Ellen van Velzen, Ursula Gaedke

• Ecoevolutionary feedbacks in predator–prey systems have been shown to qualitatively alter predator–prey dynamics. As a striking example, defense–offense coevolution can reverse predator–prey cycles, so predator peaks precede prey peaks rather than vice versa. However, this has only rarely been shown in either model studies or empirical systems. Here, we investigate whether this rarity is a fundamental feature of reversed cycles by exploring under which conditions they should be found. For this, we first identify potential conditions and parameter ranges most likely to result in reversed cycles by developing a new measure, the effective prey biomass, which combines prey biomass with prey and predator traits, and represents the prey biomass as perceived by the predator. We show that predator dynamics always follow the dynamics of the effective prey biomass with a classic ¼‐phase lag. From this key insight, it follows that in reversed cycles (i.e., ¾‐lag), the dynamics of the actual and the effective prey biomass must be in antiphaseEcoevolutionary feedbacks in predator–prey systems have been shown to qualitatively alter predator–prey dynamics. As a striking example, defense–offense coevolution can reverse predator–prey cycles, so predator peaks precede prey peaks rather than vice versa. However, this has only rarely been shown in either model studies or empirical systems. Here, we investigate whether this rarity is a fundamental feature of reversed cycles by exploring under which conditions they should be found. For this, we first identify potential conditions and parameter ranges most likely to result in reversed cycles by developing a new measure, the effective prey biomass, which combines prey biomass with prey and predator traits, and represents the prey biomass as perceived by the predator. We show that predator dynamics always follow the dynamics of the effective prey biomass with a classic ¼‐phase lag. From this key insight, it follows that in reversed cycles (i.e., ¾‐lag), the dynamics of the actual and the effective prey biomass must be in antiphase with each other, that is, the effective prey biomass must be highest when actual prey biomass is lowest, and vice versa. Based on this, we predict that reversed cycles should be found mainly when oscillations in actual prey biomass are small and thus have limited impact on the dynamics of the effective prey biomass, which are mainly driven by trait changes. We then confirm this prediction using numerical simulations of a coevolutionary predator–prey system, varying the amplitude of the oscillations in prey biomass: Reversed cycles are consistently associated with regions of parameter space leading to small‐amplitude prey oscillations, offering a specific and highly testable prediction for conditions under which reversed cycles should occur in natural systems.…