| Literature DB >> 26571235 |
Javier Sánchez-Hernández1,2, Fernando Cobo2,3, Per-Arne Amundsen1.
Abstract
Although diversity and limnology of alpine lake systems are well studied, their food web structure and properties have rarely been addressed. Here, the topological food webs of three high mountain lakes in Central Spain were examined. We first addressed the pelagic networks of the lakes, and then we explored how food web topology changed when benthic biota was included to establish complete trophic networks. We conducted a literature search to compare our alpine lacustrine food webs and their structural metrics with those of 18 published lentic webs using a meta-analytic approach. The comparison revealed that the food webs in alpine lakes are relatively simple, in terms of structural network properties (linkage density and connectance), in comparison with lowland lakes, but no great differences were found among pelagic networks. The studied high mountain food webs were dominated by a high proportion of omnivores and species at intermediate trophic levels. Omnivores can exploit resources at multiple trophic levels, and this characteristic might reduce competition among interacting species. Accordingly, the trophic overlap, measured as trophic similarity, was very low in all three systems. Thus, these alpine networks are characterized by many omnivorous consumers with numerous prey species and few consumers with a single or few prey and with low competitive interactions among species. The present study emphasizes the ecological significance of omnivores in high mountain lakes as promoters of network stability and as central players in energy flow pathways via food partitioning and enabling energy mobility among trophic levels.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26571235 PMCID: PMC4646624 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0143016
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1Location of the sampling sites.
Location of the sampling sites in the Sierra de Gredos Natural Park (Central Spain). Caballeros (A), Cimera (B) and Grande de Gredos (C) lakes. The upper right part of the figure was taken from a public domain (NASA Earth Observatory, http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/). The others parts of the figure are owned by JSH.
Food web properties.
| Metric | Definition |
|---|---|
| Richness ( | Taxonomic richness of the food web |
| Lower trophic taxa ( | Fraction of species that are lower trophic taxa (terrestrial organic material, fine detritus, periphyton, macrophytes and water-moss) |
| Phytoplankton richness ( | Fraction of species that are phytoplankton |
| Zooplankton richness ( | Fraction of species that are zooplankton |
| Macroinvertebrate richness ( | Fraction of species that are macroinvertebrate |
| Amphibian richness ( | Fraction of species that are amphibian |
| Fishes richness ( | Fraction of species that are fishes |
| Links ( | Number of links between individuals |
| Linkage density ( |
|
| The potential number of links ( |
|
| Directed connectance ( |
|
| Top species ( | Fraction of species that have no predators |
| Intermediate species ( | Fraction of species that have both predators and prey |
| Basal species ( | Fraction of species that are not consumers |
| Omnivory ( | Fraction of species that are omnivores (consume prey from more than one trophic level) |
| Herbivores ( | Fraction of species that are herbivores (only consume basal species) |
| Cannibalism ( | Fraction of species that are cannibals |
|
| Mean short-weighted trophic level [ |
|
| Mean shortest chain to a basal species |
|
| Generality standard deviation (standard deviation of the number of resources per species) |
|
| Vulnerability standard deviation (standard deviation of the number of consumers per species) |
| Trophic similarity ( | Mean Jaccardian similarity [ |
|
| Maximum Jaccardian similarity [ |
Definition of the 23 food web properties calculated for the three high mountain lakes.
Food web topology.
