Across ecosystem comparisons of size structure: Methods, approaches and prospects

Oikos

Volumn 120, Issue 4, 2011, Pages 550-563

  Yvon Durocher, Gabriel ^a   Reiss, Julia ^a   Blanchard, Julia ^a,c   Ebenman, Bo ^b   Perkins, Daniel M ^a   Reuman, Daniel C ^d   Thierry, Aaron ^e   Woodward, Guy ^a   Petchey, Owen L ^e  

^a QUEEN MARY UNIVERSITY OF LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^b LINKÖPING UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

^c CENTRE FOR ENVIRONMENT   (United Kingdom)

^d IMPERIAL COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^e UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ABUNDANCE; ALLOMETRY; AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM; BODY MASS; DATA SET; ECOSYSTEM APPROACH; ECOSYSTEM MODELING; LITERATURE REVIEW; PREY SIZE; SIZE STRUCTURE; TERRESTRIAL ECOSYSTEM; TOPOLOGY;

EID: 79953001421     PISSN: 00301299     EISSN: 16000706     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0706.2010.18863.x     Document Type: Article

References (137)

1. Aljetlawi A. A. et al. 2004. Prey-predator size-dependent functional response: derivation and rescaling to the real world. J. Anim. Ecol. 73: 239-252.
2. Andersen K. H. and Beyer J. E. 2006. Asymptotic size determines species abundance in the marine size spectrum. Am. Nat. 168: 54-61.
3. Andersen K. H. and Pedersen M. 2010. Damped trophic cascades driven by fishing in model marine ecosystems. Proc. R. Soc. B 277: 795-802.
4. Barnes C. 2008. Predator and prey body sizes in marine food webs. Ecology 89: 881.
5. Barnes C. et al. 2010. Global patterns in predator-prey size relationships reveal size dependency of trophic transfer efficiency. Ecology 91: 222-232.
6. Bascompte J. et al. 2003. The nested assembly of plant-animal mutualistic networks. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 100: 9383-9387.
7. Berlow E. L. 2004. Interaction strengths in food webs: issues and opportunities. J. Anim. Ecol. 73: 585-598.
8. Berlow E. L. et al. 2009. Simple prediction of interaction strengths in complex food webs. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 106: 187-191.
9. Blackburn T. M. et al. 1990. Species number, population density and body size relationships in natural communities. J. Anim. Ecol. 59: 335-345.
10. Blanchard J. L. et al. 2005. Do climate and fishing influence size-based indicators of Celtic Sea fish community structure? ICES J. Mar. Sci. 62: 405-411.
11. Blanchard J. L. et al. 2009 How does abundance scale with body size in coupled size-structured food webs? J. Anim. Ecol. 78: 270-280.
12. Bolker B. M. et al. 2009. Generalized linear mixed models: a practical guide for ecology and evolution. Trends Ecol. Evol. 24: 127-135.
13. Blanchard J. L. et al. 2010. Trend analysis of indicators: a comparison of recent changes in the status of marine ecosystems around the world. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 67: 732-744.
14. Brooks J. L. and Dodson S. 1965. Predation, body size and composition of plankton. Science 150: 28-35.
15. Brose U. et al. 2005. Scaling up keystone effects from simple to complex ecological networks. Ecol. Lett. 8: 1317-1325.
16. Brose U. et al. 2006a. Consumer-resource body-size relationships in natural food webs. Ecology 87: 2411-2417.
17. Brose U. et al. 2006b. Allometric scaling enhances stability in complex food webs. Ecology Lett. 9: 1228-1236.
18. Brown J. H. and Gillooly J. F. 2003. Ecological food webs: high-quality data facilitate theoretical unification. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 100: 1467-1468.
19. Brown J. H. et al. 2004. Toward a metabolic theory of ecology. Ecology 85: 1771-1789.
20. Cardillo M. 2003. Biological determinants of extinction risk: why are smaller species less vulnerable? Anim. Conserv. 6: 63-69.
21. Cardillo M. et al. 2005. Multiple causes of high extinction risk in large mammal species. Science 309: 1239-1241.
