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.

Excess digestive capacity in predators reflects a life of feast and famine

Nature volume 476, pages 84–87 (2011)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

A central challenge for predators is achieving positive energy balance when prey are spatially and temporally heterogeneous. Ecological heterogeneity produces evolutionary trade-offs in the physiological design of predators; this is because the ability to capitalize on pulses of food abundance requires high capacity for food-processing, yet maintaining such capacity imposes energetic costs that are taxing during periods of food scarcity1,2. Recent advances in physiology show that when variation in foraging opportunities is predictable, animals may adjust energetic trade-offs by rapidly modulating their digestive system to track variation in foraging opportunities1. However, it is increasingly recognized that foraging opportunities for animals are unpredictable3, which should favour animals that maintain a capacity for food-processing that exceeds average levels of consumption (loads)2,4. Despite this basic principle of quantitative evolutionary design, estimates of digestive load:capacity ratios in wild animals are virtually non-existent1. Here we provide an extensive assessment of load:capacity ratios for the digestive systems of predators in the wild, compiling 639 estimates across 38 species of fish. We found that piscine predators typically maintain the physiological capacity to feed at daily rates 2–3 times higher than what they experience on average. A numerical simulation of the trade-off between food-processing capacity and metabolic cost suggests that the observed level of physiological opportunism is profitable only if predator–prey encounters, and thus predator energy budgets, are far more variable in nature than currently assumed.

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

Relevant articles

Open Access articles citing this article.

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

from$1.95

to$39.95

Learn more

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

Figure 1: Results from a simulation model exploring the energetic profitability of excess capacity for assimilation as a function of the daily variation in foraging opportunity.
Figure 2: Histograms showing bioenergetics estimates of integrated consumption rates in wild piscine predators, expressed as the assimilative load:capacity ratio.

References

  1. Piersma, T. & van Gils, J. A. The Flexible Phenotype (Oxford Univ. Press, 2011)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Diamond, J. Quantitative evolutionary design. J. Physiol. (Lond.) 542, 337–345 (2002)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Humphries, N. E. et al. Environmental context explains Levy and Brownian movement patterns of marine predators. Nature 465, 1066–1069 (2010)

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Gans, C. Momentarily excessive construction as the basis for protoadaptation. Evolution 33, 227–233 (1979)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Ritchie, E. G. & Johnson, C. N. Predator interactions, mesopredator release and biodiversity conservation. Ecol. Lett. 12, 982–998 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Walters, C. J. M. & Martell, S. J. D. Fisheries Ecology and Management (Princeton Univ. Press, 2004)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Kauffman, M. J. et al. Landscape heterogeneity shapes predation in a newly restored predator-prey system. Ecol. Lett. 10, 690–700 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Armstrong, J. B. et al. Thermal heterogeneity mediates the effects of pulsed subsidies across a landscape. Ecology 91, 1445–1454 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Klaassen, M., Lindstrom, A. & Zijlstra, R. Composition of fuel stores and digestive limitations to fuel deposition rate in the long-distance migratory thrush nightingale, Luscinia luscinia . Physiol. Zool. 70, 125–133 (1997)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Dupont-Prinet, A. et al. Physiological mechanisms underlying a trade-off between growth rate and tolerance of feed deprivation in the European sea bass (Dicentrarchus labrax). J. Exp. Biol. 213, 1143–1152 (2010)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Weiner, J. Physiological limits to sustainable energy budgets in birds and mammals: ecological implications. Trends Ecol. Evol. 7, 384–388 (1992)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Weibel, E. R., Taylor, C. R. & Hoppeler, H. The concept of symmorphosis: a testable hypothesis of structure-function relationship. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 88, 10357–10361 (1991)

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Kersten, M. & Visser, W. The rate of food processing in the oystercatcher: food intake and energy expenditure constrained by a digestive bottleneck. Funct. Ecol. 10, 440–448 (1996)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Essington, T. E., Hodgson, J. R. & Kitchell, J. F. Role of satiation in the functional response of a piscivore, largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides). Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 57, 548–556 (2000)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Holling, C. S. The components of predation as revealed by a study of small-mammal predation of the European pine sawfly. Can. Entomol. 91, 293–320 (1959)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Kitchell, J. F., Stewart, D. J. & Weininger, D. Applications of a bioenergetics model to yellow perch (Perca-flavescens) and walleye (Stizostedion-vitreum-vitreum). J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 34, 1922–1935 (1977)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Fish. Bioenergetics 3.0 (University of Wisconsin-Madison Centre for Limnology/Wisconsin Sea Grant Institute, 1997)

