Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Letter
  • Published:

Apparent competition structures ecological assemblages

Abstract

Competition is a major force in structuring ecological communities1. It acts directly2 or indirectly, in which case it may be mediated by shared natural enemies and is known as ‘apparent competition’3,4,5,6. The effects of apparent competition on species coexistence are well known theoretically7,8 but have not previously been demonstrated empirically in controlled multigenerational experiments. Here we report on the population dynamic consequences of apparent competition in a laboratory insect system with two host species and a common parasitoid attacking them. We find that whereas the two separate, single host–single parasitoid interactions are persistent, the three-species system with the parasitoid attacking both hosts species (which are not allowed to compete directly) is unstable, and that one of the host species is eliminated from the interaction owing to the effects of apparent competition.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

from$1.95

to$39.95

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1: Representative examples of the population dynamics of the single host-single parasitoid interactions: a, b, P. interpunctella (dotted line)–V. canescens (dashed line); c, d, E. kuehniella (unbroken line)–V. canescens (dashed line).
Figure 2: Representative examples of the population dynamics of the three species system of two hosts and a single parasitoid: P.interpunctella (dotted line)–E. kuehniella (unbroken line)–V. canescens (dashed line).
Figure 3: Box plots for a, E. kuehniella, and b, P. interpunctella in the presence (+) or absence (−) of the other host species.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Law, R. & Watkinson, A. R. in Ecological Concepts(ed. Cherrett, J. M.) (Blackwell Scientific, London, (1989)).

    Google Scholar 

  2. Lawton, J. H. & Hassell, M. P. Asymmetrical competition in insects. Nature 289, 793–795 (1981).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  3. Menge, B. A. Indirect effects in marine rocky intertidal interaction webs—patterns and processes. Ecol. Monogr. 65, 21–74 (1995).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Strauss, S. Y. Indirect effects in community ecology: their definition, study and importance. Trends Ecol. Evol. 6, 206–210 (1991).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Wootton, J. T. The nature and consequences of indirect effects in ecological communities. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Sys. 25, 443–466 (1994).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Holt, R. D. & Lawton, J. H. Apparent competition and enemy-free space in insect host–parasitoid communities. Am. Nat. 142, 623–645 (1993).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Holt, R. D. Predation, apparent competition and the structure of prey communities. Theor. Pop. Biol. 12, 197–229 (1977).

    Article  MathSciNet  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Holt, R. D. Spatial heterogeneity, indirect interactions and the coexistence of prey species. Am. Nat. 124, 377–406 (1984).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Williamson, M. H. An elementary theory of interspecific competition. Nature 180, 422–425 (1957).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  10. Müller, C. B. & Godfray, H. C. J. Apparent competition between two aphid species. J. Anim. Ecol. 66, 57–64 (1997).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Karban, R., Houghen-Eitzmann, D. & English-Loeb, G. Predator-mediated apparent competition between two herbivores that feed on grapevines. Oecologia 97, 508–511 (1994).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Settle, W. H. & Wilson, L. T. Invasion by the variegated leafhopper and biotic interactions: parasitism, competition and apparent competition. Ecology 71, 1461–1470 (1990).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Schmitt, R. J. Indirect interactions between prey: apparent competition, predator aggregation and habitat segregation. Ecology 68, 1887–1897 (1987).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Hanley, K. A., Vollmer, D. M. & Case, T. J. The distribution and prevalence of helminths, coccidia and blood parasites in two competing species of gecko: implications for apparent competition. Oecologia 102, 220–229 (1994).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  15. Grosholz, E. D. Interactions of intraspecific, interspecific and apparent competition with host–pathogen dynamics. Ecology 73, 507–514 (1992).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Bonsall, M. B. Temporal and Spatial Insect Population DynamicsThesis, Univ. London((1997)).

    Google Scholar 

  17. Evans, E. W. & England, S. Indirect interactions in biological control of insects: pests and natural enemies in alfalfa. Ecol. Appl. 6, 920–930 (1996).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Beddington, J. R., Free, C. A. & Lawton, J. H. Characteristics of successful natural enemies in models of biological control of insect pests. Nature 273, 513–519 (1978).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Holt, R. D. in Multitrophic Interactions in Terrestrial Systems(eds Gange, A. C. & Brown, V. K.) (Blackwell Scientific, London, (1996)).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank R. Holt for comments on an earlier version of the manuscript. This work was supported by an NERC studentship to M.B.B. and an NERC-funded research grant to M.P.H.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to M. B. Bonsall.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bonsall, M., Hassell, M. Apparent competition structures ecological assemblages. Nature 388, 371–373 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1038/41084

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/41084

This article is cited by

Comments

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.

Search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing