Taxonomic versus allometric constraints on non-linear interaction strengths

Oikos

Volumn 120, Issue 4, 2011, Pages 483-492

  Rall, Björn Christian ^a   Kalinkat, Gregor ^a,b   Ott, David ^a   Vucic Pestic, Olivera ^a,b   Brose, Ulrich ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GÖTTINGEN   (Germany)

^b DARMSTADT UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AKAIKE INFORMATION CRITERION; ALLOMETRY; ARTHROPOD; BODY MASS; COMMUNITY ECOLOGY; ECOSYSTEM MODELING; FUNCTIONAL RESPONSE; MARINE ECOSYSTEM; PIONEER SPECIES; PREDATOR; TAXONOMY; TERRESTRIAL ECOSYSTEM;

ARANEAE; ARTHROPODA; CHILOPODA;

EID: 79953022211     PISSN: 00301299     EISSN: 16000706     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0706.2010.18860.x     Document Type: Article

References (73)

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. Arim M. et al. 2010. Food web structure and body size: trophic position and resource acquisition. Oikos 119: 147-153.
4. Bence J. R. and Murdoch W. W. 1986. Prey size selection by the mosquitofish: relation to optimal diet theory. Ecology 67: 324-336.
5. Benton T. G. et al. 2006. Complex population dynamics and complex causation: devils, details and demography. Proc. R. Soc. B 273: 1173-1181.
6. Berlow E. L. 1999. Strong effects of weak interactions in ecological communities. Nature 398: 330-334.
7. Berlow E. L. et al. 2004. Interaction strengths in food webs: issues and opportunities. J. Anim. Ecol. 73: 585-598.
8. Berlow E. L. et al. 2008. The "Goldilocks factor" in food webs. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 105: 4079-4080.
9. Bersier L. and Kehrli P. 2008. The signature of phylogenetic constraints on food-web structure. Ecol. Comp. 5: 132-139.
10. Blanchard J. L. et al. 2005. Distribution-abundance relationships for North Sea Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua): observation versus theory. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 62: 2001-2009.
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. 2008. Ecological models and data in R Princeton Univ. Press.
13. Brose U. 2010. Body-mass constraints on foraging behaviour determine population and food-web dynamics. Funct. Ecol. 24: 28-34.
14. Brose U. et al. 2005. Scaling up keystone effects from simple to complex ecological networks. Ecol. Lett. 8: 1317-1325.
15. Brose U. et al. 2006a. Consumer-resource body-size relationships in natural food webs. Ecology 87: 2411-2417.
16. Brose U. et al. 2006b. Allometric scaling enhances stability in complex food webs. Ecol. Lett. 9: 1228-1236.
17. Brose U. et al. 2008. Foraging theory predicts predator-prey energy fluxes. J. Anim. Ecol. 77: 1072-1078.
18. Brown J. H. et al. 2004. Toward a metabolic theory of ecology. Ecology 85: 1771-1789.
19. Byström P. et al. 2003. Size- and density-dependent habitat use in predators: consequences for habitat shifts in young fish. J. Anim. Ecol. 72: 156-168.
20. Carbone C. et al. 1999. Energetic constraints on the diet of terrestrial carnivores. Nature 402: 286-288.
21. Cattin M. F. et al. 2004. Phylogenetic constraints and adaptation explain food-web structure. Nature 427: 835-839.
22. Chen B. and Wise D. H. 1999. Bottom-up limitation of predaceous arthropods in a detritus-based terrestrial food web. Ecology 80: 761-772.
23. Cohen J. E. et al. 1993. Body sizes of animal predators and animal prey in food webs. J. Anim. Ecol. 62: 67-78.
24. Ebenman B. 1989. Size-structured populations: ecology and evolution Springer.
25. 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.
26. Gergs A. and Ratte H. T. 2009. Predicting functional response and size selectivity of juvenile Notonecta maculata foraging on Daphnia magna. Ecol. Model. 220: 3331-3341.
27. 13C. Pedobiologia 49: 109-118.
28. Hewett S. W. 1980. The effect of prey size on the functional and numerical responses of a protozoan predator to its prey. Ecology 61: 1075-1081.
29. Hirvonen H. and Ranta E. 1996. Prey to predator size ratio influences foraging efficiency of larval Aeshna juncea dragonflies. Oecologia 106: 407-415.
30. Holling C. 1959. Some characteristics of simple types of predation and parasitism. Can. Entomol. 91: 385-398.
31. Ings T. C. et al. 2009. Ecological networks - beyond food webs. J. Anim. Ecol. 78: 253-269.
32. Ives A. R. and Godfray H. C. J. 2006. Phylogenetic analysis of trophic associations. Am. Nat. 168: E1-E14.
33. Jennings S. and Mackinson S. 2003. Abundance-body mass relationships in size-structured food webs. Ecol. Lett. 6: 971-974.
34. Jennings S. and Blanchard J. L. 2004. Fish abundance with no fishing: predictions based on macroecological theory. J. Anim. Ecol. 73: 632-642.
35. Juliano S. A. 2001. Nonlinear curve fitting In: Scheiner S. M. and Gurevitch J. (eds), Design and analysis of ecological experiments, 2nd ed. Oxford Univ. Press, pp. 178-196.
36. Kerr S. 1974. Theory of size distribution in ecological communities. J. Fish. Res. Bd. Can. 31: 1859-1862.
