4.7 Article

Relevance of evolutionary history for food web structure

期刊

出版社

ROYAL SOC
DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2011.2149

关键词

complex networks; dimension; food webs; species traits; taxonomy

资金

  1. NSF EF [0827493]
  2. Olle Engkvist Byggmastare foundation
  3. National Science Foundation [DBI-0906011]
  4. US Department of Homeland Security
  5. US Department of Agriculture through NSF [EF-0832858]
  6. University of Tennessee, Knoxville
  7. Direct For Biological Sciences [0827493] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
  8. Emerging Frontiers [0827493] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Explaining the structure of ecosystems is one of the great challenges of ecology. Simple models for food web structure aim at disentangling the complexity of ecological interaction networks and detect the main forces that are responsible for their shape. Trophic interactions are influenced by species traits, which in turn are largely determined by evolutionary history. Closely related species are more likely to share similar traits, such as body size, feeding mode and habitat preference than distant ones. Here, we present a theoretical framework for analysing whether evolutionary history-represented by taxonomic classification-provides valuable information on food web structure. In doing so, we measure which taxonomic ranks better explain species interactions. Our analysis is based on partitioning of the species into taxonomic units. For each partition, we compute the likelihood that a probabilistic model for food web structure reproduces the data using this information. We find that taxonomic partitions produce significantly higher likelihoods than expected at random. Marginal likelihoods (Bayes factors) are used to perform model selection among taxonomic ranks. We show that food webs are best explained by the coarser taxonomic ranks (kingdom to class). Our methods provide a way to explicitly include evolutionary history in models for food web structure.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据