| Caballeros | Cimera | Grande de Gredos | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pelagic | Complete | Pelagic | Fishless | Complete | Pelagic | Fishless | Complete | |
| Richness ( | 21 | 64 | 17 | 84 | 85 | 43 | 95 | 96 |
| Lower trophic taxa ( | 0 | 0.13 | 0 | 0.06 | 0.06 | 0 | 0.17 | 0.17 |
| Phytoplankton richness ( | 0.76 | 0.27 | 0.59 | 0.15 | 0.15 | 0.86 | 0.41 | 0.41 |
| Zooplankton richness ( | 0.24 | 0.08 | 0.35 | 0.07 | 0.07 | 0.12 | 0.05 | 0.05 |
| Macroinvertebrate richness ( | 0 | 0.48 | 0 | 0.68 | 0.67 | 0 | 0.34 | 0.33 |
| Amphibian richness ( | 0 | 0.05 | 0 | 0.04 | 0.04 | 0 | 0.03 | 0.03 |
| Fishes richness ( | 0 | 0 | 0.06 | 0 | 0.01 | 0.02 | 0 | 0.01 |
| Links ( | 70 | 344 | 45 | 580 | 645 | 101 | 498 | 534 |
| Linkage density ( | 3.3 | 5.4 | 2.6 | 6.9 | 7.6 | 2.3 | 5.2 | 5.6 |
| The potential number of links ( | 441 | 4096 | 289 | 7056 | 7225 | 1849 | 9025 | 9216 |
| Directed connectance ( | 0.16 | 0.08 | 0.16 | 0.08 | 0.09 | 0.05 | 0.06 | 0.06 |
| Top species ( | 0 | 0.09 | 0.06 | 0.06 | 0.01 | 0.02 | 0.06 | 0.02 |
| Intermediate species ( | 0.24 | 0.57 | 0.24 | 0.77 | 0.82 | 0.07 | 0.42 | 0.46 |
| Basal species ( | 0.76 | 0.34 | 0.75 | 0.17 | 0.16 | 0.91 | 0.52 | 0.52 |
| Herbivores ( | 0 | 0.18 | 0 | 0.08 | 0.06 | 0 | 0.10 | 0.05 |
| Omnivory ( | 0.64 | 0.84 | 0.64 | 0.90 | 0.91 | 0.72 | 0.90 | 0.93 |
| Cannibalism ( | 0.09 | 0.09 | 0.12 | 0.06 | 0.06 | 0.02 | 0.04 | 0.04 |
|
| 2.60 | 2.71 | 3.58 | 2.76 | 2.89 | 3.37 | 2.94 | 3.17 |
|
| 2.43 | 2.25 | 2.64 | 2.23 | 2.15 | 2.88 | 2.44 | 2.51 |
|
| 0.53 | 0.65 | 0.53 | 0.93 | 0.84 | 0.39 | 0.76 | 0.73 |
|
| 1.88 | 1.13 | 1.76 | 1.78 | 1.79 | 3.61 | 1.52 | 1.52 |
| Trophic similarity ( | 0.43 | 0.14 | 0.37 | 0.25 | 0.26 | 0.59 | 0.19 | 0.19 |
|
| 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
Values of structural properties food webs for the three high mountain lakes. See Table 1 for definitions of each property.
*Lower trophic taxa includes organic material, detritus, periphyton and littoral vegetation.
Fig 2Functional feeding groups.
Functional feeding groups of the macroinvertebrate community in each lake.
Fig 3Alpine food webs.
Three-dimensional visualization of the complexity of food webs from the three studied lakes in Central Spain. Image produced with software Foodweb3D available from the Pacific Ecoinformatics and Computational Ecology Lab (http://www.foodwebs.org/), and written by RJ Williams [59,60]. Balls are nodes that represent species and sticks are the links that connect balls through consumption. The vertical axis corresponds to trophic level, basal trophic levels (yellow) are on the bottom; upper trophic levels are on the top (red).
Fig 4Meta-analytic approach.
Principal component analysis (PCA) plot based on four food web properties. This is a composed plot, made of: A and C parts- a plot of food web properties axes, position of lakes and eigenvalues projected into PCA, B and D parts- the projection of the food webs with ellipses and gravity center grouped by study.
Scores of eigenvalues.
| Model 1 (pelagic zone) | Model 2 (pelagic and benthic zones) | |
|---|---|---|
| Eigenvalue of axis 1 | 2.974 | 2.954 |
| Eigenvalue of axis 2 | 0.936 | 1.007 |
| Eigenvalue of axis 3 | 0.087 | 0.032 |
| Eigenvalue of axis 4 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
Scores of eigenvalues extracted by principal component analysis for each model. Two models are shown; firstly including literature from the pelagic zone (model 1) and secondly including literature using both pelagic and benthic zones (model 2).