The consequences of size dependent foraging for food web topology

Oikos

Volumn 120, Issue 4, 2011, Pages 493-502

  Thierry, Aaron ^a   Petchey, Owen L ^a   Beckerman, Andrew P ^a   Warren, Philip H ^a   Williams, Richard J ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD   (United Kingdom)

^b MICROSOFT RESEARCH   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ALLOMETRY; BODY SIZE; ECOLOGICAL MODELING; FOOD WEB; FORAGING BEHAVIOR; SIZE STRUCTURE; TOPOLOGY; VULNERABILITY;

EID: 79953009228     PISSN: 00301299     EISSN: 16000706     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0706.2010.18861.x     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Allesina S. et al. 2008. A general model for food web structure. Science 320: 658-661.
2. Akin S. and Winemiller K. O. 2008. Body size and trophic position in a temperate estuarine food web. Acta. Oecol. 33:144-153.
3. 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.
4. Beckerman A. P. et al. 2006. Foraging biology predicts food web complexity. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 103: 13745-13749.
5. Begon M. et al. 2006. Ecology: from individuals to ecosystems, 4th ed Blackwell.
6. Brose U. 2010. Body-mass constraints on foraging behaviour determine population and food-web dynamics. Funct. Ecol. 24: 28-34.
7. Brose U. et al. 2005. Body sizes of consumers and their resources. Ecology 86: 25-45.
8. Brose U. et al. 2006. Consumer-resource body-size relationships in natural food webs. Ecology 87: 2411-2417.
9. Brose U. et al. 2008. Foraging theory predicts predator-prey energy fluxes. J. Anim. Ecol. 77: 1072-1078.
10. Boulding E. G. 1984. Crab-resistant features of the shells of burrowing bivalves: decreasing vulnerability by increasing handling time. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 76: 201-223.
11. Cattin M.-F. et al. 2004. Phylogenetic traits and adaptation explain food-web structure. Nature 427:835-839.
12. Cohen J. E. 1989. Food webs and community structure In: Roughgarden J. et al. (eds), Perspectives on ecological theory. Princeton Univ. Press, pp. 181-202.
13. Cohen J. E. and Newman C. M. 1985. A stochastic theory of community food webs. I. Models and aggregated data. Proc. R. Soc. B. 224:421-448.
14. Cohen J. E. et al. 1993. Body sizes of animal predators and animal prey in food webs. J. Anim. Ecol. 62: 67-78.
15. 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.
16. Costa G. C. 2009. Predator size, prey size, and dietary niche breadth relationships in marine predators. Ecology 90: 2014-2019.
17. Ellis T. and Gibson R. N. 1997. Predation of 0-group fatfshes by 0-group cod: handling times and size-selection. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 149: 83-90.
18. Elton C. S. 1927. Animal ecology Sidgwick and Jackson.
19. Jennings S. and Warr K. W. 2003. Smaller predator-prey body size ratios in longer food chains. Proc. R. Soc. B 270: 1413-1417.
20. Jonsson T. et al. 2005. Food webs, body size and species abundance in ecological community description. Adv. Ecol. Res. 36: 1-84.
21. Layman C. A. et al. 2005. Body size and trophic position in a diverse tropical food web. Ecology 86: 2530-2535.
22. Lazzaro X. et al. 2009. Predator foraging behaviour drives food-web topological structure. J. Anim. Ecol. 78: 1307-1317.
23. Leaper R. and Huxham M. 2002. Size constraints in a real food web: predator, parasite and prey body-size relationships. Oikos 99: 443-456.
24. Memmot 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.
25. Nilson P. A. and Brönmark C. 2000. Prey vulnerability to a gapesize limited predator: behavioural and morphological impacts on northern pike piscivory. Oikos 88: 539-546.
26. Otto S. B. et al. 2007. Allometric degree distributions facilitate food-web stability. Nature 450: 1226-1229.
27. Petchey O. L. et al. 2008. Size, foraging and food web structure. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 105: 4191-4196.
28. Ripley B. 2007. tree: Classification and regression trees. R package ver. 1.0-26.
29. Sinclair A. R. E. et al. 2003. Patterns of predation in a diverse predator-prey system. Nature 425: 288-290.
30. Stouffer D. B. et al. 2006. A robust measure for food web intervality. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 103: 19015-19020.
31. Vucic-Pestic O. et al. 2009. Allometric functional response model: body masses constrain interaction strengths. J. Anim. Ecol. 79: 249-256.
32. Warren P. H. 1994. Making connections in food webs. Trends. Ecol. Evol. 9: 136-141.
33. Warren P. H. 2005. Wearing Elton's wellingtons: why body size still matters in food webs In: de Ruiter P. C. et al. (eds), Dynamic food webs. Elsevier, pp. 128-136.
34. 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.
35. Williams R. J. and Martinez N. D. 2000. Simple rules yield complex food-webs. Nature 404: 180-183.
36. Williams R. J. and Martinez N. D. 2004. Limits to trophic levels and omnivory in complex food webs: theory and data. Am. Nat. 163: 458-468.
37. Williams R. J. and Martinez N. D. 2008. Success and its limits among structural models of complex food webs. J. Anim. Ecol. 77: 512-519.
38. Woodward G. and Warren P. H. 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. 98-117.
39. Woodward G. et al. 2005a. Body-size in ecological networks. Trends. Ecol. Evol. 20: 402-409.
40. Woodward G. et al. 2005b. Body-size determinants of pattern and process in ecological networks In: de Ruiter P. C. et al. (eds), Dynamic food webs: multispecies assemblages, ecosystem development and environmental change. Elsevier, pp. 179-197.
41. Yvon-Durocher G. et al. 2008. Macroecological patterns and niche structure in a new marine food web. Cent. Eur. J. Biol. 3: 91-103.