Phylogeny versus body size as determinants of food web structure

62Citations
Citations of this article
169Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

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. © 2012 The Royal Society.

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Naisbit, R. E., Rohr, R. P., Rossberg, A. G., Kehrli, P., & Bersier, L. F. (2012). Phylogeny versus body size as determinants of food web structure. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 279(1741), 3291–3297. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2012.0327

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 76

56%

Researcher 42

31%

Professor / Associate Prof. 14

10%

Lecturer / Post doc 3

2%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Agricultural and Biological Sciences 75

56%

Environmental Science 41

31%

Earth and Planetary Sciences 16

12%

Computer Science 2

1%

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free