The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Food-web structure and network theory: The role of connectance and size
Open accessAbstract
Networks from a wide range of physical, biological, and social systems have been recently described as “small-world” and “scale-free.” However, studies disagree whether ecological networks called food webs possess the characteristic path lengths, clustering coefficients, and degree distributions required for membership in these classes of networks. Our analysis suggests that the disagreements are based on selective use of relatively few food webs, as well as analytical decisions that obscure important variability in the data. We analyze a broad range of 16 high-quality food webs, with 25–172 nodes, from a variety of aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. Food webs generally have much higher complexity, measured as connectance (the fraction of all possible links that are realized in a network), and much smaller size than other networks studied, which have important implications for network topology. Our results resolve prior conflicts by demonstrating that although some food webs have small-world and scale-free structure, most do not if they exceed a relatively low level of connectance. Although food-web degree distributions do not display a universal functional form, observed distributions are systematically related to network connectance and size. Also, although food webs often lack small-world structure because of low clustering, we identify a continuum of real-world networks including food webs whose ratios of observed to random clustering coefficients increase as a power–law function of network size over 7 orders of magnitude. Although food webs are generally not small-world, scale-free networks, food-web topology is consistent with patterns found within those classes of networks.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Emergence of Scaling in Random Networks
Barabási, A.-L., & Albert, R. (1999) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.286.5439.509 · Cited by 36,135
Error and attack tolerance of complex networks
Albert, R., Jeong, H., & Barabási, A.-L. (2000) · Nature · doi:10.1038/35019019 · Cited by 7,534
Classes of small-world networks
Amaral, L. A. N., Scala, A., Barthélémy, M., & Stanley, H. E. (2000) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.200327197 · Cited by 3,051
Complex Trophic Interactions in Deserts: An Empirical Critique of Food-Web Theory
Polis, G. A. (1991) · The American Naturalist · doi:10.1086/285208 · Cited by 1,041
Cited by
Finding and evaluating community structure in networks
Newman, M. E. J., & Girvan, M. (2004) · Physical Review E · doi:10.1103/physreve.69.026113 · Cited by 13,931
Finding community structure in very large networks
Clauset, A., Newman, M. E. J., & Moore, C. (2004) · Physical Review E · doi:10.1103/physreve.70.066111 · Cited by 7,390
The nested assembly of plant–animal mutualistic networks
Bascompte, J., Jordano, P., Melián, C. J., & Olesen, J. M. (2003) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1633576100 · Cited by 2,497
Defining and identifying communities in networks
Radicchi, F., Castellano, C., Cecconi, F., Loreto, V., & Parisi, D. (2004) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.0400054101 · Cited by 2,450
Hierarchical structure and the prediction of missing links in networks
Clauset, A., Moore, C., & Newman, M. E. J. (2008) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature06830 · Cited by 2,171
Metadata
- Authors
- Dunne, J. A., Williams, R. J., & Martinez, N. D.
- Venue
- Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
- Published
- 2002-09-16
- Volume
- 99
- Issue
- 20
- Pages
- 12917-12922
- ISSN
- 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
- 1091-6490
- OpenAlex
- W1972106549
- Cited by
- 1,519
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 15.67
- 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
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.