CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,299Freshwater macroinvertebrate diversity and ecologyIsotope Analysis in EcologyEcology and biodiversity studies

Reciprocal subsidies: Dynamic interdependence between terrestrial and aquatic food webs

Open access
Nakano, Shigeru, Murakami, Masashi·2001·Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
DOI 10.1073/pnas.98.1.166PMC PMC14562
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Mutual trophic interactions between contiguous habitats have remained poorly understood despite their potential significance for community maintenance in ecological landscapes. In a deciduous forest and stream ecotone, aquatic insect emergence peaked around spring, when terrestrial invertebrate biomass was low. In contrast, terrestrial invertebrate input to the stream occurred primarily during summer, when aquatic invertebrate biomass was nearly at its lowest. Such reciprocal, across-habitat prey flux alternately subsidized both forest birds and stream fishes, accounting for 25.6% and 44.0% of the annual total energy budget of the bird and fish assemblages, respectively. Seasonal contrasts between allochthonous prey supply and in situ prey biomass determine the importance of reciprocal subsidies.

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.98.1.166

Cites

Statistics

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?

  • With increasing scale of restoration planning, potential interactions encompass many ecosystem types, plant communities, and species affected by changing landscape patterns and ecological processes.

    “With the increasing scale of restoration planning in response to disasters, human population growth, and climate change (Figure 6), potential interactions encompass many ecosystem types, plant communities, and species affected by changing landscape patterns and ecological processes (WebTable 2; Nakano and Murakami 2001; LoSchiavo et al. 2013).”

    From Applying cumulative effects to strategically advance large‐scale ecosystem restoration (2021) · cites this paper as Nakano and Murakami 2001

    The Results and Discussion passage supports the point that changing habitat interfaces can affect interactions between neighboring communities: it describes broad-scale human alteration of habitat patterns and its effects on exchanges between forests and streams. It does not address restoration planning or establish that such interactions encompass many ecosystem types and plant communities. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Hydrologic connectivity indicates the potential for fluxes and spatial subsidies linked to the sustainability of restored habitats, aquatic habitat complexity, and trophic diversity.

    “Hydrologic connectivity indicates the potential for fluxes and spatial subsidies (Nakano and Murakami 2001) linked to the sustainability of restored habitats, aquatic habitat complexity, and trophic diversity.”

    From Evidence‐based evaluation of the cumulative effects of ecosystem restoration (2016) · cites this paper as Nakano and Murakami 2001

    The Abstract and Results and Discussion describe prey fluxes and reciprocal subsidies across a forest–stream interface, supporting the cited point about fluxes and spatial subsidies. They discuss habitat linkages but do not establish that hydrologic connectivity indicates the potential for those fluxes. The citation is attached to that point, not to the sentence’s subsequent claims about restored habitats, habitat complexity, or trophic diversity. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • The movement of material, nutrients, and energy connecting aquatic and terrestrial habitats can have significant effects on food web dynamics.

    “The movement of material, nutrients, and energy connecting aquatic and terrestrial habitats can have significant effects on food web dynamics (Nakano & Murakami, 2001).”

    From Threshold responses of floating meadow fish communities to floodplain forest cover in the lower Amazon River (2025) · cites this paper as Nakano & Murakami, 2001

    The Abstract and Results and Discussion (page not specified in our copy) say that transfers of materials and energy link forest and stream food webs and that reciprocal prey flux can significantly affect food web dynamics. The paper mentions nutrients as a habitat property, but these passages do not establish nutrient movement across habitats as a contributor to those effects. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • In some cases, synergistic and nonlinear hydrologic effects are associated with effects of space crowding.

    “these synergistic and nonlinear hydrologic effects are associated with effects of space crowding”

    From Evidence‐based evaluation of the cumulative effects of ecosystem restoration (2016) · cites this paper as Nakano and Murakami 2001

    The Results and Discussion passage addresses how stream-channel shape and stream-bank disturbance may affect prey exchange, while the Abstract describes seasonal reciprocal subsidies. Searches for synergistic or nonlinear hydrologic effects and space crowding found no passage connecting those concepts. No page number was supplied for the passages. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

