Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 794

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 14 of the 14 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Interaction strengths in food webs: issues and opportunities

Open access
Berlow, Eric L., Neutel, Anje‐Margiet, Cohen, Joel E., De Ruiter, Peter C., Ebenman, Bo, Emmerson, Mark, Fox, Jeremy W., Jansen, Vincent A. A., Iwan Jones, J., Kokkoris, Giorgos D., Logofet, Dmitrii O., McKane, Alan J., Montoya, Jose M., Petchey, Owen·2004·Journal of Animal Ecology
DOI 10.1111/j.0021-8790.2004.00833.x
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Summary: Recent efforts to understand how the patterning of interaction strength affects both structure and dynamics in food webs have highlighted several obstacles to productive synthesis. Issues arise with respect to goals and driving questions, methods and approaches, and placing results in the context of broader ecological theory. Much confusion stems from lack of clarity about whether the questions posed relate to community‐level patterns or to species dynamics, and to what authors actually mean by the term ‘interaction strength’. Here, we describe the various ways in which this term has been applied and discuss the implications of loose terminology and definition for the development of this field. Of particular concern is the clear gap between theoretical and empirical investigations of interaction strengths and food web dynamics. The ecological community urgently needs to explore new ways to estimate biologically reasonable model coefficients from empirical data, such as foraging rates, body size, metabolic rate, biomass distribution and other species traits. Combining numerical and analytical modelling approaches should allow exploration of the conditions under which different interaction strengths metrics are interchangeable with regard to relative magnitude, system responses, and species identity. Finally, the prime focus on predator–prey links in much of the research to date on interaction strengths in food webs has meant that the potential significance of non‐trophic interactions, such as competition, facilitation and biotic disturbance, has been largely ignored by the food web community. Such interactions may be important dynamically and should be routinely included in future food web research programmes.

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/j.0021-8790.2004.00833.x

Cites

14 of 14 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 14 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Berlow, E. L., Neutel, A., Cohen, J. E., De Ruiter, P. C., Ebenman, B., Emmerson, M., Fox, J. W., Jansen, V. A. A., Iwan Jones, J., Kokkoris, G. D., Logofet, D. O., McKane, A. J., Montoya, J. M., & Petchey, O.
Venue
Journal of Animal Ecology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2004-04-16
Volume
73
Issue
3
Pages
585-598
ISSN
  • 0021-8790 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2656
DOI
10.1111/j.0021-8790.2004.00833.x
OpenAlex
W2149060829
Cited by
794
References
14
FWCI
22.66
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.