Food web structure and body size: Trophic position and resource acquisition

Oikos

Volumn 119, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 147-153

  Arim, Matías ^a,b   Abades, Sebastián R ^b,c   Laufer, Gabriel ^a   Loureiro, Marcelo ^a   Marquet, Pablo A ^b,c  

^a UNIVERSIDAD DE LA REPÚBLICA   (Uruguay)

^b PONTIFICIA UNIVERSIDAD CATÓLICA DE CHILE   (Chile)

^c INSTITUTO DE ECOLOGÍA Y BIODIVERSIDAD IEB   (Chile)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BODY SIZE; CYPRINID; DIET; FOOD CHAIN; FOOD WEB; GRASSLAND; HYPOTHESIS TESTING; POND; POPULATION DENSITY; POPULATION SIZE; PREY PREFERENCE; RESOURCE ALLOCATION; SPECIES DIVERSITY;

ROCHA [URUGUAY]; URUGUAY;

CYNOPOECILUS MELANOTAENIA; CYPRINODONTIFORMES; CYPRINODONTOIDEI;

EID: 72949093781     PISSN: 00301299     EISSN: 16000706     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0706.2009.17768.x     Document Type: Article

References (49)

1. Adams, M. J. et al. 2003. Indirect facilitation of an anuran invasion by non-native fishes Ecol. Lett. 6 : 343 351.
2. Arim, M. Jaksic, F. M. 2005. Productivity and food web structure: association between productivity and link richness among top predators J. Anim. Ecol. 74 : 31 40.
3. Arim, M. et al. 2007a. On the relationship between trophic position, body mass and temperature: reformulating the energy limitation hypothesis Oikos 116 : 1524 1530.
4. Arim, M. et al. 2007b. On the relationship between productivity and food chain length at different ecological levels Am. Nat. 169 : 62 72.
5. Briand, F. Cohen, J. E. 1987. Environmental correlates of food chain length Science 238 : 956 960.
6. Brose, U. et al. 2006a. Consumer-resource body-size relationships in natural food webs Ecology 87 : 2411 2417.
7. Brose, U. et al. 2006b. Allometric scaling enhances stability in complex food webs Ecol. Lett. 9 : 1228 1236.
8. Brown, J. H. Gillooly, J. F. 2003. Ecological food webs: highquality data facilitate theoretical unification Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 100 : 1467 1468.
9. Clarke, A. Johnston, N. M. 1999. Scaling of metabolic rate with body mass and temperature in teleost fish J. Anim. Ecol. 68 : 893 905.
10. Cohen, J. E. et al. 2003. Ecological community description using the food web, species abundance, and body size Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 100 : 1781 1786.
11. Diamond, J. 2001. Dammed experiments! Science 294 : 1847 1848.
12. Duffy, J. E. et al. 2007. The functional role of biodiversity in ecosystems: incorporating trophic complexity Ecol. Lett. 10 : 522 538.
13. Gotelli, N. J. Graves, G. R. 1996. Null models in ecology. Smithsonian Inst. Press.
14. Gotelli, N. J. Ellison, A. M. 2006. Food-web models predict species abundances in response to habitat change PLoS Biol. 4 : e324.
15. Hairston, N. G., Jr. Hairston, N. G. S. 1993. Cause-effect relationships in energy flow, trophic structure and interspecific interactions Am. Nat. 142 : 379 411.
16. Jennings, S. Mackinson, S. 2003. Abundance-body mass relationships in size-structured food webs Ecol. Lett. 6 : 971 974.
17. Jennings, S. et al. 2002. Weak cross-species relationships between body size and trophic level belie powerful size-based trophic structuring in fish communities J. Anim. Ecol. 70 : 934 944.
18. Kramer, D. L. Chapman, L. J. 1999. Implications of fish home range size and relocation for marine reserve function Environ. Biol. Fish. 55 : 65 79.
19. Krumins, J. A. et al. 2006. Indirect effects of food web diversity and productivity on bacterial community function and composition Funct. Ecol. 20 : 514 521.
20. Layman, C. A. et al. 2007. Niche width collapse in a resilient top predator following ecosystem fragmentation Ecol. Lett. 10 : 937 944.
21. Long, Z. T. et al. 2006. Species richness and allometric scaling jointly determine biomass in model aquatic food webs J. Anim. Ecol. 75 : 1014 1023.
22. MacArthur, R. H. Wilson, E. O. 1967. The theory of island biogeography. Princeton Univ. Press.