22. Cebrian J. 1999. Patterns in the fate of production in plant communities. Am. Nat. 154: 449-468.
23. Cebrian J. 2004. Role of first-order consumers in ecosystem carbon flow. Ecol. Lett. 7: 232-240.
24. Cebrian J. and Lartigue J. 2004. Patterns of herbivory and decomposition in aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. Ecol. Monogr. 74: 237-259.
25. Chamberlain S.A. and Holland J. N. 2009. Body size predicts degree in ant-plant mutualistic networks. Funct. Ecol. 23: 196-202.
26. Chase J. M. 1999. Food web effects of prey size refugia: variable interactions and alternative stable equilibria. Am. Nat. 154: 559-570.
27. Cohen J. E. et al. 1985. A stochastic theory of community food webs. 2. Individual webs. Proc. R. Soc. B 224: 449-461.
28. Cohen J. E. et al. 1993. Body sizes of animal predators and animal prey in food webs. J. Anim. Ecol. 62: 67-78.
29. 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.
30. Cohen J. E. et al. 2005. Body sizes of hosts and parasitoids in individual feeding relationships. Proc. Nat Acad. Sci. USA 102: 684-689.
31. Costa G. C. 2009. Predator size, prey size and dietary niche breadth relationships in marine predators. Ecology 90: 2014-2019.
32. Costa G. C. et al. 2008. Optimal foraging constrains macroecological patterns: body size and dietary niche breadth in lizards. Global Ecol. Biogeogr. 17: 670-677.
33. Cyr H. et al. 1997. Density body size relationships in local aquatic communities. Oikos 79: 333-346.
34. Damuth J. 1981. Population density and body size in mammals. Nature 290: 699-700.
35. Daufresne M. et al. 2009. Warming benefits the small in aquatic ecosystems. Proc. Nalt Acad. Sci. USA 106: 12788-12793.
36. Davidson A. D. et al. 2009. Multiple ecological pathways to extinction in mammals. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 106: 10702-10705.
37. DeAngelis D. L. 1992. Dynamics of nutrient cycling and food webs Chapman and Hall.
38. DeLong J. P. et al. 2010. Shifts in metabolic scaling, production, and efficiency across major evolutionary transitions of life. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 107: 12941-12945.
39. Dunne J. A. et al. 2002. Food-web structure and network theory: the role of connectance and size. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 99: 12917-12922.
40. Duplisea D. E. and Castonguay M. 2006. Comparison and utility of different size-based metrics of fish communities for detecting fishery impacts. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 63: 810-820.
41. Elton C. 1927. Animal ecology Kluwer.
42. Emmerson M. C. and Raffaelli D. 2004. Predator-prey body size, interaction strength and the stability of a real food web. J. Anim. Ecol. 73: 399-409.
43. Emmerson M. C. et al. 2005. Body size interaction strength and food web dynamics In: De Ruiter P. C. et al. (eds), Dynamic food webs: multispecies assemblages, ecosystem development and environmental change. Elsevier, pp. 167-178.
44. Enquist B. J. and Niklas K. J. 2001. Invariant scaling relations across tree-dominated communities. Nature 410: 655-660.
45. Enquist B. J. et al. 1998. Allometric scaling of plant energetics and population density. Nature 395: 163-165.
46. Gaedke U. 1992. The size distribution of plankton biomass in a large lake and its seasonal variability. Limnol. Oceanogr. 37: 1202-1220.
47. Gaedke U. 1993. Ecosystem analysis based on biomass size distributions - a case-study of a plankton community in a large lake. Limnol. Oceanogr. 38: 112-127.
48. Gasol J. M. et al. 1997. Biomass distribution in marine planktonic communities. Limnol. Oceanogr. 42: 1353-1363.
49. Gaston K. J. and Lawton J. H. 1988. Patterns in body size population dynamics and regional distribution of bracken herbivores. Am. Nat. 132: 662-680.
50. Gillooly J. F. et al. 2002. Effects of size and temperature on developmental time. Nature 417: 70-73.
51. Hendriks A. J. 2007. The power of size: a meta-analysis reveals consistency of allometric regressions. Ecol. Model. 205: 196-208.
