Literature DB >> 22628467

Phylogeny versus body size as determinants of food web structure.

Russell E Naisbit1, Rudolf P Rohr, Axel G Rossberg, Patrik Kehrli, Louis-Félix Bersier.   

Abstract

Food webs are the complex networks of trophic interactions that stoke the metabolic fires of life. To understand what structures these interactions in natural communities, ecologists have developed simple models to capture their main architectural features. However, apparently realistic food webs can be generated by models invoking either predator-prey body-size hierarchies or evolutionary constraints as structuring mechanisms. As a result, this approach has not conclusively revealed which factors are the most important. Here we cut to the heart of this debate by directly comparing the influence of phylogeny and body size on food web architecture. Using data from 13 food webs compiled by direct observation, we confirm the importance of both factors. Nevertheless, phylogeny dominates in most networks. Moreover, path analysis reveals that the size-independent direct effect of phylogeny on trophic structure typically outweighs the indirect effect that could be captured by considering body size alone. Furthermore, the phylogenetic signal is asymmetric: closely related species overlap in their set of consumers far more than in their set of resources. This is at odds with several food web models, which take only the view-point of consumers when assigning interactions. The echo of evolutionary history clearly resonates through current food webs, with implications for our theoretical models and conservation priorities.

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22628467      PMCID: PMC3385719          DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2012.0327

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Proc Biol Sci        ISSN: 0962-8452            Impact factor:   5.349


  24 in total

1.  Simple rules yield complex food webs.

Authors:  R J Williams; N D Martinez
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2000-03-09       Impact factor: 49.962

2.  Reproductive isolation caused by colour pattern mimicry.

Authors:  C D Jiggins; R E Naisbit; R L Coe; J Mallet
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2001-05-17       Impact factor: 49.962

3.  Relevance of evolutionary history for food web structure.

Authors:  Anna Eklöf; Matthew R Helmus; M Moore; Stefano Allesina
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2011-11-16       Impact factor: 5.349

4.  Phylogenetic signal in predator-prey body-size relationships.

Authors:  Russell E Naisbit; Patrik Kehrli; Rudolf P Rohr; Louis-Félix Bersier
Journal:  Ecology       Date:  2011-12       Impact factor: 5.499

5.  Predicting trophic relations in ecological networks: a test of the Allometric Diet Breadth Model.

Authors:  Stefano Allesina
Journal:  J Theor Biol       Date:  2010-07-13       Impact factor: 2.691

6.  Modeling food webs: exploring unexplained structure using latent traits.

Authors:  Rudolf Philippe Rohr; Heike Scherer; Patrik Kehrli; Christian Mazza; Louis-Félix Bersier
Journal:  Am Nat       Date:  2010-08       Impact factor: 3.926

7.  Food webs: experts consuming families of experts.

Authors:  A G Rossberg; H Matsuda; T Amemiya; K Itoh
Journal:  J Theor Biol       Date:  2006-02-07       Impact factor: 2.691

8.  Food web models: a plea for groups.

Authors:  Stefano Allesina; Mercedes Pascual
Journal:  Ecol Lett       Date:  2009-05-06       Impact factor: 9.492

9.  Compartments in a marine food web associated with phylogeny, body mass, and habitat structure.

Authors:  Enrico L Rezende; Eva M Albert; Miguel A Fortuna; Jordi Bascompte
Journal:  Ecol Lett       Date:  2009-05-21       Impact factor: 9.492

10.  The phylogenetic regression.

Authors:  A Grafen
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  1989-12-21       Impact factor: 6.237

View more
  9 in total

1.  Matching-centrality decomposition and the forecasting of new links in networks.

Authors:  Rudolf P Rohr; Russell E Naisbit; Christian Mazza; Louis-Félix Bersier
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2016-02-10       Impact factor: 5.349

2.  Evaluating δ(15)N-body size relationships across taxonomic levels using hierarchical models.

Authors:  Jonathan C P Reum; Kristin N Marshall
Journal:  Oecologia       Date:  2013-06-29       Impact factor: 3.225

3.  Evaluating factors that predict the structure of a commensalistic epiphyte-phorophyte network.

Authors:  Roberto Sáyago; Martha Lopezaraiza-Mikel; Mauricio Quesada; Mariana Yolotl Álvarez-Añorve; Alfredo Cascante-Marín; Jesus Ma Bastida
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2013-02-13       Impact factor: 5.349

4.  Subsidies to predators, apparent competition and the phylogenetic structure of prey communities.

Authors:  Matthew R Helmus; Norman Mercado-Silva; M Jake Vander Zanden
Journal:  Oecologia       Date:  2013-05-07       Impact factor: 3.225

5.  Modelling size structured food webs using a modified niche model with two predator traits.

Authors:  Jan Klecka
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-08-13       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  Body size-trophic position relationships among fishes of the lower Mekong basin.

Authors:  Chouly Ou; Carmen G Montaña; Kirk O Winemiller
Journal:  R Soc Open Sci       Date:  2017-01-04       Impact factor: 2.963

7.  Unmasking structural patterns in incidence matrices: an application to ecological data.

Authors:  Bernat Bramon Mora; Giulio V Dalla Riva; Daniel B Stouffer
Journal:  J R Soc Interface       Date:  2019-02-28       Impact factor: 4.118

8.  Dome patterns in pelagic size spectra reveal strong trophic cascades.

Authors:  Axel G Rossberg; Ursula Gaedke; Pavel Kratina
Journal:  Nat Commun       Date:  2019-09-27       Impact factor: 14.919

9.  Combining food web and species distribution models for improved community projections.

Authors:  Loïc Pellissier; Rudolf P Rohr; Charlotte Ndiribe; Jean-Nicolas Pradervand; Nicolas Salamin; Antoine Guisan; Mary Wisz
Journal:  Ecol Evol       Date:  2013-10-21       Impact factor: 2.912

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.