The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
All wet or dried up? Real differences between aquatic and terrestrial food webs
Open accessAbstract
Ecologists have greatly advanced our understanding of the processes that regulate trophic structure and dynamics in ecosystems. However, the causes of systematic variation among ecosystems remain controversial and poorly elucidated. Contrasts between aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems in particular have inspired much speculation, but only recent empirical quantification. Here, we review evidence for systematic differences in energy flow and biomass partitioning between producers and herbivores, detritus and decomposers, and higher trophic levels. The magnitudes of different trophic pathways vary considerably, with less herbivory, more decomposers and more detrital accumulation on land. Aquatic–terrestrial differences are consistent across the global range of primary productivity, indicating that structural contrasts between the two systems are preserved despite large variation in energy input. We argue that variable selective forces drive differences in plant allocation patterns in aquatic and terrestrial environments that propagate upward to shape food webs. The small size and lack of structural tissues in phytoplankton mean that aquatic primary producers achieve faster growth rates and are more nutritious to heterotrophs than their terrestrial counterparts. Plankton food webs are also strongly size-structured, while size and trophic position are less strongly correlated in most terrestrial (and many benthic) habitats. The available data indicate that contrasts between aquatic and terrestrial food webs are driven primarily by the growth rate, size and nutritional quality of autotrophs. Differences in food-web architecture (food chain length, the prevalence of omnivory, specialization or anti-predator defences) may arise as a consequence of systematic variation in the character of the producer community.
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
Parasitoids: Behavioral and Evolutionary Ecology
Godfray, H. C. J. (1994) · doi:10.1515/9780691207025 · Cited by 2,605
Ecological Meltdown in Predator-Free Forest Fragments
Terborgh, J., Lopez, L., Nuñez, P., Rao, M., Shahabuddin, G., Orihuela, G., Riveros, M., Ascanio, R., Adler, G. H., Lambert, T. D., et al. (2001) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1064397 · Cited by 1,656
Nutritional constraints in terrestrial and freshwater food webs
Elser, J. J., Fagan, W. F., Denno, R. F., Dobberfuhl, D. R., Folarin, A., Huberty, A., Interlandi, S., Kilham, S. S., McCauley, E., Schulz, K. L., et al. (2000) · Nature · doi:10.1038/35046058 · Cited by 1,645
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 2×
“One criticism of the concept of trophic levels and simplified food-web diagrams is that omnivory blurs the distinction between trophic levels, affects the vertical flow of energy and materials, and dampens top-down control (Polis 1991).”
BackgroundThe dynamics of spatially coupled food webs.
McCann, K. S., Rasmussen, J. B., & Umbanhowar, J. (2005) · Ecology Letters · doi:10.1111/j.1461-0248.2005.00742.x · Cited by 648
Magnitude and patterns of herbivory in aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems
Cyr, H., & Pace, M. L. (1993) · Nature · doi:10.1038/361148a0 · Cited by 528
Grazer diversity effects on ecosystem functioning in seagrass beds
Emmett Duffy, J., Paul Richardson, J., & Canuel, E. A. (2003) · Ecology Letters · doi:10.1046/j.1461-0248.2003.00474.x · Cited by 346
Cited by
Gessner, M. O., Swan, C. M., Dang, C. K., McKie, B. G., Bardgett, R. D., Wall, D. H., & Hättenschwiler, S. (2010) · Trends in Ecology & Evolution · doi:10.1016/j.tree.2010.01.010 · Cited by 1,335
Vergés, A., Steinberg, P. D., Hay, M. E., Poore, A. G. B., Campbell, A. H., Ballesteros, E., Heck, K. L., Booth, D. J., Coleman, M. A., Feary, D. A., et al. (2014) · Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rspb.2014.0846 · Cited by 1,021
Review: Ecological networks – beyond food webs
Ings, T. C., Montoya, J. M., Bascompte, J., Blüthgen, N., Brown, L., Dormann, C. F., Edwards, F., Figueroa, D., Jacob, U., Jones, J. I., et al. (2009) · Journal of Animal Ecology · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2656.2008.01460.x · Cited by 934
LIVEZEY, B. C., & ZUSI, R. L. (2007) · Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society · doi:10.1111/j.1096-3642.2006.00293.x · Cited by 574
The Park Grass Experiment 1856-2006: Its contribution to ecology
SILVERTOWN, J., POULTON, P., JOHNSTON, E., EDWARDS, G., HEARD, M., & BISS, P. M. (2006) · Journal of Ecology · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2745.2006.01145.x · Cited by 461
Metadata
- Authors
- Shurin, J. B., Gruner, D. S., & Hillebrand, H.
- Venue
- Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
- Publisher
- The Royal Society
- Published
- 2005-11-29
- Volume
- 273
- Issue
- 1582
- Pages
- 1-9
- ISSN
- 0080-4649 (ISSN-L)
- 0962-8452
- 1471-2954
- OpenAlex
- W2122903885
- Cited by
- 526
- References
- 7
- FWCI
- 14.08
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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: All wet or dried up? Real differences between aquatic and terrestrial food webs. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1098/rspb.2005.3377
- The paper
- Shurin, J. B., Gruner, D. S., & Hillebrand, H. (2006). All wet or dried up? Real differences between aquatic and terrestrial food webs. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2005.3377
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.