Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 253

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 125 of the 125 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Toward a trophic theory of species diversity

Open access
Terborgh, John W.·2015·Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

Abstract

Efforts to understand the ecological regulation of species diversity via bottom-up approaches have failed to yield a consensus theory. Theories based on the alternative of top-down regulation have fared better. Paine’s discovery of keystone predation demonstrated that the regulation of diversity via top-down forcing could be simple, strong, and direct, yet ecologists have persistently failed to perceive generality in Paine’s result. Removing top predators destabilizes many systems and drives transitions to radically distinct alternative states. These transitions typically involve community reorganization and loss of diversity, implying that top-down forcing is crucial to diversity maintenance. Contrary to the expectations of bottom-up theories, many terrestrial herbivores and mesopredators are capable of sustained order-of-magnitude population increases following release from predation, negating the assumption that populations of primary consumers are resource limited and at or near carrying capacity. Predation sensu lato (to include Janzen–Connell mortality agents) has been shown to promote diversity in a wide range of ecosystems, including rocky intertidal shelves, coral reefs, the nearshore ocean, streams, lakes, temperate and tropical forests, and arctic tundra. The compelling variety of these ecosystems suggests that top-down forcing plays a universal role in regulating diversity. This conclusion is further supported by studies showing that the reduction or absence of predation leads to diversity loss and, in the more dramatic cases, to catastrophic regime change. Here, I expand on the thesis that diversity is maintained by the interaction between predation and competition, such that strong top-down forcing reduces competition, allowing coexistence.

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 · 10.1073/pnas.1501070112

Cites

125 of 125 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

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 125 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Terborgh, J. W.
Venue
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Published
2015-09-15
Volume
112
Issue
37
Pages
11415-11422
ISSN
  • 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
  • 1091-6490
OpenAlex
W1655068778
Cited by
253
References
125
FWCI
17.51
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Toward a trophic theory of species diversity. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1073/pnas.1501070112
The paper
Terborgh, J. W. (2015). Toward a trophic theory of species diversity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1501070112

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.