CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 653Ecology and Vegetation Dynamics StudiesPlant and animal studiesMathematical and Theoretical Epidemiology and Ecology Models

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 172 of the 173 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Biodiversity and ecosystem function: the consumer connection

Open access
Duffy, J. Emmett·2002·Oikos
DOI 10.1034/j.1600-0706.2002.990201.x
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Proposed links between biodiversity and ecosystem processes have generated intense interest and controversy in recent years. With few exceptions, however, empirical studies have focused on grassland plants and laboratory aquatic microbial systems, whereas there has been little attention to how changing animal diversity may influence ecosystem processes. Meanwhile, a separate research tradition has demonstrated strong top‐down forcing in many systems, but has considered the role of diversity in these processes only tangentially. Integration of these research directions is necessary for more complete understanding in both areas. Several considerations suggest that changing diversity in multi‐level food webs can have important ecosystem effects that can be qualitatively different than those mediated by plants. First, extinctions tend to be biased by trophic level: higher‐level consumers are less diverse, less abundant, and under stronger anthropogenic pressure on average than wild plants, and thus face greater risk of extinction. Second, unlike plants, consumers often have impacts on ecosystems disproportionate to their abundance. Thus, an early consequence of declining diversity will often be skewed trophic structure, potentially reducing top‐down influence. Third, where predators remain abundant, declining diversity at lower trophic levels may change effectiveness of predation and penetrance of trophic cascades by reducing trait diversity and the potential for compensation among species within a level. The mostly indirect evidence available provides some support for this prediction. Yet effects of changing animal diversity on functional processes have rarely been tested experimentally. Evaluating impacts of biodiversity loss on ecosystem function requires expanding the scope of current experimental research to multi‐level food webs. A central challenge to doing so, and to evaluating the importance of trophic cascades specifically, is understanding the distribution of interaction strengths within natural communities and how they change with community composition. Although topology of most real food webs is extremely complex, it is not at all clear how much of this complexity translates to strong dynamic linkages that influence aggregate biomass and community composition. Finally, there is a need for more detailed data on patterns of species loss from real ecosystems (community “disassembly” rules).

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1034/j.1600-0706.2002.990201.x

Cites

172 of 172 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 173 references

Research works printed but not linked: 7

  1. Duffy J. E., 2001, Marine community ecology, 131
  2. Elton C., 1927, Animal ecology
  3. Kinzig A. P., 2002, The functional consequences of biodiversity. Empirical progress and theoretical expectations
  4. Naeem S., 2002, The functional consequences of biodiversity. Empirical progress and theoretical expectations, 96
  5. Odum E. P., 1971, Fundamentals of ecology
  6. Raffaelli D. G., 1995, Foodwebs: integration of patterns and dynamics, 185
  7. Terborgh J., 1999, Continental conservation

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 601–653 of 653

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Duffy, J. E.
Affiliations
William & Mary (US)
Corresponding author
Duffy, J. Emmett
ORCID
Duffy, J. Emmett
Venue
Oikos
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2002-11
Volume
99
Issue
2
Pages
201-219
ISSN
  • 0030-1299 (ISSN-L)
  • 1600-0706
DOI
10.1034/j.1600-0706.2002.990201.x
OpenAlex
W2115004610
Cited by
653
References
173
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 24 · 2023: 23 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 26 · 2020: 30 · 2019: 21 · 2018: 17 · 2017: 25 · 2016: 34 · 2015: 37 · 2014: 36 · 2013: 36 · 2012: 27
FWCI
16.47
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor, 40 d)
Locations
  • Oikos (publishedVersion)
  • W&M Publish (College of William & Mary) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (9521184, 0096226)
  • Strong
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Nature and Landscape Conservation › Ecology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Plant and animal studies
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Applied Mathematics › Mathematical and Theoretical Epidemiology and Ecology Models
Keywords
biodiversity-ecosystem functioning, animal biodiversity, top-down control, trophic cascades, predator-prey interactions, species extinction, interaction strength, community disassembly, biodiversity loss, functional traits

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review