The signature of phylogenetic constraints on food-web structure

Bersier, Louis‐Félix; Kehrli, Patrik

doi:10.1016/j.ecocom.2007.06.013

Cited by 82 publications

(131 citation statements)

References 62 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

117

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Bersier and Kehrli (2008) have pointed out this asymmetry for food webs, while independently found a similar asymmetry in mutualistic networks. Surprisingly, these two asymmetries go in opposite directions.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Different methods to quantify the phylogenetic signal in ecological networks already exist. For example, we can quantify the dietary or predatory similarity in food webs (Cattin et al 2004;Bersier and Kehrli 2008;Naisbit et al 2012) or the ecological similarity in mutualistic networks ) and then use a Mantel correlation to test for phylogenetic signal. These approaches have advanced our knowledge of the phylogenetic constraints, but they are limited in the sense of looking only at a particular level (prey, predators, animals, or plants).…”

Section: Matching-centrality Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Specifically, when studying ecological networks, they have concluded that network patterns have a phylogenetic signal and that, therefore, one cannot fully understand network architecture without considering the evolutionary history of constituent species (Cattin et al 2004;Bersier and Kehrli 2008;Eklof et al 2012;Mouquet et al 2012;Naisbit et al 2012). These studies have immediate implications for our understanding of network assembly (Cattin et al 2004;, the rate at which evolutionary history is lost as networks disassemble , and which ecological variables best correlate with network structure Bersier and Kehrli 2008;Eklof et al 2012;Naisbit et al 2012). They also pave the road toward a predictive assessment of the networkwide consequences of biological invasions (Ives and Godfray 2006).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Components of Phylogenetic Signal in Antagonistic and Mutualistic Networks

Rohr

Bascompte

2014

The American Naturalist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent studies have shown a phylogenetic signal in the structure of ecological networks, making the point that evolutionary history is important in explaining network architecture. However, this previous work has focused on either antagonistic (i.e., predatorprey) or mutualistic networks and has used different methodologies. Thus, a comparative assessment of both the frequency and the strength of phylogenetic signal across network types and components of network structure has been precluded. Here, we address this issue using a data set comprising 60 antagonistic and mutualistic networks. By quantifying simultaneously the matching and centrality components of network architecture-capturing the modular and nested structure, respectively-we test the presence and quantify the strength of phylogenetic signal across network types, species sets, and components of network structure. We find contrasting differences across such groups. First, phylogenetic signal is stronger in antagonistic webs than in mutualistic webs. Second, resources are more strongly constrained than consumers in food webs, while animals show more constraints than plants in mutualistic networks. Third, phylogenetic constraints are stronger for the matching component than for the centrality component of network structure. These results can shed light on the contrasting evolutionary constraints shaping network structure across interaction types and species sets.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Matching-centrality Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Components of Phylogenetic Signal in Antagonistic and Mutualistic Networks

Rohr

Bascompte

2014

The American Naturalist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…An iterative assembly algorithm was used to determine the trait values of all species. This algorithm starts with a model community with a few species, then repeatedly generates new species by randomly modifying the traits of extant species (so creating phylogenetic structure; Bersier and Kehrli, 2008) and adding new species with positive invasion fitness to the community. After each set of invasions, species that go extinct are removed.…”

Section: The Population-dynamical Matching Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

Size-selective fishing drives species composition in the Celtic Sea

Shephard

Fung

Houle

et al. 2012

ICES Journal of Marine Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Fishing alters community size structure by selectively removing larger individual fish and by changing the relative abundance of different-sized species. To assess the relative importance of individual-and species-level effects, two indices of fish community structure were compared, the relative abundance of large fish individuals (large fish indicator, LFI) and the relative abundance of large fish species (large species indicator, LSI). The two indices were strongly correlated for empirical data from the Celtic Sea and for data from simulated model communities, suggesting that much of the variability in the LFI is caused by shifts in the relative abundance of species (LSI). This correlation is explained by the observation that most of the biomass of a given species is spread over few length classes, a range spanning the factor 2 of individual length, such that most species contributed predominantly to either the small or the large component of the LFI. The results suggest that the effects of size-selective fishing in the Celtic Sea are mediated mainly through changes in community composition.

show abstract

“…foraging traits of consumers that are located at or near the vulnerability traits of specific resources. The assumption of fast evolution of foraging traits is supported by empirical observations indicating that phylogenetic correlations among foraging traits are weak (Cooper and Vitt, 2002;Blomberg et al, 2003b;Bersier and Kehrli, 2008). In particular, taxonomically related resources tend to be preyed upon by similar consumers, while taxonomically related consumers to a lesser extend tend to prey on the same resources.…”

Section: Food-web Intervality With Weakly Focused Consumersmentioning

confidence: 99%

Rigorous conditions for food-web intervality in high-dimensional trophic niche spaces

2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Food webs represent trophic (feeding) interactions in ecosystems. Since the late 1970s, it has been recognized that food-webs have a surprisingly close relationship to interval graphs. One interpretation of food-web intervality is that trophic niche space is low-dimensional, meaning that the trophic character of a species can be expressed by a single or at most a few quantitative traits. In a companion paper we demonstrated, by simulating a minimal food-web model, that food webs are also expected to be interval when niche-space is high-dimensional. Here we characterize the fundamental mechanisms underlying this phenomenon by proving a set of rigorous conditions for food-web intervality in high-dimensional niche spaces. Our results apply to a large class of food-web models, including the special case previously studied numerically.

show abstract

The signature of phylogenetic constraints on food-web structure

Cited by 82 publications

References 62 publications

Components of Phylogenetic Signal in Antagonistic and Mutualistic Networks

Components of Phylogenetic Signal in Antagonistic and Mutualistic Networks

Size-selective fishing drives species composition in the Celtic Sea

Rigorous conditions for food-web intervality in high-dimensional trophic niche spaces

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About