4.8 Article

Predictive power of food web models based on body size decreases with trophic complexity

Journal

ECOLOGY LETTERS
Volume 21, Issue 5, Pages 702-712

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/ele.12938

Keywords

Allometric trophic network model; body size ratio; indirect effects; indirect interactions; interaction strength; non-consumptive effect; predator-prey interaction; species' traits; trophic interaction modification

Categories

Funding

  1. Swedish Research Council FORMAS [2016-01168]
  2. Swedish Research Council VR [2016-04580]
  3. ERA-Net BiodivERsA
  4. FORMAS (Sweden)
  5. BMBF (Germany)
  6. Austrian Science Fund (FWF, Austria) [100786]
  7. Formas [2016-01168] Funding Source: Formas
  8. Swedish Research Council [2016-04580, 2016-01168] Funding Source: Swedish Research Council

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Food web models parameterised using body size show promise to predict trophic interaction strengths (IS) and abundance dynamics. However, this remains to be rigorously tested in food webs beyond simple trophic modules, where indirect and intraguild interactions could be important and driven by traits other than body size. We systematically varied predator body size, guild composition and richness in microcosm insect webs and compared experimental outcomes with predictions of IS from models with allometrically scaled parameters. Body size was a strong predictor of IS in simple modules (r(2)=0.92), but with increasing complexity the predictive power decreased, with model IS being consistently overestimated. We quantify the strength of observed trophic interaction modifications, partition this into density-mediated vs. behaviour-mediated indirect effects and show that model shortcomings in predicting IS is related to the size of behaviour-mediated effects. Our findings encourage development of dynamical food web models explicitly including and exploring indirect mechanisms.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available