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

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

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 27

  1. [1]Polis G A, Holt R D, Menge B A, Winemiller K O. In: Food Webs. Polis G A, Winemiller K O, editors. New York: Chapman & Hall; 1996. pp. 435–460. [Google Scholar]
  2. [2]Polis G A, Anderson W B, Holt R D. Annu Rev Ecol Syst. 1997;28:289–316. [Google Scholar]
  3. [3]DeAngelis D L. Ecology. 1980;61:764–771. [Google Scholar]
  4. [4]Huxel G R, McCann K. Am Nat. 1998;152:460–469. doi: 10.1086/286182. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] · DOI
  5. [5]Fagan W F, Cantrell R S, Cosner C. Am Nat. 1999;153:165–182. doi: 10.1086/303162. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] · DOI
  6. [6]Vannote R L, Minshall G W, Cummins K W. Can J Fish Aquat Sci. 1980;37:130–137. [Google Scholar]
  7. [7]Naiman R J, Décamps H. Annu Rev Ecol Syst. 1997;28:621–658. [Google Scholar]
  8. [8]Cloe W W, Garman G C. Freshwater Biol. 1995;36:105–114. [Google Scholar]
  9. [9]Wipfli M S. Can J Fish Aquat Sci. 1997;54:1259–1269. [Google Scholar]
  10. [10]Nakano S, Fausch K D, Kitano S. J Anim Ecol. 1999;68:1079–1092. [Google Scholar]
  11. [11]Nakano S, Miyasaka H, Kuhara N. Ecology. 1999;80:2435–2441. [Google Scholar]
  12. [12]Nakano S, Kawaguchi Y, Taniguchi Y, Miyasaka H, Shibata Y, Urabe H, Kuhara N. Ecol Res. 1999;14:351–360. [Google Scholar]
  13. [13]Knopf F L, Samson F B. Conserv Biol. 1994;8:669–676. [Google Scholar]
  14. [14]McGarigal K, McComb W C. J Wildl Manage. 1992;56:10–23. [Google Scholar]
  15. [15]Jackson J K, Fisher S G. Ecology. 1986;67:629–638. [Google Scholar]
  16. [16]Gray L J. Am Midl Nat. 1992;129:288–300. [Google Scholar]
  17. [17]Power M E. In: Linking species and ecosystems. Jones C G, Lawton J H, editors. New York: Chapman & Hall; 1995. pp. 52–60. [Google Scholar]
  18. [18]Sumner W T, Fisher S G. Freshwater Biol. 1979;9:205–212. [Google Scholar]
  19. [19]Murakami M. Ecol Res. 1998;13:73–82. [Google Scholar]
  20. [20]Miyasaka H, Nakano S. Oecologia. 1999;118:99–106. doi: 10.1007/s004420050707. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] · DOI
  21. [21]Urabe H, Nakano S. Ecol Res. 1999;14:341–349. [Google Scholar]
  22. [22]Kendeigh S C. Ecol Monogr. 1944;14:67–106. [Google Scholar]
  23. [23]Walsberg K C. Avian Biol. 1983;7:161–220. [Google Scholar]
  24. [24]Kawaguchi Y. Ph.D. thesis. Japan: Niigata University; 2000. [Google Scholar]
  25. [25]Cummins K W, Wuycheck J C. Mitt Int Ver Theor Angew Limnol. 1971;18:1–158. [Google Scholar]
  26. [26]Murakami M, Nakano S. Proc R Soc Lond Ser B. 2000;267:1597–1601. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2000.1184. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] · DOI
  27. [27]Edward E D, Huryn A D. Hydrobiologia. 1996;337:151–159. [Google Scholar]

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Nakano, S., & Murakami, M.
Affiliations
Hokkaido University (JP)
ORCID
Murakami, Masashi
Venue
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Publisher
National Academy of Sciences
Published
2001-01-02
Volume
98
Issue
1
Pages
166-170
ISSN
  • 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
  • 1091-6490
DOI
10.1073/pnas.98.1.166
PMC
PMC14562
OpenAlex
W2092008429
Cited by
1,299
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 39 · 2025: 60 · 2024: 56 · 2023: 67 · 2022: 65 · 2021: 81 · 2020: 69 · 2019: 75 · 2018: 56 · 2017: 49 · 2016: 72 · 2015: 67 · 2014: 56 · 2013: 69 · 2012: 49
FWCI
27.08
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • SUNY Digital Repository Support (State University of New York System) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Freshwater macroinvertebrate diversity and ecology
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Isotope Analysis in Ecology
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Ecology and biodiversity studies
Keywords
terrestrial-aquatic interactions, food webs, aquatic insect emergence, terrestrial invertebrates, stream fish, forest birds, energy balance, seasonal dynamics
MeSH terms
Animals, Birds, Energy Metabolism, Environment, Fishes, Fresh Water, Insecta, Japan, Seasons, Trees, Ecosystem, Biomass, Food Chain

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