Compartments revealed in food-web structure

Krause, Ann E.; Frank, Kenneth A.; Mason, Doran M.; Ulanowicz, Robert E.; Taylor, William W.

doi:10.1038/nature02115

Cited by 658 publications

(550 citation statements)

References 24 publications

(81 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

526

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Clusters of genotypes are defined as being completely isolated from each other. This is similar to the ecological concept of compartmentalization usually used in the context of food webs (Begon et al, 1996;Pimm and Lawton, 1980;Krause et al, 2003). However, whilst interactions within compartments are strong, the interactions between compartments are weak but not necessarily non-existent.…”

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 53%

“…Until recently (Krause et al, 2003), there has been little evidence of this clustering or compartmentalization in nature (Pimm and Lawton, 1980). Krause et al indicate that compartments may have been overlooked in several well-known food webs, and may well play an important role.…”

Section: Clusteringmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Organisms may influence each other in many ways and it is difficult to monitor and quantify all possible interactions except the most direct, such as simple trophic relationships. Despite this, some recent work has made good progress towards measuring interaction strengths in real ecosystems (Ives et al, 2003;Krause et al, 2003). The development of the set of interactions over evolutionary time scales is even more difficult to measure because of random mutations and the resulting adaptations.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Network properties, species abundance and evolution in a model of evolutionary ecology

Anderson

2005

Journal of Theoretical Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We study the evolution of the network properties of a populated network embedded in a genotype space characterized by either a low or a high number of potential links, with particular emphasis on the connectivity and clustering. Evolution produces two distinct types of network. When a specific genotype is only able to influence a few other genotypes, the ecosystem consists of separate noninteracting clusters (i.e. isolated compartments) in genotype space. When different types may influence a large number of other sites, the network becomes one large interconnected cluster. The distribution of interaction strengths-but not the number of connections-changes significantly with time. We find that the species abundance is only realistic for a high level of species connectivity. This suggests that real ecosystems form one interconnected whole in which selection leads to stronger interactions between the different types. Analogies with niche and neutral theory and assembly models are also considered. r

show abstract

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 53%

Section: Clusteringmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Network properties, species abundance and evolution in a model of evolutionary ecology

Anderson

2005

Journal of Theoretical Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…and not so strongly with those in the other communities: See [12,23,26,29,36] for a discussion of relevant definitions.…”

Section: Network and Community Structuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

Checking the reliability of a linear-programming based approach towards detecting community structures in networks

Chen

Dress²,

2007

IET Syst. Biol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The organization of foodwebs can be summarized by the statistical properties of their networks. For example, nestedness describes the degree to which consumers have food resources that overlap with other consumers [90], while modularity describes the degree to which consumers have diets that are separate from other consumers [91]. There are theoretical arguments that show a strong connection between certain statistical properties of food-webs, such as nestedness and modularity, and dynamics [184,179].…”

Section: 77 33 Predator Dietary Specialization (✏) For Beringianmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dedication. Acknowledgments

2011

The Acquisition of German

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

xvii Dedication xixAcknowledgments xx . See panel C. for a scenario where one prey is preferred over another. C. A tri-trophic system, where a top-predator consumes a meso-predator, which in turn consumes two prey. The sizes of the nodes denote relative abundance, and the thickness of the arrows denote the magnitude of the biomass flow. The top-predator in the leftmost network is relatively abundant, depressing the meso-predator population, thereby limiting the meso-predator's e↵ect on the two prey populations. The two rightmost networks (boxed) have reduced top-predator populations. In both cases, the meso-predator has greater abundance due to decreased predation pressure. However, in one scenario, both prey are preferred equally, resulting in apparent competition dynamics. In the second scenario, one prey is preferred over another, resulting in an asymmetric cascade. Such preferences could result from specific anatomical constraints of the meso-predator, a scenario explored in Chapter 4. C 1 and C 2 , and 4 prey: r 1 r 4 ) is represented by both pairwise interaction distributions for each link, and a network-level interaction distribution for the system. Link thickness represents the median link-strength, shown with the vertical bar in each pairwise interaction distribution. B-C. Both model food-webs X and Y have link-strengths drawn from the NLID. In model food-web X, the weights are distributed similar to the median weights of the empirical web (i.e. equivalent structure), but they are distributed di↵erently among nodes (i.e. alternative interactions). In model Y , the weight structure is di↵erent than that of the empirical web (i.e. alternative structure), and necessarily, the distribution of weights among nodes di↵ers as well (i.e. alternative interactions). Dotted nodes indicate those with link-strengths that di↵er from the median link-strengths of the empirical food-web. D-F. Given a single niche axis based on a continuous resource trait (e.g. body size) where prey are ranked from r 1 to r 4 , distributions of resource use are shown for the two consumers. Representations of dietary overlap illustrate higher similarity in diet between predators of the empirical system and model X, whereas the consumers in model Y have little dietary overlap, despite sharing the same NLID. 5 A-C. Sensitivity analyses of the Saskatchewan, Amboseli, and Lake Naivasha food-web ensembles, respectively. Similarity values for each cuto↵ (s i ) for Model 2 are on the y-axis, and the x-axis ranges from a lower standard deviation (SD) than the empirical SD to a higher SD (such that the empirical SD is central to the range; stippled vertical line). The colored data points represent the median similarity indices for each cuto↵ value (legend), while the top and bottom whiskers denote the 25 th and 75 th percentiles, respectively. The underlined values mark the standard deviation corresponding to the highest average similarity across cuto↵ values. For all systems, the highest average similarity is close to or exactly matches ...

show abstract

Compartments revealed in food-web structure

Cited by 658 publications

References 24 publications

Network properties, species abundance and evolution in a model of evolutionary ecology

Network properties, species abundance and evolution in a model of evolutionary ecology

Checking the reliability of a linear-programming based approach towards detecting community structures in networks

Dedication. Acknowledgments

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About