Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 177

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 11 of the 11 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Predicting the consequences of species loss using size‐structured biodiversity approaches

Open access
Brose, Ulrich, Blanchard, Julia L., Eklöf, Anna, Galiana, Nuria, Hartvig, Martin, R. Hirt, Myriam, Kalinkat, Gregor, Nordström, Marie C., O'Gorman, Eoin J., Rall, Björn C., Schneider, Florian D., Thébault, Elisa, Jacob, Ute·2017·Biological Reviews

Abstract

Understanding the consequences of species loss in complex ecological communities is one of the great challenges in current biodiversity research. For a long time, this topic has been addressed by traditional biodiversity experiments. Most of these approaches treat species as trait‐free, taxonomic units characterizing communities only by species number without accounting for species traits. However, extinctions do not occur at random as there is a clear correlation between extinction risk and species traits. In this review, we assume that large species will be most threatened by extinction and use novel allometric and size‐spectrum concepts that include body mass as a primary species trait at the levels of populations and individuals, respectively, to re‐assess three classic debates on the relationships between biodiversity and (i) food‐web structural complexity, (ii) community dynamic stability, and (iii) ecosystem functioning. Contrasting current expectations, size‐structured approaches suggest that the loss of large species, that typically exploit most resource species, may lead to future food webs that are less interwoven and more structured by chains of interactions and compartments. The disruption of natural body‐mass distributions maintaining food‐web stability may trigger avalanches of secondary extinctions and strong trophic cascades with expected knock‐on effects on the functionality of the ecosystems. Therefore, we argue that it is crucial to take into account body size as a species trait when analysing the consequences of biodiversity loss for natural ecosystems. Applying size‐structured approaches provides an integrative ecological concept that enables a better understanding of each species' unique role across communities and the causes and consequences of biodiversity loss.

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 · 10.1111/brv.12250

Cites

11 of 11 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 11 references

Cited by

See all 177

Metadata

Authors
Brose, U., Blanchard, J. L., Eklöf, A., Galiana, N., Hartvig, M., R. Hirt, M., Kalinkat, G., Nordström, M. C., O'Gorman, E. J., Rall, B. C., Schneider, F. D., Thébault, E., & Jacob, U.
Venue
Biological Reviews
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2016-01-12
Volume
92
Issue
2
Pages
684-697
ISSN
  • 0006-3231 (ISSN-L)
  • 1464-7931
  • 1469-185X
OpenAlex
W2236673748
Cited by
177
References
11
FWCI
2.81
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: Predicting the consequences of species loss using size‐structured biodiversity approaches. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/brv.12250
The paper
Brose, U., Blanchard, J. L., Eklöf, A., Galiana, N., Hartvig, M., R. Hirt, M., Kalinkat, G., Nordström, M. C., O'Gorman, E. J., Rall, B. C., Schneider, F. D., Thébault, E., & Jacob, U. (2017). Predicting the consequences of species loss using size‐structured biodiversity approaches. Biological Reviews. https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12250

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.