Simple rules yield complex food webs

Williams, Richard J.; Martinez, Neo D.

doi:10.1038/35004572

Cited by 1,251 publications

(1,703 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

1,588

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…One major problem lies in the extent to which constituent species are 'lumped' into functional groups, in ways that can bias analysis [55]. Interestingly, Stouffer et al [56] have shown that approximately exponential degree distributions similar to those observed can be derived from at least two apparently different models proposed earlier [57,58]; this finding is reminiscent of much earlier observations that significantly different mechanisms could result in identical distributions of the relative abundance of species.…”

Section: Network Structure and Infectious Disease Dynamicsmentioning

confidence: 90%

Network structure and the biology of populations

May¹

2006

Trends in Ecology & Evolution

279

228

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Network Structure and Infectious Disease Dynamicsmentioning

confidence: 90%

Network structure and the biology of populations

May¹

2006

Trends in Ecology & Evolution

279

228

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Average number of links found in a food chain across a food web [94]. Food-chain length appears to be reduced by disturbance and increased by higher energy supply and increased ecosystem size [21][22][23].…”

Section: Food Webs As a Tool For Bef Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Food-chain length appears to be reduced by disturbance and increased by higher energy supply and increased ecosystem size [21][22][23]. Maximum chain length (max FCL) The maximum number of links found in any food chain in a food web [94].…”

Section: Food Webs As a Tool For Bef Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Food webs: reconciling the structure and function of biodiversity

Thompson

Brose

Dunne

et al. 2012

Trends in Ecology & Evolution

Self Cite

572

500

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The global biodiversity crisis concerns not only unprecedented loss of species within communities, but also related consequences for ecosystem function. Community ecology focuses on patterns of species richness and community composition, whereas ecosystem ecology focuses on fluxes of energy and materials. Food webs provide a quantitative framework to combine these approaches and unify the study of biodiversity and ecosystem function. We summarise the progression of foodweb ecology and the challenges in using the food-web approach. We identify five areas of research where these advances can continue, and be applied to global challenges. Finally, we describe what data are needed in the next generation of food-web studies to reconcile the structure and function of biodiversity.Reconciling the study of biodiversity and ecosystem function We are experiencing two interrelated global ecological crises. One is in biodiversity, with unprecedented rates of species loss across all major ecosystems, combined with greatly accelerated biotic exchange between landmasses [1]. Consequently, spatial and temporal patterns of species occurrence are being fundamentally altered by extinction and invasion. The second crisis concerns the regulation of ecological processes and the ecosystem services they provide. Processes such as primary production and nutrient cycling have been severely altered by human activities [1].Our understanding of biodiversity comes largely from a sound theoretical and empirical basis provided by community ecology, including core concepts such as niche segregation [2] and Island Biogeography [3,4]. Early studies of individual species' habitat preferences and physiological tolerances have been complemented by studies of interspecific interactions from field surveys and experiments. Applications such as conservation management depend largely on mapping of community patterns and studies of habitat occupancy and preferences. More recently, habitat models have been applied, and the advent of simple and cheap molecular markers has allowed quantification of important community assembly (see Glossary) processes such as dispersal [5]. In community ecology the unit of study is the individual, population, or species, consistent with other sub-disciplines such as behavioural and population biology. Review GlossaryAssembly: the set of processes by which a food web is rebuilt after disturbance or the creation of new habitat. Bioenergetics: the flow and transformation of energy in and between living organisms and between living organisms and their environment. Cascade model: a food-web model which assumes hierarchical feeding along a single niche axis, with each species allocated a probability of feeding on taxa below it in the hierarchy. Community web: a food web intended to include all species and trophic links that occur within a defined ecological community. 'Species' in this sense might involve various degrees of aggregation or division of biological species. Compartmentalisation: the property by which one subset of sp...

show abstract

“…Such networks, which look at the degree to which predators feed upon a prey community, can be used to observe both qualitative properties—which species are interacting—or quantitative measures that consider the strength of the species interactions (Ings et al., 2009; Williams & Martinez, 2000). While qualitative descriptors are based on the presence or absence of trophic links, quantitative metrics can include bioenergetics estimations.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Caught in the web: Spider web architecture affects prey specialization and spider–prey stoichiometric relationships

Ludwig

Barbour

Guevara

et al. 2018

Ecology and Evolution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Quantitative approaches to predator–prey interactions are central to understanding the structure of food webs and their dynamics. Different predatory strategies may influence the occurrence and strength of trophic interactions likely affecting the rates and magnitudes of energy and nutrient transfer between trophic levels and stoichiometry of predator–prey interactions. Here, we used spider–prey interactions as a model system to investigate whether different spider web architectures—orb, tangle, and sheet‐tangle—affect the composition and diet breadth of spiders and whether these, in turn, influence stoichiometric relationships between spiders and their prey. Our results showed that web architecture partially affects the richness and composition of the prey captured by spiders. Tangle‐web spiders were specialists, capturing a restricted subset of the prey community (primarily Diptera), whereas orb and sheet‐tangle web spiders were generalists, capturing a broader range of prey types. We also observed elemental imbalances between spiders and their prey. In general, spiders had higher requirements for both nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P) than those provided by their prey even after accounting for prey biomass. Larger P imbalances for tangle‐web spiders than for orb and sheet‐tangle web spiders suggest that trophic specialization may impose strong elemental constraints for these predators unless they display behavioral or physiological mechanisms to cope with nutrient limitation. Our findings suggest that integrating quantitative analysis of species interactions with elemental stoichiometry can help to better understand the occurrence of stoichiometric imbalances in predator–prey interactions.

show abstract

Simple rules yield complex food webs

Cited by 1,251 publications

References 28 publications

Network structure and the biology of populations

Network structure and the biology of populations

Food webs: reconciling the structure and function of biodiversity

Caught in the web: Spider web architecture affects prey specialization and spider–prey stoichiometric relationships

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About