52. Holt R. D. and Lawton J. H. 1993. Apparent competition and enemy free space in insect host parasitoid systems. Am. Nat. 142: 623-645.
53. Hutchinson G. E. and MacArthur R. H. 1959. A theoretical ecological model of size distributions among species of animals. Am. Nat. 93: 117-125.
54. Ings T. C. et al. 2009. Ecological networks - beyond food webs. J. Anim. Ecol. 78: 253-269.
55. Ives A. R. and Carpenter S. R. 2007. Stability and diversity of ecosystems. Science 317: 58-62.
56. Jennings S. and Mackinson S. 2003. Abundance-body mass relationships in size-structured food webs. Ecol. Lett. 6: 971-974.
57. Jennings S. and Warr K. 2003. Smaller predator-prey body size ratios in longer food chains. Proc. R. Soc. B 270: 1413-1417.
58. Jennings S. and Blanchard J. L. 2004. Fish abundance with no fishing: predictions based on macroecological theory. J. Anim. Ecol. 73: 632-642.
59. Jennings S. et al. 2001. 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.
60. Jennings S. et al. 2002. Long-term trends in the trophic structure of the North Sea fish community: evidence from stable-isotope analysis, size-spectra and community metrics. Mar. Biol. 141: 1085-1097.
61. Jennings S. et al. 2007. Measurement of body size and abundance in tests of macroecological and food web theory. J. Anim. Ecol. 76: 72-82.
62. Jetz W. et al. 2004. The scaling of animal space use. Science 306: 266-268.
63. Jonsson T. and Ebenman B. 1998. Effects of predator-prey body size ratios on the stability of food chains. J. Theor. Biol. 193: 407-417.
64. Jonsson T. et al. 2005. Food webs, body size, and species abundance in ecological community description. Adv. Ecol. Res. 36: 1-84.
65. Joppa L. N. et al. 2009. Reciprocal specialization in ecological networks. Ecol. Lett. 12: 961-969.
66. Kerr S. R. and Dickie L. M. 2001. The biomass spectrum: a predator-prey theory of aquatic production Columbia Univ. Press.
67. Lawton J. H. 1990. Species richness and population dynamics of animal assemblages. Patterns in body size abundance space. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 330: 283-291.
68. Layer K. et al. 2010. Food web structure and stability in 20 streams across a wide pH gradient. Adv. Ecol. Res. 42: 265-299.
69. Layman C. A. et al. 2005. Body size and trophic position in a diverse tropical food web. Ecology 86: 2530-2535.
70. Leaper R. and Raffaelli D. 1999. Defining the abundance body-size constraint space: data from a real food web. Ecol. Lett. 2: 191-199.
71. Leaper R. and Huxham M. 2002. Size constraints in a real food web: predator, parasite and prey body-size relationships. Oikos 99: 443-456.
72. Lewis H. M. et al. 2008. Abundance-body size relationships: the roles of metabolism and population dynamics. J. Anim. Ecol. 77: 1056-1062.
73. Lindeman R. L. 1942. The trophic-dynamic aspect of ecology. Ecology 23: 399-418.
74. Link J. 2002. Does food web theory work for marine ecosystems? Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 230: 1-9.
75. Loreau M. et al. 2001. Ecology - biodiversity and ecosystem functioning: current knowledge and future challenges. Science 294: 804-808.
76. Lyons S. K. et al. 2004. Of mice, mastodons and men: human-mediated extinctions on four continents. Evol. Ecol. Res. 6: 339-358.
77. Marquet P. A. et al. 2005. Scaling and power-laws in ecological systems. J. Exp. Biol. 208: 1749-1769.
78. McCann K. S. 2000. The diversity-stability debate. Nature 405: 228-233.
79. Meehan T. D. 2006. Energy use and animal abundance in litter and soil communities. Ecology 87: 1650-1658.
80. Memmott J. et al. 2000. Predators, parasitoids and pathogens: species richness, trophic generality and body sizes in a natural food web. J. Anim. Ecol. 69: 1-15.
81. Montoya J. M. and Sole R. V. 2002. Small world patterns in food webs. J. Theor. Biol. 214: 405-412.
82. Montoya J. M. et al. 2006. Ecological networks and their fragility. Nature 442: 259-264.
