sitkana, snail Growth shell growth rate (mm/month) no predator 0.9 0.15 1.96 3 60 180 predator risk 0.78 0.12 1.56 3 60 180 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 none Figure 2 Yamada et al 1998 JEMBE 220: 213-226 Yam98-03 marine intertidal aquarium lab 34 3 60 11 Malacostraca Cancer productus, red rock crab Gastropoda Littorina sitkana, snail Growth shell growth rate (mm/month) no predator 1.23 0.02 0.32 3 60 180 predator risk 0.21 0.04 0.5 3 60 180 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 none Figure 2 Yamada et al 1998 JEMBE 220: 213-226 Yam98-04 marine intertidal aquarium lab 34 3 60 11 Malacostraca Cancer productus, red rock crab Gastropoda Littorina sitkana, snail Growth shell growth rate (mm/month) no predator 1.23 0.02 0.32 3 60 180 predator risk 1.29 0.06 0.86 3 60 180 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 none Figure 2 Yamada et al 1998 JEMBE 220: 213-226 Yam98-05 marine intertidal aquarium lab 34 3 60 11 Malacostraca Cancer productus, red rock crab Gastropoda Littorina sitkana, snail Growth shell growth rate (mm/month) no predator 1.04 0.06 0.79 3 60 180 predator risk 0.17 0.02 0.32 3 60 180 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 none Figure 2 Yamada et al 1998 JEMBE 220: 213-226 Yam98-06 marine intertidal aquarium lab 34 3 60 11 Malacostraca Cancer productus, red rock crab Gastropoda Littorina sitkana, snail Growth shell growth rate (mm/month) no predator 1.04 0.06 0.79 3 60 180 predator risk 1.01 0.01 0.18 3 60 180 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 none Figure 1a Ylonen 1989 Oikos 55(1): 138-140 Ylo89-01 terrestrial field cage lab 15 4 1 11 Mammalia Mustela nivalis nivalis, least weasel Mammalia Clethrionomys glareolus, bank vole Fecundity # embryos 0 0 4 not exposed to predator sight and scent 5 1.08 2.16 4 1 4 Exposed to sight and scent of caged weasel 1 1 2 4 1 4 Prey Fecundity 1 0 1 0 1 1 none Table 2 Ylonen & Ronkainen 1994 Evol Ecol 8: 658-666 Ylo94-01 terrestrial field & forest cage lab 10 varies 1 11 Mammalia Mustela erminea, stoat Mammalia Clethrionomys glareolus, bank vole Growth female mass (g) no predator cue 19.8 0.59 2.2 14 1 14 Exposed to scent of stoat 21.3 1.21 2.1 3 1 3 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 none old, pregnant females Table 2 Ylonen & Ronkainen 1994 Evol Ecol 8: 658-666 Ylo94-02 terrestrial field & forest cage lab 10 varies 1 11 Mammalia Mustela erminea, stoat Mammalia Clethrionomys glareolus, bank vole Growth female mass (g) no predator cue 21 5.02 7.1 2 1 2 Exposed to scent of stoat 20.2 0.75 2.6 12 1 12 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 none old, nonpregnant females Table 2 Ylonen & Ronkainen 1994 Evol Ecol 8: 658-666 Ylo94-03 terrestrial field & forest cage lab 10 varies 1 11 Mammalia Mustela erminea, stoat Mammalia Clethrionomys glareolus, bank vole Growth female mass (g) no predator cue 19.5 0.42 1.1 7 1 7 Exposed to scent of stoat 18 0 0 1 1 1 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 none young, pregnant females Table 2 Ylonen & Ronkainen 1994 Evol Ecol 8: 658-666 Ylo94-04 terrestrial field & forest cage lab 10 varies 1 11 Mammalia Mustela erminea, stoat Mammalia Clethrionomys glareolus, bank vole Growth female mass (g) no predator cue 16.9 0.21 0.6 8 1 8 Exposed to scent of stoat 16.6 0.77 3 15 1 15 Prey Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 none young, nonpregnant females Text, p. 661 Ylonen & Ronkainen 1994 Evol Ecol 8: 658-666 Ylo94-05 terrestrial field & forest cage lab 10 varies 1 11 Mammalia Mustela erminea, stoat Mammalia Clethrionomys glareolus, bank vole Fecundity # embryos/breeding female no predator cue 4.95 0.37 1.79 23 1 23 Exposed to scent of stoat 5.6 0.67 1.15 3 1 3 Prey Fecundity 1 0 1 0 1 1 none Figure 1 Ylonen & Ronkainen 1994 Evol Ecol 8: 658-666 Ylo94-06 terrestrial field & forest cage lab 10 16 1 11 Mammalia Mustela erminea, stoat Mammalia Clethrionomys glareolus, bank vole Fecundity proportion of all females that are breeding no predator cue 0.49 0.13 0.51 16 1 16 Exposed to scent of stoat 0.07 0.05 0.2 16 1 16 Prey Fecundity 1 0 1 0 1 1 none young females Figure 1 Ylonen & Ronkainen 1994 Evol Ecol 8: 658-666 Ylo94-07 terrestrial field & forest cage lab 10 18 1 11 Mammalia Mustela erminea, stoat Mammalia Clethrionomys glareolus, bank vole Fecundity proportion of all females that are breeding no predator cue 0.84 0.08 0.36 18 1 18 Exposed to scent of stoat 0.28 0.11 0.47 18 1 18 Prey Fecundity 1 0 1 0 1 1 none old females Figure 5 Yoshioka 1982 JEMBE 61:233-242 Yos82-01 marine Kelp bed natural unit (field density manipulation) field 28 varies 1 no # individuals given. Used one ind/rep as most conservative estimate 11 Gastropoda Corambe pacifica, Doridella steinbergae, nudibranchs Bryozoa Membranipora membranacea Fecundity per capita fecundity (so only measures TMI) (# larvae per m^3 divided by # zooids per cm^2) nudibranchs absent 6.97 0.45 2.23 25 1 25 nudibranchs present 1.06 0.33 1.19 13 1 13 Prey (autotroph) Fecundity 1 0 1 0 1 1 Yos82-01 and Yos82-02 Table 2 Yoshioka 1982 JEMBE 61:233-242 Yos82-02 marine Kelp bed natural unit (field density manipulation) field 28 varies 1 11 Gastropoda Corambe pacifica, Doridella steinbergae, nudibranchs Bryozoa Membranipora membranacea Growth cm/day nudibranchs absent 0.19 0.15 0.64 18 1 18 nudibranchs present 0.1 0.22 0.82 14 1 14 Prey (autotroph) Growth 1 0 1 0 1 1 Yos82-01 and Yos82-02