23. Marquet, P. A. Taper, M. L. 1998. On size and area: patterns of mammalian body size extremes across landmasses Evol. Ecol. 12 : 127 139.
24. Marquet, P. A. et al. 2004. Diversity emerging: toward a deconstruction of biodiversity patterns Lomolino, M. Heaney, L. R. Frontiers of biogeography: new directions in the geography of nature. Sinauer 191 209.
25. Maxwell, T. A. D. Jennings, S. 2006. Predicting abundance-body size relationships in functional and taxonomic subsets of food webs Oecologia 250 : 282 290.
26. McCann, K. S. 2007. Protecting biostructure Nature 446 : 29.
27. McCann, K. S. et al. 2005. The dynamics of spatially coupled food webs Ecol. Lett. 8 : 513 523.
28. Miki, T. et al. 2008. Functional consequences of viral impacts on bacterial communities: a food-web model analysis Freshwater Biol. 53 : 1142 1153.
29. Mittelbach, G. G. 1981. Foraging efficiency and body size: a study of optimal diet and habitat use by bluegills Ecology 62 : 1370.
30. Olden, J. D. et al. 2007. Small fish, big fish, red fish, blue fish: size-biased extinction risk of the world's freshwater and marine fishes Global Ecol. Biogeogr. 16 : 694 701.
31. Olszewski, T. D. 2004. A unified mathematical framework for the measurement of richness and evenness within and among multiple communities Oikos 104 : 377 387.
32. Otto, S. B. et al. 2007. Allometric degree distributions facilitate food-web stability Nature 450 : 1226 1230.
33. Petchey, O. L. et al. 2008. Size, foraging and food web structure Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 105 : 4191 4196.
34. Post, D. M. 2002. The long and short of food-chain length Trends Ecol. Evol. 17 : 269 277.
35. Post, D. M. et al. 2000. Ecosystem size determines food-chain length in lakes Nature 405 : 1047 1049.
36. Raffaelli, D. 2007. Food web, body size and the curse of the latin binomial Rooney, N. From energetics to ecosystems: the dynamics and structure of ecological systems. Springer 53 64.
37. Rooney, N. et al. 2006. Structural asymmetry and the stability of diverse food webs Nature 442 : 265 269.
38. Rooney, N. et al. 2008. A landscape theory for food web architecture Ecol. Lett. 11 : 867 881.
39. Schmitt, R. J. Holbrook, S. J. 1984. Gape-limitation, foraging tactics and prey size selectivity of two microcarnivorous species of fish Oecologia 63 : 6.
40. Sherwood, G. D. et al. 2002a. Simplified food webs lead to energetic bottlenecks in polluted lakes Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 59 : 1 5.
41. Sherwood, G. D. et al. 2002b. Simplified food webs lead to energetic bottlenecks in polluted lakes Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 59 : 1 5.
42. Sibert, J. et al. 2006. Biomass, size, and trophic status of top predators in the pacific ocean Science 314 : 1773 1776.
43. Spencer, M. Warren, P. H. 1996. The effects of habitat size and productivity on food web structure in small aquatic microcosms Oikos 75 : 419 430.
44. Sterner, R. W. Elser, J. J. 2002. Ecological stoichiometry: the biology of elements from molecules to the biosphere. Princeton Univ. Press.
45. Valkenburgh, B. V. et al. 2004. Cope's rule, hypercarnivory, and extinction in North American canids Science 306 : 101 104.
46. Warren, P. H. 2005. Wearing Elton's wellingtons: why body size still matters in food webs de Ruiter, P. C. Dynamics food webs - multispecies assemblages, ecosystem development and environmental change. Elseiver 128 136.
47. Werner, E. E. Hall, D. J. 1974. Optimal foraging and the size selection of prey by the bluegill sunfish (Lepomis macrochirus) Ecology 55 : 1042.
48. Williams, R. J. Martinez, N. D. 2000. Simple rules yield complex food webs Nature 404 : 180 183.
49. Woodward, G. et al. 2005. Body size determinants of the structure of and dynamics of ecological networks: scaling from the individual to the ecosystem de Ruiter, P. C. Dynamics food webs - multispecies assemblages, ecosystem development and environmental change. Elseiver 179 197.