2017
DOI: 10.1111/1365-2435.12943
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Trait matching and phylogeny as predictors of predator–prey interactions involving ground beetles

Abstract: Abstract1. With global change modifying species assemblages, our success in predicting ecosystem-level consequences of these new communities will depend, in part, on our ability to understand biotic interactions. Current food web theory considers interactions between numerous species simultaneously, but descriptive models are unable to predict interactions between newly co-occurring species. Incorporating proxies such as functional traits and phylogeny into models could help infer predator/prey interactions.2.… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
2

Citation Types

8
93
2

Year Published

2018
2018
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

3
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 75 publications
(115 citation statements)
references
References 70 publications
(127 reference statements)
8
93
2
Order By: Relevance
“…Rather, a strong effect of phylogeny is fully consistent with an importance of other, as‐yet‐unmeasured traits, since so many traits will covary among related species. Thus, an imprint of evolutionary history can essentially be seen as a catch‐all for the imprint of one or several unmeasured traits (e.g., cuticular toughness; Brousseau et al., ). Furthermore, we note that our inference about trait matching might also be limited by the fact that prey size was measured at the family level, masking substantial variation among species and consumed individuals.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Rather, a strong effect of phylogeny is fully consistent with an importance of other, as‐yet‐unmeasured traits, since so many traits will covary among related species. Thus, an imprint of evolutionary history can essentially be seen as a catch‐all for the imprint of one or several unmeasured traits (e.g., cuticular toughness; Brousseau et al., ). Furthermore, we note that our inference about trait matching might also be limited by the fact that prey size was measured at the family level, masking substantial variation among species and consumed individuals.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…(). Likewise, results from experiments have shown that body mass can largely influence biotic interactions, in particular predator–prey links (Brose, ; Brousseau, Gravel, & Handa, ; Gravel et al., ).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Tools that allow us to extrapolate the effects of food web structure on ecosystem function are needed. Examples of trait matching include the length of pollinator tongue and corolla depth of flowers (Ibanez 2012), biting force of ground beetles and cuticular toughness of prey (Brousseau et al 2018b) and lipid content of predatory marine mammals and caloric content of prey (Spitz et al 2014). Trait matches that predict interactions can be validated through lab arena experiments (e.g., Brousseau et al 2018b) or through models analyzing well-resolved food webs (e.g., Laigle et al 2018).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…, Brousseau et al. ), while others have found that ecosystem type or predator thermoregulation has an important effect (Silliman and He ).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 97%