2010
DOI: 10.1899/09-058.1
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Foodweb structure in small streams: do we need different models for the tropics?

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

7
50
1

Year Published

2012
2012
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 59 publications
(59 citation statements)
references
References 56 publications
7
50
1
Order By: Relevance
“…In both streams, most fishes consumed aquatic invertebrates, a finding consistent with those from studies of streams in other tropical regions (Deus, Petrere-Junior, 2003;Bonato et al, 2012;Dudgeon et al, 2010). Although most piscivorous tropical fishes are also capable of feeding 9 e160125 [9] on aquatic invertebrates, especially during early life stages (Winemiller, 1989), our data reveal a trend whereby proportions of aquatic invertebrates and fish in diets were inversely associated (Fig.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 88%
“…In both streams, most fishes consumed aquatic invertebrates, a finding consistent with those from studies of streams in other tropical regions (Deus, Petrere-Junior, 2003;Bonato et al, 2012;Dudgeon et al, 2010). Although most piscivorous tropical fishes are also capable of feeding 9 e160125 [9] on aquatic invertebrates, especially during early life stages (Winemiller, 1989), our data reveal a trend whereby proportions of aquatic invertebrates and fish in diets were inversely associated (Fig.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 88%
“…The study species are representative of families that are widespread and abundant in tropical Asian streams (Dudgeon 1999) and have extensive trophic links with other co-occurring taxa (e.g., Mantel et al 2004;Li and Dudgeon 2008;Dudgeon et al 2010). Given that d…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, this study revealed that both disturbance and bottom-up inter-guild effects were essential to forming the regional spatial pattern in predator taxonomic richness. Although effects of biotic interactions on species richness have been considered less important in stream invertebrates (Vinson and Hawkins 1998), significant relationships between predator and prey assemblages have been suggested (Jeffries and Lawton 1985, Warren and Gaston 1992, Dudgeon et al 2010, and predator-prey effects (i.e., inter-guild effects) on predator richness were found in this study. Inter-guild effects may be hindered by greater abiotic and biotic heterogeneity at global and continental scales (Freestone et al 2011), and then detection of inter-guild effects may depend on spatial scale.…”
Section: Environmental and Inter-guild Effects On Regional Gradientsmentioning
confidence: 54%
“…In addition, the types of food ingested are relatively well defined (Poff et al 2006); they can be categorized into five functional feeding guilds (collector-filterer, collector-gatherer, scraper, predator, and shredder; Merritt andCummins 1996, Poff et al 2006). Previous studies have suggested that prey assemblages have effects on predator assemblages and vice versa (Jeffries and Lawton 1985, Warren and Gaston 1992, Wallace et al 1999, Dudgeon et al 2010. For example, since prey species types are considered as the niche dimensions for predator species, higher prey species richness may provide a higher niche quality for predators (Jeffries and Lawton 1985).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%