DOI: 10.5061/dryad.8gtht76x4
title: Intraguild processes drive space-use patterns in a large-bodied marine predator community

description: Interspecific interactions, including predator-prey, intraguild predation
 (IGP), and competition, may drive distribution and habitat use of predator
 communities. However, elucidating the relative importance of these
 interactions in shaping predator distributions is challenging, especially
 in marine communities comprising highly mobile species. We used
 individual-based models (IBMs) to predict the habitat distributions of
 apex predators, intraguild (IG) prey, and prey. We then used passive
 acoustic telemetry to test these predictions in a subtropical marine
 predator community consisting of eight elasmobranch (i.e., shark and ray)
 species in Bimini, The Bahamas. IBMs predicted that prey and IG prey will
 preferentially select habitats based on safety over resources (food), with
 stronger selection for safe habitat by smaller prey. Elasmobranch
 space-use patterns matched these predictions. Species with predator-prey
 and asymmetrical IGP (between apex and small mesopredators) interactions
 showed the clearest spatial separation, followed by asymmetrical IGP among
 apex and large mesopredators. Competitors showed greater spatial overlap
 although with finer-scale differences in microhabitat use. Our study
 suggests space-use patterns in elasmobranchs are at least partially driven
 by interspecific interactions, with stronger spatial separation occurring
 where interactions include predator-prey relationships or IGP.
description: Acoustic transmitters (InnovaSea, Canada; V16; battery life 2,435
 to 3,650 days; transmission interval: 90–150 s) were surgically implanted
 into the body cavity of southern stingrays (<em>Hypanus
 americanus</em>), blacktip (<em>C. limbatus</em>), bull,
 Caribbean reef, great hammerhead, lemon (<em>Negaprion
 brevirostris</em>), nurse, and tiger sharks following capture, or
 attached externally to the base of the first dorsal fin via freediving for
 some great hammerheads, between April 2014–July 2018 (Guttridge et al.,
 2017; Smukall et al., 2022; van Zinnicq Bergmann et al., 2022). Bull,
 great hammerhead, and tiger sharks were considered apex predators (Cortés,
 1999). Caribbean reef, adult lemon (males and females &gt;175 and
 &gt;185 cm PCL, respectively; Feldheim et al. 2014), and nurse sharks
 were classified as larger mesopredators, while southern stingrays,
 blacktip, and subadult lemon sharks were considered smaller mesopredators
 (Cortés, 1999). Sex and morphometrics (sharks: precaudal length, PCL;
 stingrays: curved disk width, DW) were recorded for each tagged
 elasmobranch via direct measurement or estimated via laser-photogrammetry
 for some great hammerheads instrumented during freediving (Guttridge et
 al., 2017). Tagged elasmobranchs were monitored for 2.5
 years, from 1 October 2016–30 April 2019, using an acoustic receiver array
 (VR2W, InnovaSea; <em>n</em>=56). This array covered all major
 marine biotopes, enabling monitoring of movements to and from the lagoon
 (Appendix S1: Figure S1). Each time a tagged elasmobranch entered the
 detection range of an acoustic receiver (500 m at minimum; van Zinnicq
 Bergmann et al. 2022), the unique tag ID code, date and time of detection
 were recorded and stored in the memory of that receiver. Receivers were
 retrieved, downloaded, batteries replaced, and redeployed at least once
 per year.             Acoustic data were cleaned by
 eliminating false positives (0.02%) from transmitters detected only once
 in a 1-hour time bin on a single receiver, excluding double detections
 (0.02%) from a single transmitter recorded by multiple receivers with
 overlapping detection ranges, and discarding detections within the initial
 24 h post-tagging to prevent bias from tagging stress (van Zinnicq
 Bergmann et al., 2022). To analyse species-specific temporal trends in the
 number of tagged elasmobranchs detected on the receiver array, for each
 species we calculated the proportion of tagged individuals detected per
 month and year (i.e., the number of detected elasmobranchs divided by the
 number of tagged elasmobranchs), and subsequently aggregated monthly
 proportions across years.
description: # Intraguild processes drive space-use patterns in a large-bodied marine
 predator community **Abstract** Interspecific interactions, including
 predator-prey, intraguild predation (IGP), and competition, may drive
 distribution and habitat use of predator communities. However, elucidating
 the relative importance of these interactions in shaping predator
 distributions is challenging, especially in marine communities comprising
 highly mobile species. We used individual-based models (IBMs) to predict
 the habitat distributions of apex predators, intraguild (IG) prey, and
 prey. We then used passive acoustic telemetry to test these predictions in
 a subtropical marine predator community consisting of eight elasmobranch
 (i.e., shark and ray) species in Bimini, The Bahamas. IBMs predicted that
 prey and IG prey will preferentially select habitats based on safety over
 resources (food), with stronger selection for safe habitat by smaller
 prey. Elasmobranch space-use patterns matched these predictions. Species
 with predator-prey and asymmetrical IGP (between apex and small
 mesopredators) interactions showed the clearest spatial separation,
 followed by asymmetrical IGP among apex and large mesopredators.
 Competitors showed greater spatial overlap although with finer-scale
 differences in microhabitat use. Our study suggests space-use patterns in
 elasmobranchs are at least partially driven by interspecific interactions,
 with stronger spatial separation occurring where interactions include
 predator-prey relationships or IGP. * Author List: Maurits P. M. van
 Zinnicq Bergmann, Lucas P. Griffin, Thomas W. Bodey, Tristan L. Guttridge,
 Geert Aarts, Michael R. Heithaus, Matthew J. Smukall, Yannis P.
