Predator control of herbivory (trophic cascade)

How predators change plant biomass indirectly by reducing herbivore numbers or altering herbivore feeding behavior.

Boundary: where this process starts

Starts with: Spiders reduce grasshopper density

Boundary: where it ends

Ends after: Less herbivory leaves more plant biomass

PARTICIPANTSRESOURCESPredatorsHerbivoresPlantsOrganic carbonImpact -3 of 5. Click for details and evidence.Impact -3 of 5. Click for details and evidence.Impact +3 of 5. Click for details and evidence.Impact +3 of 5. Click for details and evidence.Impact -2 of 5. Click for details and evidence.Impact 02 of 5. Click for details and evidence.Impact +3 of 5. Click for details and evidence.Impact +2 of 5. Click for details and evidence.↻ reinforces · weak · 0.1 Plant growth suppoSpiders reduce grasshopper density: uses Organic carbonRisk of predation alters grasshopper feeding behavior: uses Organic carbonLess herbivory leaves more plant biomass: makes Organic carbonmakesAquatic prey subsidies redirect spiders and change herbivory: uses Organic carbonherbivore densityreduced by predationOrganic carbon: herbivore density reduced by predationfeeding altered bypredation riskOrganic carbon: feeding altered by predation riskleft as plant biomassOrganic carbon: left as plant biomassredirects spider andherbivore flowsOrganic carbon: redirects spider and herbivore flowsStart: Predator controlof herbivory (trophiccascade)STARTStart: Predator control of herbivory (trophic cascade)End: Predator controlof herbivory (trophiccascade)ENDEnd: Predator control of herbivory (trophic cascade)Spiders reducegrasshopper density📄1Spiders reduce grasshopper densityRisk of predationalters grasshopperfeeding behavior📄1Risk of predation alters grasshopper feeding behaviorLess herbivory leavesmore plant biomass📄1Less herbivory leaves more plant biomassAquatic prey subsidiesredirect spiders andchange herbivory📄1Aquatic prey subsidies redirect spiders and change herbivory
Line thickness = size of impact (1 to 5)% on a line = chance a fork takes that branch📄 = pieces of evidence on a stepNegative effectLoops backHypothesisResource used up (arrow into the step)Resource used, not used upResource made or released (arrow out of the step)
What am I looking at? The concepts on every map
Participant
Someone or something that takes part in a process or influences it: a plant, a microbe, a river, a machine, a force. Participants are the rows of a map.
Resource
Something a step uses or uses up: water, oxygen, sunlight, a tool. Each step has an arrow down to the resources it uses.
Step
One thing that happens in a process. Every step has at least one participant and carries evidence.
Decision fork
A step where the process can go several ways. Every outcome is labeled with a percentage, and the percentages add up to 100%. It is not limited to yes or no.
Loop
A line that carries the process back to an earlier step. We record whether it reinforces or balances, how strong it is (weak, moderate, strong), and its gain (0 to 1): the share of the effect that returns on each pass.
Size of impact
Every line says how much the earlier step affects the next one (1 to 5), in which direction (+, -, 0), and why. Thicker lines mean bigger impact.
Evidence
The support for a claim: a source and what it shows. Every step, line, change and vote needs it. Click any step or line to read its evidence.
Boundary
Where a process starts and where it ends. Every process, and every subprocess, has a start and an end.
Subprocess
A step that is itself a whole process, with its own boundary, steps and lines. Click a step marked ↘ to open it. Subprocesses nest as deep as the evidence goes.
Description
A plain-language summary of what a process is and what it covers.
Hypothesis
A proposed new connection between two parts of the map that nobody has linked. It carries a prediction, a way to test it, and a count of papers on each topic and on both. It is an unverified idea until someone tests it.

Every step, with its evidence

The same information as the map, as a list you can search and share. Click a participant or resource to see everywhere it appears.

Spiders reduce grasshopper density
Evidence (1) · added by Verity
  • Beckerman 1997, Experimental evidence for a behavior-mediated trophic cascade in a terrestrial food chain, PNAS, doi:10.1073/pnas.94.20.10735: Predators of herbivorous animals can affect plant populations by altering herbivore density. (confidence 0.8)
Risk of predation alters grasshopper feeding behavior
Evidence (1) · added by Verity
  • Beckerman 1997, Experimental evidence for a behavior-mediated trophic cascade in a terrestrial food chain, PNAS, doi:10.1073/pnas.94.20.10735: Risk spiders with glued mouthparts could not kill prey, isolating behavioral effects from density effects. (confidence 0.8)
Less herbivory leaves more plant biomass
Evidence (1) · added by Verity
  • Beckerman 1997, Experimental evidence for a behavior-mediated trophic cascade in a terrestrial food chain, PNAS, doi:10.1073/pnas.94.20.10735: The experiment tested the indirect effect of predators on plants through herbivores. (confidence 0.7)
Aquatic prey subsidies redirect spiders and change herbivory
Evidence (1) · added by Verity
  • Graf 2017, Contrasting effects of aquatic subsidies on a terrestrial trophic cascade, Biology Letters, doi:10.1098/rsbl.2017.0129: Aquatic insect subsidies can enhance predator abundance or cause prey switching, increasing or decreasing herbivory depending on herbivore type. (confidence 0.75)