| 1. |
- Brose, Ulrich, et al.
(author)
-
Body sizes of consumers and their resources
- 2005
-
In: Ecology. - : Ecological Society of America. - 0012-9658 .- 1939-9170. ; 86:9, s. 2545-2545
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Trophic information—who eats whom—and species’ body sizes are two of the most basic descriptions necessary to understand community structure as well as ecological and evolutionary dynamics. Consumer–resource body size ratios between predators and their prey, and parasitoids and their hosts, have recently gained increasing attention due to their important implications for species’ interaction strengths and dynamical population stability. This data set documents body sizes of consumers and their resources. We gathered body size data for the food webs of Skipwith Pond, a parasitoid community of grass-feeding chalcid wasps in British grasslands; the pelagic community of the Benguela system, a source web based on broom in the United Kingdom; Broadstone Stream, UK; the Grand Caric¸aie marsh at Lake Neuchaˆtel, Switzerland; Tuesday Lake, USA; alpine lakes in the Sierra Nevada of California; Mill Stream, UK; and the eastern Weddell Sea Shelf, Antarctica. Further consumer–resource body size data are included for planktonic predators, predatory nematodes, parasitoids, marine fish predators, freshwater invertebrates, Australian terrestrial consumers, and aphid parasitoids. Containing 16 807 records, this is the largest data set ever compiled for body sizes of consumers and their resources. In addition to body sizes, the data set includes information on consumer and resource taxonomy, the geographic location of the study, the habitat studied, the type of the feeding interaction (e.g., predacious, parasitic) and the metabolic categories of the species (e.g., invertebrate, ectotherm vertebrate). The present data set was gathered with the intent to stimulate research on effects of consumer–resource body size patterns on food-web structure, interaction-strength distributions, population dynamics, and community stability. The use of a common data set may facilitate cross-study comparisons and understanding of the relationships between different scientific approaches and models.
|
|
| 2. |
- Brose, Ulrich, et al.
(author)
-
Consumer-resource body-size relationships in natural food webs
- 2006
-
In: Ecology. - : Ecological Society of America esa. - 0012-9658 .- 1939-9170. ; 87:10, s. 2411-2417
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- It has been suggested that differences in body size between consumer and resource species may have important implications for interaction strengths, population dynamics, and eventually food web structure, function, and evolution. Still, the general distribution of consumer-'resource body-size ratios in real ecosystems, and whether they vary systematically among habitats or broad taxonomic groups, is poorly understood. Using a unique global database on consumer and resource body sizes, we show that the mean body-size ratios of aquatic herbivorous and detritivorous consumers are several orders of magnitude larger than those of carnivorous predators. Carnivorous predator-prey body-size ratios vary across different habitats and predator and prey types (invertebrates, ectotherm, and endotherm vertebrates). Predator-prey body-size ratios are on average significantly higher (1) in freshwater habitats than in marine or terrestrial habitats, (2) for vertebrate than for invertebrate predators, and (3) for invertebrate than for ectotherm vertebrate prey. If recent studies that relate body-size ratios to interaction strengths are general, our results suggest that mean consumer-resource interaction strengths may vary systematically across different habitat categories and consumer types.
|
|
| 3. |
- Brose, Ulrich, et al.
(author)
-
Spatial aspects of food webs
- 2005
-
In: Dynamic Food Webs. - London, UK : Elsevier. - 9780120884582 - 0120884585 ; , s. 463-469
-
Conference paper (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Aspects of spatial scale have until recently been largely ignored in empirical and theoretical food web studies (e.g., Cohen & Briand 1984, Martinez 1992, but see Bengtsson et al. 2002, Bengtsson & Berg, this book). Most ecologists tend to conceptualize and represent food webs as static representations of communities, depicting a community assemblage as sampled at a particular point in time, or highly aggregated trophic group composites over broader scales of time and space (Polis et al. 1996). Moreover, most researchers depict potential food webs, which contain all species sampled and all potential trophic links based on literature reviews, several sampling events, or laboratory feeding trials. In reality, however, not all these potential feeding links are realized as not all species co-occur, and not all samples in space or time can contain all species (Schoenly & Cohen 1991), hence, yielding a variance of food web architecture in space (Brose et al. 2004). In recent years, food web ecologists have recognized that food webs are open systems – that are influence by processes in adjacent systems – and spatially heterogeneous (Polis et al. 1996). This influence of adjacent systems can be bottom-up, due to allochthonous inputs of resources (Polis & Strong 1996, Huxel & McCann 1998, Mulder & De Zwart 2003), or top-down due to the regular or irregular presence of top predators (e.g., Post et al. 2000, Scheu 2001). However, without a clear understanding of the size of a system and a definition of its boundaries it is not possible to judge if flows are internal or driven by adjacent systems. Similarly, the importance of allochthony is only assessable when the balance of inputs and outputs are known relative to the scale and throughputs within the system itself. At the largest scale of the food web – the home range of a predator such as wolf, lion, shark or eagle of roughly 50 km2 to 300 km2 –the balance of inputs and outputs caused by wind and movement of water may be small compared to the total trophic flows within the home range of the large predator (Cousins 1990). Acknowledging these issues of space, Polis et al (1996) argued that progress toward the next phase of food web studies would require addressing spatial and temporal processes. Here, we present a conceptual framework with some nuclei about the role of space in food web ecology. Although we primarily address spatial aspects, this framework is linked to a more general concept of spatio-temporal scales of ecological research.
|
|
