Prey preference of top predators and energy flow across habitat boundaries are of fundamental importance for structure and function of aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems, as they may have strong effects on production, species diversity, and food‐web stability. In lakes, littoral and pelagic food‐web compartments are typically coupled and controlled by generalist fish top predators. However, the extent and determinants of such coupling remains a topical area of ecological research and is largely unknown in oligotrophic high‐latitude lakes. We analyzed food‐web structure and resource use by a generalist top predator, the Arctic charrSalvelinus alpinus(L.), in 17 oligotrophic subarctic lakes covering a marked gradient in size (0.5–1084 km²) and fish species richness (2–13 species). We expected top predators to shift from littoral to pelagic energy sources with increasing lake size, as the availability of pelagic prey resources and the competition for littoral prey are both likely to be higher in large lakes with multispecies fish communities. We also expected top predators to occupy a higher trophic position in lakes with greater fish species richness due to potential substitution of intermediate consumers (prey fish) and increased piscivory by top predators. Based on stable carbon and nitrogen isotope analyses, the mean reliance of Arctic charr on littoral energy sources showed a significant negative relationship with lake surface area, whereas the mean trophic position of Arctic charr, reflecting the lake food‐chain length, increased with fish species richness. These results were supported by stomach contents data demonstrating a shift of Arctic charr from an invertebrate‐dominated diet to piscivory on pelagic fish. Our study highlights that, because they determine the main energy source (littoral vs. pelagic) and the trophic position of generalist top predators, ecosystem size and fish diversity are particularly important factors influencing function and structure of food webs in high‐latitude lakes.

Competition for shared resources is commonly assumed to restrict population‐level niche width of coexisting species. However, the identity and abundance of coexisting species, the prevailing environmental conditions, and the individual body size may shape the effects of interspecific interactions on species’ niche width. Here we study the effects of interspecific and intraspecific interactions, lake area and altitude, and fish body size on the trophic niche width and resource use of a generalist predator, the littoral‐dwelling large, sparsely rakered morph of European whitefish (Coregonus lavaretus; hereafter LSR whitefish). We use stable isotope, diet and survey fishing data from 14 subarctic lakes along an environmental gradient in northern Norway. The isotopic niche width of LSR whitefish showed a humped‐shaped relationship with increasing relative abundance of sympatric competitors, suggesting widest population niche at intermediate intensity of interspecific interactions. The isotopic niche width of LSR whitefish tended to decrease with increasing altitude, suggesting reduced niche in colder, less productive lakes. LSR whitefish typically shifted to a higher trophic position and increased reliance on littoral food resources with increasing body size, although between‐lake differences in ontogenetic niche shifts were evident. In most lakes, LSR whitefish relied less on littoral food resources than coexisting fishes and the niche overlap between sympatric competitors was most evident among relatively large individuals (>250 mm). Individual niche variation was highest among >200 mm long LSR whitefish, which likely have escaped the predation window of sympatric predators. We demonstrate that intermediate intensity of interspecific interactions may broaden species’ niche width, whereas strong competition for limited resources and high predation risk may suppress niche width in less productive environments. Acknowledging potential humped‐shaped relationships between population niche width and interspecific interactions can help us understand species’ responses to environmental disturbance (e.g. climate change and species invasions) as well as the driving forces of niche specialization.