37. Law R. et al. 2009. Size-spectra dynamics from stochastic predation and growth of individuals. Ecology 90: 802-811.
38. Marquet P. A. et al. 2005. Scaling and power-laws in ecological systems. J. Exp. Biol. 208: 1749-1769.
39. McCann K. 2000. The diversity-stability debate. Nature 405: 228-233.
40. Montoya J. M. et al. 2006. Ecological networks and their fragility. Nature 442: 264-259.
41. Otto S. et al. 2007. Allometric degree distributions stabilize food webs. Nature 450: 1226-1229.
42. Otto S. et al. 2008. Predator diversity and identity drive interaction strength and trophic cascades in a food web. Ecology 89: 134-144.
43. Paine R. T. 1980. Food webs: linkage, interaction strength and community infrastructure. J. Anim. Ecol. 49: 667-685.
44. Persson L. et al. 1998. Ontogenetic scaling of foraging rates and the dynamics of a size-structured consumer-resource model. Theor. Popul. Biol. 54: 270-293.
45. Persson L. et al. 2003. Gigantic cannibals driving a whole-lake trophic cascade. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 100: 4035-4039.
46. Peters R. H. 1983. The ecological implications of body size Cambridge Univ. Press.
47. Pisani D. et al. 2004. The colonization of land by animals: molecular phylogeny and divergence times among arthropods. BMC Biol. 2: 1.
48. Polis G. 1991. Complex trophic interactions in deserts - an empirical critique of food-web theory. Am. Nat. 138: 123-155.
49. Power M. E. et al. 1996. Challenges in the quest for keystones. BioScience 46: 609-620.
50. Raffaelli D. 2007. Food webs, body size and the curse of the latin binomial In: Rooney N. et al. (eds), From energetics to ecosystems: the dynamics and structure of ecological systems, 1st ed. The Peter Yodzis Fundam. Ecol. Ser., Springer, pp. 53-64.
51. Rall B. C. et al. 2008. Food-web connectance and predator interference dampen the paradox of enrichment. Oikos 117: 202-213.
52. Rall B. C. et al. 2010. Temperature, predator-prey interaction strength and population stability. Global Change Biol. 16: 2145-2157.
53. Rezende E. L. et al. 2007. Non-random coextinctions in phylogenetically structured mutualistic networks. Nature 448: 925-928.
54. Ritz C. and Streibig J. C. 2009. Nonlinear regression with R Springer.
55. Rogers D. 1972. Random search and insect population models. J. Anim. Ecol. 41: 369-383.
56. de Roos A. M. and Persson L. 2002. Size-dependent life-history traits promote catastrophic collapses of top predators. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 99: 12907-12912.
57. Royama T. 1971. A comparative study of models for predation and parasitism. Res. Pop. Ecol. 13: 1-91.
58. Rudolf V. H. W. 2006. The influence of size-specific indirect interactions in predator-prey systems. Ecology 87: 362-371.
59. Rudolf V. H. W. and Armstrong J. 2008. Emergent impacts of cannibalism and size refuges in prey on intraguild predation systems. Oecologia 157: 675-686.
60. Rudolf V. H. W. 2008a. Consequences of size structure in the prey for predator-prey dynamics: the composite functional response. J. Anim. Ecol. 77: 520-528.
61. Rudolf V. H. W. 2008b. Impact of cannibalism on predator-prey dynamics: size-structured interactions and apparent mutualism. Ecology 89: 1650-1660.
62. Scheu S. and Falca M. 2000. The soil food web of two beech forests (Fagus sylvatica) of contrasting humus type: stable isotope analysis of a macro- and a mesofauna-dominated community. Oecologia 123: 285-296.
63. Sheldon R. W. et al. 1972. The size distribution of particles in the ocean. Limnol. Oceanogr. 17: 327-340.
64. Solomon M. E. 1949. The natural control of animal populations. J. Anim. Ecol. 18: 1-35.
65. Spitze K. 1985. Functional response of an ambush predator: Chaoborus americanus predation on Daphnia pulex. Ecology 66: 938-949.
66. Thompson D. J. 1975. Towards a predator-prey model incorporating age structure - effects of Daphnia magna by Ischnura elegans. J. Anim. Ecol. 44: 907-916.
67. Vonesh J. and Bolker B. 2005. Compensatory larval responses shift tradeoffs associated with predator-induced hatching plasticity. Ecology 86: 1580-1591.
68. Vucic-Pestic O. et al. 2010. Allometric functional response model: body masses constrain interaction strengths. J. Anim. Ecol. 79: 249-256.
69. Wahlstrom E. et al. 2000. Size-dependent foraging efficiency, cannibalism and zooplankton community structure. Oecologia 123: 138-148.
70. Werner E. E. and Gilliam J. F. 1984. The ontogenetic niche and species interactions in size-structured populations. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 15: 393-425.
71. Woodward G. and Hildrew A. G. 2002. Differential vulnerability of prey to an invading top predator: integrating field surveys and laboratory experiments. Ecol. Entomol. 27: 732-744.
72. Woodward G. et al. 2005. Body size in ecological networks. Trends Ecol. Evol. 20: 402-409.
73. Wootton J. and Emmerson M. 2005. Measurement of interaction strength in nature. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 36: 419-444.