83. Mulder C. and Elser J. J. 2009. Soil acidity, ecological stoichiometry and allometric scaling in grassland food webs. Global Change Biol. 15: 1-9.
84. Neutel A. M. et al. 2002. Stability in real food webs: weak links in long loops. Science 296: 1120-1123.
85. Neutel A. M. et al. 2007. Reconciling complexity with stability in naturally assembling food webs. Nature 449: 599-602.
86. Nielsen S. L. et al. 1996. Scaling maximum growth rates across photosynthetic organisms. Funct. Ecol. 10: 167-175.
87. Niklas K. J. and Enquist B. J. 2001. Invariant scaling relationships for interspecific plant biomass production rates and body size. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 98: 2922-2927.
88. O'Gorman E. J. and Emmerson M. C. 2010. Manipulating interaction strengths and the consequences for trivariate patterns in a marine food web. Adv. Ecol. Res. 42: 301-419.
89. Olesen J. M. et al. 2010. From Broadstone to Zackenberg: space, time and hierarchies in ecological networks. Adv. Ecol. Res. 42: 1-69.
90. Otto S. B. et al. 2007. Allometric degree distributions facilitate food-web stability. Nature 450: 1226-1227.
91. Paine R. T. 1988. Food webs - road maps of interactions or girst for theoretical development. Ecology 69: 1648-1654.
92. Pauly D. et al. 1998. Fishing down marine food webs. Science 279: 860-863.
93. Persson L. et al. 1996. Size-specific interactions in lake systems: predator gape limitation and prey growth rate and mortality. Ecology 77: 900-911.
94. Petchey O. L. and Belgrano A. 2010. Body-size distributions and size-spectra: universal indicators of ecological status? Biol. Lett. 6: 434-437.
95. Petchey O. L. et al. 2008. Size, foraging and food web structure. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 105: 4191-4196.
96. Peters R. H. 1983. The ecological implications of body size Cambridge Univ. Press.
97. Pimm S. L. et al. 1988. On the risk of extinction. Am. Nat. 132: 757-785.
98. Reuman D. C. and Cohen J. E. 2005. Estimating relative energy fluxes using the food web, species abundance, and body size. Adv. Ecol. Res. 36: 137-182.
99. Reuman D. C. et al. 2008. Three allometric relations of population density to body mass: theoretical integration and empirical tests in 149 food webs. Ecol. Lett. 11: 1216-1228.
100. Reuman D. C. et al. 2009a. Human and environmental factors influence soil food webs' abundance-mass allometry and structure. Adv. Ecol. Res. 41: 45-85.
101. Reuman D. C. et al. 2009b. Allometry of body size and abundance in 166 food webs. Adv. Ecol. Res. 41: 1-44.
102. Rott A. S. and Godfray H. C. J. 2000. The structure of a leafminer-parasitoid community. J. Anim. Ecol. 69: 274-289.
103. Sala E. and Graham M. H. 2002. Community-wide distribution of predator-prey interaction strength in kelp forests. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 99: 3678-3683.
104. Savage V. M. et al. 2004. Effects of body size and temperature on population growth. Am. Nat. 163: 429-441.
105. Scharf F. S. et al. 2000. Predator size - prey size relationships of marine fish predators: interspecific variation and effects of ontogeny and body size on trophic-niche breadth. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 208: 229-248.
106. Shackell N. L. et al. 2010. Decline in top predator body size and changing climate alter trophic structure in an oceanic ecosystem. Proc. R. Soc. B 277: 1353-1360.
107. Sheldon R. W. et al. 1972. The size distribution of particles in the ocean. Limnol. Oceanogr. 17: 327-340.
108. Shin Y. J. and Cury P. 2004. Using an individual-based model of fish assemblages to study the response of size spectra to changes in fishing. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 61: 414-431.
109. Shin Y. J. et al. 2005. Using size-based indicators to evaluate the ecosystem effects of fishing. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 62: 384-396.