 Papastamatiou * Date of data collection (single date, range, approximate
 date): October 2016 - April 2019 * Geographic location of data collection:
 Bimini, The Bahamas * Information about funding sources that supported the
 collection of the data: Save Our Seas Foundation, Swiss Shark Foundation,
 Guy Harvey Ocean Foundation ## Sharing/Access information 1.
 Licenses/restrictions placed on the data: CC0 1.0 Universal (CC0 1.0)
 Public Domain 2. Links to publications that cite or use the data: Maurits
 P. M. van Zinnicq Bergmann, Lucas P. Griffin, Thomas W. Bodey, Tristan L.
 Guttridge, Geert Aarts, Michael R. Heithaus, Matthew J. Smukall, Yannis P.
 Papastamatiou 2024. Intraguild processes drive space-use patterns in a
 large-bodied marine predator community. Journal of Animal Ecology. 1.
 Links to other publicly accessible locations of the data: None 2.
 Links/relationships to ancillary data sets: None 3. Was data derived from
 another source? No A. If yes, list source(s): NA 4. Recommended citation
 for this dataset: Maurits P. M. van Zinnicq Bergmann, Lucas P. Griffin,
 Thomas W. Bodey, Tristan L. Guttridge, Geert Aarts, Michael R. Heithaus,
 Matthew J. Smukall, Yannis P. Papastamatiou. 2024. Data from: Intraguild
 processes drive space-use patterns in a large-bodied marine predator
 community. Journal of Animal Ecology. Dryad Digital Repository.
 [https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.8gtht76x4](https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.8gtht76x4) ## Description of the data and file structure 1. File list for data A) detsvtrack.rds 1. Relationship among files, if important: None 2. Additional related data collected that was not included in the current data package: None 3. Are there multiple versions of the dataset? No A. If yes, name of file(s) that was updated: NA i. Why was the file updated? NA ii. When was the file updated? NA B) Rxdeployvtrack.rds 1. Relationship between files, if important: acoustic receiver metadata for detsvtrack.rds 2. Additional related data collected that was not included in the current data package: None 3. Are there multiple versions of the dataset? No A. If yes, name of file(s) that was updated: NA i. Why was the file updated? NA ii. When was the file updated? NA C) tagsvtrack.rds 1. Relationship between files, if important: acoustic transmitter metadata for detsvtrack.rds 2. Additional related data collected that was not included in the current data package: None 3. Are there multiple versions of the dataset? No A. If yes, name of file(s) that was updated: NA i. Why was the file updated? NA ii. When was the file updated? NA \######################################################################### DATA-SPECIFIC INFORMATION FOR: detsvtrack.rds 1. Number of variables: 10 2. Number of cases/rows: 1,580,144 3. Variable List: * Date.and.Time..UTC. - Date and time of acoustic detection (yyyy-mm-dd hh:mm; UTC timezone) * Receiver - Acoustic receiver ID * Transmitter - Acoustic transmitter ID * Transmitter.Name - NA * Transmitter.Serial - Same as Transmitter * Sensor.Value - NA * Sensor.Unit - NA * Station.Name - Location name of stationary acoustic receiver * Latitute - Latitude (coordinates; decimal degrees) * Longitude - Longitude (coordinates; decimal degrees) DATA-SPECIFIC INFORMATION FOR: tagsvtrack.rds 1. Number of variables: 16 2. Number of cases/rows: 143 3. Variable List: * ReleaseDate - Date and time of animal capture, tagging, and release (yyyy-mm-dd hh:mm; US/Eastern timezone) * transmitter_id - Transmitter ID * release_latitude - Release location latitude (coordinates, decimal degrees; generalized to protect species from unintended risks) * release_longitude - Release location (coordinates, decimal degrees; generalized to protect species from unintended risks) * common_name - Scientific name * tag_id - As transmitter_id * PCL - Precaudal length (cm) * FL - Fork length (cm) * TL - Total length (cm) * DW - Curved disk width (cm) * scientific_name - As common_name * release_id - As transmitter_id * tag_project_name - Name of the owning agency * tag_status - Tag deployed? * sex - Sex (female (f) or male (m)) * tag_expected_life_time_days - Expected battery life of the tag (in days) DATA-SPECIFIC INFORMATION FOR: Rxdeployvtrack.rds 1. Number of variables: 9 2. Number of cases/rows: 56 3. Variable List: * ReleaseDate - Date and time of animal capture, tagging, and release (yyyy-mm-dd hh:mm; US/Eastern timezone) * station_name - Location name of stationary acoustic receiver * receiver_name - As station_name * installation_name - Name of the owning agency * project_name - Name of the owning agency * deploymentdatetime_timestamp - Date and time of receiver deployment (yyyy-mm-dd hh:mm; US/Eastern timezone) * recoverydatetime_timestamp - Date and time of receiver recovery  (yyyy-mm-dd hh:mm; US/Eastern timezone) * station_latitude - Receiver location latitude (coordinates; decimal degrees) * station_longitude - Receiver location longitude (coordinates; decimal degrees) * status - Whether an acoustic receiver is deployed or not ## Software All data analyses were performed using R version 4.2.0 (RStudio Team, 2022).