  18. Elliott, J. M. & Persson, L. Estimation of daily rates of food consumption for fish. J. Anim. Ecol. 47, 977–991 (1978)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Kitchell, J. F. et al. Predator-prey dynamics in an ecosystem context. J. Fish Biol. 45, 209–226 (1994)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Secor, S. M., Stein, E. D. & Diamond, J. Rapid up-regulation of snake intestine in response to feeding: a new model of intestinal adaptation. Am. J. Physiol. 266, G695–G705 (1994)

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Breck, J. E. Foraging theory and piscivorous fish: are forage fish just big zooplankton? Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 122, 902–911 (1993)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. DeAngelis, D. L. & Gross, L. J. Individual-based Models and Approaches in Ecology. Populations, Communities, and Ecosystems (Chapman and Hall, 1992)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  23. Huey, R. B., Pianka, E. R. & Vitt, L. J. How often do lizards “run on empty”? Ecology 82, 1–7 (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  24. Arrington, D. A., Winemiller, K. O., Loftus, W. F. & Akin, S. How often do fishes “run on empty”? Ecology 83, 2145–2151 (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  25. Jeschke, J. M. When carnivores are “full and lazy”. Oecologia 152, 357–364 (2007)

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  26. Brodin, A. & Clark, C. in Foraging (eds Stephen, D. S., Brown, J. S. & Ydenberg, R. C. ) 221–269 (Univ. Chicago Press, 2007)

    Google Scholar 

  27. Hofmann, R. R. Evolutionary steps of ecophysiological adaptation and diversification of ruminants: a comparative view of their digestive system. Oecologia 78, 443–457 (1989)

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Schindler, D. E. & Eby, L. A. Stoichiometry of fishes and their prey: implications for nutrient recycling. Ecology 78, 1816–1831 (1997)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Yang, L. H., Bastow, J. L., Spence, K. O. & Wright, A. N. What can we learn from resource pulses? Ecology 89, 621–634 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. McWilliams, S. R. & Karasov, W. H. Phenotypic flexibility in digestive system structure and function in migratory birds and its ecological significance. Comp. Biochem. Physiol. A 128, 577–593 (2001)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Rice, J. A. & Cochran, P. A. Independent evaluation of a bioenergetics model for largemouth bass. Ecology 65, 732–739 (1984)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Beauchamp, D. A., Stewart, D. J. & Thomas, G. L. corroboration of a bioenergetics model for sockeye salmon. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 118, 597–607 (1989)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. R Development Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna); available at 〈http://www.R-project.org〉 (2010)

  34. Scott, D. W . Multivariate Density Estimation: Theory, Practice, and Visualization (Wiley, 1992)

  35. Stevens, E. D. & Devlin, R. H. Intestinal morphology in growth hormone transgenic coho salmon. J. Fish Biol. 56, 191–195 (2000)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Farrell, A. P. et al. Gut blood flow in fish during exercise and severe hypercapnia. Comp. Biochem. Physiol. A 128, 549–561 (2001)

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank T. Essington, R. Huey, T. Reed, A. Walters, V. Sturtevant and A. Armstrong for comments on this manuscript. We also thank the following people for contributing to this project: J. Kitchell, O. Jensen, E. Ward, D. Beauchamp, B. Chasco, A. Farrell, P. Bisson and J. Kershner. This work was supported by the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, the US National Science Foundation and the University of Washington School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences, Box 355020, University of Washington, Seattle, 98195, Washington, USA

    Jonathan B. Armstrong & Daniel E. Schindler

Authors
  1. Jonathan B. Armstrong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Daniel E. Schindler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

J.B.A. and D.E.S. contributed to each stage of the project.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jonathan B. Armstrong.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

The file contains Supplementary Figure 1 with legend, Supplementary Table 1 and additional references. (PDF 201 kb)

PowerPoint slides

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Armstrong, J., Schindler, D. Excess digestive capacity in predators reflects a life of feast and famine. Nature 476, 84–87 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1038/nature10240

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nature10240

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

Advanced 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