110. Shurin J. B. and Seabloom E. W. 2005. The strength of trophic cascades across ecosystems: predictions from allometry and energetics. J. Anim. Ecol. 74: 1029-1038.
111. Shurin J. B. et al. 2006. All wet or dried up? Real differences between aquatic and terrestrial food webs. Proc. R. Soc. B 273: 1-9.
112. Siemann E. et al. 1996. Insect species diversity, abundance and body size relationships. Nature 380: 704-706.
113. Sommer U. and Stibor H. 2002. Copepoda - Cladocera - Tunicata: the role of three major mesozooplankton groups in pelagic food webs. Ecol. Res. 17: 161-174.
114. Stang M. et al. 2006. Size constraints and flower abundance determine the number of interactions in a plant-flower visitor web. Oikos 112: 111-121.
115. Stang M. et al. 2009. Size-specific interaction patterns and size matching in a plant-pollinator interaction web. Ann. Bot. 103: 1459-1469.
116. Sterner R. W. and Elser J. J. 2002. Ecological stoichiometry: the biology of elements from molecules to the biosphere Princeton Univ. Press.
117. Stouffer D. B. et al. 2005. Quantitative patterns in the structure of model and empirical food webs. Ecology 86: 1301-1311.
118. Townsend C. R. and Hildrew A. G. 1994. Species traits in relation to a habitat templet for river systems. Freshwater Biol. 31: 265-275.
119. Vander Zanden M. J. and Rasmussen J. B. 1999. Primary consumer delta C-13 and delta N-15 and the trophic position of aquatic consumers. Ecology 80: 1395-1404.
120. Vazquez D. P. 2005. Degree distribution in plant-animal mutualistic networks: forbidden links or random interactions? Oikos 108: 421-426.
121. Warren P. H. and Lawton J. H. 1987. Invertebrate predator-prey body size relationships. An explanation for upper-triangular food webs and patterns in food web structure. Oecologia 74: 231-235.
122. White E. P. et al. 2007. Relationships between body size and abundance in ecology. Trends Ecol. Evol. 22: 323-330.
123. Wiens J. J. et al. 2010. Niche conservatism as an emerging principle in ecology and conservation biology. Ecol. Lett. 13: 1310-1324.
124. Williams R. J. and Martinez N. D. 2000. Simple rules yield complex food webs. Nature 404: 180-183.
125. Woodward G. and Hildrew A. G. 2001. Invasion of a stream food web by a new top predator. J. Anim. Ecol. 70: 273-288.
126. Woodward G. and Hildrew A. G. 2002a. Body-size determinants of niche overlap and intraguild predation within a complex food web. J. Anim. Ecol. 71: 1063-1074.
127. Woodward G. and Hildrew A. G. 2002b. Differential vulnerability of prey to an invading top predator: integrating field surveys and laboratory experiments. Ecol. Entomol. 27: 732-744.
128. Woodward G. and Warren P. 2007. Body size and predatory interactions in freshwaters: scaling from individuals to communities In: Hildrew A. G. et al. (eds), Body size: the structure and function of aquatic ecosystems. Cambridge Univ. Press, pp. 179-197.
129. Woodward G. et al. 2005a. Body size in ecological networks. Trends Ecol. Evol. 20: 402-409.
130. Woodward G. et al. 2005b. Quantification and resolution of a complex, size-structured food web. Adv. Ecol. Res. 36: 85-135.
131. Woodward G. et al. 2010. Ecological networks in a changing climate. Adv. Ecol. Res. 42: 71-138.
132. Wootton J. T. 1997. Estimates and tests of per capita interaction strength: diet, abundance and impact of intertidally foraging birds. Ecol. Monogr. 67: 45-64.
133. Wootton J. T. and Emmerson M. 2005. Measurement of interaction strength innature. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 36: 419-444.
134. Yodzis P. and Innes S. 1992a. Body size and consumer-reource dynamics. Am. Nat. 139: 1151-1175.
135. Yodzis P. and Innes S. 1992b. Body size and consumer-resource dynamics. Am. Nat. 139: 1151-1175.
136. Yvon-Durocher G. et al. 2008. Macroecological patterns and niche structure in a new marine food web. Central Eur. J. Biol. 3: 91-103.
137. Yvon-Durocher G. et al. 2011. Warming alters the size spectrum and shifts the distribution in freshwater ecosystems. Global Change Biol. 17: 1225-1234.