Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting 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.

The interaction between predation and competition


Competition and predation are the most heavily investigated species interactions in ecology, dominating studies of species diversity maintenance. However, these two interactions are most commonly viewed highly asymmetrically. Competition for resources is seen as the primary interaction limiting diversity, with predation modifying what competition does1, although theoretical models have long supported diverse views1,2,3,4,5. Here we show, using a comprehensive three-trophic-level model, that competition and predation should be viewed symmetrically: these two interactions are equally able to either limit or promote diversity. Diversity maintenance requires within-species density feedback loops to be stronger than between-species feedback loops. We quantify the contributions of predation and competition to these loops in a simple, interpretable form, showing their equivalent potential to strengthen or weaken diversity maintenance. Moreover, we show that competition and predation can undermine each other, with the tendency of the stronger interaction to promote or limit diversity prevailing. The past failure to appreciate the symmetrical effects and interactions of competition and predation has unduly restricted diversity maintenance studies. A multitrophic perspective should be adopted to examine a greater variety of possible effects of predation than generally considered in the past. Conservation and management strategies need to be much more concerned with the implications of changes in the strengths of trophic interactions.

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

Relevant articles

Open Access articles citing this article.

Access options

Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.


All prices are NET prices.

Figure 1: Simplified three-trophic-level food web.
Figure 2: Coexistence and exclusion regions.
Figure 3: Niches of two focal species in terms of resources and predators.
Figure 4: Niche overlap as a function of relative predation intensity.


  1. Chase, J. M. et al. The interaction between predation and competition: a review and synthesis. Ecol. Lett. 5, 302–315 (2002)

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Kotler, B. P. & Holt, R. D. Predation and competition: the interaction of two types of species interactions. Oikos 54, 256–260 (1989)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Grover, J. P. & Holt, R. D. Disentangling resource and apparent competition: realistic models for plant-herbivore communities. J. Theor. Biol. 191, 353–376 (1998)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Krivan, V. Competitive co-existence by adaptive predators. Evol. Ecol. Res. 5, 1163–1182 (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  6. MacArthur, R. Species packing and competitive equilibrium for many species. Theor. Popul. Biol. 1, 1–11 (1970)

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Chesson, P. MacArthur’s consumer–resource model. Theor. Popul. Biol. 37, 26–38 (1990)

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Chesson, P. Mechanisms of maintenance of species diversity. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 31, 343–366 (2000)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Chesson, P. & Huntly, N. The roles of harsh and fluctuating conditions in the dynamics of ecological communities. Am. Nat. 150, 519–553 (1997)

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Holt, R. D., Grover, J. & Tilman, D. Simple rules for interspecific dominance in systems with exploitative and apparent competition. Am. Nat. 144, 741–771 (1994)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Abrams, P. A. High competition with low similarity and low competition with high similarity: exploitative and apparent competition in consumer-resource systems. Am. Nat. 152, 114–128 (1998)

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Chesson, P. in Unity in Diversity: Reflections on Ecology after the Legacy of Ramon Margalef (eds Valladares, F. et al.) 119–164 (Fundacion BBVA, 2008)

    Google Scholar 

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

    MathSciNet  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Haygood, R. Coexistence in MacArthur-style consumer–resource models. Theor. Popul. Biol. 61, 215–223 (2002)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Kuang, J. J. & Chesson, P. Predation–competition interactions for seasonally recruiting species. Am. Nat. 171, E119–E133 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Hutchinson, G. E. Homage to Santa Rosalia or why are there so many kinds of animals? Am. Nat. 93, 145–159 (1959)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Kuang, J. J. & Chesson, P. Coexistence of annual plants: generalist seed predation weakens the storage effect. Ecology (in the press)

  18. Soule, M. E. & Terborgh, J. Conserving nature at regional and continental scales—a scientific program for North America. Bioscience 49, 809–817 (1999)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Sala, E. Top predators provide insurance against climate change. Trends Ecol. Evol. 21, 479–480 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Schmitz, O. J. Predators have large effects on ecosystem properties by changing plant diversity, not plant biomass. Ecology 87, 1432–1437 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Johnson, C. N., Isaac, J. L. & Fisher, D. O. Rarity of a top predator triggers continent-wide collapse of mammal prey: dingoes and marsupials in Australia. Proc. R. Soc. B 274, 341–346 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Borrvall, C. & Ebenman, B. Early onset of secondary extinctions in ecological communities following the loss of top predators. Ecol. Lett. 9, 435–442 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Myers, R. A., Baum, J. K., Shepherd, T. D., Powers, S. P. & Peterson, C. H. Cascading effects of the loss of apex predatory sharks from a coastal ocean. Science 315, 1846–1850 (2007)

    ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Heithaus, M. R., Frid, A., Wirsing, A. J. & Worm, B. Predicting ecological consequences of marine top predator declines. Trends Ecol. Evol. 23, 202–210 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references


This work was supported by National Science Foundation grants DEB-0542991 and DEB-0717222.

Author Contributions P.C. and J.J.K. jointly developed the model. P.C. derived the coexistence conditions and wrote the first draft of the manuscript. P.C. and J.J.K. jointly prepared the figures and all revisions of the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations


Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Peter Chesson or Jessica J. Kuang.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

The file contains Supplementary Notes. (PDF 170 kb)

PowerPoint slides

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Chesson, P., Kuang, J. The interaction between predation and competition. Nature 456, 235–238 (2008).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI:

Further reading


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.


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